Unfortunately, when she tries to present to present herself as an upbeat, good-humoured, fun-lovin', all-American kinda gal, this tends to happen...
...utterly bonkers hyper-manic patient with a cackle that would shatter a double-glazed window at twenty paces...
Nurse...
Patient...
N...
P...
The Donald or Hillary? How the hell did the most powerful country on the planet end up faced with the worst choice since Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter? If only Ted Cruz had been taller, better-looking and less televangelically oleaginous.
I swear that the BBC's North America editor, Jon Sopel, did a report from the Democratic Convention floor the other night that came across like the sort of over-excited video a pop fan might post on their Facebook feed. It reminded me of the night of Neil Kinnock's disastrous 1992 "We're all right!" Sheffield Rally, when the BBC's political editor, John "Hondootedly" Cole, did a live piece-to-camera from the hall and told the Nine O'Clock News audience that the event - and, in particular, Kinnock's repellent performance - had been a stonking success. Caught up in the glitz and the glamour and the excitement, this normally sober and sensible commentator (okay, he was a bit of a Stalinist, but we all have our faults) shouted, "The atmosphere's just like a pop concert!" It turned out that the British electorate didn't actually want a would-be pop star as prime minister, and the rally was later blamed for helping to keep John Major in No. 10. Similarly, when Sopel - jostling his way through the crowds of happy Democrats on the convention floor last week - assured us that the difference the Democrat and Republican conventions had been "like night and day", I couldn't help reflecting that left-wing TV journalists caught up in the brouhaha of a partisan event tend to get things horribly wrong.
It might just be time to put some money on a Trump victory. (And I never thought I'd write those words.)
I enjoyed your shots of Mrs Clinton until I was reminded that there was nobody on the other side. She is the best America [and we] can hope for.
ReplyDeleteThe only British politician of recent vintage that smiled in this half-witted, demonic way was Jeremy Thorpe [the British have generally lagged behind the Americans in the dental work department - remember Harold MacMillan?]
The big question you could answer for me is why do Democrats like Obama and the Clintons repeatedly point at and feign great delight when they spot certain members of the audience at public gatherings?
Also why are so many delegates at the respective conventions standing there with big, oily tears rolling down their cheeks? What the hell are they crying about? Nobody has been elected to the Presidency yet.
Ah, yes, the old pretending to know someone in the audience, pointing at no one in particular, and grinning like an idiot ploy! Rock bands go in for it in a big way (Status Quo's Francis Rossi does it every 10 seconds or so), and I presume politicians have picked the habit up from them. I think it's supposed to signal that the politician is a people person. Which Hillary Clinton so much isn't.
DeleteThe tears? In this instance, it could be sheer amazement that a political outsider like the wife of a two-term president backed by a paltry $350m (conservative estimate) has actually been chosen as the Democratic Party candidate. What an astonishing achievement! Or maybe it's genuine amazement that their party has chosen someone so unbelievably charmless and corrupt.
A horror fiction writer could resurrect their career with Hilary on the front book jacket cover-which photo to choose though?
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of balance can we please have a similar gallery of His Trumpship's visage ?
DeleteMs Clinton's photographs might then look like illustrations in a children's story.
The most horrific photo of all will be the one of her being sworn is as president, southern man.
DeleteI've been so rude about Trump on so many occasions already, Riley - he really does make my flesh crawl - that I thought it was time to balance the books and have a go at Lady Macbeth, who is equally ghastly. Were I an American, I'd be voting for the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, even though I'm no libertarian (I suspect it's what a lot of Republicans are intending to do, as well as many Bernie Sanders supporters - what a mess!)
To me it looks as if GDP likes to shoot themselves in the foot in every recent presidential elections. back in 08 they pitted unconvincing and senile looking McCain against a young, rock-star looking ( according to Jon Stewart)and not to mention first of his kind: Obama.
ReplyDeletenext they choose Romney, again a no match for his greatness Mr. eloquent Obama . and now this compilation of all flavors of Tomfoolery is supposed to win against well orchestrated well funded campaign of Mr. & Mrs. scandals aka Underwoods ?
you mean to tell me there wasn't any reasonable enough candidate they could find?
Man, I hate this world.surely I'm in the wrong universe.
From over here, it looks as if the people who run the Republican Party - much like the Conservative Party - don't much care who their candidate is, as long as that person doesn't have strong conservative or right-wing political convictions and won't disturb the status quo. This time, they had a choice between a mega-rich Big Government populist TV star and a genuine right-wing conservative (Cruz) - but as Cruz evidently has strong political convictions (and a contempt for milquetoast Republican bosses), the Party bosses seemed to hate him even more than they did Trump. The impression I got (and I could be wrong) is that the Republican Party bosses will always prefer a business-as-usual Democrat president to a genuine conservative Republican one - otherwise, as you say, why such a sorry sequence of no-hope candidates, and why have they ended up with a truly unelectable idiot (let's face it - just about anyone else but Trump would have beaten Hillary Clinton)? The difference between the Republicans and the Conservatives, as far as I can see, is that the Tories are convinced they're the natural party of government, while the Republicans evidently don't - if the presidency interested them, then presumably they'd make sure their delegates chose someone who could actually win the damn thing!
ReplyDeleteAs for Hillary and Trump, as Henry Kissinger said of the Iran-Iraq war - it's a pity they can't both lose.
" ..just about anyone else but Trump would have beaten Hillary Clinton" So damn true.
ReplyDeleteAnd watching news channels has become so unbearable for quite some time, while all liberal media praising Hillary and smirking at her idiot opponent's latest blunders, Fox and the likes defend Trump poorly and laughably.(in their defense: it's hard to justify somebody so self-damaging) so, maybe you're right. They don't intend to win. and who knows for what other reasons. at least in 08 the main reason was clear: they felt the country owes one presidency to black people and white guilt helped the cause a lot.. soo,what about now? Do they feel they owe one to women as well ?? no matter how disastrous it can become? who in their right mind can describe Obama's presidency a successful one? what he achieved
domestically ? how many times he gave in to tyrants in Kremlin and elsewhere and had to follow their lead in Syria etc. ? I'd say Putin and Asad benefited from his weak stance hugely to say the least. and I don't want to even imagine the consequences of having Hillary in that office. and all this mess for the sake of having a female POTUS so the world recognize we're not discriminated against colored people or make feminists happy??
Can't help but remember Jon Stewart's joke about whenever in Hollywood movies we have a black man or a woman president, an asteroid is about to hit the Statue of Liberty!