Homage to New Hampshire

Nh112 In accordance with my preference for finding wisdom in unlikely places, I would echo at least some of the sentiments of this Fox News story.

Hillary Clinton won in New Hampshire.  It was a satisfying experience for those of us who support her, but it was a shattering, paycheck threatening experience for the punditry.

Christopher Matthews had howled with glee and danced like the proverbial dervish for days in derision and loathing of HC and her husband, all the while swooning like a teenager over the possibility that Barack Obama might fulfill the "dream."  Whose dream. Well, who else?

In a funny way this kind of attitude is patronizing toward black people.  Obama is a plausible, grown up candidate for president of the United States.  He is fighting a well organized, persistant campaign for the nomination.  Maybe he will win or maybe he won’t.  That is the normal way of things.  There is no reason to treat him as though he is some sort of high school project in "civics" or an occasion for a debating team to reach new heights of emotional exposition.  For a couple of days up there in New Hampshah, people started acting in mighty strange ways.  The wildest thing I saw was an interview in which a white woman college student sobbed softly that "at last there was hope."  She meant Obama.  Hope of what?  The end of days?  The second coming?  Free lunch? What?

In the end HC won.  Why?  I think it was because she and her husband started looking like real human beings with real feelings.  Women voted for her in large numbers.  You could see it coming the last day.  CNN had a bar graph on their set at the beginning last night that showd HC was polling higher than Obama at the end that day.  Oddly, Wolf and company ignored that.  I guess they were still "cooking" with all the buzz.  My thought is that all those pale faced Yankees up there finally found someone they could identify with in that soft voice filled with regret.  There was a picture of her chatting with a couple of women holding signs in support of her opponents.  That, probably, is the real story.

Matthews looked stunned last night, "mugged by history" in a phrase one of the pundits applied to HC before the election.  He sat silently with his arms crossed in a defensive posture.  Howard Fineman, equally wrong, was pretty quiet as well.  Brokaw and Dobbs had a good time mocking the pundits.  It was fun.

By this morning, Matthews had rallied and appeared with the equally egregious Joe Scarborough on MSNBC to say that it was his opinion that HC and her dastardly husband had not won. No.  The election had been "stolen" from Obama by nasty secret white racists who had lied to the pollsters.  Matthews then went on in a fit of emotion (he seemed to tear up a bit) to describe Obama in terms remarkably reminiscent of first love.  I was particularly "taken" with Matthews’ trembling outrage that BC might have suggested that Obama is a "fairy tale."

"He IS the sixties," Matthews declared at the end (praise God) of his declaration.

I never liked the sixties.  I had a good time but I was glad when it was over.  By the way, Chris, it IS over.  pl


This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Homage to New Hampshire

  1. jonst says:

    “he IS the sixties”? Talk about a Rorschach test. What the hell is, or was, the sixties?
    It was a priceless night last night to see them wrong. (pundits) But they are similar to the shills who offer their handicapping services for sports events. Every week they KNOW Georgetown, or some such place like it, is going to covered the spread. And x percent of the time, usually, around 65% or up, they are wrong. It does not mean they will refrain from shouting the same thing the next time G-Town is playing. Their bad track record gives them no reason for pause. It is their ‘certainty’ that they think sells. Often wrong…seldom in doubt.

  2. Isn’t Chris Mathews the protege of the quintessinal Boston based Irish-American politician Tip O’Nieal who never had the guts to put his hat in the arena but chooses to speak loudly and never really think through what he says? Maybe not.
    None-the-less, only have super-Tuesday will there start to be a feel for the deeply running current political currents in the entire US. Unfortunately, the Electoral College and vote fraud may still affect the outcomes.

  3. jamzo says:

    on the msnbc telecast – it seemed to me that obermann and brokaw were going out of their way to handle matthews who seemed to be muzzled and frutstrated
    bob somerby (the daily howler) has been writing about matthews and his “thing” for the clintons and gore for a long time
    from his pre-new hampshire results post
    MSNBC, a cable channel on which Clinton has been mercilessly bashed for the past many years. Chris Matthews, the network’s top political figure, has displayed a loathing for Hillary Clinton (and for Bill Clinton and Al Gore before her) that surpasses the boundaries of comprehension; Matthews and his NBC buddies are major opinion leaders of the mainstream, insider press corps. Meanwhile, Carlson himself has often spoken about Clinton’s castrating ways. (And about what a fake, phony asshole Gore is.) In this conduct, MSNBC has reflected the Clinton-Gore hatred that has driven so much of the mainstream press elite over the past sixteen years.

  4. Wayne White says:

    This comment comes from someone without any real preference in either the Democratic or Republican primary offerings so far, but I could not agree more with your comments, Pat, regarding Obama.
    First off, given his paltry experience in national politics and on the international scene, whatever his “dream” or those of his cheerleaders, his ability to implement policy would likely be severely hampered, unless he were to come up with one Helluva lineup of advisors.
    I’m also a bit tired, as we know you are, with the “change” theme picked up by most all condidates, but especially by those with little Washington experience like Obama. This “change” angle comes up in practically every American presidential election. Frankly, it boggles the mind to see so many Americans caught up in it each time around–even millions of older American voters who should know better by now. And, yes, usually what change is to be effected and how that is to be accomplished is left unanswered or remains carefully–and all too deceptively–vague.
    Another point Democrats supporting Obama specifically do not appear to get is just how unelectable he might well prove to be. To many of the most reliable registered voters–those over 55 (now including me)–he looks like he could be someone in his late 20’s. That will surely hurt him with today’s aging electorate in a general election. And getting somewhat more than one-third of the Democratic voters in the Iowa Caucus tells us little about his national electability. Frankly, if they were smart, the most I could see Democrats doing with Obama is perhaps using him as a vice presidential running mate for a considerably more seasoned standard-bearer heading the ticket.
    And, regarding the 60’s, I believe the U.S. hit some real domestic lows during the late 60’s, and, like you, Pat, I was delighted to see much of what made the late 60’s so exciting to some people fade away.
    Wayne White
    Middle East Institute
    Middle East Policy Council

  5. W. Patrick Lang says:

    Seems to me that Matthews imagines himself to be a sort of revolutionary “manque,” (accent mark missing)and he think that the Clintons and Gore are somehow traitors to the cause.
    As a counter-revolutionary from that period, I find that amusing. pl

  6. Bill W, NH says:

    when my girlfriend went to vote at 7AM she called me afterward to let me know that all the candidates except Guiliani and Paul had supporters with signs at the polling place here. I was a bit dismayed about that but thought, well – all the RP folks are still in Concord and will be here soon. I went to vote around 10AM and found that there were still no Paul folks, nor Guiliani for that matter, at the poll. I had not planned this but went home and got my Ron Paul sign and went back to the polling place and stayed there, except for a lunch break and to walk my dog, until the polls closed at 8PM (most polls in NH closed by 7 but we were open till 8). I have to give a lot, and I mean a lot, of credit to the Hillary Clinton campaign effort. She had folks all over my small town of 16,000 and they were out all day and getting people to the polls. Obama had a similar effort going. Unfortunately, the Ron Paul campaign consists of 1000s of highly dedicated supporters here with less than stellar support from the campaign Hqs. By that I mean they didn’t organize, plan, or execute professionally. It was run “willy-nilly”. And, with all the contributions donated, the ad money was not effectively used. Very amateurish radio ads I thought that became annoying over time. Quite possibly only the barest of training was provided to these dedicated folks. The thought likely was, “well, this is grassroots and let them run with it”. Obama is grassroots as well but his staff understands how to effectively run a campaign and they ran it pretty well here.
    I had no illusions about Ron Paul winning here, I just wanted him to at least beat out Guiliani and latently Huckabee. That
    didn’t happen and it’s a damn shame.
    We had a record voter turnout here yesterday which shows the people are fed up with the status quo. Women especially were out in force. I spoke with several Edwards and Clinton supporters as I was in their midst. Surprisingly, or not I suppose, their impression of Ron Paul was very favorable, the only Republican they liked on any level. Edwards supporters sympathised with me on the “main stream media” is shutting both candidates out theme. As an aside, one small town here, Sutton, Population 20, has 3 people who will confirm they voted for Ron Paul but in the morning the computer count for Sutton shows zero votes. I don’t think there was any hanky-panky here in Exeter, I noted 8 people who spoke to me on the way in saying they were voting for Paul (boy, was that discouraging for me) but in the end 167 folks here voted for him.
    Lesson I learned is that many many women are getting out to the polls to vote for Clinton. It’s discouraging to me that they are doing so not because of a candidate’s positions but soley due to Clinton being a woman. But, that’s being simplistic a bit. The big issue for them is health care and so we go on living in the Nanny state. McCain, Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee or Thompson cannot beat Clinton.

  7. wasabi says:

    The New Hampshire results were the best possible outcome for the Democratic Party. No early coronation.
    Each of the candidates will continue to hone their skills and thus we will have a better candidate come November.

  8. lina says:

    Yes, it was satisfying to see C. Matthews get his lunch handed to him.
    However, Dem. Party activists, please consider: If the Republicans come to their senses and nominate John McCain, Hillary will likely lose in Nov.
    She can’t win with just Democratic votes. Obama beat her 41 to 31 among Independents in NH.
    While we relish the Matthews deflation, anything that makes Sean Hannity gleeful can’t be a good thing.

  9. J says:

    msnbc is a corporate owned subsid. nbc is owned by the corporate giant general electric. i i think that the clinton’s have had more than a confrontation or two with ge over various legislations. i may be wrong. but its the corporate ownership versus the citizenry. didn’t Mussolini call when corporates ran things — fascism? hmmm…….

  10. PR says:

    Matthews is just one of many who’s careers should be over.

  11. Cornfed says:

    A couple of comments. First, I think the last debate helped Sen. Clinton more than people realized. In particular when she was asked her reaction to the polling which seemed to indicate that NH voters viewed her as not very likable, she managed a genuine, self-effacing response that contextualized the absudity and outright meanness of the “issue”. And then Sen Obama chimed in with his inexplicable crack of “I think you’re likable enough,” in a dismissive, peevish tone that reflected very badly on himself. It was strikingly petty and, to me at least, showed a candidate who believed that the outcome was a foregone conclusion and who resented being made to waste his precious time any further with people who had been discarded by History. And yes,the big H is intentional, a key part of the Obama narrative is that unseen hand of History which only the foolish or the mendacious dare oppose.
    Second, Matthews started his madness early last night. At one early point in the coverage he began trying to construct a bizarre metaphor between Sen. Obama’s campaign and the taking of Aqaba. He refered to the senator as “this modern-day Lawrence.” (or was it “Lawrence for our times”? I was so pole-axed by what I was hearing that the fine detail elludes me) It was a spit-take inducing moment. Olbermann tried to walk him back and and eventually decided that the wisest course was just get out of the way and let him babble.
    Matthews wants the 60′ back – the early 60’s with clean-cut hopeful youth marching in unison behind a chraismatic leader. Never mind that that particular vision was undone as much by the simple human weaknesses of its followers as it was by the assasins’ bullets. In their minds all we need to is believe hard enough in a new leader and they can have back what they were promised.
    Obama gave a well crafted speech last night, expect to hear and see “Yes we can” all over the place. But hoping a new future isn’t enough. Faith without works is dead.

  12. JohnS says:

    Chris Matthews didn’t just get “mugged by history.” Check out this video clip…
    …where Rachel Maddow (of Air America on the radio) tells Matthews right to his face, on-air, that he personally is being blamed in blogland for Clinton’s turnaround in NH. She cites Matthews’ views, and his being a symbol of what the mainstream media has done to her, as a reason that NH voters voted the way they did. In effect they responded to him (and the other blathering heads we all know and loathe), by rushing to her defense in the voting booth. (Note: Much as I happily did the first time she ran for senator of my state!)
    A most satisfying moment. And a pretty “real” one, considering where it happened…

  13. jonst says:

    Well, that is fascinating to me. If I had to guess, and that is ALL it could be, I would guess that Bill, Hillary, and Gore, reject much of what is the common perception of the 60s. None of them were SDS types. To say nothing of Weathermen. None of them were Easy Rider types, hitting the road, for a drugs/sex dominated sojourn. None of them were the type, I believe it fair to say, who went off to regions south to register voters. None of them were in danger of running of to a commune, the East Village in NYC or an Esalen Retreat in Big Sur. In fact, my general impression is, they were, all three, the high school president type, ascertain what the elders want, and give it to them, type. I don’t mean that to sound as pejorative as it may sound. They could be against the ’cause’…or indifferent to it. but certainly not traitors to it. They were never in the camp, to begin with.
    On another note…my ‘favorite’ 60s memory? Coming home on leave from the Corps to Plainfield NJ in the summer of 1968. Driving past APC’s to reach my house. Seeing roadblocks manned by National Guard soldiers in full combat gear. Laying down in bed that night, hearing the lone fire of a presumed sniper. Hearing the return fire by some unit in the Guard. Hearing, a day later , that my closest friend had been wounded by random buckshot fired from an unknown party. ‘Welcome back home, son’ my father grimaced. I turned on the radio to see if I could catch a ball game.

  14. LG says:

    I’m a Bill Richardson supporter and am disappointed that he isn’t doing better than he is, but I was glad to see HC pull out a win last night just to see the Clinton-hating pundits with egg on their faces. Matthews made a remark this morning about how Clinton had only won her Senate race and was only a contender in the presidential race because people had sympathy for her because Bill had fooled around. Can you imagine him saying that the only reason that John McCain ever won any political race was because people felt sorry for him because he was a POW?

  15. psd says:

    Although I am semi-Edwards person, I’d have no trouble voting for Hillary. The “boys” sank their own ship when they called her out for her tears, such as they were. She came across as a real person, and it seems that she’s able to do that very effectively when she campaigns one-on-one.
    As for Obama, I can’t help but feel I’ve heard it all before when I hear his speeches. For me, it’s time to just do it and cut the yadda, yadda, yadda. And I’m beginning to think that Hillary can get a lot more done in DC than Obama and Edwards with their rhetoric. And as the press corps jumps on Hillary, it’s just convincing me more and more that she might get my primary vote after all. Which is probably playing right into the hands of the Hillary-haters, who are probably painting her as the witch so that we’ll all vote for her and she’ll be the Democratic candidate. They’re absolutely sure she’d get tromped against a McCain or Romney. I wouldn’t be so sure of that, guys.
    As for the ’60s, they sucked overall. I don’t want to go back and relive anything. I still think most of the revolutionary aspect of it was just hype. It sure didn’t change my worldview, except to confirm that there are a lot of silly people out there who take themselves far too seriously. And I think they all became our current crop of pundits.

  16. jonst says:

    I’m not so sure McCain can’t be beat. I’d like to run against a candidate that I could say the following about:
    ‘If you want to be in Iraq for a hundred years or so, McCain is your guy!”

  17. Mr.Murder says:

    Matthews is political theater, albeit in satire of himself.
    Quite the self styled Mensch.

  18. W. Patrick Lang says:

    Matthews’ fantasy life about himself is clearly not related to anything real.
    Whoever it was that pointed out the participation of the Clintons in the ’72 McGovern campaign put his finger on thr truth. They actually were doing something about their convictions. I can respect that. pl

  19. DeLudendwarf says:

    Over at Salon, Glenn Greenwald skewered Matthews and all “the serious people” today, in his inimitable fashion.
    Also there is an interesting article up there today on Damascene steel, for the Crocodile
    Dundees and fans of good steel, amongst us.

  20. Jim Schmidt says:

    “Obama is a plausible, grown up candidate for president of the United States. He is fighting a well organized, persistant campaign for the nomination. Maybe he will win or maybe he won’t. That is the normal way of things.” PL
    Agreed. The adversity of campaigning hones the candidates who go through it. Congratulations to New Hampshire for turning out in large numbers. Congratulations also to Hillary Clinton and her staff. Tough battle but they won.
    Chris Matthews? “Revenge is a dish best served cold” but a whiskey accents nicely. Savor the moment.
    The sixties disparagement is a bit hard to follow since both Bill and Hillary represent that decade, as well as John McCain. Obama is a product of a different era. I am not looking for a sixties repeat, but I am willing to give credit to those who engaged in solving the problems of racism, sexism and other issues. The hope and idealism of that decade is bearing fruit today.
    I disagree with the racial paternalism argument. If this argument is in true, then the appalling sexism and sisterhood argument of Gloria Steinem also holds weight. In hindsight, given HC’s win in NH, it looks like Gloria was wrong about sexism, maybe right about sisterhood, or in a larger context, hopefully wrong about both. Charges of sexism or paternalism denigrate the talents and integrity of both candidates: Is this the point?
    Gaming electability is a fool’s errand. Pick the candidate you like and vote for them. If enough other people do the same, you win.
    Hope and change.
    Obama, tongue in cheek, describes himself as a Hope Monger. His argument, stripped of the rock star glamour and moony utopianism, is that the sixties is a frame of mind that has frozen political discourse in time. The “hope” everybody is having fun mocking focuses on countering partisanship as a tool to suppress discussion, to pigeonhole us into choosing sides and accepting the pabulum each party doles out. He is proposing we move on. Nice job if you can get it, but a momentous task given generational inertia and prevailing stake in the status quo. Question is, are we stuck in the sixties? If not, then his remedy is nothing but a gimmick. If so, is his prescription for change effective?
    The change moniker is hope directed toward less acrimony, greater comity, more common purpose. However, the image of a national group hug does not appeal to me as realistic remedy for political discord. Nevertheless, having worked with groups in large corporations for a long number of years, I understand the destructiveness of rancor in team dynamics. We even have a cute name for it: Fox Hole Management. Changing the rules to favor harmony and common purpose produces pragmatic, real results. We have all experienced Karl Rove’s play to base factionalism and I welcome less.
    I hope the idea of respecting difference and negotiating progress catches on.

  21. Will says:

    je commence à suspecter entre les lignes que notre colonel et patron déteste “l’oiseau tweety.”

  22. W. Patrick Lang says:

    Ca marche bien, mon vieux lapin. pl

  23. W. Patrick Lang says:

    Jim Schmidt
    I lack your reverence for the “idealism” of the 60s.
    Ironically, the cause of racial justice in the US owes far more to Lyndon Johnson and the courage of black people who finally stood up for their rights against the cretins who thought otherwise than it does to the scabrous drug soaked bums who used to march around in the streets carrying the flags of the people who were actively engaged in combat against my comrades. “Ho. Ho. Ho Chi Minh! The NLF are gonna win!” “Hey. GI! How many kids did you kill today?” Pacifists? I would have another word for them.
    If Americans today to profess to respect soldiers that is good. They have a lot to make up for.
    As for the cause of women, it is a good thing that women have much better opportunity today, but do you really think women did not go to college before 1960? I seem to remember a lot of them. I seem to remember women in college. I dated enough of them to remember them.
    HC went to college at one of the seven sisters, remember them? When were they founded?
    If you want a hero of the women’s movement, look at women like Patsy Mink, not at some kids who wallowed around in the mud at Woodstock.
    Matthews is just another draft evader who will never forget that. pl

  24. Paul says:

    It is wonderful to witness the meltdown of the media’s suits over HC’s win in New Hampshire.
    I don’t know how anyone can rely on random exit polls (btw, there were none at our polling place) but the explanation for her victory may lie in the fact that her organization worked harder.
    As registered Democrats, we are on the receiving end of the usual party and candidate mail.
    Our telephone number is unlisted but as anyone with fundamental computer skills knows, a person can be matched to a phone with a bit of work.
    A couple of things to note: HC sent more mail than any of her competitors. HC’s campaign called at least a half dozen times in the week prior to Tuesday’s vote. One call even invited my wife and I to an event.
    Here is what separates HC from the rest of the pack: Between noon and 6PM, on Tuesday, we received four calls from the HC campaign. Not robocalls, mind you, each had a human (male and female) on the other end. The message was simple: “She needs your help.”
    Obviously somebody in her camp did the dog work to locate our telephone number. None of the other candidates did that level of work because we did not receive one call from either Edwards or Obama.
    Doesn’t Matthews and his coterie of empty suits know that hard work pays off?

