We are all too stupid to know that we're stupid.

[Writer]

Things we do not know unless we are an employee of either the Clinton or the Obama campaign:

1. Why Clinton is continuing to campaign until June 3rd, if not until the convention.

2. The true story surrounding Michigan and Florida, and how best to handle that for the good of the party.

3. Whether or not the lengthened campaign is truly harming or helping the Democratic Party; lest you be an internal pollster, you know nothing.

4. What Clinton is truly like in person.

5. What Obama is truly like in person.

6. What the surrogates surrounding the campaigns are truly like in person.

7. Whether or not Clinton and Obama like - or at least respect - each other.

8. What will happen between June and November, 2008.

9. What really is going through the minds of the superdelegates.

10. The true feelings of those who do not post in DemocraticUnderground.com


One thing we can be sure about: A DEMOCRAT WILL BE IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN JANUARY.


Stupidly yours,

~Writer~

[Bucky]

1. I couldn't disagree more

We are all too stupid to know that we're stupid

I'm fully aware of my stupidity. I embrace it based on self awareness, not ignorance.

[Writer]

2. LOL...

Everyone - hug your stupid selves!

[daGREATONE]

3. lol

[Writer]

5. Hi, daGREATONE.

Welcome to DU :hi:

[newmajority]

47. Great One, huh?

Wonder what that means? ;)

Enjoy your visit. :hi:

[sandnsea]

4. We absolutely know #2

Just because you want to pretend you're stupid and don't know what you know, doesn't mean everybody else is going to go along.

[Writer]

6. No, we do not know how to handle Michigan and Florida.

Howard Dean and the folks at the DNC, however, will.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. We know what happened there though.

[sandnsea]

11. We know the true story

Again, you may want to pretend you're too stupid to know what you know, but don't expect the rest of us to go along.

If Hillary would concede, those delegates would be seated tomorrow. There's no problem here except the one Hillary is creating by pretending she won elections when there was no campaign.

[Writer]

14. We do not know the full story, nor do we understand the best way to handle the situation.

The DNC will know how best to proceed. Maybe it will be something for the delegates to go over at the convention? We shall see.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

16. Fact: She said it wasn't going to count so the other candidates didn't think they were screwing

themselves by removing their names from the ballot. Fact: She changed her mind AFTER the vote and AFTER it was clear she needed MI.

[sandnsea]

17. Yes we most certainly do

If YOU don't know, go read and learn. I happen to believe you do know, but would rather play stupid than admit you backed a crazy woman. Not your fault, this is a case where nobody truly did know how crazy she'd get.

[Writer]

19. We are not blessed with omniscience.

Including you.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

22. No, but we're blessed with news articles and YouTube

[Writer]

24. I thought we didn't trust the media.

[sandnsea]

27. You've got a college education don't you?

I trust my ability to look at the goddamn legislative record and know what happened. Why can't you?

[Writer]

33. I assume you understand, then - more than any other Democrat - what is best for the party?

[sandnsea]

35. First, do you know what happened, or not

That is the issue at hand.

[Writer]

37. I'm sorry, but I thought that you had this all figured out.

That your knowledge of the situation would give us a surefire solution.

Was I wrong?

[sandnsea]

63. I do, you're the one who is playing stupid n/t

[Writer]

64. So you indeed are omniscient.

I have never spoken to someone of your kind. So please, now, humor us with your brilliance.

[sandnsea]

67. I have been, catch up n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

29. Well direct quotes are kind of hard to argue with.

Especially when they are recorded.

[Writer]

34. What is that quote is taken out of context?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

38. She says that it doesn't matter that her name is on the ballot because the election isn't going to

count. How can that be taken out of context?

[Writer]

42. So... based on this quote you know exactly what should be done for the good of the party?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

45. Did I say that? I disagreed with your assertion that we didn't know what HAPPENED, not what should

happen now.

[Writer]

46. But my contention is that we don't really know the best route to take for the good of the party.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

48. You said that we don't know "The true story surrounding Michigan and Florida"

And then you added to that the bit about what to do about them now. We DO know the true story about MI and FL.

[Writer]

49. So you know exactly how the legislatures have come to make these decisions...

through an unvarnished lens; hence, you know exactly which course to take for the good of the party?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

60. I know exactly what one candidate said she was going to do and then exactly what that candidate

ended up doing.

[Writer]

61. Okay... so... how will that solve the problem?

[PassingFair]

26. No, but some of us RESEARCH....

try MadFloridian's Journal if you want to know
what really happened in Florida.

I know what happened in Michigan, I was there.

[Writer]

30. Do you think that, if you have a dog in the fight, you can research objectively?

[PassingFair]

41. Now who's being omniscient? n/t

[Writer]

43. No one is omniscient.

[Life Long Dem]

52. Who says we don't know?

You? Or you and Hillary supporters?

I believe you do know yourself but wouldn't admit to it since it doesn't favor you, so you prefer to ignore it. This happens to be a simple little thing we have pretty much seen all our lives. They use them in games from board games to sports, and as a kid you may have witnessed a sore loser trying to cheat at some point in one of these games played as a kid. So this kid was wanting to spin the games rules to their advantage.

Well, this is what you are seeing now with Clinton. She wants the rules to be broken so she is spinning the rules to favor her. The same thing a loser in the board game would do.

And even if you tell them that they are the rules and explain it to them, they will spin it some more till a fight ensues and DNC comes in to take the game away from Hillary. knowing what to do when you have rules in place that were agreed upon by signing the rules in regard to MI or FL.doesn't take a rocket scientist. So began your spin on the rules.

[Writer]

54. Neither you nor I have the answers.

[Life Long Dem]

57. I just told you DNC will take care of it.

[Writer]

59. Maybe the delegates will get to vote on it at the convention?

Who knows. We shall see.

[Aloha Spirit]

7. Oh I know. And I'm PISSED at myself for being so stupid. Yet there is nothing I can do. Except...

post stupid threads like this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6064891&mesg_id=6064891

[Writer]

12. You get points for the absence of Rick Rolls.

:P

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. OK

1. You're correct.

2. It's all public. You don't need to be an insider to know the true story.

3. You have an inflated view of internal pollsters. Otherwise, correct.

4. Correct, but utterly irrelevant.

5. Correct, but utterly irrelevant.

6. Correct, but utterly irrelevant.

7. Correct.

8. Correct.

9. Correct.

10. Correct.

And correct. The Dem nominee will win in a landslide, and the only people who think otherwiswe are morons and people lying about "electability."

[ecstatic]

10. 2 is well known. 4,5&6 are irrelevant

Doesn't matter what Clinton and her surrogates are like in person. I've seen enough from a distance, and no amount of nice small talk can overcome the character flaws I've witnessed lately.

[anigbrowl]

13. Translation: submit to authority

We don't need to know what candidates or their surrogates are like in person. As citizens, we are entitled to draw our conclusions about them based on how they present themselves to us when asking for their votes.

'We are too ignorant to be entitled to an opinion' is the sort of argument I usually see from Republicans demanding that nobody criticize W. It is cerainly stupid to pretend or believe that any of us knows the future or knows the candidates' mind and political circumstances better than they do themselves, but there is nothing stupid about debating the campaign based on what we know. To assert otherwise is to suggest we should elevate blind loyalty over discourse.

[Writer]

18. Have all the opinions in the world...

but we ought to admit that we really don't have the same facts that the campaigns and the DNC has; therefore, we really can't formulate fully informed opinions. We're just filling in what we don't know with what we think we know and understand.

[anigbrowl]

39. The Athenians called; they want Meletus back.

[WeDidIt]

15. 5. is not true for me

He's a friend of the family.

'Nuff said.

[Writer]

21. Then that's something you know that others won't.

So you can actually vouch for his character.

Other people in here - not so much.

[islandmkl]

20. i am stupid...and i KNOW i am stupid...

does not that make me, MATHEMATICALLY, smart?

[Jed Dilligan]

23. And you're too stupid to know the difference

between stupidity and ignorance, apparently.

[Writer]

25. Actually, I do know the difference.

My uncle used to utter this phrase a lot - the phrase is sort of ironic, actually.

[Jed Dilligan]

31. Not ironic--just ignorant and stupid.

:P

[Jed Dilligan]

32. I don't find it ironic at all.

I find it ignorant and stupid.

:P

[NewHampshireDem]

28. Wow, it's just like the last 8 years condensed down into 10 ennumerated points

Thank god for you, Writer. Thank god for you, saving us from our stupid selves.

[Writer]

36. I think it's time that we all got in touch with our inner stupid.

[NewHampshireDem]

40. Well you'll have to excuse me if I don't follow your example ...

though I will admit to a better understanding of your posts now.

[Writer]

44. And I yours.

[PassingFair]

55. But must we suffer "outer" stupid?

OP after OP?

[DemocracyInaction]

50. Been around that block

I'm a woman in her 60's who became a political junkie at age 13, a political activist in the 60's and 70's and made a career out of politics. Honey, if you know politics you can answer each and every question within a 99% margin of certainty. And it ain't pretty. Oh, and about your last assumption....now that's STUPID!! All the historical trends of the last few decades-----and forget how the peons are pissing about how bad things are 'cause they still change slower than whaleshit--is that we actually don't have much a chance in hell of winning. And we did ourselves no favors in that "electability" department by fielding a black and a woman. Either as an understudy VP would have been acceptable and the sheep might--just might--have given us the nod by one state. They aren't now.

[apocalypsehow]

51. Like, that's heavy, dude. Middle school philosophy assignments always tripped me out, too...

:eyes:

[Writer]

53. So you have proceded past middle school and, hence, have the answers to the above?

[Straight Shooter]

56. We CANNOT be sure a Democrat will be in the White House in January.

We cannot be sure of anything.

Hey, Writer, I love your spirit! :hi:

[Writer]

58. Apparently my spirit must only be analyzed within the Clinton/Obama supporter paradigm.

But thanks! :hi:

[Straight Shooter]

62. I don't know. Is it a paradigm, or a dichotomy?

You're welcome. :D

[Writer]

65. Everything I write is for the sake of Clinton's campaign, apparently.

It's never just a general conversation... everything I write must be vetted through either through a "pro-Obama" or "anti-Obama" filter.

[Straight Shooter]

66. I hear you.

Every morning I wake up and say to myself, "How will I post on DU so that I can withstand the perspicacious scrutiny of the Pro-Obama Filter Police?"

Sadly, I often fall woefully short, just as you do. :cry: