Quote: "Is anyone dumber than our Dem Party activists?"

[wyldwolf]

Is anyone dumber than our Dem Party activists? In fact, even as these party stalwarts spoke, Newsweek released another national poll. This poll, conducted last Wednesday and Thursday, showed Clinton leading McCain by six points (50-44) and Edwards leading McCain by four (48-44). In fact, it was the third straight Newsweek poll, in a span of two months, which showed Clinton ahead of McCain; she also leads Giuliani by three in this latest survey (49-46). But so what! Nothing stops us liberals and Dems from reciting the types of defeatist points which reporters then rush into national papers. Hillary Clinton is unelectable! Because of “her political baggage!” (Sometimes, we’re such perfect tools that we say it’s because she’s “too polarizing.”) In short, the RNC doesn’t need to exist. We liberals and Dems are now quite pleased to recite their talking-points for them.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh012907.shtml


Bob Sommerby at the Daily Howler better watch what he says. Saying Hillary can win makes other Democrats hate you. -- Bartcop

[htuttle]

1. Answer: "Yes there is. Republican voters."

[Deep13]

4. *bing bing bing bing*

Tell him what he wins, Johnny.

[joshcryer]

78. It's called a Democracy.

I'm surprised when supposed Democrats talk about "Hillary bringing more Republicans to the polls."

To me that can only be a good thing.

[cui bono]

85. Not if they vote Republican, and not if they vote Hillary because she is

so damn centrist and corporatist.

[Kagemusha]

2. Uh that's a reflection of McCain's erosion

It's not that Hillary and Edwards did anything.

[wyldwolf]

3. ha! Another "excuse" that should have been included in the piece.

[Kagemusha]

5. ...Uh, wait, McCain really has fallen with independents...

Or is that in dispute now...?

[wyldwolf]

6. no dispute, but one of the point of the piece quoted shows how "liberals" are...

... quick to either deny, downplay, or contribute our candidates' successes to other factors other than their candidacy. Everyone knows elections are won based on many many factors including the opposition losing support.

And while McCain may be losing favor among independents, that says nothing in relation to our candidates' poll numbers compared to Giuliani's.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Balz Sullivan Fineman: liberals? nt.

[wyldwolf]

47. people on DU liberals? Because there are numerous posts here making those claims

[Clark2008]

64. Edwards built a big house.

That should make Republicans happy.

(Sorry - I had to say it. The Devil made me do it. :evilgrin: )

[skipos]

7. Hillary may not be unelectable

but she is one of the least electable IMO. I pay attention to polls, but part of my feelings come from personal experience.

[wyldwolf]

10. Personal experience? have you tried to run for President as a woman before?

[skipos]

14. What?

I am talking about my personal experience from talking to many people in my mostly progressive family, amongst my mostly progressive friends, in my mostly progressive town.

The only people who are excited about her getting the Dem nomination, in my experience, are Republicans.

I am well aware that there are plenty of people out there who like her, I am well aware that she does well in many polls. The early polls showed Ned Lamont getting his ass kicked by Lieberman in the Dem primary, but my personal experiences with people in CT told me otherwise.

[wyldwolf]

16. ahh. Anecdotal evidence from your "progressive" friends and family. OK!

[skipos]

36. You can dismiss it all you want

but trying to get a pulse on what real people think has never led me astray in the past. Lieberman led the polls in January 03 and look where that got him.

Having a Dem candidate that is so disliked by the left is a bad idea.

[wyldwolf]

37. thank you, I will.

[SOS]

65. Evidence - Hillary loses New Jersey

Since we are citing polls as "evidence", please take a look at this January 2007 Quinnipiac:

January 25, 2007 - New Jersey Voters Don't Adore The Senator Next Door, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Clinton Trails Giuliani, Ties McCain In Garden State

In an early look at the 2008 presidential race in New Jersey, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani leads New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 48 - 41 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Arizona Sen. John McCain gets 44 percent to Sen. Clinton's 43 percent, a tie.

"It looks like problems with Sen. Hillary Clinton's new presidential campaign are cropping up close to home," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"She has established her front-runner status among Democrats and she enjoys positive favorability ratings, but a big chunk of New Jersey voters have negative feelings about the Senator next door - enough to show two Republicans giving her a run for her money in this traditionally Democratic state," Richards added.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=1008

HRC loses by 7 points to Giuliani in New Jersey. Good luck in Ohio.