  25. BernieO says:

    Matthews needs to be in a rubber room, not working for NBC. He actually said this morning that the only reason Hillary is a Senator is that her husband cheated on her.
    As for Obama being the sixties, I recall Obama criticising the 60’s. Ironic.
    Obama thinks he will be able to avoid the kind of polarization that other Dems, presumably less charming than he, have been engaged in. Bet the Swift Boat crowd is putting down their knives and singing Kumbaya already. And we all know that the media will be even handed in their coverage.

  26. Tom Milton says:

    MSM personalties aside, WE should all be very concerned when credible polling organizations such as Zogby differ so wildly from the final tally counted 24 hrs later.
    The usual suspects, Diebold’s hackable scanners with data processed by LHS Assoc delivered questionable results once again.
    Looks like the Florida and Ohio disease has gone national.
    This really smells.

  27. jonst says:

    I think women did go to college before the 60s. I would like to know however, what their financial status was. Because not a lot of women from MY socio-economic group went to college before the 60s. And not a lot of black women went to major universities before the 60s.
    A lot more than drugged bums protested. Many of them veterans. Its a fact. And those veterans, and protesters will met with organized brutality. Emphasis on the word “organized”. See the Wall St Days of Rage riots. If Americans have something to make up for towards soldiers, and I believe they do, then some, repeat, SOME, in the military have things to make up for to Americans. Civilians were lied to, and spied on, experimented on by soldiers. By the way….that kind of thing is still happening up here in Maine. Non-profit social organization, mostly made up of Quakers. Their meetings have been infiltrated. Is this stuff in the minority? Carried out by poorly led units? Sure. But it happens. And it happened in the 60s.
    And the three civil rights workers who were killed in Miss were not drug soaked bums. They, and many like them, were, deadly serious, and earnest human beings. And to extent any would imply otherwise is scandalous.

  28. Sidney O. Smith III says:

    Just a footnote on Southern desegregation. One of the principal catalysts of change were USDC judges in the South, particularly after Baker v. Carr. It perhaps was the most difficult judicial role in American history. From the mid 50’s to the mid 70’s– and actually beyond — they were under constant threat from the KKK and, to be fair, devotees of the Angela Davis approach to social justice. As but one example, the KKK bombed the hell out of Judge Johnson’s office in Alabama. (Birmingham had a much rougher go than Atlanta).
    I know that such an interpretation of change does not have Che Chevaro cachet but it is the truth. Southern federal judges did much to prevent chaos. Ironic how the north and other parts of the nation lagged behind.
    When it comes to the role of the federal judiciary, I part ways with the likes of Pat Buchanan and some of the extreme elements of libertarianism, who basically want to abolish the judiciary. Buchanan is clueless when it comes to understanding the sacrifice these judges endured. You would not want Pat Buchanan as a federal judge. Trust me on that one. And it is more than ironic that, as it is turning out in the 21st century, the federal judiciary is our last line of defense against the very “soft” fascism that he most appropriately decries. But it will be close battle.
    If you take a look at the role of the judiciary at the time, it will make you acutely aware of how militant ethnic nationalism of any strip can undermine the experience of justice and E Pluribus Unum. Make of it what you will.
    I have seen one book about the role of Southerners who became federal judges during this time but have not read it. It looks apropos, as the one review sums up the moral dilemma they all faced.

  29. sbnative says:

    It was totally the debate…she really did well and folks decided SHE was not what the pundits had created!
    I’m still for Obama…but, hey, the Dems ROCK!

  30. Mad Dogs says:

    This is something I posted 1st on another blog, but seems just as appropriate here in light of your post:
    Obama seems to be the flip side of the very same coin as Junya.
    What does that mean you ask? I’m glad you did!
    Junya says everything wrong and can’t deliver.
    Obama says everything right and won’t be able to deliver.
    The “coin”, you see, is not being able to deliver.
    This surge of Obama’s reminds me that a majority of Americans believe in “angels”. I’m guessing that the majority of Americans still believe in Santa Claus too.
    This American wish/dream/obsession for a “bed of roses” wrt Obama seems made more out of desperation than it does out of a conviction that our outcome will be positive. A plea for help rather than an assuredness of success.
    I am not liking what I detect in the psyche of the American public these days, and in particular, those who are stampeding to the standard of the Democrat Obama.
    I ask myself, what in the world are these folks smoking? And the answer seems to me, is “Hope-a-dope”.
    Yes, Obama has touched “something”.
    But it seems to me that what he’s touched is this unreasoning yearning for a “savior” (as in Oh lawdy, save us, we’re drowning!) rather than a rational analysis that this person is up to the job, has thought deeply about the issues and knows how to fix the things that are wrong…with us.
    As a life-long Democrat, I close this lament by saying:
    “It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to, cry if I want to…”
    I constructed this and originally posted it, of course, before Hillary’s “comeback” (as those blushing pundits call it).
    I take back not word one of it!

  31. Fasteddiez says:

    I believe that Tweety once admitted that he wanted to be an Army Officer when he was young. I guess reality hit him in the face in the mid sixties. I do not know if this makes anyone else squirm, but I feel queasy when I see him say to present and past service members “Thank you for your service.” Who died, so he could be appointed the nation’s “Thank you man,” for America’s soldiery?

  32. W. Patrick Lang says:

    What would I do without you?
    My wife was a shoemaker’s daughter from a mill town in Maine (Springvale). She was offered a full scholarship at Simmons College in Boston and turned it down because she and her widowed mother, another shoeworker, decided she should go to another school in Boston. There were no student loans then. You came from tougher circumstrances than that? This was in 1959. She graduated with a double major in math and physics. You came from tougher circumstances than that?
    You should pay attention to Sidney Smith’s discussion of the role of Southern federal judges in desegregation. These were brave men who understod their reponsibility in saving their own culture from this curse.
    The three martyrs you mention and my VMI schoolmate, Jon Daniels, who stepped between some cretin’s shotgun and a black woman, these were all brave folk whom we should honor and remember, but their sacrifice was not decisive. The action of government officals and a president who was a Southerner, that was decisive.
    If there were veterans who marched under the enemy’s flag then they were traitors like the rest. pl

  33. Bobo says:

    Being one who did wallow around on the hill that weekend, but slopping warm Schlitz from a hard earned case we trekked in. My recollection was the hard working middle class and those just back from a tour had a much larger representation than many think today. Nothing wrong with good music. So much for part of my youth.
    Reality is the polls had Obama at 39% the day before and he got 36% which was in the margin of error, so Matthews has nothing to complain about in his loss. Only problem was Matthews was hired to provide political punditry not a biased view thus GE needs to clean house on that program. I turned the channel to CNN where Anderson Cooper, the one who loves himself more than we, provided a pretty fair view.
    Matthews has a lot to answer especially his slant on racist views today.
    My man Richardson hit the nail on the head at the debate when he said “what happened to experience”.
    I think too many drank the wrong Kool-Aid in Iowa.

