Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Is it just me? Or is it time to really hate the Clintons?

A few weeks ago, Bill Clinton was asked if Obama, the presumptive nominee of his party, and the man he pledged to support, was ready to be president. He said “You can argue that nobody is ready to be President.”

Yeah, you can argue that, Bill, especially if you’re a dick.

Look, I’m not saying that it’s not true, I’m saying that he refused, in that churlish “I did not have sex with that woman” way of his to say, simply, “Yes.” And you and I both know, that if the nominee had been his wife, or in fact any other Democratic nominee except Obama, he would have said yes.

Clearly he has a bone to pick with the Obama campaign over their allegation that Clinton’s comparison of Obama’s South Carolina primary win to Jesse Jackson’s South Carolina primary wins was a racist one. It really sticks in Clinton’s craw that the Obama campaign had the nerve to accuse him (whose office is in Harlem, c’mon!) of racism.

Regarding the Jackson comparison…make no mistake, politicians of Clinton’s caliber don’t just stumble into analogies like that. He walked into that trap with his eyes wide open. It was a calculated risk he took, saying that it wasn’t, in his mind, the first time that an unelectable black man won that same primary. The inference was clear that Obama only won because he’s black, and even if you don’t think it’s a racist statement, it doesn’t matter, because Clinton knew it would be perceived that way, and knew the Obama camp would push back, and knew that he would pull out his “first black president” credentials, and that would be that.

Except it turns out that Clinton’s credentials had expired in the last eight years, and he had never bothered to have them renewed.

And now he’s pissed. He wants his wife to be president, and goddamn if he’s not willing to take the whole kit and caboodle down with him if he has to, in order to get his way.

Take for instance, his recent comments wherein he implied that there was no difference between the McCain and Obama platforms on the environment.

Say what?

Yes, Clinton said, apparently with a straight face, that Obama’s platform was comparable to McCain’s, and that both candidates “have positions that guarantee that there will be a price set for carbon and will start to do something about climate change.” I guess Clinton’s not aware that McCain has made offshore drilling for oil a centerpiece of his campaign. I’m not sure how he missed that, especially since McCain’s first attempt at a stump speech on the subject, scheduled to take place on an offshore oil platform, had to be rescheduled due to an oil spill.

And more recently, when BushCo threw out the window a 30-year-old rule that required that the status of endangered species be evaluated by independent experts, and not by department cronies with hard-ons for industry, McCain’s campaign was strangely silent on the subject. In fact, I believe their comment was “no comment.” Obama’s spokesperson, on the other hand, said he would kill the new BushCo regs and strengthen the Endangered Species Act. I guess Clinton could not have predicted that when he said that Obama and McCain were equal, environment-wise. Although it’s funny, because I sure could have.

And now, we have Hillary’s brother and some of her old campaign flacks organizing meetings between Pennsylvanians who voted for Hillary, and Carly Fiorina, an agent of McCain’s campaign who’s so thick-headed that she can’t grasp that McCain is the enemy of every sensible woman everywhere.

And then there’s Hillary’s ex-Communications Director, Howard Wolfson, who performed some very public hand-wringing over the recent fall of John Edwards, saying that if he hadn’t lied about his extramarital affair prior to Iowa, Hillary would’ve won that state, and thus would’ve naturally won the nomination. Even if you accept all of that, which is quite a mouthful to swallow, it’s interesting to me that the campaign that prided itself on its right to not go gently into that good night is suggesting that Edwards should have.

Perhaps I can recommend to the Clintons that they consider the advice of Maria Shriver, who recently hosted a “Women for Obama” unity function, whose guests were prominent Hillary Clinton supporters that the Democrats hope to bring back into the fold. Shriver’s family was dealt a severe political blow when Ted Kennedy, a man many assumed was a presidential inevitability, lost the nomination to the very unpopular Jimmy Carter in 1980. Maria confessed that she held grudges from that campaign for too long, and that it did not, ultimately, serve her well.

