We've got to thank Barack Obama. It looks like he has sealed Hillary Clinton's fate. Yes, Slick Hillary will continue with her false smiles and false assurances, but everything is beginning to ring hollow. I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary got out of the race soon.
The Democratic primaries sure have been fun. To me they have been reminiscent of the Iran-Iraq war. Needless to say, I have been hoping for heavy casualties on both sides! Hillary's attacks on Obama have taken a toll. It was especially gratifying to hear Hillary make the argument that both she and McCain are vastly more experienced than Obama. Surely McCain will get some mileage out of that in the next several months. Hillary also raised questions about whether Obama can be trusted in an emergency. Again, this is a theme that can only benefit McCain. Between the questions raised by Hillary and the doubts raised by Obama's association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's reputation has been tarnished.
Ambivalent though I am about Obama, I must credit him with saving the nation from the prospect of another Clinton presidency. For eight years the Clintons used the Oval Office for personal self-aggrandizement, renting out the Lincoln bedroom, selling pardons, and chasing around the hired help. Yes, Bill was the lecher, but Hillary was the enabler. I wonder if this is the "experience" she has been touting on the campaign, since I'm not sure what else she accomplished over her eight years as First Lady. Finally America may be ridding itself of this cunning, opportunistic duo.
Contrast the Clintons with other recent presidencies and the difference becomes apparent. Many people disagree with and even loathe Bush but it's hard to say that Bush became president for personal gain. All the folks who said he invaded Iraq for the sake of oil interests have never shown Bush to be the beneficiary of any such gains. By contrast, the Clintons came to Washington virtually broke and have been cashing in since day one. Now the couple since has a net worth in excess of $100 million. Is there any precedent for such self-enrichment? George H.W. Bush and Reagan and Ford and Carter had their share of Oval Office troubles but all of them involved disagreements about policy. No one suggested that these men were using their office for their own benefit. The Clintons are clearly in a low class of their own.
Good riddance to the Clintons also means good riddance to the era of the 1960s. The self-indulgent, megalomaniacal sixties generation is not only an embarassment to itself, it also represents the great failure of the World War II generation. For all its accomplishments, the "greatest generation" failed in one significant respect: it couldn't replicate itself but produced instead the spoiled children of the Clinton generation.
This November, America will have a choice between an independent-minded candidate of the World War II generation and an inspiring but also troubling candidate of the post-sixties generation. Meanwhile, it appears, two sullen, resentful Clintons will be watching from the wings.
Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 28)
76. Bada-Bump!
Mokele Mbembe at 2:25PM on May 12th 2008
77. Distributism? When was that ever the American way?
Good luck with that. Do you think the rich are going to be willing to give up their coffers to distribute the wealth?
Dream on. The philosophy was set up by a Pope. Ha ha ha. The wealthiest church in history, the catholic church.
I'm really laughing at that.
Linda at 2:27PM on May 12th 2008
78. REALLY? So you'll give it to the person that wants to rape the country for themselves AND know's exactly how to do it? Instead of the man that, although without a LOT of experience (he does, after all, have some...) has a vision for the country that's upwards rather than downwards, for us rather than himself? REALLY?
That's not even an american attitude!
******************
You're thinking too horizontally.
It's possible to be guided by self-interest and for that self-interest to coincide to a degree with the interest of the organization itself (see: Lee Iacocca).
Ms Clinton, amongst other things, has already spent 8 years very close to the office of president. About as close as you can be without being president. Some might argue she was too close. She is an intelligent, experienced candidate, with a healthy degree of overtly displayed self-interest.
Mr Obama is an intelligent, charismatic figure who lights a tremendous fire under a certain portion of the population. His experience is limited. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to the voters obviously. I would imagine, he has a healthy degree of self-interest as well, probably better concealed (post Maureen Dowd "I'm sensitive about my ears" that is).
Per Linda, they will both be supported and assisted in developing policy by the same group of tried and true Democratic party operatives and some Republicans to be named later, so to my mind the only real differenced between the two is experience.
bob at 2:34PM on May 12th 2008
79. With Obama as president, I hope we get Edwards as either Secretary of Labor,or Attorney General. I do think Hillary would make a good majority leader in the senate. If this happens, and works well, the far right can bend over, and kiss their political hineys goodbye for at least two decades. Caulk it up to G W Bush.
Jerry Brown at 2:42PM on May 12th 2008
80. "it also represents the great failure of the World War II generation. For all its accomplishments, the "greatest generation" failed in one significant respect: it couldn't replicate itself but produced instead the spoiled children of the Clinton generation."