  34. jNancy Kimberlin says:

    I’m a life long Democrat and I live in Calif. I will vote for Hillary if she is elected, but prefer Edwards and Obama. What I found strange as my neighbor a Republican, says he will vote for Obama. Go figure.

  35. Steve says:

    It simply amazes me that given Matthews’ antipathy toward the Clintons, he is still given a platform, a result I think of the blurring of the lines between news reporting and punditry. And for that matter, entertainment.
    When Bhutto was recently killed, Matthews was immediately on the news hailing her as the democratic savior of Pakistan. There was no substance or context to his assertion. I realized then that while I knew little of Pakistan, I knew more than he did, and that was frightening.

  36. Jose says:

    Delegates needed: 2,050
    Obama: 25
    Clinton 24
    Edwards 18
    Folks, this campaign has just started. Today, Clinton lost a key union endorsement in Nevada to Obama, she is not raising as much money as he is and she can’t play the crying-victim card again. The schedule coming up is more favorable to Obama in the next few states. Things should be interesting but don’t count her out yet.
    Why does the media hate her? Look at the people she has working for her. All universally disliked.
    IMHO, Matthews falls in love with certain candidates such as McCain and it clouds his judgment.

  37. arthurdecco says:

    Patrick Lane said: “If you want a hero of the women’s movement, look at women like Patsy Mink, not at some kids who wallowed around in the mud at Woodstock.”
    Colonel, I apologize for not knowing anything about Patsy Mink. But if you’re recommending her, I want to like her and know more about her. I’ll google her name as soon as I’m done here.
    But out of the hundreds of thousands of kids who “wallowed around in the mud at Woodstock” – mud caused by non-stop rain they couldn’t control – you can bet your bottom dollar that many of those kids went on to lead as productive, creative and satisfying lives as Patsy Mink. The fact that I can’t prove it, because I don’t know Patsy Mink or anyone who attended Woodstock, shouldn’t invalidate my conclusion. It only stands to reason.
    Woodstock was an EVENT, NOT a way of life – except in Time magazine and its ilk, of course.
    Was that how you kept up with “what was happening” in the 60’s, Col. Lang – thru Time and Life magazines?
    If it is THEIR idea of “hippies” you’re remembering, I understand. But please lay off the blanket criticisms of the kids that attended Woodstock or who were attracted to the ideas promoted by hippiedom because you think they weren’t capable of contributing.
    After all, they were kids.

  38. Steve says:

    Your reference to courageous federal judges is right on (if I may use a sixties phrase).
    I certainly won’t look them all up, but Barefoot Johnson from Alabama comes to mind, as well as the judiciary of the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, at that time in the sixties hearing all federal appeals out of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.
    I spent decades in New Orleans, and the Fifth Circuit was hallowed ground.
    And as you allude to, LBJ knew and did what was right even though he knew his civil rights position was democratic party suicide.
    Too bad they don’t make them like that anymore.

  39. Mr.Murder says:

    Bill Clinton’s late speech, directly quoting Obama from 2004’s Meet the Press where he said his policy would not be any different than Dubya’s, that sealed the deal.
    Susan highlighted that on a No Quarter post. It was interesting to see Bill Clinton use the same argument against how Obama claimed exclusive right to determine a correct stance re: the Iraq war.
    Obama claimed it was selective or out of context.
    It is what it is.
    Obama perhaps couldn’t grasp the direct effect of his own statement made prior.
    Perhaps next time we can find an entendre to camoflague the perception of voters.
    Similar to ‘military intelligence’ or ‘compassionate conservatism” only it must relate to the political spin of the campaign.
    ‘Direct nuance’ may be the ticket. The perfect combination of straight talk and diplomacy.
    Look for it soon at a spinster broadcast near you.

  40. Will says:

    nevertheless after all the human interest angles, MODO captures the essence of Clinton femme: it’s not about her- it’s about our blood & treasure squandered in Iraq and w/ her recent vote she greenlighted further lunacy in neighboring Iran. Her fatal flaw is being so wrapped up in how she is perceived.
    “Gloria Steinem wrote in The Times yesterday that one of the reasons she is supporting Hillary is that she had “no masculinity to prove.” But Hillary did feel she needed to prove her masculinity. That was why she voted to enable W. to invade Iraq without even reading the National Intelligence Estimate and backed the White House’s bellicosity on Iran. ”
    Obama on the other hand has the other problem. He needs to be more conscious of image. Wrong answer during the debate that he was watching the football game instead of the Rebpublicos. He probably lost a lot of women on that one for lack of seriousness. Likewise he was reading notes instead of watching Clinton’s body language as she scored a home run on the likability question and then he made an xss of himself.
    Notwithstanding all that, the Obama baby was right on Irak and is right on Iran. And that is worth a gallon of Clinton’s tears.
    ” ”

  41. Clifford Kiracofe says:

    Per Matthews and 60s, a long time ago…and a different world.
    My recollection is that there were two divisions of the “alternate” youth culture: one laid back group interested primarily in rock music and etc. and one much smaller politically activist group permeated by Marxism and variants. Both opposed the war but the laid back types were not particularly interested in Marxism and variants and so preferred rock music, etc.
    It is interesting to look back at the latter particularly examining the Marxist and variant anti-war literature of the day and the anti-war movement. Remember Angela Davis (CPUSA), the Frankfurt School types, SNCC, and etc.?
    But also of note, from a larger perspective, the activities of the Havana-based Tricontinental Conference, the Stockholm network(s), and the East German Stasi as they all penetrated the US political milieu of the day. On the Tricontinental see, for example the US Senate Judiciary Committee’s 1966 investigation,
    Scholars who research this era today look into what is referred to generally as “Social Movements.” A number of universities have extensive collections of 60s anti-war movement primary sources, including ephemera. I myself donated a large archive, about 38,000 pages, relating to the anti-war movement 1968-1973, to the very interesting Social Movements collection at the University of Virginia.
    Students today? From my perch, commission rates are up at VMI and a number of my students at Washington and Lee pursue Federal service careers in civilian departments and agencies and in the military. Young people I work with are concerned about current issues such as international terrorism and about the future of their country…idealistic certainly, although rather more realistic than the 60s, IMO.
    Per the reference to (Rev.) Jon Daniels, it may be of interest that he was an ordained Protestant Episcopal minister and there is a courtyard in his memory on Post, not far from our statue of George Washington, through which cadets pass every day.

  42. Andy says:

    Col. Lang,
    Great comment to Jim Schmidt.
    There were plenty of women in college in the 1960’s – the low point was 1947 (for obvious reasons) and the ratio has been increasing ever since with a big boost in the late 60’s.

