Friday, July 16, 2004
All the Way for the USA
So it turns out that Hillary Clinton will be speaking at the Democratic Convention after all. She wasn't on the initial list of speakers, but after a great deal of tutting and clucking, the Kerry campaign invited her to speak. (She will apparently introduce Bill.) The tutting and clucking included plenty of speculation regarding just how much the Clintons really want Kerry to win. Clearly, Hillary would be a major contender in 2008 if Kerry goes down in November. (I saw somebody this week handicapping 2008 as a two-horse race between Hillary and John Edwards, which is a case of premature speculation if ever there was one.) In fact, Bill came out this morning and promised that Hillary wouldn't run against an incumbent Kerry in 2008. But Hillary will be only 65 in 2012, which is by no means too old to make the race then--except she'd probably still have to run against Edwards, who'd be an eight-year incumbent VP by then.
Nevertheless, to suggest that the Clintons want Kerry to lose now so that Hillary could win later on is pretty silly, really. They may be ambitious people, but they're also smart people--and, I would submit, they are people who genuinely care about the fate of their country. And they have to know that four more years of scorched earth under Bush would be worse for the country than their having to wait awhile for the chance to govern the country. If they campaign for Kerry with less than total enthusiasm, well, first, how will we know, exactly? And second, what difference will it make? Their appeal as campaigners is unquantifiable--and depends entirely on what the observer wants to see.
Speaking of Democratic Convention speakers, the main keynoter is going to be Barack Obama of Illinois, who's running against whoever the Republicans can find for a U.S. Senate seat. (Howard Dean is also going to get to speak, as is my representative in Congress, Tammy Baldwin.) I read someplace yesterday that Illinois representative Jan Schakowsky was part of a group meeting with Bush at the White House recently, and she was wearing an Obama for Senate campaign button. She said that when Bush saw it, he actually jumped--and she had to explain that Obama and Osama are not the same thing at all. Too bad. We know where Barack Obama is.
Recommended Reading: Mark Morford imagines a conversation between a couple of hookers gearing up for the Republican Convention, which is apparently great for the vice business wherever it meets. (I can't help fearing, however, that the tone of the column is the same kind of thing that got Morford suspended by SF Gate for several weeks earlier this year.) Despite what you'd think, there are studies showing that Republicans tend to have lots of sex and enjoy it. Years ago I read about a study that said born-again Christian couples tend to get it on more often than liberal couples do, and born-again Christian women report being more orgasmic than liberal women. But as we know, Democratic women are generally more attractive than Republican women, and speaking as a Democratic man, I think we can make the same generalization for the male gender. So what do you get when you mix horned-up Republicans with attractive Democrats? An organization called Fuck the Vote, which offers conservatives the chance to have sex with a liberal hottie, provided they refuse to vote for Bush in November. (The link is definitely not safe for work.) You can also volunteer to be a liberal hottie, provided you have the looks for it. And, of course, the stomach.
New on The Hits Just Keep On Comin': Friday Top 5: Muzak in Hell.
So it turns out that Hillary Clinton will be speaking at the Democratic Convention after all. She wasn't on the initial list of speakers, but after a great deal of tutting and clucking, the Kerry campaign invited her to speak. (She will apparently introduce Bill.) The tutting and clucking included plenty of speculation regarding just how much the Clintons really want Kerry to win. Clearly, Hillary would be a major contender in 2008 if Kerry goes down in November. (I saw somebody this week handicapping 2008 as a two-horse race between Hillary and John Edwards, which is a case of premature speculation if ever there was one.) In fact, Bill came out this morning and promised that Hillary wouldn't run against an incumbent Kerry in 2008. But Hillary will be only 65 in 2012, which is by no means too old to make the race then--except she'd probably still have to run against Edwards, who'd be an eight-year incumbent VP by then.
Nevertheless, to suggest that the Clintons want Kerry to lose now so that Hillary could win later on is pretty silly, really. They may be ambitious people, but they're also smart people--and, I would submit, they are people who genuinely care about the fate of their country. And they have to know that four more years of scorched earth under Bush would be worse for the country than their having to wait awhile for the chance to govern the country. If they campaign for Kerry with less than total enthusiasm, well, first, how will we know, exactly? And second, what difference will it make? Their appeal as campaigners is unquantifiable--and depends entirely on what the observer wants to see.
Speaking of Democratic Convention speakers, the main keynoter is going to be Barack Obama of Illinois, who's running against whoever the Republicans can find for a U.S. Senate seat. (Howard Dean is also going to get to speak, as is my representative in Congress, Tammy Baldwin.) I read someplace yesterday that Illinois representative Jan Schakowsky was part of a group meeting with Bush at the White House recently, and she was wearing an Obama for Senate campaign button. She said that when Bush saw it, he actually jumped--and she had to explain that Obama and Osama are not the same thing at all. Too bad. We know where Barack Obama is.
Recommended Reading: Mark Morford imagines a conversation between a couple of hookers gearing up for the Republican Convention, which is apparently great for the vice business wherever it meets. (I can't help fearing, however, that the tone of the column is the same kind of thing that got Morford suspended by SF Gate for several weeks earlier this year.) Despite what you'd think, there are studies showing that Republicans tend to have lots of sex and enjoy it. Years ago I read about a study that said born-again Christian couples tend to get it on more often than liberal couples do, and born-again Christian women report being more orgasmic than liberal women. But as we know, Democratic women are generally more attractive than Republican women, and speaking as a Democratic man, I think we can make the same generalization for the male gender. So what do you get when you mix horned-up Republicans with attractive Democrats? An organization called Fuck the Vote, which offers conservatives the chance to have sex with a liberal hottie, provided they refuse to vote for Bush in November. (The link is definitely not safe for work.) You can also volunteer to be a liberal hottie, provided you have the looks for it. And, of course, the stomach.
New on The Hits Just Keep On Comin': Friday Top 5: Muzak in Hell.
