Let’s let a Hillary supporter speak for herself [Updated]

Why don’t you like Obama, janiscortese?

You know what? This is it, isn’t it? It’s really that simple. I don’t WANT a fucking glorious, shining new dawn of transformation from my government. I don’t want the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. I don’t WANT THE FUCKING RAPTURE, OKAY? I just want the fucking garbage to get picked up, the mail to go through, not to get buttraped by Big Oil when I fill up my car, not to live in a country that has fuckingconcentration camps, and not to worry about paying for my healthcare even though I fucking HAVE INSURANCE. OKAY?!

I don’t WANT A FUCKING MENTAL SPIRITUAL REVELATION from my fucking GOVERNMENT! My spiritual health is MY BUSINESS, not the fucking government’s! I’m not IN THIS to fall to the ground and start speaking in tongues! I just want kids to get vaccinated and learn how to fucking read!

I ended up getting angry at this topic last time it came up between me and an acquaintance who kept trying to tell me that someone she knew at work liked Obama because she remembers the Glorious Sixties and “she misses having that passion in her about something.”

So why the fuck doesn’t she GO GET LAID? Government isn’t about your sacred Passion, it’s not about giving you a really good buzz or a wild trip. It’s about making sure that families don’t get thrown out of their houses when they can’t afford them anymore. CHRIST, how self-centered can you get?

“I want passion!”

You want it from something outside of yourself? Are you thatemotionally crippled that you need the permission of some plastic dude in a shiny suit to allow passion into your life? You can’t just get the FUCK UP OUT OF THE BARCALOUNGER AND GO GET IT ON YOUR OWN?

Jesus, these people are goddamned emotional cripples. And they’re trying to pick our next preznit!

“She wants passion.” Tell her to buy a fucking vibrator! FUCK YOUR PASSION, honey! What the hell is wrong with you that you don’t find passion in providing health care to people who need it, to balancing paycheck inequities, to understanding how our government works?!

Emotional. CRIPPLES. And intellectual cripples for all their backpatting about how much smarter they are than we simple fools who support Hillary.

“I want passion.” Go jerk the hell off and get it out of your system. The rest of us just want to make sure the country runs smoothly so that we can get on with the business of GETTING OUR OWN TRANSFORMATION FOR OUR DAMNED SELVES THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

And there you have it. These people equate anyone who discusses change in government with a mind-bending spiritual experience, and these people just can’t take it. In fact, they wish that us “Emotional. CRIPPLES.” would go “jerk the hell off,” and “GO GET LAID,” rather then us show “how self-centered” we are. So when you’re thinking of the, err, Democrats and supposed members of the left that we have to convince to vote for Obama, just remember that they wish for you to “FUCK YOUR PASSION, honey!”

Anyone else feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

[Update] From the comment thread I linked to, here’s what chinaberry turtle has to say about Obama supporters:

So, now yall are on a little charm offensive to bring us back into the fold. Well you can just fuck off w/ that charm offensive. You’ve gone too far – you’ve lost us for good. Obama’s going down either in August or November. We’ll NEVER vote for him and his rape-fantasizing followers.

So, apparently, we all love to rape women now.

Hey, I don’t make this up, I just report it.  And I know they’ll again accuse me of taking their hateful comments “out of context,” but honestly…  How can that be taken out of context? 

30 Responses to “Let’s let a Hillary supporter speak for herself [Updated]”

  1. DM Metzger says:

    So being passionate is a bad thing and getting laid is the cure? Hmmm… always thought those two things were pretty intimately related.

  2. Donna says:


    I pretty much ignore anything written by someone who can’t write a paragraph without “fuck” or “shit” in it.

    I mean, those are great words and two of my favorites, but when that’s all someone can use in a sentence, I don’t think they’ve got too much to say.

  3. tas says:

    There’s swearing, but then there’s… Her rant just borders on dementia. I read shit like this and wonder, “How the hell are we going to convince that person?” Or other people like them? And what exactly is their problem, anyways? How did they become so nuts that they can’t even see clearly?

    I mean, honestly… The fact that people are downright offended by Obama and his supporters is just astounding to me. Politicians to be offended by: David Duke, just because; Dubya, for his policies murdering so many people; Hillary, because her congressional votes helped enable Dubya’s policies (like authorizing the Iraq War); Obama… I dunno, still drawing a blank. If one doesn’t want to give the man the benefit of the doubt, they can just say that he hasn’t given them enough time to do something wrong yet. But to be so offended by him right now? That’s insanity.

  4. Coyote says:

    janiscortese! You’re terrific!

    I couldn’t have said it better myself.

