Jon Stewart captures this development. I don't know why, but this one, obviously scripted, development in the Clinton campaign sickens me more than just about anything she's done so far. I suppose its mostly the apparent attempt at manipulating rather than connecting that is at the heart of my disgust. But I also think my anger comes from taking something that is so important to our survival in these times - the ability to find laughter, even in the midst of the insanity - and to turn it into a manipulation??!!! Now that's just wrong.

Of course, nothing she does is more destructive than her need to prove that a woman can be as much of a warmonger as any man. But I'm just sayin...at least leave us some authenticity in our laughter.

Here's a bit from a Marge Piercy poem on Women's Laughter

My friend, on the deck we sit
telling horror stories
from the Marvel Comics of our lives.
We exchange agonies, battles and after each
we laugh madly and embrace.

That roucous female laughter
is drummed from the belly.
It rackets about kitchens,
flapping crows
up from a carcass.
Hot in the mouth as horseradish,
it clears the sinuses
and the brain.

ah, what a great poem.

and i agree. its that political, fake, insincere tone of it that scrapes up my goosebumps. espECIALLY in the context i sometimes hear it.

i didnt see Jon's take on it, but i do appreciate the link, and will check it now.

after watching that i have to pull a Hillarious Clinton laugh myself. we hit a lot of the same points.

Yeah, you did catch alot of the same points, but Jon missed the Rovian connection that is also very spot-on in your analysis. I have this nagging sense that keeps trying to see the light of day and I find myself trying to ignore it. The words that come at moments like this are "tweedle dee and tweedle dum." Remember when Nader said that about our two presidential candidates? Back then I laughed it off as simplistic and maybe sour grapes. But it just keeps rearing its ugly head at moments like this.

But I also think my anger comes from taking something that is so important to our survival in these times - the ability to find laughter, even in the midst of the insanity - and to turn it into a manipulation??!!! Now that's just wrong.

Yeah, that gets me too.

Of course, nothing she does is more destructive than her need to prove that a woman can be as much of a warmonger as any man. But I'm just sayin...at least leave us some authenticity in our laughter.

Amen!

Here's my question. Here we are at a moment in US history that I've been waiting for my entire adult life: there is a serious possibility that a woman or a person of color will be President of the United States. Now that we've reached the point were this is actually possible, I find myself disgusted with the woman candidate and lukewarm on the PoC. What does this say about US politics and society? That Clinton feels that she must prove that she is as much a warmonger as any man speaks to her (and her advisors) belief that that is what the people of the US want. Since she's the front-runner right now, I can only assume that that *is* what people want. If she held the same platform as, say, Kucinich, would she be a front-runner right now? Even with all of her money and political influence? Or, if say Kucinich had the looks, the charm, and the er...em...*cough*...articulation of Obama, would he be a front-runner? Sadly, I don't think so.

That's what makes me really angry. It's obvious that this is a game being played, and it works!

I'm not sure if what I'm trying to get across makes sense. I'm sick and frustrated, so my brain isn't working all that well, but there it is.

And NLinStPaul, thanks for the link to the vid. I hadn't seen that either.

the powers that be at the top of the heap have the same need to see the same mechanisms in place. underneath all the sales rap, the system JUST AS IT STANDS supports them. thats what we have to remember. for those who want TRUE change....neither Dems nor Repubs are the Answer. sad but true. (and as i like to point out, who was it that brought us NAFTA? hint: it rhymes with "bill clinton")

kevin, you are right. i think kucinich is my favorite right now. he's just always right on point. and has been for years. and it is a charisma/surface/bullshit game.

you know what gets me? here i was thinking we'd learn lessons from bush. and it seems the "frontrunners" did. but the lessons they learned are not the ones i'd hoped. they seem to be the worst ones possible. how to get over on us using GOP tactics and fear-based framing.

ugh.

(sidenote: NL you simply must watch the R&B narrated vid on larry craig that's at the same page. that had me laughing like crazy. as well as the one on the hip-hop hearings. hoo boy. i needed that. )

I've never been a fan of Kucinich and maybe I'm wrong about him. But here's why. Years ago in the race for Mayor of St. Paul, the choices were Norm Coleman (now Senator from MN) and a guy named Andy Dawkins. Andy was a representative in the State Legislature and VERY progressive with a good heart. I loved his politics. But he couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag. I had experienced this in sitting on a couple of committees with him. We were just coming off of years of having a Mayor that was much like Andy. The result was that nothing had gotten accomplished and the conservatives had pilloried all his progressive ideas.

I get the feeling that Kucinich is much like Andy Dawkins. And the result was the ascendency of that asshole Norm Coleman. Over the last 15 years I've had to learn alot about leadership in a small organization as the director of a non-profit. The lessons have been excruciating and I think I've been a pretty slow learner. On this scale, I see folks like Kucinich in my line of work. They have great intentions, but have difficulty ever getting alot done. And I also see folks like Clinton, who manipulate and grow large organizations - but its all in service to the status quo and they don't ever really change anything.

