Losing the nomination

First off, this isn’t a Hillary-bashing post—I’m trying really hard to avoid that in the tone here (but I write this as an Obama supporter). Many individuals feel, I think somewhat logically, that Hillary is the most viable candidate for the big Fall election. But logic or not, I can’t ignore my gut. Hillary just doesn’t feel real to me. Hillary feels like she’s giving a big, fat performance every time I see her speak. How I feel about Hillary Clinton is sort of how I feel about this woman who competed in the 1993 Miss Arizona pageant:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wffwg7pA0t8[/youtube]

The “pageant” itself is a good enough metaphor for the current democratic candidate race. It’s performance strengths over strategy, or performance strengths as strategy. But how much alike are Hillary and the girl in the video? Consider these specifics: the Miss Arizona hopeful doesn’t seem to be aware of the mistakes she’s making. She’s so wrapped up in the performance, the presentation, that she doesn’t see that she’s getting it wrong. And wasn’t there someone around to tell her that her tone was off? Weren’t there rehearsals or coaches to warn her of such out-of-key trumpeting? I mean, I think we all expect that if you’re going to tackle the Star Wars theme, you do it well.

As surface as it might sound, I am a bit disturbed (less overtly than the Miss Arizona youtube) that a democratic female front runner doesn’t resonate with my sensibilities, with not only who I feel to be as a woman with issues that affect me because I am a woman, but also with who I feel I am. Ideologies aside, HillRod doesn’t warm me up.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcSclOlk9Cc&feature=related[/youtube]

Not even a little bit. I think this has something to do with gut but also with expectations—and, again, all within the performativity of politics, a performativity which resembles (more than we’d like to admit) a Miss Arizona contest—or a Miss Teen U.S.A. contest?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHHLII[/youtube]

At the writing of this piece, it is 6:25 Eastern Standard Time. I am unaware of what the results are in the Pennsylvania Primary, so, to clarify, this post is about how Hillary lost my nomination, not actually the nomination. Or it’s about the fact that she never really had my vote in the first place. This is unfortunate, I think, being both female and—at least by ballot— democrat. Although ultimately I would hope that my feelings about a candidate’s authenticity transcends her gender, I am disappointed that Hillary is a woman who seems, to me, quite inauthentic. Could it be that she doesn’t see that, like these Miss-Something-hopefuls, she’s getting it wrong?

Last night, a friend of mine mused about her own issues with Ms. Clinton. “I have to wonder what makes me feel so unconnected to her,” she said. “I think that if there’s going to be a woman president, it has to be a woman who represents a different version of what ‘woman’ means.”

Or at least what “authentic candidate” means. Another friend surmised that we don’t see Hillary as a truly authentic candidate because we have become savvy to what inauthentic looks and sounds like, contexualilzed by the last few decades of American politics.

Such conversations about what makes a candidate authentic are not so distant from how (some) women judge each other, which often has to do with what’s real or fake, especially physically. Recently I overheard two girls discussing Hillary at the bar. CNN flashed above us with closed-captions. That day, Hillary had been slammed again for her false representation of a 1996 visit to Bosnia.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm_Cj6LNWmw&feature=related[/youtube]

“What a fake bitch,” one of them said.

“Totally,” agreed the other, flipping her hair. “I hate her ass.”

The perceived “fakeness” of Hillary (an ironic descriptor considering the utterance was situated in the middle of a busy Los Angeles scenester venue), is what connects her to our poor Miss Arizona-hopeful. She’s might be fooling a few, but she’s not fooling everyone. Whether Obama has had any “experience” (read: knowing how to negotiate the old boys’ club of D.C.) or not, when he speaks I tend to believe him. He feels like he means what he says. I wish I could find some additional concrete reasons for why I judge him as more authentic than Hillary without resorting to the typical smear campaign examples. Specifically, though, it has been so long since we’ve seen any type of authenticity in our candidates that Obama literally glows with realness. I can smell what Barack is cooking:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBOJPWaSUS0&feature=related[/youtube]

33 responses to “Losing the nomination”

  1. Godfree says:

    Maybe because my head has been buried in books about the international political economy, but the irony that the candidates suggest that they will “fix” the economy, while broadcasting from an event at a place called the Bi-Lo Center is kind of staggering to me.

    Y’all have a great day now!

  2. Dave says:

    So Obama’s authentic because he’s black?

  3. patti smith says:

    dave, you took the words right out of my mouth

  4. Cynthia says:

    isa, A very well stated piece. I too completely agree. It is also amazin to me how the canidates always think they can change everything and yest they never change anything but to make it worse. Especiallly themselves, but I agree Lisa with Hillary being very iunbelievable

  5. trixie says:

    cynthia,
    i think you are unbelievable.
    in a good way.
    trixie

  6. Lisa Tremain says:

    dave, i wrote this post as lazily as possible so that i could get it could get a comment like yours. thanks!.

  7. Lisa Tremain says:

    and then wrote a lazy comment: should read “could get a comment”

  8. Godfree says:

    So are you going to unlazify yourself and attempt an answer? Where do you believe his authenticity comes from? Should we vote via our “heart of hearts?”

    Not to be harsh, but c’mon Tremain step up.

  9. Lisa Tremain says:

    But it is about “heart of hearts” in a way. That’s what this post is about– I don’t need to know where his authenticity comes from; I just recognize it as “there.” I could go into how I like and am encouraged by the fact that Obama is a grass-roots candidate, that he’s organized groups of local people in his past, that he advocates for some kind of “us” rather than for lobbying special interests…But it’s also about how when I see or hear him speak, he sounds like a real guy (blackness and gender aside, really) and Hillary seems to be playing more of the role of Hillary Clinton– I can’t tell who she really “is” behind the face and words she displays. Actually, I wish I could.

    I think again, I’m talking about something that is really *not* concrete, maybe too much on some kind of instinctual methaphysical tip for the gw? And I think maybe there are other people out there that feel like I do; trust *is* about going on your instinct, no? Especially when you really don’t know a person well?

    But maybe both Hillary and Obama are simply performers and Obama’s just really good at it. Maybe I’m swept up by the Obama-mania that has seemed to recently afflict not only me, but my friends and colleagues here in L.A. Thanks for making me (at least try to) “step up” and explain myself. I hope you still respect and love me after this is all over.

  10. Lisa Tremain says:

    methaphysical. that’s a good one.

  11. Dave says:

    Methaphysician, heal tyself.

    To paraphrase Heidegger, the authentic is merely a contingent (accidental) modification of the inauthentic.

  12. brooke says:

    I’d like to be the first to say that that first song and dance routine is very, very special. Did she win? I’d have voted for her.

    Regarding the authenticity issue, I agree with you Lisa (or your gut) that Obama means what he says and says what he means. He comes off as very authentic. It’s not race or gender, it’s him. He’s also a very skilled orator. Did anyone see him on the Daily Show on Monday night? I can’t find a link offhand. Jon Stewart had him read silly lines in his speaking style, and guess what? They sounded good, authentic.

    Obama is also by all accounts a brilliant politician — I’m always struck by how many old school politicians and wonks, regardless of their idealogical leanings, remark about Obama’s political skills. Part of being a brilliant politician is having the capacity to appear to (or to actually) empathize with the People. Obama has that. Bill Clinton did too, until scandals and dishonesty enveloped his administration.

    At any rate – I think there is a certain “Je ne sais quoi,” to get all French on you whatsitters, to Obama. He seems legit, he’s been pretty consistent and stand up the entire campaign, and his political history, albeit brief, shows a guy who pretty much plays it straight. I also wonder what his age has to do with his authenticity. He’s basically of our generation. Maybe we can tell a faker better if they are more like us than like older generations.

  13. Demosthenes says:

    I agree with all the above. What amazes me is how much people underestimate the power of Obama’s charisma. Sure, he may not be the most experienced politician in this election, but is that really the issue? A lot of people overestimate the power of the President to affect change personally, but it bugs me when people rely on the government to fix all the problems of society. Democratic or not, an administration will never be perfect, and will never be the one to make major changes. This is why I believe in Obama. His ability to inspire and unify the nation transcends the importance of political experience. If he is able to change our nation’s attitude and give people hope in their government, these people will be the ones who make change. Obama seems to me like the most bi-partisan candidate, and Hillary just pisses people off. On Facebook I just saw a group named “Stop Hillary!”. It is a politician like this who will polarize the country and put a republican back in the Oval Office for another four years, and that scares me.

  14. Lisa: I agree with your post and your comments. How they feel is a main part of why I like who I like.

  15. And then I think of possibilities. If Hillary got the democratic nomination and Barack didn’t, (which would make Barack drop out of the race, right?) would you vote for Hillary even with all her fakiness? Or would you vote for McCain?

