[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
…as opposed to ranting, shrieking, and pulling intemperate and tortured logic out of any handy orifice, like certain other candidates?
[/QUOTE]
Sigh… Can you please provide evidence of “ranting” and “shrieking” on the part of “certain other candidates?” Otherwise please don’t fool yourself that you’re doing anything that deserves the dignified designation of debate. I’ve seen trolls who are more rational and better behaved.
[QUOTE=Dorothea Book]
Sigh… Can you please provide evidence of “ranting” and “shrieking” on the part of “certain other candidates?” Otherwise please don’t fool yourself that you’re doing anything that deserves the dignified designation of debate. I’ve seen trolls who are more rational and better behaved.
[/QUOTE]
Sigh…can you name at least two trolls who are more rational and better behaved?
And as for ranting and shrieking, haven’t you seen “Hillary’s Downfall”?
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
And as for ranting and shrieking, haven’t you seen “Hillary’s Downfall”?
[/QUOTE]
The fictional YouTube clip?
Fictional? I thought she looked funny with that little 'stasche, and muttering so much in German. Thanks for clearing that up.
Am I really going to have to have provide evidence that Hillary was (and is) pitching her rhetoric (and her voice) considerably higher, and less reasonably, than Obama? Is that even debatable? I mean, the guy underreacts (rightly so, though I could never do it) to every piece of raw, rancid meat she and her enabling psycho hubby toss out to their rabid supporters, for the past few months, and I’m being asked for cites that he’s been toning down the battle and she’s been amping it up? I’m like, the world is my cite, okay?
She goes “Ooh, the heavens will open up, and we’ll sing Kumbaya together” bbbyyy and that wasn’t a rant (which he deflects with a mere “That was pretty funny”) and then she procedes to bait him and tease him and challenge him with “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” virtually defending her scorched-earth rhetoric, meanwhile shedding artful tears and pretending to be aghast at every mild remark coming from his campaign, and whining and pouting about sexism at every turn (if he’d employed sexism, which he never came close to doing, apart from one “sweetie”, wouldn’t that just constitute a very warm kitchen?) When you say, almost literally, that anything goes in a campaign, wouldn’t you think that you should then refrain from whining every few hours or so? (I know, it’s not whining if you preface it with “I’m not whining, but…”) She’s been practically unhinged, criss-crossing the country with her loopy “definition of is” stats that persuade no one outside of her and Bill and McAuliffe and Ickes, and that isn’t ranting, according to you? I mean, we get it, you can torture statistics so they prove what you want them to prove, if you don’t listen too hard, and if you forget about the small point that says the nomination is no way about popular votes, but after the first few hundred repetitions of this insulting and idiotic drivel, it begins to seem like ranting and raving for its own sake. Meanwhile Obama keeps letting it slide off his back (brushes shoulder) and somehow she manages to find that gesture itself a cause for complaint–if someone challenges me to a fight, and says, “No rules, okay, gouging and biting and concealed weapons are cool here, get it?” and then procedes to bitch to the refs every time I give her a dirty look, while she’s slipping me the shiv, I’m going to think that she’s going to fight dirty without any shame at all. If she’s sincere, I might even think that she doesn’t understand the concept of a level playing field, and that she acts entitled because she genuinely feels that having two sets of rules is just the way it’s supposed to be–that she’s mentally unhinged, in short. So yeah, I’d say the scorched earth rhetoric of the past few months, especially in contrast to Obama’s restraint, would make her the ranting and shrieking candidate–I don’t get how even her staunchest supporter would make a case that she’s been toning down the language and he’s been pitching it up. Is it just that she’s been carrying on in public for so long that we’ve begun to assume that the baseline for Hillary is “outrageous and provocative,” so as long as she merely maintains that tone, without going into actual frothing at the mouth, that’s just business as usual?
[QUOTE=Dorothea Book]
Sigh… Can you please provide evidence of “ranting” and “shrieking” on the part of “certain other candidates?”
[/QUOTE]
“Shame on YOU, Barack Obama!” - I think that one qualifies as a rant.
I think some of you guys should really think about the irony here. You’re posting on a thread about “the white hot fury of Clinton supporters.” The question is why a small group of highly energized feminist supporters are so upset with their candidate’s loss that they’re threatening to support the Republican candidate. And yet some of the posters on this thread, supporting the candidate who won, cannot show the least bit of generosity toward the losing candidate or the posters who’ve defended her merits. That despite the fact that the candidate herself has just declared herself strongly in favor of their man and is ready to work for his candidacy.
