I'm not sure even 'cognitive dissonance' could explain the Hillary die-harders...

I am at a complete loss as to how people, who think they are Progressive Democrats, could continue to delude themselves about Hillary Clinton.

She pulls out every sleazy Rovian trick in the book, she bashes MoveOn.org, the most important significant and influential Grass Roots organizations in the Democratic Party, she shows every sign of being hawkish on foreign policy and yet... her supporters keep bleating out their support for her.

I'm shocked at their powers of self-deception.

It can only be a cult of personality because it seems that no amount of poor behavior on her part can shake the undying loyalty of her supporters. I would tell them to look in the mirror, to look out the window, to look ANYWHERE but their own belly-buttons. I would...but it has already been done a million times.

It can only be that winning became more important to them than the actual content of race.
It can only be that they have such an overdeveloped sense of sympathy with their candidate that they confuse Hillary with themselves.

Maybe they see themselves in Hillary. I think that must be it. The victim complex. And the more they lose, the more they feel "victimized" and the stronger their support becomes.

So for those of you out who support her because you think you are "just like Hillary", here's a clue.

You're not.

And that's what they relate to. Here's my clue - she was never a victim.

"She pulls out every sleazy Rovian trick in the book"

The Obama campaign systematically smears Clinton as a liar since the campaign began - slanderous assault on character.

Stunning. Really.

Only in Hillaryworld.

I never thought I'd see a faction of the Dems perpetrate such a thing - now I know better.

I'd see The Clinton's plot and scheme to steal an election via super-delegates.

...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That would be a real tragedy.

:D but who gives a shit?

about the lack of civility at DU.

Talk about cognitive dissonance!

And I was careful to address only those people who personally identify themselves with Hillary.

I do NOT think it is a stretch to suggest that some people choose politicians that they personally identify with.

I wanted to make the point, that has been made before, that Hillary is NOT the average person that she wants people to think she is.

Given the poison on DU, I hardly think this rises to the level of slime.

It is an opinion and it is an analysis of the possible reasons some stay with Hillary even when she proves to not be what people thought she was.

Please do not try to get this locked because YOU don't like it.

Am I a magic wizard?

How can you continue to deny what has been dripping out?

Especially the MoveOn thing. She literally attacked the activist wing of the Democratic Party.

It was FAR worse than "Bitter-Gate", which was entirely made up.

but I think Moveon jumped the shark about a year ago.

If you think Moveon represents the activist wing of the Party , I'd suggest you get out more often.

It alienated a lot of former supporters by taking sides so early in the primary season. It ceased being the "activist base of the Democratic party" and became the activist base of the Obama campaign. That doesn't sit well with all Democrats, which I'm sure will come as a shock to you.

Bake

to think that your man is the only answer and that he should have all of America behind him. That's truly a joke. Can you tell me why if he is such a uniter, like Bush, that he can't unite the Democratic party. If he can't do that how will he unite American?

Didn't they vote to decide who to endorse and the vote was 60-40 for Obama or something like that?

But aren't Democrats likely to think that the Democratic Party is the only answer?

Not because of the Move on.

if MoveOn represents activists then 30 or 40% of those activists supported/support Clinton. MoveOn is a way for activists to act together. As an organization it empowers activists.

Apparently Hillary does not want activists to be empowered if they use that power to fight her nomination.

As a Move-On member, I expected it to attack the Republicans, not fellow Democrats, unless we're talking about people like Leiberman or Al Wynn. But when we're talking about one centrist battling the other, I'm sorry, that's not what I used to donate to them for. Samr with Buzzflash.

So I have no problem with her outburst as she's indeed been treated unfairly by the Left Blogistan.

And in case you care, you were being insulting.

It's not that Hillary is like us except in the sense that she is "fighting for progressive causes". As such, she has been smeared by the RWNM, the vast rightwing conspiracy and up and down the M$M.

That is error number one, seeing her as somebody who has spent her whole life fighting for the same things that we care about. That's the way she promotes herself, and like most propaganda, there is enough truth in it to fool many people even if it is not the whole truth or even the relevant part of the truth.

Once you have bought into that propaganda, it's like taking the blue pill. You slip into an alternate reality and begin defending it from its detractors. You see things that confirm it to be true, sifting through the evidence of reality to find little nuggets of evidence to support your pet theory - SCHIP, speech in Beijing, domestic abuse organization, etc.

Secondly, about campaign tricks, there's a whole he said-she said, about who threw the first elbow, drew first blood, or has done more of it. The thing about a partisan, or a fan, is that they don't really care if their team plays a little bit rough (usually) especially not if it's a rough game. Even though the 1986 Bears were arrogant thugs and cheap-shot artists, you will never convince a Chicago Bears fan that they were not one of the greatest teams of all time. If it's important for my side to win, then I don't care how it gets done.

Well, I do, but I am more idealist than pragmatist. But is it better for the NFC to be represented by the Bears or by the Eagles when they are playing the Oakland Raiders? You've gotta be able to match up thug against thug, or you will get your a$$ handed to you. At least that's the pragmatic argument, but in that world the ends justify the means.

This is a novel debate technique - take criticisms of your candidate that you have read here the last few days and then just swap out the candidates names. You obviously don't understand what I (and others) wrote about cognitive dissonance and identifying with a candidate, because you are not quite getting it right. You thought "they are attacking Obama," you can't tolerate that, and so then you took the same arguments and just turned them around and aimed them at Clinton.

Ironic to hear you accusing others of personally identifying too much with a candidate.

I have been aware of this concept since my college days.

Your head appears to be somewhat unrealistically inflated.

Just a coincidence.

and I think you became a parody of yourself months ago

over that one. you deserve an A for effort.

the only reason I even respond to your posts is because you make me giggle

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5592970

Yes it's my own thread but I would like answers

then I would give it.

....

I think that sums it up. I talked to a few women in Ohio who said they wanted to vote for her because they feel sorry for her.

then people who vote for Obama because he makes them feel all warm inside.

Cos I think you're confusing hope with bullshit.

say they support Obama for that reason. The ability to inspire people is an important part of being an effective leader. There's no reason to belittle someone for that just because Clinton is so terrible at it.

I'm not looking for a "leader" to solve all my widdle problems.

I'm looking for a public servant to get in there and do some work for a change.

Seriously, it sounds like y ou are describing a low-level civil servant, rolling up their sleeves and going through old files or something.

Do you realize how much trouble this country is in?

Incremental change is not what we need.

Electing Hillary because she knows how to "play the Washington game" is exactly what I DON'T WANT.

The only game is the one they've been playing on us.

It's time to change the rules.

Hillary ain't no rule-breaker.

do you?

Because it really seems to me that you don't.

It seems to be that you think Obama is equipped to handle the nightmare that this country is plunged into.
Maybe he is --I, personally, have grave doubts about that.

Make no mistake, I will vote for Obama if he's our nominee --because and ONLY because I will have little choice but to vote for him.

YOU do the party no favor by rubbing your poo all over people who support Hillary Clinton.

Seriously --what do you gain by taking a giant shit on half the Democratic electorate?

Address the OP, not me personally.

I am not shitting on anyone.

I HONESTLY cannot figure out WTF is wrong with people who have not yet seen Hillary for what she really is. For what she has SHOWN herself to be.

Seems like willful ignorance and I want to understand it. It's interesting cause it's weeeeeird.

people who have fallen for Obama's line of bullshit, and can't see that it's HE that has run the dirtiest most negative campaign I've seen since Dick fucking Nixon.
He's SHOWN it to everyone clear as day --but for some reason --here we are --about to have the Democratic version of the naked emporer assume the mantle of the President. (if we're lucky that is --we might have to deal with McCain)

seems like willful ignorance and I want to understand it. It's interesting cause it's weeeeeeird.


wait -- I change my mind --because you actually think your OP is civil.

