|
Edited on Sat Apr-05-08 09:48 AM by oktoberain
- You honestly can't conceive of any reason someone would choose not to vote for Hillary other than sexism.
Nah, I'm sure people have their reasons.
- You believe Hillary has run a flawless campaign.
I think there's no such thing as a flawless campaign, much less a flawless one that *wins*. However, I don't think her campaign has been any worse than his.
- You believe that Hillary can take credit for the good parts of Bill Clinton's presidency but doesn't have to share the blame for NAFTA or the Welfare Reform Bill.
I don't think she should take credit for, or be blamed for, ANYTHING that happened during Bill's presidency--with the sole exception of the failed healthcare reform. And I don't fault her for trying and failing. The Repukes killed that--not Hillary.
- You still defend that Bosnian sniper story.
- You still believe that Bosnian sniper story.
I think the Bosnian sniper story is a ridiculous thing to nanner on about, considering the larger problems we're facing. It never ceases to amaze me how people can latch on to the idiotic things and completely brush aside the shit that actually *matters*.
- You're currently describing me as sexist.
No, I know you better than that. :)
- You actually think any president would be answering the Whitehouse phone at 3am, instead of a half-asleep receptionist saying "What the fuck do you want?"
I think campaign rhetoric and propaganda is *always* dramatic and overblown, and anyone who took that ad in a literal way is pretty dense. *You* know that it was a theatrical commentary on a larger issue. *I* know it was too. Why are we even still talking about it?
- You think Obama actually believes the homophobic crap that country guy spewed. And while we're on the subject, she has to share the blame for DADT too.
I don't think he believes it, but the offensive pandering to the fundie gay-haters for the sake of their votes isn't much better. I'll vote for the man if he gets the nomination, even if I have to take a Valium first in order to make myself do it, but it's damned hard to forgive him for that disgusting stunt. It's bad enough to constantly be taken for granted and ignored by our Dem leaders. Did he HAVE to add insult to that too?
- You think Obama really does have nothing to offer but chants of "GOBAMA!" and "YES WE CAN!".
I think that he's cocky, egotistical and arrogant. I also think that the debate over "policy" is fucking stupid, because NONE of either candidate's "policies" are actually going to be passed into law--at least not as-is. They'll be dismantled and rebuilt by Congress with all of the progressive-leaning aspects neatly excised, as usual. You'd think we hadn't learned from the past at all, the way we all go on about how Obama's "policies" are better than Clinton's, and vice-versa. Like it even matters at this point.
- You demand Obama denounce every person he ever met who went on to say something controversial but don't demand that Hillary denounce Rush Limbaugh.
I'm not sure what you mean--did Rush Limbaugh throw his support behind Hillary? Is he campaigning and fundraising for her? If you mean that ridiculous stunt in Texas, that was just Limpballs trying to make himself look "powerful", and as usual, we all fall for it. It's stupid to even respond to it--it just reinforces the man's ego. McClurkin is a different case--he actually *does* support Obama in both the primary and the general, and he was raising money for the man in SC while spouting gay-hate that no "progressive" candidate would EVER allow himself to be associated with. Surely you can see a difference there. Comparing apples to oranges doesn't get us anywhere.
- You actually follow the increasingly bizarre computations the Clinton campaign is using to insist they're not that far behind. Especially that one involving electoral college votes. Please, Texas is going red even if the Repubs nominate Jack The Ripper.
There's no "math" needed. Neither candidate can win without the superdels. It comes down to whether you believe that the superdelegates have the right to vote independently as they wish, or whether you think they're just supposed to rubberstamp. If the latter is true, why do they even exist? There's a reason for the existence of superdelegates--they're there to make sure that the candidate who has the best chance of beating the Republicans gets nominated, period. I'm sick of people slamming the primary process because it might lead to a conclusion that THEY don't approve of. If you don't like it, harass your Reps to change it. In the meantime, people need to stop bitching about the rules after the fact, including Florida and Michigan.
- You now hate Keith Olbermann despite loving the guy a year ago.
Hate? No. But I've lost a lot of respect for him. He's just making the divide in the party worse by taking it to the national airwaves.
- You believe Obama is a Muslim. Although that would also make you a moron.
Frankly I don't give a damn what religion Obama is. All organized religions are equally fucking stupid, and I could care less which one his chooses to belong to. I think it's a stupid thing to argue about. He isn't Muslim, but even if he *was*, the only people who'd care are Christian xenophobic fucktards that aren't going to vote Dem anyway. It's not something we should be hand-wringing over, truly.
Finally--I don't think there's any such thing as a "Hillbot" or an "Obamaton". I think both terms are equally offensive, both stereotype and marginalize the feelings of Real People, and as a general rule I Ignore anyone I see using either as a means to denigrate another person--which I don't believe that you have done, at least not purposely.
I cannot fucking wait until this primary is over. I'm sick of the bullshit drama, truly.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
