We also must remember Monica herself in recent years described what happened as, “I was young, naive’…” By definition the younger we are the more narcissistic we tend to be, the more we look at what we want, less what’s wrong, what’s right.
It’s an age thing.
To be clear Bill was absolutely being narcissistic too, and being older, in the position he was in, married, and knowing he was being hunted, he damn well should have known better. Just considering how much older he was there’s an element of narcissism to it all. If I could pick a famous phrase to explain what this proved to Bill it would be what Will Smith said in I, Robot? to someone missing the obvious, “You’re the stupidest smart person I’ve ever met.”
Recently I’ve been defending Hillary on several liberal Facebook pages. Let’s be clear: I’m more philosophically in tune with Bernie, and I don’t care for the more mega-corporate friendly stances both Clintons have taken over the years. I do think she shifts a little too easy. Yet, I also believe “shifting” and changing positions is not a fault in itself. And one must look at several factors: what her job was at the time, and where we were during that time in history. A Secretary of Defense’s job, just to provide one example, is not to be divisive, or support any agenda she might have if she had been elected president. Her job is to support the president and his agenda: period. Another example: many years after after 9/11 congressmen and congresswomen were showed extremely skewed evidence: some inconsistency would not be unexpected. I do admit Bernie has been far more consistent. I would also say for many of these issues he had the luxury, representing Vermont, of being more consistent: except on gun issues. And, well, you know he wasn’t exactly consistent on that, right?
Meanwhile, over at the Facebook page for The Thom Hartmann Show FB page, a vid was posted that, once again, had me in defensive mode. Damn trolls, stop making me defend Hillary!
It starts with music so ominous I swear the ghost of Goebbels must be jealous. Then it proceeds to offer severely clipped, poorly edited, Hillary quotes, all that made me wonder, “OK, what did she say before, and after, the editor didn’t want me to hear?” At one point the narrator lied about what she actually said. And at least one of the comments she made well, admittedly, is a bit problematic for her.
What disturbs me the most about this is what I keep seeing this all over Facebook on different leftward sites. It’s always some supposed Bernie supporter hacking at Hillary while claiming Bernie more pure.
Sidebar time! A question: if Hillary’s “surrogates” are to be vilified as if they are mere marionettes of some evil bitch queen starting with the letter “H,” what proves you NOT a surrogate in a similar sense if you’re providing the smears?
BTW, I don’t buy into the whole “surrogate” meme. People supporting either are perfectly free to argue for their candidate, and that doesn’t mean these attacks collectively represent some Attack of the Hillary (or Bernie) Clones. But I do notice a lot of these names are possible trolls since I rarely, if ever, see them post, or when they do they’re always trying to stir up trouble that… amazing!!! …works in favor of the other side.
Right now it seems most likely Hillary will be the candidate, however Bernie is on the rise. I wish them both well and for unity after. I’m not demanding anyone must be “nice,” but I am asking everyone to recognize there are paid sock puppets out there, also known as trolls. This has been a tactic financed by the Kochs and others on the right for a long time. You can hear them on leftward talk shows where it’s as if they’re reading from the same script.
And, as a final note, I don’t find consistency any more appealing than change for change’s sake. But we do change, learn, grow opinion-wise. That’s a good thing. Some folks more on the left these days once were on the right. That’s me, David Brock, Stephanie Miller and many others. I consider that a strength, and in some ways better than absolute consistency. Anyone who had never changed a single opinion, especially if they’re well over half a century old, is probably a crank and can’t see either the forest, or the trees.
Now I have no doubt if Hillary ascends she will back away from some positions she says she has now. Barack Obama did. If Bernie doesn’t he’ll most likely be out in four years, especially with the Congress we’re most likely to have. Any president has to go where they’re most likely to succeed when seeking success. Even Roosevelt had to tell activists on the left at one point if they really wanted them to do something, “Make me.”
There is one exception, politically: when you’re an extremist who keeps getting elected because you keep appealing to highly motivated fanatics, goose-steppers, Brownshirt-like thugs and whacked out handjobs. These are the kind of voters who would vote in pure evil as long as they stimulate their never satisfied hard on for hate. They also have plenty of choices on the right to choose from.
We certainly need far less of those kind of candidates in office.
-30-
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks, and into the unseen cracks and crevasses,that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
©Copyright 2015
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all right reserved