This doesn’t mean that anyone needs to become a fan of hers overnight or ever but take a look a serious look at some of the rhetoric in this thread. To my eye some posters here seem just as hot under the collar as those Clintonistas and for reasons far more mysterious.
If I were to go into some strange internet site and start a thread, “Why the white hot fury of Obama supporters toward Clinton after the loss?” explaining how some male supporters of Obama just couldn’t give up exaggerated claims of high-pitched voices, “shrieking” and so forth and how they couldn’t give Hillary credit for urging her supporters to join his campaign I think that some other group of posters might well conclude that the unnecessarry histrionics were, at the very least, 1) far from a productive political strategy for Obama supporters, 2) irrational, and 3) not especially worth of Great Debate. I wonder: are there other boards out there where McCain supporters are doing everything possible to antagonize Romney or Huckabee supporters?
Yeesh–Hell hath no fury like some (male) Obama supporters who have not even been scorned 
p.s. What Frostillicus said.
I can’t prove it, so you can believe me or not, but I predicted this when I saw that Trisk had posted the “All Is Forgiven, Pseudotriton Ruber Ruber!” thread.
It’s like it’s 1945, and Venezuela just attacked Germany the day after V-E Day…
[QUOTE=Dorothea Book]
To my eye some posters here seem just as hot under the collar as those Clintonistas and for reasons far more mysterious.
[/QUOTE]
Not much mysterious about it. I won’t try to dredge up quotes from here but one doesn’t have to wander far before they get called an Obamabot, Obamaton, told they’re brainwashed, in a cult, delusional, too stupid to look past “change” and “hope”, etc. Probably the defining moment where I was finally saying “Nuts to you” to Clinton was when she stood up and mocked Obama’s supporters, saying they needed to “Get real”, followed by a speech later where she said we were waiting for a “celestial choir” to come show us the way and save us. Essentially, she was giving validity to those supporters who embraced the “delusional” and “cultist” tags for Obama’s supporters. Say what you will about over-enthusiastic (or just plain classless) Obama supporters, I don’t remember the man himself ever trying to stir his supporters up into insulting and demeaning Clinton and the people who’d vote for her.
It was a long campaign and the knives were drawn for most of it. I’m all for speaking in civil tones and inviting Clinton’s supporters to vote for Obama. I encourage it and hope that they will. But I’m not any more surprised at Obama supports still bearing ill will than I am at Clinton supporters doing the same.
I’m not running for President. This is an anonymous message board. Hillary Clinton OTOH was running for President and doing it in public–she chose to play gutter politics, “the politics of personal destruction,” as I think some pol I once had some respect for termed it, and I’m putting the blame directly on her making this race as ugly as it’s been so far.
Now she’s the idolized and adored leader of a large faction of her party, with the ability to herd her superannuated, post-menopausal hordes to the voting booth in November. It remains to be seen whether she will do it half-heartedly or quarter-heartedly, but based on what I’ve seen of her ethical standards of behavior in the race to date, I’m not holding my breath in anticipation of her enthusiastic guidance of these selfish and narcissistic harpies.
Obama may need to solicit her support–a real test of his skill in negotiating with power-crazed dictatorial egomaniacs–but I suspect there’s a hard core of Hillary supporters who will not be moved off their “Obama=Satan” position in only five short months, so he will need to shore up his base elsewhere.
With some people who take essentially irrational positions pitched at getting supporters agitated (“gas tax holiday,” anyone?), there’s just no reasoning. While putting in an effort to appeal to some of Hillary’s supporters, I think Obama needs to accept their inability to be appealed to across the board. You want to cast your ballot for McCain? Go right ahead—let me know how his first few Supreme Court appointments work for the women’s movement, sister.
[QUOTE=DigitalC]
This is the way i feel too. The media might be sexist but they were basically the only thing keeping Hillary in the race the last couple months.
[/QUOTE]
If anything, sexism worked in the other direction. It’s a matter of confirmed history that a teary performance in New Hampshire is the end of the road for a male candidate.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
INow she’s the idolized and adored leader of a large faction of her party, with the ability to herd her superannuated, post-menopausal hordes to the voting booth in November. It remains to be seen whether she will do it half-heartedly…but…I’m not holding my breath in anticipation of her enthusiastic guidance of these selfish and narcissistic harpies.
[/quote]
Well there’s a nice welcoming tone. Greetings superannuated, post-menopausal hordes! Join us selfish and narcisstic harpies. :rolleyes:
You mean like the hard core of Obama supporters who won’t be moved off their “Hillary supporter=post-menopausal harpie” position?
