Why I Am Not The Biggest Fan Of Hillary Clinton

Sorry about that, guys. When I said "Women suck" in that morning IM thingy I do? That wasn't actually my true opinion. I was just making a joke to express my surprising degree of anger with some of them. See, I am idealistic enough to think that maybe the South isn't so irredeemably racist that a few of its states wouldn't fall for the well-spoken black guy. I am idealistic enough to believe that America could actually, all things considered, vote for someone with the potential to be a truly Great President. I am idealistic enough to think that it is possible to elect a President whom it would actually serve other world leaders to befriend, not for the purposes of extracting trade concessions or pushing down tariffs in a bid to expand the markets of our Fortune 500 companies or getting China to devalue the yuan, but for making democracy look like a good idea. For making it look like a system of government designed not only to conveniently serve voters' material interests but one that challenges them to want to improve society. And I know it's a long shot, but who was the last Senator with experience navigating big city municipal politics and teaching Constitutional law? Okay, so.

Here's what I'm not idealistic/delusional enough to believe: that the Drudge-perpetuated meme generated by Hillary Clinton's "tears" and the ensuing Chris Matthews/John Edwards/CNN/YouTube retardation would be the last pointless, irrelevant sexual subplot to consume the Clinton Dynasty and distract public attention from the hard questions of what the responsibilities and goals of government ought to be. We love the irrelevant sexual subplots now, because they remind us of a time we weren't spending $300 million a day on a wrongheaded war being fought by ruthless mercenaries running amok in a culture of impunity. (Like remember the sexual subplot distracted us from the time Clinton bombed the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory? Or wait, was the bombing a distraction?)

And we love them because the Clintons are a relentlessly intriguing couple: mysterious, ambitious, driven, Machiavellian, and probably at the end of the day and underneath it all and when all is said in done on balance good. But not nearly as good as they could be, or need to be, to inspire the doubters of democracy.