  5. MichiganGirl says:

    I agree with her despite her PASSION. I agree that I don’t want a mental spiritual revelation either. The way some Obama supporters worship Obama is just as crazy if not more insane than this post.

    What point are you trying to make here? So you can be offended by Hillary but a Hillary supporter can’t be offended by Obama? It’s obvious you and janiscortese are on different teams. So I don’t understand why you would even post this unless it’s to joke with other Obama supporters about how clueless Clinton supporters are which is basically what Clinton supporters are doing on Anglachel’s Journal. It’s obvious a pro-Hillary blog so let the woman rant.

  6. tas says:

    Why did I post this? Because the supposed reality that janiscortese makes her comment about doesn’t exist. Where are people worshipping Obama? How are Obama supporters so “emotionally crippled”? What Obama supporters have talked about the “rapture” if he gets elected? My point in posting this is because it’s a perfect example of just how insanely delusional some of Hillary’s supporters are. They don’t recognize reality unbiased, just their perceived notions of how things are.

  7. Not to get into the rubber vs. glue argument, but really, you want cultism, go hang out in the comments sections of the Taylor Marsh blog, or No Quarters, or Talk Left. I mean, I’m not discounting that there might be some absolute loon jobs that support Obama, but I get truly baffled at being accused of cultism, when you read some of the things that people have to say in support of Hillary.

    My favorite has to be a comment at TM after the February Obama streak where one commenter said, “It’s not just the media that’s biased against Hillary. If you look carefully at the election results in the last dozen or so primaries, it’s obvious that the Americans are showing a clear bias for Obama.”

    There’s a very tangible disconnect from reality among a pretty vocal swath of Clinton supporters that are, simply put, absolutely effing nuts.

    I suppose you could say the same for some Obama supporters, but the funny thing is, Obamacans or Obamanoids, or whatever you wanna call them/us, we’re accused of cultism. Who’s accusing the rantings of Clinton supporters of cultism?

    Not a whole lot, but it’s there.

  8. wonder what meds she taking. have a great weekend folk

  9. wmr says:

    You say: “These people equate anyone who discusses change in government with a mind-bending spiritual experience, and these people just can’t take it.” This doesn’t make any sense. I don’t think anybody confuses a person with a spiritual experience.

    Your lede is wrong too. Cortese is addressing an Obama supporter.

    As for his supporters: if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.

    Personally, I think that until the Republican party changes in large ways, the Rapture will come before a Democratic president can create post-partisan country.

  10. tas says:

    Wrong, and wrong, wnr. Cortese originally quoted Krugman’s latest column where he postulated that maybe working class voters aren’t going for Obama because they don’t want change, which Cortese thinks Krugman was so correct about that it launched her into this rant. So when I say “These people equate anyone who discuss change in government with a mind-bending spiritual experience, and these people just can’t take it,” it makes perfect sense: Cortese flipped out over the notion that Obama supporters want change, calling such.. Well, you know what she called such, we can both read her comment.

    And Cortese is not addressing an Obama supporter, she’s using an Obama supporter as her strawman against all Obama supporters. She’s ranting about issues that don’t exist.

  11. Knemon says:

    “Where are people worshipping Obama?”


    Chris Matthews: “This is beyond Kennedy. This is the New Testament.”

    Ezra Klein: “He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh …”

  12. Skip says:

    Janis has got it just right. Good for her.

  13. tas says:

    Knemon, don’t quote me pundits. Quote me people worshipping Obama. Show me the supposed masses who kiss his ass, OK?

    For the record, nobody has been able to show me all of these supposed Obama worshippers yet.

    And also for the record, I also hate how people have claimed that I’ve taken Cortese out of context. Honestly, it’s tough to take comments like “FUCK YOUR PASSION, honey!” out of context, OK? They can really only mean one thing. The fact that some Hillary supporters feel compelled to defend it just goes to show me how fucked in the head they are.

  14. wmr says:

    Wrong back at you. I don’t see Cortese quoting Krugman here.. If Cortese quoted it in another comment, then you should have included that comment also. Cortese’s outburst was clearly aimed at someone who wants to re-experience the passion of the 60’s.

    I don’t see how any context can make any sense of “These people equate anyone who discusses change in government with a mind-bending spiritual experience, and these people just can’t take it.” If you drop out the phrase “who discusses change in government”, you get “These people equate anyone with a mindbending experience.” As I said, no one is confusing people with a spiritual experience (except you). Why can’t you admit that this sentence needs work to make sense?

    And if you had read more carefully, you would have seen that Cortese herself discusses change in government: for example by providing better health coverage and closing Gitmo.

    But if by “change”, you mean “post-partisan transformation” then that is what you should write. But that might give the game away, ehh?

    As for the out of context, Cortese also says “What the hell is wrong with you that you don’t find passion in providing health care to people who need it, to balancing paycheck inequities, to understanding how our government works?!” It’s pretty clear that she is not opposed to all passion, just passion that centers on a person rather than an issue. THAT is the passion she disdains.

    And before you jump to another conclusion, I am not a Hillary supporter; since Edwards was frozen out by the media, I’ve just been waiting to see which of the two lesser candidates I will vote for. No way in this world will I vote Republican, or Green, or Nader or any other waste of time.

  15. Bostondreams says:

    Incidentally, here is the link to the comment Kyle references. It’s to the popular Clinton ‘worship’ site, Taylor Marsh.


    My new favorite is this one:

    “What I have not said, as I think that is implied, is to advocate for Hillary so passionately that there is no doubt to anyone who hears your voice, or reads your words that this woman will absolutely, and without question, be the greatest President this country has had in more than 100 years.”


  16. tas says:

    Wrong again, wnr. From Cortese’s original comment — the very beginning of it, in fact — is this in italics: “… maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.” That is a quote directly from Krugman’s latest column. And after quoting that, she made her comment which I featured in this post.

    Since you don’t know how to read given that you missed that basic part of her comment, I didn’t bother to read the rest of your last comment. I didn’t think it was worthy of my eyeballs wasting time on it. Admit that you’re wrong first and maybe this debate can go on, but until then, ta ta.

  17. JosephW says:

    Tas, maybe Janis *did* include part of Krugman’s quote, but how about putting THAT into some context. This is the FULL segment from which your 12:28am comment extracts:

    “According to many Obama supporters, it’s all Hillary’s fault. If she hadn’t launched all those vile, negative attacks on their hero — if she had just gone away — his aura would be intact, and his mission of unifying America still on track.

    Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.”

    Note that what Janis pulled is Krugman’s “alternative suggestion” to the OBAMA supporters’ complaints about Hillary’s wins with the working-class voters.
    I would also note that YOUR response to wnr was unjustified since YOU didn’t include the Krugman quote in your original hitpiece. YOU chose to use janiscortese’s response to the Krugman quote without including the quote. There are some people who don’t click on every link provided, especially when it’s presumed that the material following the link is pulled in full; I don’t know why you chose to reprint all of the janiscortese response EXCEPT for the Krugman quote. If wnr didn’t click the link to read the full piece, how was he/she to know that Krugman was, in fact, quoted. YOU certainly didn’t inform anyone of that until a later response (at 8:42).
    I’ll leave you with this thought. You posted (at 12:06am), “And also for the record, I also hate how people have claimed that I’ve taken Cortese out of context. Honestly, it’s tough to take comments like “FUCK YOUR PASSION, honey!” out of context, OK? They can really only mean one thing.” I know exactly what you mean. It’s just like “GOD DAMN AMERICA” (quoting Rev Wright) can really only mean one thing, REGARDLESS OF CONTEXT. Nothing can make that quote acceptable, and when the GOP pulls that and repeats it day after day after day in the general election (presuming Obama is the Democratic nominee), there will be NOTHING that you or any other Obamabot can say to make it any more acceptable. Wright’s full context doesn’t make it any more palatable.

  18. tas says:

    Oh please, JosephW.

    First off, I didn’t include the snippet that Cortese mentioned of Krugman’s article because she essentially addressed the issue by name, thus explaining herself, in the first paragraph of her comment. That negated the need of my putting the extra text there, and then having to explain that extra text — it wasn’t necessary. For you people to come barreling in now and say that I performed some sort of injustice against her is ridiculous.

    In fact, the only time including the Krugman quote became necessary is when wnr, while defneding her, tried to tell me what Cortese was responding to — which he, in my opinion, lied about to try and weigh the debate towards his arguments. I pointed this out, twice. To say that my response of pointing out reality to wnr is “unjustified” is pretty fucking stupid. Any monkey with a couple brain cells to rub together could see that my responses — my injections of reality — were justified because wnr was spouting falsehoods.

    As for Wright’s five second snippet that got played over and over again, yes, you are ignoring the context for that. Obama discussed the context of Wright’s remarks at length, for about 40 minutes, in a speech about race. It includes references to American history, social conditions, etc. Perhaps you should give it a listen. And this is in no way comparable to Cortese’s comments, of which I quoted in their entirety, where she discusses her reaction to a situation that doesn’t exist. This isn’t like comparing apples to oranges — it’s like comparing a kitten to a lion.

