. . . if I said that I agreed with Peter L. and that I was also glad to see Hillary win. I wasn’t. I still think that, in many ways, Hillary will be easier to beat in November. And, failing that, I think she’d be a better president than Obama if the Dems do win. But it has been, in its own adolescent locker-room sort of way, really fun to watch her sweat. It’s been rather like watching the homecoming queen (when she’s a nasty thing) slip on a banana peel as she’s about to get her crown.
But I’m certainly not lying when I say that I am happy to see that the polls were wrong. I think people, their preferences in elections, and their political inclinations should be--and always stubbornly remain--somewhat elusive. It’s beneath the dignity of Americans to be predictable. When pollsters call me, I always lie as a matter of principle.
I also think that the high voter turn-out and the good weather helped Hillary (the grannies weren’t afraid to drive, for instance) and there’s apparently no question but that the female vote went her way, big time. I find that last bit depressing, I guess. But I’m not sure what’s worse in women . . . mindless support for a "sister" or swooning at the vacuous Obama.
Bill Clinton’s very public embrace of Hillary at the celebration (and I think even a kiss was exchanged) isn’t going to hurt her either. We can be thankful, I guess, that it wasn’t as gross as the PDA we got from Al Gore and Tipper in 2000. But it still had the effect of looking like a coronation to me, with Bill standing there to place the crown upon her now very swelled cranium. I can’t help it. I still wish there had been a banana on that stage.
"When pollsters call me, I always lie as a matter of principle." Julie, that's hands down the best NLT sentence of 2008 so far!
Speaking of bananas (and 800-pound gorillas), does the Clinton campaign slip hubby on a banana peel away from the campaign? Or does he become the whiner-in-chief, and let Hillary be da' man? That's some duet, worthy of opera. That will be fascinating to watch. Too bad this experiment ("intellectual feast" as one conservative put it some time ago) may blow up and wind up killing the students.
Hillary's the lady in Fatal Attraction--perpetual victim who's near-impossible to kill off.
Yes Carl, I was thinking the same thing too. Julie's post was singular indeed. As was her post about "the only boy who could ever reach me, was the son of a preacher man," which she made earlier.
It triggered a recollection from the realm of King Arthur.
Once upon a time, THERE are some stories that cannot begin anyway but, so, once upon a time King Arthur had Excalibur {"cut steel"} stolen, and the one that stole it said that it would be returned upon condition of King Arthur answering a simple question. And that question was: "WHAT DO WOMEN WANT MOST IN THE WORLD?"
Well of course the somewhat innocent Arthur thought this an easy question, and he went to the one man who knew the most about women in his court, which was his nephew Gawain, who had a rep with the ladies. However as soon as Gawain heard the question, his face became one of sorrow and dismay. For he rightly perceived that women would not give up their true thoughts so easily, for to do so would be to yield a certain power they held over men. Therein followed a journey throughout his kingdom, where Arthur and Gawain asked all the women they met, high and low, "what is it that you want most in the world?" The answers were varied, "to be beautiful," "to be rich," "to be desirable to my liege lord," "to be pious," and all the while Arthur and Gawain became MORE AND MORE concerned that they would NEVER get the correct answer from these women. They asked in good faith, and they asked for the best of reasons, for the return of Excalibur was a matter of state. But although they got accurate answers, THEY DIDN'T GET THE CORRECT ONE.
As the time limit wound down for the answer to be delivered, Arthur and Gawain set out for the castle where Excalibur was held. On their way they met a grotesque hag. She was a foulsome creature, ugly, pockmocked, humpbacked, smelly and dirty, clad in rags with bugs throughout her hair. A thoroughly revolting sight. Arthur and Gawaine weren't even going to bother asking her, but she called out to them however, and promised them the right answer to the question. But for a price. And the price was the hand of Gawain in marriage. Arthur of course refused the request straight away. But Gawain, loyal to his Uncle, knowing how important it was for Excalibur to be at his side, agreed, though King Arthur remonstrated with him most earnestly.
And so the Hag gave the answer, which both men knew immediately to be the correct one. THE ANSWER to the question of "what do women want most in the world?" is "TO HAVE THEIR WAY OVER MEN!"
Of course I can relate for you that it ended all very well for Gawain. For the hag was a ravishing Princess, who was enchanted by a foul sorceress, {no doubt the Hillary of her day...} and she was cursed to appear ugly and foul until a knight agreed to marry her, and then the curse mandated that her appearance would be either by night or day. Her husband had to choose whether he enjoyed her ravishing at night, where he alone enjoyed her, or by day, where all could enjoy her loveliness. Of course Gawain was too gallant to make that decision, and allowed her leave to make that decision on her own, WHICH BURST the curse altogether, so that she was ravishing by day and by night. Which Gawain, I'm sure, enjoyed, [as would I...}.
The story has many morals of course, especially the linkage between perfect love, perfect passion and perfect freedom. Where such passion and freedom exist, no curse, however foul, however powerful, can long endure.
So, Julie, you tell pollsters you're a Democrat, support liberal positions, and think the Republicans practice the politics of personal destruction? Nice going ...
Dan: See also Chaucer's "Wife of Bath" tale in the Canterbury Tales. It's similar to this story . . . though I do like the additional element that Gawain was rewarded for respecting the mind of the princess/hag and giving her the choice.
Ken: Does this mean that the only one who can "kill" Hillary is Michelle Obama? Maybe. That has possibilities . . .
Julie, why do you consider Obama "vacuous"?
I've read many of your posts about Hillary Clinton. No matter what she does, you've got a ridiculously speculative assessment of the inner workings of her evil mind and a scathing critique for all that she thinks, says, and does.
Again, I think you've got a bad case of HDS (Hillary Derangement Syndrome) - possibly as acute as that exhibited by NRO's Lisa Schiffren. As she says, just "admit it" and you'll begin to feel better. Best part of her rant (aside from "Hating Hillary has been such a central political impulse for so long now...") has to be this:
"America is past ready for woman president. Just not a woman who got to office on her husband's coattails."
Hmmm...America seemed fine with a man who clearly got to office on his father's coattails, so it's possible they might be able to withstand another Clinton presidency. I'd prefer otherwise, but America on the whole might be game for it.
Craig, Who's afraid of Hillary Clinton? I believe you're not the only genius to have figured out (since I as much as said it above and elsewhere) that much of my dislike for Hillary comes from a gut-level negative reaction to her person. Call me deranged, if you like, but I just can't get into a scolding nag--even when I agree with her policies--but when I don't, it's especially grating. But let me ask you: does my saying that she'd make a better president than Obama also qualify me for "HDS" as you seem to suggest? Much as I dislike the woman, I don't abandon reason in my analysis. She is much preferable to Obama because she's less audacious in her liberalism. After a few smack-downs, Obama would probably settle down too . . . but his mistakes could be pretty costly. Pardon me, but I think that it may just be possible that you have a bad case of Ponzi Derangement Syndrome.
I think Craig has "America Derangement Syndrome."