CapitalistImperialistPig

Stanley Fish takes a shallow look at Hillary hatred in his latest column in the NYT. He notes the weird excesses some of that demonization takes: But the people and groups Horowitz surveys have brought criticism of Clinton to what sportswriters call “the next level,” in this case to the level of personal vituperation unconnected to, and often unconcerned with, the facts. These people are obsessed with things like her hair styles, the “strangeness” of her eyes — “Analysis of Clinton’s eyes is a favorite motif among her most rabid adversaries” — and they retail and recycle items from what Horowitz calls “The Crazy Files”: she’s Osama bin Laden’s candidate; she kills cats; she’s a witch (this is not meant metaphorically). Demonization of the enemy - whether Arab, Jew or New York Yankee - is hardly a new theme in human affairs. It's part of how we psych ourselves for combat. In the case of the Clintons, there is a powerful lobby behind it - all those rich and super rich upon whom ...

Have I mentioned lately that I don't like Hillary? I believe she's smart, I believe her policies are likely to be somewhat reasonable, and I believe that she is one of the 150 million or so Americans who would be much better Presidents than George W Bush. She might even be in the top 100. Her personality grates, grates, grates, grates, grates, however. Almost every word she says seems to ooze insincerity. I mean, what kind of politician is that? How can you be a politician if you haven't even learned to fake sincerity? So much for the minor problems. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton sounds like a real dynastic horror show. I don't want that kind of a country. Maybe I'm a hopelessly sexist anti-dynastic nutbag, but I don't want her. I didn't want Bill, either, of course, and he turned out to be a halfway-good President. Too bad that he, the vast RW conspiracy, and our worthless press (epithet deleted you, Michael Isikoff) screwed up the other half.