Bah. Right wing trolls. Divide-n-conquer jive. You’ll hear a lot more like it from random “Concerned Democrats” flooding the media channels.

I don’t know who they are, but they’re hardly Democrats.

Tho, hard to blame the Florida folks.

Why is it so many voters are willing to look at only the image of the candidates and none of the issues?

(Uh, well, except for the part where Obama doesn’t actually look better than Clinton on the issues, I mean)

We do need a motivational speaker right now. Just as we need someone who knows how to run a truly Progressive hiring policy, or a health plan that not only works, but isn’t pre-gutted before it gets passed, or…

Well, any Democrat.

Stupid fairweather friends.

I do not for the life of me understand any sane Democrat preferring McCain to Obama.

Of course I also don’t understand how any sane person could vote Republican after the last 7 years.

I hope you guys enjoy four more years of war and a fucked-up economy.

Well, it will give us more risible subject matter for our blogs.

On the other hand, that won’t matter when, due to hyper-accelerated Republican incompetence, the electrical grid collapses.

So I have to call it a win-win.

wow, morons.

Are you going to make me stop reading Sadly, No!? I personally don’t put any stock into what two anonymous “Hillary supporters” that wrote Josh Marshall have to say. Were those the only two emails he got? Were they representative? At this point I would not want to buy whatever Josh is trying to sell me on the Hillary-Obama front.

There is an INCREADIBLE irony in a supporter of a woman running for president holding up the Electoral College, which was designed to enshire the power of white landed men, as a good thing.
And this….
“but to make the educated decision that voters sometimes can’t. ”
Just scares me. Man am I glad I moved to England.

Hmph. I’ve seen plenty of supposedly progressive commenters – some on this very blog – call Senator Clinton a cunt, a bitch, and a monster, and accuse her supporters of having the “vapors”. There’s plenty of assholery going around, but I seriously doubt if anyone who is really a liberal can see a kindred spirit in an anti-choice, anti-gay, asshole who is now favoring torture despite being a victim of it. All the Clinton supporters I know intend to support Obama if he wins the nomination.

What did Obama mean when he said he wasn’t sure Clinton would get his voters?

And Sniper is absolutely correct!

Sniper, I missed people calling her a bitch, a cunt or a monster here. I will say though that some Clinton supporters do have something like the vapors. Or maybe the heebie jeebies and you can slam me for that if you think it’s inappropriate. But as for the other stuff, why didn’t you call them on it when you saw it? In fact, why don’t you do it right now?

Maybe Snipper thinks Doh-boy is Hillary?

Ugh, sorry, didn’t mean to start a Hillary-Obama pie fight with this.

This primary sucks.

“What did Obama mean when he said he wasn’t sure Clinton would get his voters?”

Gary my guess is he meant that he doesn’t vote for them so how the heck does he know? But he can’t exactly say that.

I know quite a few Clinton supports (8 to 10) who say they will not under any circumstance vote for Obama but not one Obama supporter who won’t vote for Clinton. and if you want some proof of that go to Taylor Marsh .com…it’s where some of the truly least democratic Democrats seem to be hanging out.
But I tell ya if she and her supporters keep praising Mclame at the expense of Obama it’s going to take every once of Democrat in me to vote for her if she’s the nom…but I live in Arizona and know how truly awful John McCain is, most people don’t.

Gary said,

March 22, 2008 at 16:49

What did Obama mean when he said he wasn’t sure Clinton would get his voters?

“I am confident I will get her votes if I’m the nominee,” Obama stressed. “It’s not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee.”

Well I know for a fact that Obama does not engage in the politics of division, so let’s just move on.

Six months ago my sister and I discussed how brutal this was going to get. This primary does suck. And Lawnguylander, I guess I have the vapors, I’d still like to know what Barack meant by his comment about his supporters.

Or maybe the heebie jeebies and you can slam me for that if you think it’s inappropriate.

It is inappropriate, along with “hysterical” or “emotional” or “might bleed all over the constitution”. I’m not trying to pick a fight here, just point out that slamming Hillary on anything other than her policies is not a winning strategy. I’ve given money to Obama, but he’s not the candidate of my hopes and dreams. For some people he is, and I can see why. Maybe I’m just too old to have that kind of hope anymore.

That being said, McCain is George Bush with, perhaps, a worse temper and two extra I.Q. points. If the American people elect him, they’re literally asking for a continuation of the last disastrous 8 years.

Trolls, assholes… it’s all the same. If it’s the former, we know they’re just trying to cause trouble, much the same way some of the folks I knew on the various blogs would go haunt Powerline, LGF, Redstate and the other rad-right sites. Many would create whole personas about being ‘concerned conservative Christians’ — and then wait for a day to flame out in some spectacular way. And usually get banned right off.

If it’s the latter — assholery — well, yeah, if they vote for McCain or any other Republican, they are voting for a torture-authorizing police state, continuous war, economic buggery, an ever more polluted and stressed environment, and an America one step closer to total, irrevocable ruination.

Voting for McCain as a symbolic F-YOU to the Democratic party and the entire country because their (supposed) primary candidate didn’t win the nomination? The sheer self-absorbed infantile egoism of these sorts cannot be more blatant.

MB mentioned being glad to have moved to England. This California ex-pat is glad she’s living in India right now.

Brad’s a fine writer at times. It’s a little worrisome to me to see him get out of his depth and question the superior judgement of Clinton supporters. I mean, we like his funny stuff, but let’s let the adults handle destroying the party.

I’m going to just pretend that I read those comments on say, a humor based site such as this one or poorman, rather than TPM and assume they are a joke. As noted above, how could any dem after the past seven years vote a straight repub ticket with any sincerity? And what point would that action prove? Actually, I can answer that question myself, it would prove you are a complete idiot.

Supreme Court.

That is all.

I asked mom and dad for a pony but they bought me a bicycle instead. I hate mom and dad for not getting me a pony so I threw the bicycle in the lake. Hahaha. I hope they’re happy now.

It is inappropriate, along with “hysterical” or “emotional” or “might bleed all over the constitution”. I’m not trying to pick a fight here, just point out that slamming Hillary on anything other than her policies is not a winning strategy.

Exactly. My pet peeve is Democrats attacking other Democrats with wingnut talking points.

To answer your question, gary, it means Barack believes that he can get more independant and republican voters than Hillary can. He believes that all the people who would have voted for Hillary would also vote for him, and that some of the people that would normally have voted for McCain would vote for him instead.

Whether that’s true or not is an entirely different question. The point is, he is most definitely NOT signalling that his supporters would vote republican in a fit of pique if he doesn’t get elected.

And just to be clear, I’ve seen both Clinton and Obama supporters who say they would not vote for the other candidate, and anybody that ends up actually doing that, on either side, is indeed an asshole and a tool.

-me

MB mentioned being glad to have moved to England. This California ex-pat is glad she’s living in India right now.

I have a Canadian passport and several friends who are hoping that Canada further liberalizes the definition of family to include “anyone you damned well feel like bringing into the country”.

Is ANY true dem not going to vote for our nominee? I don’t believe that. I’m quite upset with things Hillary’s camp have done, but I’m just as upset with what I’m reading on the blogs. I half suspect most of the hate nonsense is from State Dept. workers.

slamming Hillary on anything other than her policies is not a winning strategy.

The staff you surround yourself with says a lot about how you approach policy. Hillary’s Leiberman-lite campaign crew gives me the vapors.

I’ve got the vapors a lot of the time too, Gary. But I think it’s pretty obvious what he meant when he said it. Do you mean why did he say it? To advance his cause I guess. But did you hear or read the remark in context?

The lovey-doveyness of last night’s debate may have come to an end. This morning, Obama said Clinton supporters would vote for him but the reverse would not be true. He took credit for helping to expand the playing field for Democrats by “attracting new voters and independent voters into the process in a way that Senator Clinton cannot do.”

“I don’t take all the credit for the enormous upsurge in participation in the Democratic primaries and caucuses over the last four contests,” Obama said while taking questions from reporters in Los Angeles. “But I think it’s fair to say nobody has done more to engage and bring people in who otherwise would not participate.”

I’m not sure I buy that because single women have been a huge untapped voting bloc for the Dems for years and maybe Clinton would have brought them out in the general election but why not argue with his logic rather than just act puzzled by the comment?

He said something else in that interview that sums up why I want him to be the nominee. Not only do I think he can win but it’s how he can win:

Obama also repeated his assertion he would be best to counter McCain on Iraq. “There’s going to be a contest with John McCain, potentially, somebody who’s been very clear and firm about his position on the war,” he said. “If we go in there suggesting that it just was not managed well by George Bush, then Senator McCain will be able to come back and argue, that in fact we’ve reduced violence in the surge, we’re now getting it right in his framework. I totally dispute that. I think it’s easier for me to dispute given my long standing belief that it was a strategic error on the part of the Bush administration.”

My main opposition to Clinton is her war vote. I’d like the historical record to show that if you’re a Democrat and you cave in to Republicans and endorse an insane war because you think you can preserve your presidential aspirations that you end up getting your ass kicked in the Democratic primaries instead. If Clinton wins the nomination and then the general it’s teh fucking wilderness for all us DFHs for years to come and dominance of the Democratic party by DLC types for a long time. We’re a lot better off if the debate about the war in the election is on my man Barry X’s terms. Not Clinton’s or McCain’s

“drastically better personnel to key positions of power than any Republican”

should read “drastically better personnel and judges to key positions of power than any Republican”

my guess is that Obama’s remark about his supporters means that he’d bring out some people that wouldn’t otherwise vote – not that they’d vote for McCain instead

The primary season has been going on way too long. It’s giving the finalists way too much space for attacking each other. Obama and Hillary are both gonna feel pretty sheepish after the convention, when it’s kiss-and-make-up time and they’re reminded of all the mean things they said about each other in the recent past. “It’s time to put our differences aside and pull together for the sake of the party and to defeat our opponent” blah blah blah will sound especially lame this time around.

Well, it’s been 40 years since the Democratic National Convention in Chicago (ahh…those were the days), so maybe it’s time for another rough-and-tumble, complete with protracted, meaningless delegate fight, riots outside, fisticuffs on the convention floor and hurt feelings and nursed grudges all around. And then Richard Nixon was elected.

I was going to vote for Dodd, but he didn’t make Cal. I don’t like Barack’s reaching across the aisle approach. I hope it gets him elected, but I don’t want it as policy.

“The vapors” is a sexist remark? Really? The other stuff is obviously sexist but I never thought of the vapors as an insult reserved for women. Am I still safe with “the heebie jeebies”?

If using the word periodically is enough to make you a misogynist pig, then the vapors is definitely enough.

That also means referring to a fainting couch is also sexist, which is unfortunate, as I was looking forward to rhetorically fetching many for our Repugnicant friends when McBain loses.

lil’ poopchute said,

March 22, 2008 at 17:14

I asked mom and dad for a pony but they bought me a bicycle instead. I hate mom and dad for not getting me a pony so I threw the bicycle in the lake. Hahaha. I hope they’re happy now.

I wanted the red gumball, not the blue one!! WAHHHHHH!!! I’m gonna hold my breath until I die, and you’ll be very, very sorry!

I make no secret that I prefer Obama over Hillary. Comes down to two things really: One he got it right on Iraq from the start and two I think he has a better chance of delivering a crushing victory in November… One might even dream of 61 democrats in the senate. I’m not convinced that he’s a messiah or anything and on more than on occasion he’s made me wonder.

That being said, I don’t hate Hillary. I don’t think she’s a bad candidate. She’s smart and tough and I think is more than capable of beating McCain in November. Even if she promised to make Micheal O’Hanlon War Czar and Tom Friedman Secretary of Defence, her war policies would be better than a Bush third term.

On a whole, I must say that it is unlikely that an Obama administration will be any great degree better than a Clinton or vice versa. It is likely that in certain narrow policy areas that one would do “better” than the other, but next to President McCain it’s small potatoes.

However, I think that unless a political miracle happens, she is unlikely to beat Obama in popular vote, let alone pledged delegates. I don’t particularly like the fact that the Florida or Michigan primaries don’t count, but both states broke the rules and thus they don’t count (something all candidates agreed to).

Were the situation completely reversed, I have no doubt that Clinton and/or her supporters would be making the argument that she had effectively won and Obama should drop out. I hope I’d have the intellectual honesty to at least consider that my preferred candidate should drop out. I know that I wouldn’t be stupid enough to prefer McCain to Hillary.

I think it should be said though that most supporters on either side of the democratic tent aren’t that stupid either.

It’s March, it’s a tight race, a lot of emotional overinvestment going around. Maybe we need a heated debate about party loyalty right now. A strong signal to the “assholes” that they need to give their heads a shake.

