Oh, I agree that both Gore and Clinton have had their images mauled
and distorted. HRC has certainly suffered from being a woman with her
career - the vitriol she's had heaped on her head is nothing short of
astounding - yet the mis-characterisations have been successful I
think because there is a kernel of truth somewhere in the characters
of both HRC and Gore. Even the left-wing commentators that I've read
seem to indicate a persona of control, efficiency on the part of HRC.
Who knows if her performance for this primary was staged? I think it
shows that she can be a modern-day president. She has both heart and
head for the job.
The fascists stood for both efficiency and heart-strings IIRC. Reagan
- well, the better person, the better communicator, won on the day.
That's democracy for you. Helluva sled-ride, heh?
To make a call to rationality won't help you, I think.
Roger
On Jan 9, 2008 2:24 PM, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Gore's 2000 image was invented by relentless Republican repetition.
> Likewise Clinton's ice maiden aura. In each case a countervailing
> image--Bush the reformed reprobate good old boy, Obama the prophet,
> flatter national fictions .Obama, at any rate, is probably benign
> (it's his competence that's in question), but the heart is a
> questionable guide. Think of Bush looking into Putin's heart. As one
> of the columnists recently noted, Putin was a KGB agent, he had no
> heart. And in choosing leaders I prefer the head. The heart gave the
> world Reagan and lots worse--Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini. Best to use
> one's head to cut through the pretty stories we're all prone to and
> the machinations of the propaganda machines that feed them.
--
My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/
"She went out with her paint box, paints the chapel blue
She went out with her matches, torched the car-wash too"
The Go-Betweens
|