Friday, January 04, 2008
The Ghosts of Camelot
**UPDATED**
closing thoughts on Iowa...
From everything I've read the energy and enthusiasm is clearly on the DEM side. I still believe Hillary will prevail because (a) she represents the establishment (elitists) and (b) has the machinery for a long slog. Also, the pining her ilk (baby boomers) have for Camelot, as captured by this long article in Vanity Fair, is a force/motivator unto itself.
Bill and Hillary, still stuck in the sixties and fighting old battles, look pathetically old. And nothing demonstrates this better than the juxtaposition between Obama and the old (er, new?) Clinton Administration.
Obama's probably more radical than Hillary but the country needs more leadership than the Angelina Jolie/Bill and Hillary Clinton junket to Davos. We need more than Martha Stewart organizing White House "coffees" and the titillating/frenzied drive of some old hippies trying to recapture Camelot. Hillary is nothing more than "business as usual" and a further consolidation of elitist privilege (limousine liberals) under the guise of progressive causes.
If Hillary does win it will be because she's forced to move to the right, and this rightward drift may drive whatever orthodox she has from her triangulating soul [need a substitute for soul]. Unfortunately it won't spare us from whispers of Camelot and the journalistic orgy (and Barbara Streisand) that will follow.
Postscript
If I needed a (c) on why Hillary will prevail I would add the schism developing between the GOP that makes this opportunity for the DEM candidate so heady. The TIME (or Newsweek -- does it even matter) cover with the crying Ronald Reagan was a bit much, but there's definitely a growing divide in the GOP that Hillary must be lusting.
And finally, I'm not answering this email again...A Catholic isn't an Evangelical.
**UPDATED**
Damn. This is from Viking Pundit.
closing thoughts on Iowa...
From everything I've read the energy and enthusiasm is clearly on the DEM side. I still believe Hillary will prevail because (a) she represents the establishment (elitists) and (b) has the machinery for a long slog. Also, the pining her ilk (baby boomers) have for Camelot, as captured by this long article in Vanity Fair, is a force/motivator unto itself.
Bill and Hillary, still stuck in the sixties and fighting old battles, look pathetically old. And nothing demonstrates this better than the juxtaposition between Obama and the old (er, new?) Clinton Administration.
Obama's probably more radical than Hillary but the country needs more leadership than the Angelina Jolie/Bill and Hillary Clinton junket to Davos. We need more than Martha Stewart organizing White House "coffees" and the titillating/frenzied drive of some old hippies trying to recapture Camelot. Hillary is nothing more than "business as usual" and a further consolidation of elitist privilege (limousine liberals) under the guise of progressive causes.
If Hillary does win it will be because she's forced to move to the right, and this rightward drift may drive whatever orthodox she has from her triangulating soul [need a substitute for soul]. Unfortunately it won't spare us from whispers of Camelot and the journalistic orgy (and Barbara Streisand) that will follow.
Postscript
If I needed a (c) on why Hillary will prevail I would add the schism developing between the GOP that makes this opportunity for the DEM candidate so heady. The TIME (or Newsweek -- does it even matter) cover with the crying Ronald Reagan was a bit much, but there's definitely a growing divide in the GOP that Hillary must be lusting.
And finally, I'm not answering this email again...A Catholic isn't an Evangelical.
**UPDATED**
Damn. This is from Viking Pundit.
Clinton's campaign has always followed some kind of circular logic that she should be the nominee because she should be the nominee. But now that the "inevitability" myth has been shattered, Hillary has no substance to fall back on. She's been purposely vague on issues and her "standard lines" are as hackneyed as an episode of "ER."
Furthermore, Hillary has been making broad statements like these for months without anybody really challenging her. But now Democrats are asking "what's it all about, Alfie?" What does it mean that Hillary is "ready on day one?" In what special way is Hillary more qualified? Because she once had an office in the West Wing? Preposterous.
Labels: clintons, generational conflict