Absolutely right, Dinesh!!
Bob at 2:46PM on May 12th 2008
81. Yes, but where YOU'RE not thinking horizontally is where you don't seem to notice the difference in characters between the two, or the difference in intellect. Her character is already self-assasinated. His is solid sterling. He's by far the smarter person. She's a frequent liar, but not even a good one. Just good enought to fool HER sheeple. Obama doesn't market himself to sheeple. He's anti-sheeple. And seriously, why is she PROUD of winning in the category of white people that HAVEN'T finished college??? That's the same thing as saying that "The undereducated like me, until they get educated and then for some reason they don't anymore..."
So if you can't (or won't) see the difference, it calls YOUR charcter and intellect into question here.
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:47PM on May 12th 2008
82. Tom B,
"I favored Bush in the last election, but no more. There was no way of knowing that Bush would lead us into two wars which would devastate nations, only one of which was justified."
He led us into those wars BEFORE the last election, so what do you mean? He was reelected because we had to finish the war HE invented in the first place!
Mokele Mbembe at 2:48PM on May 12th 2008
83. Don't get me wrong. I would vote for hillary over McCain. It's a choice between a self-centered egotist that might still take the country in a better direction, through her ego if for no other reason, and a senile old idiot that USED to be a maverick but folded and sold-out to the evil empire. Now he's one of them. Another Bushite. It's clear that he just wants status quo here, no changes, no growth, nothing except money in HIS pocket... So that's clearly the EVIL choice, even against someone as petty and shallow as Hillary is.
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:53PM on May 12th 2008
84. “John McCain? John McCain is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.”
If he ever becomes president, we had better make sure he never sets his sights on a deck of playing cards while holding office.
rabidmccain at 12:21PM on May 12th 2008
----------------------------------
Play the red queen... Do it... Do it now...
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:58PM on May 12th 2008
85. “John McCain?
If he ever becomes president, we had better make sure he never sets his sights on a deck of playing cards while holding office.
I don't get what is with the playing cards?
Jerry Brown at 3:06PM on May 12th 2008
86. "So if you can't (or won't) see the difference, it calls YOUR charcter and intellect into question here."
Actually, here's the difference.
Her character is well known and hasn't changed overtime. It just seems different to those who, in the past, viewed everything the Clintons did through rose colored glasses.
Him - aside from certain attributes ascribed to him by those non-sheeple who seem to hang on his every word as if it were a combination of "The Sermon on the Mound" and pillow talk - character pretty much unknown.
If it were flip-flopped, and she were on top, no doubt she'd be the gracious winner and we be hearing cries of god-knows-what from his constituency.
Along with pleas not to give up the ship.
Now that's VERY horizontal thinking.
bob at 3:07PM on May 12th 2008
87. If it were flip-flopped, and she were on top, no doubt she'd be the gracious winner and we be hearing cries of god-knows-what from his constituency.
Along with pleas not to give up the ship.
Now that's VERY horizontal thinking.
bob at 3:07PM on May 12th 2008
------------------------------
When she WAS on top, I was in despair at how the public could be so stupid. Now I have hope... Hope that the people aren't as stupid as they used to be.
Seriously, what do you SEE in her? She's as bad as the neocons are in many ways. She even used a couple of them to further her cause in recent months... Even though they were the same people that used to be trying to assasinate her character, she now uses them to try to do the same to obama. It's traitorous. She's doing the republican's work for them.
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:19PM on May 12th 2008
88. hilliary should be laughing at herself.it's really pathetic, she and bill need to move on. i hope obama does not include her as his vp she would stab him in the back without blinking an eye.
Marcia J at 3:21PM on May 12th 2008
89. Now that's VERY horizontal thinking.
bob at 3:07PM on May 12th 2008
----------------------
Keep it up bob. You don't seem to get it, that people that aren't horizontal enough in their thinking always think that those that are, are too much so. It's a standard symptom of the problem.
All the whole you're calling me too horizontal, or not vertical enough, it's only serving as proof to me that it's you that isn't horizontal enough, since I'm still seeing a lot of things that you're not here. But I can also see what you're seeing. You see what you're seeing, but can't see what I'm seeing. So it's you.
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:24PM on May 12th 2008
90. Agreed Marcia.
I wouldn't trust her as far as I can throw Bill. And that's probably about ten feet, come to think of it. So less than that.
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:29PM on May 12th 2008