Originally Posted By gadzuux I think woody missed the GOP memo - they WANT hillary as the dem candidate, because they believe that she will turn out THEIR base - to vote against her - more effectively than any of their own candidates. It's much easier to run a negative campaign on fear and loathing than it is on the actual issues. We see this strategy replayed every four years.
Originally Posted By woody gadzuux: You obviously think I missed several memos that tell me what to do. Does that make me an independent thinker? Conservatives are supposed to root for Shrillary's nomination so a Republican should win the Presidency. Nevermind that this can backfire and Shrillary can really win. gadzuux, you should admit the obvious. Conservatives are less likely to follow leaders than liberals. You and others here probably are in the tank for Shrillary. Otherwise, you would welcome the news for Obama and Edwards.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder woody, if anyone is being "shrill" here I'd suggest it's you. The insistence on using a juvenile derogatory name for her, the obsession with her candidacy, and your confrontational tone with anyone who questions you makes you out to be worse than you imagine Hillary herself to be. The public is fed up with these tactics.
Originally Posted By woody So I cannot respond? You have questioned me. I responded. You can't deal with it. Very juvenile. You guys made it worse by saying I am supposed to take my marching orders from Republicans, while accusing me of following the Republicans or Christian Leaders. You guys are in the tank for Shrillary. A bunch of henpecked men.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>woody, if anyone is being "shrill" here I'd suggest it's you<< Ironic, isn't it? He seems so pissed off that another Clinton even dare run for President. As for this: >>You guys are in the tank for Shrillary. A bunch of henpecked men.<< Aside from just being absurdly childish, it's a pretty typical response to defenses of Hillary. I think most of us on here (expect maybe RT ) can say that we're not giant Hillary fans. I've got my own problems with her, though I'd still probably pick her over most other front-runners. But the hatred she engenders from people on the right (like Woody) create an environment where it's almost impossible not to end up defending her against the ludicrous attacks hurled her way. If the right were more capable of having an adult conversation about her, we might come to a consensus about her strengths and weaknesses. Instead, they throw everything including the kitchen sink at her and reasonable people see it for what it is and respond.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Conservatives are less likely to follow leaders than liberals.<< Yes. Conservatives are known for their free-wheeling ways. This is why so many independent-thinking conservatives self-identify proudly as "dittoheads."
Originally Posted By gadzuux I've already clearly stated that I'm voting for joe biden in the primaries, and that I will certainly vote for the democratic candidate in the general election, whoever it may be. >> Conservatives are less likely to follow leaders than liberals. << The evidence shows the opposite to be true. And you know it.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'd add, I think the latest goings-on at WE's are something of a microcosm for what's happening around the country. For the past several months, it's largely been a forum for criticism of Bush and the government, and also Congress for not standing up to Bush. Most uber-conservatives don't post too often anymore, because defending Bush is just that impossible. Without naming names, a few people disappeared after their posts trying to insist that all was well in Iraq and that Bush is a visionary just became too laughable. Now however, we see the far right up to their old tricks. With a Clinton in the race, they've finally found something they can go after. Bush is so bad, even with all their typical spin and living in a fantasy world, they can't defend him. But Hillary lets us see their true colors. Here's hoping moderate, middle of the road Americans get out and vote and don't let these jokers sway this election like they've swayed the last two.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I wonder at times if it's really specifically Hillary or if it's still the idea of a woman as president that freaks so many people out. And then I see comments like "hen-pecked men" and get my answer.
Originally Posted By woody >>Ironic, isn't it? He seems so pissed off that another Clinton even dare run for President.<< How am I pissed? I am in awe of her campaign meltdown. >>Aside from just being absurdly childish, it's a pretty typical response to defenses of Hillary.<< You haven't defended Shrillary much here. >>But the hatred she engenders from people on the right (like Woody) create an environment where it's almost impossible not to end up defending her against the ludicrous attacks hurled her way.<< Nobody offered any counter-arguments that said Shrillary sounds nice and soothing. Or much of anything else. Only one post mentioned she is back up in New Hampshire. Majority of posts only counters my own for being childish, which isn't a defense of Shrillary. >> Conservatives are less likely to follow leaders than liberals. << >The evidence shows the opposite to be true. And you know it.< Goodness, you know me better than I do.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Yes. Conservatives are known for their free-wheeling ways. This is why so many independent-thinking conservatives self-identify proudly as "dittoheads."<< LOL! It's ironic that the very thing that allows Republicans to win elections (that they all lock march-step together) is then denied by them later on. This is the problem Democrats actually have. They don't have a unified vision to unite behind. Republicans have what essentially boils down to unity under hatred: hatred of gays, immigrants, and abortion. That hatred fuels their unity and allows them to win elections. Democrats don't have that. Even their hatred of Bush (and tons of moderate Americans join them in it) doesn't seem to be enough to do it. Instead, they're like the party of dozens of special interest groups. It fractures them. If they can come up with a positive, unifying vision, then they can start competing with Republicans.
Originally Posted By woody >>Even their hatred of Bush (and tons of moderate Americans join them in it) doesn't seem to be enough to do it. Instead, they're like the party of dozens of special interest groups. It fractures them.<< Wow. Democrats and Liberals uniting in hate of Bush. What is this supposed to mean?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>You haven't defended Shrillary much here.<< Ok, here's one. I've heard Hillary in the debates and watched several of her speeches on television and seen appearances on talk shows. She doesn't sound "shrill" at all. She often sounds intelligent and thoughtful. At times, she stumbles and comes across as "over-managed" or overly cautious - afraid to put herself out there and be spontaneous. On Letterman and in other environments, she comes across as kind of nerdy and dorky - someone who's trying to be hip and cool but just naturally isn't. But she also seems to have a lot of passion about America and seems to genuinely want to fix all the godforsaken disasters George W. Bush has done to our country. As for the charge of "Shrillary", it sounds like the efforts of children on an elementary school playground. They come up with a name that rhymes, laugh hysterically about it, and then try and make the name they created fit as much as possible. Hillary might be many things, shrill isn't one of them. And only the most desperately anti-Clinton people would even hint otherwise.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> it sounds like the efforts of children on an elementary school playground. They come up with a name that rhymes, laugh hysterically about it << I still get giggles about albert pujoles.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "How am I pissed? I am in awe of her campaign meltdown." But it isn't. I'm betting you've photoshopped her pictures. Whaddaya say, woody? A little Hillary face on a Sports Illustrated model?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Wow. Democrats and Liberals uniting in hate of Bush. What is this supposed to mean?<< Uh, I said "moderates". So you quoted me wrong. And it means that he's one of the worst Presidents our country's ever had. Possibly even the worst. His numbers have been in the toilet longer than anyone else since they began polling. It's not the 25-30% approval rating that's shocking. It's that it's been that way for years. Every President has events that happen in their Presidency that causes low poll numbers. But they never (and I mean EVER) last for 3+ years. It's unprecedented. And it shows just how much most Americans despise the man - not just Democrats (unless you're suggesting 70% of Americans are Democrats?)
Originally Posted By jonvn "But the hatred she engenders from people on the right (like Woody) create an environment where it's almost impossible not to end up defending her against the ludicrous attacks hurled her way." She is sort of like DCA in that manner.