A party that wasn’t addicted to snatching defeat would collectively take a pill when the nominee is chosen and start working hard to make sure McCain’s ass truly gets kicked in November.

I wanted the red gumball, not the blue one!! WAHHHHHH!!! I’m gonna hold my breath until I die, and you’ll be very, very sorry!

I think we were at the same grocery store yestereday.
—
vapors heebie-jeebies from me from now on. sorry. didn’t realize.

I believe there are 2-3 Justices on the Supreme Court that are waiting for a Democrat to be President before they retire. If we don’t get it this year then the Democrats can give up the Supreme Court.

Now I’ll say Hillary’s staff are saying some pretty stupid stuff like

….”African-American districts and the Starbucks-sipping, Volvo-driving liberal elite, how does he carry a state like Pennsylvania?”

I do think someone needs to get them under control.

Can we stop pretending, though, that it wouldn’t be a disaster if Clinton was to clinch the nomination through the votes of superdelegates? Because, you know, it would. It would represent the superdelegates appointing the candidate with fewer pledged delegates, fewer primary/caucus votes, and fewer donors. And the likely outcome of that would be for large numbers of the Democratic Party’s largest voting bloc to stay home on election day. And who would blame them? It would be impossible to paint the Clinton nomination victory as anything other than the Man stepping in to put his thumb on the scale yet again to steal a victory hard-fought and legitimately won by African-American voters. The inescapable fact is that no Democrat will be going to the White House without the support of a majority of African-American voters. We all know this, Hillary Clinton surely knows this, and the superdelegates certainly know this. So you have to ask why she continues to pretend that she can win not only the nomination but the general as well, if in fact she has any concerns about how continuing a failed candidacy might hurt the party’s chances in the general election.

So then the question becomes: if it was any other Democratic candidate – John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, or anyone else – in the position Hillary currently finds herself in, would anyone even bother to pretend they have a shot at the nomination? Somehow I doubt it.

It will be good thing once the primary is over. Emotions are running very high and nasty these days, but once it comes time to actually vote, the real issues are so compelling that I suspect the vast, vast majority of potential democratic voters will show up and vote for the nominee.

Four more years of Republican rule? What possible objection could any thinking person have to Obama or to Hillary that would make that outcome acceptable?

(In the meantime I miss teh funny.)

I took the vapors as meaning full of air, confused, or hysterical.
I took heebie jeebies as meaning nervous. In any event, I don’t qualify.

Still, I wonder if America is ready for a black man.

Obama will bring the country together! Peace, Love and Understanding — yeah right! Listen to the vile and venom being spewed in these comments by Obama supporters. He’s a politician — he’ll blow smoke up your ass just like all the others. Suckers!

Suckers!

The last time I had smoke blown up my ass I rather enjoyed it.

Or was that a metaphor?

Hillary is still in it because, right or wrong, she believes she is the best qualified person to run the country. And no matter how convoluted the math, she still has a chance. However, the actions of Hill and Bill and the Clinton machine indicate some entitlement going on. They do need to step aside. It’s clear to me Barack is going to win this and he has my support, I just wish the hate would stop.

A party that wasn’t addicted to snatching defeat would collectively take a pill when the nominee is chosen and start working hard to make sure McCain’s ass truly gets kicked in November.

I think just about everyone will get behind Obama and I think all the talk from Clinton supporters about not voting for Obama or voting for McCain comes from their candidate being behind in the race. It’s disturbing but if it were the other way around you’d be hearing that crap from Obama supporters instead. It’s easier to stay on the high road when things are going the way you want them to. Still, shit like this and the comments that go along with it are a little disturbing. That used to be a pretty good blog but egalia has gone completely fucking nuts.

he’ll blow smoke up your ass just like all the others.

What’s your point?

Okay, I want to set something a little straight here about some of the voters in Florida. I should know because I am one. I voted in the primary with full knowledge that my vote would never “count.” I never expected to, nor did I have any misgivings about the fact that the DNC told the voters here what would happen if we moved our primary. There are rules, the rules were broken, our primary became null and void.

I am sick to death, however, of people telling me that I have been disenfranchised, as if there was some horrific plot after the fact to make silence my choice. No. Wrong. I was not disenfranchised. My vote was not stolen in this primary. My vote meant exactly as much as I was told it would mean up to three months prior to the primary. Which is to say, nothing, nada and zilch. To go back now, screaming do-over, and it’s not fair is not only disingenuous, but also childish.

No one gave a crap about when my vote was really stolen in the 2000 general election, so I can’t comprehend for the life of me why it matters one bit that my vote that was never supposed to count actually doesn’t.

Enough already with the whining about the voters of Florida and the alleged injustice we are currently facing. We aren’t. We are reaping what we sowed, and some, it seems, can’t deal with the personal responsibility of it all. I don’t want a 50/50 split. I don’t want the current “results” to count. I don’t want to vote again. What I want is for the primary season to end and the general to begin. What I want is for my vote to count in the general election this November, when we finally end this horrific period in American history and regain our freedom.

Listen to the vile and venom being spewed in these comments by Obama supporters.

Project much?

In all seriousness, too many of us average voters have been personally insulted and attacked and mocked by a former Dem president and a former first lady. I’m not going to wake up the day after the primary is over and suddenly feel fondness for some finger wagging red faced dick head whom MIchael Moore correctly called “the best Republican president” of the past few decades. They can both go triangulate themselves for all I care. However, unlike 1/4 of Clinton voters, I won’t vote for McCain if she’s the candidate. I don’t see how it helps my anger to inflict that asswipe on the world.

“Vile” is an adjective. Thus one cannot “listen to all the vile [and venom]…” Perhaps the illiterate Florida voter meant “bile.”

I can’t be the only one with no tolerance for people whining about Florida (and not Michigan? Fuck, I don’t even remember which other state it was, people are having such a stampy hissy fit over precious Florida). They broke clearly defined DNC rules, and KNEW their vote wouldn’t count. You wanna bitch, bitch too your state convention officials who fucked you, not the national convention. Christ, why the fuck can’t you people get your shit together for elections? Goddamn Palestine is doing this better then you feebs.

[/annoyance]

Yeah, see? Taodon’s got it.

jeff: You were personally insulted, mocked, and attacked by the Clintons? How so?

MzNicky, I voted for Obama. (I guess I shouldn’t have said “personally,” since you’ve chosen, cutely, to read that word disingenuously. He push me down at the playground, if that’s what you want me to say.)

There is only one reasonable point to be made here: if the election is so about an individual voter that one thinks a rational action would be to vote for McCain over the Dem nominee, this makes one a narcissistic, shallow chunderloaf.

I am not a Democrat and have absolutely no allegiance to that petty, ineffectual party. The party is an embarassment to liberty and to the consitution. That said, I obviously line up with the ideals the party pretends to espouse. I’ve voted Democrat for president only one time, and I want to do the same this year. However, if Hillary manages to scare the superdelegates into trumping the popular and delegate vote, I will not vote for her in the fall. I have little use for this limp-dick party in the first place and will not go running over to it if Hillary wins by behaving like a GOPer and slitting Obama’s throat. I won’t vote for McBush either. But I sure as hell won’t be inclined to get involved with Democrat politics for quite a while either.

The only thing that would give me pause, is the state of the federal courts. I

That said, if she wins the popular vote in the primary, and the super delegates move over to her, I will support her. If she wins the primary fair and square, I’m all for her. I’ll help out in any way I can. If this is not going to happen, however, then Obama is the candidate and he needs our full support. The end.

Here’s a picture.

(H/T d r i f t g l a s s)

I’d guess jeff is talking about Clinton’s penchant for saying that every state she’s lost doesn’t matter, and that all the real Democrats voted for her, and yadda yadda yadda. I don’t think she meant to be insulting, but it certainly wouldn’t help her in the general when she’s already dismissed over half of the Democratic party as unimportant. Realistically though, the way the electoral college works, she’s right.

I find her supporters’ willingness to abuse reich-wing style talking points (Obama threw his granny under the bus! Obama’s mentor hates whitey and America!) far more offensive.

I remember a time when we went to the mattress for the Florida voters.

Its really very simple. Hillary Clinton started out as a Republican. Decided it wouldn’t get her anywhere and switch parties.

She has been a Republican pretending to be a Democrat her entire career. I’m NOT going to pretend voting for yet ANOTHER Republican is going to fix the Democratic party.

And as for 4 more years of Republican control?

Maybe Planet USA would learn a few things…

Drum:

<She’d no more root for a McCain victory than she would for another attack by al-Qaeda.

Hmm, perhaps not, but Lieberman is rooting like hell for a McCain victory, and may even speak for him at the R convention. Is it really that much of a leap from that to Clinton doing the same? Especially given all the nice things she and Bill have been saying about McCain lately?

I dunno, I really have no idea what she’ll do, but neither does Drum.

Sorry, posting again for clarity.

Drum:

She’d no more root for a McCain victory than she would for another attack by al-Qaeda.

Hmm, perhaps not, but Lieberman is rooting like hell for a McCain victory, and may even speak for him at the R convention. Is it really that much of a leap from that to Clinton doing the same? Especially given all the nice things she and Bill have been saying about McCain lately?

I dunno, I really have no idea what she’ll do, but neither does Drum.

Didn’t the Clintons, along with a pile of other prominent Dems, campaign for Lieberman against Lamont?

I’m sure glad they kept his political career alive so he could shill for the Republican presidential nominee. Real smooth move, Bill.

I just hope that the rumors of McCain tapping Lieberman for veep are true. May he be as helpful to McCain as he was to Gore.

I’ve just recieved a memo from our Soverigen Lord George Soros that says regardless of who the Democrat nominee is we need to support it in order to protect our sacred institutions of abortion.

In fact abortion should be expanded up until the child is seven years old. We all know that children are a big resposibility and that they get in the way of our welfare checks and leaching off society.

Evil neanderthal Conservatives would say that God will punish us for abortion. But all of us super elite enlightened liberals know that God doesn’t exist. Except for Allah who is totally real.

We all know that something can be formed from nothing. I know I’ve seen it happen all the time when I’m stoned.

Consevatives. hmf.

Jnfr said it for me. It bears repeating though:

Supreme Court.

Want another Uncle Justice Thomas, Robbing Roberts, Scalito? Vote other than Democrat. See how well that goes for women’s rights.

And don’t even get me started on Nader.

Didn’t the Clintons, along with a pile of other prominent Dems, campaign for Lieberman against Lamont?

In the primary, actually, that would have been Obama at the top of the pile.

Not that it should count against Obama, necessarily — but it’s at least historically accurate.

Look. Stop breaking your toys and peeing in the corner.

Anybody who believes that a President McCain would be in their economic self interest, would be in the best interest of america the nation and the culture and would be beneficial to the world should absolutely vote for him, work for his campaign, raise funds for him.

But to believe the opposite and still choose to vote for him because the Democratic candidate hurt your freakin feelings is dishonest and a waste of your vote.

Can’t believe anybody would be that selfish and stupid. Just wish they’d all stop saying it…

mikey

There are hundreds of elected democrats that won’t say boo to Bush. Iraq, wire tapping, the environment. Politics is a river of shit and we all swim in it. And don’t get me started on Lieberman.

I don’t like either of the Democratic candidates, or the party in general, for that matter.
I completely understand if someone isn’t a Democrat (but, for example, a Green) and won’t vote for Obama or Clinton. I’ve never thought voting for policies one opposes simply because other policies are even worse is necessarily a good idea.

But the Democrats quoted in this post need to learn some lesson in democratic centralism. You fight all out for your position, but once you’re outvoted you support the majority position. Period. If you think of yourself as a Democrat, there’s no excuse to let bad blood from the primaries keep you from voting for your party’s candidate.

Here’s the pathetic thing about that poll Lawnguylander linked to: the “support Hillary/will NOT vote for Obama” crowd outweighed the “support Hillary/WILL vote for Obama” by a factor of 2.5+; meanwhile, the “support Obama/WILL vote for Hillary” choice got twice as many votes as “support Obama/will NOT vote for Hillary.”

So maybe the Obamistas are bilious and venomous… but at least in this poll, they’re not spitefully willing to cut off their nose — and the noses of 300 million compatriots — to spite their faces.

