I WANT the right-wing to hate our candidate....

[MonkeyFunk]

I want them to froth at the mouth and throw themselves into walls with hatred. I want them to spit, curse and piss themselves with hate. I want them to have coronaries over the very IDEA of our candidate.

Some here seem to want to choose a mythical candidate that won't arouse them. First, no such candidate exists. Second... I don't want that candidate.

I want somebody who pisses off the mouth-breathing ignorant scum.

Do you think THEY ever worry about what we think? Here's a clue: FUCK NO!

[slackmaster]

1. That would be great as long as the middle doesn't hate our candidate too

That's the tough part.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. None of the dem candidates

are hated by the middle.

[Vincardog]

5. Why do you think the mythical middle hates America?

[Yael]

7. And the left and anyone who is opposed to DLCism

[Vincardog]

3. Agreed we do not need the candidate least offensive to the republicants

We need one that loudly and proudly stands with us and pisses them off to no end. Lethe radical reich wing die chocking on their rage at our Progressive Populist candidate.

[NanceGreggs]

4. YES!!!

:toast:

[Rageneau]

6. Agreed. The more they hate him/her, the worse the defeat for them.

One of the reasons I'd like to see Big Dog as President again is because it would cause the right wing and the MSM to eat their livers.

[Yael]

8. "Big Dog" isn't running

[MonkeyFunk]

11. no... but he'd win if he could

[Yael]

12. And just how many people supporting Hillary are actually "voting for Bill"

in their minds and hearts?

It isn't realistic and is going to leave us in a mess for another 4 years.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. I don't know

I'm still split between Clinton and Obama, but if I vote for Clinton, it won't be a vote for Bill.

I like Hillary better than Bill.

[ProudDad]

44. Good, he wasn't Progressive... (n/t)

[NoodleBoy]

9. alot of people reserve that level of hatred for resenting someone succesful

so, in some people's cases, being a smart, successful, powerful woman is just too much to deal with.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. exactly

:thumbsup:

[ProudDad]

45. Thatcher

was a "smart, successful, powerful woman"...

Wouldn't want her in charge either...

[NoodleBoy]

46. but I don't go into crazy hysterical fits whenever I hear her name

[PurityOfEssence]

13. I want the candidate with the best policies and chance, not some infantile, ruinous revenge

What few policies she actually has aren't the best, and she doesn't have the best chance.

To those of you who agree with this thread-starter: please grow up.

The two "stealth" issues that people refuse to acknowledge in Senator Clinton's candidacy (and that's what this thread is about, after all) are gender and the desire to get some pathetic juvenile revenge on the reactionaries.

A woman can win the presidency, and perhaps even this one. We SHOULD have a woman president soon, if for nothing else but to make the point to ourselves and the rest of the world.

The fact that a fair amount of her support is simply a question of gender is a big unspoken reality, and it's pure folly, and there's an element of revenge nestled in there, too, even though that's not the real issue at hand. Childish vengeance is the problem here, and it's a big one.

The sheer circular illogic of many of the Clinton supporters is most impressive.

They want her because she's got the best chance to win, even though virtually all the exact polls they hold so dear repeatedly say that Edwards has a better chance against the Republicans.

They want to win above all else, but are willing to gamble that just for the chance to grind their oppressors' noses in the defecation of Starr and company.

They crave the fierce fighter against all things Republican by blindly supporting someone who basically never fights the Republicans.

They want everyone to leap on the bandwagon of inevitability because she's somehow an underdog, even though she's invincible.

Frothing with vengeance for their plucky victim, they pull no punches and rage against those who point out that she's the system itself.

To champion the voices of the downtrodden, they crush all dissent and demand that the establishment candidate wins.

Gushing about coalitions and such, they cheer as their champion strong-arms anyone in the media who's in her way with threats of being cut off.

The vengeance thing is just plain stupid, and if there's anything we should have learned from the reactionaries by now, it's this: they do "just plain stupid" better than anyone.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Au Contraire

"They want her because she's got the best chance to win, even though virtually all the exact polls they hold so dear repeatedly say that Edwards has a better chance against the Republicans. "



New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is overwhelming Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic primary field, and slowly increasing her lead over New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the Republican front-runner, in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to Quinnipiac University's Swing State Poll, three simultaneous surveys of voters in states that have been pivotal in presidential elections since 1964.


Sen. Clinton's support appears to be as deep as it is wide. In Ohio, 74 percent of her supporters say they are not too likely or not likely at all to change their mind. In Florida, 59 percent of her supporters are unlikely to change their mind; in Pennsylvania it's 56 percent.



http://quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1109





1. National head-to-heads show Edwards at 2.3% over Giuliani while Clinton is showing 5.5% against him.

Edwards:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/general_election_giuli ani_vs_edwards-229.html

Clinton:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/general_election_giuli ani_vs_clinton-227.html

2. Then you have the thorough and painstaking job Chris Bowers did putting all state head-to-head polls together and creating a General Election map. As of today, Edwards would lose in an electoral college landslide to Giuliani:



Giuliani 327-211 Edwards OUCH


http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/9/184026/105#commenttop

[PurityOfEssence]

18. Not according to Rasmussen

In a thinly veiled reference to certain posters' fondness for constantly referring to this source, I was mostly talking about how they cling to the numbers they like and dismiss with silence those they don't.

Edwards is doing better against the leading Republicans than Clinton is, according to Rasmussen.

How does Clinton fare in that state-by-state electoral match-up to which you refer?

Surely you do see a tad of reality in what I'm saying, though, don't you? An endless triumphal war-drumming about her invincibility just doesn't hold up when looking at numbers against the Republicans. If there's to be consistency in the concept that surety of a win is the important thing, then she fails rather dismally.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. OK

If you click on my link you will see a gentleman did an exhaustive study of every state poll... The data he collected suggested, as of now, only Hillary Clinton, among the Democrats, has enough Electoral College votes to win...

If you look at (all) the national and state polls only Hillary Clinton has amassed enough Electoral College Votes To win especially when you add Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania:

"New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is overwhelming Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic primary field, and slowly increasing her lead over New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the Republican front-runner, in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to Quinnipiac University's Swing State Poll, three simultaneous surveys of voters in states that have been pivotal in presidential elections since 1964. "

http://quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1109

Of course this can change...Nothing is inevitable but death... You can even escape most taxes if you're clever enough... But if the election was held tomorrow Hillary would be 44...None of her Democratic or Rethuglican opponents can make that claim...

[Cary]

30. She also happens to be running the most effective campaign

She's it. She's going to be our candidate. While she's not necessarily my first choice (I like Richardson's experience), I still like her. She will lead us back into the correct direction.

I don't give a s*** what rightists think.

[rosesaylavee]

14. Somehow I don't think you will be disappointed! n/t

[Dawgs]

16. Like I said earlier, 4/8 years of Hillary will get us another Republican Congress and President Bush

BTW, your post is the dumbest thing I've read all day.

[earthlover]

17. Rest Assured...the Right Wing WANTS VERY MUCH to hate our candidate....

And the WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE than for us to nominate Hillary...the one candidate who can inspire and unify the Republican Party against someone they hate.

And you actually WANT us to nominate someone who would unite the Republicans?

OMG....

[MonkeyFunk]

43. You would prefer

a candidate the right-wing likes? Not me.

[Rowdyboy]

19. We could nominate Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller and by election day

Republicans would be frothing over our "ultra-leftist, bleeding heart radical" ticket. We don't need their approval or imput to select our representative.

[earthlover]

28. Who said anything about wanting their approval?

The issue is how best to BEAT THEM!

If we don't win, THEY WIN! That means...as good as venting makes us feel in the short run....4 more years of idiocy ruling our country.

The right is not going to APPROVE any Democratic candidate. It's their job, after all, to defeat Democrats. Have we forgotten our job is to defeat Republicans?

Right now, the Reps are not particularly united. Not even the religious right is united behind one candidate. They are just where we would want them....scattered.

If we actually give them a candidate they can HATE....that is....translate....UNITE AGAINST, then we give them a better chance of pulling victory out of the jaws of defeat....just as we pull defeat out of the jaws of victory.

I must say, the thought of Hillary being elected would provide a smile thinking of all those Reps who would have to endure their demon being president (just has we have had to endure Bush).

However, the goal is not to find someone they hate. The goal is to win. We won't be able to get any of the nice things we want done if Romney or Guiliani or Freddie win. As much as the Reps hate our nominee.

[Lerkfish]

39. "the goal is not to find someone they hate"

well put.

[Cameron27]

20. Me too.

:toast:

[illinoisprogressive]

21. I don't think they think one way or the other. I mean,

I don't think they care if it pisses us off or not. whereas you seem to be more concerned over it.
When they vote I think they just pick who they like. And so do democrats except for those who think, I am going to vote according to pissing people off. what is the point in that if the candidate sucks or something?

