Thursday, April 24, 2008

Please... No C*#t in the Oval Office

Before you think this offensive, let me say that theoretically, I am perfectly fine with almost any living, breathing sentient being holding office on Pennsylvania Ave. - be they female, Asian, homosexual, hispanic, handicapped, black, blind, Jewish, obese, muslim, Bahai, atheist, even Dolphin, or any combination of the preceding, you name it, provided their persuasion hasn't given them anm unmanageable chip on their shoulder, and that they do not place their personal identities above that of the Public'sInterest. In this sense, many might call me "liberal". However, amongst the few things I cannot countenance in a leader of the United States of America - apart from ignorant, corrupt, demagogic, evangelical and parochially selfish at the expense of the public interest - is a cunt. Ouch. Yes as I write it, the word is at once abrasive and potentially abusive, and I rarely speak it out of manners, politness and decorum. But watching Mrs Clinton these past few weeks, I reckon she is presently enroute to proving herself the epitome of the vulgar label.

Much is at stake in this election as America finds itself nearly bankrupt - financially and well as politically, both domestically and internationally. Virtually any Democrat that is not seen torturing baby kittens and puppies should win in November, after which leaders must....well.....lead.... in order to reverse nearly twenty-five years of quite lazily borrowing from the future and sweeping rather important social political decisions under the proverbial carpet, rather than soberly tackling them in a mature fashion the way olther OECD democracies - countries the average voter rather erroneously though nonetheless triumphally, believe inferior - have done. Mrs Clinton, rather annoyingly to all who wish America to get to work on the former, has been beavering away on undermining this possibility for what seems like obsessive wanton self-interest, or some delusional belief in HER personal destiny, and doing it in a particularly bitchy, passive-aggressive way that is at once disingenuous, divisive, destructive to the cause of change and the political party and coalition of interests that she ostensibly bleats that she is serving. I do not have an issue with a candidate stating I do not think my opponent is up to the job. But the particularly unattractive female way in which she is accomplishing this, by innuendo and NOT saying what she means though it's clear to all what she wants to say but isn't, while simultaneously disavowing animosity and bestowing hollow and entirely disingenuous respect upon her opponent, is unwelcome, and unbecoming of a President, in my book at least.

It is at once bad theatre, a less-than 'b'-movie and very low political manouevring that is, increasingly to this detached observer, an ill-advised and repulsive act of political desperation, akin to a most unbecoming temper-tantrum of someone-who-should-know-better, NOT getting their way. In the end, America will get what it deserves (or is it "deserves what it gets" ??), though my sincere hope is that they are NOT fooled by such Rovish tactics. Shame indeed!

9 comments:

RCJ said...

wow
and... I agree, nicely said

ajw said...

Very nicely said. I used to think either she or Obama would have been equally good, and never understood the animus against her. But after these past few weeks, during which time she managed both to adopt Rove smear tactics AND prove herself worthy of most of the negative press she has complained about in the past, it is impossible to see it the same way anymore.

Anonymous said...

Thank you.

Richard said...

Unfortunately, the electorate prefers to be promised candy, without the weight gain. She is playing to this lowest common denominator. They ARE that stupid..., and the "news" media perpetuates the mind-numbing race that neglects serious questions.

If Obama fails to beat her, most probably McCain will.

Mencius Moldbug said...

"OECD democracies?" I always find it distressing to learn that serious, intelligent people still think the electoral circus is in any way involved with the public policy process.

If you want to see a real democracy in action, look at, say, the US free-silver debate in the 1890s. Now there's the D-word for ya. Campaign speeches about monetary policy! Lord, protect us.

Except of course in the United States, where the "leader of the country" (ie, the flacks in the White House) still has some residual responsibility in the essential task of ruling the world, excuse me, "providing global governance." But I guess we see how well that's worked out.

To the extent that these election foofaraws still have any meaning, they are exercises in measuring public opinion, ie, quality control for the vast information engines that generate said "opinion." For the most part this is done by polling, but polling is shallow - it measures off-the-cuff reaction, not sustained reflection. Or what passes for sustained reflection in the modern democratic mind, which is not exactly the instrument Jefferson et all had in mind.

As for the rest, I have one word: comitology. Whether you live in the US, Europe or Japan, this is where your laws, regulations, policies and procedures come from. You could elect Pat Buchanan or Bill Ayers, and it would all be about the same. These three nonentities? Wake me up when it's over.

As for Hillary, it's a shame the recollections of Jerry Zeifman haven't gotten more play. They ring dead true to me.

"Cassandra" said...

Moldy,
You have some valid points on my word choice, though in defense I would say my intended emphasis was not upon "OECD democracies" per se. "Western peers" or "Other economically-advanced western nations holding elections" would have sufficed equally well- if not better to highlight my point of comparison, since the state of democracy itself was not the worm-can I wanted to open here, correct as your are.

"Foofaraw" is such an wonderfully unique and colourful word-choice, as much as I would - one day - like to borrow it from you, I don't think it posssible without feeling as if I were plagiarizing.

Zeifman articulates what one can see, sense and feel - even if one understands not, the words and sentences she utters.

Finally, while I've prophesized that this would be one of the most painful election marathons yet witnessed, I disagree with your near-nihilism on "the three". Sadly, I don't have the time to attempt to infuse you with my optimism as to why progressive change shouldn't be cynically dismissed, but that will have to wait until after my son's "Sport Day" at his Montessori schoool where "Everyone is a winner...."

Anonymous said...

That discription fits the Bill so to speak but it simply won't matter who wins, the US is toast.

Martin said...

So Cassandra does this mean you would be voting for John McCain if the c*#t wins the Dem nomination?

"Cassandra" said...

This is what is technically known as "a conundrum". In the case of McCain, given his vintage, I would like to see who is #2 since such a person is actuarially speaking, rather likely to become president. More likely, such choice would be the event that finally causes me to put my passport into an envelope and post it back to DC. And I would feel sorry for those Americans who don't share this luxury (excluding those who, lacking foresight, contributed to getting us here in the first place)