the same sneering anger that conservatives say "godless liberal".
So, please enlighten us: Who should have been president in the 1990s? Name that person (man, woman, child, living or dead, American or foreign) who would've done all the good things Clinton did and none of the bad.
And keep in mind that when democrats attack Clinton, that is the most DIVISIVE, PARTY-WRECKING aspect of this whole campaign. And it has been pushed entirely by the Obama campaign. Talk about doing the Republicans work for them! That and smearing the Clintons as racist.
Yes the Obama folks have done a wonderful job of wrecking the Democratic party, all the while accusing Hillary of doing it because she dares to call a man with no experience "inexperienced."
counterculture movement was 50% inspiration and insight, and 90% hormonal overdrive. It did arise, however, from a very problematic situation in the 1950s. The depression-era returning WWII vets who were our fathers were mostly a**holes, and the McCarthy era was still limiting people's ability to speak freely. Women were shoved out of the workplace by returning vets and found themselves stuck in high heels and pearls, pushing vacuum cleaners in lonely suburban houses. Teachers were also PO'd because in those days a woman only worked if she had to. The children bore the brunt of all that adult frustration, and so, yes, the 60s were an explosion detonated by Kennedy's assassination and lubricated by the Beatles delirium.
Now? I guess the youth are feeling pretty crappy about the Bush years. And well they should. But IMO it's not 1/4 as bad as what we had put up with in the 50s. This generation is acting out as much from a sense of entitlement as from frustration. If we were told "Children should be seen and not heard", this generation has been told "you're special and you can have anything for dinner your little heart desires, and we'll be at every soccer game videotaping every moment of your wonderful existence." So imagine our surprise when we see them resonating so powerfully with the message of hopelessness that Obama purveys. And make no mistake, hopelessness is his message. Else why would we need him for hope?
Another difference between "then" and "now": Today's youthful activists get out there and work like heck to get someone elected, but seem to have little interest in going to New Orleans for Katrina victims, or volunteering at a homeless shelter or going overseas to work with poor farmers in another country. What's that about?
details. You're talking about Reagan democrats, right? Well ... not to be too elitist (but admitting that, basically, I am), they weren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer and I think Reagan used his background as an actor to bamboozle them.
Plus there was his "morning in America" lie, telling them everything would be fine and they wouldn't have to sacrifice in order to have the good life. This after Jimmy Carter had talked straight to them and told them to turn down their thermostats.
It's not clear to me what the parallel is with Obama's approach. What group is he targeting and is he trying to bamboozle them? Yes he does have a kind of "morning in America" message but it's not so much a free ride -- at least to hear Michelle tell it with "He'll make you work to give up your illusions" [paraphrase].
It would be interesting to have this strategy made clear. Obama isn't making it clear at all (undestandably), but maybe there's an essay or something I could read?
Time will tell. I'm thinking of my most recent exposure to Bill Clinton, which was watching his interview with Chris Matthews in late 2006 (I think) when that silly documentary came out claiming the Clinton had failed to get Obama.
Clinton sat there quoting chapter and verse from everything he had done to get Obama, and when he'd done it, and who had blocked it, and how it had all unfolded ... as though it had happened the day before even though it had been 8 years ago. Looking Matthews directly in the eye and poking his thigh with his forefinger for emphasis. It was sweet.
Somehow I can't see Obama doing any of that; not the details, not the direct gaze, not the thigh poking. Actually i think he'd make out to be above the whole silly issue, then call out the attack dogs afterward. No?
Except ... almost everyone in public life seems to buy into some form of the same argument: For me to support a candidate, s/he has to think like m, and/or believe like me, and/or look like me, and/or share my values.
You see it big time in the liberal blogs with all the hatin' on Hillary. Obama's most fervent anti-Hillary bloggers seem to see her as utterly alien, "other", monstrous. Their revulsion is visceral.
That draws from the exactly same well of emotion that we see in the religious right's reaction to abortion, or godless liberalism, or whatever ...
southern accent made the difference and he was elected purely because the accent masked his intellect -- thus making him appear to be a populist democrat ("type 1", shall we say).
However, Once in DC it quickly became clear that he was actually a democrat of "type 2"-- the somewhat out of touch, arrogant, "I know better than you do" intellectual type -- and he ended up a one-termer who didn't accomplish much. That was sad.
be sitting at the same table, laughing at Obama's lecture! Sorry ... In my imagination these were two completely separate events, one with Obama lecturing and the other with Hillary snorting beer.
As for "unfavorables", ok I can agree with you that this includes more than just likeability in principle. But I'd be curious what items are on your list of unfavorables for Hillary in addition to the likeability thing?
lifted) but is much more of a policy wonk, detail freak, and a hard-scrabble street fighter. As for what he's up to these days, he's still got that edge but nowhere to use it. As one of the (many) pro-Obama pundits on CNN said yesterday, Bill finds it easier being Gladys Knight than being a Pip.
possible to vote for someone you don't find particularly likeable. In fact, that's probably a far more rational approach to voting than the current American-idol model that so many people assume is correct.
You want someone who will work for you, fight for you, even get nasty for you. And you are never going to sit down for a beer with them so do you really care how likeable they are?
The newly-labelled 'neanderthal' 'archie bunker" voters of rural Pennsylvania may actually understand this a lot better than the presumed intellectuals pushing the "Hillary is unlikeable" meme so hard in blogosphere and MSM. You know? Maybe the voters really don't care that much about how likeable she is?
Though me? I'd way rather have a beer with Hillary than with Barack. He'd be lecturing me on constitutional law and the evils of racism, while she'd be blowing beer out her nose laughing.