The primaries stopped mattering for him pretty quickly, whereas Hillary continues to be contested and continues to campaign. The only questions are whether he can 1) outcharm his way into the moderate vote and 2) turn the hard righties out come actual election time. I’m betting yes to the first one if Hillary wins the nom, since that woman couldn’t even charm her husband’s cock out of a fat chick.
And then a definite yes to the second for the same reasons put forth by Hentor et al. in this thread: ‘it’s for the good of the party/country, heil Great Leader XVI, please follow robot instructions now thank you because if you don’t the country’s going to hell.’ The difference being, of course, that during the last two elections that play was enough to put a Republican in office and keep him there, and lost it for the Dems both times. I can only surmise that the Pubs have more Hentors around to yell at the internet about the doom that awaits the world if they favor their independent judgment over the needs of the PARTY. :eek:
Ah Grossbottom so you acknowledge the simple fact that the Pubbie side does partisan loyalty better than do the Dems. Perhaps you’ll even get to the point where you see that the responses here are not about partisanship so much as they are about independent judgement about the needs of the country and the world.
I disagree with Shayna here about the differences between McCain and Hillary but I respect that she is making that choice that she sees no significant policy differences that on balance matter to her between the two. (Okay, I think that she is letting her distate of Hillary the person distort her interpretation of the policies that Hillary is promoting, which really are not too far off from those that Obama promotes. But she is entitled to her assessment.) And the rest of us who do not have Hillary as our first choice but would vote for her in a hypothetical situation despite our distaste for her are also making our own independent assessments about who would best serve those needs for the country and the world. I do not believe that McCain would. My reasons for that conclusion may differ from Hentor’s and may differ in intensity from his as well, but they are not based on blind party loyalty. The fact that we have less of that compared to the Pubbies is part of why we are always at a relative disadvantage.
And I’m failing to see how you would like me to empirically quantify leadership other than he has his party’s endorsement and is ready to enter the general election now, and Hillary is not. You may want this to degenerate into a McCain glorification session on my part, but I do not because he is not my candidate of choice. Do you understand that? Are there smaller words I can use to help you understand why I’m not a McCain cheerleader?
I’ve already said that leadership is by its nature a quality difficult to define. That is my opinion. You are free to have your own valid or invalid opinion. If you want my opinion to become an established, citable and demonstrable fact, cross your fingers for Hillary to win the nom, because she’s got the charisma of a shoebox and she will lose. If you honestly don’t get what that means, and the difference it makes to the electorate, then I am sorry, but it’s not at all surprising given the outcome of the last two elections.
Well you used it as your argument to support McCain over Clinton. I was just asking you to back up that assertion. Leadership can take many forms. I dismissed, and gave reasons for dismissing your claim that winning the republican primary somehow demonstrated his leadership. You can give any reasoning you want - I’m not looking for some hard evidence, or some chart with leadershipness and the candidates plotted on it. I’m just looking for some concerted thought into your assertion that McCain has demonstrable leadership qualities over Clinton. What’s with the defensiveness? I just asked for you to back up your view of McCain being a stronger leader.
I wasn’t aware there was any point to acknowledge. And in the end I must ask myself whether voting for the person capable of doing the least harm, whether by general ineptitude or blandly good intentions, is the best way to serve this world. This country needs someone to lead it, not put it to sleep.
It’s less defensiveness and more frustration. Someone says leadership and Democrats run around asking “leadership? what do you mean?” And then they lose the election. Twice now. Dude, you’re asking me to quantify the unquantifiable. What is sexy? What is art? What’s good food? Good music? I might not be able to describe them but these things do motivate an awful lot of human behavior. And something equally intangible would motivate me to stand in line for Obama, and it probably can motivate me to stand in line for McCain.
It will not do it for Hillary. I can see that clearly. I’d rather have my day back. And I’m not alone. Either you understand this, or you don’t. Nothing I can say will change that for you. Sorry.
Wow more distractions and no answers. Awesome. You’re the one that brought up leadership, not me. I just want you to clarify WHY you think McCain is a better leader. The ONE reason you gave I thought was weak, and explained why, in detail and asked you again to expound on McCain’s superior leadership abilities and since then you’ve basically been calling me dense for trying to get you to back up your assertion.
If it could be clarified you would be winning elections instead of losing them. If you understand nothing else, maybe you can grasp that much.
