Hill-billy's secret strategy and why it works

[Stonehenge]

Can we expect to see a repeat of the waterworks at the next primary?  Maybe she will carry onions around with her


by Maureen Dowd

There was a poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one. But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.

As Spencer Tracy said to Katharine Hepburn in “Adam’s Rib,” “Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid.”

What's peculiar is how well the tactic worked on those women voters over 65. (I can think of a number of ways to characterize that group, but resist the temptation with the fear that if I do, I won't live to join them.) This group has been driving for roughly half a century. They know first hand that the fastest, easiest way to get out of a speeding ticket is to grow misty-eyed. The prospect of tears intimidates more than the actual crying. Consequently, this group of voters should have been the quickest to spot Hillary's manipulation.

Perhaps the mature women voters sympathized with the Hillary tears that we never saw: those that must have flown every time Hillary learned that the Boy President had cheated on her.

[cenacle]

I love Maureen Dowd...one of the smartest, funniest political writers around...

[cenacle]

An additional comment. I watched the Democratic debate in Nevada this week. Clinton, Obama, Edwards. I support Obama, but I will support either of the three of them if one gets their party's nomination, as is likely.

I believe each, in a myriad of domestic and foreign policy topics, will bring the government much more in line with mainstream American sentiment. I've read here and elsewhere the bitterness people have who support one or another of these candidates, but from where I stand, I am good with each.

I like Obama for his vision of the presidency, but I will support Edwards or Clinton if they are their party's nominee. Life in the US and abroad will be an amazingly vast improvement over where things have been for years.

[Stonehenge]

Can we sum up your last post to say

"I will pull the "D" lever no matter who is on the ticket"

Sorry if that sounds sarcastic. You have told us the Iraq war was your top priority. However, Hillbilly who promises to keep us in Iraq indefinitely, will get your vote if she is the "D". Ron Paul who is totally against the war will never get your vote nor will any other "R" or third party.

May we ask who you will support in the primaries? Or since it makes no difference, will you skip the primaries?

[cenacle]

I care a whole lot about this election and about what happens in its results. I'm going to work to make sure someone better gets into office than what we have now.

 I'm fine with my first choice of Obama, that's who I will vote for in the Oregon primary. I'm also good with Clinton or Edwards if they get nominated. The Republicans have nobody I think much of, and Ron Paul does not appeal to me at all.

If I had my choice, I would be voting for Al Gore this November. But he is not running. I decided to back Obama after reading about him and listening to him. I don't think Edwards will get the nom, but I agree with him on many points, I don't like him as much as Obama, but I think he'd make a good president. As for Clinton, I have differences with her, but I've been studying her too. If she gets the nomination I will vote for her.

It's really simple, Stoney. Vote for one of the major parties, vote third party, don't vote. I've wrestled with this more than I can say, and I'm good with my decision. I don't think things are going to change much, save for the Boy Lunatic engineering a new 9/11 and declaring martial law. When I think of that versus one of the leading Democrats taking office, the preference is simple.

So you're voting for Paul? I see he got 16 percent in the Michigan Republican primary. I hear his supporters are pretty noisy, I remember encountering them in Seattle in a number of places.

[Stonehenge]

No, I'm not voting for Paul. A little too extreme but he's right on a lot of core issues. Eduards might be OK but I haven't looked over his positions very closely since he seems like a dark horse.

"As for Clinton, I have differences with her, but I've been studying her too. If she gets the nomination I will vote for her."

That's why I say you will pull the lever for whomever is the D candidate. Your "studying" and perusing of the issues is window dressing. You say the war is your main concern but it makes no difference because even if the leading democrap will keep us in Iraq and is not opposed to invading Iran, you will vote for that person. You don't like any of the R candidates because they are republican.

Why bother listening to speeches and studying issues when it makes no difference? You will still do the same thing even if you didn't know the names of any of the candidates. Just show up on voting day and pull the "D" lever. The only way you would depart from that strategy is if they forced you to use a touch screen or something. Then you would touch the D candidate or push the D button. A robot could do as well.

For those of us to whom the issues do make a difference, our vote is not foreordained. I will not vote D no matter what, by simply accepting the lesser of the evils argument. If the D is an unscrupulous scumbag who will say or do anything to get elected, they will not get my vote. If they make speeches against the Iraq war but are on record as saying they will keep us in there, I will not vote for them. If they have spoken against Iran and not ruled out invading them, I will not vote for them. To me, issues do make a difference. To some people, the only issue is D or R.