Some of Clinton’s more dogged supporters refuse to accept that she did not win the nomination, and they vow to disrupt the Democratic Convention. Perhaps I can recommend to them, from that same campaign, the words of failed nominee Ted Kennedy:

“For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”

In other words, it’s bigger than Hillary, bitches. It’s bigger than a woman being president, even. If McCain is elected, I guarantee you’re going to look back in a few years and not be able to believe what a world-class fucking idiot you were.

12 comments:

Dad E said...

This is one of your best!

Dr. Monkey Von Monkerstein said...

I am so glad that you, an intelligent female, wrote this post. If I had done it then the chorus of Clintonista's would have called me sexist.

SkylersDad said...

I ask again. Why the hell are not being paid large sums of cash to write in a major publication?

vikkitikkitavi said...

DadE: Really? Hm. I think I don't really have a very good sense of those things.

DrMVM: I like it when my opinion is somehow MORE valid because of my sex, instead of less valid. That hardly ever happens.

SkyDad: You need to ask someone who can answer.

Unknown said...

Speaking as a Declines to State who usually votes Democrat, I rather like this fighting. Democrats are some of pussiest pussies who ever aspired to power.

Look, the Republicans did their thing. They had a supposable frontrunner early in the primaries and an array of chasing-after arrogant dickheads that, even by GOP standards, was impressive (I assume no elaboration is necessary). So they shut it down, more or less by force, and prevented any possibility of a comeback campaign. Fine; that's how they do business, and any Huckaberry calling it unfair should re-read the fine print of their party machine's well-known procedures.

The Democrats are so hand-wringingly pussified in the face of power, so worried about offending even persons with the least of political bargaining chips....the DNC is made up of every parent who wanted to talk to their kids for hours after they did something wrong, and really, really get some understanding going. JEEEsus, you know? Make an edict once in a while, shake it up!

If there's any overriding concern that the struggle for political weakens a party, I goddamn bet you there's a Republican strategist behind it, speaking into some willy-nill Democrat ear who will listen to anything. This is a party that needs some open (and honest) fighting and less stored resentment.

I-i-i-i have-ave-ave-ave SPOKEN!!-oken-oken...

Unknown said...

Oh, and I'd call Carly Fiorina a boneheaded dickweed with all the hots of an Army nurse, all the smarts of gender studies adjunct lecturer in her tenth year, and all the common sense of a Berkeley Jewish housewife who likes decorate intersection barricades on weekends, but I figured you were about to.

Moderator said...

I disagree about Clinton wanting his wife to be president. What he wanted was to be back in the White House himself - even if only as the First Spouse.

Reminds me of The Onion post from years ago - "Clinton Appoints Self President for Life."

bubbles said...

Grant is right about Bill. You are right about McCain. I get a sick feeling in my tummy when I think of McCain being the president. I can't count down again. I just can't. (sob)

vikkitikkitavi said...

Michael: I'm all for an honest struggle for power amongst differing factions of the party. Without the left wing pulling the Dems away from the center, there'd be little reason for the party to exist. But given the miniscule sum total of policy differences between H. Clinton and Obama, well, this ain't that. This is all about soreloserdom, and when its practice involves the kind of deceptive distortions that you usually have to rely on the Republicans to provide, then there's nothing progressive or valuable about it, in my book.

DGuz: Now, that you say that, I might need to trademark it. I'd grant you a free license, though, baby.

Grant: 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

Bubbles: I know, I might have to up and move to Canada for reals this time.

Anonymous said...

This petty churlishness does not look good on Bill.

vikkitikkitavi said...

Kirby: That depends on what the meaning of "is" is, I think.

Unknown said...

Well then we agree there's little to distinguish the two on policy or platform, especially to a sometimes-attuned listener like me.

I think what a lot of this proves is that the Clintons are more powerful than their party want to concede, and because of that they are hoping for them to The Right Thing. The question is Why, when there is nothing particular to gain from it? I'm not a Clinton supporter, but it seems to me the party has shown them the back of its hand, and only stops doing that when they bite the thing off.