« Paging Mr. Burr | Main | Trickle down »

The stars come out -- and go back in

By Michael J. Smith on Tuesday April 11, 2006 07:50 PM

Tim D passed along an item from the UK Guardian:
With its liberal politics and radical attitudes, Hollywood should be one place in America where Hillary Clinton can count on fervent and loyal support.

But as the former First Lady gears up for a run at the White House her nascent campaign has hit an unexpected roadblock. A lengthening list of top Hollywood celebrities have publicly criticised her ambitions. From George Clooney to Sharon Stone to Susan Sarandon, the Beverly Hills set has turned on Clinton.

Radical attitudes? What country are these Brits from, anyway? But still, this sounds like awfully good news, doesn't it? Everybody has heard the old expression -- "ignorant as an actor" -- and if these celluloid megaliths are starting to turn on Hillary, then surely, you'd think, everybody must have seen through her?

Our man continues:

Many experts now believe Clinton is likely to face a challenge from an anti-war candidate in the Democratic primaries. That is most likely to be the liberal Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold, who has a cult following among internet-based activists of the kind who propelled the brief but spectacular surge by Howard Dean in 2004.
Ahh yes, those terrifying primaries. Hillary must be quaking in her Prada boots. But even a Brit can see the bottom line, all the way across the Atlantic:
...experts believe the liberals - including the sniping Hollywood stars - will eventually get behind her. 'Who else will these people vote for?' asked [Professor Shaun Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California]. 'In the end their anger at Bush and their anger at Republicans is going to be far greater than any dissatisfaction with Hillary Clinton.'
Trust a guy with a little distance to put it in a nutshell. There you have the whole ratchet effect in one short paragraph: the fact that Hillary can count on the liberals' votes at crunch time, in the general election, no matter how much she sickens them, is the very thing that enables her to do her dirty work. Hollywood will piss and moan and make grand defiant gestures at primary time for some beautiful loser like Feingold -- and then help put her in the White House, or try to, come November. We've said it before here, but I guess we need to keep saying it -- these lesser-evil votes and efforts are not only wasted, they are the gasoline in the triangulationists' tank. And Hillary will get her Hummer's tank topped off by Hollywood, and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, and probably by The Nation, for that matter, when it counts.

Comments (2)

js paine:

soap box moment:

asocial con-science
is a precious and
loveable thing

a stars con-science
can be an ever so grand
(if he or she has
the time to locate
and then
cultivate " one "
their busy head )

but its no substitute
for the class and race burns suffered
by millions of souls
wallowing in obscurity

we need a pleb/prole onslaught

a mob party
not willing to be detained
or quenched by
a simple topple
a token
a mere change
of head gear

Indeed, liberals will sometimes whine and moan about Democratic Party politicians, but when push comes to shove, they vote Democrat come November. That's what they did in 2004; why should 2008 be any different?

But the point is worth emphasizing that Russ Feingold would also support Hillary Clinton in November. As much as liberals might consider someone like Feingold their savior, the reality is that he is as much a part of the Democratic Party political machine as Clinton is. "Progressive" Democrats will line and support prowar Democrats in their party. I have said this before, and I will say it again: there is no such thing as a "good" Democrat. Any Democratic politician whatsoever is really part of the procorporate, proimperialist machinery, and all of them, from Kucinich to Feingold, know which side their bread is buttered on. If these politicians were really "good", they wouldn't be Democrats.

So the real problem goes farther than that liberals will support Clinton in November; liberals are also wrong to be supporting Feingold before the nomination is decided. The real solution is not to support the Democrats at all.

Post a comment

Note also that comments with three or more links may be held for "moderation" -- a strange term to apply to the ghost in this blog's machine. Seems to be a hard-coded limitation of the blog software, unfortunately.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on Tuesday April 11, 2006 07:50 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Paging Mr. Burr.

The next post in this blog is Trickle down.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License

This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31