:rofl:

No wonder you can't see how negative Obama's campaign has been.

(and I'm only spelling this out for you because you're one of the few Hillary supporters here I respect)

Either Obama's going to TOTALLY screw it up, half-ass it, or just RADICALLY change the direction this country has been going in for the past 30 years FOR THE BETTER. I think we have the opportunity to pull the plane out of the nose-dive, and just take ourselves to a whole new level, a new paradigm.

Either Hillary's going to screw it up or half-ass it, but she's not going to change the direction we're going in. Ditto for John McCain.

I think right now we need someone thinking WAAAY outside the box, and Obama represents that.

The Clintons are still trying to salvage and defend their failed policies from 15 years ago, but I don't think they "get" how bad things have become since they left office. Everyone I know on the left (and half the people on the right) HATE Bush and think his policies have been CATASTROPHIC, especially the war, but also the environment and the economy.

I don't think Hillary gets that... I was worried for a while that Obama didn't get it either, but his statement that Al Gore won gave me HOPE. :D

But I think only someone who REALLY gets it can provide the needed change in direction and take our country to the next level.

Obama's not really going to change a thing --because he really doesn't have any desire to change anything.

He's not a revolutionary change agent --his freakin' platform is more DLC than DLC Hillary.

The ONLY real difference between Hillary and Obama is --

if elected --Hillary actually COULD change things.

If anybody actually could change the status quo it's Hillary --that's why she's being attacked from both right AND left.

Everyone is scared that Hillary would actually be a President instead of a puppet.

mr fucking 27% must be che guevara.


hillary is criticized for having gaps in her integrity you could drive a truck through.

I dislike how Hillary's campaign is based on the idea that only she can make change happen. She tells us that change is something that can only happen with her, not Obama, because of HER qualifications and experience. Obama says that its going to take action by everyone, the people, if change is going to happen. Hillary is the one I hear claiming she'll solve our problems for us in top-down LBJ fashion instead of encouraging the kind of movement activism that Hillary decided was a waste of time when she turned down Saul Alinksy's job offer.

I thought Obama was the change agent - the only hope and the only one for change - and Clinton represented the same old politics?



So he is basically a motivational speaker? Are you saying he will be asking us to make "better personal choices?" It sounds pleasant enough, but not very inspiring or substantive.



So we don't want a strong active president such as FDR, we want a feel-good cheer leader like Reagan?

I am no fan of Clinton, but this affidavit for Obama seems awfully vacuous and vague.

--from the population base that Clinton is merely polling and Obama is organizing. And since when is triangulation and contant polling "leadership" or "strength"?

Clinton could care less about party-building.

She's the one for you, then. I'm glad to see the Hilliary supporters finally admitting they want a leader who works for corporate interests and the MIC... exposes them as the neo-libs they are. I just wonder why you all are in the Democratic Party...

:(

a poor little rich girl, who has had her every whim attended to her entire life,who, when after being a party to the most prestigious relationship on earth still found herself unsatisfied

now if we could just get the papparazzi to chase hillary through downtown paris

The same things you said about Hillary supporters could easily be said about Obamans. You see no imperfections in your candidate, you tolerate no criticism, there are no flaws in his candidacy or his campaign, and anyone who suggests to the conrary is immediately "plonked" onto multiple ignore lists.

Your candidate does indeed have flaws, whether you see them or not. A lot of other people do. Wright is still going to come back to haunt him. As is Ayers. As are the lingering questions that the GOP will pound on every day in the fall about his patriotism, his background, his inexperience, and any verbal gaffes he gives them in the meantime. Oh, and don't forget Michelle "I'm proud of my country for the first time" Obama, who would be first lady.

Kool-Aid, anyone?

Bake

and/or that he's destined to lose in the fall

Maybe they believe that she'd be the better candidate, based on Clinton's policies in the 1990's.