  43. J says:

    the banker brownshirt ideals of the 30’s-40s of europe that gave the world hitler through the funding by the brit banking crowd appears to be again rearing its ugly head in the 21 century, with this latest lets run nyc mayor bloomberg as an independent candidate garbage. when you strip off all their bows, bells, whistles, and look at the nitty-gritty of david boren’s so-called ‘national unity’ stuff, one finds ‘national socialism’ at its base. hmmm…somewhere i seem to remember that ‘national socialism’ was referred to as nazis in the last century. hmmm….the meeting this past weekend on the campus of ou to try and sell nothing more than banker’s fascism with a ribbon on top. it was repleat with the standard fascism cow manure of that our greatest problems we must defeat the enemy (terrorism), overcome budget deficits, and rein in entitlements. in other words squeeze the little people even more and take away what semblance of a decent life through financial slavery. those promoting bloomberg are the same ones who gave america extortion-rate interest rates on their credit cards and loans. the only difference between this particular bloomberg/national unity (socialism) promotion crowd and the old pistol totting bank robbers like the daltons and james gang, is that the bloomberg/national unity (socialism) crowd does it with a pen. national socialism is just that, national socialism.

  44. lina says:

    Hillary wants to keep a combat force in Iraq. I can picture a debate moderator trying to pin her down on “how long?” Her have-it-both-ways triangulated answer will make McCain look like General Eisenhower.

  45. Mike says:

    Well known women national leaders elected democratically: Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi,Golda Meir, Benazir Bhutto, Angela Merkel. I don’t think any of them were elected simply because they captured the female vote; nor did they set out to “feminise” politics or advance women’s interests and bring feminine issues to the forefront of their policies. All of them are/were tough, ruthless, and politically as masculine as any male. Thatcher (Falklands) and Meir (Yom Kippur)did lead their countries in war, (perhaps Bhutto and Gandhi too?) Thatcher crushed the unions and destroyed British manufacturing industry. The taint of cronyism, nepotism and corruption attaches to Gandhi and Bhutto at least. There may be many reasons to vote for Mrs Clinton, but the idea that she could bring the gentler feminine virtues to the office of the presidency and to American politics cannot surely be one of them.

  46. shepherd says:

    Colonel Lang,
    I agree with everything you wrote, except this: Chris Matthews will still be cashing a pundit paycheck for years to come. If being consistently wrong disqualified someone from being a pundit, we’d have a lot less pundits running around.

  47. W. Patrick Lang says:

    HC wants to keep a small contingent in Iraq for a few years to protect whatever trainers we have there. She has no intention of having a permanent presence. pl

  48. Leila says:

    Since we have never had cable and we almost never watch even the News Hour on PBS (little kids at home – why expose them to war and tanks and talking heads?) I have no idea who any of these pundits are AND I DON’T CARE.
    I seem to stay abreast of world affairs as well as important developments in my community and state without watching the idiot box. Now thanks to YouTube I can get clips of salient moments if needed; it’s fun to browse through Colbert and Stewart on their respective cable websites.
    If you all hate those pundits so much, why do you watch those shows? On Sunday mornings the children watch cartoons on PBS, tying up the sole TV in the house; or we go to church.
    Pundrity problem solved. I am quite blissful in my ignorance of these people. This also means I don’t have to read about them in blog posts. So what if they’re morons? Frees up time to read about something else.
    I recommend my plan to all of you. You’ll still know what’s going on; you just wont’ have to waste time listening to silly people talk.

  49. jonst says:

    The same as you do with me.
    I’m not falling into that trap regards who faces tougher circumstances since you know nothing about what I faced, or did not face. And only a self aggrandizing fool would comment further about his or her history.
    I suggest, with regard to access to college for women, the records/metrics speak for themselves.
    Agree with the judges issue. But it’s a Red herring. Who, with even a minimal familiarity with our nation’s history would not agree? My point is it is not an either/or position. Many were decisive. LBJ the most.
    Agree regards those that marched under the enemy’s flag. Red (literally) Herring to me as well. I separate draft dodgers, protesters, anti war vets into two groups….those that honestly protested against what they perceived to be a war worthy of protest, at signficant risk to themselves, in some cases…..and the others who ‘protested’ for their own vile, traitorist (sic) , or, simple, selfish reasons. The former I admire…even if I, at times, but only at times, disagree with. The latter I have no other comment on, because they are not worthy of further comment, other than I just noted. IMHO
    But i think it a mistake, and simplification to lump the two groups together. Given your qualification regards ‘marching under the enemy flag’ it seems possible we agree in some limited way.

  50. Sidney O. Smith III says:

    If art — including, most particularly, dramatic writing — is any indication, one slice of the 60’s may have popularized, legitimated, and even institutionalized a type of a creative process that ultimately leads to chaos. If not chaos for this generation, then certainly for future ones.
    Sure, if you go that creative route, then you will experience a rush and you will create. Guaranteed. But after that, then what? The ancient Greeks knew for sure and they warned us, at least from what I can tell.
    I have attended a few story meetings in my life and believe that, while the plotline is being created, it is important to try to determine what symbols are being destroyed and, just as importantly, why.
    I am not condemning the 60’s necessarily. If anything, this creative process challenges others to surpass it, and other creative paths most certainly exist. And, once again, this creative path does produce “art”.
    You don’t think such an inquiry is important? Maybe not. But remember the film Natural Born Killer? Well, in the late 1990’s, there was a 20 something year old who, after taking “crank” (meth) for a few days, grab a shotgun and blasted both his parents, screaming “I am a natural born killer!” as the police arrested him.
    Ah yes…out with the old and in with the new.
    And, for military readers, the film Crimson Tide employed the same creative process I am talking about. Just look at what symbols were destroyed and why.
    Art– ground zero of the cultural war. The creativity in politics simply mimics the same creative processes, at least in my opinion.

  51. David W says:

    I’m late to the party here, but I would like to point out that despite the clear distate by many mainstream Americans for the lifestyle of the Beats and the tactics of the Yippies, they were, in fact, instrumental in bringing about the downfall of the HUAC committee. Say what you will about these people, but the ‘Establishment’ clearly got the message, and has been doing all it can to prevent future generations from catching the torch from these ‘smelly commie hippies.’

  52. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Col. Lang, Jonst, and Sidney O. Smith III:
    I think the period under discussion is best understood as the After Elvis culture. The social pathologies alluded to could be directly traced to the rise of Rock & Roll and its attendant Drug Culture which permitted individuals to withdraw more and more into a world of fantasy.
    Some of the salient features of the After Elvis culture, both in US & UK, are that women do not know their place, that, no-one below age 35 has any manners, and that social dance has become extinct.
    You really need several tens of graduate students in ethnography – preferably from Japan or South America – to analyze the After Elvis Anglo-American culture.

  53. zanzibar says:

    My personal view is that Hillary will be the most competent President among the lot running now. And she will also be the most successful in withstanding the inevitable attacks.
    Chris Matthews just represents the tip of the iceberg. We can be absolutely certain that the Republicans who were for the unitary executive will now be the leaders for balance of power and “bi-partisan” oversight. Those that screamed for the blank check will be the loudest for “rule of law” and “balanced budgets”.
    How will an Obama fare when the swift-boat machine gets back to doing what it does backed up by Murdoch?
    What’s preventing me from pulling the lever for Hillary are the people around her! 4 years of Terry McAuliffe and James Carville?? And of course, I have a very serious problem with Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton!!
    What’s a voter like me to do?

  54. ked says:

    In ’72, through a funny (and somewhat uncomfortable) happenstance, a few friends & I found ourselves at the terminus of the Counter-Inauguration March from the Lincoln Memorial to the Washington Monument. We thought it was a great vantage point to observe the proceedings while sipping a beer. And it was -minutes later we received the avant garde dressed as death, bearing caskets.
    What struck me then & has remained with me ever since was the make-up of the marchers. Radical College Kids? Provocatuers?
    Commies & fellow-travellers? Sure, plenty of those.. but nowhere near the numbers of church-goers amongst banners naming their affiliation and hometown. Not only from the Urban East (or even mostly)… they were many many small (10-30 people) groups of midwesterners. Living in DC, I hadn’t conceived how broad, small-town-America, and committed was the anti-war movement.
    Whenever I read “the Press” or “the Radical Left” lost VN on the homefront I know better because I observed the truth in that march – church-goers from middle America travelled far to help us get out of that war.
    {Strange how things turn… it seems Bush depended greatly upon evangelical church-goers to get us into the Iraq War.}
    I have noted that while the media does not like to talk much about the War’s impact upon the election (old news bores them), almost every voter mentions the War as an underlying force behind their desire for change.
    What is the commonality? It isn’t the fringes that drive big movement at critical times in American electoral politics, it is the people. As you have reminded us on occasion Col Lang, the People are Sovereign (uniquely) in America. When the system fails them, they might pray, march, even vote – if that’s what it takes to rein in the blind stuidity or selfish lust of their servants.

  55. Sidney O. Smith III says:

    Thank you for the response. Just so you know, I am not “anti-1960’s” necessarily. At least from my perspective, there were heroes (and the unheroic) on all sides of the different cultural divides. In the big picture of history, nothing really unusual about that aspect.
    But I do believe that one small group on the edge of the 60’s culture glorified a most danger creative process. Put simply, it is an impulse towards taboo breaking. And taboo breaking fragments society and ultimately destroys it.
    This observation does not speak for the entire generation.
    But to segue to today, I am willing to bet that some of those who are most for pre-emptive strikes, especially with nuclear weapons, were part of that group from the 1960’s. It would be very interesting to see where the members of OSP were hanging out back in 1968.
    In many ways, a pre-emptive strike doctrine — particularly with nuclear weapons — against innocent people is a type of taboo breaking. It is a destruction of what our founding father’s stood for. Sure, such a nuclear strike will give you a rush of power — a real shock and awe — but then what?
    The Iraqi invasion is a part of the legacy of the Woodstock generation. It happened while they were captains of the ship of state. It is undeniable. So I think that suggests that Luti and his crowd won control of Woodstock nation at least at that time in history. And I think Luti is part of the taboo breakers. I think the same of Bolton. The neoconservatives seem to be the inheritors of taboo breaking, although they operate behind a mask of preserving tradition. The mere phrase “creative destruction” suggests taboo breaking and “creative destruction” is Victor Hanson’s mantra.
    It is of no small concern because I think the ultimate rush for these people — a real Studio 54 experience for the 60 something crowd — is unleashing a nuclear pre-emptive strike. The final taboo to break.
    All that said, I want you to know that I am 100 per cent for the First Amendment and freedom of expression. Political freedom of speech and, more importantly, art identify the creative processes at work in artists and among the people.
    In the earlier post, I mention the kid who got “cranked” up and shotgun blasted his parents, killing them both, while convincing himself that he was “ a natural born killer”. Like some Greek play, he was simply enacting the psychology underlying Stone’s creative process in that film. Fratricide. Matricide. That’s the art of Oliver Stone, at least in that film. The kid simply reenacted it. And check it out, the Greeks warned us that such a culture will bring on the “Furies” swarming across the land.

  56. Chatham says:

    Col. Lang,
    Just as you state it is unfair that some branded all soldiers as babykillers, it’s just as unfair to denounce all protesters as traitors. I’m sure you know better than that. In both cases, a large group or movement should not be punished for the actions of a minority within it (especially for such an informal movement).

  57. lina says:

    “What’s preventing me from pulling the lever for Hillary are the people around her! 4 years of Terry McAuliffe and James Carville?? And of course, I have a very serious problem with Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton!!
    What’s a voter like me to do?” Posted by: zanzibar
    Just picture Mark Penn moving right into Karl Rove’s office.
    You think Hillary at the top of the ticket is going to give the Dems a 60+ majority in the Senate?
    Think about it.

  58. W. Patrick Lang says:

    Chatham et al
    It is a common rhetorical trick in Washington to mis-state someone position and then comment on it.
    I may have disliked street demonstrations against the VN War but I would never have said then or now that citizens were doing other than exercizing their constitutional rights in doing so.
    What I wrote is that those who marched behind the flags of the VC or North Vietnam were traitors, and they were.
    Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. pl

  59. Chatham says:

    Mis-state your position? When jonst said that veterans protested the war, you said, “If there were veterans who marched under the enemy’s flag then they were traitors like the rest”. Whether or not your statements reflect your position, it is what you wrote, which is what I base my comments on. Not sure why that would be a “rhetorical trick”.

  60. W. Patrick Lang says:

    You are not paying attention. I will say it again. Anyone who marched under the enemy’s flags was a traitor. Whether or not they had served in the armed forces was irrelevant. “like the others” clearly means the universe of those who marched under or behind the enemy’s flags.
    That is what I said the first time. I hope you are having a good time trying to distort my position.
    One of the “boys” from AEI? pl

  61. charlottemom says:

    The media is in the midst of flogging itself on these primary results and all of us (at least on the internet certainly)can happily join in as we inherently distrust the media. However, what’s interesting is the simple idea of voter fraud is in no way mentioned EVER. Silence is deafening. Seems to me this is at least one explanation for such divergence in polls v. results. Every other possibility has been examined — racism, feminism, Hillary crying (oh the humanity!), Obama swaggering. But very little regarding fraud. Its at least a possibility — perhaps one to be discarded — but a possibility no less. And yet no MSM mention. Matthews seems to allude to something fishy going on, but has not come out and actually said it.
    BTY, the majority (if not all) of the outcome discrepancy is in diebold tabulated precincts.
    Don’t think the campaign candidates were engaged in the fraud as all seemed to be genuinely caught flat footed about the final results. So where does it leave us?? Very puzzled by this whole event but more sure than ever that, by hook or by crook Hillary will be on that ticket v. McCain/Thompson/Guilani opponent.

