On Aug 11, 2004, at 8:35 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Carl Remick wrote:
>
>> Articulate? Prolix is more like it. Eight years of incessant
>> unconvincing jive.
>
> What's so hard about admitting that Clinton is one of the best
> politicians in like the history of the world?
because ideological rectitude is deployed as a measure of effectiveness, competence, and skill.
> He knows a lot and can talk fluently. With Goodman, he responded to a
> whole series of questions of the sort he'd never been asked. It was an
> extremely impressive performance.
and he can do it because he actually thinks for himself, reflects on his actions and the world around him, and formulates opinions. as a result, he can genuinely reply to genuinely new questions, rather than just spitting out "the line", e.g., "america is strong."
watching him at the convention and then on the daily show only confirmed his uncanny political sense. i hated him and a lot of what he did, but i honest-to-god miss him. his coming out in 1988 notwithstanding, clinton's got it. he could still win, today, if he could run. and to be honest, after the last four years, i'm not sure i wouldn't vote for him.
>
> The inability to admit things like that is one of the reasons they
> keep winning and we keep losing.
there's some truth to this, but we do also see the same syndrome on the right. o'rilly is only the most obvious example. and limbaugh. and savage. and coulter. those guys engage in the same judging of politicians' skill by their conformity to a set of positions.
nevertheless, i'm reminded of yet another jon stewart line, this time on bush. it goes, roughly, "he's not stupid. we're stupid. that's why he talks to us this way." call the guy stupid all you want, but he's sitting in the oval office. how's that saying go? he who laughs last . . .?
j