    You people are friggen ridiculous.

  19. wmr says:

    Ah, yes, I see that quote in the original comment. So, I stand corrected on the matter of the Krugman quote.

    You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I did not lie. I simply assumed that you had quoted the entire comment.

    I still stand by my position that “These people equate anyone who discusses change in government with a mind-bending spiritual experience” is sloppy writing and makes no sense in any context.

    And it’s wmr

  20. tas says:

    “These people” = ranting loonies like Cortese

    “equate” = to consider one thing to be the same as another

    “anyone who discusses change in government” = A tenet of Obama’s campaign; something his supporters hope for; what Krugman was talking about

    “with a mind-bending spiritual experience” = See Cortese’s post

    I don’t think this is too difficult to comprehend.

  21. wmr says:

    I can accept that “change in government” is a tenet of Obama’s campaign. Hell, they’re all for change; even W said if he were running this year, he’d be for change. Even your “raving loony” Cortese is for change.

    But that’s not what you wrote. “Anyone who discusses change in government” = A tenet of Obama’s campaign? I’m afraid it is too difficult for me to understand how a person can be a tenet of a campaign.

    Care to explain that one? And don’t give me “you know what I mean”. All I know is what you write; I leave the mind-reading to others.

  22. tas says:

    wmr, you need to take a read fucking comprehension course, and that’s all I have left to say oon the matter.

  23. At least you know when something’s over your head, wmr.

  24. I mean, this is effing ridiculous. This is word parsing beyond any measure of farce or parody, and here is essentially the grasp of what’s going on here.

    Obama followers have beena ccused of cultism for, well, pretty much as long as there have been folks looking for a way to mitigate his campaign. Not that I don’t mind. That’s what politics is about, you try and win while you come up with ways for other folks to lose. One of the earliest ways of doing this was painting those who follow Obama as a bunch of creepy cultists.

    The irony is, though, if you look at the denizens of some of these Clintonista blogs and other places where these folks fester, you’re seeing more cultism than you’ll find throughout the rest of the blogosphere, and that’s saying something given the fact that most of the netroots have decided to back Obama.

    To be a little more blunt, and I don’t mean to offend or direspect or disparage, but if you come off feeling that way, well, I’m sorry, but I swear the Clinton cultists are among the most whining-ass, sniveling, cry-babies I’ve seen. Not a small accomplishment when you take a look at the right side of the blogosphere that has made a mint shoveling shit out but the moment a tiny fleck is flung at them they start screaming and howling for the waaaambulance.

    The entire Clinton Debacle of a campaign: Something that progressives will rue and be ashamed of for many years to come.

    And if this looks like I’m going back on all the promises I’ve made to ignore the primary, and to play nice with Clinton and her followers.


    You’d be about right. I’m fucking sick of being magnanimous and only getting insulted for it anyway.

  25. wmr says:

    One last time: If the sentence had read “These people equate anyone who discusses change in government with someone having a mind-bending spiritual experience”, then you would have had a sensible equation–a relation between two persons, not between a person and an experience.

    As it stands, it makes no sense.

    But this is no longer interesting, so adios.

  26. tas says:

    It makes plenty of fucking sense, wnr — everyone else thought so. Maybe it’s because I didn’t add the word “someone” because I didn’t mean simply one person, ever give that a thought?

    Like I said, take a reading fucking comprehension class. Or just come here and embarrass yourself some more. Usually after someone has to break down the parts of a sentence to tell you exactly what it means, that’s when you should feel sufficiently shamed enough to shut the fuck up. Then again, a lack of shame on the side of Hillary supporters seem to know no bounds.

    If that paragraph makes you say “no compendre,” just insert “someone” between every other word. I’m sure it’ll be clear as fucking day after that.

  27. wmr says:

    Well, you just had to make it interesting again, didn’t you.

    I see that you are under some pressure in your studies, so I will turn a blind eye to parts of your comment (though I can’t help but wonder what Donna, of the second comment, would think of it) and limit myself to correcting some misconceptions on your part.

    – The second letter of my handle is an “m”, not an “n”.

    – I’m not a “Hillary supporter”; as I said, I initially supported Edwards. I have serious reservations about both HC and BO, but I will vote for either one in November because, like lambert at Corrente, I believe that any Democrat is better than any Republican.

    – I never said that I didn’t know what you meant. I said the sentence was poorly written and made no sense. It’s not a matter of reading comprehension; I’m just picky about poorly drawn parallels–a pet peeve, if you will.

    I wish you success in your studies, particularly Arabic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook