An Old Friend of Mine & Hillary Clinton
I followed Steve’s link to Keith Olbermann’s commentary last night, remembering an old friend of mine when Mr. Olbermann scathingly remarked on Bush’s scorn for public opinion, as if Americans were mere children to be ignored. Bush got this way partly due to the intense coaching of his neocon freak advisors, who insist that Bush follow a higher calling of slaughter to all those not of the land of Israel.
At the time I was interested to note that one of those neocons was none other than Mona Charen, my old watcher buddy from Media Whores Online days. I critiqued her for 14 months off her Universal Press syndicate column with a little site, Charen Watch, and although I never had any illusions I would change her bloodthirsty authoritarian politics it was still an excellent exercise in writing and discipline, I missed 3 critiques in 14 months.
I also feel good that although I was as vicious as I could be many times with Miz Charen I never, ever denigrated her looks or gender, and specifically wished her all the best’n prayers to the Holy Father with her three sons'n all. Some lines are never crossed, you know?
The Iraq war drags on, day after dreary day of useless death, yet Mona Charen approves, the lives of other sons and mothers meaning seemingly nothing to her; if cornered she’d probably snarl it was the will of God for the United States to kill the enemies of Israel. So much for gender perspective politics as far as Mona Charen is concerned, she’s as perfectly capable of butchering our sons and daughter as the males are in our society.
I hear anecdotally from my wife that support for Hillary Clinton among the staff of her school is incredibly strong, a remarkable instant response of endorsement because they want a female president. It’s as if all these heretofore apolitical teachers had a latent gene that only flipped on in 2007, bring up the presidential race and they instantly spit out “I’m voting for Hillary, I want a woman president” like machines, absolutely everything is secondary to gender identification in the 2008 race for them.
So much for gender perspective politics as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, with her ambiguous Iraq war stance she is as perfectly capable of killing our children for lies as well as men are. It’s no surprise to me at all, I think gender behavioral differences are tiny in our species, but it will likely come as a nasty surprise to many that Hillary, given the chance, will be a very good killer in the interests of “national security,” or whatever rationalization is employed for the insanity of Iraq in 2009.
If Hillary supporters want to get on my case for incorrectly perceiving what Hillary plans to do with Iraq in 2009, well, get outta my face with it, man. I pay attention with average intelligence, if her message is muddy and bloody that’s her issue in delivery, not mine in perception.
I'm a little dubious, but there is a line of thinking that a female president would be much more likely to be behave in nurturing mature ways, versus the infantile butchery the males have delivered so far. When something goes wrong they’re much more likely to be swayed by humanitarian concerns versus a male and change course much more quickly to save lives. As far as Iraq goes that’s just utter horseshit, there’s been years to get the judgment right on that war, but I must admit there is some validity to the view, some.
If that’s truly the case I wish the righteous motherhood faction of American politics would collectively get together and give Hillary a heaping dose of maternal whup ass for not fiercely protecting the lives of our children in this insane Iraq war. Were that to happen I’d be happy to vote for Hillary (I will if I have to, I won't forget my duty), very happy indeed to see the juvenile killing testosterone immaturity of American male presidents ended at last by a mother who paid attention to the lives of our children.