You know, there is something very wrong with contemporary popular attitudes, not least among the Democrats, liberals, and primitives. It's a phenomenon that's been common in the history of mankind, and it never bodes well for those who practice the attitude.
Here we have Hillary Clinton fighting clear to the end, for the Democrat nomination for president. It doesn't look good for her, and it in fact looks worse and worse every day.
It used to be that feistiness, tenacity, and endurance were qualities much admired.
Especially in an underdog.
Now, the more that Hillary Clinton demonstrates these fine qualities of heroism, the more she gets smacked down, ridiculed, derided, despised, and Hated, especially by her fellow Democrats and liberals, and the primitives.
Especially by the primitives.
Now, being a Republican, I have never had any dog in this fight; however, at the beginning of the Democrat race for the presidential nomination, I decided that I would "support" whoever the primitives Hated the most.
Whenever one goes against what the primitives go for, it works out well. At least at this end.
So when it became obvious the primitives favored Barry Obama, I decided Hillary Clinton was my choice for the Democrat nomination for president. It was a dicey thing to do, because Hillary Clinton would be a formidable opponent of the eventual Republican candidate for the same office, whereas the candidate of the primitives is going to prove the weakest presidential candidate fielded by the Democrats since McGovern in 1972 or Mundane in 1984.
In fact, of all the Democrat candidates for the presidency at the beginning of the race, Hillary Clinton was the only one who stood even a chance of defeating the eventual Republican opponent.
So it was against my better interests, the better interests of the Republican party, when I "supported" Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination, but hey, that the primitives are such loathesome scum overrode all that.
During the course of this campaign season, I even developed an admiration for Hillary Clinton; in fact, if she did a 180-degree turn on her anti-life position, and nothing else, I would have even considered voting for her.
Probably not, really, but I WOULD have considered it.
Nearly all of we here have spent the greater bulk of our life under Democrats; a Democrat in the White House, the Democrats controlling Congress, or both. And so nearly all of us have been the underdogs, and developed an affection for underdogs.
Hillary Clinton has always always always been the underdog in the race for the Democrat nomination; despite all her strengths, the "white guilt" of affluent liberals is stronger than she. Never mind that Hillary Clinton has impressive qualifications as a female and a woman; it's apparent that among Democrats, liberals, and especially primitives, that race trumps gender.
The lady has proven herself a fighter to the last ditch, and deserves praise.
But instead, the more she hangs on, the more Democrats, liberals, and especially primitives, Hate her.
There's just something very wrong with this attitude; America was built upon admiration of the fighter, the struggler, the competitor, the endurer, the underdog. And America used to praise such people--look, for example, at how Harry Truman was covered.
As usual, this experience has once again proven that the primitives despite their flatulence of "supporting the underdog," are nothing more, really, than a bunch of beastly savages chewing on, ripping apart, and devouring those of their own the primitives perceive to be losers.
One person's loser is another person's winner.
One suspects, based upon historical patterns, that a few years down the road, Hillary Clinton is going to have proven herself a winner, and the primitives losers.