Am I asking for too much in hoping for someone who can do it all? Yes, I think so. There have only been a few (ie, Wellstone - and he probably never would have succeeded in getting elected on a national scale). So then I think that the answers must lie in the idea that we are looking to give away too much of our power to leaders. That's at least my thinking on all of this today.

a) my sincere feeling is that this government is incapable of doing much but perpetrating more of the same. little movements forward, but ultimately, larger ones backward. i dont even know that its the people who can't "do it all," except that the system is set up to disallow true change. and sadly, the US populace is part of that system. as kevin points out, we want gloss for the most part. pretty people who make us feel good with fine-tuned phrasing. nader aint pretty or presentable, but he's spent his whole life working for change for the good of the people.

b) i appreciate your story and experience. i have to admit i dont know a lot about kucinich. but i also have to point out that in your words, you dont offer much much, either. an analogy and gut feelings. i am NOT discounting those. i for one, know how valuable these guides can be. i guess i'm just saying that out of the bunch, he comes across—and always has, to me—as sincere and on the right sides of all the important arguments. i dont know that he can lead, cant know that.

c) i agree. someone who could lead, and was interested in actual change would be taken care of. in one way or another. too many powerful interests would not want actual change. and the foundations of this war and profit machine have been laid very deep. in all honesty, as i've always said, i think this empire is falling down. and nothing will stop it. i'm not sure anything should.

but still, i try to hope when i can. and try to live as if a future here is possible. and speak truth when i feel i have some idea of what that might be.

i think this empire is falling down. and nothing will stop it. i'm not sure anything should.

I'm with you 100% on that one.

The only two national political leaders who have inspired me to have hope in any other outcome were Paul Wellstone and Howard Dean. Both have been effectively silenced now. Paul through his untimely death (which I will never be completely convinced was an accident - not when he was in the midst of defeating Cheney's handpicked replacement) and Howard by a combination of his own mistakes and a media onslaught. He's now retreated into the "machine" and if he is accomplishing anything, I can't see it.

But both of these men built their campaigns on a mobilization of people like me who actually believed that if we worked together, things could change. While particular policies they supported were important, it was never the core of their message. The core for both of them was a very real commitment to a democracy of "we the people."

People who truly challenge the power of the system have to be silenced...one way or another. Guess that's the way its always been and I just recently caught on.

i think so. especially when you start studying up on the CIA blackbag jobs done in other nations. it can feel very overwhelming. it ain't just here. the powers that be don't believe in borders or rulers. that's us small folk. the big timers believe i them and us. and they have a lot of money and weaponry to keep it that way.

one of my favorite books used to be stranger in a strange land. [spoiler alert]. now, i've gone back and read it. and these days i'm amazed mostly at how awkward some parts are, and also how much sexism is in it. but before i knew to look for that stuff, and was a bit less sophisticated in my writing, it used to make me cry. you've probably read it. but there is this alien who comes to earth, and is basically pure of heart, and inspires people to get with him and behind him because of his heart. and in the end, the crowd ends up killing him.

whether its the powers that be, or just "us," i often feel that this was a good metaphor for the world i've seen in my time. this is why i sometimes wonder what we really want. we all say we want great things. but the ultimate effect of so many of our actions is too often to squash truth in favor of profit, or comfort, or ignorance. and this adds up. i dont think many of us realize how much.

so, we are all complicit. and in a sense, i really think we all have the world we deserve. after all, we make it every day.

good thing i don't really believe in the concept of "Deserve." :)

There is a lot to be said for blissful ignorance, but you, Nez, your readers and contributors do not have this luxury.
When free enterprise is only free to the elite, dependant on level of enterprise
When laws only apply to the peasants; and our leaders exempt themselves from either scrutiny or prosecution.....
When universal health care is accorded to those in power, but sickness, poverty, and death is reserved for the peones......
When the peasantry believes they are engaged in a democracy, but are only allowed to vote for two alternatives, both selected by the powerful and privileged.....
When the Bill of Rights is gutted, seen as quaint, or outmoded by the leaders...
We should not be shocked. Oligarchy has never been a secret in America, but our awareness of it has certainly been clouded.
Thomas Jefferson: 1816 "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
or
Journalist Walter Karp, "In the American Republic the fact of oligarchy is the most dreaded knowledge of all, and our news keeps that knowledge from us."

Anyone who speaks or thinks of such things is quickly marginalized, discounted, attacked, and rendered inneffective. The web and our wits are the weapons, through organization, communication, and the education of each other.
"Very little is done individually. It's usually done in groups by collective action and interchange and critique and challenge....Part of the system of domination and control is to separate people from one another so that doesn't happen." (Chomsky)
Si, Se Puede!

Put me in the Kucinich column, too. I don't think he's got a realistic chance, but I like his positions and his willingness to stake himself to a socially and ethically justifiable position, and then stick to it.