Unless you are prone to hallucinated symmetry, or favor the Iron Centrism of the mainstream media, it is clear that anger on the part of Obama supporters toward the idea of Hillary Clinton being the presidential standard-bearer of the Democratic party is in no way similar to the whinging of these HRC-ers.

If HRC had been winning in popular votes, in delegates, and in number of states won, I would still be very uneasy about an HRC presidency, but would have to recognize that she had small-d democratic legitimacy. Especially if she’d done it w/o fashioning weapons for the GOP to use in the general election.

Such is not the case, in fact quite the opposite applies.

There’s no inconsistency. In a part of my post that you quoted, it was specified that I was comparing two outcomes: HRC beats McCain vs. McCain beats HRC. And cf. HRC saying that only she and McCodger have passed the C-in-C threshold. She is evidently saying that McC would be a better president than Obama. Hey, thanks, Hil, says Rove.

My point, with which you may still disagree, is that an Obama win in November is the best outcome (with all of the likely coattails, of course), followed by McCain, followed by HRC.

I don’t deceive myself that McCain would be a good president. The one thing he wouldn’t be able to do though, is inflict the damage on the Democratic Party that HRC almost certainly would as president, judging by the track record of Bill Clinton’s triangulationism (certainly not disowned by HRC) and the DLC (“Let’s all sing kumbaya with people who profess unshirted hatred of all of our principles”).

Sniper, I missed people calling her a bitch, a cunt or a monster here.

Well, he seems to have read my comment as such, so let me just be clear: Hillary Clinton is not a monster–as far as I know.

i can’t believe what is being passed on as well-researched information in the constant attacks on Barack Obama at the blog No Quarter (Larry Johnson’s ridiculous, insane version of a blog…) i went in there to try to have a rational conversation with the folks and was called a troll, insulted, told that i was being disingenuous, and an ENEMY by one person who lives in WA (i’m in Seattle) because i caucused for Obama.

i don’t know what to say. i used to think that Democrats should be commended for being more clear-thinking, rational, individual, not prone to reactionary thinking. you know, the whole “it’s difficult to herd cats” analogy. well, this primary has completely opened my eyes. the people on that blog will not vote for Obama. they will sit at home and complain about what happens because “their guy” didn’t win….. they will use any means of lying and obfuscation to bring Obama down. and they’re supposed to be Democrats. i don’t know how else to understand it other than 1) they see this as a game, and are being intransigent in their opinions enough to petulantly take thier ball and go home if they don’t get their way…. or… 2) it’s racism. they don’t like that black guy, and they’ll do anything to see him lose. oy.

HRC will have no congressional coattails, and If the past is any guide, will (as a member in good standing of the DLC) piss away any majority that remains in 2008 over the following two to four years. She has not shown herself to be good at turning aside personal attacks, she has “survived” them largely by being embraced by the Dem party leadership.

Obama tends to the teflon end of the spectrum when it comes to repelling BS. HRC is more the velcro type.

She would be a better president than Bush (faint praise indeed), but she will wind up getting blamed for everything that goes wrong on her watch, no matter how obviously (to you and me) it is Bush’s fault. She and the DLC don’t seem to understand how to speak the obvious truth to BS.

Why anyone would prefer Tonya Harding to Michael Jordan is beyond me.

Why do you say that? Do you think that would still be true if she loses to McCain because Obama supporters sit out or vote for McCain? (I note again for the record that, according to the only poll I’ve seen on the topic, HRC supporters threaten to refuse to vote for Obama in far greater numbers/percentages than vice versa.)

As for McCain being a viable candidate, not really. The big mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging demographic the GOP counts on isn’t going to get off their buns and vote for McCain, unless HRC, whom they’ve been told for 15 years is the co-Antichrist, is running, in which case they’ll crawl over broken glass, if necessary, singing Onward Xian Soldiers, to vote against her.

Perhaps. On the other hand, shouldn’t Democratic voters be doing the same thing (minus the singing) to prevent the Republicans from holding on to the White House, no matter which Democrat candidate is the nominee? Haven’t we been hearing — and seeing — how horrible eight years of GOP rule has been for the country and the world, and doesn’t that have the additional benefit (compared with the Limbaugh-style anti-Hillary rants and venom) of being true? But instead, we’re watching the national polarization being re-enacted in miniature in the Democratic primaries, with Obamaniacs and Clintonistas squaring off, demonizing each other and the others’ preferred candidates and — worst of all — threatening to VOTE FOR THE GOP if their own preferred candidate doesn’t get the nomination.

Some have said that this is all just temporary, that as soon as there is a nominee, all the internecine hatred and vitriol will stop and the two factions within the Democratic Party will reconcile and band together against the common elephantine foe. God, I hope so, but it sure seems like a significantly large percentage of people in both camps have identified so closely with their candidate that such a reconciliation will be impossible.