Maybe they don't care for the behavior they see among a lot of Obama supporters.

Could be a lot of reasons.

Personally, I think that the odds are that both of them would lose handily to McCain, but that an Obama candidacy will have a less negative effect (and in some places a positive effect) on state and local candidates and issues. That's the best result I see coming out of this fiasco.

:hide:

Do you also know the winning lottery numbers for next week? :eyes:

and she did win in Ohio, NY, and California and lost in alot of places where Democrats are gonna lose in the general anyway - Mississippi, Kansas, Nebraska, Georgia, South Carolina, etc. My fears have been not that she would lose, but the effects her candidacy would have on Congressional races and Republican attitude.

while both Obama and Hillary are going to have to fight for Ohio.

Secondly: Clinton won Georgia in 92. :P

She won't win the General Election, but she gets the support of war profiteer General Electric.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm seriously curious. How old were you guys during the Clinton years? Were you old enough to have adult responsibilities like a mortgage, stock investments, etc?
It would make for an interesting poll here because I get the impression that many of you believe the Clinton years were just like the Bush years. Right?

(this is not a smarta*s rhetorical question, so please don't be abusive)

:hi:

if Obama is the nominee?

I hate this loyalty test crap. Nothing good can ever come from that.

Fight a stigma by projecting it onto an innocent group.

From the mind of CHIMPY, how funny....CULTIST!

More and more evidence keeps coming out that shows how Obama can't win the big swing states, yet you keep on bashing Hillary, and keep saying that we don't need Ohio and PA, our path goes through Idaho and Wyoming.

Oh, the headache they will have when the Kool-Aid wears off. I don't envy them, that headache.

Haven't seen you in a while.

:hi:

And how could I pass upon such a tempting offering from Chimpy, the height of hypocrisy.

Many are living in a fantasy world of hope and belief and are very resistant to even the mildest criticism of their candidate or even-handed analysis of the campaign. If that isn't cognitive dissonance, I don't know what is. The problem with this is that Obama most likely will be the nominee, and the way people are promoting him is almost certain to bomb in the general.

Clinton supporters, on the other hand, are realistic about her chances and I don't see them living in a fantasy world about that. Nor are very many of them idolizing or idealizing her, nor are they portraying the race as an epic drama between ultimate good and ultimate evil. They are showing a lot of restraint and grace in the face of unbelievable provocation, as well.

let alone a group that's done as much for the CLINTONS as MoveOn.

There is no Faux type comparison.

And pointing out that Hillary has done just that is not bashing. It's observing.

He didn't vote for it because he knew it would be politically challenging. Not because he was above it all, like he said, but because he knew it would be in his best interest not to vote.

Please show me your post back then for your outrage then, when he threw MoveOn overboard.

You were spanked pretty good on the nepotism and carpet bagger smear attempt - not knowing anything about Robert Kennedy was revealing, I thought. You apparently read my subsequent posts about cognitive dissonance and thought "hey! There's a good one to try!" and turned it around, switching the candidates names.

Here is the deal Bonobo. The main reason that many of us have deep reservations about the candidacy of Obama is because of what we see it bringing out in his supporters. So the more clever and frantic you are in your "promotional" efforts, the worse your results will be. That is the truth, as opposed to what you hope to be true, and the gap between those two, as so amply demonstrated by your posts, is an example of cognitive dissonance.

Neither I nor many of your other opponents favor Clinton, nor are we promoting her, nor do we care if she wins or not, by the way.

Why? Cognitive dissonance.

Yeah, I've heard that before.

Want some cheese with that?

Who said they wouldn't vote for Obama? Who is whining about anything? Who said you were a meany?

If you are hearing that, you are hearing something inside of your own head.

"The main reason that many of us have deep reservations about the candidacy of Obama is because of what we see it bringing out in his supporters."

Once again, putting the cart before the horse. You are telling me it is reasonable to infer something about Obama as a candidate based on the perceptions you have gained about his supporters by hanging around on DU?

