Perhaps you should remind the OP of that. Or the poster I was responding to. Or you could just read the fucking thread title, for that matter.
OP here. I’m sick of BOTH of them.
A few months back it was looking so good. The results of Republican governance had fully revealed themselves to the people, and they were disgusted. It seemed like getting a Democrat back in the presidency, along with control of the House and Senate was a foregone conclusion. Even the Republicans were talking that way, and their crop of candidates reinforced that idea.
Then, a portion of the Democratic voters decided, “Hey, wait a minute. We don’t want that. Let’s fuck ourselves over completely. Perhaps we can even get another Republican president in the bargain.”
But what could they do? It was all so clear that the country needed a Democrat to lead it out of the shitpile it was stuck in.
“Why don’t we sandbag one of the frontrunning Democratic candidates? Yeah, what a great idea. We can start talking shit out of our assholes about one of them, way before the general election, and that will give the media and the opposition a nice base to work on. We can try to demoralize other Democrats, like always, into thinking that their candidate is subpar.”
Fuck you all, you stupid, mindless fucks. You selfish, shit for brains silly cunts. I so hope you fail in your efforts.
Here, by the way, is a blog post from the Washington Monthly that describes how Obamaniacs may be jumping the shark. I hope it’s the case. As an Obama supporter and Democrat, I hope enough people start to recognize that there is a contingent of crazy fuckers on the loose, and they should be completely disregarded as such.
Here’s one from Atrios, speaking generally, I assume:
No. That’s not what I’m saying. I was responding to ElvisL1ves assertion that the Clinton years were years of peace and prosperity. They quite simply weren’t.
Of course it’s impossible to stop every injustice in this world. Our resources aren’t infinite. But that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to stop any injustice in this world. I would say that we have an obligation to stop genocide whenever reasonably possible. For example Rwanda. It was a genocide committed mostly through machetes and a professional army could have stopped it with very minimal loss. ElvisL1ves said in a previous post that even Bill Clinton considered it a mistake. On that point me and Bill Clinton agree. On what the penance should be for that caliber of a mistake we obviously disagree.
I would also say that we have an obligation to not start a conflict if our involvement will only make things worse, like in Iraq. How many deaths do the Clintons need under their belts before they realize that they aren’t very good at this?
We aren’t supposed to be the police of the world, but we are supposed to be concerned citizens in it. It is a delicate balance, and not an easy one, but that fact doesn’t excuse the Clintons from their mistakes.
Yeah, it’s a shame how Hillary continues to misrepresent Obama . I wish she’d stop too.
Hentor, was the first half of your post intentionally ambiguous as to which candidate you were referring to? Do you have any explanation for why most Democrats think the Clinton campaign has been more negative?
That is, as should be obvious, relative. Would you care to compare Bush’s record, either Bush’s, against Bill Clinton’s on either of those two points?
No? Then what is it that you abhor?
Yes? What facts have you considered and what have you dismissed?
Of course, this IS the Pit, you can vent pretty much all you want, but nobody has any reason to take you seriously about it.
I’m not defending Bush, either Bush. And really, if the best case you can make is that they’re better than Bush, maybe you should think about your position a bit more because that is one low fucking bar.
Not just better, but *vastly * better. If you prefer, you can use absolute standards instead of relative ones, and the *facts * will still point you to the same conclusion.
How old are you, anyway? What do you actually remember of life before Dubya? :dubious:
That’s precisely why I voted for Obama in the primaries. I mean, how stupid do you have to be to think Hillary Clinton is your best shot at securing the White House? I mean, really? Hillary Clinton? The most hated woman in America since Lizzie Borden? That’s our grand strategy? Is the DNC under the impression that elections are scored like golf, and the point is to get as few votes as possible?
Thank God a viable alternative showed up, and has a good chance of saving us from chapter three in the Democratic Trilogy of Failure. If Hillary gets the nom after all, I’ll probably stay home on election day. It’ll be the first time I’ve done that since I turned 18, but if this is the best my party can do, honestly, what the hell is the point of even trying?
