Comments on: A depressed Democrat

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:54:08 +0000

jj beat me to it. I too thought immediately that all the signs and placards at Senator Clinton’s events say, “Hillary”. Have I ever even seen one “Clinton” sign? I can’t recall one.

I still do not believe McCain can beat Clinton. The only one who can stop her is Obama.

The entire vast Clinton Corruption Machine is already in place and ready to spring into action. Bill and Hillary constructed it, and it is entirely beholden to both of them, and run by them. *IT* will be ready to go on Day One. And that is what scares the holy hell out of me. *That* is why I am rooting like all get-out for Obama to beat her. That machine, already so corrupt, already so capable at all flavors of corruption, vote-buying, nepotism, bribery, threats, etc… it’s ready to go.

Most Presidencies have to put the machine together. Even when a normal Vice President gains the presidency, there’s a lengthy period of transfer before a corrupt new Presidency inherits the power of the old corrupt Presidency. But with Hillary, it will already be at full strength on Day One.

And she is entirely about power for power’s sake. For all my disgust at Obama’s far-left philosophy, and for his smelly involvement in Chicago politics, I still do not think he is, at his base, corrupt.

And I think McCain has a decent chance of beating him.

By: oceanguy

oceanguy — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:15:13 +0000

Maybe this election will be the one that kills the Democratic Party as it is and a third party of the middle will rise in it’s place, leaving the ‘Democrats” on par with the Green Party. But Mann is right, the Democrats are imploding and are about to lose ANOTHER presidential election that was being presented to them on a silver platter.

First it was Kerry, the anti-war war hero losing to a very unpopular President, while the Congress swung to the Democrats… this time it will be BHO

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:38:45 +0000

“Depressed Democrat” - kind of redundant, no? Always losing, always a victim, always on the edge of disaster, always being shafted by “them”, always having elections “stolen”, always having their superior intellect ignored by rubes, always guilty of raping the environment….

By: suek

suek — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:05:16 +0000

>>McCain’s problem is that he’s off to a slow start by pandering to the shrinking GOP base.>>

Not so’s his GOP base could notice. Otherwise the base wouldn’t be shrinking.

By: jj

jj — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:15:49 +0000

Oh, I don’t know. She self-identifies as “Hillary,” it’s her brand, and at rallies, etc. she hands out big signs that say simply “Hillary,” so it’s probably little to do with you. It’s one thing if other people refer to you thusly, but it’s something entirely different if you do it yourself.

It can mean different things in different contexts, too; and not all of them are negative. Somewhat off the point, but instructive in terms of identification, and how we do it, and what it means: I spent time editing and doing some research for a friend who was writing on the ground war in Europe in WWII (which book did quite well, ultimately) and discovered an interesting anomaly in terms of identification.

All kinds of lovely old men, and they generally identified in military terms, i.e.: “I was with 82nd Airborne;” or “I was in XIX Corps on D-Day, part of 29th Division; we went in with V Corps,” etc., etc. You generally got an outfit name when you asked where they were, and what they were up to for the eye-witness stuff.

But not in one case, and I found it to be almost universal. Just about nobody who was with 3rd Army ever said: “I was with 3rd Army.”

They ALL, almost universally, said (and let me tell you, they said it with some pride, too, these lovely old men): “I was with Patton.”

Maybe that’s the kind of legendary status to which she aspires.