That's a good question.

lori,

Do you know how "terrorist organization" is defined in the amendment?  I'm not sure yet how I feel about this.

I think that's right--this was a stategy of showing disdain, and I'd argue a pretty effective one, given that the GOP uses ridicule to go after Democratic candidates.  In other words, its a tactic that works for them, and Hillary's use of it appropriates this air of strength or seriousness, which is how they frame their own candidates.

On the other hand, I think Tarheel makes a good point that laughter, in particular, when employed over and over again in such a short space of time, risks appearing too scripted and "inauthentic."

Define "substance."

That's a good point.  If this was funny to a primarily Democratic audience, think about its impact on Independents and lean Republicans.  Particularly since it fits into a pre-existing narrative people have of her.

Clearly there's a difference between "dissenting speech" and disrespectful or combative discourse, right?

Thanks for posting the clip.  Pretty funny.

I guess I'm confused by what you and holden are arguing.  If you don't like Nader or his policies, and he's not even a Democrat, then why shouldn't he run for office?  Should the Republicans not run anyone for office?

Unqualified?  Find me a candidate that has done a fraction of what Nader has done below to advance progressive casuses.  (See below.)

It's one thing to debate the tactics of him running for office.  It's another to argue the issues he has fought for.

Okay, and you can say this about him:

He helped found many governmental and non-governmental organizations, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Public Citizen, and several Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), including NYPIRG. The Atlantic Monthly lists him as one  of the "100 most influential Americans."

Public Citizen's work is credited with facilitating the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and prompting the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

Not to mention hundreds of other environmental and civil rights groups he's established.

But what's the point of this, anyway?  Are you argung that you don't like his policies or that he ran for office?

threats?  huh?

I think most people did indeed believe Bush and Gore were serious in their speeches.  Which is why so many Republican moderates voted for Bush in 2000 but have since abandoned him.

On the question of the Supreme Court and tax cuts, you're clearly right that this was a difference between them, and one acknowledged by most people.  I'd also argue it's why Nader got only 3% nationally.  Which is the way a democracy should work.

Gore never made environmentalism part of his campaign, under the advice of Brazile and his other advisors.  It's hard to see how those who voted for Nader are sycophants--I would say just the opposite in that they don't blindly vote party affiliation.  To say that Nader isn't a progressive is pretty strange.  Compared to who?  He hasn't done anythng for the pro-choice movement?  Well, aside from the fact that he's focused on a variety of other issues, what had Gore done for it, aside from being pro-life at one point?  And you can blame Nader for amassing millions of dollars, but he lives on about thirty thousand a year, uses his money to set up citizen, envrionmental, and public advocacy groups.  In fact, he was flying commerical coach during the 2000 election.  I'm not sure why you're bringing up his personal lifestyle anyway?  To compare it to some other Democrat's?

Touché.

I think that's part of BDM's point.  If Gore had picked up on some of the issues that appealed to people, they would have voted for him instead.