Tell you what, I’ll agree. I’ve never disputed this and I don’t see how it’s even a factor in the discussion. But once again, it doesn’t take much. If the best thing you can say is ‘better than Bush’ you’re practically saying nothing at all.
I’m 29 and I remember quite a bit before Bush the Younger took office. Clinton was better than Reagan, better than Bush. You’ll get no argument from me on that point. But he still should have been better than he was and more importantly he could have got away with being better than he was. Rwanda still happened and where I guess Bush would have tried to make money from it Clinton only stood aside. +1 for Clinton I suppose but the end result is still a lot of people dead due to his lapse in judgment.
As for the Clinton that is currently running for president, she should have never voted for AUMF in Iraq, or Kyl-Lieberman. How do you justify those votes?
Well, do the Republicans’ work for them and amp up the message! She’s Lizzie Borden! Hillary Clinton is a notorious axe murderess!
You all are crazy stupid.
ETA: Hillary Clinton is blindly hated by the right. Clue stick for you: They’re not going to vote for her any fucking way. Stop trying to convince everyone else that they shouldn’t either, because she’s a notorious axe murderess!
ETA Again, since I’ve gotten all het up: Republican candidates have it easy: the Republican base will believe any smear about the Democrats. Democratic candidates have it much harder: much of their base will believe any smear about the Democrats too.
I’ll ask again, since you frothed over my last post: you claim that Hillary is getting unfairly smeared by Obama people. And yet, most Democrats, according to exit polls, disagree with you. They say Clinton is the one campaigning more unfairly. Are they just deluded? Do you think most Democrats are just sheep? Or are you just well off the deep end believing that message board posters have more of an effect than the candidates themselves?
I thought we played by different rules now. Smearing your opponent is what you do these days, isn’t it? Obama’s got no business in politics if he can’t hang, and he’s got no chance against Republicans who upped the ante years ago over the blow job fiasco. They’ll chew him up and spit him out.
One’s use of unsavory tactics does not correlate with one’s ability to withstand them. Or if it does, it correlates negatively.
Nice in theory, but a lot of Americans have selective hearing and limited attention spans.
He’s not doing nearly as much smearing but he seems to be winning just fine. You think the Republicans are going to find much to hit him with that his Democratic opponents didn’t? Do you really think Hillary would have found something nasty to say about him and then not said it? I’m going out on a limb here and guessing the Clinton campaign vetted him as thoroughly as possible and what you’ve heard so far is all there is.
I’ve said it before on this board but damn, this is a man that has come from nowhere to put the fucking Clintons on the ropes. Do you really and truly think he’s some wimp that can’t roll with whatever punches the republicans throw his way, or that he just doddered his way into his position? Either Obama is much smarter and tougher than you are giving him credit for, or Clinton is much more stupid and weak. I don’t see much room for middle ground given the results we’ve seen these past few months.
Yes, absolutely. I’m certain of it. Democrats are still relatively new at fighting dirty and they still pull their punches, although the Clintons have learned how it works.
I shudder to think the depths the Republicans will sink to but I’m certain they will and Obama-the-nice-dude can sit there and turn his cheek but I fear that doesn’t cut it these days.
Two observations:1) Exit polls suggest that people thought Clinton was campaigning unfairly, not that she was smearing, was an axe murderess, or was so bad that they would vote for John McCain instead.
- I’m quite sure that if you polled people in 2000, they would have said that Gore was more likely to shade the truth. In 2004 they would have said that Kerry was more of an effete bore with a shady military history. Developing a narrative and repeating it over and over is what these campaigns are all about. Apart from one comment from Bill Clinton after SC, there just hasn’t been any particularly terrible “smearing” going on. The shit has been hyped out of it, however, so I wouldn’t doubt that people would reply that the Clinton side has been unfair.
People need to get a size 14 grip on themselves.
You think a majority of Democrats believed both those things? I doubt it.