[wyldwolf]

67. Hillary leads everyone - including GOP - in Ohio! LOLOLOLOLOL!

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070131/NEWS01/701310338/1077/COL02

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january302007/clintonpoll_013007.php

[SOS]

68. More to LOL about:

From your link:

"Clinton also faces the strongest bloc of voters among the early contenders - 38 percent - who dislike her, perhaps explaining why she did not beat the poll's margin of error in any of the head-to-head matchups tested."

Loses NJ, within margin of error in OH.
It's a juggernaut!

[wyldwolf]

70. Not really. A win is a win. Just needs one more vote than the loser.

From my link:

According to the new Quinnipiac poll of Ohio voters, Clinton leads every Republican in a general election matchup, and every Democrat in a primary matchup by a 3 to 1 margin.

[rinsd]

73. Response

First off, her approval numbers are better in NJ than they are nationally and her negatives are lower.

2nd, You really think Rudy Guillani is gonna survive the primaries?

3rd, all the Democrats seem to be trailing McCain in the traditionally blue New Jersey.

And 4th, though this survey had a decent sample size is MOE is still approaching 5

"From January 16 - 22, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,310 New Jersey voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.7 percentage points. The survey includes 408 Republicans, with a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percentage points, and 461 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 4.6 percentage points."

New Jersey has roughly 4.5M registered voters with approx 1.14M Democrats, 880K GOpers, 2.5M are unaffiliated with remaining 15K with various smallers parties (Greens have aboput 14K of that). So the breakdowns seem ok. I wonder why the MOE is so high.

Lastly, 9/11 hit New Jersey in a way I just can't describe. If Rudy gets the nod he could indeed take Jersey. But that's if he gets the nod.

[BonnieJW]

17. I agree.

I think the reason HRC is ahead in the polls is because repubs are also voting for her in the polls. As the song goes, she's the one that they want.

[SaveElmer]

23. I live in a blue region of a red state (trending purple)...

I am active in the local Democratic Party and am a precinct captain...

And I see significant enthusiasm for Hillary here...

[skipos]

34. First and foremost

I like the fact that you can take the minority position on DU (Hillary 08) and not be condescending or aggressive. There are lots of people on DU who like to fight more than discuss, and I appreciate the fact that you aren't one of them.

I don't doubt that there are many people who are enthusiastic about Hillary 08, but I do feel that there are no currently announced Dem candidates with as many haters on the left and right, do you agree? Why have a candidates with so many haters? If she is the most experienced and qualified (IMO, she isn't, Richardson is more experienced and qualified than her) then maybe I could deal with the baggage. If she was the most in sync with me on the issues (she isn't) then maybe I could deal with the baggage. If she had some amazing ability to connect with people and get things done, much more than any other candidates, I could deal with the baggage. But again, I don't think that is the case.

Alas, much of this comes down to opinion, and we aren't going to agree on her. However, I do think it is a FACT that she has more haters on the left and right than anyone else, and I don't see any advantage in that. She has the most pre-primary name recognition, but once they are our nominee, ANY of our candidates (even Gravel) would overcome that.

[skipos]

38. And if you want a example of people who choose condescension

over discussion, please see wyldwolf's posts.

[wyldwolf]

49. really? Which ones?

[Clark2008]

66. I live in a blue city in a red county in a red state

And I don't see significant enthusiasm for Hillary. People here - particularly women - think she'd lose a general election.

:shrug:

[SaveElmer]

69. Which just shows that anecdotal evidence...

Is completely useless!!!

[Doctor_J]

8. Yes. People who believe polls in the GOP Media Machine

:eyes:

[KKKarl is an idiot]

9. All the current front runner republicans are un-electable

The reason is their association with GW. He bringing the entire republican party down. I would not be surprised if these guys distance themselves from him when the primaries roll round. Not that they are much better than GW it is just some of the people do not know that.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Gee I don't think Clinton is unelectable.

I disagree with her stand on many issues. Oddly, almost all the complaints I've seen here are similar: we seem to not like her right of center positions on many issues. The electability non-issue is mostly a strawman, and is mostly uttered by republicans who actually wouldn't vote for a woman, and others just itching for an irrelevant fight.

[cui bono]

86. I used to think she was unelectable.

Now I think any dem will win since the repubs have killed their party.

However, I do not wish Hillary to win. We need a true progressive who will turn this country around. I highly doubt she will do that with her ties to big business and pandering ways. And he idea of cutting funding to Iraqis but not for our troops was stupid imho.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. The article quotes media idiots to prove something about

the mythical 'democratic activists'. The only first person sources are Sullivan and Fineman, both notorious rightwing media hacks. Balz, another media hack, is quoted quoting purported 'democratic activists' and for all we know, he just made stuff up.

[Tellurian]

18. C'mon, Warren...

Dem Bashing Wars have been raging here nigh on 4-5 mos now, regarding Hillary and Kerry.
Kerry is not an issue anymore. The Far Left Wingers, (who by the way, couldn't debate a
valid issue if their lives depended on it.) have set their sights on Hillary for they're
daily attack fix.

This sycophantic mentality is doing all the grunt work for the Right Wing
without them having to break a sweat to do their own bashing..

I'm case you haven't been around. The Dem bashing has been the topic of
discussion in many OP threads. Good Posters have left because they realize
how destructive this is to the Democratic Party and rather than do battle
everyday to stop the bashing, have simply left.

So, Warren. I'd be had pressed to find any common ground with your statements.
I can guarantee you though, spend a little more time reading here and you'll
convince yourself it's for real and a real problem.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. "The Far Left Wingers"?

"sycophantic mentality "?

I'll say it one more time: the primary objection to Clinton is her right of center political positions.

You and the OP are bashing all critics of Clinton with the usual broad brush smear. Her electability is a secondary issue here, but a primary issue in the media.

[wyldwolf]

22. hold on one second

The OP isn't about objections to Clinton based on whatever... it's about leftwing denial of polling date based on those objections.

I hate McDonalds. I don't deny they are the #1 fast food joint.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Uh actually it isn't about left wing anything

The phrase "left wing" isn't mentioned at all in the cited article. Instead one named 'democratic activist' opines that Edwards isn't electable and Sullivan Fineman and Balz, a bunch of rightwing media stooges are quoted at length about the unelectability of Clinton. The OP, a notorious basher of everyone left of him on DU, has linked to an article which has little at all to do with his or your or elmer's real issue, which is bashing us here on DU by pretending that we do not have valid political disagreements with Clinton.

[SaveElmer]

26. You can count on critics...

To try and change the terms of the debate when the facts are against them...

[wyldwolf]

28. yeah, he did tried it again just above here. "Valid political disagreements" is not the same as...

... "denial of public opinion."

[Tellurian]

31. Yes, Warren,

I was just about to edit my post to include a correction to your statement of Right of Center comment.

I'm at work right now, had a bit of a delay in timeliness. <working?>

Last week we retrieved graphics denoting where the candidates stand on issues.
We did this for all the front runners based on last years voting record.

Hillary was slightly left of center, Kerry was smack dab in the middle.
The furthest Left candidate was Dennis Kucinich. None or our candidates
were any where near right of center.

[cui bono]

88. do you have a link to that?

and how did you determine exactly what "center" is, because I believe what used to be center has shifted right.

[cui bono]

87. speaking of bashing...

The Far Left Wingers, (who by the way, couldn't debate a
valid issue if their lives depended on it.)

:eyes:

[Tellurian]

13. We Should Poll this forum once a week for the LAMEST EXCUSE..

of why Hillary can't be elected President.

A contest to see who can WIN the "Stupidest Excuse" in the World AWARD!

I'll even spring for the trophy.

(does anyone mind plastic?)

[wyldwolf]

15. Posts like post #12 and #14 deserve their own special categories

The "anyone who says Hillary can win is a hack" award and the "my progressive friends and family say she can't win" award.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Do you know who Sullivan and Fineman even are?

If you think those two are not political hacks you are amazingly ignorant. The article you posted (from the howler no less) dedicated quite a bit of space to quoting the wisdom of Sullivan and Fineman to prove what anonymous 'democratic activists' think about Clinton. What a pile of crap.

As has been stated here on DU over and over again: for the most part we object to Clinton's political positions, not to secondary issues such as electability. But you don't really want to discuss that aspect of her candidacy, do you?

The electability issue is mostly an echo chamber debate. The MSM never wants to discuss actual political differences, they prefer to fixate on sports desk analysis of winners and losers. Your cited opinion piece misreperesents echo chamber idiocy as sourced from these unnamed democratic activists. The piece is bullshit.

[wyldwolf]

20. "echo chamber idiocy." Oh the irony!

[SaveElmer]

24. Boooyaaa!!!!

:rofl:

[Warren Stupidity]

27. I can't decide which is the more weighty response

"Oh the irony" or "Booyah".

[mtnsnake]

30. Yeahhhhh Baaaaaaaaby!!!

[cui bono]

89. I'm with you Warren!

And I like how the people complaining about Hillary bashing are all bashing you now.

Keep up the critical thinking Warren, that's exactly what we need right now.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. An example of bashing Clinton over her electability.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3083880&mesg_id=3083880

Oh wait, my mistake, it is an attack on Clinton over her positions on issues of huge importance.

I'll go try again.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Next thread, surely this one must be about electability.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3090981

oops, sorry, wrong again, it is about the donor thing.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Third try:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3090101&mesg_id=3090101

Aw crap, it is about an appearance at the AIPAC with Edwards.

I'll keep trying. All these issues, surely that democratic activist bashing her electability thing will raise its ugly head real soon now.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Last try: page one GD politics Hillary threads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3090519

Once again not about her electability.

I'm sure you should be able to find some thread that starts out about Clinton's electability, I do know we have discussed it, but it seems that, in general, the objection is to her political positions and campaign tactics.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Stop the presses! I found one!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2713999

Oh wait, its about war mongering posturing from front runner poll leading Senator Clinton.

[mtnsnake]

40. Warren, you've got way too much free time on your hands. nt

[wyldwolf]

42. Here ya go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3067109

[wyldwolf]

43. oops! Here's another!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3067816

[wyldwolf]

44. Damn! All this "Hillary is too polarizing" posts and threads keep popping up!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2999478&mesg_id=2999508

[wyldwolf]

45. what? You mean you think Hillary is too polaring to win? Ya don't say!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2961055&mesg_id=2961779

[wyldwolf]

46. Sheesh! Warren says no one has said she is unelectable... yet here...

..she obviously is!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3066178&mesg_id=3066242

[Warren Stupidity]

56. You sir just made that up.

"Sheesh! Warren says no one has said she is unelectable... yet here..."

Please provide the text of my post where I said "no one has said she is unelectable" or admit that you have now engaged in a complete fabrication.

[wyldwolf]

no, sir, I did not.

You showcased threads in an effort to prove no one has focused on her electability. By that action, the statement was made.

Surely you're not one who believes "exact words" must be conveyed in a Greg Brady "I'll wash the car today" fashion?

[Warren Stupidity]

60. I repeatedly stated that her electability is a secondary issue.

You have lied about my position here in this thread. You are continuing to lie about my position. You are in fact, in this thread, a shameless liar, inventing arguments for me that I have not made.

[wyldwolf]

62. If you had repeatedly said that about yourself instead of speaking for those here...

... you'd have a point.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Dec 3.

[Warren Stupidity]

50. Jan 21.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. January 21. nt.

[wyldwolf]

52. Have you determined that posts from certain dates that disprove your theory don't count?

[Warren Stupidity]

54. No.

Once again: this is a secondary issue for most of us. The fact that you have to reach back so far indicates that my point is correct.

[wyldwolf]

57. seems to me her "electability" is paramount on people's minds here

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Your data does not indicate that.

The fact that you had to reach back to January 21 to find an OP that discusses this topic, while there were four new posts today discussing her political positions would seem to contradict your opinion.

[wyldwolf]

59. Every post mentioned conveys concerns over her being either too polorizing or unelectable

[Warren Stupidity]

53. I pulled stuff from the top of GD politics.

And I never said there were no "she's unelectable" threads, I said our more general complaint is her position on the issues. Her electability is a secondary issue to most of us. I stand by what I said. Your data merely confirms it.