  16. Obamafan (formerly Marleyfan) says:

    #9 and #13- Booya!
    #15- Reluctantly…

  17. Dave says:

    Okay, I guess I’m not done:

    Jon Stewart had him read silly lines in his speaking style, and guess what? They sounded good, authentic.

    Could there be a clearer demonstration of the vapidity of authenticity as a way of judging presidential candidates? Authenticity in high-level presidential politics is just a certain tone of voice, a certain set of facial expressions, an aptitude for reading lines. Ronald Reagan had it. George W. Bush has it for some people — it’s just that his “authentic” mannerisms annoy us coastal elites.

    Seriously, shouldn’t the Bush debacle disabuse you of the notion that you should base your vote for president on authenticity or likeability or any of these other ineffable, interpersonal, only-discernable-over-television qualities? One longstanding rhetorical tick of Bush’s has been to proclaim that so-and-so has a good heart (or, in the case of Putin, a good soul), an observation offered in exculpation of various war crimes, economic crimes against working people, religious bigotry, etc.

    You know what? It doesn’t matter, politically, what’s in a politician’s heart. It doesn’t matter whether she believes what she says in her stump speech. It matters whether she is constrained, once elected, by constituencies who will force her to enact the right policies.

    I can tell you a few things about Obama, just from the fact that as of now he is probably going to be elected the next president of the United States: He is ambitious to a degree that would make your head explode to comprehend it. He is ruthless. He is calculating. He will sell out any constituency within the Democratic coalition in a heartbeat if he thinks it will help him get acquire or maintain power and if he thinks he can get away with it.

    One more thing: He is not your friend, and he never will be.

    And I say this as an Obama supporter. He’s the best candidate in the race. But not because he’s the authentic Magical Negro to Hillary’s Castrating Harpy. He’s preferable because he has committed himself publicly to the most progressive platform, particularly regarding the war (although even there he could be much better), so progressives will have a slightly easier time holding his feet to the fire to enact some of their agenda.

    He’s also preferable because he shows a high level of political skill — in fact, a Reaganesque ability to seem authentic and, in so seeming, to make people who disagree with him lose their heads in admiration just enough that he can get his way. But it’s not Obama’s “real” authenticity that matters here — to paraphrase Colbert, it’s his “authenticitiness.” Which, as Heidegger points out and Patti Smith demonstrates, is all there is to authenticity, anyway.

  18. rm says:

    Dave nailed it.

    We hire politicians to do a job, not to make us feel good or comfortable or inspired.

    Anyone who runs for President has to be either an ambitious freak of nature or an entitled plutocrat.

    Bush is authentic. Scary, incompetent, and hateful but since he really is all these things does he earn points for keeping it real?

    I prefer Clinton but would gladly vote for any Democrat. The attitude of some Obama backers that this would not necessarily be the case if their roles were reversed worries me.

    Obama is bright and talented…and will parse words and fudge the truth as necessary to get the job done. And bless him for these very things as he’s fighting the good fight but let’s back away from the Kool-Aid. I think Dave’s comparison to Reagan is an apt one, if Obama can hoodwink as many on the right as Reagan did on the left, that is, if he can enact his agenda while people focus on his charm and affability then more power for our side but if Reagan is a model of authenticity we truly want to champion then I think we’re all in trouble.

    For the past eight years the prospect of a Clinton presidency has seemed like a fairytale compared to what we’ve had to endure. I don’t get turning up our collective noses at it now because she somehow doesn’t “feel” right. You may vote for her, but only reluctantly, while holding your nose? Really?

    The first woman President, someone who will appoint the right judges, someone who will approach healthcare, the environment, the economy, etc. with some degree of sanity, and someone who has been through the political wars and knows how to fight back effectively against the inevitable slime headed her way.

    Such a prospect has sounded pretty good to me during these years in the wilderness. It still does.

  19. Marleyfan says:

    You say he’s ruthless, calculating, and will be a sell-out. Where do you get your information? Do you have some secret website that the rest of us don’t have? Do you believe that he didn’t even use marijuana and cocaine, and that he just said it for political benefit?

    I don’t hear Obama attacking Clinton like she does him on a regular basis, even when he was behind in the election. When people describe him as authentic, they are saying that they can trust him, and it’s been a long time since we could say that about our president. I hope your wrong, but as I’ve said many times on this website, even before Obama’s slogan, hope is essential.

  20. orack bamama says:

    don’t tell anyone about the secret website…

  21. Dave says:

    You say he’s ruthless, calculating, and will be a sell-out. Where do you get your information? Do you have some secret website that the rest of us don’t have?

    I have this special power of insight called “studying the history of people who seek and obtain loads of power, in particular the presidency, and then making the obvious inference.”

    Seriously, it shouldn’t be a slam against a politician who plays on the level of Obama or Clinton that he’s an ambitious, ruthless, calculating sellout. These are the primary qualities of politicians.

  22. Cynthia says:

    trixie, not sure what you mean but thx

  23. Marleyfan says:

    I work with a man who believes all politicians are corrupt. Ironically, he happens to be the most moral, upstanding person I’ve ever known. I’ve suggested more than once that this co-worker run for office, but he’s not interested in leading.

    I have known a few people who have been in lower-level political office, who have gone into it to do their best to serve the public rather than relish in the power. My mom happens to know the current governor of Washington quite well, and believes she is this type of leader. I’ve had conversations with a couple of state senators and legislators, who also don’t seem to be in it for the power. My experience is very limited, and probably somewhat Pollyannaish, yet I believe there are many people who are in politics to serve others.

    Of course power can corrupt, and many succumb. We know that our political system has its flaws. Yet I ask- can someone compromise when necessary without discrediting his/her morals?

  24. LT says:

    My purpose in writing this post was to work through the illogical feelings I’m having about Obama and “realness.” Bellieve me, I said it was a lazy post– and II know the thesis is illogical, but I happen to be one of those heart-over-brain people, I wanted to hear some of you intellectualize and analyze my theory. Dave and Ruben, you gave me what I’d hoped– a deconstruction of my emotionally-based leanings, good reminders, and a whole bag of necessary mistrust.

    Not that this needs to be said, but I’m still voting for Obama– and I still think I would like him if I met him. But the naive heart has its limits. I will, however, try to believe, as Marleyfan puts it, that he will not “discredit his own morals” (at least as we percieve them) when/if he leads the U.S.

  25. autumn says:

    wow. all this talk about “all politicians”. I nod to Marleyfan and his two cents. It is true that we have had many examples of corruption, ineptitude and power mongering. Our history has stories of brilliance and disillusionment. Look at the current Adams mini-series for examples in just one man. I feel that Obama has acknowledged this and stands in opposition to this long time paradigm but is also subject to his own humanity as we all are.

    Obama’s personal and political history is one of consistency, courage and honor. He is an excellent orator but also an inspiring writer and tough talker. He has maintained true to himself (authentic) and to his word and does not shape-shift to try to please. This is what feels true. I say this as an Obama supporter, though I’m certain that it is obvious. I further this support with some personal examples…apologies first that this is a long one.

    #1) Africa connections:
    I spent the late Summer of 2006 in East Africa. I was in Kenya as Obama was wrapping up his ‘roots’ tour. One morning, while strolling through the grounds of the hotel I was staying at, I began a conversation with one of the employees. He was a bright eyed twenty-something man who let me take his picture with a You Are Beautiful sticker. At the time he was on break from University where he was studying political science. He was first generation out of the bush and had big plans for himself and his family. It was this man who brought up Obama to me. He said that he had went to hear him speak while he was in Kenya and Obama had greatly inspired him. At that time I knew who Obama was, I too had been inspired by his 2004 DNC speech but was not thinking presidential–not yet. Anyhow, this Kenyan went on to say something about how Obama was like a good father–that he was compassionate but tough and said things straight because it needed to be said. While at that same hotel, we were told that the adjacent golf course was the pet project of the last corrupt politician who took funds from public education to make the very private course. There were endless tails of unchecked corruption told throughout that trip, and I thought about Obama when the Kenyans recently took to the streets in political unrest. Did he inspire some to fight for change?

    #2) Shower musings:
    I often do meditative thinking while the shower. One recent morning I was asking myself, “Why don’t I want to stand with Hillary?” and the answer was that she is not the one I want now. Man or Woman. There are negatives I could list on why this is, but I’d rather give her props and applaud her for all that she has done and will go on to do. But she is entrenched in the system that we (as shown in the previous comments) are bitter about. She is cashing in on favours owed and signing new IOUs. What is ironic is that the woman that finally becomes president will owe her the greatest thanks because she is bringing that day even closer than before. But the woman I will vote for will be different.

