Billmon:
Back to Main
July 3, 2006
WB: Pennola
Comments
Although no doubt the word Pennola goes back to “payola” – the practice of bribing disk jockeys to play records in order to make them popular and promote their sale – I’m also reminded of the word Shinola, a brand of shoe polish formerly sold in the U.S. and featured in the phrase “can’t tell shit from Shinola.”
One would have to be perceptually impaired to regard Hillary! as an electable candidate for president – in my opinion.
Posted by: mistah charley | Jul 3 2006 17:30 utc | 1
Reminds me of how the right wing squawk box made such a big deal out of Kerry owning an SUV — whereby the Rethugs can be expected to be corrupt and on the take (and in no contradiction) — the left is demonized for their fake populism, and are shown to be un-authentic (and in contradiction).
Exceptionalist Democrats who want to run on populism would be wise to identify populism (& egalitarianism) as the central character of exceptionalism, as opposed to letting the Rethugs define it. Because as is obvious, they have defined it into oblivian.
Posted by: anna missed | Jul 3 2006 19:23 utc | 3
Quote:
One would have to be perceptually impaired to regard Hillary! as an electable candidate for president
—
I agree…
Quote:
That´s a majority right away.
—
Looks like…and makes one desparate…
Posted by: vbo | Jul 4 2006 1:35 utc | 4
Bob Shrum having a lucrative career as a consultant is as inspiring as Borks career as a legal scholar.
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 4 2006 3:24 utc | 5
Perhaps I am perceptually impaired, but I am led to believe that the Clinton Dynasty is far more s/electable than an honest candidate of any party.
You know, I understand the Democrat-in-the-street bemoaning the current state of things and trying to find an alternative. I do, and I don’t necessarily fault them for that. But their failure to recognise that the Clintons, Liebermans, Feinsteins, et al. are cut from the same cloth as the present batch of GOP corporate whores is inexcusable.
Of course, right in their own midst are men like Kucinich, but if you dare utter their name in public you get slapped down with the only genuine criticism that can possibly apply: “Unelectable”. What galls me is that the only reason this criticism is genuine is because a “majority of perceptually impaired” people believe it is so. The same is true for that grating old chestnut “Voting for a third party is throwing your vote away.” As undemocratic (small “d”)as that is, it takes on a de facto reality as long as enough people believe it’s true. It doesn’t matter if the planet is round if enough people decide to act as though it’s flat.
You may not be able to resurrect the corpse of Tinkerbell or repair the physical and economic damage done both inside and outside the US by collective faith alone, but you can make a gorram bad situation worse by holding your hands over your ears and chanting “I believe in faeries/Democrats/free elections…”
Posted by: Monolycus | Jul 4 2006 3:30 utc | 6
How frustrating is politics where we have only rudimentary ability to discern cause-and-effect in retrospect, and no idea at all in prospect. Almost any course can be made to sound plausible or implausible, given enough rhetorical skill and some command of the facts. Hillary or exile or armed insurrection or Clark or maintaining sufficiently high levels of bourbon. Man plans, God laughs (meanly).
Posted by: citizen k | Jul 4 2006 3:37 utc | 7
Clinton was effective within circumscribed limits. Popular also. As someone who never voted for him, nor will ever vote for Hillary, I cannot fault him for playing the hand he was dealt. Go back and read how his own kind tried to destroy him for selling out on issues like welfare reform while the rabid sulkers hated and tried to destroy him the entire time he was in national life. The intelligentsia has been a failure in America for decades and liberal a forsaken value taken over by a bunch of weenies. To win a competition step one is to have competitive competitors.
Posted by: razor | Jul 4 2006 3:52 utc | 8