Why you simply MUST vote for Joan of Arkansas

[PurityOfEssence]

That’s right, folks: nobody knows the troubles she’s known, and she’ll burn at the stake for your sins.

Since it seems a tad difficult to get answers for why Hillary should be nominated, I did my dead-level best to lay 'em out for us to discuss.

Much as the question gets asked, this is the best I can do for summarizing why her supporters think she should be the nominee. Please chime in with your thoughts, because it simply makes no sense to me.

SHE’S A FIGHTER; SHE WON’T TAKE ANY CRAP FROM THE REPUBLICANS

Well, when it comes to HERSELF, yes. She knows how to get herself elected in a blue state and take care of herself, but her tenure in the Senate has been one of accommodation and building bridges across the aisle. Yes, she popularized the term “vast right-wing conspiracy”, but she hasn’t fought them like supporters would have you believe. Yes, her voting record on women’s rights is good, but so is that of all the others. She has been ANYTHING but a fighter against the right-wing since taking her seat; if one believes this “positioning” will be eventually used for good, there’s simply nothing to base that on except for her word given to certain audiences; her words to other audiences sound quite different.

SHE’S BEEN HORRIBLY MAULED BY THE BAD GUYS AND WE OWE IT TO HER

She’s rich, famous and well connected; we don’t “owe” her the most powerful job on earth. Yeah, she’s been thumped on, but that’s the downside of fame, money and connections. Lefties are far too sentimental about victims, but sucking pity for being put-upon gets tiresome even if the heroine is the pluckiest gal since Molly Brown, and it just doesn’t smell all that authentic as she’s standing there smiling with Rupert Murdoch as he gives her thousands of dollars. Besides, if being a victim is the yardstick, let’s just nominate Susan MacDougal and inaugurate her in a bright red dress; there’s somebody who REALLY got persecuted.

SHE’S INCREDIBLY TOUGH

Yep, when the smoke clears, she’s always there, dusting herself off, taking care of herself and “repositioning” herself for that misty day when she’ll actually fight the good fight. When that day will be is anyone’s guess, but rest assured: you’re a philistine if you don’t take her good word on it. If survivability is a metric, let’s just nominate Mike Tyson; we can’t nominate a Volvo, since any one that’s over 35 would have been made in Sweden…

SHE’S A WOMAN AND IT’S TIME FOR A WOMAN PRESIDENT

Hell, it’s long-since past time for a woman president, but I’d rather have a person who has the best interests of the most in mind. She is literally the MOST CONSERVATIVE of all the other candidates. The most. Period. (Well, okay; I’m not really sure about all of Richardson’s positions, but then again, neither is he, and I think that pretty much makes it unanimous.) Why should we throw away the chance to stride boldly into a more decent future just to make this point now? Yes, this might also bring some swing or otherwise not-cast votes from a 51% plurality, but do they outweigh the unfavorables? Methinks not.

SHE’S THE MOST ELECTABLE

This is horrendous crap. She’s nowhere near as electable as Edwards or Obama and poll after poll proves it. If one is going to take a risk with an iffy candidate, one should do it for someone who’s truly progressive, not for the most conservative. This tiresome chant of her invincibility is founded on absolutely nothing. So she won a seat against a total stiff in a solidly blue state; so what? So she won reelection against another stiff? SO why-the-hell-are-we-even-still-talking-about-this WHAT? What’s that got to do with the price of Key Limes in Florida?

SHE’S THE FRONTRUNNER

See the last paragraph. This is for people who want to be on a winning team. I’m sorry you have an aching need to belong or be triumphant, but this is 1) way too important and 2) subject to extreme change.

WE’VE GOT TO “SHOW THOSE REPUBLICANS”

This vengeance thirst is the worst reason of all. I don’t give a tinker’s cuss about rubbing the reactionaries’ noses in their evil mess by forcing the Clintons back on them. This is MUCH more of a factor than people would like to admit, and it’s infantile. Sure, he was persecuted, but he also brought a lot of it on himself by lying. He also sucked up a lot to the conservatives by thinking (as she does) that somehow they’d play fair in some bizarre alternate universe with a “third way”. Hell, she’d probably take a “fourth way” if someone presented it. Think of the future.

THE REACTIONARIES HATE HER THE MOST, SO WE HAVE TO LOVE HER

This is wrong across the board. They hate Kucinch MUCH more. They HATE AND FEAR Edwards so much that it’s palpable even through the haze of dismissal and derision obvious in the press. They WANT us to run her, and even if they’re wrong, it should tell us something. Even if--by some odd chance--she manages to pull it out, they will have managed to saddle us all with THE MOST CONSERVATIVE of the bunch as a president. They hate her for reasons that have no bearing on the present and future and they’re locked into residual hatred from years of hammering on her. Let that hatred be wasted energy and let’s not join in the folly of obsessive retaliation.

In short (hahahaha) there is NO good reason to support her. Gender is not a valid one, since it would subject EVERYONE to more third-wayish corporatist crap. Sentiment isn’t sensible, since it’d do the same. Electability is a non-issue. Dreams of future liberalism are totally unfounded. It’s all irrational projection, and it needs to stop.