Upfront, I’m a Canadian. I have been coming to this site for years, just to read the wonderfully witty satire, irony, in essence, for a break from the dull, repetitive, collective corporate dumping of what is considered news today. I always marvelled on how the denizens of this site meshed, and as time went on, almost seemed to read one another’s mind. It is what made it a special site, one I was privileged to visit, and once in many years, make a comment. It was here I first encountered shoelimpy and annieangel, and the ingenious ways that trolls could be ignored – hmmmm, pie..
Today, I’m not sure I want to come back anymore. I see some of the regulars trying to bring the discussion back to the irony/satirical level, but…..this primary season is taking it’s toll like none I have ever seen. I cannot believe the vitriol, and it’s infecting every site at which I used to lurk. KOS, don’t go. NoQuarter, don’t go. Taylor Marsh, don’t go, Huffington Post, don’t go etc etc- and note, these are all Democratic leaning sites. This sickness is spreading. Now I’m worried that I won’t be able to come back here either, and as a lurker, it was one of my most favourite sites – even with the fake Gary Ruppert and his assorted troll names. PS, I’m in love with mikey.

Is this the same site it was a month ago? Sadly, No.

Before I leave until after this insanity has passed, please allow me a shout out to MZNICKY. Hey, glad to see you’re okay. Haven’t run across you lately and was worried! You take care!

Thanks for the link Andy. I should have been more clear that I was talking about the general election rather than the primary, but it still lowers my opinion of Obama a notch.

In any case, Gizoogle isn’t finding any mention of Clinton support in the general, so I guess I’m wrong about that. All sources I’ve found have Hillary pledging to support the primary winner, though like Obama she backed Holy Joe in that primary. Clinton and Obama are equally lame on this one. Bob Kerrey, on the other hand…

(love that picture, ifthethunderdontgetya)

After eight years of a closet alcoholic who claimed he was guided by personalized instructions from some imaginary being, I can’t believe Americans are stupid enough to vote for his hug-buddy. It’s true that you have all the racism and misogyny and bible-thumping needed to provide evidence of a delusional people. But while half the population is of below-average intelligence, the other half is above average. Even if you have very little capacity for hope, you may justifiably hope that morons will not dominate the polls in November.

WhattheH, there’s always been plenty of vitriol around here. If calling nominal Democrats who will vote for McCain rather than Clinton or Obama idiots is too harsh for you, I don’t know what you ever saw in this place.

That reminds me, what ever happened to Mencken? If there was ever a time we could use a dose of his righteous anger, it’s now.

The world of bloggery is filled with a bunch of people that are the same as we run into in comments. Smart, selfish, incompetent, good spellers, bad spellers, misguided, right on, awesome, idiotic. The difference is that once people get a big bad trumpet they start to fall in love with their words, and their overly personal identification with a particular candidate becomes poisonous. I have to say that I have lost respect for almost every single left leaning blog voice over this entire affair, except for digby, Somerby and Drum. All three because this election hasn’t changed them, Drum because I never really liked him that much in the first place, but he’s been shown to be teflon in terms of his milquetoastieness. It is dominant over crazy. It is fine to prefer a candidate, but it becomes this good versus evil, even though the candidates are almost exactly the same, and people attempt to find any excuse to be mortally offended, even thought that offense is only cynically used to support their initial choice, then I really feel like the universe can just fuck off.

Mikey, voting for Hillary means a slow death by poisoning. A continuation of the Bush Dog/Republican lite bleeding off of America to to the highest bidder. That will certainly happen under McCain as well. But unlike Clinton, McCain will be an ACTUAL Republican doing it instead of a DEMOCRAT doing it to America. See the difference?

But presidential elections aren’t an either/or scenario. McCain is not getting my vote either…

The candidates aren’t “Virtually the same”. One actually believes ALL of America should be heard. One believes only those who can get her elected need to be bothered with.

One candidate sees ALL AMERICANS as voters. One candidate ONLY sees voters who might get her nominated…

Having watched these people (?) come out of the woodwork as they’ve been emboldened by the Rev. Wright flap, I was inspired to come up with a name for them:

HILLAREPUBLICANS.

You can thank me later.

Follks, will you just relax? It’s March. Remember how you felt in January? That’s just three short months ago. How will you feel six months from now?

search :

Hillary Clinton and the secretive Religious Right network known as “The Family.”

…and then we’ll see what you think , , ,

Owlbear, I will say this.

Sitting it out, leaving it blank, that’s at least honest. If you can’t vote for either, to choose to not vote for either is a statement, and a not unreasonable choice. I just hope most people don’t do it.

For the record, I don’t agree with your assessment of Senator Clinton. I’ve never been “for” her presidency, I was Edwards until he dropped out, then I’ve been Obama. But I don’t think she’d be anywhere near the disaster that bush/cheney have been, and that mccain would continue or even accelerate.

But that said, I don’t believe it matters. It has been obvious for weeks now that Obama will be the nominee. Clinton is doing something that is her right, but that makes no positive contribution. But soon enough, it will be over, it will be Obama’s intelligent, elegant calm and reasoned conversation against McCain’s temper, bombast and hate.

And it will be no contest at all…

mikey

I don’t hate Hillary. She’s smart

Yes, it was *brilliant* to trust George W Bush to do the right thing as far as Iraq. And her campaign strategy? Brilliant! “I’m the frontrunner and I’m certain to win, so there’s no reason for me to build organizations in every state.”

and tough

“Wah! Why does Senator Obama get such kind treatment from the media! I always get asked the first hard question! Waaah!”

But I’ll give her this: when it came time to make the biggest decision of her political career–no, her life–she smartly and toughly did not read the intelligence report and blindly voted to authorize military force against Iraq. Which I TOTALLY forgive her for.

Anyone who votes for McCain will be complicit in the crimes of his administration, including but not limited to continued war, back alley abortions, the continued fucking of the working man. Any Democrat who petulantly votes for him is doubly abhorrent. I’m an Obama guy, but I won’t hesitate to vote for Hillary if she is the nomination. It’s that important.

Mikey, I too was an Edwards supporter and really hope Obama makes him AG.

I am also hopeful that Obama has this locked up and Richardson’s endorsement will loosen a few straps.

And in the interests of full disclosure:
There is only one way I could find myself voting for Senator Clinton at this point. Revenge. If Hillary promised Revenge for the last 30 year of Republican ruin, THEN I might change my mind.

Of Course, Barack is his own special kind of Revenge…

I prefer Obama over Rodham, but I’m not fanatical about it because you know what? THEY ARE BOTH DEMOCRATS AND THAT IS WHAT I SUPPORT ABOVE ALL YOU STUPID FUCKS.

Brad, I won’t vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination but there’s no way in hell I’d vote for McCain.

Those email you quoted from are exactly like the comments you’ll find on each of Taylor Marsh’s posts. She and her minions are batshit insane. That’s why I refer to them as Strom Thurmond Democrats.

Voting for McCain because you are mad about Hillary’s Iraq vote is a non sequitur.

Choosing to vote for Obama because you don’t like Hillary is also fine. Painting dark portraits of the deeply evil and secretive Hillary are not supported by a lot of evidence. Politicians lie. We have no way to understand anything about what their administrations look like based on their campaigns. We can only hope. This is quite sad.

I will add that a large number of left leaning bloggers who are in the Obama camp would have made the same vote as Hillary. It is certainly fine for people to change their minds, and it is fine to believe that Hillary’s Iraq vote is the deciding factor in your choice between Hillary and Obama. It is not fine for it to be the deciding factor between Hillary and McCain. There are about 50 million tiebreakers that Hillary wins in that regard.

But the Democrats quoted in this post need to learn some lesson in democratic centralism. You fight all out for your position, but once you’re outvoted you support the majority position. Period.

!!!!!

Oh no, a Leninist!! Hide your serfs, everyone!!

That’s why I refer to them as Strom Thurmond Democrats.

I’m pretty sure we already have a word like that, though.

Dixoncrats?

Dixie Chicks?

Something like that.

Hillary Clinton could crawl backwards uphill naked over 20 miles of broken glass shards, whipping herself with a cat-o-nine tails through a hair shirt, on her way to give a sloppy blow job to Obama while sobbing uncontrollably how dreadfully sorry she is that she, anyone who ever worked for her, knew her, or passed her on the street had ever said anything even remotely negative about him, black people or Democrats in general (or anything positive about any Republican), then put a gun in her mouth and blow her own brains out, and the Obamamaniacs would STILL not believe she “really means it.”

They’d probably just say, “good, the evil, cheating corporate whore bitch Hitlery is finally out of the race!” on their way to spit on her gore-splattered body.

Barack Obama could crawl backwards uphill naked over 20 miles of broken glass shards, whipping himself with a cat-o-nine tails through a hair shirt, on his way to give a sloppy tongue job to Clinton while sobbing uncontrollably how dreadfully sorry he is that he, anyone who ever worked for him, knew him, or passed him on the street had ever said anything even remotely negative about her, women or Democrats in general (or anything positive about any Republican), then put a gun in his mouth and blow his own brains out, and the Clintonmaniacs would STILL not believe he “really means it.”

They’d probably just say, “good, the conniving, messiah-complex race-baiting bastard HUSSEIN Omabam is finally out of the race!” on their way to spit on his gore-splattered body.

See how this works?

And you know what? I think both sides are being manipulated by the right-wing noise machine, but they’re too stupid to realize it. Right wing noise machine manufactures negative bullshit talking point about Candidate X. Candidate Y’s followers pick it up and start concern trolling it to the lefty blogs. Candidate X’s followers savagely tear into Candidate Y’s followers, and hilarity ensues – for the right wing noise machine.

You’re being played, you idiots. Wise up.

But how do we hop from there to an out-of-the-blue factual assertion that Hillary would just as soon see Obama lose in November?

A couple of weeks ago, Bill Maher reamed Clinton’s campaign manager over the coals for a statement Hillary made in one of her speeches that she and McCain have more experience than Obama; suggesting that if she isn’t in the running, McCain is their next best bet.

These are the comments Bill Maher referred to, and was critical of.

Yeah. McCain’s foreign policy experience.

Ask him to explain the difference between Shiite and Sunni.

The Repugs will be ecstatic if he doesn’t say one of them is a language of the Indian subcontinent and the other is a North American Indian tribe.

Oh, please. there are nut cases on both sides, and unless I am completely mistaken, they are in the minority.

Both of the candidates are pragmatic – they’re poltiicians. They don’t want McCain to win. Whoever the nominee is, the other candidate will support him/her, and do their damnedest to bring their supporters along.

There are going to be some people who are too bummed out to actually go out and vote, but only the insane ones will vote for McCain if their nominee doesn’t get the nod.

Joe Max for the win!

I’m sorry, didn’t anyone else think

The superdelegates weren’t created to add fluff to the popular vote, but to make the educated decision that voters sometimes can’t. They’re there for the same reason the electoral college is. For example, picking a glorified motivational speaker over an experienced leader (good example, eh?).

was the most alarming part of this post? Yes, some people are idiots and jerks and Barack vs. Hillary is divisive blah blah blah but this is fucking insane! It’s a slippery slope from the elite knows what’s good for you to the elite are the only members of society who are truly human and LET’S STERILIZE THE POOR!

That’s one hell of a slippery slope you got there. Sure you didn’t miss a couple steps?

…LET’S STERILIZE THE POOR!

Umm, I think it might be a little unfair to think that just because they’re poor they have poor personal hygiene habits.

What?

It doesn’t?

It DOES?

Oh. Never mind….

mikey

Yes indoozle! The right wing is controlling us all. There’s no difference between the two Dem candidates or the types of campaigns they’re running. Not that the latter would matter anyway. No point debating those differences and how the success of one type of campaign in 2008 might influence political discourse in 2010 and beyond. A pox on everyone’s house! Especially dens of incivility like this.

Oh no, a Leninist!! Hide your serfs, everyone!!

That’s right. I’ve seen faction fights, and I’ve never liked them. Small differences get blown out of proportion. Personalities replace policy and ideology. Once the open threat to split/expel is made, it’s usually too late. I can only advise Democrats who don’t want to see McCain elected to step back from the brink (and comrades who don’t want McCain either to keep out of it and do our own thing).

You know what the correct answer to a nuclear first strike is? Nothing. It’s irrational to destroy the other half of the world, too. The late Arthur C. Clark had a great short story on that topic, iirc.

unrelatedwaffle, you have confused the system with democracy. It’s a common mistake.

My take on the whole “Hillary-wants-McCain-to-win-so-she-can-run-in-2012” meme….

I agree this is nonsense. Not so much because “she has a long, long history as a partisan animal” (this is a classic Drumism: Clinton does have a long, long history of partisan activity, but it began when she was a Goldwater Girl!), but rather because Clinton’s campaign has been seemingly incapable of thinking a couple months ahead, let alone four years.