That does not support any of your contentions.

"It is reasonable to infer something about Obama as a candidate based on the perceptions you have gained about his supporters by hanging around on DU."

Yes. I have admiration and respect for Obama. The candidacy - what is being brought out in his followers, both here and in real life, I find very disturbing, mainly because - in my opinion, as well supported and reasoned in numerous posts - it bodes ill in the general.

How do you get from there to saying I am "whining" and that I am "refusing to vote for Obama" and that I am calling you a "meany?"

Are you sure you want to argue with me? Are you sure you are trying to promote the Obama candidacy? Obama is likely to be the candidate, and we all will be working for him and supporting him. You are damaging that cause.

Holy cr@p.

It's all about Hillary, doncha know?

I suppose the best clue may be found in asking Hillary herself why can't she see what her end game actually would do to the party.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely - she has tasted it, needs it, swims in it, and sadly - can't see her world without it.

DU has changed drastically since this election. I remember when DU was a liberal, progressive community that would never support a hawk like Hillary Clinton. I can't believe how things have changed. We have an inspiring, liberal intellectual, that represents the unity this country needs. And this forum is widely supporting a candidate who is a pure politician whose positions fluctuates depending upon the moment, she has extremely high negatives, she's polarizing, she is unable to reach across the aisle like Obama, she was wrong on the war, and continues to be wrong on Iran. I can go on and on.

I won't want to be around here then.

"Your toy balloon has sailed
in the sky now,
but now it must fall to the ground.
now your sad eyes reveal
Just how badly you feel.
There is no easy way down.

The view from the cliffs
must have been exciting,
and up to the peaks,
you were bound.
Now you're stranded alone
and the past is unknown
and there is no easy way down."

"I am at a complete loss as to how people, who think they are Progressive Democrats, could continue to delude themselves about Hillary Clinton."
For example, the enemy may be seen as stupid.......Check

"She pulls out every sleazy Rovian trick in the book, she bashes MoveOn.org, the most important significant and influential Grass Roots organizations in the Democratic Party, she shows every sign of being hawkish on foreign policy and yet... her supporters keep bleating out their support for her."
For example, the enemy may be seen as stupid, selfish, deceitful, aggressive, hostile, or even evil..........Check

"I'm shocked at their powers of self-deception."
For example, the enemy may be seen as stupid..........Check

"It can only be a cult of personality because it seems that no amount of poor behavior on her part can shake the undying loyalty of her supporters. I would tell them to look in the mirror, to look out the window, to look ANYWHERE but their own belly-buttons. I would...but it has already been done a million times."
For example, the enemy may be seen as stupid, selfish, deceitful, aggressive, hostile, or even evil..........Check

"It can only be that winning became more important to them than the actual content of race.
It can only be that they have such an overdeveloped sense of sympathy with their candidate that they confuse Hillary with themselves."
For example, the enemy may be seen as stupid, selfish, deceitful, aggressive, hostile, or even evil..........Check

"Maybe they see themselves in Hillary. I think that must be it. The victim complex. And the more they lose, the more they feel "victimized" and the stronger their support becomes."
For example, the enemy may be seen as stupid..........Check

************

Congratulations. You fit the in-group out-group profile.

They don't admit loss.
They don't admit defeat.

It's the source of their energy, to deny reality. It works quite well, as they are never demoralized, never humiliated.

Not sure that math agrees with them, though.

unless you consider "what position will bring me the most benefit" a moral value.

nevermind

People form an initial impression, then fit everything new they learn into their existing mindset. If you think she's a fighter, her latest ad will just reinforce that view. If you think she's just negative, her latest ad will reinforce that view.

You can avoid this trap, but only if you want to. To do that, you have to consciously question your assumptions and consciously consider whether the new information you get could be interpreted as something other than supporting your existing view.

Harder to do when you also have strong feelings, long-held beliefs, etc.

Oh, wait....