Anyway, Fingal, as lawnguylander said, you’ve made a case that Obama is a better Dem nominee than HRC; but you have not made a case that McCain would be a better choice for President than HRC. Aside from your own distaste for Mrs. Clinton, do you have anything to offer on that topic?

Sure. And who do you want in the position of responding, someone who has shown an uncanny ability to divide her own party and unite the other one? Or someone who draws people to his events by the tens of thousands, many of whom can’t remember being particularly interested in a presidential candidate in the past?

Someone who is apparently using the same beltway playbook that has lost Democrats the White House over and over again, not to mention hiring a campaign manager whose firm works for the other party’s candidate, or someone whose organization has set up, in state after state, local organizations which will support not only the Democratic Presidential candidate, but Congressional candidates as well?

Whoever is in that hot seat needs to be adept at responding to political BS. Bill Clinton, with Carville’s help, was able to do that to a degree. HRC, not so much. Obama does it w/o seeming to break a sweat. Remember McCain trying to lecture Obama about al Qaeda in Iraq? Next day, Obama used McCain’s own phrases against him, and made it look easy.

Not only that, but he inspires thousands upon thousands of supporters who will, first of all, make it very difficult for him to forget where his power comes from, and will also be happy to write letters to the editor and call radio and TV shows that insist on disseminating the BS.

No doubt the Wurlitzer will throw everything it has at whichever Democrat wins, probably setting new records in nastiness and mendacity. To whom is it more likely to stick?

If Obama loses to McCain, as HRC seems to be working to ensure, she definitely *will* be back in 2012. That would be her motivation for the Tonya Harding strategy she’s currently pursuing.

As for McCain being a viable candidate, not really. The big mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging demographic the GOP counts on isn’t going to get off their buns and vote for McCain, unless HRC, whom they’ve been told for 15 years is the co-Antichrist, is running, in which case they’ll crawl over broken glass, if necessary, singing Onward Xian Soldiers, to vote against her.

If McCain were to become president, all the shit that’s going to finally hit the fan in the next four or so years would spatter the twelve-year Rethuglican Reich. Indisputably.

How is this any different — or any smarter — than the fRightards wishing for a terrorist attack on U.S. soil to justify the moronic excesses of the War on Freedom? Who would wish terrorist death on Americans to prove some political point?

And who would wish four more years of guaranteed GOP sameness (or worseness) on an already damaged America, if there’s at least a sliver of a chance for some change under a Democratic administration?

Also, please note that despite record (or at least record-tying) low approval ratings for the current administration, and despite having taken our global reputation into the toilet, shredded the Constitution and nearly tanked the economy, the GOP is still fielding a viable candidate.

Finally, if HRC loses in 2008, you think she won’t be back in 2012? And if that happens, doesn’t your calculus make it more likely that she will be elected in ’12, bringing to pass all the awful horrible dreadful very scary things you envision from a Hillary presidency?

I think maybe your case is not so rational.

Those who control the message, will blame the democrats anyway.

Whereas insults against men, e.g., prick, dick, dickface, dickhead, fuckface, fuckhead, cocksucker, motherfucker — nothing there about sexuality, that’s for sure.

If McCain were to become president, all the shit that’s going to finally hit the fan in the next four or so years would spatter the twelve-year Rethuglican Reich. Indisputably.

If HRC were to become president, do you think she would have the political chops to keep the blame where it belongs, on the Freedom Fries Coalition? I don’t. All that outrageous crap about running cocaine out of Arkansas, about having Vince Foster killed, all that idiotic crap still sticks to her, and if you don’t believe that, you should raise the issue with my inlaws and stick around for at least 30 seconds or until your head explodes, whichever comes first.

Obama is the most credible and articulate person of any color, from any planet, that I have ever seen, going back at least as far as RFK. He’s the *only* person who, as president, would both attempt to alter [obscure-reference]President Hazelton’s course[/obscure-reference] but also have a good chance of keeping the blame for the crashing economy and the chaos in Iraq (which is inevitable no matter how many centuries we try to keep the Marines over there) from raining down entirely on Democrats.

If McCain beats HRC, the Clintons and the DLC will be done, dead, and buried, with stakes through their hearts, and Republicans will have no way to escape the blame that is rightfully theirs. If HRC beats McCain, the Dems will lose Congress for another 20 years, because she’ll be just another mealy-mouthed DLC-er trying to appease the Mighty Wurltzer, which will reduce her and the dispirited Democratic Party to steamroller roadkill.

I think you’re convincing me.

I’d rather take my chances on a HRC presidency actually doing some good than wager that a McCain presidency will either be palatable or will fuck things up enough to spark a real revolution.

I dislike Hillary but your formula is dumb: how is Dem packaging worse?

In any case it seems pretty obvious to me that you won’t catch Hillary turning a Beach Boys song into a joke about how great it would be to bomb a country.