But the real danger from Clinton is not that she wants McCain to win, but that she’ll help McCain win, whether or not she wants to. I agree that there’s no direct evidence that she wants a McCain victory. And Occam’s Razor in this case suggests egotism and political incompetence are better explanations for Clinton’s behavior than support for McCain. Ultimately, It might become an interesting, though largely academic, question if McCain defeats Obama whether Clinton: a) wanted Obama to win but was too politically incompetent to behave in a way that helped him; or b) just didn’t give a damn. But all signs are that her behavior is hurting Obama and helping McCain, at least in the short run.

Arthur C. Clarke of course. Sorry.

And you know what? I think both sides are being manipulated by the right-wing noise machine, but they’re too stupid to realize it. Right wing noise machine manufactures negative bullshit talking point about Candidate X. Candidate Y’s followers pick it up and start concern trolling it to the lefty blogs. Candidate X’s followers savagely tear into Candidate Y’s followers, and hilarity ensues – for the right wing noise machine.

Dogshit. It’s on candidate Y’s supporters if they want to use and abuse right-wing talking points. What are X’s supporters (and the sane) supposed to do about it? Are we not supposed to call bullshit bullshit in the name of unity? Fuck that. Nobody who thinks that harping on Obama saying “typical white person” or his flag lapel pin is OK is on my side, period.

I’d say you’re being overly generous to Y’s supporters. Did Taylor Marsh need any coaxing from the right-wingers before going on a “Obamas hate America, not like us who looooove America” tirade because Michelle Obama said she was finally proud of her country? Nope. She dove into that pile of pigshit with a gusto that made the pigs nervous.

I’m no Dem. I’m voting Dem this fall in self defense. That’s it. Don’t get all high-an-mighty on us because we’re willing to call horseshit when we see it.

Did I miss any barnyard animals? Cowshit doesn’t really have a ring to it, y’know?

Well, reading some of the comments here (and at DKos, HuffPost, TPM Election Central, Americablog, blah, blah), it’s obvious that there are an awful lot of people in desperate need of therapy.

“It’s not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee.”

There’s crazy on both sides to go around. Hell, I get a little crazy at times defending Hillary from bullshit as I am sure Obama supporters get when an Hillary supporter tries to make hay out of the ridiculous non-controversy Wright controversy.

However, I am not so crazy that I wouldn’t vote for one of our two fine candidates in November and let McCain get the office. The thought turns my stomach. Hopefully when it’s all over for the Democratic nomination, cooler heads will prevail and people will come to their senses to keep the Batshit Crazy Party out of the White House.

Speaking of Pastor Wright…

Here’s the whole clip.

He’s quoting Ambassador Peck. I don’t see one thing he said that isn’t true.

Please note that the excerpt shown over and over on your TVs is a distortion of the actual sermon.

WhattheH, dear old friend! Good to see your measured, well-reasoned words again. Yeah, I’ve just about given up on all the old blog haunts, ‘cept this one when I can.

I never thought Taylor Marsh was much worth reading in the first place, so her Obamaphobia hasn’t really bothered me. All it’s done is convince me that she’s never worth reading again.

Democratic presidential primaries have broken my heart for decades. DECADES, I tell ya. I’ve been voting longer than some of you guys have been alive, in other words. And without fail, the candidate I want at the beginning has never made it to the nomination. But has that ever made me vote for a Rethug? I’d rather stab needles in my eyes. What the hell is wrong with these nitwits? “Shirley Chisholm would be the best president ever, but since George McGovern got the nomination I’m going to vote for Nixon”?! “Paul Tsongas is the ideal choice, but if Bill Clinton gets the nod I’m voting for Bush (I)” ?! I’ve long suspected the world was being taken over by narcissistic know-nothing children, but holy cow.

Sometimes we vote for Dems in spite of themselves. I used to think that I would vote only for a candidate I supportedly wholeheartedly in every way, and that to do otherwise was somehow a compromise of my purity and righteousness. Then I got over myself. Sort of.

Seems to me with my regular morning rotation of:
Informed Comment
Think Progress
Antiwar dot com
TPM
Greenwald
Digby
Sadly, No

I am well equipped to turn off the coffee pot and move into my day filled with information, outrage and poop jokes.

These others of which you speak, not so much…

mikey

christian h.: In case it wasn’t clear, I was joking. And I’m a fellow Tomb reader. Hi.

Even if you don’t personally like Clinton or Obama all that much, realize that they will appoint drastically better personnel to key positions of power than any Republican.

Let me preface my comment with an unlikely but true fact: I am undecided with regards to Hillary and Obama. I’m not happy with either one of them but better either of them than McInsane.

That being said, I think I should point out that Obama (in some sort of absurd “reaching across the aisle” strategy) has stated that he’s thinking of putting three (so far) Republicans in his cabinet (Hegal, Schwarzenegger and Lugar) and he’s using Colin Powell (yes, THAT asshole) as an advisor. Mind you, there are countless numbers of extremely qualified anti-war Dems that should be up for these slots, but he’s more or less promised them to GOP loyalists in some real whoring of his morals, in a completely whacked notion that this will bring over Republican voters (yeah, as if…).

Before a bunch of you start insisting that this was some far-fetched claim made by the British version of the Daily News, let’s also all acknowledge that Obama hasn’t stepped forward to assert that this story is bogus. In fact, they reported on just exactly what he said.

Given that, I find it curious that the most enthusiastic Obamaites are also the most anti-Republican, yet they either continue to insist that this reporting of Obama’s overtures to the GOP is bogus, or they simply ignore the facts on the ground.

I’m going to vote for Obama if he’s the candidate, but with HUGE misgivings about this need to make nice with Republican shit-stains. My question is HOW ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE FOR HIM, given this totally fucked plan of his?

Y’know, any idiot who votes for McCain or a third party candidate, or sits out the general, because of which Dem candidate gets the nomination deserves what they get — four more years of Republican anti-constitutional, war-mongering, economy-destroying rule.

Problem is, even though they may deserve that, the rest of us don’t, and I don’t think it’s right for them to impose that hell on us.

Before a bunch of you start insisting that this was some far-fetched claim made by the British version of the Daily News, let’s also all acknowledge that Obama hasn’t stepped forward to assert that this story is bogus. In fact, they reported on just exactly what he said.

Perhaps a link…?

Oh, geez. This is an easy one.

First, I have not seen anywhere that Obama has promised these positions to anyone. Name floating is historically meaningless.

But more importantly, if he decides to do it, I don’t really care that much. Because I believe absolutely that Obama is committed to and will execute effectively on:

Ending the Iraq Occupation
Using diplomacy more effectively in the world
Not involving the US in any more unnecessary military adventures
Improving the domestic economy
Leading an initiative to solve the healthcare crisis
Reallocating federal funds to improve education and infrastructure
Managing the federal military and law enforcement response to terror threats
Making the american federal government functional again
Ending the toxic primacy of political ideology in governance

And since, as president, he can insist his cabinet carry out his visions, hell, he can put anybody he wants in those positions, as long as they are competent and carry out his agenda…

mikey

A link? Danny boy, there was a firestorm about this last week….try your magic Google powers.

Everyone should embrace the “reaching across the aisle” stuff because that is going to change everything.

Before a bunch of you start insisting that this was some far-fetched claim made by the British version of the Daily News, let’s also all acknowledge that Obama hasn’t stepped forward to assert that this story is bogus.

Let us also acknowledge that Obama has not yet stepped forward to assert that he is not a Muslim/Communist/Weatherman/Manchurian/5%er/Reticulin

Perhaps because all of those are very stupid.

Dogshit. It’s on candidate Y’s supporters if they want to use and abuse right-wing talking points. What are X’s supporters (and the sane) supposed to do about it? Are we not supposed to call bullshit bullshit in the name of unity? Fuck that. Nobody who thinks that harping on Obama saying “typical white person” or his flag lapel pin is OK is on my side, period.

Platypus shit. Nobody who thinks that harping on Hillary Clinton’s husband saying “two people who love their country” running for office, or her saying “as far as I know” about Obama’s religion is OK on my side either, period.

I’ll see your Taylor Marsh and raise you a John Aravosis. Shall I invoke the Great Orange Satan? So nyah nyah nyah infinity plus-one.

The solution is to call the bullshit but hang it on the real source. Call the bullshit and link it to the right-wing noise machine sources it first came from, not to the Clintion or Obama supporters who stupidly parrot it.

It’s not a matter of “unity”, it’s a matter of refraining from loading a gun, checking the safety, cocking the hammer, taking careful aim and blowing your own foot off.

First, I have not seen anywhere that Obama has promised these positions to anyone. Name floating is historically meaningless.

Super. So ask yourself why in the fuck he didn’t float the names of Dems instead? Personally, I’d like to see Edwards and Kucinich talked about rather that hose clowns.

And since, as president, he can insist his cabinet carry out his visions, hell, he can put anybody he wants in those positions, as long as they are competent and carry out his agenda…

Uh-huh…..well, why start out with a bunch of guys who are on the same team that has been made up of pro-war Treasury looters? That just doesn’t make any sense and I’m sure most of us can grasp the symbolism of EXCISING this shit from our government, rather than feeling the need to be inclusive about it.

There’s simply no way to excuse this, not when there are SO MANY ultra-qualified Dems who’ve been intentionally excluded by the Democratic powerbrokers who were part of the push for war.

You can -hope- that Obama will hew to your list of wants but when he starts out by talking about a sizable chunk of his cabinet being from the GOP, you have to wonder just what kind of compromises he has in mind.

Let us also acknowledge that Obama has not yet stepped forward to assert that he is not a Muslim/Communist/Weatherman/Manchurian/5%er/Reticulin

Perhaps because all of those are very stupid.

Wow. So you’re still clinging to the notion that the story isn’t real??

I urge you all to take a good long look at this. It’s called “denial” and it’s mighty interesting shit.

“Before a bunch of you start insisting that this was some far-fetched claim made by the British version of the Daily News…”

Too late.

And that would be the British version of the New York Post (Rupert Murdoch, doing what he can to help the Democratic Party, as always).

I do enjoy Hillary supporters explaining to us naive Obamanians how we are being rooked by a cyncial politician.

Speaking of awesome google skills, American Chap, why don’t you find a link to back up your assertion that Obama floated those names?

If teh thunder don’t get me he’s still going to beat me to the punch. And with a link.

But but but. oh fuck it, im moving to canada. But before i do, let me point out that the HRC campaign has actually done everything in its power to ensure that obama loses in the general. I believe they call it the “kitchen sink” strategy. Its bargain basement scorched earth politics. The actual end game strategy is to make obama so unpalatable to voters that the super delegates choose hillary at the convention, as the only person who can win in the general. This is the all but declared strategy of the HRC campaign. ITs the politics of ‘If i cant have it no one can’. Its going to destroy our country, wait and see. Thats the sad part about being a realist these days; when you aren’t entrenched in either camp, you tend to see the forest despite the trees. I caucused for “none of the above.” All hail president mccain! Read this:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/123495?tid=relatedcl

it will remove such silly thoughts as “Hillary wants whats best for america.”

Too late.

Too late for what bro? How does that link address the fact that he never assserted that that interview was in any way false?

I do enjoy Hillary supporters explaining to us naive Obamanians how we are being rooked by a cyncial politician.

Thanks for taking the time to read my comment on this, the one that reveals that I am committed to neither candidate and will vote for either of them. Dipshit.

You misunderstand me. I’m in favor of all, uh, zebrashit being called what it is. The people parroting these supposed RWNM lines don’t get a pass from me just because they’re idiots with chickenshit for brains.

Just for the record, though, I consider impugning a candidate’s patriotism by twisting around a quote to be the worst of it. It was exactly that tactic that allowed the Iraq War to go off without a hitch. Everyone opposed hates America. Then, five years later, people wonder why there wasn’t more opposition to the war. Hmmmm.

That said, if there’s a site that documents these talking points coming out of the right-wing, I’d like to see it. Like I said, I’m no Democrat, and it doesn’t seem farfetched to me that this sort of llamashit could originate with either candidate.

OK, I’m just being puerile now. Alpacashit. Blue whale shit. Jonah Goldberg shit.

A link? Danny boy, there was a firestorm about this last week….try your magic Google powers.

Didn’t we have someone visiting a while back who kept asserting some claim and refusing to back it up by providing a link, instead insisting with a markedly arrogant attitude that we use our google skillz and find it ourselves? I wonder if this is the same person

Whether or no, when you make a claim of this nature, it’s considered good manners to back up your assertions yourself. It’s called “citing”.

/Miss Manners

It was a link (Dated March 02, to be exact) followed by hundreds of comments that you didn’t bother to read, Chap.

But thanks for bringing us this news. We’re pretty naive around here, and we wait for Kos to tell us what to think.

Oh, my goodness, That Chap.

I’m SO sorry.

When confronted with the option of believing your spittle flecked tinfoil hat wearing rant or of Barack Obama’s own statements, for a minute there I almost chose Obama’s own words.

Now that would be crazy, right?

mikey

Whether or no, when you make a claim of this nature, it’s considered good manners to back up your assertions yourself. It’s called “citing”.

When something is discussed at length……the requirement of links becomes a little redundant (particularly when a previous discussion was linked to by thunderwhatziz. And while you can cling to this being an “assertion”, it hasn’t in any way been denied or modified by anyone in the Obama camp. Sorry.

It was a link (Dated March 02, to be exact) followed by hundreds of comments that you didn’t bother to read, Chap.

Actually, whilst skimming it over, I saw no comment quoted from Obama saying that this interview had in any way been “invented” but I’m sure you can provide that for me if it exists, right?

The curious thing about this is that it’s come from a number of sources and at different times. I find it more than a little amusing to see you cats and kittens squirming about something put out by your candidate. Why aren’t you embracing it, if you have as much trust in Obama as you seem to (obviously, I’m excluding you Mikey…you seem to be fine with it, unlike these deniers whose neurons crackle with the disparity of all of this)?

Float this! “It’s not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee.” It most certainly is not clear.

For the record:

g said.

And furthermore, as to putting people from the other party on the Cabinet? That’s how we do it in America, That American Chap. Even shrub did it.

Uh-huh…..well, why start out with a bunch of guys who are on the same team that has been made up of pro-war Treasury looters?

Well, here’s the funny thing about Chuck Hagel (from the same DWT link):

Recently he called McCain’s policy on the surge “intellectually dishonest and, as my friend Cliff Schecter reminded me, “he kicked Joe Lieberman’s ass on national TV for questioning those opposed to the surge and is continually calling the policy a failure.” Another of Hagel’s recent arguments about the Bush-McCain policy of endless war:

It’s not only a dirty trick, but it’s dishonest, it’s hypocritical, it’s dangerous and irresponsible. The fact is this is not Petraeus’ policy, it’s the Bush policy. The military is– certainly very clear in the Constitution– is subservient to the elected public officials of this country… but to put our military in a position that this administration has put them in is just wrong, and it’s dangerous.

When confronted with the option of believing your spittle flecked tinfoil hat wearing rant or of Barack Obama’s own statements, for a minute there I almost chose Obama’s own words.

????

Ok Mikey, I’m game………maybe you can fill in the blanks and explain just what you’re going on about?

I’m getting better at recognizing pointlessness. There’s that.

Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain’s closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary. Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee although that might be regarded as a “stretch”.

Asked about his choice of cabinet last week, Obama told The Sunday Times: “Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much…

You’ve build an awful fancy cottage on this somewhat fragile foundation is all. I felt it a logical assumption that you might also believe that aliens are controlling your movements through a combination of the neighbors bulldog and HF receivers in your teeth. And that there might be a division of Polish armor with black helicopter support in your back yard.

Put simply. I don’t believe you. I think you’re laughable. I don’t think, between the two of us, that I’m the one that’s fooled or deluded. You will not convince me by shouting louder.

Even more simply. You are either a loon, a liar or an idiot. Or some combination of the three. But whatever you’re trying to accomplish, I very much doubt you’ll find any buyers around here. You certainly won’t find one in me…

mikey

tde is that you commenting under “Chap”? It sounds oh so familiar . . .

Doodle Bean said,

November 6, 2007 at 23:05

tde,

Link?

tde said,

November 6, 2007 at 23:06

doodle – I am not sure what you want a link for and I should probably just tell you to screw off given the tone of your first response to me but, instead, I’d suggest that you just google SF and needles. There were tons of stories in the SF Chronicle this summer.

I’m getting better at recognizing pointlessness. There’s that.

Candy: And that’s of great value too, especially these days. Just look at this thread, for example.

Trees, lots of trees. Very little viewing of the forest.

I like Mo’s Bike Shop response to tde.

And as long as I’m linking to Sadly, No! comments from the recent past, let’s not forget stryx and his new american anthem (extended version):

The fact is,
America is awesome

And if you don’t agree
we’ll kill you

That’s great. It about sums it up, doesn’t it?

While Obama is slowly recovering from the Rev. Wright “problem”. Obama could recover fuller, and faster, if a comparison study was done on American pastor’s who produce sermons that blame all of Americas bad events as punishment from God. Without this pastor list, what Rev Wright said can not be understood in any shape or form.

However, NOT ONE, none, journalist or blogger has run just such a comparison study to see how useful it would be in debating what the fuss was all about; OR even if a fuss needed to happen at all.

Without that study a persons position on Rev Wright and Obama, or anything else is quite useless; and stupid.

So do the study. So a fun question would be: Which religions would be in the top 10 in the list? (Anyone wanna bet it’s all the same religion? Anyone wanna guess WHICH religion?)

And where would Rev Wright’s position be?

What do ya think Sadly? Top 10, or below?

Think of the Justices!

If you can’t vote for Obama or Hillary, vote against four more years of the same crazy stupid crap aka John McCain.

I’d like to believe that Kevin Drum’s correct about Hillary, but Carville comparing Bill Richardson to Judas Iscariot does make me wonder.

Going back to the person who was asking whether saying someone is “hysterical” is a gender insult — yes, it is. The word “hysteria” comes from the Greek word for “uterus.” Women were thought to be prone to a particular kind of mental illness that originated in the uterus, and hence were more weak-minded than men. The social position of women in Greek society was only slightly higher than that of slaves, and the idea that women were feeble-minded was part of the justification.

Though the word is applied to both sexes, the meaning is still gendered. When women are called hysterical, it means they are weak-minded just because they’re women. When men are called hysterical, it means they are acting like women, who are their inferiors, and so it’s a particularly acute insult. Not that this is uncommon in our language. Many insults levied against men compare them to women (sissy, skirt, pussy, son of a bitch, girl). Most insults against women refer to their sexuality (cunt, bitch, whore, ball-buster).

Also interesting is the way that many words used to refer only to women become sexually derogatory over time, even when they didn’t start off that way (wench, slut, mistress, madam).

Put simply. I don’t believe you. I think you’re laughable. I don’t think, between the two of us, that I’m the one that’s fooled or deluded. You will not convince me by shouting louder.

Believe me, Mikey? Where did I ask you to believe me? You can twist the semantics of the story however you want, and you’re still left with the FACT that none of this has been denied by anybody in the Obama camp. By the way, you’re just addressing ONE story when there have been several (the Schwarzenegger and Powell stories were two completely separate incidents, and neither of them have been denied either). This isn’t about me shouting louder than you, it’s about you being capable of acknowledging a very simple truth about the candidate that you’ve invested so much in. What’s the problem here? How is it that you’re trying to make this about me, when in fact, it’s (apparently) something about Obama that you’re having trouble with?

Even more simply. You are either a loon, a liar or an idiot. Or some combination of the three. But whatever you’re trying to accomplish, I very much doubt you’ll find any buyers around here. You certainly won’t find one in me…

It’s funny/sick how my comment about something that Obama has been talking about would leave me as nothing more than a loon, liar or idiot in your mind. It’s also curious that anyone questioning this need to include GOPers in his cabinet suddenly has an agenda, again,in your mind. Why in the fuck aren’t you and other true believers questioning this shit? Yeah, I’ve read your little list of what you believe he’ll do but that does nothing to explain why (after 8 years of Republican raping and pillage) you’re so complacent with him talking about filling Dem slots with Republicans.

And for what it’s worth, I’m not looking for any “buyers” bro…….I’m just bewildered as to how signing on to this “Yes, we can!” horseshit causes normally bright folk to lose all sense of personal direction.

As I stated at the top of this, I don’t really like Obama OR Hillary, but I’ll vote for either of them over ANY Republican asswipe. If you can’t cast your eyes downthread without seeing just how reactionary you Obamaites have become, you’ve really lost your grip.

Everything Linden says is both right and wrong. The roots of the word hysteria are such, but “hysterical” does indeed describe a specific behavior, and anyone can be that sort of unhinged and out of control, regardless of gender and not connected to any gender. I understand that the word is used to belittle women and this is deeply unfortunate. The problem is that the type of irrational, out of control, emotional, hair trigger partisanship were are seeing in this primary can most easily be described as hysterical behavior. I wish there were another word. Most other descriptions of this particular state of mind would be seen as synonyms of “hysterical” and thus even avoiding it, one would be accused of dressing it up or implying it anyway.

What’s the difference between a loon and idiot?

As usual, I’d like to second m’man Pinko.

If I didn’t know the history of the word “hysterical” (which I didn’t), but only understood it’s meaning from common usage and context, there’s no way I’m insulting or belittling women by describing a certain kind of frantic, over the top action or reaction as “hysterical”.

Now that I know the origins, I’ll likely be more circumspect in using it, but it must also be borne in mind that word’s meanings DO evolve and change over time.

If you were gay a hundred years ago, it meant something quite different from what it means today, for example.

So it’s worth thinking about intent, your honor.

mikey

Oh. And Chap.

I’ve lost interest.

Go play on the freeway….

mikey

It’s also curious that anyone questioning this need to include GOPers in his cabinet suddenly has an agenda, again,in your mind.

Skipping past my prior link again, The American Chap?

First off, Ms. Baxter, coming from England where there is a different political system, is probably unaware that it is fairly routine for a president, especially a Democrat, to select at least one member of the other party for a cabinet job. Even the Bush Regime, the most narrowly partisan administration in contemporary history, chose a legitimate high profile Democrat for his Cabinet. [Although most of Bush’s 32 cabinet selections have been partisan hacks of little or no accomplishment– like Elaine Chao, Gale Norton and Spencer Abraham– and sniveling cronies like Donald Evans, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and Condoleeza Rice, he did pick Norman Mineta (D-CA), former chairman of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee as well as President Clinton’s Secretary of Commerce, as his first Secretary of Transportation.

The reason you are getting a hostile reaction is you sound like a troll, That American Chap. A familiar variety, the concern troll.

1) Hey folks, I’m just like you, but have you considered this?

2) No really, just because someone posted a link showing you all did consider this, weeks ago, doesn’t mean I’ll stop being condescending while I pretend to support the cause.

3) Ignore rebuttals and reiterate original bogus complaint.

4) Now we’re getting to this part: full on Dennis the Peasant mode: See the violence inherent in the sytem! Poor That American Chap is being repressed!

5) Sadly shake your head and decide you’re going to vote for Hillary or McCain, all because of those insane and naive Sadly, No!sians.

Oh. And Chap.

I’ve lost interest.

I’m not the least bit surprised.

(buc,buc,buc…….bucaw!!)

See, this is why I asked you for a link, Chap. Because you obviously have read one story and while it may have been “all over the Internet” I don’t know which story you’re referring to. And I have no way of following up on it until I do, since you are looking for a specific denial by Obama of the specific claims in the specific interview mentioned in the specific article.

So instead of giving me a vague “look it up,” why don’t you make it easier on everyone by giving me a specific link? I mean, come on — it’s obviously top of mind for you, you should have the link at your fingertips.

Synonyms for “hysterical”: agitated, berserk, beside oneself, blazing, carried away, convulsive, crazed, crazy, delirious, distracted, distraught, emotional, excited, fiery, frantic, frenzied, fuming, furious, impassioned, impetuous, incensed, irrepressible, mad, maddened, nervous, overwrought, panic-stricken, passionate, possessed, rabid, raging, rampant, raving, seething, spasmodic, tempestuous, turbulent, uncontrollable, uncontrolled, unnerved, unrestrained, uproarious, vehement, violent, wild, worked up.

None of these have the unfortunate history (and present-day meaning) the word “hysterical” has. Now you need not worry your pretty little head trying to come up with a new word, precious.

Seems like a few people here are coming off their meds too quickly.

Yep. You beat me, Chap. I brought nothing to the game, and your superior skills defeated my weak, silly arguments.

Really, I should have never had the temerity to challenge you in light of your overwhelming rhetorical gifts…

mikey

Skipping past my prior link again, The American Chap?

Gosh…….I was so defeated by the notion that one party has had occasion, in the past, to invite members of the other party to their cabinet …that I’ve been crying like a puppy!

So, I’m taking it that you finally concede the absurdly unargueable point that Obama is talking about bringing GOPers into his cabinet and that he’s getting his foreign policy advice from that dickhead, Colin Powell? Fine, so we can move on to the point that AFTER THE REPUBLICANS STOLE THE ELECTIONS OF 2000 AND 2004, EVERYTHING CHANGED.

Or maybe that point just whoosed right over your head? Yeah, Bill Clinton reached across the aisle and invited tome GOPers into his cabinet and they fuckin’ IMPEACHED him for a blowjob!! Who in the fuck gives a bloody shit whether Bush invited some lame-ass Dems into his cabinet GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE DEMS SURRENDERED TO HIM, EN MASSE. Don’t entertain the fantasy that you can defend this bullshit of Barry’s when we should be working to put EVERY GOP mutherfukker into prison.

Maybe you didn’t get this aspect of politics but…….there’s a reason why we split up into “teams”. It’s because we believe in VERY different things. Now, Lugar and Hegal and the rest of the reported group are members of the GOP and they ain’t leavin’. If they believed the same basic things that you and I do, they would be DEMOCRATS…get it? I don’t give a shit of what their reps are, they call themselves Republicans for a good fucking reason. And because of that, IN MY HUMBLE FUCKING OPINION, it is asinine to be considering them for a Democratic cabinet, not in THESE days, not after the SHIT that those assholes have pulled again and again and again and fucking again.

Am I going too fast for you?

Because if my concern about this makes ME a fucking troll, then we as a party and we as a nation are in some deep fucking shit. My heretofore silent question is “just how far are you going to let him go with this shit?”. At what point do you look at what Barry is doing and say WHAT THE FUCK DUDE?? What if he suddenly says that in the interest of reaching across the aisle, that he’s going to pick Dick Lugar as his Vice President? At that point will you be lecturing me like a constipated schoolmarm about how this is a GOOD thing and I’m a troll for questioning it? How about if he says “Our long national nightmare is over and we have more pressing concerns than the criminal prosecution of Bush/Cheney”? Are you going to lie back and take THAT shit, just like you took “Impeachment is off the table”??

You saps had better get a fucking grip. Just because you back someone doesn’t mean that you abandon any notion of forging his policies and actions, like you zombies seem to have done with your guy. Wake the fuck up….have you lost track of just how psyched you were that the Dems were going to take back Congress in 2006? And how crushed you felt when they waved the white flag to the Republican minority? You still have a chance to change Barry’s moronic “let’s kiss and make up with the GOP” nonsense by applying pressure now……or aren’t you allowed to do that when you become a part of the Obama hive?

(heh)………..you fucking pussies.

Seriously, That American Chap, whatever it is you’re trying to do here just isn’t working. Screaming won’t help. Can’t we all just . . . you know?

And for what it’s worth, I’m not looking for any “buyers” bro…….I’m just bewildered as to how signing on to this “Yes, we can!” horseshit causes normally bright folk to lose all sense of personal direction.

(heh)………..you fucking pussies.

Anything else need to be said?

Fuck you, boy….

mikey

Thanks for proving my point, That American Chap.

I’d say, nice performance, but really you’ve been more long-winded and boring than annieangel/shoelimpy and any other number of trolls we’ve had about the place.

Really, I should have never had the temerity to challenge you in light of your overwhelming rhetorical gifts…

That’s big of you, Mikey. Thanks for that.

I’d say, nice performance, but really you’ve been more long-winded and boring than annieangel/shoelimpy and any other number of trolls we’ve had about the place.

Rather put me in mind of Kevin in regard to the long-winded thing.. I still think it’s tde, though. Sounds exactly the same.

C’mon dudes, you may not like *****, but (s)he’s not insane/stupid/evil.
Hmm…where have I heard this argument before…

Imagine, for a moment that That American Chap isn’t really a troll. Imagine that he simply has a different point of view. Imagine that it’s not a popular point of view, locally.

Let me start again.
Imagine, for a moment that That American Chap isn’t intentionally a troll.

Let me start again.
Imagine, for a moment that That American Chap has a testosterone level equal to your.

Candy said,

We need a better noun for “a number of trolls”.

A “collective of trolls”? Well that doesn’t sound quite right. But you see what I’m getting at.

Fuck you, boy….

Or, in translation: “I can’t ague that”.

That’s cool, Mikey, I realize it’s tough to acknowledge that the position you’ve been investing yourself in has been in error. Whatever. As long as you get the point, I’m ok with this.

A “boggle” of trolls?

A “coagulation” of trolls?

A “curdling” of trolls?

It seems to me that there’d be some tactical advantage to pulling three goopers out of the senate, but what does a fucking pussy like me know?

Well, I do know that treating unsubstantiated rumors as undeniable facts, particularly when in the midst of a heated political campaign, is kinda stupid. I also know that I shouldn’t feed the trolls, so I guess we’re back to “What do I know?”

“coagulation” sound good, and “curdling” And what about a “clot” of trolls?

If only we had Linden’s thesaurus… But perhaps he’ll step in to this discussion, so that I won’t have to worry my “pretty little head trying to come up with a new word”

A drooling of trolls.

#

That Ameican Chap said,

March 23, 2008 at 3:27

Fuck you, boy….

Or, in translation: “I can’t ague that”.

That’s cool, Mikey, I realize it’s tough to acknowledge that the position you’ve been investing yourself in has been in error. Whatever. As long as you get the point, I’m ok with this.

So you’ll go away now?

mikey

Uh, folks, you might want to recall this.

What a lovely bunch of coconuts!

Djur, that was a great link.

Well, I do know that treating unsubstantiated rumors as undeniable facts, particularly when in the midst of a heated political campaign, is kinda stupid.

Yeah, umm…that “unsubstatiated rumors” thing? It was started by Barry and his folks and in several different times and places (and various GOPers). We’ve pretty much gotten past this issue, guy. What we’re up to at this point is awaiting the grudging admission that these positions ought to be going to Dems and that it’s way stupid of Barry to play the “I want to work with the Republicans” game at this particular point in history.

Or is there someone out there who still clings to the idea that Barry’s got a great idea, that we Dems should go out of our way to empower Republicans after all that’s happened? Anyone? Speak up and we’ll exorcise those devils, right quick.

Gary said,

Djur, that was a great link.

Was it great when I linked it?

All republicans, including Lieberman, should stand in line, bowl in hand.

Or is there someone out there who still clings to the idea that Barry’s got a great idea, that we Dems should go out of our way to empower Republicans after all that’s happened? Anyone? Speak up and we’ll exorcise those devils, right quick.

I don’t see anyone empowering rethuglicans on this thread but you, That American Chap. You seem unfamiliar with the U.S. politics, by the way. You wouldn’t happen to be from Australia, would you?

I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton. You can ream me out all you want if you’re into that kind of thing. Obama loses and, at best I go and vote for Nader. I think at this point, if I have to explain why I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton, it isn’t worth explaining.

I don’t see anyone empowering rethuglicans on this thread but you, That American Chap.

Ahhh……..so you’re disavowing that shit downthread where you were showing how common it’s been to have the other party in one’s cabinet? ‘Cause that looks more than a little bit like you were buying into that and were thus, EMPOWERING REPUBLICANS.

You disavow that, right?

Somehow missed the first link. But the link goes directly to what some of us are worried about. After almost 8 years of this incomprenhendable, law breaking, fuck the common person-we’ll do what we want bullshit, talk about aisle crossing makes me very uncomfortable. I say no republican anywhere in a dem cabinet. Also, talk about ideas and values is nice, but it doesn’t get things done. When Barack takes the White House, I want him to tell the rrepublicans to take a hike. We’re the adults and we’ll do this ourselves.

Funny, Chap, I can’t seem to google up a link to any quote from Obama saying he’s planning to put Republicans in his cabinet. Oh, I’ve found a (London) Times Online article that says it for him, but the only quotes from Obama are, “Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much” and “I think America deserves the best person for every job and so we are going to be canvassing far and wide if I am fortunate enough to be elected.” Oh, the TImes says something about unnamed “senior advisers” saying Hagel is “considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary,” and Larry Korb, who used to work for Reagan but now backs Obama, sounds like he would like to see Hagel as SecDef; but nothing like that from the candidate himself.

So where exactly is the transcript where Obama, as you put it initially, “has stated that he’s thinking of putting three (so far) Republicans in his cabinet (Hegal, Schwarzenegger and Lugar)”?

That American Chap said,

You disavow that, right?

Not even a nice try, simpleton. The folks who read and post at Sadly, No! are not FAUX News/New York Post style dittoheads.

You’ve been completely discredited, and respond by flinging more poo.

Unsurprising, but it doesn’t work here.

When Barack takes the White House, I want him to tell the rrepublicans to take a hike. We’re the adults and we’ll do this ourselves.

Well, then, Gary, you ought to toss your hat in the ring for 2012. ‘Cause Obama’s already got his team and his agenda figured out, and I’ve got some bad news for you.

He doesn’t give a shit what you want.

One of Three people are going to be elected the next american president. None of them are named gary. So you maybe oughta start lobbying, or start running. Because you ain’t gonna be the next president of the united states, and you ain’t gonna be the dude setting the agenda.

Sorry I had to be the one to break it to you….

mikey

Thanks, Linden,

If I were to call anyone “overwrought” it would likened to calling them hysterical. This is why overwrought is an accurate synonym. “Hsyterical” tends to be taken as overcome or irrational with emotion. Berserk doesn’t mean that. Agitated doesn’t work because it’s not strong enough. Beside oneself is acceptable, but can still be taken as sexist, being that for anyone to be overcome by emotion, our sexist society takes it as feminine. Blazing doesn’t work. Carried away works, but suffers identical problems. Convulsive doesn’t work sounds like one is seizing. Crazed or crazy doesn’t quite seem specific. Delirious is not accurate- if one is delirious, one is not necessarily hypersensitive or reactive. Distracted doesn’t work. Distraught works, but again any sort of emotional description can be viewed as sexist.

emotional, excited, fiery, frantic, frenzied, fuming, furious, impassioned, impetuous, incensed, irrepressible, mad, maddened, nervous, overwrought, panic-stricken, passionate, possessed, rabid, raging, rampant, raving, seething, spasmodic, tempestuous, turbulent, uncontrollable, uncontrolled, unnerved, unrestrained, uproarious, vehement, violent, wild, worked up.

I could go on forever, but it seems like you have a trigger about the word “hysterical” and therefore are rabid about any disagreements about the term. I would not call any woman hysterical in an argument on the internet. I would call the entire class of Obama/Clinton concern trolls that see nothing but their own identifications with the candidates and have lost their grips on their minds, both male and female, hysterical. This has nothing to do with sexism. The word vagina is derived from the word for scabbard as in a sheath for a sword. This is a terribly sexist way to define a body part. We still use it as a medical term. The word penis comes from the word for tail.

If you read my post, I was arguing that you were both correct and incorrect, and like mikey, I am careful in how I use the word.

Since in our current patriarchy any implication of emotion can be termed a dog-whistle to sexism, I’m not sure where the rest of your synonyms are going to get us in the end.

hysteria in the OED

1. Path. A functional disturbance of the nervous system, characterized by such disorders as anæsthesia, hyperæsthesia, convulsions, etc., and usually attended with emotional disturbances and enfeeblement or perversion of the moral and intellectual faculties. (Also called colloquially hysterics.)
Women being much more liable than men to this disorder, it was originally thought to be due to a disturbance of the uterus and its functions: cf. hysteric and the Ger. term mutterweh. Former names for the disease were vapours and hysteric(al) passion.

(My emphasis)

Should be noted that the word didn’t originally mean, simply, the uterus. In Greek medical theory, the condition was associated with a detached and “floating” uterus.

The Times article quotes his senior advisors with regards to Hagel and Lugar and………I’m pretty sure that he would’ve clarified that if it’d been wrong, no? I mean, that’d be a sort of “out of control” campaign if he hadn’t signed off on something that big or denied it if it weren’t true.

As to Ahr-nold, I picked a link at random: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/obama-says-hed.html

“Obama Says He’d Consider Arnold For His Cabinet

ABC’s Sunlen Miller Reports: Barack Obama has often said he’d consider putting Republicans in his cabinet and even bandied about names like Sens. Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel. He’s a added a new name to the list of possible Republicans cabinet members – Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Obama regularly says he would look to Republicans to fill out his cabinet if he was elected, but at a town hall event in Manchester, N.H., he was pushed to name names.

“It’s premature for me to start announcing my cabinet. I mean, I’m pretty confident. but I’m not all that confident. We still got a long way to go,” Obama said.

But then the GOP names started to flow.

Sen. Dick Lugar: “He’s a Republicans who I worked with on issues of arms control, wonderful guy. He is somebody I think embodies the tradition of a bipartisan foreign policy that is sensible, that is not ideological, that is based on the idea that we have to have some humility and restraint in terms of our ability to project power around the world,” Obama said about his Senate colleague.

Sen. Chuck Hagel: “A Vietnam vet, similar approach and somebody I respect in a similar fashion,” Obama added.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: “What (he’s) doing on climate change in California is very important and significant. There are things I don’t agree with him on, but he’s taken leadership on a very difficult issue and we haven’t seen that kind of leadership in Washington,” Obama said of the California governor”.

This is fairly redundant Dan, he’s clearly talking to people about bringing these assholes into his cabinet, I’m just curious as to why his borg is so “ok” with it when they ought to be holding him to a “No Republicans, ever” rule.

Perhaps you should look up the verb “quote” in the dictionary.

That would be if you were anything but the troll you’ve proven yourself to be.

Hey mikey, you sound like you belong to the party of ideas.

Perhaps you should look up the verb “quote” in the dictionary.

Are you claiming that the statements that have been made about how he has “often said he’d consider putting Republicans in his cabinet” is in any way in error? Because this is getting spread EVERYWHERE and it would be criminally neglegent to leave this perception go unaddressed, right? So maybe you can show me somewhere (anywhere) that his campaign has “corrected” this perception?

I mean, given all that’s taken place, plenty of people are mighty concerned about this and yet you hold to the notion that it’s not true? Really? How do you breathe with your head buried in the sand?

Troll.

My goodness.

I remain unconvinced.

Maybe if you’d just shout a little louder.

Yeah. That’d probably do the trick.

‘Cause yeah. It’s not like you have any kind of an agenda here.

You’re not trying to get us to change our minds. Oh no.

You just think this is knowledge we should have.

And hey, we THANK you for that.

Asshole….

mikey

I’m not backing Obama based on some hope for revenge. Hell, I’m barely backing Obama, he just seems like the best choice of the three we have.

None of your quotes include Obama saying he will have any Repukes in his cabiinet, just that he’s “considering” it. At this point in the campaign, that doesn’t mean a god damn thing. That said, I think he probably will have one or two. I think Clinton would too.

Maybe a campaign that’s explicitly about destroying Repugs will make your loins stiffen, but your average voter wouldn’t care for it. A great deal of Obama’s electability comes from the fact that he pulls in support from independents and disillusioned Repugs. Why would he throw that away on the off chance that people like you will support him? You won’t. They will.

Now, can you provide any evidence that Clinton won’t appoint any Repugs to her cabinet? Of course you can’t. The cabinets haven’t been picked yet.

Seriously though, I don’t care. I’m not a Democrat. It won’t hurt my feelings if the last two decent Repugs are included in Obama’s administration. I’m voting in self-defense, not for petty revenge.

I’m very concerned.

My concern is off teh charts. What if Obama said something nice about a Republican who said Bush/McCain’s Iraq debacle was, in fact, a debacle?

Why, I’d clutch my pearls, I would. I’m sure Hillary would only appoint Democratic anti-war types to her cabinet. Why, she’s got so many of them on her campaign staff.

This is why she voted against the war in Iraq. And her vast experience is why she wasn’t tricked by the tricky republican, shrub, into voting for it.

Now, I’m done with you, troll. You’ve not been honest. I actually bothered to respond to some of your alleged points, but predictably you’ve responded with poo.

Fuck off.

The Times article quotes his senior advisors with regards to Hagel and Lugar and………I’m pretty sure that he would’ve clarified that if it’d been wrong, no? I mean, that’d be a sort of “out of control” campaign if he hadn’t signed off on something that big or denied it if it weren’t true.

The Times article doesn’t “quote” any senior advisers except Larry Korb, although it does refer to (unnamed) senior advisers and reports that they said Hagel is “considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary.” So it’s an unsourced statement, and one that doesn’t say Obama actually intends to put Hagel or Lugar or any specific person in the cabinet. So what exactly should he deny? I think he’s been pretty explicit that he likes Hagel.

He has also been pretty clear about his intentions: if he is president, he will appoint a cabinet based on merit, and not exclude anybody simply because of party affiliation.

More to the point, I guess, he has been crystal clear that it’s premature to be discussing his cabinet. And just as it is too early to say who is going to be in his cabinet, it is too early to say who is not going to be. Those sorts of questions should wait at least until he’s the nominee, don’t you think? (I note that the Times article and these “statements” that have your panties so bunched are from early this month, when it looked a lot like Obama was going to be the presumptive nominee. At this point, with the outcome of the primary season much more uncertain, it is obviously even less appropriate for either Democratic candidate to be discussing cabinet appointments.)

This is fairly redundant Dan, he’s clearly talking to people about bringing these assholes into his cabinet, I’m just curious as to why his borg is so “ok” with it when they ought to be holding him to a “No Republicans, ever” rule.

Hmm… So now you’re telling Obama supporters what they “ought” to be thinking.

Seriously, though, why should there be a “No Republicans, ever” rule? I know a lot of Republican voters, some of whom are fairly active in the party, and contrary to stereotype, they are not all Evil Thugs. I’d venture to say that not even all Republican Congresspersons, governors or high-level politicos are Evil Thugs.

The Bush Administration and its supporters, especially the “conservative” punditry, have shown the way to paint vast swathes of people with a broad brush, to demonize and dehumanize one’s political opponents. I would hope Democrats truly looking for a change would have avoided taking that lesson to heart.

‘Cause yeah. It’s not like you have any kind of an agenda here.

You’re not trying to get us to change our minds. Oh no.

Dude? Am I trying to get you to notice that Barry’s talking about putting thugs in his cabinet? Hell yeah. Is that an agenda? I dunno……..is trying to stop the war an agenda? Yeah? And we both have it? Yeah? So….what?

Look, cling to your prickiness about this and deny it ever happened, whatever. Me, I’m going to do whatever I can to try to change this shit. It’s either that or lie back and let these jackoffs roll me, again.

What is it with your borg? You can’t tolerate ANY debate or dissent in the ranks, can you?

Fucking pussies.

We just stick to rational debate.

Sorry.

Go away….

mikey

What is it with your borg? You can’t tolerate ANY debate or dissent in the ranks, can you?

How unpredictable!

4) Now we’re getting to this part: full on Dennis the Peasant mode: See the violence inherent in the sytem! Poor That American Chap is being repressed!

5) Sadly shake your head and decide you’re going to vote for Hillary or McCain, all because of those insane and naive Sadly, No!sians.

I’m voting in self-defense, not for petty revenge.

Yeah, well bro…..I don’t regard starting a war for oil that kills a million Iraqi citizens and 4000 American soldiers “petty”, but that’s just me, I guess.

You vote for your reasons and I’ll vote for mine, but if we’re going to hang onto the tiniest thread of justice, Republicans need to go to trial, a big fucking group of ’em.

So Chapwagon,

Don’t vote for Obama, but if Obama goes up against McCain, what are you gonna do?

The only argument that matters is X vs. McCain.

Yeah, I’d prefer Arnold weren’t in a Cabinet, but Arnold would be an improvement on almost any Bush Cabinet member bar none.

I will vote for the Democratic candidate only if it does not have three heads.

OK, that’s not true. I no longer consider head count a relevant criterion.

The Times article doesn’t “quote” any senior advisers except Larry Korb… (snip)

You know, it’s pretty fucking funny how you’d be nailing Hillary to the wall for this, direct, unambiguous quote or not. I repeat, FIND ME A STATEMENT FROM THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN (it doesn’t even need to be a “quote” from Obama himself) WHERE THESE REPEATED ASSERTIONS ARE DISAVOWED.

A hellovealotta Dems feel the way that I do (No Thugs in Dem positions) and the Obama campaign would hardly let this notion sit out there without denial unelss it were true. Why in the fuck do you imagine that at different places and times, he’s talking about putting different Republicans into cabinet slots?

This is something that Barry seems to think is a “winning idea”. Disabuse him of this horseshit, bro.

Don’t vote for Obama, but if Obama goes up against McCain, what are you gonna do?

Oh, for fuck’s sake, READ THE THREAD, bro! If Barry’s our man, I’ll be voting for him, get it? I just don’t want any thugs being given the highest positions in the land, not after the bullshit that’s happened over the last half a century or so. You dig?

Dood. Your forehead’s gonna explode.

Take a deep breath.

Take off the tinfoil hat.

Maybe even put some pants on over the food crusted bathrobe.

You’re embarrassing me and your sisters….

mikey

Yeah, well bro…..I don’t regard starting a war for oil that kills a million Iraqi citizens and 4000 American soldiers “petty”, but that’s just me, I guess.

No shit. I didn’t realize that Obama was considering Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz for his cabinet.

I’m still waiting to see any evidence at all that Clinton’s choices will be better, but then I have almost as much hatred for the DLC as I do for Repukes, so a promise than she’ll only choose Dems (which she hasn’t made, AFAIK) means jack shit to me.

My point is that many of us are not arguing with you about your assertions, brah, the only thing we care about is for people to STFU about burning down the house because they actually believe the other candidate is some nefarious cobag.

Bush ran on the “Uniter not a Divider” and it was entirely bullshit. If Obama wants to offer Arnold a cabinet position knowing that it would be suicide for Arnold within the Republican party, that’s fine by me. As long as he’s on a short leash.

Given that the government has been entirely politicized and filled with operatives and hacks, and retiring and demotion of the majority of non-crazy generals, it might not be the worst idea on the fucking planet to have Hagel at Defense for political cover for dealing with that mess. The SecDef does what the boss tells him to. He’s an employee.

Think about it.

You know, it’s pretty fucking funny how you’d be nailing Hillary to the wall for this, direct, unambiguous quote or not.

You know, it’s pretty fucking funny how you think you know what I “would” be doing in any hypothetical situation.

A hellovealotta Dems feel the way that I do (No Thugs in Dem positions) and the Obama campaign would hardly let this notion sit out there without denial unelss it were true. Why in the fuck do you imagine that at different places and times, he’s talking about putting different Republicans into cabinet slots?

Again, I ask you, what exactly would you have him deny? He has said he would seek the best qualified people for his cabinet regardless of party affiliation. So I don’t doubt for a second that there is a possibility that a President Obama would have a Republican or two or three in his cabinet, because I am capable of believing that there may be highly qualified people out there in the Republican party. Maybe you’re not. Maybe you believe that anybody with an R after their name in the roll call should be expelled from public service entirely just because of that scarlet letter. (Hey, it worked really well in Iraq when we made them expel all that Ba’athists, didn’t it? Remember how great that was?)

So far, I’ve not seen any suggestion that he would put Pat Robertson in as Sec of Education, or Bill Frist as Sec of HHS, or Grover Norquist in Treasury. If he — or even his unnamed senior advisers — says something as stupid or malevolent as that, then come back and shriek at me some more.

Also, how many is a “hellovealotta Dems”? (Leave aside that if Republicans are appointed to cabinet positions, then they are by definition not “Dem positions.”) And are these the people who will vote for McCain or sit out the election if Hillary isn’t nominated? Fuck them. Fuck them in the ass with a rusty chainsaw. You want to talk about “borg,” worthy of contempt? It’s the mindless drones who would rather hand the country to the Republicans for another 4-8 years than vote for their preferred Democratic nominee. (And in at least one poll, the crowd that was by far more inclined to that attitude was the HRC supporters, not the Obamistas.)

You say you’re not in that crowd. Well, bully for you. You’ve made your point, and we all understand that you are clutching your pearls and swooning at the notion that Obama might cross the party borders to fill some of his cabinet. Now why don’t you lie down on that settee, and we’ll bring you some smelling salts and weak tea.

No shit. I didn’t realize that Obama was considering Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz for his cabinet.

No? We’ll he’s using COLIN FUCKING POWELL for his foreign policy advice (WTF?????). Any part of this being a Republican war that you don’t grasp?

Not being a Clintonite, I haven’t a clue as to what her plans are, but one thing’s for certain, she’s not going around talking about how bodacious Reagan was and how she’d like to fill her cabinet with GOP pals…is she?

If Obama wants to offer Arnold a cabinet position knowing that it would be suicide for Arnold within the Republican party, that’s fine by me.

Well, we clearly differ on this. There is a shitload of incredible Dems that have been marginalized by the Democratic establishment (you know, the folks were right about the war in SPITE of the DNC) who ought to be getting those positions, not GOP lifers. How is that too much for you cats to get a handle on? WTF is up with Barry making nice with these asswipes from hell?

Again, I ask you, what exactly would you have him deny? He has said he would seek the best qualified people for his cabinet regardless of party affiliation.

Which is utterly fucked. Why the fuck is it that Dems always agree to disarmament when THEY’RE in power? Dumbfucks.

Maybe you believe that anybody with an R after their name in the roll call should be expelled from public service entirely just because of that scarlet letter.

Duh! You think?

Anyone who clings to the sobriquet of “Republican” does it for a reason, and that reason doesn’t have shit to do with the good of mankind. It’s a boys club for a self-imagined elite whose sole purpose in life is to fleece someone else. End of story.