  62. Cieran says:

    I believe that Sidney Smith has hit the nail on the head with his notion of “taboo breaking”. It really does help explain a wide range of the psychopathologies we observe of late among our so-called leaders.
    Scratch the surface of any of the neocons or their friends in the media and you’ll find the same canonical pattern: a 180-degree political turn from the views of their youth, but never even the slightest change in how they throw incendiary devices (literal and figurative) without a moment’s reflection on what the resulting fire might devour, e.g., the American flag, the Constitution, the entire Middle East…
    Frankly, this is what always drove me nuts about the counter-culture of the 60’s… everybody wanted to make a mess, and nobody ever wanted to clean up afterwards. Sure, marching under an enemy’s flag created lots of loud political noise (especially if you were rich enough to afford a bullhorn), but the resulting national rancor persists to this day. And overthrowing the government of Iraq took weeks, but our nation will pay for this strategic blunder for decades.
    I just wish that these fools would have stuck to breaking taboos along the lines of “don’t run with scissors”. Had they learned some sense of accountability as children, maybe they’d think twice about their ill-considered cultivation of risk as adults.

  63. Katherine Hunter says:

    I went to college in the 50’s / i had a full scholarship to GWU and later I was one of the few coeds at the University of Virginia where tuition was extremely affordable and reasonable even for an out-of-stater / I also had some financial help from an uncle who worked for Aramco in Saudi Arabia / irony alert
    it seems to this old gal in her 70’s that a lot of pundits have no grasp of history.

  64. jedermann says:

    And now we have the all-too-predictable offending of the Black Community by the Clintons. Didn’t you just see this coming with the South Carolina primary up next and Barak Obama proving to be a truly viable candidate? A lot of people who have had cause to support Hillary are looking for cover to switch their support to Obama. Any statement by either of the Clintons that is not airtight would do, and, of course, they both promptly produced the requisite utterances.
    Are we really to believe that Hillary Clinton thinks that Lyndon Johnson was a more important figure in the struggle for civil rights than Martin Luther King? (Oh, and a slight to JFK is to be squeezed out of this as well). This is an election for President not for head of the Civil Rights movement. As a candidate she cannot presume to claim the mantle of a King, but she can legitimately aspire to the political force and skills of a Johnson. Her credentials as a person who has worked for social change are a matter of public record. The distinction she is trying to make between herself and her opponents is that she is also a political mechanic in the sense that Johnson was. MLK supplied the moral vision and the righteous demand for civil rights and LBJ the imagination to be receptive and the political savvy to finally put the power of the federal government on the right side of the issue.
    There is so much smug hatred of Hillary Clinton that is based upon, what, the reporting of journalists who will not even speak to her or ask her a question when she visits the press bus? Everyone thinks they know her because she has lived so much of her adult life in the spotlight, but the media decided she was a very uppity woman way back in 1992 and that is the polarizing filter through which nearly all information about her has reached us ever since. She might just be the monster she has been made out to be, but how would we know? The haters presume to know; but how, by sniffing around Drudge’s drain pipe? We’ve been allowed to see her as the Village decided a long time ago that we should and they will continue in every way to make us comfortable with our prejudices about her.

  65. Jim Schmidt says:

    OK. A quarter to the first person who can point out in my only post on this thread where I said that no woman went to college before the sixties. My mother attended college in the forties while working as a design draftman at American Seating in Grand Rapids. I have her blueprints framed and hanging in my shop at home.
    Feminism as a political movement has a direct lineage with the sufferage and temperance movements in the late 19th and early 20th century, and the Rosy the Riveter phenomena of the forties. As a movement, feminism coalesced into a distinct political viewpoint regarding women’s rights represented by Betty Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique” in 1963. Other women, Gloria Steinam for instance, threw in their two cents as well. Title IX in 1972 is a direct result of the political agitation in the sixties regarding women’s rights. Clarence’s troubles in 1991 represented an ironic nexus of two movements bubbling out of the sixties, producing the gazillion sensitivity and PC seminars I’ve been required to sit through since.
    And, point out where I distinctly said that students were the only ones being idealistic, working on issues, expressing opinions or pressing for political solutions. Time didn’t start and stop in the sixties, but you can’t deny that that decade didn’t produce (and I hesitate to use this word) a cadre of interest groups with ideas that have shaped our political life today, for better (my belief) or worse.
    If you think things haven’t gotten just a little better since the sixties, try singing this little show tune from “How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying”, (1967) without cringing just a little:
    Gentlemen. Gentlemen.
    A secretary is not a toy,
    No, my boy, not a toy
    To fondle and dandle and playfully handle
    In search of some puerile joy.
    No, a secretary is not,
    Definitely not, a toy …
    I don’t think you will hear this at a HC rally or even a Huckabee rally anytime soon. Progress. You decide.

  66. Yohan says:

    The SDS and obnoxious slogans may have gotten a lot of attention, and may stick out in people’s memories, but that was such a tiny minority of what the 60’s were about. The vast majority of even young people weren’t very political, they merely were willing to call bullshit on some of the stupid things that American society had been accepting for a long time for no good reason. People finally said no, we’re not going to continue to support institutionalized racism and no, we’re not going to support a pointless war just because the president says we should. They said no, we’re not going to accept the traditional idea of a what a woman’s role should be just because that’s the way it’s always been done and no, we’re not going to limit self-expression merely because some clod finds it “weird.”
    It’s that questioning of the blind assumptions of the American governing establishment that is meant when people try to compare this to the 60’s. Instead of challenging assumptions, Hillary has drunk fully the Washington kool-aid. She may have worked for McGovern in ’72, but like so many people of her generation, she has since made her peace with the devil. When she wins, expect her to trot out the same old golfbags from the Bill Clinton years with the same “Washington Consensus” foreign and economic policies.

  67. stanley Henning says:

    Experience – Thoughts on a Catchword
    I’m not a declared Democrat or Republican and, most importantly, I am not an ideologue. I am an American, a retired Army officer, and a Vietnam veteran, and I am also fed up with the so-called “leadership” of my country, both civil and military, in the past few years, especially since 9/11. I have also been watching the primaries with considerable concern and have been especially disgusted with the tendency to latch onto such catchwords as “change” and “experience” in the simplistic sense. First of all, “change” is a given — hopefully it will be positive, but enough said here. More importantly, everyone needs to consider all the implications reflected in the word “experience” in the past few years. Unfortunately, “experience” can also be a serious negative factor as we have been forced to witness. Sadly, we were propelled into the Iraqi cesspool by a vicious coterie of extremely experienced, ideologically oriented, politicos, who knew how to make an end run through our system, consisting of a passive Congress and careerist oriented civil and military bureaucracy. Let us consider all the implications in the word “experience” as we prepare to vote this year.

Comments are closed.