Friday, November 09, 2007
How Can She be So NOT Ready for Prime Time?
And yet, HRC is not ready for prime time. Evidently there was a Cheney-up somewhere in IA and a waitress didn't get a tip from HRC and CO (and now they are spinning in all directions: "we put the tip on the credit card" [even though the machine didn't allow that], "we left a hundred dollar bill" [how's that gonna be split again?]). Of course, "even the liberal NPR" is having a field day with this.
You can say "double standard", "right wing media conspiracy", "trivialization of media coverage", etc., all you want -- and I'll agree with you. But this is the reality: the media will be out to get the Dem candidate, especially if that candidate is HRC. And the candidate will have to deal with this reality. It may very well be distorting and problematic and result in the election of Presidents based on who turns Tweety on whether or not they can deal with the realities, e.g., of international affairs, but the fact still remains: if HRC can't manage to put together a team that can ensure a waitress gets tipped, how will she handle the ship of state? If she can't deal with the bullying from "even the liberal NPR", how will she be able to deal with bullying tyrants abroad?
If HRC (or Edwards or to whomever this kinda stunt has been pulled) lets situations like this happen, people will start to figure "wow, if even the liberal NPR doesn't like HRC, she must be an ineffectual liberal". Which'll cause HRC to move further to the right, e.g. on Iraq, thus further alienating her from the American mainstream, which mainstream will feel alienated, but not know the words to express it, so they'll just say "HRC's too 'liberal'", which'll cause her to tack further right ... lather, rinse, repeat.
HRC, or whomever, has gotta stop tacking and start taking on the bullies at home (as well as make sure SNAFUs are minimized so there is less to pick on as well as to prove managerial competency) ... she needs to stop worrying about being "tough" and actually start acting assertive: Nu? the media is unfair? Nu? Deal with it! That's what you'll have to do as President. So, why not start now and show the American people you're up to the job?
And HRC, after all she's been through, should have realized all of this by now. What does it say about her that she continues to Cheney things up like this? What does it say about her and her people that she's still cursing the darkness rather than dealing with the media as they are? How can she be this unprepared for prime time after being in politics (either directly or as a political spouse) for so long? Something's not right here -- and people realize this. The problem for us liberals is that they'll link her unpreparedness with her (supposed) liberalism and turn against liberals, and by extension, Dems, rather than realizing the problem is that she's just another DLCer and real liberals generally are not this dense.
*
Shorter Republicans interviewed on NPR: everybody disagrees with Bush & CO on Iraq, so we need to make sure they vote with their hearts rather than their heads. Obvious translation: the GOP is gonna run a "you may know intellectually that GWB has discredited GOoPerism, but in your heart of hearts, don't you just hate icky people who do icky things like gay married terrorists who have abortions? so screw 'intellectually', intellectuals are just a bunch of effete defeatists -- including those neo-cons who convinced GWB to abandon the great ideals of conservatism to invade Iraq" campaign. Of course, the GOoPers will be mad at NPR for spilling the beans, er, finding some guys who said what they said, thus making the GOP look bad ... cry me a river, GOoPers -- I'll feel sorry for you vis-a-vis the Republicans they choose to interview as soon as they actually start playing the statements of actual Dem. leaders on issues of contraversy (after they've just played a tape of the Pres. or another bona fide GOP leader) rather than pairing a tape of Bush (speaking suddenly suspiciously eloquently, c.f. theories that when he is eloquent vs. when he trips over himself say something about him and his real ideas, agenda, desires and mental state) with a tape of some random back-bencher political bomb thrower (to give the Villagers something about which to clutch their pearls vis-a-vis "the Dems are too partisan") or Blue-Dog (who'll just agree with Bush and wish other Dems were less "partisan" and would "compromise", c.f. that same Blue-Dog's rhetoric on Israel -- why be willing to compromise with the bullies at home but not those abroad? ... which is my point about HRC, eh?) ...
You can say "double standard", "right wing media conspiracy", "trivialization of media coverage", etc., all you want -- and I'll agree with you. But this is the reality: the media will be out to get the Dem candidate, especially if that candidate is HRC. And the candidate will have to deal with this reality. It may very well be distorting and problematic and result in the election of Presidents based on who turns Tweety on whether or not they can deal with the realities, e.g., of international affairs, but the fact still remains: if HRC can't manage to put together a team that can ensure a waitress gets tipped, how will she handle the ship of state? If she can't deal with the bullying from "even the liberal NPR", how will she be able to deal with bullying tyrants abroad?
If HRC (or Edwards or to whomever this kinda stunt has been pulled) lets situations like this happen, people will start to figure "wow, if even the liberal NPR doesn't like HRC, she must be an ineffectual liberal". Which'll cause HRC to move further to the right, e.g. on Iraq, thus further alienating her from the American mainstream, which mainstream will feel alienated, but not know the words to express it, so they'll just say "HRC's too 'liberal'", which'll cause her to tack further right ... lather, rinse, repeat.
HRC, or whomever, has gotta stop tacking and start taking on the bullies at home (as well as make sure SNAFUs are minimized so there is less to pick on as well as to prove managerial competency) ... she needs to stop worrying about being "tough" and actually start acting assertive: Nu? the media is unfair? Nu? Deal with it! That's what you'll have to do as President. So, why not start now and show the American people you're up to the job?
And HRC, after all she's been through, should have realized all of this by now. What does it say about her that she continues to Cheney things up like this? What does it say about her and her people that she's still cursing the darkness rather than dealing with the media as they are? How can she be this unprepared for prime time after being in politics (either directly or as a political spouse) for so long? Something's not right here -- and people realize this. The problem for us liberals is that they'll link her unpreparedness with her (supposed) liberalism and turn against liberals, and by extension, Dems, rather than realizing the problem is that she's just another DLCer and real liberals generally are not this dense.
*
Shorter Republicans interviewed on NPR: everybody disagrees with Bush & CO on Iraq, so we need to make sure they vote with their hearts rather than their heads. Obvious translation: the GOP is gonna run a "you may know intellectually that GWB has discredited GOoPerism, but in your heart of hearts, don't you just hate icky people who do icky things like gay married terrorists who have abortions? so screw 'intellectually', intellectuals are just a bunch of effete defeatists -- including those neo-cons who convinced GWB to abandon the great ideals of conservatism to invade Iraq" campaign. Of course, the GOoPers will be mad at NPR for spilling the beans, er, finding some guys who said what they said, thus making the GOP look bad ... cry me a river, GOoPers -- I'll feel sorry for you vis-a-vis the Republicans they choose to interview as soon as they actually start playing the statements of actual Dem. leaders on issues of contraversy (after they've just played a tape of the Pres. or another bona fide GOP leader) rather than pairing a tape of Bush (speaking suddenly suspiciously eloquently, c.f. theories that when he is eloquent vs. when he trips over himself say something about him and his real ideas, agenda, desires and mental state) with a tape of some random back-bencher political bomb thrower (to give the Villagers something about which to clutch their pearls vis-a-vis "the Dems are too partisan") or Blue-Dog (who'll just agree with Bush and wish other Dems were less "partisan" and would "compromise", c.f. that same Blue-Dog's rhetoric on Israel -- why be willing to compromise with the bullies at home but not those abroad? ... which is my point about HRC, eh?) ...
# posted by alberich @ 9:37 AM 
