A few tears won't make Hillary more electable (Mark Steel, The Independent, London)

WARNING: English comedian and columnist Mark Steel is a sarcastic socialist, and one of the harshest critics of Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and the whole so-called "Third Way" version of capitalism. I don't know why the headline mentions being "electable" - because Mark Steel hates the idea of voting for candidates who are the most "electable". But the point is he does not like the Clintons.

A few tears won't make Hillary more electable

Mark Steel, The Independent (London, England), 9 January 2008

What a magnificent speech by Hillary Clinton, where she broke down in tears and spluttered, "Lots of people think elections are about who's up and who's down, but this is very personal for me. I've had such opportunities from this country."

At first glance it makes so little sense I thought if you chucked in a perpendicular and a polyunsaturate it could be one of Neil Kinnock's. But when you look again it's the scream of an articulate four-year-old. She's saying "Let ME be President because I WANT to. LET me LET me it's not FAIR." ...

Most people seem to think this was a deliberate act, to win popularity by appearing human and vulnerable. Maybe at her next press conference she'll come on with a puppy. And her speech will be "This is Rosie." Then, fighting back tears she'll say "And this afternoon she's got to be put down. God bless America." And then the hall will fill up with balloons. Then, during a televised debate she'll respond to a question about energy policy with a botched suicide attempt.

But there may be other reasons why her campaign's slipped, which is she claims to be the best candidate to bring about "Change" from the days of Bush, but she's supported almost everything he's done, including the invasion of Iraq. Now she says she'll "Bring the troops home" so presumably her statement will be "When the war was popular I supported it. Then when it was unpopular I opposed it. So I am the only candidate who's consistently voted with the American people."

She supported the bombing of Lebanon, and her only criticism of Bush while he was planning to bomb Iran was that he "downplayed their threats". She also urged him to categorise the entire Iranian army as a "terrorist organisation". So she must be the only person in the world who thinks "We need a change – because Bush hasn't bombed enough places or called enough people terrorists."

...

In case you want to read the entire column, you can find it here:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/mark_steel/article3321365.ece

Isn't it true?

Watching the results last night, as an outsider, it was really depressing. Politics of tears and politics of fear... wins every time.

Or her "Ollie North on the stand" moment. When you've invested so many years and so much political capital playing tight end for the Bushies, defending an illegal and immoral invasion of non-threatening sovereign country, you can't just change colors on a dime. So you do the next best thing, overwhelm the audience with tears and an Oscar-winning performance of faux sincerity.

If she cares, she wouldn't continue to fund and defend the pet project of her political opposition.
If she cares, she wouldn't sentence unnumbered innocent Iraqis to miserable deaths through her political support of her killers.

Unfortunately, there are many people in this country who still choose to be suckered by pretense that is not backed up by actions.

Really need to read the whole thing, every paragraph is a gem:

He has also written some very funny books. I especially enjoyed "Reasons to be Cheerful".

Here it is again:

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/mark_steel/article3321365.ece

Or try this: http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/

you can't argue with the facts. facts will always win out.

:rofl:

What really pissed me off was what she SAID . . . mimicking exactly what John Edwards has been
saying all along.

He's a good writer make no mistake, but he's also a high profile SWP supporter, and their record of getting elected is pretty abysmal. Being lectured on electability by an SWP supporter is a bit like being lectured on winning winning American Football matches by the Miami Dolphins.

To say that "possibly the greatest hope for America lies not with Hillary, or Obama, but from the opposition to the war in Iraq, without which it's possible they'd have already bombed Iran, as suggested by Hillary." is just patent nonsense. The anti-war movement should have had the impact he is hoping for in 2004 and it didn't so the chances of Mark Steel's hopes coming are pretty much zero if you ask me.