Your candidate sucks!

The "discourse" in the Dem primary is getting sillier as the contest continues. You know things are bad, when you start seeing comments like this one:

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

-- a dailykos commenter, replying to newhorizons attempts to inject some sanity into a comment thread over there. Read in context, it is clear that the commenter was totally serious. I hereby claim this as my new sig line. :-)

I stole the title of this diary from Atrios, who has taken to using variations on it as the title to his open threads. In the extended entry, I have listed:

Arguments I hope I'll never see on MyDD again
... for the rest of the primaries. (yeah right, dream on)

Your candidate cannot win the nomination. (News flash: EITHER candidate can win the nomination. Neither can win enough pledged delegates to go into the convention with a majority. Meanwhile, could we at least try to talk about issues that matter in peoples' real lives once in awhile? Pretty please?)

Your candidate cannot beat little, old, white-haired John McCain in the fall. (Either Dem can crush Methuselah McCain in the fall, unless half of us choose to throw it away in a hissy fit because we didn't get our first choice at the top of the ticket)

Your candidate loses to tired, wrinkled, wizened, old McCain in this or that poll. (Polls about an election 8 months away are like those extended 10-day weather forecasts on my local TV news. They may be interesting to look at, but I wouldn't base any definite plans on them.)

Your candidate is destroying the party/trying to destroy the party. (S/he's not trying to destroy the Party, s/he's in a hotly contested race. S/he's competing.)

Your candidate should drop out of the race. (Even conditional calls for a dropout are just plain silly at this point, unless the condition involves an actual indictment or something. Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee stayed in until superannuated John McCain clinched the Republican nomination, and nobody called for them to drop out. Know why? Because nobody was afraid they might win. Calling for your opponent to drop out in this situation shows a lack of confidence in your candidate's ability to win outright.)

Your candidate's delegates from source x should not count. (We are Democrats - we don't disenfranchise voters. If there is a problem with some delegates, the candidates and the DNC and whoever else is involved should get together and work it out. NOW.)

Your candidate is racist /sexist /incompetent /mean /delusional /stupid /stubborn /not a "real" Dem.

Your candidate's campaign is racist /sexist /incompetent /mean /delusional /stupid /stubborn /not "real" Dems.

Your candidate's supporters are racist /sexist /incompetent /mean /delusional /stupid /stubborn /not "real" Dems.

Your candidate is just like Bush /McCain /George Wallace /Jim Jones /Hitler /Stalin /Pol Pot /Bin Laden. (Come on guys, that kind of hysterical hyperbole is just sad.)

The superdelegates MUST vote for the candidate who has the most delegates /votes /Dem votes /blue state votes /swing state votes /wisdom /charisma /nipples. (OT, but I once knew a guy who had four. He used to win a lot of bar bets. As for the supers, they can vote for anybody they want, and change their minds any time they want, for any reason or no reason at all. Those are the rules.)

If your candidate wins by strategy x it would be antidemocratic /cheating /immoral. (Unless an actual crime is committed, fuhgeddaboudit. Politics ain't bean bag. I will accept arguments that strategy x will cause us to lose to grandpa McCain, but you gotta back it up with something more than a feeling.)

If your candidate wins the nomination, I will not vote for her/him in the general election. (Perhaps you are at the wrong web site, and would be happier here: www.votenader.org)

Your candidate went negative. (Apart from the hysterical rantings of some blog posters, the campaign thus far has been extremely positive by historical comparisons. Take a deep breath people - the Republicans have not even started attacking our candidate(s) in earnest yet. In fact, the lengthened primary might have a positive effect of delaying the inevitable shit-storm to come.)

If the nomination isn't decided right away, it's bad for the party. (Nonsense. Lots of nomination battles have gone longer, and even if it goes all the way to August the nominee will not be damaged any worse by a tough primary than s/he would be by RNC/527/media swift-boating in any case.)

NEW! Your candidate gets favorable treatment by the media. (However true it may have been in the past, that ship has sailed now. From here on, only ancient, decrepit, old John McCain will get favorable treatment from the media. Whoever we nominate, we'd better get used to the idea, and factor it into our plans.)

--------------------------

Wow, that is a depressingly long list. Did I miss any?

Tags: clinton, issues, mccain, non-issues, obama (all tags)

Comments

9 Comments

Tip jar

Did I mention John McCain is old? He is really, really old. :-)

by itsthemedia 2008-03-05 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Tip jar

First of all, McCain has to be old to fit in all his wives and lobbyist mistresses.

Second of all, I think you forgot, "Your candidate lied [ about X ]".

by mattw 2008-03-05 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Tip jar

Yes, that is one we could do without. Politicians lie? Do tell!

by itsthemedia 2008-03-05 11:20PM | 0 recs
That's right!

Your candidate cannot win the nomination. (News flash: EITHER candidate can win the nomination. Neither can win enough pledged delegates to go into the convention with a majority. Meanwhile, could we at least try to talk about issues that matter in peoples' real lives once in awhile? Pretty please?)

I've been thinking that all along! Everyone says that there's no way Gravel can possibly win the nomination, but how in the world do they know that for sure? Even the 'pledged' delegates can change their votes, and after his Gravelanche finally starts rolling, he'll win the nomination! Mike Gravel!!!!!

P.S. What do you mean by 'Either' candidate? Are you implying that Clinton or Obama can't win?

(/snark)

by MILiberal 2008-03-05 08:16PM | 0 recs
Yeah baby! Gravelanche!!!

And by "either candidate", of course, I was referring to Gravel and Al Gore.

by itsthemedia 2008-03-05 08:29PM | 0 recs
Thanks for the notice!

That person over there was so far overboard!

That whole goofy thread reminds me of a great sign I saw at an office on the grounds of a mental hospital:

    "I don't know what your problem is, but I'm sure it's hard to pronounce."

Great diary, very needed around the tubes right about now.

by newhorizon 2008-03-05 08:30PM | 0 recs
Oh Yeah!

Says You!  :)~

by kevin22262 2008-03-05 08:48PM | 0 recs
Excellent diary! Rec'd.
Good points, and you made me laugh.

(Four nipples? That's crazy talk!)

by sricki 2008-03-05 10:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent diary! Rec'd.

Oh yay! I was hoping somebody would read far enough to get to that part. Yeah, he would say "I bet you a beer you can't guess how many nipples I have." Most people would guess two or three (I am told that three is not too uncommon) or sometimes one (lost one in an accident or something). But he very rarely had to pay off - he was many beers ahead of the curve when I knew him, and that was years ago.

Fun stuff.

by itsthemedia 2008-03-05 11:27PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads