General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hillary the inevitable. [View all]NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... was coined by political pundits and the MSM back in 2008 - until it became apparent that Obama would be the nominee. So they've brushed it off and trotted it out again.
I have not seen any Hillary supporters here telling anyone that Hillary is inevitable, nor have I seen them telling anyone that "they have no other choice".
"... and even if they did, they can't win against insert Republican candidate here." At this early stage of the game, Hill is polling extremely well in head-to-head match-ups with various possible Republican candidates. That is simply a matter of fact at this point. It is also a matter of fact that other possible Dem candidates would not do well in such match-ups - despite their supporters' insistence that they would.
"When they tell us how inevitable Hillary is, or how unbeatable she is, there is no long list of accomplishments. There isn't a vision for America that will inspire. The most that the supporters tell us is that she's better than any Republican."
I can't imagine that you haven't seen the Hillary supporters who have posted, over and over, her list of accomplishments in response to the many, many OPs claiming that her record is lacking in achievement. To say that "the most that the supporters tell us is that she's better than any Republican" is blatantly false, as even a quick perusal of DU posts amply demonstrates. In fact, I haven't seen a single Hill supporter state that "she's better than any Republican" as the sole reason for voting for her. Not one. If you have, you might want to provide a link to prove that assertion.
As for Hillary's failure to "inspire", you seem to be taking the position that because she doesn't inspire YOU, no one is inspired. The polls/surveys that show her in the lead against all GOP comers suggest otherwise - unless, of course, you also take the position that her many supporters are all mindless idiots who see Hill as the better alternative to a Republican, without considering any other factors. That is not only insulting to those who believe she'd make a good president, it is insulting to anyone with common sense.
"More people would prefer Hillary as President over a sharp stick in the eye. This isn't saying that she's a great candidate who is able to unify people to vote for her. It's just given two pretty lousy choices, she is slightly less objectionable than the alternative." Again you find it necessary to insult Hillary supporters by declaring that their only motive in supporting her is that she's "slightly less objectionable than the alternative".
I suppose it never occurs to people like yourself that Hill's support comes from intelligent, well-informed, politically savvy people who think she brings a wealth of experience and expertise to the table. Just as Obama supporters have been dismissed as "mindless cheerleaders" on this site, so Hill supporters are already being cast in the same light. And what is glaringly obvious is the fact that what those who label others as "mindless cheerleaders" are really saying is "anyone who supports a candidate that I don't support is an idiot, based on the fact that I don't support them."
"So what is going to motivate people to go through this." Well, I think that's obvious. There are many motivations that get people out to vote: they believe in the ability of a particular candidate to move the nation in the direction they want, they take their participation in the process seriously, they feel that one candidate over the other is more reflective of their own values, they see a (D) in the WH as preferable to an (R) in that position, they are cognizant of history enough to know that the traditional role of Republican presidents has been to totally fuck up the nation, while Democratic presidents have traditionally managed to clean up the mess - the list is lengthy, but I think you get my drift.
"So we have to inspire people. We have to give them something to vote for." Whether you like it or not, Hillary is giving people something to vote for - a woman who continues to inspire, who has proven her political worth, who has demonstrated her resilience in the face of adversity, who has handed her Republican detractors their asses more than a few times, who has refused to be intimidated by those on the other side of the aisle, who has weathered storms created out of whole cloth by the "gotcha committee" of the right-wing, and who has proven her mettle time and again when confronted with the fabrications of those who have reduced her many accomplishments to a know-nothing chick whose only worth is the fact that she is married to a former POTUS.
The fact that you obviously agree with the RW's assessment of Hill's non-qualifications for the office of POTUS speaks for itself - and then some.