Dennis, this is the root of your problem– you are convinced that what you said was true and that what you said comprises a compelling argument demonstrating your correctness. In fact, you have no idea what you’re talking about and statements such as this from you and your ilk are the ones that convinced many Americans that right-wingers had no idea what they were talking about and, in any case, was an ideology that needed to be smacked down, preferably by electing someone who was not connected to the deviant culture of cat-fights with right-wing talking points purveyors incensed about Vietnam. You seem extraordinarily disconnected from everyday reality and present concerns, as did many of the GOP candidates and their surrogates, which is why voters rejected them. The reason right-wingers became so disconnected is because they exist in an echo chamber comprised of extraordinarily ignorant people who feel no obligation to deal with facts and reality.

You spent the past 8-12 years without any political concerns of importance and ranting and raving about trivialities you were instructed to be angry about. When important things came up, you remained silent. By 2008, voters were hearing what people like you had to say and realized that you were unconcerned and unable to grapple with modern problems and issues being confronted by the united states and rejected conservatives all over the country.

It is likely that many people around you who don’t really care much about the right-winger culture regard you as some kind of ignorant relic confined to a different reality than the one that most people have to deal with.

Also, too, and besides, it is way too late to worry about the spelling when the substance is vapid.

Srsly, Thompson or Steele, Thompson or Steele, who could possibly choose between two such perfect examples of asshattery.

If the Republicans hadn’t been trying to disenfranchise me for the past sixty years I would feel a bit of sympathy for the party of Lincoln.

So the voters in Pelosi’s district and Reid’s state, who DO know who they are, wouldn’t vote for Obama.

Except that they did. Please fit this datum into your theory.

Fixed.

Oh yeah, that’s right. He was gonna be the first “CEO President.”

How’d that work out?

Stunning political analysis, Denny. You sure are good at filling in the blanks about people you don’t know.

And quite possibly pigs can fly. But there certainly hasn’t been much evidence to suggest it.

Fred Thompson is certainly not the idiot you make him out to be.

He didn’t do himself any favors on the campaign trail, but I’ll spot you that one.

In the great big real world comic books are for kids.

Final tally: Amused 0 is wrong 2 out of 3 times.

She is fracking crazy.

Family duties beckon, PG, or I could do this all night long and rather enjoy it. I didn’t say anyone said directly that Hillary should not be a candidate for Sec. of State, I just said I didn’t get the impression many here would want her to be. If someone says she is fracking crazy and then supports her for Sec. of State, then yes, I find that as confusing. Then again, I’m locked in a con bubble, so it’s hard for me to comprehend liberal nuance.

Regarding the whole ’should Democrats think that Senator Clinton would be a good pick for SecState if they didn’t pick her for POTUS?’ quasi-meme: the qualities I look for in a POTUS are not congruent with the qualities I’d like to see in a SecState. A certain ferocity and uncompromising tenacity (which I see in Senator Clinton) lend themselves well to the latter position, whereas I don’t see them as being as positive in the former.

LOL,
Quite possibly he’s a lot smarter than you give him credit for. Fred Thompson is certainly not the idiot you make him out to be. In the great big real world comic books are for kids.

The Dennis (at al) mindset in a nutshell.

“Obama = bad. Everything I have heard that supports that is true, no matter how outlandish or how conclusively disproved. Everything I hear that contradicts that is false, no matter how well supported.”

Take your fingers out of your ears, stop saying “nah nah nah can’t hear you” and try to engage your brain. Do you ever think for yourself or only ever parrot “this is what I’ve been told.”? Do you think Hillary would make a decent Sec State or not? And if not, can you give any reason for your view other than saying “other people’s views last summer were that they didn’t like her”?

She’s good enough to be Secretary of State I suppose, but President of the United States, are you f’ing kidding me

This seems comparable to many sensible Republicans’ view of Sarah Palin: Kathleen Parker, Chris Buckley, Davids Frum and Brooks, et al. don’t dispute that Palin is good enough to be governor of Alaska, or perhaps even hold the Sec.Energy position, but their attitude toward her being McCain’s missed heartbeat away from the presidency essentially was “are you f’ing kidding me.”

And yes, you clearly don’t understand the difference between whether someone is eligible to hold office as President of the United States, “The Decider,” as Bush puts it, and whether someone is eligible to serve in such a person’s Cabinet. By your reasoning, Democrats must deem Biden, Richardson and anyone else who failed to obtain the Democratic nomination for the presidency to be unfit to be in the executive branch at all. Given this lack of understanding regarding the massive difference between the president and his host of advisors, you must be very confused indeed.

Let me break it down for you. Obama convinced people who have no idea who controls Congress or without the foggiest of notions who Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid are, to vote for him for his superior judgment in lieu of his lack of experience. Bill Clinton tried unsuccessfully to convince people that Hillary’s vote for the war should not be held against her, but Obama convinced people that it should, with success.
So maybe this is a conspiracy by Barack Obama and his Clinton advisors to keep guys like me in a con bubble by confounding us all by essentially saying, ‘Vote for me because I had the superior judgment and supreme fortitude to declare in a speech one time to my Hyde Park, Trinity Baptist Church and 60606 zip code constituents that we shouldn’t go to war, whereas Hillary, having to actually vote on it and stand by that vote, was dead wrong. She’s good enough to be Secretary of State I suppose, but President of the United States, are you f’ing kidding me?’

I guess I am having difficulties with such nuances. I guess when I checked in here last spring and early summer and read some of the vitriol expressed for Hillary for some of the things she said in her opposition to Barack Obama and her not bowing out of the race when the author here and his followers thought he should, that maybe I got the wrong impression that she might still make a very good Secretary of State even though I don’t remember that notion being thrown out here. Far from it, to put it quite mildly.

Nuance confused? Yes, when I read liberal bloggers and their commenters and try to understand their reasoning, I am. Quite.