by Chris Bowers, Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 12:13:25 PM EST
Just looking at the comments to a post of mine from earlier today reminds me just how ugly a place the blogosphere might be during the Presidential primary season. I am generally an optimist who believes that you can engage just about anyone online in a reasonable discussion. However, whenever I bring up Hillary, I honestly can't believe how many idiotic progressives there are who will clearly stop at nothing in order to assist the long-term Republican goal of making sure that no potential Democratic leader has a favorable image nationwide. I am absolutely flabbergasted by the level of stupidity and denial of reality who many progressive who trash Hillary Clinton in particular. As much as many people on the left would like to believe, the right does not have a monopoly on idiocy. I honestly think I am reading FreeRepublic sometimes when she comes up. There is absolutely no way I am voting for her in the primary, but I simply can't believe the number of patently false, easily disprovable arguments many "progressives" use against her no matter what evidence is shown to contradict said arguments. I have written about this before, but I am now of the opinion that there is simply no evidence that will ever convince a small but vocal and anti-social chunk of the netroots that she is anything short of the AntiChrist. Even if she is the nominee, these people are going to close the triangle on Clinton in exactly the manner Republicans desire, and Tom Tancredo, or Bill Frist, or Condi Rice, or whoever will be the next President. As long as there is no shortage of Democrats who are willing to say the same things about Clinton as Republicans do, anything Republicans say about her will be reified in the established news media, and the narrative against her will be forged in steel (this is exactly how the Lieberman wing of the Democratic party destroyed the left in the 1990's, by the way). For the love of crap, if you are going to write against Clinton, do so in a way that Republicans never would. Good arguments would include her being too hawkish, too insider, too centrist. Bad arguments would include her being too ambitious, having too much baggage, being unelectable, and being too insincere, since that is the narrative Republicans have long sought to tie her with. Then again, I don't even know why I am bothering to say this, because the people who froth at the mouth against Hillary in our comments probably honestly believe that there is no difference between Hillary and Tom Tancredo.
Absolute fucking morons. I am not going to come within several miles of working or supporting Hillary Clinton in the primaries, but I will not, ever, repeat Republican arguments about a fellow Democrat, especially when such talking points are designed to tear down Democratic leaders. We might as well just start saying that Howard Dean is an incredibly angry member of the far left who will say anything that comes to his mind, or that Al Gore is a pathological liar with no personality and nearly insane. If you say that Hillary Clinton an insincere, overly ambitious, scandal-ridden woman who can't get elected but will say or do anything in order to get elected, you are exactly the same as DLC losers like From or Reed who happily repeat Republican lies about Howard Dean. If you can't recognize that, then you will do nothing but drag the progressive movement further down the festering rat-hole that we seem to perpetually find our electoral fortunes mired in. If you can't recognize that, I will also tell you, now that we are only eight months out from the start of the primary season, that I don't want you coming within several miles of making a comment or writing a diary on MyDD. This is one blog where Republican narratives will never be reified.