Friday, January 27, 2012

Scary Stupid Headupassitis

For the umpteenth time, Hillary Clinton has said she's leaving politics. She's not interested in running for President. She's finished. Done. Retired. For the time being. At least after this stint as Secretary of State.

According to an article in today's Guardian, she's bowing out of public life after the November elections.

She told state department employees on Thursday she was ready for a rest and is paying no attention to the Republican presidential candidate debates. She said she wanted to find out how tired she was after being first lady, senator, aspiring presidential candidate and finally the US secretary of state.

"I have made it clear that I will certainly stay on until the president nominates someone and that transition can occur [if Obama wins re-election," she told a meeting. "But I think after 20 years, and it will be 20 years, of being on the high wire of American politics and all of the challenges that come with that, it would be probably a good idea to just find out how tired I am."

But, she appeared to leave the door open to a possible eventual return, adding to laughter from the crowd that "everyone always says that when they leave these jobs".

I don't know how many times this woman has to clarify her point. Besides, most Secretaries of State serve only one Presidential term anyway. Warren Christopher made way for Madeleine Albright. Colin Powell stepped aside for Condi Rice. And Hillary will defer to someohne else - possibly John Kerry or Bill Richardson or even James Webb.

The Clintonistas hate that, but, as the article states, she's not ruling out a return, and as much as Bill Keller and the rest of the herd might wish for a Vice-Presidential position on the 2012 ticket, she's still seen by people like Ed Rendell as a viable Presidential candidate for 2016. Who knows?

As Hillary says, she's got to retire to realise how tired she is, and at times during the past three years, she's looked exhausted.

I wish Hillary well in whatever she does. I would have voted for her in 2008, had she won the nomination, and I'd vote for her in 2016, if she secures it then.

What's scary about this announcement are the reactions by some of The Guardian's American commentators and their total and dangerous naivete.

Like jimbojamesiv:

Hillary's departure would be a reason to vote for Barack, and, yet, Obama still blows, so I can't.

Don't vote, occupy and opt-out.

Stand by the principle that the system is broken beyond repair.

Do not legitimize the corruption by participating. It's what each one of the decent persons must die, granted there aren't a lot of them, but there are enough to topple all the corrupt regimes, which includes basically every so-called nation-state.

Or overhead. who's clearly in over his own:-

Vote third party. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Then MonkEMan, apparently a sane voice in the wilderness of stupidity:-

Protesting by making yourself silent and powerless is stupid beyond belief. Protest and occupy - yes. But get out and vote as well.

Only to be answered by the perennially obtuse OldSlov:-

If nobody voted, then the current process would lose its legitimacy. That is sorely needed, because we effectively have a democratic dictatorship. We seem to be under the illusion that we have a choice when everything was decided a long time ago.

There seems to be a couple of stupidity epidemics raging at the moment. I can't decide whether this singular resistance against voting is the legacy of the Occupy movement, which - whilst emphasizing income inequality - does nothing to alleviate this by encouraging people not to vote. Not voting, or voting third party, would give all the ammunition necessary to the party who's insistent that income disparity should be even greater, that women and minorities give up any equal rights achieved and that education, environment and health suffer all the worse for it.

That's not just stupidity; that's cussed headupassitis - and that's scary.

No comments:

Post a Comment