I get it!

I get it, I get it, I finally just got it! It was Chuck's contribution to the LOLitics contest.

Now I get it.

Clinton supporters don't actually like Clinton (as evidenced by the overwhelming lack of evidence of any actual like), they're just suspicious of Obama because he is likeable!

You're not supposed to like a Democrat! Nobody ever likes the Democrat! We've never liked a Democrat!

It's a sort of Democratic self-loathing. No... we can't have a charismatic candidate, only Republicans are charismatic, therefore we must be suspicious of anyone with charisma. Democrats are short and ugly (Dukakis, Kucinich, Mondale), or they must drone on boringly ad infinitum about Very Important Facts That Nobody Else Understands (Gore v1.0, Kerry, HRC), or they must be able to stand on a stage and blend in with the background (????), but they must never, ever be able to speak enthusiastically and with vision. If anybody does that, he must be deceiving us in some way. And anybody who supports him is just sadly deluded. Gawd, it's just what she said, when she gave that speech in the ugly yellow pantsuit. She is perpetuating this horrible idea that Democrats must be boring, blah, and bland.

We want the dull, the ugly, the unlovable, the uncharismatic, the droner-on-of-highbrow-knowledge... the DEMOCRAT!

13 comments:

Dr. Momentum said...

I think there is an element of distrust of charisma on the democratic side. It's been a long time since we've had anyone that inspired people.

The more acceptable form of that lament is to say he has no experience. But if experience were the most important factor, we'd be upset that we can't re-elect George W. Bush.

I think the value of experience is overstated, and Bush is the prefect example.

Maggie said...

It is true, I don't believe there's a person living with more experience than Bush. Obama should hammer that home. Do we want experience, or do we want judgment?

George Lakoff suggests that Democrats need soundbites for their concepts. Republicans have spent millions of dollars and years of speeches and talk-radio building up their soundbites, so they have only to say "activist judge," for example, to conjure an unpleasant image in the mind of the listener -- is there anybody here who doesn't know the subtext to "activist judge"? Democrats have no such soundbites, they drone on through lengthy explanations that sail over the heads of the average voter. I don't believe it usually comes down to what they say -- it comes down to the half-assed ideas that people arrive at on their own, e.g. "a Clinton cleaned up the first Bush mess, we need a Clinton to clean up the second Bush mess." (She's a Rodham, BTW, AFAIK. She only married a Clinton.)

So here we have two Democrats running for the presidential nomination. Both are using Republican-like tactics. One has the verbal skill to create soundbites on the fly, or turn the Republican soundbites against the Republicans, e.g. "somewhere along the line the straight-talk express lost some wheels." He is bright and he is witty.

The other is using the other Republican tactics that we've come to know and loathe -- fear-mongering and opponent-smearing, mischaracterizing the truth and just plain lying.

Dr. Momentum said...

I remember distinctly not liking Bill Clinton. Until he got the nomination.

Julie said...

Me too. When Bill Clinton became our official boy, though, I decided he was the greatest thing since pie.

Then I had some actual pie, and the illusion was shattered.

Abacquer said...

LOL. You got all that from a four word LOLcat? Wow... my first choice was going to be nine words... good thing I didn't go with that one or you would have had to write a book! ;-)

The point of "I HAZ A HYPE" was exactly what it says.

I'm really glad that everyone here loves Obama so much. Honest! I think he's a very good candidate. There is a lot to distinguish him... from John McCain.

But there is a lot of Obama-hype/Hillary-hate, and I'm getting tired of it. They're both politicians, they both have nearly identical platforms, and they're both playing to win.

The Obama camp favors a 50/50 split of the Michigan and Florida delegates, Clinton camp favors a mail-in re-vote. Which is more democratic? Obama is happy with a 50/50 split that disenfranchises some of the voters for one reason and one reason only: he's ahead. I have no doubt that if Clinton were ahead, *she* would favor the 50/50 split option... but if that were the case I would be hearing no end of how-evil-she-is(tm) for doing so.

But not Obama. He gets a free pass. He's a consensus builder. He's smart, eloquent, inspiring, charismatic, and happy to disenfranchise American voters if it means he wins.

In the NAFTA SNAFU article it is revealed that there is a memo circulating in the Canadian government which is based on notes taken at a meeting with Obama's advisors assuring the Canadians that NAFTA is safe and that the anti-NAFTA rhetoric is a vote-winning tactic. But this is not the point of distaste apparently, the point of distaste is that Clinton has seized upon the story and is using it to attempt to question Obama's integrity.

How dare she play to win!

She's supposed to just roll over and give up. That's what democrats are supposed to do, right?

I think that some of the criticisms launched by Clinton against Obama are classic pot-and-kettle stuff. Very typical campaigning tactics. But it's pot-and-KETTLE, not pot-and-PRISTINE-SILVER-TEA-DECANTER.

