Democratic National Convention '08

[innerSpaceman]

Perhaps I'd best explain myself better.


This is a very liberal-leaning message board. I don't think there are many supporters of John McCain for president around here. Heheh, not even among our few Conservative members.

Yet no one personally insults the man by saying he became a U.S. Senator because people felt sorry for him being tortured as a Vietnam prisoner of war. Yet, from a certain and logical point of view, that's exactly what happened.

Being a torture victim may make you a martyr-like hero that inspires admiration, but it more likely inspires pity.

Yet, it would be rude to say the Senator was elected by the citizens of Arizona because of pity ... and in any case, he's gone on to do very good work for his constituants in that State and for America as a United States Senator.


When people don't accord Senator Clinton the same respect, it irks me. And she has also gone on to do good work for her constituants and for America. And so I take umbrage at the personal and disgustingly disrespectful insult.

People are free to express that opinion, and I'd like to be free to express my displeasure at the rudeness that I find out of line.


I think the grapes sound as if they tasted sour, so I really don't think I'm being any more prissy than someone who accuses Hillary Clinton of attaining the lofty position accorded to a mere 100 Americans (much less being the first viable female presidential candidate in American history) through pity that she was cuckholded on national TV.

[3894]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Being a torture victim may make you a martyr-like hero that inspires admiration, but it more likely inspires pity.

Lately, quite a lot of talking heads have been noting McCain plays the pity card frequently, which he has conflated with the how-dare-you-question-a-war-hero card. Rachel Maddow did almost a monologue on it on Keith Olbermann the other night.

When people don't accord Senator Clinton the same respect, it irks me. And she has also gone on to do good work for her constituants and for America. And so I take umbrage at the personal and disgustingly disrespectful insult.

People are free to express that opinion, and I'd like to be free to express my displeasure at the rudeness that I find out of line.

What's a insult is both how Sen. Clinton has played the weak sister card and how it worked.

[Strangler Lewis]

Since Hillary is 60 going on 61, she won't be 59 in eight years. Unless 68 is the new 58--which I certainly hope it is.

[Alex]

Don't be silly, John McCain became a senator by exactly the same route as Hillary: he married the right person and thus gained access to the financial and political puppet strings in Arizona.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, with all due respect, what the Talking Heads do has nothing to do with the behavior on this message board. I'd hate to think we should stoop to the discourse level of television commentators.


Nonetheless, you are of course free to express your opinion. I just thought it was personally insulting and out of line. That's my opinion.



As for the candidates, I expect them to play every card in the deck ... but I don't have to stoop to that level either. Hillary's a jilted woman, Obama's black, McCain's a torture victim. Those cards are going to be on the table. I don't think any of them make for a winning hand, but they're going to be played for the pity vote that exists in small quantities.

[Ghoulish Delight]

And that relates to my post how? I never said she doesn't deserve to be where she is. I said, as I've said this entire election, that I don't think her political attitude is right for the time. I think she, and those that support her, would have gotten into the White House and proceeded to run an administration that was totally reactionary to the Bush administration, making decisions based on what would make the other side of the aisle look worse, not based on what would be best for the country.

It has nothing to do with her being a woman, or riding coat tails, or lack of experience. It has everything to do with how I've seen her conduct herself int he political arena.

Not that I expect Obama to be free from that, the realities of the pressures of partisan politics being what they are. But I don't expect him to go in with that as part of his goals. Whereas I would expect that rubbing her victory in Bush's face would have been very high on Clinton's priority list, and her constituency would by and large have been disappointed if that WASN'T what she did.

I don't want to see 8 more years of Bush politics, but neither do I want to see 8 years of reaction to Bush politics. I want to see 8 years of someone running their own Presidency as best they can whether it makes Bush look bad or not. Right now, Clinton represents an arm of the Democratic party that doesn't want fair, rational decisions in the White House, but wants the pendulum to swing in the other direction to make up for the slights they've perceived over the last 8. I'd rather see that pendulum stopped as much as possible.

Take Clinton out of that context, where the people voting for her aren't doing so because they want someone who can stick it to Bush but because they want her as a leader and it's a whole different ball game. After 8 years of an Obama White House that is (crossing my fingers) comparatively rational, civil, and professional, I will be much more willing to back Hillary as a candidate.

That's all I'm saying. So try to keep your personal sniping to yourself for a second and read what's posted rather than assuming something I never said.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And that relates to my post how?

If that question's directed at me, the answer is: It doesn't relate to your post at all, Mr. Post-At-The-Exact-Same-Time-As-Me.

It relates to the posts of 3894 and KevyBaby right above yours; you just happened to post at the exact same time as me. I didn't feel like going back and editing my post to include their quotes, because I thought the objects of my response were obvious.

I guess not to you. I apologize for any confusion. Was that the cause of your lovely message?


Even if so, I appreciate the criticism of my tone. You inspired me to explain myself better, and I'm glad I had that opportunity. And I'm sorry personal insults to Hillary are bugging me this morning. I'll likely have a thicker skin on days when I haven't enjoyed her big speech the night before.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oops, heh, and I missed Kevy's post entirely.

[Strangler Lewis]

Would one say that Paulie Shore didn't deserve his career because his mother ran The Comedy Store?

Would we say that Christian Slater doesn't deserve his career because his mother was a casting executive?

It's not what you know . . .

[innerSpaceman]

But THIS is in reaction to your last post, GD, now that I've read further:

Yeah, I agree Clinton might have had revenge in mind. If she's appointed to Justice, she'll have an even better shot at it than if she were elected president.


But just because many red-meat Democrats might want revenge or repudiation, that doesn't mean the people they elect on that basis will deliver it. Witness the current Congress and Nancy Pelosi. Voted in, I daresay, to at least move decisively to end the war in Iraq, and they've pretty much thumbed their noses in their voters' faces. I wouldn't expect Hillary Clinton to be any more beholden, and I don't think revenge for its own sake is particularly important to her. She's never been one of the bigger Bush opponents as a Senator, only as a candidate.


That said, I DO expect and want a repudiation of Bush policies, whether or not that's considered reactionary to the Bush Administration. I'd like an end to the war in Iraq, and an end to the shredding of encroachments on the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. There are many other progressive things I'd like achieved ... and to the extent they are the opposite of the Bush Administration philosophy, those could be seen as a repudiation of the last 8 years.

Frankly, I don't expect Barack Obama to be much less in the pocket of corporations and financial interests, but we'll see. But anything done to restore our civil rights and increase the well-being of the middle and lower classes will be a defacto repudication of and reaction to the Bush years.


It might be the easy way out, but if any new administration would simply be guided by doing the exact opposite of what George Bush might have done, and spend 8 years undoing all of his misdeeds, I would consider that a damn successful presidency.