For me, there's one upside to Clinton winning:

Watching all the people whose attacks on her are not criticism, but vile crap, freak out all over this board.

That would be quite entertaining.

And if I'm not being quite clear here, let me repeat that I'm only talking about those who attack her for bullshit reasons. Sadly, there's plenty of that- like the threads about her laugh yesterday in the debate.

You have got to be kidding.

I agree, btw. That would be a fandabulous bright side. :)

and even analysis about how you can tell she's a bad person because of her laugh. couldn't possibly be sexism, could it?

I'll try and find one and link it.

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3834552&mesg_id=3834552

fair, because I fully expected her to be the nominee, and didn't want to contribute to damaging her in the general. But that laugh during Obama's question was pure mockery and belittlement--that's my gut feeling about it, no other way to interpret it. She just couldn't help herself. I don't know that she deserves to lose the nom because of it, but some of us found it not very charming.

that it was a nervous laugh. I think it's open to interpretation, but I find it disturbing that people here make such a bfd about it.

shouldn't have made a difference. BUT...sometimes candidates do things that reveal just a tiny glimpse of their emotions, motives, insecurities--people subconsciously pick up on incongruities between what someone is saying and doing, and what their eyes, voice and body language are projecting. A "hearty", genuine, good-natured laugh is in the ear of the beholder. Obviously, many heard something else behind that laugh--a little too loud, a little too obvious, a little too gleeful about Obama being asked a question that would possibly make him look foolish. And her eyes, after Obama's snappy comeback--she wanted to kill him. She played it badly, and got burned, and you could see it in her face with the forced smile and fierce eyes. That's what I, and many others, saw--the episode revealed a little bit of her inner workings. Human emotions, but sometimes emotions aren't pretty. That's what brought Dean down--it wasn't the "Yeaaarrrgghhh"--it was the angry look in his eyes, the red face. Too human and uncontrolled.

events. Dean often has a red face, and I saw nothing angry in his eyes that night. Nor do I think anyone else could possibly say with any certainty that they did- unless you were actually there a few feet from him. Only heard Clinton, didn't see her, but I think it's interesting how her laugh keeps coming up.

campaigns shouldn't be brought down by something trivial, it should be policies and positions and resumes that are emphasized. But people aren't choosing someone purely from paper. We are always looking for signs of candidates' inner feelings and motives, looking for clues to their character. Sometimes politicians don't hide the "ugly" human stuff when they're supposed to, and some hide their human side TOO well (Al Gore in 2000, Mittens Romney now). We respond emotionally and by gut to these people, and I think that's usually healthy. It's the "beer-with" regular-guy thing that I find baffling, though. I don't want someone who's just like me, I want someone BETTER than me.

and their fellow travelers. They would just go absolutely batshit - even crazier than they already are.

I do not support her candidacy - her views and policies are much too corporate-centered for me. And I do think it would be extremely hard for her to govern in any effective manner because the pukes would fight her at every turn and the Dems would not support any progressive initiative.

Still, for the entertainment value of right-wing lunacy (esp. my in-laws), it would not be a total loss.

of freeperville would be epic.

hear me when something strikes me really funny. If that's all they have to complain about her they are really scraping the pile. I love a good laugh from people who are appreciating irony, humor, whatever. HRC has a sense of humor, enjoys irony and humor, that's her laugh, they need to get over it already....

Rush Limbaugh would probably melt into a smoldering pile of Oxycontin and fatty tissue.

and I'd go so far as to say such an "up-side" is really applicable to any of likely winners. Of course I do agree it is most applicable to Hillary.

Julie

blame the media, posit conspiracy theories regarding the media, Clinton, the RNC, the DLC, and "the corporations," blame touch voting, and encourage people to vote 3rd party. That will be "entertaining," in the same way that a shrieking two-year-old is "entertaining."

Just so Cali can have a good laugh.... :eyes:

how she's nothing but a corporate tool/accomplice is overblown imo, and she'd be much better than any of the pukes.

i can't wait to see the Lil Dog's followers to lose their shit. that will really make it all worth it. :thumbsup:

notice the barking dogs doing conniption fits to answer?