Did the Raiders make the playoffs?
(That's how little I follow football these days.)
1. Gold is set to smash its all-time high. Or, looking at it from another point of view, is the dollar about to sink to an all-time low?
2. If these Democrats represent the norm, then Hillary Clinton has big problems. The Democrats I chat with out here in California are much more pro-Hillary; they see Obama as a lightweight with no experience.
3. "The Capitalist Marches to War," a short poem by a 17-year old British blogger, shows that kids (in England, at least) are still learning Marxist ideas, although now they're cloaked in environmentalism.
4. Hard to take: Milblogger Andrew Olmsted was killed in Iraq. He asks that his death not be used to make a political point. This blogger will honor his request. Another hero gone.
(HT: House of Eratosthenes)
5. A fascinating look at the Clinton psychodrama.
6. I get one clear impression when I read Democrats these days: unlike the Republicans, there is no confusion about what their party stands for. It stands for three things -- government, government and more government. That and a deep, almost hysterical fear and loathing of Republicans. One of the interesting subplots to watch in 2008 will be how Democrat unity and the Republican crack-up affect the election.
2 comments:
"2. If these Democrats represent the norm, then Hillary Clinton has big problems. The Democrats I chat with out here in California are much more pro-Hillary; they see Obama as a lightweight with no experience."
Here is something I wondered when I watched that video clip: I wonder if what these people's negative reaction towards Hillary is, in fact, as recent a phenomenon as they suggest or if this is perhaps something that has been very privately simmering in the back of those people's minds for a long time now - perhaps for years.
Democrats, like hippies, despite their protestations of being "independent" and "individualists" tend to, in fact, have a very strong conformist streak in them. Many tend to be social metaphysicians who are extremely concerned about what their peers think of them and do not wish to stand out in a way which would be perceived as potentially negative. If they are blue collar/union types - well, they don't want to be teased by their buddies about thinking they are above their station in life. If they are well educated, they don't want their professors and colleagues to think that they might be backward bumpkins who drink the coffee served in truck stops and gas stations and possibly even own guns.
The Clintons have been, for years, almost quasi-royalty among Democrats. To speak ill of them - well, that is what bumpkins and Republicans do. This notion was especially reinforced during the Clinton scandals of the 1990s. Had Monica Lewinski kneeled under the desk of a Republican president and had a Republican president committed perjury in a credible sexual harassment suit - well, his own party would most likely be leading the charge to get rid of him. The leadership of the Democratic Party, instead, circled the wagons. Those who criticized Clinton - well, those people were publicly denounced as being part of a "vast right wing conspiracy" to use Hillary's words. No Democrat would want to be thought of as being part of something like that.
My guess is there were plenty of rank and file, ordinary Democrats who were utterly disgusted by Clinton's sicko, whim driven juvenile behavior. And in the back of their minds, many probably thought it was unjust that he got away with it. They know that if they or their boss were to engage in such behavior while at work and in the office they would be fired and not a soul would come forward with any sympathetic support. And in the back of their mind, many probably observe Hillary's nastiness and arrogance and find it off-putting. Many probably have had the private, unvoiced thought that Hillary never really earned being an out-of-the-blue candidate for New York Senator - it was a privileged perk that came about as a result of having a powerful husband.
Many Democrats probably though all of those things and more. But the vast majority would have kept it to themselves. No social metaphysician wants to be uncool or not of the guys or to be an unwashed bumpkin. So they, too, praised the Clintons - because that is what all their peers were doing and expected of them.
Suddenly, here comes Obama - and he is climbing in polls and perhaps might win Iowa. Then he actually wins Iowa and Hillary comes in third Now that someone has taken the first step and others have followed, for the first time Democrats can express misgivings about the Clintons without fearing social backlash among their peers - and, as a result, all of the negative thoughts about them that they had repressed for years are now flooding back and they are joining in with gusto. They are saying things about Hillary Clinton that five weeks ago they would never have said or allowed themselves to think. But now it is possible for them to do so and still be considered a good Democrat.
If my little theory is, in fact, the case - well, that is going to be very bad news for Hillary Clinton because it is going to be a snowball that she and her goons will have a very difficult time stopping. It will be like a previous year's fashion fad once it has started to go out of style and is no longer considered "cool." Nobody really liked the fad all that much to begin with or had any real desire to wear such clothes - but since they didn't want to be considered uncool, they forked over the cash and bought them anyway. Now that the style is on its way out, people derive pleasure from being able to say "that is just so last year." It may well be that it is the Clintons' turn to be that which all hippies and most Leftists dread the most: uncool.
Your scenario would make an excellent movie. If it turns out like that, everyone would know the movie is about Hillary Clinton, even if the names were changed.
Post a Comment