Fascinoma

In an endorsement that packs a cliche into every sentence, The New York Times thinks Hillary Clinton is the best choice for the Democrats because she's "brilliant" and she "has learned" and she "has experience." But if she's so brilliant why has she been so gutlessly shitty as a Senator? Why can't I remember any bon mots she's added to the discourse, something other than the same sort of condescending middlebrow mediocrity that the Times traffics in. Why isn't she talking about FISA, the U.S. Attorney scandal, the numberless obvious crimes of the current administration. Because she's a gutless, calculating, go-along-to-get-ahead banality.

She will be a disaster on the campaign trail, energizing every creep in the Fasciosphere to come out and unlearn the lessons of the last eight years, ensuring that the GOP will steal many more elections and get away with it again. Mitt Romney said last night: Hillary and Bill represent what's wrong with Washington, why would we send them back? Of course it's Bushco that repsresents what's wrong with Washington, but Bill and Hill make the GOP outsider-maverick meme hypnotically vivid to the couch potatoes and mouthbreathers.

Even if she were to be elected she would be hamstrung in everything she does by the coordination of the GOP and the corporate media. And even if she weren't she would still be a bad President. She's in a bubble of her own, surrounded by sycophants ("loyalists" is the journo term), responds badly to criticism, show's no particular allegiance to the truth, and again, has no particular history of courage or effective leadership. So, with all the negatives and no discernible positives except the D after her name, why again...?

And of course why would we listen to the Times? They just hired Bill Kristol.