Alex Koppleman of Salon has a video up about the recent flap over Hillary Clinton’s “woman’s baby died because of evil heathcare industry” anecdote. Koppleman makes a good point that it is surprising that people on the Left would trust the word of a hospital CEO more than they would trust Clinton, a member of the same left. And he is very even-handed in this; I have no truck with Koppleman’s basic premise.

My point is, if so many folks on the left now doubt Clinton’s veracity as their default position, how on Earth is she going to convince swing voters in the general election? How can she continue to try to make the electability argument when her word is doubted by her own supporters?

I’ve said again and again that I think Clinton is unelectable in the general. If this doesn’t prove it, what the heck will?

Some random thoughts on the current campaign nuttiness.

• If John McCain’s temper is so “well documented”, why are we hardly hearing about it during his current press-driven beatification tour?
• Is it just me, or are articles on “Why Clinton Should be Winning” or “Why Clinton Really is Winning” or “Why Obama’s current lead doesn’t really matter” more the kind of thing one hears as after a campaign is over as part of the postmortem?
• How do people so out-of-touch as David Broder and Cokie Roberts get to keep insisting that they know what “typical Americans” are thinking?
• Is anyone but me (and Glenn Greenwald, apparently) as disgusted by the fact that Ana Marie Cox, nee Wonkette, has become so much a part of the Washington media that she can’t even recognize the obvious: that attending a friggin’ bar-b-que with John McCain has an effect on the type of reporting he can expect from her?
• Why do people in a state being heavily wooed by candidates still get sucked in by naked and obvious pandering by those candidates? Do people in Ohio really think Clinton or Obama would throw out NAFTA? Do people in Florida really think they care (in an ultimate sense) about Castro? Do people in Pennsylvania really believe Clinton likes “Rocky,” or that Obama is a Steelers fan?

Am I the only one who is bothered by the blatant hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign with regard to the Florida and Michigan votes?

With Florida, Clinton has a bit of a case; everyone was on the ballot. But in Michigan, Clinton waited until every other candidate had removed their names from the ballot, and then she announced she would stay on. That’s just blatant calculation and manipulation, and she knows as well as you or I that’s it’s absurd after something like that to talk about “counting everyone’s votes.”

But that’s not what’s bothering me. What’s really bothering me is the fact that I know–and I’m sure that everyone knows–Clinton really couldn’t give a rip about the voters in those states. If she had clobbered Obama on SuperDuper Tuesday, she wouldn’t have cared about Florida and Michigan. If she had knocked Obama out via Iowa and New Hampshire, she wouldn’t have cared about Florida and Michigan. The only reason she really cares is because she can’t possibly be the nominee without those two states.

And after her blatant manipulation of the process with regard to Michigan, that makes me ill.

I am so damn tired of the Clintons; I really really want them to go away.