A couple of days ago Paul linked to a particularly witless and rambling interview in Salon with a person who for reasons nobody has ever explained or would want to explain was briefly famous in the 90s. He did spare you from one horror: this interview was a three part series, because said person would never say in three words what she could say in 400. Let us gaze at the…not thoughts, I dunno, spew of the latest installment. (No link because I wouldn’t bring another incentive for clickbait into this world! This post is an abortion, David! It is utter crap David! Crap! And I had it killed because this must all end!)
First of all, when we look at the abundance of candidates who have put themselves forward on the GOP side, compared to the complete paralysis of the Democratic party by the Clinton machine, I think you have to be worried about the future of the Democratic party. Young feminists are asking why there hasn’t been a woman president and automatically blaming it on male sexism. But there are plenty of women Democratic politicians who are too scared to put themselves forward as candidates because of the Clinton machine. There’s something seriously wrong here with Democratic thinking. You either believe in the country, you believe in your party, or you don’t!
Given the problems facing the nation, this passive waiting for your turn is simply unacceptable. The Democrats have plenty of solid, capable women politicians who are just too timid to challenge the party establishment. Well, excuse me, that proves they don’t deserve to be president! You sure won’t be able to deal with ISIS if you can’t deal with Debbie Wasserman Schultz! The paucity of declared Democratic presidential candidates is a major embarrassment to the party. Look at that herd of eager-beaver competitive guys on the Republican side–overflowing with energy and ambition. There’s even a woman, Carly Fiorina, who has no political experience and therefore no chance of winning, but she is bravely putting herself forward and speaking out. And she has impressively informed herself about international politics, which is a No. 1 requirement for any woman presidential candidate. I said in a recent op-ed for Time that women must take responsibility for mastering more than the usual social welfare issues. Women politicians have to develop themselves beyond the caretaking side of the spectrum. All this talk about the lack of women engineers and how that’s somehow evidence of sexism–oh, really? It’s mostly a self-selecting process, as proved by the way that the overwhelming majority of women politicians around the world actually behave. What do they instantly gravitate towards? Social welfare, caretaking, the environment. They ignore military history and strategic geopolitics.
So, to summarize: 1)It is a disaster for the Democrats that Hillary Clinton is a prohibitive frontrunner because 2)Democrats can’t let real talent like Carly Forina shine and 3)this all shows that women don’t care about “military history and strategic geopolitics” because 4)in an ideal world we might get a woman who had been, say, been Secretary of State for 4 years, but it’s hard to see how that could happen now. I find your thoughts fascinating and would like to subscribe to your usenet group. (Note: any attempt to summarize America’s Worst Public Intellectual makes her spew sound much more coherent than it actually is.)
So what is this great talent that Hillary Clinton is oppressing?
I have constantly said that Senator Dianne Feinstein should have been the leading woman presidential candidate for the Democratic party long ago.
Jesus Christ, I know that personal narratives confessing embarrassing behavior has become of online clickfarms, but really some embarrassing personal facts should remain in the closet.
But I bet her analysis of the Republican Party is better!
I thought that Mitt Romney was an excellent choice by the GOP four years ago, even though he was opposed by the Tea Party. He was an old-style Rockefeller Republican, a type that doesn’t exist anymore. Nelson Rockefeller was governor of New York when I was in college in the 1960s, and he was flooding the state university system with tons of money in an attempt to make it equivalent to the University of California. I was very grateful for what he did, because I had a superb education at Binghamton, with wonderful new facilities and funding of programs like the film society. Rockefeller collected abstract art.
Mitt Romney was the new Nelson Rockefeller, because his plan to savagely cut public spending to fund upper-class tax cuts is just like how Rockefeller flooded the New York educational system with money back in the day. Also, kindly old Nelson had that great art collection stored below his North Korean plaza, awesome! Mitt Romney wouldn’t have done that, which is central to my point. Also, where’s the discussion of abstract art today? THANKS OBAMA!
Look, I know it’s hard out there for an online media publisher. But there has to be a more dignified way of getting traffic than this — maybe have an intern write 20 stories a day headlined “How America Learned To Love Looking At Lesbian Pictures Of Nude Kim Kardashian Naked Anal” or something.