[Colobo]

22. I think what I want from our candidate is much more productive.

[superkia]

23. I want a candidate that looked at the evidence in 2002 and voted no...

instead of spewing propaganda about Iraq, Saddam and Al queda like Bush did and voted yes. I am tired of innocent people losing their lives over money and power, I only wish more people cared about those lives so that we wouldn't have to see it happen again. I hope Americans realize that their votes could get the blood of more soldiers and innocent Iranians on their hands next. Everyone hates Bush but he was handed a huge weapon and ammo whenever he asked for it. Now that same huge weapon is in the American peoples hand, will we give it to those that used it to kill so many innocent people? No more pointing fingures, its up to us and if we make the wrong choice, it will be deadly and we cant just take it back.

We cant continue to ignore the truth of the past and expect things to just change, we must make a vote for that change and realize what took place in 2002 and why it took place. Please question why those who voted yes, did so. Where was the evidence, why did so many have to die, what was the agenda? What are the issues people are looking at, non profit health care? NO. Ending wars for profit and power? NO. Impeachment? NO. I don't understand how we can look at the facts and ignore them at a crucial time in our history.

Anyone who points at Bush but supports a candidate that enabled Bush needs to look in the mirror before casting their primary vote, thousands of innocent lives could rest on your conscience and vote. Please do the right thing and let people live!

[ClassWarrior]

24. Yes, because its all about infantile revenge, not saving our nation and our world.

:eyes:

Be the change you want to see.

NGU.

[apex nerd]

25. You will get what you want this time around

it doesn't matter who becomes the Democratic presidential nominee. The Right will hate that nominee. They will hate that nominee long and they will hate that nominee hard. And they will hate that nominee deep.

They will hate that nominee on the beaches. They will hate that nominee in the skies. They will hate that nominee in the city streets and in the country fields.

They will hate that nominee from sea to shining sea. They will hate that nominee from the mountains to the praries. They will hate that nominee from the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.

And when they have hated that nominee beyond the human ability to hate, they will down a fistful of oxycontin to clear their heads and hate that nominee some more.

It's what they do.

It's all they do.

Be careful what you wish for.

Keep posting.

[beaconess]

Exactly right!

Some people seem to believe that the right hates Bill and Hillary Clinton for a substantive reason. Yes, they dislike them for the same reason they dislike most Democrats - because they don't agree with their views on most things.

But they HATE them for one simple reason - because the Clintons beat them consistently. No matter what their opponents threw at them, the Clintons almost always came out on top. THAT's why they hate them.

If another Democratic candidate emerges who pulls down the Republicans pants, eats their lunch and then laughs in their faces the way the Clintons have done, the Republicans will HATE THEM TOO!

[Semper_FiFi]

26. I'm in agreement with you on this issue. Kick&Recommend n/t

[Perry Logan]

27. Only chickenshits are afraid of "energizing the Republican base."

And these people dare to call the Democrats in Congress cowards!

[earthlover]

29. The irony is...

Hillary has almost made a career out of trying not to alienate the Republican base! Yet she is the one candidate who would most unite the Republicans against a common foe/demon to run against.

I wouldn't be afraid to alienate the Republican base if we had a candidate who didn't make triangulation a religion.

With Hillary, we unite the opposition...making it harder for us to win. And, if we do, what do we get? A triangulator. Who will continue not to want to alienate anyone. To say goodbye to any dreams of substantive change.

It's the moderates who will decide the election. I wish we would nominate a candidate with a little more warmth and appeal. And doesn't dismiss questions with a condescending laugh, something that could be even more off-putting than a sigh.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. The Republicans Hate Clinton Because He Took The White House From Them

Up until Clinton they controlled it for twenty of twenty four years...After he took the White House back there is nothing the Clinton's could have done to placate them...

[beaconess]

38. EXACTLY!

[ClassWarrior]

42. More infantile blather and machismo.

:eyes:

NGU.

[beaconess]

33. Great post!

[w4rma]

34. Hillary gives progressives the worst of all worlds. A DLC sabateur and she is so disliked by the GOP

that the mere idea of her being the nominee is used to scare their base into giving money to Republicans.

I'm not supporting someone who supported the war, in the smoke filled rooms even, from the very beginning and then voting for what might be essentially another war on Iran. No. No. No.

She's the worst candidate on labor issues, also. The Clintons' DLC ideological support of 'free' trade is destroying America's middle class.

[Cary]

40. Your only real choice is 4 more years, and . . .

that's the real worst of all worlds.

[Lerkfish]

35. wish granted! next?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. I Want A Pony

:P

[Lerkfish]

37. wish granted! (look in your backyard)...next!

:)