Obama is a POLITICIAN. He appears in the photo linked earlier with his sleeves rolled up and his tie loosened because his PR handler has told him to do so--it makes him look like he's a hard worker who is going to get right down to business in office.

That's cool. He'd not be a very good politician to do otherwise. But I'm tired of the hype. Obama supporters seem to want to stick to the important issues until their candidate is legitimately criticised and then we are suddenly talking about how inspirational and likeable he is and how ugly and boring Hillary is.

When November comes, I'll vote for Obama as readily as I would have voted for Clinton--because it's the issues that really matter and their platforms are nigh identical. I wonder if all the Obama supporters would have done the same if Clinton was on the ticket?

I think perhaps BOB was right to bow out of this blog. I think I may do the same. I already cast my primary vote for the great-pantsuited-satan and I can't influence the process further until November.

Oh for anyone who is curious, my original LOLcat suggestion was going to be:

SHH! U NO TELLS ANYWUN:
I IZ A POLITISHUN.

Maggie said...

Yeah, srsly, I didn't get it until you posted that, even though Bob had said it in plain English -- you guys don't trust him because he speaks well.

Their platforms are nearly identical, true, which is why I look for something to distinguish them, and I've explained why I personally chose Obama a number of times. No Clinton supporter seems willing or able to explain what they like about her. I've come to the conclusion that you don't like her, you just don't like Obama more because he's too good for the self-loathing Democratic party. That was my brainstorm.

People are posting negative stories about Clinton (and read the original stories, it's not just us, it's Robert Reich, for chrissake), not because she's fighting, but because of the utter and total destructiveness and stupidity of her tactics. She's so desperate to win (and she's losing, let's not forget), that she's handing material to John McCain on a silver platter. John McCain is more prepared to be president than the Democratic front-runner? Here, John McCain, here's an unsubstantiated story about something the Obama campaign said in Canada and apparently our campaign said the same thing! STUPID! I would like a Democrat to win in November, so I'd rather not see the second cheese stab the front-runner in the back!

Now please address THAT, and not your straw man that we want her all to roll over and die. Nobody here has ever said that. I'd just like her not to, for example, imply that Obama is a Muslim so she can stir up some religious bigotry against him. Or not to say that he hasn't crossed some line that she and John McCain have crossed that mean they're read to be CinC. It's not just that she's being stupid in case Obama wins, she's being stupid if she wins. Obviously McCain is more experienced than she is. It's just plain stupid -- don't you wonder why Rush Limbaugh wants Republicans to game the system so she'll get the nomination? It's not because he wants a tougher fight in November. It's because she's handing this presidency to McCain.

Dr. Momentum said...

Yes, there's a lot of Obama boosterism on this blog.

That doesn't seem like a problem to me needing a solution of less Obama support. Instead let's see some Clinton boosterism. Do you think you're goign to offend someone if you tell us why you like Clinton?

We're all adults. You're not going to hurt my feelings by supporting Clinton. Why not give me reasons to feel better about the situation in the event that Clinton does win?

It has the extra added benefit of not leaving people to just wonder what her good qualities are.

Who knows, maybe you'll even convince someone to vote for Clinton instead of making some kind of protest vote.

Maggie said...

BTW, could you provide a source for your claims about the revote in Florida and Michigan? Everything I've read says that Clinton favors using the original votes and has been counting Florida and Michigan among her victories in her speeches, even though Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. There are countries with voting systems like that... but they're not democracies.


Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson last week declined to detail the campaign's view on the revote proposals that were being floated. But he said, "Our position is that the voters of Michigan and Florida have spoken, that those votes ought to count and those delegates ought to be seated."

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said over the weekend that the campaign has abided by the national party's rules and would continue to do so. "We do not think it's the place of the two campaigns to negotiate this," he said. "We simply are going to follow the DNC here."


Source: The Wall Street Journal.

Abacquer said...

No Clinton supporter seems willing or able to explain what they like about her.

I've said more than once what I like about Hillary. You are welcome to go to my blog where I mused about who I was going to vote for and why. Think I summed it up there.

This nonsense about how I "don't like Hillary" is just that. I love Hillary Clinton and I think she would make a great president--but I seriously doubt she will win.

I also do not "mistrust Obama because he speaks well". Thank you for reducing a post I spent two hours on to exactly what you wanted to see--talk about straw men. In point of fact I don't mistrust Obama at all. I think that he would make a fine president too (and have already said THAT before as well.)

I'm not complaining about Obama. I'm complaining about the hype that surrounds him. Period. Your ability to peer insightfully into my inner motivations is a product of your imagination.

If you would actually like to have a reasonable discussion with Hillary supporters, perhaps you should reexamine the language you use to describe them (i.e. "hands over ears, la la la I can't hear you".) Why should I choose to discuss anything with anyone who begins by poisoning the well? Why would anyone who supports Hillary want to talk to you? You clearly have no respect for people who support her, and if that's the position you are going to start from, nobody who supports her is going to want to talk to you.