[wyldwolf]

55. uh... so? Only recent threads in your predetermined time frame are allowed?

[Tellurian]

61. I'm sort of pressed for time right now...but here is what I spoke of

just have time to post the link.

it tells the story..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3081321

[wyldwolf]

63. I remember this thread... But Hillary doesn't count. She's not a (LOL!) "real Democrat."

[TheModernTerrorist]

71. I never said she wasn't electable

I just said I didn't like her :hide:

[grace0418]

74. Amen to that!

And now, when she's on the campaign trail and presumably on her "best behavior," she's spouting off shit about Iran? Why the fuck would I want to vote for another warmonger?

[Clinton_Co_Regulator]

72. We'll all just close our eyes and plug our ears and pretend

the centrist coalition isn't comprised of numerous republicans. :eyes:


I got your bull moose right here...

[wyldwolf]

76. DLC-itis: When anything can be turned into a centrist conspiracy

[Clinton_Co_Regulator]

97. Democrat-itis: The fear that democrats will see the dlc hangers on for

what they really are.

L(I)eberman lovers. :eyes:

If the DLC was worth two sh*ts, you wouldn't need to spend your DU existence playing the victim card on their behalf 24/7.

:shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

75. The question is what dirt will the GOP dig up on Hillary to change the dynamics

Dukakis polled great against Bush in 1988. Then overnight the GOP dug up Willie Horton and crushed his commanding lead. There is a valid argument that Hillary has far more ammunition for the GOP smear machine than Obama and Edwards do.

That said, I think that saying any Democrat is unelectable in 2008 is foolish. The GOP is weak and their field is even weaker. If we're still in Iraq come November 2008 I think Americans would vote for Benedict Arnold if he ran on the Democratic ticket (insert Lieberman joke here).

[wyldwolf]

77. no, the question is, after 20 years of smears, is there anymore dirt to be found on her?

You'd be better served wondering what dirt can be found on the other candidates.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. I'll accept that argument, but... I have to follow it with another question

What dirt that the GOP has already found on her can they remind people about that could possibly ruin her. Keep in mind that many people who were too young to be politically conscious during the Clinton administration or in the politically inactive 18-25 year old group at that time might not remember the attacks on Hillary or weren't aware of them in the first place. Once the GOP starts rehashing them, how much of an effect will it have?

[wyldwolf]

82. ok.. then you have to wonder how many of those people would care?

Over the course of time, those things seem pretty lightweight now. And of course, the talking heads will constantly remind us how those issues are all retreads. I can hear Chris Matthews now: "C'mon, Rudy. People didn't care about White Water 10 years ago. Do you think they will now?"

[PATRICK]

79. Despite and because of media hype

the state of the season means that name recognition is everything. Obama got some advantage there with a strange media flocking to his prospect but right now it is all about name. Even dislikes and the future reality of the choice don't factor in. That movement takes place IN primary season and once the voters get to see each other really making a choice outside these media polls. By this logic Smoking Joe was not only a strong contender but a bi-partisan shoe-in.

Extricating sanity and logical speculation from this means looking at the long term candidate strength. All the money and pomp that surrounds a top candidate can wither overnight or fade with lack or true fire, or dissolve with lack of organization and fierce attacks from above and below. i can argue for each of the candidates, especially ours, but to do so with present numbers is foolhardy. I would guess, as generally an Edwards supporter(my bias), that the factor of an overwhelming candidate with the least baggage will indeed be something to tip most Dem primaries- after last time especially. For solidity, money, early frontrunner status, comeback persistence, traditional liberal base and campaign efficacy Kerry was always up there, but the charisma factor can be much much stronger this time and for obvious reasons most candidates won't mention it. Gore, Edwards, Obama- in that order so far, not by my choice but on the unfettered druthers of the actual Dem primary voter next February. And a lot could happen to deflate that simple guess in the long year unfolding.

The media circus is great for the clowns. McCain and Guiliani are NOT subjected to anything like the scrutiny that is pretesting candidates now. I believe under any process short of coronation and fixing that none of the frontrunners will make it. Under certain circumstances even Jeb has a better chance than Guiliani. The YouTube coup de grace dooms him. So there is as little realistic prognostication- and more of a puzzle- for the GOP selection than ours. These media polls have as much to do with reality as the best dressed man and woman polls which might still be topped by * and Laura simply because all the more popular names(however they are accoutered) split the rest of name recognition vote. Maybe it's Gore and Hillary. In any event, the entire US media has had a shifting and consistently bad record in analysis and prediction for any party or election overall. they go thoruhg frointrunners like tissue paper, miscalculating the "safe" bet in a way that shows their contemporary incompetence in the information business. Ours is related to issue and candidate adherence which is more solid but sometimes equally remote from looking at the actual State of the Voter.

[wyldwolf]

84. Chris Bowers at myDD poked some serious holes in the "name recognition" meme.

[rinsd]

94. The Lieberman myth lives on!

Even though the similarity between their positions at this point is at best tenuous.

Chris Bowers of mydd destroyed this earlier this week.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/30/181044/219

"Calling Bullshit On The Blogosphere's National Trial Heat Narrative
by Chris Bowers, Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 06:10:44 PM EST

I read it all the time in the blogosphere. Some say "Clinton's lead in national trial heats is only a function of name recognition." "She has already hit her peak, and can only go downward from here," others croon. Another frequent mantra is that "her lead at this point in the campaign is the same thing as Lieberman's lead at this point in the 2004 campaign." Occasionally, even some actual evidence, usually in the form of a single poll, is trotted out to support thee claims. While what I am about to write will invariably result in several people calling me a Hillary supporter and / or a wholly owned subsidiary of the DLC, as someone who closely watches polls and can't stand the perpetuation of political narratives based on faulty numbers, even in the blogosphere, I simply have to call bullshit.

Anyone currently dismissing Clinton's massive national trial heat advantage as a figment of name recognition is simply not familiar either with the totality of current national poll numbers or with the numbers from this point in the campaign four years ago. If you think all other candidates need to do is introduce themselves, then you are just wrong. If you think this is the same thing as Lieberman's lead in early 2003, then you have seriously underestimated the task facing virtually all non-Clinton candidates. While not insurmountable, Clinton's national lead over everyone not named Obama is far more significant than Lieberman's lead was in early 2003, and as such will be far more difficult for other candidates to overcome.

Read the analysis in the extended entry. "

[Czolgosz]

81. Hillary can win but should she?

My objection to Hillary is that she was so much better back in the 90s than she is now that the discrepancy between Classic Hillary and Hillary 2.0 gives the impression that the change has been insincere and that, in turn, makes Hillary 2.0 seem disingenuous.

BRING BACK CLASSIC HILLARY!

[wyldwolf]

83. That is up to the voters.

[cui bono]

91. NO! Please, no. We need someone who will actually change our corporate ways.

[madfloridian]

90. I am a "Dem party activist", and no one is dumber than me.

Yep, we are the dumbest of the dumb. We are fringe, we are not very bright, and we ought to go out in the backyard, eat worms and die.

:toast:

So toast me, the dumbest of the Dem party activists.

I don't even know when to come in out of the rain, or tornado, or whatever hit around these parts at about 3 this morning.

:party:

I am going to have a party and invite all other Dumb Dem Activists, but if anyone thinks they are dumber than me I will kick them out of my party.

:spank:

That Bob Somerby, he's a funny guy. Someone once wrote him about calling so many Democrats crazy...and he wrote them back that they were crazy as well. He's such a funny man.

:7

[wyldwolf]

92. Hey? Did you see any DLC honchos "setting policy" at the DNC meeting?

Did you have an issue about the “inevitability” of Howard Dean’s campaign?

[madfloridian]

93. If all I could write about was how dumb other Democrats were...

I would give it up.

[wyldwolf]

95. Are you saying all the Daily Howler can do is write about how dumb other Dems are?

... in all honesty, though, you do seem to have your own repetitive "DLC satan/Howard Dean God" style on DU.

[GeorgeGist]

96. The best the Dems can do ...

is a 6 pt advantage. Shouldn't it be more like 30 or 40?

[LoZoccolo]

98. Yes: Green Party activists!

:D

[SaveElmer]

99. Hmmm...think you hava a point there!!!...nt