Beatnik

Man it's a pain to split hairs with your generalizations dude but here's a shot.

Hillary Clinton, despite most republican's wet dreams, is not a leader of the democratic party. A former first lady turned junior senator does not a leader make.

There is no plurality of "leaders" making that statement, although I'm sure her obviously out of line remarks have been repeated on the modern day salons like The O'Reilly Factor and The Rush Limbaugh Happy Hour so many times it seems like a plurality.

And the straw man of setting up a false consensus of democratic leadership calling republicans plantation owners as an excuse for continued non sequitur aggression is...well a non sequitur.

__________________

leejo

Are you the only person who gets to generalize? You said Why am I so horrible for agreeing with your generalization of the democratic party as pitiful and weak? Why is it ok for you to categorize the republic party as kicking a fallen foe?

Here's a generalization you can test by paying attention to Mr. Howard Dean: the liberal ploy is to attack - call someone a name - then cry foul when the offended responds.

For example, republicans are big meanies who kick a fallen opponent. Answer: democrats keep getting kicked because they keep mouthing off in an assortment of insulting ways. Answer: you're generalizing about democrats! Answer: what the hell? but...you just...oh fudge it (goes back to kicking).

And if you don't think Hillary Clinton is a party leader, you are dreaming. But we can talk about any of hundreds of nutty remarks Howard Dean has made if you prefer to stick to people the democratic national committee has formally elected as its leader.

Beatnik

Again with the straw man. How can one turn me saying "a proponent (notice the lack of an 's' here. That means 'singular', as in not plural. As in not a generalization) of the party in power" to me generalizing to the entire party, when it's clearly in print here?

No one called you horrible for agreeing with my statement, either. And I didn't mention the republican party at all...

I'm not sure if you're reading what you want to read or intentionally putting words in my mouth, but either way I recommend listening to less talk radio. This style of asserting points (e.g. by creating a strawman and then lambasting the author of said strawman) simply doesn't work when the words are printed on the computer screen.

__________________

leejo

Sorry I misunderstood you. To whom were you referring when you said "Nothing quite as charming as a proponent of the party in decisive control of all 3 branches of government who still can't help but to kick the pitiful and decapitated Democratic party in the stomach while it writhes on the ground..."

Last I checked, the Republican party was in control of 2 of the 3 branches, without a doubt. So who were you talking about?

Any why again is it ok for you to make categorical statements (talk radio? I don't listen to it, unless you're referring to NPR, which I doubt) but when I do it I'm make non sequetur straw man ad hominem attacks? Maybe if I listened to less talk radio my exact same points would somehow be more or less valid?

I'm having fun with this, btw. If I come across as hostile I don't mean to.

Boot

I'd prefer to leave most of this thread behind, but this here is an interesting point. What, exactly, defines a party leader in an age where political discussion is dominated by 6-12 second sound bytes promoted by a self-serving media outlet regardless of political tendencies?

I have a note taped to the wall of my 49 sq ft. office in corporate america that says, Be a sound byte, which is my recognition that in today's world it matters less if you are intelligent and thoughtful, and more if you can present yourself well. Take Bill O'Reilly, who despite his political tendencies, at his core is a guy who is very capable of summarizing complex political positions in 2 sentence paragraphs. Contrast that with Colonel Q-ball Carville, whom I happen to respect but again has made his career condensing concepts into short bursts of lambastment. What we end with is a world where the airspace is dominated by people who speak well, but don't necessarily have anything good to say.

So what, exactly, makes a party leader these days? Officially, Howard Dean is the head of the Democratic party. Why is his voice overshadowed by those of Hillary, Al Gore, and/or Joe Lieberman? Because the American media is more interested in celebrity than they are in politics. Why? Easy answer: ratings.

So what this means to a political party is that the loudest voice is going to be the largest recognized. Howard Dean may be the head, and you may agree or disagree with him in this role, but in the end Hillary's voice is going to be louder, simply because she has more gravitas. And it's a double edged sword. The Democratic party rode this to victory with the 2nd Clinton election. If you disagree, please explain the political relevance of Bill Clinton playing sax on the Tonight Show or expounding on his choice of underwear on MTV.

No, we live by this sword and we die by this sword. And the politics of personal desctruction enable us to manipulate, as a party, whom we wish to be the loudest voice within the party. Like it or not, anything Hillary says is going to be heard louder than "official" business. If you don't like it, work to get her discredited. And trust this: if you were standing in her way, she'd do the same.

/rant

__________________
Boot.

In Soviet Russia, TV watches YOU.

leejo

The ability to raise money seems like a pretty good barometer of one's political power.

Beatnik

The proponent if referred to was the original poster. The comment was addressed to the original poster, ironically enough. Not making a broad statement about all republicans.

Talk radio is a categorical statemenet too - so I'll take that back. I just get annoyed when I come across a Bill O'Reilly clip and he uses the same rhetorical tricks, and that's what this thread reminded me of. But this is The Sandbox after all and nothing's serious. I am a bit of a stickler when it comes to semantics and meaning what you say (way too much so for a forum like this), and seeing people use those tactics just bothers me, so I'll call it out when I see it. Including when I do it.

It does make for interesting verbal sparring from time to time though.

__________________

Beatnik

I completely agree with this point, though my characterization of Bill O'Reilly isn't as generous as yours. The current political process has WAY too much sound bite rhetoric, way to much blind partisanship, and not enough robust debate (within an between the parties).

As for ther rest, I really don't want to start getting into the media's influence on politics, but I will agree that Hillary Clinton has a louder voice in the media (due to whatever external factors, instead of being in a position of legitimate leadership) than Howard Dean. So by that definition she has political power. I was just saying she's a junior senator and not a party leader.

But I really couldn't care less about the Democratic party right now. They don't even know what they stand for anymore, and have no clear leadership or plan of action. Hillary Clinton for example is one of the biggest Democratic hawks in the Senate...

__________________