[cenacle]

All three leading Democratic candidates have now made public pledges to end the war in Iraq. They are now on the public record. None of the Republicans, save Paul, intend to do that. I agree with Paul on that stand, but as you said, he's pretty whacked on some other things. I do like him in the race, though, if only to aggravate Mitt, Rudy, McCain etc.

And as the makeup of the next Congress will be even more anti-war, the legislation will pass, no filibusters or whatever will happen, and that's that. There's nothing complex about any of that.  2009 is when the combat troops come home.

I do think we will keep a presence in the Middle East, for example in Kuwait, and at the American embassy in Baghdad. But the pragmatic, bottom line is that next year at this time the US will be removed from Iraq's civil war, and hopefully Iraqis will be figuring some domestically grown way to have peace.

[cenacle]

Hey, that's weird. I was posting a reply to Stonehenge's last post, then decided to delete what I had written. But the system deleted my post and his. Is there a way to restore his post, but not mine? Does the system back up to previous versions of a thread?

[Stonehenge]

A likely story

No, its OK, stuff happens. I don't believe there is any way to get it back and it wasn't all that great a post anyway. Why would you delete your post before you posted it? That's not what you do, you just back out if you don't want to post something. I see no option to delete anything as I write this.

I simply had stated that vague promises to end the war mean nothing. Did Hill say all troops would be out and when? No, hell no, in fact she is on record as saying troops will stay in there indefinitely. She also has not ruled out an invasion of Iran and called them "terrorists". She may simply declare the war over, pull back a few troops and then call it a "police action" or some other euphemism.

I asked you if you would be happy with that outcome. Hence, your lack of response. The truth is you will vote D no matter what. It could be Lyndon Larouche as the nominee and you'd still pull the same lever.

[cenacle]

I posted, I changed my mind, I deleted. It deleted yours too. Made no sense. I tried going back after, but no luck. Ah well. I hoped there was some "go back" but apparently not.

Nope, wouldn't vote for Larouche. Wouldn't vote for Lieberman. Would vote for Weicker, as I said. I voted for Nadar in 2000. Don't regret it, Gore ran a shitty campaign.  You mentioned '68, I believe, and in a Humphrey vs Nixon campaign I would have voted for Humphrey because about a week before the election he came out against the Vietnam War. Almost turned the tide, but not enough.

No third party candidate has caught my eye. Or should I say: what third parties? I'm still waiting for one to emerge.

What I'm seeing, and you can/may/will likely disagree, is HRC moving left because of Edwards and Obama being in the race. If she is elected, can I assure you or myself what will happen? Of course not. Is she, for me, a palatable choice compared to what the Repugs will put up? Yes. Simple as that, man. I am supporting Obama, but I don't know what will happen. I'll also be interested in who the nom picks as running mate.

My guy Gore isn't running, I have to live with that. But I'm sure that any of the major Dems in this race will shift the country back toward the center. You disagree. We'll see.

The one thing I agree with you on is the need for viable third parties. I haven't seen any signs of one. I am keeping my eye out for the roots of one online, where I think it will initially emerge. I'll let you know if I see one. You let me know, too...

[Stonehenge]

"I posted, I changed my mind, I deleted. It deleted yours too. Made no sense. I tried going back after, but no luck. Ah well. I hoped there was some "go back" but apparently not."

If you posted and clicked "delete" on your own post, it should not have deleted any other post. Must be a fluke. You may not have posted, simply backed out and clicked "delete" on my post.

There will be no viable third parties until people start supporting them. The only wasted votes are those for weasels from the two majors. I'm still thinking about Obama but he has watered down a lot of what made me like him in the first place.

[cenacle]

I didn't delete your post, Stoney, I deleted mine and the system deleted both. I encountered another problem here today, with another thread, where I posted something but the "last post by" did not register my name on the main page. Not a retard, dude.

As for voting for the major parties, that to me depends on the person whether there is a 'weasel' factor. My in-laws voted for Bush* in 2004, and I know it's because they're conservative midwest folks, and issues like abortion matter to them. Of course, now they hate him, want him strung up, but their intention was honest. I would not call them weasels.

I've had years where the leading candidates in both parties didn't appeal to me. As I've already said, I voted for Nader in 2000. This year, in my view, the Dem field is a very strong one. It's a long way to November, though, who knows what will happen. I'm hoping for a strong ticket and a hard resistance to the neocon spin machine that is just warming up its gears.

Did you see that Thompson left the race? No more "Law and Order" jokes!  :twisted: