Jason Linkins, writing today in his regular Sunday column at the Huffington Post, "Talking Heads", that covers all the Sunday news/interview shows like "Meet the Press", etc., quoting a comment from a reader regarding these photos, taken on the Clinton campaign trail in Pennsylvania, http://tinyurl.com/6mxma4 , and commenting on that, in response:
"From a commenter: 'A minstrel show? Sorry, no. I just saw the video on MSNBC. She looked like she was having a good time, relaxed, and she didn't order arugula. It plays well. And, IMO, the voters who count will see it that way.' [Linkins] You're right on the matter of it being a piece of pageantry intended to serve as catnip for voters, but, as for having a sincere good time, please. Politicians do this crap all the time and you can see it in their eyes how quickly they want to wash off the stink of the hoi polloi. I give Clinton some credit: she lived in the state of Arkansas for a long time. Being an elitist myself, I can tell you that I would rather spend an hour with my face buried in the white-hot crotch of the Devil's own pet goat than live there for even a week. But, I can say with confidence that Clinton's much happier at home with her arugula and the ghost of Mark Penn banging around cutting the side deals that she wants but can't sell to Joe Sixpack. But hey, the election is over this year. I am putting a twenty dollar bill in an envelope right now, and if, during the calendar year 2009, when there is nothing at stake, you can provide photographic evidence of Hillary Clinton, cheek-to-jowl, hoisting a lager with a union grunt from Western PA, I will hand deliver the twenty bucks to you." (Linkins' column at: http://tinyurl.com/6ahbso ) All that having been said, the Politico.com essays suggested by Judy were thought provoking but (IMO) still in the realm of fear and speculation that, "Obama might just be the wrong guy, we can't really tell (and we don't want to find out because then we'd know for sure, and we'd be so disappointed, and you don't want to take a chance on *real* change because, you know, nothing ever *really* changes, so better not take any real chances) and anyway, Clinton is so totally covered in scar tissue from a years of being cut by the mainstream media and the far right and everyone else in between who don't see her for what she really is and that, therefore, the Republicans don't have a sharp enough knife to make her bleed any more. And furthermore, she won't have to play nice with McCain as she's had to do with that smart black guy who's stolen her thunder and she'll do McCain the way she wishes she could do Obama." Good on for Clinton if she wins; I would support her, I would have to. My sense, owever, is that she would be a far weaker candidate to McCain. Her entire campaign to date shows that she plays by the established political playbook (and does so very well). The fact that Obama hasn't been able to close the deal yet is a testament to her political abilities, more than his political naivete (he *is* the unexpected dark horse in this race and his success was unanticipated). But the fact that she is fighting a candidacy of survival at this point, rather than waltzing to her inevitable nomination, is proof that even as formidable a force as the Clinton political machine hasn't been able to figure out how to beat him. McCain, on the other hand, won't have a clue about how to run against Obama. With Clinton, he and she will both be using the same playbooks, and when all is said and done (IMO), McCain will look better and more presidential in lots of people's eyes than Clinton. If she wins the nomination, it will be to some degree a Pyrrhic victory that will put her presidential campaign in a weakened position. And nothing can gin up the Republican hate/smear engine better than a Clinton, and with Bill hanging around, the GOP will have both of them to bash to their hearts' content.
