National Review Cover - "Please Nominate This Couple"

[sloppyjoe25s]

Say a Prayer for Hillary

Hillary Clinton has earned the vocal disapproval of the liberal elite; if she wins the nomination, she will be forced to court the party’s angry-Left base at a time when she would be better served by reaching out to the center; she has used Bill as an obvious crutch, weakening her own image; and her feminist allies have made it clear they will do all they can to define her candidacy as an exercise in vintage 1970s-style feminism. For Republicans, the choice is clear: Go Hillary!


full story:

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAwODAyMjU=

[terrya]

1. Why is the National Review being cited here?

Fuck them and fuck their ultra right wing shit. I'm not even the least bit interested in reading that swill.

[sloppyjoe25s]

4. exactly the point

Mrs. & Mr. Clinton will ignite the passion and energy of the right like high-octane gasoline on dry straw!!

[aquart]

24. No, it won't.

They wish it would, but nothing will ignite Republicans this year. And they all remember that America was prosperous when Bill was in charge.

What's fun is to see how quickly the media learned: attack Hillary and people vote for her. Attack Bill and they won't.

What's not so much fun is watching the rest of you be played like violins.

[sloppyjoe25s]

27. gee - you have so much evidence in your post

it is overwhelming. Not.

Every analysis of every respectable political scientist has shown Mrs. Clinton has extremely high negatives.

Her spin "I'm vetted"

Well - guess what - it's not enough to be "vetted" - you can't be "vetted" and found fundamentally lacking by 51% of the US population, and expect to be a strong contender for the presidency.

On top of that - she is an extremely poor issue match up with McCain.

On Iraq.
On Ethics.
On "ability to make change"
On Experience - which is again what she has tried to run on.

You are simply ignoring the evidence if you do not realize that 99% of America has a hard and fast position on Mrs. Clinton, and that she has a real dissadvantage as a result. When options are that "locked down" - it is hard to change them.

[QC]

6. Krauthammer, Carlson, Gerson, and Noonan are regularly cited here, so why not.

This place became Free Republic some time back, when all these brand new people claiming to support Obama arrived.

[sloppyjoe25s]

11. oh yea "old timer"?

use the old trick of crying "oh look his post count is low" - or "his join date is recent"

as your argument against what I'm saying - WEAK - implying i'm some sort of a "shill" and don't really support a candidate. I've been running a pro-Obama website since many months before he was even IN the race.

I'm a small business owner creating JOBS in my state - and supporting Internet Neutrality.

I've probably done more for the Democratic Party, and Progressive causes than you my whole life.

So cut the DU "smear tactics" and make a real argument.

[QC]

23. It's not your low post count that makes me suspicious.

It's your tendency to spout right wing talking points and engage in personal attacks.

[sloppyjoe25s]

29. Yours was a personal attack

classic "old time DUer" - to say "ahh he's new - so hes a shill"

you did not even make an argument.

Nothing I've said is a right wing talking point. I've made substantive argument after substantive argument, and you've come back with nothing.

I don't ever initiate an attack against a DUer - but I will fight back legitimately when you try a slur like that.

[QC]

32. Nope, never mentioned you.

But it's interesting how furious your became when I pointed out how many people were now citing fascists as authority figures here. Must have hit a nerve.

And then there's my first encounter with you, when you pitched a hissyfit because I said that it was getting old having heterosexuals tell me what I can and cannot think about gay issues. That must have hit a nerve, too.

If you really want people to support your candidate, stop making him look so bad. I really don't have anything against Obama, but some of his supporters here, and you are a prime example, make it very hard for me to like him.

[sloppyjoe25s]

39. nice try again - and i didn't "cite them as authority figures"

your post explicitly mentioned saying "new people" who "say they support obama".

That's classic DU garbage. "It says - look how this poster is new so he must be a shill". That hit a nerve because it is a pure personal attack - and you made no point in the process - because it is obvious i'm not citing any of the people as authority figures - including those in the National Review - i'm simply point to facts and trends in the whole country.

None of which have you answered.

Once again - the end of your last post is a direct attack - you say I "make my candidate look bad" - you don't counter a single substantive argument i've made - you simply attack me. That has no substance at all - it's purely personal.

Look - if you can't take real arguments - and can't respond to facts with facts or substantive points - you might want to simply not spend your time on here.

Your post on the other thread was also a personal attack against that poster.

[Captain Hilts]

16. Don't forget Novak. nt

[QC]

21. Oh yes, Novak is the Delphic Oracle to these people. n/t

[sloppyjoe25s]

31. Novak can't talk without slurring his speech anymore

he is truly a dottering old man, and far from a Delphic Oracle to me or anyone with a brain.

[Arugula Latte]

40. The National Review is proving our point that the Republicans NEED Hillary.

She's the only thing that will fire them up -- to come out to vote against her.

[Mz Pip]

2. Here we go again...

No way should we let the idle musings of Rich Lowry and Kate O Biern define our candidates.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[sloppyjoe25s]

5. exactly the point

Mrs. & Mr. Clinton will ignite the passion and energy of the right like high-octane gasoline on dry straw!!

i'll leave out the ad-hominin rhetoric - but if you don't get it - you are simply blind.

[Mz Pip]

8. Um, are you

attacking me? If so, why?

[sloppyjoe25s]

9. i'm not attacking you

i'm saying that it's not "letting the idle musings" of two right wing nut cases "pick our candidate"

the post IS pointing out - what anyone with eyes open can see - that the RIGHT DESPERATELY wants to run against Mrs. Clinton.

People have tried to paint this as some sort of masterfull "reverse psychology" of the right - ummm... those people should keep dreaming. It is a simple truth that the REthugs know that Mrs. Clinton is their best hope of unifying their party at this stage.

[Mz Pip]

13. I do agree

that the CLinton's have an amazing way of uniting the base of the Republican Party. But I don't think we should be pickng our candidate based on what we think the GOP wants.

I'm a Obama supporter but will work for Clinton if she is the nominee. McCain strikes me as old, tired and uninspiring. I think Hillary can beat him.

[sloppyjoe25s]

17. Possibly she can, but...

But if she rips us apart - by fighting a legal battle for Florida and Michigan delegates - after saying on record "those elections don't count"

and uses Super Delegates to overturn a popular delegate, popular vote, and state contest win by Obama.

A TON OF DEM voters will be utterly disgusted - and will not only not work for the campaign - they will stay home in Nov.


I would probably still make it to vote, but i can tell you I would not feel energized - and would not open my wallet (i need my money to feed my family & pay my mortgage thank you).

So McCain would have a REAL strong chance against Mrs. Clinton, and the right-wing "foot soldiers" WOULD come out to stop her.

[Mz Pip]

26. I have said several times before

that I hope this isn't decided by twisting arms and backroom deals.

I remember 1968. Humphrey became the candidate and I read last week that he never won a primary. I was in Chicago back then, not old enough to vote but pretty close and there was a lot of disillusionment. We ended up with Nixon. It was after that that the method of chosing a candidate became more "democratic."

Making this a battle about superdelegates, regards of who does it will turn off some of the supporters of the losing candidate. I suspect the Republicans are hoping for that.

I hope there can be a clear cut winner, that the superdelegates will respect that. If not, it will be a huge slap in the face - just like having the SCOTUS picking Bush was.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[sloppyjoe25s]

30. I hope so too very much

I'll vote for Hillary if she gets the nod.

But it will be pretty tough if she gets it via Florida and Michigan - without some sort of new fair CONTEST.

or

Superdelegates upsetting a pledged delgate majority for Obama.

Both of those would turn me off alot, but I would still drag myself in to vote for her.

[QC]

20. That's what he does to everybody.

It's easier than thinking.

[sloppyjoe25s]

25. wrong again - you tried the DU "smear"

of saying I'm a Newbie.

Guess again. I've been around a good long while - and that is no argument - it's a cheap "1000+" poster attack.

You did not think or make an argument - i made several.

Now you are at it again. Why not just analyze the point - and make a reasoned response? You might enjoy it more.

[QC]

28. Why bother making a reasoned reply

to someone who simply bleats talking points and engages in personal attacks?

I'll make a deal, though: say something even slightly mature and intelligent and I will respond in kind. I know that would be a major departure for you, but who knows? You might have some talent for it. Stranger things have happened.

[sloppyjoe25s]

33. another personal attack

from you.

I have made multiple substantive arguments on this thread. Specifics about how the middle of the electorate can respond. The ossification of opinion on Mrs. Clinton - the relevance (or not) of comparing this argument to the same argument made against Howard Dean, and others.

You have still said nothing of substance, and continue with the attacks.

You are less convincing with each post.

[Mz Pip]

34. In all fairness

we've engaged in quite a civil discourse since that post.

THe problem with reading a post is that there is no affect so it's often difficult to gage the true tone. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. :-)

[QC]

36. Yes, after he accused you of being blind for failing to agree with him.

He was real nice after that.

The problem with this particular poster is that he has only one mode--full on attack.

Well, two modes, actually--there's the one where he whines about personal attacks whenever anyone contradicts him. I guess he got that from his candidate.

[sloppyjoe25s]

37. thank you... and i apologize if

i reacted too strongly to your first post.

I agree we should never let the right wing "pick our candidate"

but I think discussing the issue of Mrs. Clinton's electability is fair game.

I agree our conversation has been civil and substantive.

[stevenleser]

3. Kicked. I'm no fan of that rag or either author, but I read what goes on at FR too because

I need to know what the political opposition is thinking. Every once in a while, they have a point, and they happen to be dead on here. HRC is the fight they have been sharpening their knives for for over 7 years. I see no reason to give it to them.

[More Than A Feeling]

7. This is actually an argument for nominating Hillary.

Once you remember that people are tired of Bush, tired of conservatism, and clearly eating up rhetoric that doesn't use the "left/right" frame, you realize that if the GOP starts shouting "EVL LIBRULS" in the general, its going to sound jarring and out-of-touch, rather than compelling. At the same time, we want Hillary to continually have to justify her nomination to us, rather than following her shitty advisors and/or her instincts in diving off to the right. Obama, on the other hand, hasn't really changed his message at all the whole time he's been running, and I doubt he'd change it in the general. He is what he is. Now, that may mean its less likely to dive farther to the right, but he hasn't exactly thrown red meat to the base the way Edwards and (sometimes) Hillary did until recently.

[IndianaGreen]

10. The country is tired of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynastic rule

Two royal families that at a different time and a different place, would have found themselves send to the guillotine.

[Zynx]

12. To be fair, Robespierre deserved the guillotine more than anyone else

who was killed in it. The French Revolution after the first few years was a horrible horrible thing.

[tuvor]

14. How can you be tired of something that hasn't happened yet?

Or may not happen at all?

[sloppyjoe25s]

22. Well we have already had Bush-Clinton-Bush... and now

alot of visibility of the next Clinton.

Alot of people don't find it hard at all to say "I'm tired of that" even before it has happened.

We've had 80% of it - so seeing the last 20% is like seeing the last two bites of liver and onions on your plate (after you've been forced to eat most of it), and saying "I don't want those last two bites".

(i personally like liver and onions, but i think you get the point)

[bidenista]

15. they said the same about dean

Was it a good argument against nominating him? No. Is this a good argument against nominating Hillary? No.

(I still think Dean would've outperformed Kerry.)

[sloppyjoe25s]

18. "they"?? maybe 2 people

for 80% of the country you say "Howard Dean" and they say:

"Who the fuck is that?"

Unlike with Mrs. Clinton 99% of the country knows her and HAS AN OPINION.

So the argument is FAR more important that she would have a tough time appealing to anyone outside her (already shrinking) base, and that she would DRAMATICALLY energize the far right foot-soldiers.

To compare her effect with Howard Dean is simply to not understand their respective national profiles.

Try again.

[stevenleser]

19. They can say the same thing about every candidate on both sides...

sometimes it will be true. It is true in this case.

[sloppyjoe25s]

35. right you are - and the *Reason* it is true is Mrs. CLinton's national profile

She has been around a long time - as she is running on "35 years"

and the result - is opinion has "solidified" on her. People don't have "ill formed" notions.

This makes the worry about her negatives, and lack of appeal to independents very signigicant indeed.

It also is what will mobilize the right wing foot soldiers. They hold strong, time-tested views about her.

[MethuenProgressive]

38. Welcome to DU. What's your name on FreeRepublic?

Re:puke:

[sloppyjoe25s]

41. *lol* another DU "classic smear" attempt

I've probably done more for the Democratic Party than you ever have or ever will.

I run a business creating real jobs in my state - and have registered over 1000 new Democratic voters since October 2007. I have spoken to multiple Democratic elected officials in person on issues ranging from the failed war in Iraq, to Internet Neutrality. I speak to small business groups about the Democratic agenda, and have many interested in a Democrtic candidate for the first time in their lives.

Please do tell me how many people you have PERSONALLY registered as Democrats in the past 6 months? Since your sticker says you are "Proud to be a Democrat".

but keep trying the same old "DU Smear" tricks -- "oh look this poster has fewer posts than me"

to try to silence voices.

R.O.F.L.

That is seriously funny - if again you can't post anything of substance - read the whole thread - i've made plenty of substantive points - and you come up with classic DU "personal smear"

not very effective keemosabe, and not in the slightest bit Progressive. And not Democratic at all for that matter.

[MethuenProgressive]

42. "classic"? you've been here a week and you claim to know DU "classics"?

What was your DU name before you were tombstoned?

[sloppyjoe25s]

43. Another personal attack - *yawn*

"my name before i was tombstoned" "my name on FreeRepublic" - wow - so snappy! Got any more of that calibre?

You are kidding yourself if you think these are "good zingers"

They are hackney'd, worn-out, DU "stand-by"s, I wonder how many of your "thousand posts" - consist of you copying and pasting, "Welcome to DU, What is your screen name on FreePublic?" - GOD THAT IS SO ORIGINAL I CAN'T STAND IT!!! R.O.F.L.M.A.O.

You again totally failed to respond with any substance or logic, though i'm hardly surprised by that.

I'm sorry if some of us are faster at "seeing through" hackney'd "DU weak smear attempts" than you are. Perhaps you should take up something to keep your mind more fresh? Sudoku? Chess? Reading? Posting something original?

I am still just laughing uncontrollably, so pardon any typos, but...

Anyone who can't figure out "DU Classic Smears" in a week would have to be brain dead.

[apocalypsehow]

54. Another kind, gentle, pleasant, gracious, and tolerant Clinton supporter is heard from....

:sarcasm:

:eyes:

[TexasObserver]

49. but but but ...

But you are saying something they don't like, and you're new, so that means you're whatever demon they've dreamed up in their heads.

You know how dogs run up to sniff the asshole of a new dog that comes up? Well, here, it's mainly the assholes doing the sniffing.

[sloppyjoe25s]

51. gracias!

Wow - a nice 1000+ poster! Thanks for the support. It does get annoying when **some** old timers use those DU lines on people who have recently joined DU, as if DU is the only place on earth where people could possibly have been involved.

Good luck in Texas! (assuming Observer means you are from there?)

[TexasObserver]

53. De nada, Amigo. Si se puede!

I'm new posting, too, but realized the discrimation towards newcomers from a year of lurking, so I knew I needed to up the post count to stop that incessarnt "oh, look at you, newbie, why don't you STFU!"

Most people don't read most posts, and do read the Subject line, so half my posts are just a subject line comment.

Good luck and keep the faith. Anyone who used that one on me got the IGNORE list immediately. You won't miss the turds you put on IGNORE.

[TexasObserver]

44. Republicans are praying and working to get Hillary to run against.

She's their only hope of winning.

[Cha]

45. They better give her some

more money then 'cause bil's not helping.

[TexasObserver]

48. that's exactly where some her new money is coming from

[K Gardner]

46. Yup.

[goldcanyonaz]

47. Clinton Rocks! Viva Clinton!

:woohoo:

[sloppyjoe25s]

50. Viva Obama! Obamanos!

sorry... i just love "Obamanos!"

peace.

[Cha]

52. I love Obamanos, too..

It says it all in a andale sorta way. :)