This reminds me so much of Jon Stewart putting Tucker Carlson temporarily out of work on Crossfire, only I'm no Jon Stewart, and I don't get to say this on national tv, and Megan won't be fired.
What's weird is, in their quest to nominate a candidate who can win, it seems like Democrats are going to pick the one with the greatest chance of losing. After the disaster of the Bush administration, it seems hard to imagine any Republican pulling a victory out of this next election. But Hillary seems like the Democratic candidate most likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Unlike the other Democrats, she has absolutely enormous negative baggage, and it's all going to come out during the general election. The only reason it hasn't already (or so I mote) is that the other Democratic candidates are trying to avoid doing anything to tarnish the nostalgic glow that currently surrounds the last Democratic presidency. The GOP candidate will have no such restraint. Moreover, I think Democrats are underestimating just how suspicious Americans will be of a presidential roster that goes Bush . . . Clinton . . . Bush . . . Clinton.Megan, you think Hillary wants to steal your money. Stop pretending you have legitimate or intelligent issues with her candidacy. It's simple, and obvious.
But besides that, let's do a comparison of negatives between the two leading candidates. Hillary- hated by the 25-30% hardcore backwash Bush supporters (along with everyone else on the entire planet. Those folk do little else in life besides hate, and help Bush destroy the country), seen, inaccurately, as very liberal. That's about it. You may hate her for her failed health care efforts in the past, Megan, but in today's environment that's as much a positive as negative, I'd think. People who aren't selfish, racist, pieces of shit like you, Megan, should be gladdened by the prospect of a president who recognizes the gravity of the situation, and even has experience fighting against this particular machine. Basically, Hillary's massive negatives are that people who would never vote for a Democrat really loathe her.
Now, how about Rudy? As even Megan accepts, he's batshit insane, in a genuinely terrifying way. Plus, he's a pro-choice pro-gun control hardcore conservative, meaning a huge portion of his base is in opposition to him on what are, to them, two crucial issues. And then there are the serial philanderer, married his cousin, tried to move his lover into the Mayor's Gracie Mansion while still married debacles. A public adulterer versus the most famously cheated-on woman in modern history, if not ever. Oh, and her husband was a very popular and successful president who demonstrated an ability to beat the very Republicans our nation is coming to realize are effectively suicidal madmen who don't care who they take down with them.
You're officially a Beltway insider now, Megan, for spewing that crap.
Posts
9 comments:
The only reason it hasn't already (or so I mote) is that the other Democratic candidates are trying to avoid doing anything to tarnish the nostalgic glow that currently surrounds the last Democratic presidency.
This is probably the dumbest goddamn sentence contained on the Internet, and not because of the hyperpretentious use of the word "mote" (though that doesn't help).
Does she understand how politics works? Like, at all?
Wait, don't answer that.
Well, to my mind the objection to dynasties is sufficient reason to loathe a Clinton ticket, so little Megan's got a point there. Of course, it's a point that's been obvious, and discussed, for about the last five fucking years, so I guess they didn't hire the flake for her special insight.
Could it be that they took her on to deflect attention from the embarrassment of hiring that narcissistic ignoramus Sullivan?
-- sglover
Good lord, is this sad affair still going on? If the measure of a stalker is the stature of his obsession, you've ranked yourself pretty low.
Yeah, sure, that's what we are. Stalkers.
[rollseyes]
You're not contributing usefully to the public debate, you're not constructively criticizing a very mildly significant blogger, you're not aiming for anything useful... you're just obsessively nitpicking a B lister. I'd call that stalking.
Well, then you have a very odd definition of stalking. Usually, it involves following someone around.
You have an hysterical rebuttal to every post she makes within an hour or two. Within the constraints of constantly monitoring someone over the Internet, that's stalking.
Hmm, you might want to check the timestamps more closely, anon. Megan does most of her work in the morning, I get around to laughing at her around 2 or 3. N I'd say we don't respond to more of her posts than we mock. But hey, thanks for reading.
You have an hysterical rebuttal to every post she makes within an hour or two.
Megan somehow manages to be a prolific poster despite being pathologically lazy. We, on the other hand, are just pathologically lazy.
Go count her posts and then count ours. I suspect you'll find less than a one-to-one match.
Post a Comment