3 ms·
Sure. The same goes for Barack Obama. And this is why they're facing one hell of a revolt from the morons, who will not accept such people as them for leaders.
by pw0ncakes 17y ago
Sure. The same goes for Barack Obama. And this is why they're facing one hell of a revolt from the morons, who will not accept such people as them for leaders.
There are legitimate reasons to disagree with both Clinton and Obama, but the real problem they face is that they make the dumbs feel bad about themselves. Said dumbs elect manipulative bastards who play to their complex, and said bastards launch ad hominem attacks and make it almost impossible for them to get any work done. This is what the Clinton sex witch-hunt and the modern-day Republican make-Obama-fail-at-all-costs efforts are really about: stickin' it too those smarty-pants lib'ruls.
- Enra2 17y agoIt must be comfortable to think that those who disagree with you does so because they are intimidated by awesomely intelligent liberals such as your heroes (and perhaps yourself?). Has it ever occurred to you that they might feel the same way about you?
- pw0ncakes 17y agoIt must be comfortable to think that those who disagree with you does so because they are intimidated by awesomely intelligent liberals such as your heroes (and perhaps yourself?). I don't think that, but I think anti-intellectualism is a major reason why Clinton and Obama both got mired in ad hominem attacks that made it difficult to get anything done.
- defen 17y agoThat's different than claiming that people with IQs of 150+ "[will] virtually never be selected as leaders, and always be outsiders. People usually aren't comfortable with a leader who is that smart." Regardless of his accomplishments or the obstructions thrown up by Republicans, a _lot_ of people were comfortable having him as a leader.