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 7 of 28)
91. I have a friend that is for hillary, and he's fairly smart. But then again, he tends to think poorly of black people in general. It's not his fault. He had a breakdown in college, and isn't exactly 'right' in the head, if you know what I mean. Also, while he feels that way about blacks, he also talks and acts more urban black than white himself. And writes reggae lyrics. He's quite the trip... He's not exactly your standard prejudiced person. He's just a bit "tetched." And it's very benign.
What's your excuse, bob?
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:37PM on May 12th 2008
92. bob, your use of hyperbole and unfounded ASSumptions just indicate how you have nothing to say but gobblydegook.
Linda at 3:40PM on May 12th 2008
93. Dinesh can afford to call the 60's generation an embarrassment, he's an embarrassment whenever he opens his ill informed opinionated mouth. Just had to read what sort of rubbish Dinesh was passing off as wisdom today, he never ceases to amuse his readers with his clear lack of insight or knowledge about any issue. Ha ha
J dollinter at 3:42PM on May 12th 2008
94. 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).
---------------------------
This country is not a corporation. Many decisions need to be made that are or would not be directly beneficial to the president personally. They might even decrease his or her popularity temporarily. A country should NOT be run like a corporation, not EVER!!! That's one of the huge mistakes the american people always make. The goal must be the benefit of the people, not the leaders of the people. This is, or should be, self-evident.
A selfish egotist liar president could do the country SOME good, as a side-effect of trying to boost their own image and ego. Still good for the country, but hardly the optimal situation for us.
What if they get in, and decide that keeping the troops in Iraq is good for their bankbook somehow? As in, a great distraction for the people whilst they rape the country's coffers in the neocon's stead?
No, selfishness is NEVER a reason to elect someone. Not EVER!
Look at George W. Disaster if you need an example.
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:46PM on May 12th 2008
95. ANYWAYS,DEMOCRATS HAS DONE NOTHING FOR THIS COUNTRY IN 2 YRS IN CONGRESS, ONLY SINK THE ECONOMY TO THE BOTTOM, BUSCH HAS NEEDED TO FIGHT FOR THIS PEOPLE TO AGREE FOR MORTGAGES AND TAXES RELIEF, AND NOW THIS MUSLIM WITH TERRORIST RELATIONSHIPS, TO FILL THIS COUNTRY WITH UNDERCOVER MUSLIM TERRORISTS, THAT ALREADY HAS GOTTEN INTO SOUTH AMERICA THROUGH OBAMA'S SUPPORTER CHAVEZ, YES DEMOCRATS ARE DOING GREAT. AT LEAST SHE WAS A HOPE...
PET at 3:48PM on May 12th 2008
96. Fuck you very much, yourself, bob.
Linda at
>>
Clearly, miserly is trolling for company
Thomas J Gassett at 3:53PM on May 12th 2008
97. Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." >>
No historian worth the title would offer any opinion on an administration still in power. A real historian would tell you that it will be a decade or two before this administraion can be accurately judges. These spews clowns that voted in this poll will never be historians.
Thomas J Gassett at 3:58PM on May 12th 2008
98. Gas Attack!
Mokele Mbembe at 4:00PM on May 12th 2008
99. "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."
I gotta hand it to DD. He just insulted an entire American generation (including my mother) in one fell stroke. If you ask me, this is at least 100 times more unamerican than saying "God damn America". I'd hate to use the conversing-cookware idiom, but isn't DD a "spoiled child" himself?
Mokele Mbembe at 4:01PM on May 12th 2008
100. Distributism in America...at least
Hey Linda, Dorothy Day did do it. So it did exist here but not as big of an attempt like in England with Belloc & Chesterton promoting it. Cain was right....sorta
http://www.distributist.blogspot.com/2007/02/dorothy-day-and-distributism.html
Bill at 4:02PM on May 12th 2008
101. Post 85.
I don't get what is with the playing cards?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manchurian_Candidate_%281962_film%29
rabidmccain at 4:03PM on May 12th 2008
102. "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."
Can't argue with that! Wouldn't know where to start.
Think I'm gonna go lie down for awhile.
bob at 4:03PM on May 12th 2008
103. I'm trying to decide if worst president is the right label to affix to Bush. The more I think about it, the more that "worst" seems more appropriate to describe administrations that really didn't do anything--sort of caretaker administrations. If anyone has any good examples, please provide.
It's clear that Bush has accomplished a lot--mostly all the wrong stuff in my humble opinion, and some of which I wonder if we'll ever recover from. So, I think we need another adjective. Any ideas anyone?
Lloyd the Lurker at 4:09PM on May 12th 2008
104. Lloyd,
Most X'ian President?
Mokele Mbembe at 4:14PM on May 12th 2008
105.
"Most incompetent"
mac at 4:22PM on May 12th 2008