Heck all I had to do was type a 4-word joke and it inspired an entire article about how I don't like Hillary and how I think democrats should be boring and unlikeable. Yes, I do have opinions on the things you mentioned, of which some are serious and some trivial IMHO, but I see no reason to go into them. Why bother? From your manner it appears you do not want anyone to defend Hillary, you are looking for someone to sink your teeth into and I'm not here to entertain you.

My time is too important to spend hours writing long posts here, especially when they aren't going to get a fair shake. It's clear that in order to hang out here I either have to shut up, or spend the next N months defending a vote I couldn't go back and change anyway, or toe the line and start supporting Obama.

Clearly, I'm not welcome, and it's just as well, this would distract me from my job and other things that are more important. So I'm done. Bye!

PS: could you provide a source for your claims about the revote in Florida and Michigan? Yes "my claims" came from the blog "Regime Turnover". The article was "This Week Summary". The text I based that statement on was "George [Stephanopolous] reports Clinton favors contest, Obama favors split, but Dean will not confirm." Here's a link:
http://regimeturnover.blogspot.com/2008/03/this-week-summary.html

Dr. Momentum said...

Calling Obama support "hype" is insulting, but I wasn't insulted because I knew you didn't mean it personally. I think you should take Maggie;s comments similarly. It's not personal, buddy.

I agree with Hillary supporters and pundits who say Obama supporters need to develop a thicker skin. But I think Hillary supporters should do likewise.

Dr. Momentum said...

(To self: Damn! I thought I had sanitized my This Week summary post to remove all the stuff that cast Obama in a bad light!)

;)

Maggie said...

Dude,

I'm making fun of us all when I talk about Democratic self-loathing. How many of us have said we held our noses while we cast our vote? The "Democrats" we have voted for have been uncharismatic minipubs. No wonder they lost! My dad used to get mad at me for blaming them, and in part they were victims, but in part it totally was their fault for not GROWING A PAIR and standing up for Democratic ideals. That's one reason I'm excited about Obama. I really do think that the claim of Hillary's "experience" is invalid, which as I recall from your blog was your main reason for supporting her. Heck, yesterday Maureen Dowd called it "risible," and I had to look that up. Spunky Maureen Dowd. I think Hillary is more of the same -- more of the kind of "Democrat" who's made us hold our noses. She's even made the comments about what a hunter she is! Yuck! And yes, I'm really pissed off at the way she's campaigned recently. She's behaving like a turd, and that's her own business. But worse than that, she's damaging the party's chances of gaining the White House in the fall. At this point in history, that's unforgivable.

If you're not enjoying the blog, you should definitely leave, as Bob left. You don't like arguing, you've said that before. You're taking it personally, where the rest of us aren't. It's a pity to lose the only Hillary supporter left (as far as I can tell), you could post stories that cast her in a good light, or defend her with your opinions (or better yet, some facts).

As far as her opinion on revotes vs. the Obama camp's, I haven't seen that in writing anywhere. James was summarizing a show that I didn't watch, and I'm not sure what that summary means. Does it mean that the Obama representative said that Obama favored the 50/50 split, or does it mean that Dean was asked if Obama favored the split, and wouldn't confirm? That's not much to go by. I've seen a number of sources that say that Clinton wants the original votes to count, and also that she's counted in speeches Michigan and Florida among her wins. HOWEVER, I read one earlier today on the Chicago Tribune (and the thing crashed my entire computer twice, which is why I'm not going to go back and find the URL, but it was an editorial) that quoted a radio address Clinton made in New Hampshire saying that the Michigan vote would not count. She's only changed her tune now that she's losing.

I don't think that's an easy problem to solve, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for "disenfranchised" voters who were trying to grab more power than they deserved. They flouted the rules that they agreed to, and now they're whining. I think only for the sake of the November election should they be allowed to revote, and I don't think it's at all fair to ask the DNC to foot the bill. So I hope they figure out a way to solve that.

Maggie

Dr. Momentum said...

Sorry for the lack of clarity in my summary.

George Stephanopoulos was trying to get Dean to dish about what solutions the different camps were favoring. He offered an impression he was getting from the people he'd spoken to, but Dean would not confirm it.

As far as I know, there isn't any official statement from the campaigns. Right now, it's up to the state-level organizations to come up with a plan that meets all the requirements.

Te Republicans involved (like Crist) are completely clear and on the record about their preference. They want the existing vote honored, throwing the majority of delegates to Clinton.

But using a vote that happened too early violates Democratic party rules that were already agreed to by all states, so that's unlikely to happen. Crist is just raising it to cause as much discord among Florida Democrats as possible, in the hopes that he can suppress turnout in November.