You can say that again!
P.S. Jophiel thanks for that helpful explanation.
I think those voracious few are going to be embittered by either candidate for quite sometime. There are those Hillary supporters who I question their motivations for voting democratic when they vehemently say they will vote McCain. They show no rationale for voting for him other than he’s not Obama. They seem to not give a rats ass about the issues - polar opposite those of their former candidate and they appear to care less about how bad it would be to have a republican in the white house again. That is what chapps me so much about the Hillary supporters. If they were true democrats voting for a democratic nominee - then they would never vote republican. They contradict themselves.
in this quote from me, where you * have selectively (and misleadingly, IMO) snipped my example of the gas tax holiday, you seem to imply that Obama has taken some “essentially irrational positions”: "With some people who take essentially irrational positions pitched at getting supporters agitated…there’s just no reasoning "–can you name three of them, please? I could list wild and woolly, over-the-top rhetoric from Hillary all day and far into the night, so I’m sure you can cough up a few examples of Obama’s irrationality on the stump.
And while you’re at it, where’s those examples of trolls I asked for earlier? Oh, yeah, that’s right, you’re not supposed to imply that other people are trolling in GD–you’re supposed to report it to a friendly GD mod.
Reading the Hillary and Puma sites make me think Sen Clinton is going to have to actually go out there and tell them that Obama won fair and square and try and tamp down that anger.
I agree that she’s the one who enabled this vitriol, so she’s the one that has to go back to those voters and fess up that she worked them into a frenzy based on faulty reasoning. Can she do that?
If the Puma movement stays as vocal as it is right now, not only would Clinton get the blame if Obama lost the GE, but she would also get blamed if anything “unthinkably bad” happened to Obama during the campaign.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
… I’m sure you can cough up a few examples of Obama’s irrationality on the stump.
[/quote]
Let me assure you pseudtriton that I was not attributing irrationality to Senator Obama. That honor belongs to you.
I stand by my claim: you are lowering the tone of these boards with your inflammatory and misogynistic language. It doesn’t mean that your a troll; it only means that some trolls are less inflammatory than you–who asks to be taken seriously.
Mike Barnacle on MSNBC just said that Hillary paid her communications director, Howard Wolfson — you’d better sit down for this — $266,000 … per month! I mean Jesus, no wonder she went broke.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Mike Barnacle on MSNBC just said that Hillary paid her communications director, Howard Wolfson — you’d better sit down for this — $266,000 … per month! I mean Jesus, no wonder she went broke.
[/QUOTE]
Seriously.
I really do think that, but for three factors, Hillary would have been the nominee.
Her vote in favor of the use of armed force in Iraq (and, lumped in, her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman bill).
The losers she surrounded herself with. I mean, seriously…Wolfson? Penn? McAuliffe? Really?!
Barack Obama. Even with both of the above factors, if Obama hadn’t been in the race, she may have still won the nomination.
Taken together they kept her just under the threshold.
[QUOTE=Dorothea Book]
Let me assure you pseudtriton that I was not attributing irrationality to Senator Obama. That honor belongs to you.
[/QUOTE]
Glad that’s clear–you now need to brush up on your remedial reading skills, because I stated directly that the irrationality I was discussing came from Clinton herself. As I said, I’m not running for President–she is (or was), and must bear the responsibility for creating the rancorous atmosphere we now are forced to breathe. You want to argue that she’s not intemperate compared to some anonymous Obama-supporter on a messageboard–go right ahead. But the true comparison would be to Obama himself and, to anyone who doesn’t move goalposts as naturally as breathing, that’s a comparison that makes her look very petty, harsh, hysterical, self-pitying, egocentric, and weak.
[QUOTE=Dorothea Book]
I stand by my claim: you are lowering the tone of these boards with your inflammatory and misogynistic language. It doesn’t mean that your a troll; it only means that some trolls are less inflammatory than you–who asks to be taken seriously.
[/QUOTE]
I ask nothing from you, other than you stop using the word “troll” incorrectly --it means to post in a deliberately inflammatory manner, so if some trolls are less inflammatory than I am, then you ARE calling me a troll–and in violation of this website’s rules. Again, I’m not running for President, and am free to be as blunt in
assessing candidates’ virtues and vices as I please. Your candidate has offended millions of men who support women’s rights, including me, by implying that she lost because of sexism, as if I don’t have dozens of sound reasons for disliking and mistrusting her professed policies.