    #3) In support of Hillary:
    I acknowledge her own fight and the strength she has shown along her path. My mom recently noted that she raised a daughter that shows the class, intelligence and grace that Chelsea does means that by that example alone, Hillary is a good woman. This made me smile. Because my mom is probably right (she is about most things) and because she followed that insight by, AND I SAY THAT AS A OBAMA SUPPORTER.

  26. Marleyfan says:

    LT, heart v. brain would be an interesting post.

  27. Beth W says:

    Before voting in the democratic primary in February, I was torn about my decision to vote for Obama. I felt that I was making a really emotional decision. Sure, his foreign policies appealed to me more than Hil’s but really I liked him and couldn’t get excited about her. I felt that as a woman and a feminist I was expected to support Hillary. Even in the voting booth, I hesitated. How can I use emotions to make such an important decision? But it came down to who I believed in. I didn’t believe Hillary when she said her candidacy was inevitable and that she could win in the general. I wanted to be excited about who I was voting for as opposed to “gee I hope this person can beat the Republican”.

    Later that month, I was telling my mom about my feminist conflict. My mom, an intelligent woman who has broken gender barriers herself, replied, “Why is it feminist to vote for Hillary? She’s just riding her husband’s coattails.” The super-feminist emerged. I’ve felt little internal conflict since. Would I/we like Hillary more if she had been working to promote her own career rather than her husband’s?

  28. autumn says:

    wow, all this talk about “all politicians”. It is true that we have had many examples of corruption, ineptitude and power mongering. Our history has stories of brilliance and disillusionment. Look at the current Adams mini-series for examples in just one man. I feel that Obama has acknowledged this and stands in opposition to this long time paradigm but is also subject to his own humanity as we all are.

    Obama’s personal and political history is one of consistency, courage and honor. He is an excellent orator but also an inspiring writer and tough talker. He has maintained true to himself (authentic) and to his word and does not shape-shift to try to please. This is what feels true. I say this as an Obama supporter, though I’m certain that it is obvious. I further this support with some personal examples…apologies first that this is a long one.

    #1) Africa connections:
    I spent the late Summer of 2006 in East Africa. I was in Kenya as Obama was wrapping up his ‘roots’ tour. One morning, while strolling through the grounds of the hotel I was staying at, I began a conversation with one of the employees. He was a bright eyed twenty-something man who let me take his picture with a You Are Beautiful sticker. At the time he was on break from University where he was studying political science. He was first generation out of the bush and had big plans for himself and his family. It was this man who brought up Obama to me. He said that he had went to hear him speak while he was in Kenya and Obama had greatly inspired him. At that time I knew who Obama was, I too had been inspired by his 2004 DNC speech but was not thinking presidential–not yet. Anyhow, this Kenyan went on to say something about how Obama was like a good father–that he was compassionate but tough and said things straight because it needed to be said. While at that same hotel, we were told that the adjacent golf course was the pet project of the last corrupt politician who took funds from public education to make the very private course. There were endless tails of unchecked corruption told throughout that trip, and I thought about Obama when the Kenyans recently took to the streets in political unrest. Did he inspire some to fight for change?

    #2) Shower musings:
    I often do meditative thinking while the shower. One recent morning I was asking myself, “Why don’t I want to stand with Hillary?” and the answer was that she is not the one I want now. Man or Woman. There are negatives I could list on why this is, but I’d rather give her props and applaud her for all that she has done and will go on to do. But she is entrenched in the system that we (as shown in the previous comments) are bitter about. She is cashing in on favours owed and signing new IOUs. What is ironic is that the woman that finally becomes president will owe her the greatest thanks because she is bringing that day even closer than before. But the woman I will vote for will be different.

    #3) In support of Hillary:
    I acknowledge her own fight and the strength she has shown along her path. My mom recently noted that she raised a daughter that shows the class, intelligence and grace that Chelsea does means that by that example alone, Hillary is a good woman. This made me smile. Because my mom is probably right (she is about most things) and because she followed that insight by, AND I SAY THAT AS A OBAMA SUPPORTER. I was certainly a proud daughter.

  29. brooke says:

    Dave, it’s funny that you would put such emphasis on Obama’s policies if you simply believe him to be duplicitous and lacking any authenticity. If he’s just saying whatever he needs to to gain office, what’s the point in backing him at all?

    Part of his message that I think attracts people like me, and you, is his desire to change how politics is done. And part of that is to be a different kind of politician, one who sticks to his words, one who is authentic. If that’s just a bunch of bs, I’ll be very disappointed. The politician Obama reminds me most of is Bobby Kennedy. While RFK certainly had his flaws, he was a stand up guy, and authentic to boot.

    Also, Obama’s policies and platform are very similar to Clinton’s, with some minor differences. What separates them in my view is that I think Obama will actually try to get his policies inacted, and has a better chance of doing so, than does Clinton. In other words, Obama’s authenticity is in no small part what separates him from his rivals. I agree with you that it’s imperative to evaluate a candidates policy positions as the primary factor in determining whether to vote for him or her (duh), but the next thing is to decide if the candidate is really going to stand behind those positions, or just bend over to please or placate someone else.

    So I don’t think it’s vapid to expect or look for authenticity in our leaders. We certainly risk being disappointed, but that’s a risk I’ve chosen to take in this instance based on the evidence I’ve collected and reviewed, as well as my evaluation of Obama’s character.

    As an aside, I don’t expect my politicians to be saintly or stay above the fray or any of that, and of course I expect them to be ambitious and clever. But I do expect them to have a solid ethical and moral bearing, and to strike a reasonable balance between the politically expedient thing and the right thing. I think Obama has demonstrated a disposition to do exactly that in this campaign and in his career Which again goes back to his authenticitiness.

    And finally, he is too my friend.

  30. PB says:

    I am so late to this conversation – and in spite of posting this week, just catching up. I should just lie back and enjoy the brilliance here – but there is something that strikes me in all this.

    I assess and supposedly “teach” leadership for a living so this issue of authenticity comes up constantly in conversations about who is promotable and who is not. To Lisa’s point in #9, people always get bogged down by the seemingly undefinable sense of who we trust and who we don’t. But in my quest to put behavior around the voodoo I have come to think that authenticity has something to do with the ability to accurately read and respond to an audience. Authenticity is about connection and people who read more “authentic” have the quality of making their constituents feel that they have been completely heard and understood, that the world has fallen away and only they exist for the leader at that moment. I hear the audience say, “How did they know? That is exactly how it is. It was as if she was speaking right to me!” The “audience” feels as though the leader is one of them, can represent them, even knows them on some deeper level than everyone else. I have observed that it can be manipulated but of course not manufactured. Leading authentically does require the leader to ask questions, to listen with voracious curiosity, to read people’s face, body and words carefully, to give credence to vibe and gut and be able to give back a match for all this data. You can see this in the office micro-world everyday.

    What strikes me about Hillary (and her doppleganger Mitt) is that they are trying so hard to do all this and yet somehow still living in these bubbles where they just don’t get the audience. I would agree with Dave that ultimately this is only a beginning, that their work and record has to back up the initial connection, but I would argue that at least in the case of my micro-world, really successful leaders keep this “call and response” relationship as part of their policy, effectively finding a balance between their own expertise and the expressed needs of the people they are leading. Warren Bennis compares this process to tossing a ball back and forth, the power has to be constantly in motion.

    I want so much to connect with Hillary, I think she is a smart woman and might make a good president. But she does not read authentic and it will be interesting to see if her stiffness is rooted in simply a poor media prescence or a lack of true understanding for her rank and file constituent.

    But Lisa – look at the dialogue you have generated! Lazy? I think not! If you just had more maps and thought about children in South Africa, you would me fine.

  31. Dave says:

    Clearly I have more work to do here, but for now, a related thought from Yglesias.

  32. PB says:

    Dave-
    MB and I just had a huge heated debate – he says my comment is crap.

    MB says George B Shaw defined authenticity best (paraphrased of course):
    In Pygmalion Eliza says to Henry Higgins, I am leaving you because you treat me like shit. I am going to be with (the young guy) because he treats me like a queen. Henry says, I treat you like shit because I treat everyone like shit, that is who I am. (The young guy) treats you like a queen because he wants you to be with him, he might treat other people like shit.

    To MB what bugs him about Hillary is that she will do anything to win, reguardless of who she is – he thinks it is an internal measure.

    Whatever. I think it was my longest comment ever – even if it is crap – it is authentically long.

    Keep doing your good work Dave – there is time for us.

  33. bw says:

    oops. my bad in rescuing #25 from the spam bin w/o realizing the same one eventually made it through a couple comments later. sigh.