It’s the mindless drones who would rather hand the country to the Republicans for another 4-8 years than vote for their preferred Democratic nominee.

Dude, listen to yourself…..please.

You’ve made your point

Dude, if I’d made my point you’d be thanking me for having done so.

Anyone who clings to the sobriquet of “Republican” does it for a reason, and that reason doesn’t have shit to do with the good of mankind. It’s a boys club for a self-imagined elite whose sole purpose in life is to fleece someone else. End of story.

*sigh*
This is exactly the kind of talk that gives the “centrists” and the wingers cover to call the political left hateful. Yes, such rhetoric can be useful in moving the Overton Window in our favored direction.

But not when its effect is to help lame a nominee for President! Go back and read Joe Max’s comments about the cycle of disinformation the right plants on us. Recognize that right or wrong you are parrotting a right-wing talking point. And that maybe that’s not the most helpful thing you could be doing in the service of stopping the runaway train that is the GOP grip on power.

BREAKING THAT GRIP IS JOB ONE, Chap. A fracturing of the Dem voter base hinders our chances of getting there. And whether you’re a “faithful” voter yourself or not, lending credence to and assisting in the propagation of winger memes helps the wingers, not the left.

Think about that. Just think about it.

I think BO is playing a game. I think he knows that 35 percent of the electorate is out of his range. He’s playing for the 10 percent of marshmallows that decide to vote based on their special tingling that day. If I could have a Cab of Gore, Feingold and Dodd, I’d do it. I don’t like Barack’s game, but it is possible that he’s smarter than me. Presidents love to offer one or two Secs to members of the other party, likely mostly a game of who do we want to commit political suicide for sport, or whose image as a bipartisan we’d like to expose as lies. If Obama says he is somewhere on policy, I think that policy will be carried out to the extent that he can accomplish it. With under 60 Senators, there must be some other form of leverage. I think BO is playing for all the marbles. He’s playing for leverage. If I’m wrong, then we’re fucked, but I think it is a gamble that reasonable people, dealing with certain realities, may take. It does not demand agreement, only understanding.

Not being a Clintonite, I haven’t a clue as to what her plans are, but one thing’s for certain, she’s not going around talking about how bodacious Reagan was and how she’d like to fill her cabinet with GOP pals…is she?

No, but neither is Obama. At most, you can draw a credible conclusion that he would consider putting a few Republicans in his cabinet, not that he wants to fill it with “GOP pals.” Also, he never said Reagan was “bodacious,” nor even admirable. Here’s what he originally said:

I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the ’60s and the ’70s, you know, government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating, and I think people just tapped into — he tapped into what people were already feeling, which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism, and, and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing.

Here’s what he said in the debate after that, when Clinton prodded him about it:

Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda – an agenda that I objected to.

Oh, and by the way, can you guess who Tom Brokaw is talking about here:

She prefers the godfather of the modern conservative movement, Ronald Reagan. He was, she says, ‘a child of the Depression, so he understood it [economic pressures on the working and middle class]. When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully.’

Which candidate “admires” Reagan more?

You really seem to have have done a great job memorizing all the anti-Obama talking points and canards. Have you signed up for the swiftboating crew yet?

“coagulation” sound good, and “curdling” And what about a “clot” of trolls?

If only we had Linden’s thesaurus… But perhaps he’ll step in to this discussion, so that I won’t have to worry my “pretty little head trying to come up with a new word”

of all the possibilities, a “murder of trolls” sounds reasonable to me.

A small drive-by note:

A supporter of the Democratic party voting against Hilary because of Hilary’s campaign, or voting against Obama because of Obama’s campaign, is a view I disagree with, but one I can understand.

Voting against Hilary or Obama because of Hilary’s or Obama’s supporters is really /headdesk-ing stupid.

Every cause on the internet has some complete mouth-breathing ignoramuses supporting it. This cannot in any way be used as a method of determining the validity of the cause. Go down that path, and you’re like the sensible liberals who supported the Iraq war purely because communists and filthy hippies disagreed with it.

This is exactly the kind of talk that gives the “centrists” and the wingers cover to call the political left hateful.

Friend, the shit-storm that began on Inauguration Day 2000 has been so intense and so relentless that any concerns that the fuck-wads of the DLC and other so-called “centrists” might have about me sounding “hateful” have completely vaporized. The Republicans seem to have had a conscious plan to overload us with so many outrages that we would have no way to keep up with it, we’d simply stay in a constant state of frozen shock, because that’s exactly what happened. It’s really just tough shit that you find my description over the top because I haven’t come anywhere close to describing just how low and criminal those assholes are as a class. And for what it’s worth, we aren’t going to lose this election because those of us on the Left dare to tell it like it is about Republican slime-balls, we’re going to lose it because they’re going to steal it again while limp-dicks like yourself are worrying about appearing courteous.

Fucking pussies.

Which candidate “admires” Reagan more?

You really seem to have have done a great job memorizing all the anti-Obama talking points and canards. Have you signed up for the swiftboating crew yet?

How many time do I have to repeat that I don’t like either Obama or Clinton? I can only snicker at the way that they ended up being our choices when they ranked at the bottom of the crowd for me. Neither of them ought to be rimming Reagan’s corpse the way they have been, but as far as I know, at least Hillary hasn’t been talking about filing a major chunk of her cabinet with Republicans. That, as you might guess, is a mighty small favor in my book.

That being said, I’ll also repeat that if Obama get’s the nod, I’ll be voting for him, in spite of this shit.

Maybe you believe that anybody with an R after their name in the roll call should be expelled from public service entirely just because of that scarlet letter.

Anyone who clings to the sobriquet of “Republican” does it for a reason, and that reason doesn’t have shit to do with the good of mankind. It’s a boys club for a self-imagined elite whose sole purpose in life is to fleece someone else. End of story.

Nice. Point out for me, if you can, all the myriad ways that your mind-set differs from that of the people you purport to despise. For your convenience, the winger examples follow in the parentheses.

Insistence on seeing the world in black-and-white terms? (Ex: Global War on Terror)
Check.

Use of emotionally charged cusswords and epithets in place of actual thinking? (Viz: LIEbruls, libtards, etc.)
Check.

Micro-focusing in on one issue to the exclusion of all else, patting yourself on the back for hoisting a perceived victory garland? (See: Jamil Hussein)
Check.

Want me to keep going?

Thanks so very, very much for coming here and enlightening us “Hive-minded Obama borg-bots” about what it is that we should instead mindlessly drone whilst we meander through our lives, slack-jawed. Your concern trolliness is noted and busted. In the future, please at least try to do some research before loading up the rusted blunderbuss of your intellect; we don’t roll like that here.

Buh-bye.

Want me to keep going?

(heh) It’s your dime, pal…wail away all you want. Seriously. Because the shit you’ve come up with so far hasn’t made a frikkin’ dent.

Thanks so very, very much for coming here and enlightening us “Hive-minded Obama borg-bots” about what it is that we should instead mindlessly drone whilst we meander through our lives, slack-jawed.

Yer welcome, dickweed. Maybe, just maybe, you pussies will eventually grasp the notion that just because you’re backing Barry doesn’t strip away your right to push him in the direction you think he should go. Believe it or not, your guy isn’t perfect (as this asinine idea of talking about putting Repukes in his administration shows) and even an ordinary guy like me or you can still steer him right. What part of this clogs the intestines of your borg? I’ve never seen a group of Democrats as sensitive to *any* criticism as Obamaites ( just look at the gallery of freak-outs downthread where one after another REFUSE to acknowledge what the man has said repeatedly). I can’t help but giggle cynically at the mind-melt you fukkers are gonna go through if Barry ends up chosing Hillary as his VP!! Deal with it, my wild dudes and dudettes.

With that, I must sign off….the sun is going down in my part of the world and I’m off to a party. Ciao!

I can’t help but giggle cynically at the mind-melt you fukkers are gonna go through if Barry ends up chosing Hillary as his VP!!

Hey, Chappie, wanna know a secret? I would be perfectly fine with Obama choosing Clinton as his running mate. I also happen to think it won’t happen, for a variety of reasons, not least that I am doubtful she would accept the second banana slot.

I’ve never seen a group of Democrats as sensitive to *any* criticism as Obamaites…

And yet, the only poll on the subject that I’ve seen so far shows that Hillary’s supporters are more likely to refuse to vote for Obama than vice versa. Which side is the “borg” here?

By the way, I suspect that people here aren’t so much sensitive to “criticism” as they are to being called “limp-dicks,” “pussies” and all the other cute little nicknames you’ve bandied about in this thread for anybody who doesn’t have the same bug up their ass as you do about ZOMG OBAMA IZ THNKIN REPUBLIKIN CABNETZ MEMBRZ!!!!ELEVENTYONE!!! See, some of us are capable of having a disagreement without calling each other names.

Just like some of us are capable of accepting the idea that blind, unthinking partisanship is a problem with politics today, and that the next Democratic president had damn well better be more interested in fixing what the Bush Administration and the right wing have done to this country than in getting some sort of “revenge” for being out of power for eight years.

HRC would be better than McCain as stated above, but in the long run, look what the reaction to the Clintons did to bring in the era of Tom Delay. I’d rather have a McCain than a delay. McCain isn’t a neocon, trigger happy yes, but not the slimy, amoral neocon.

“Yer welcome, dickweed. Maybe, just maybe, you pussies will eventually grasp the notion that just because you’re backing Barry doesn’t strip away your right to push him in the direction you think he should go. Believe it or not, your guy isn’t perfect (as this asinine idea of talking about putting Repukes in his administration shows)”

Obama’s idea may not be half bad, Lincoln pulled it off.

McCain isn’t a neocon, trigger happy yes, but not the slimy, amoral neocon.

Well, trigger-happy and willing (even eager) to kowtow to the vilest aspects of the Republican base. Not a good combination, and one to be avoided at all costs, IMO.

The only thing worse than GOP running the show for the next 4 years would be Hillary: GOP policies with Dem packaging, giving cover for the past 8 years.
Call me defeatist, but I am tired of the cycle of GOP fucking shit up, people electing a Dem, that Dem getting blamed for everything and then the GOP getting re-elected. I want people to realize who exactly fucks shit up, and people have been dumbed down so that they buy the spin until things happen to them.
The cycle won’t change until more people are fucked by this shit storm.

The only thing worse than GOP running the show for the next 4 years would be Hillary: GOP policies with Dem packaging, giving cover for the past 8 years.

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.

It’s worse because then the blame for anything done wrong will fall on the Dem party.

Also something bad might happen as opposed to something good maybe not happening!!!

The Republicans and their massive noise machine will try to place any blame on the Democrats anyway, so there’s nothing new there. Look what happened when Bush started his program of dismantling the economic gains of the Clinton era: “Clinton recession” ring a bell? So no matter what the next Democratic president does, if he or she falls short of providing gold-plated sparkle ponies and perpetual motion machines for everyone, you can be sure that the GOP will be out there making sure everybody blames the Dems for everything going back to the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden.

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.

Dan,

I think you’re convincing me.

Given her record, I’m not sure that there would be anything good coming from her Imperial Reign.

Rational case for voting McCain over HRC:

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.

Most insults against women refer to their sexuality (cunt, bitch, whore, ball-buster).

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

Fingal,

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

Rational case for voting McCain over HRC:

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.

Hillary can get away without supporting Obama. Reagan didn’t support Ford and he didn’t suffer for it.

If HRC loses to McCain in 2008, she won’t be back.

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.

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

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?

Fingal, you’ve gone from arguing that it would be better for McCain to beat Clinton to arguing that Obama is a better nominee than Clinton. Does that mean you realize your original point was silly and you don’t want to defend it or are you just fucking around with the goalposts like That (not actually an) American Chap?

If HRC loses to McCain in 2008, she won’t be back.

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?

The Democratic party can’t seem to find its purpose with both hands and a road map — having been given back a majority in 2006, it has spent the intervening time resolutely pissing it away, trying oh so hard to be oh so nice so as to avoid being called “partisan.” This is the legacy of the DLC, and HRC is part of that leadership.

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.

yeah, this is interesting. my hope is that anyone who will not vote for either of the candidates — by sitting at home or by even voting for McCain will take a step back and re-think their positions. it is selfish and adolescent.

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.

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.

Fingal, you’ve gone from arguing that it would be better for McCain to beat Clinton to arguing that Obama is a better nominee than Clinton. Does that mean you realize your original point was silly and you don’t want to defend it or are you just fucking around with the goalposts

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”).

As some have pointed out, sure, a certain number of HRC supporters will not be persuadable that the pony they were promised was not stolen by that uppity black fellow and his zombielike cultists. (A cult accused of being overly inclusive? WTF??? But I digress.)

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.