No, I’ve been apologizing because I lack the necessary skill to describe it. But now? Yes, I’m calling you dense. Because you clearly don’t get it, and the average American voter does. And given the educational level of the average American voter, that makes you, statistically-speaking, intellectually dense. And the fact that your side hasn’t won the last two elections against a CHIMPANZEE justifies that conclusion, even if the particulars evade a more precise description.
If someone honestly could not vote for Clinton, I would understand and respect that. But, and I realize my opinion doesn’t matter to you Shayna, only if they make a fully informed decision thay they can stand by in doing so. That means in realizing that McCain is not a stand-up straight-shooter whose policies appear identical with the ones that have led America to where we are now, that Clinton’s policies are not really markedly different from Obama’s, and that abstaining rather than voting for Clinton increases the likelihood of McCain getting elected (in some places more than others).
If people fully appreciate that and still feel they could not vote for Clinton, I’d be a hypocrite not to say that you should always vote your conscience.
I just hate the post-hoc justifications of Naderites and their denial of any responsibility for their votes. Make your vote an informed vote, consider the consequences, and stand by it.
This is rich! Seriously. After all this time and all the posts from me on this board, that you could insinuate (with an apparent straight face) that my decision is both dishonest and uninformed is hilarious.
I am not, nor will I ever be (much as you’d like to paint me so much power), responsible for everyone else in the country’s decisions on who they vote for and who ends up President as a result of those cumulative votes that don’t include mine. My father, a staunch Republican, voted for Nader in 2004. I have enormous respect for him for not falling into lockstep with his “party” to vote for an evil man who was destroying this country, even if he couldn’t bring himself to vote for a Democrat whose policies he could not support. If MORE Republicans like him had done the same, John Kerry would be our President, even without their votes, not the other way around.
And if this year it turned out to be John McCain over Hillary Clinton, I can live with my decision not to participate in choosing either of them.
I thought you already acknowledged earlier in this thread being uninformed, at least about John McCain. Did I misunderstand what you wrote? I also think you are misinformed about some of Clinton’s proposals as well.
So you’re admitting you can’t back up an argument that you yourself made. Because to you, it is unexplainable. And yet you brought it up. It’s one of them intangibles that the plain old 'merican folk grasp, that’s caused them dem-o-crats to lose elections. Leadership. Your own argument is unexplainable. And because I don’t accept that, the democrats are doomed to lose elections. My apologies for trying to get a grasp on your obviously well-thought-out position.
edit - Just to clarify:
This is your statement. All I ask for is that you give an example of his charisma and/or his ability to motivate people towards a common goal.
Do you really think I give a rat’s ass about whether someone cheats on their wife as a qualification for President? I didn’t care when it was Bill Clinton, why would I care when it’s John McCain. Hypocritical much?
Do you really believe that I can’t possibly think that both McCain’s “saber rattling at Iran” and Hillary’s declaration that she’d “obliterate” them with nuclear weapons are equally as disgusting and un-president-worthy?
Do you really pretend that John McCain is the only one between the two with a well-known temper? “The Clinton Crack-Up by R. Emmett Tyrrell also focuses on what the author calls Hillary’s “dreadful temper” and how first-hand accounts tell of her throwing objects at her husband and staff. Yet many of the incidents were never reported by the media, even though several reporters witnessed her rages first-hand.”
And that you have the gall to infer that I’m misinformed about some of Clinton’s proposals (which I’m most assuredly not), but think yourself fully informed when you misrepresent McCain’s position of “100 years in Iraq”, is hilarious. Hillary had an equal hand in getting us into that nightmare, and I have no doubt at all that she’d keep troops there just as long as McCain would, given the same circumstances under which McCain said he’d do so.
There is no “lesser of two evils” between those two. In my opinion, they’re the same.
No. I’m admitting that I can’t back up an argument I made, because to you it is unexplainable. I understand it just fine. And I’ve tried to pass it on to you, and you don’t get it. You were right: you’re just too dense. Nothing I can do.
No. I would think you would care as to whether it goes to their being “decent” and “honest” or not. Do you remember what the point of that exchange was, or shall I quote you? Do you think his philandering has any bearing on whether he’s “decent” and “honest”?
As to the rest, I think you have a half-assed, emotionally charged and dreadfully biased understanding of where Clinton stands on things, and you are dead-set on keeping that in place.
[ETA: I do think there is a difference between threatening to obliterate Iran on the condition that they have launched a nuclear attack upon Israel, as Clinton said, versus under present circumstances. I’m not pleased with her using such language, but portraying Clinton and McCain as the same on that matter is just plain deceitful.]
