Stop being naive about the Democrats. Geffen sits down for an interview with the Poison Pen of the New York Times, the Democratic Party's answer to Luella Parsons, and you think it just happened?
Well, finally some top-notch analysis to sink teeth into! Yummy, Andrew, Thanks for the political Dove Bar.
It's true. Who knows what really happened, but if anyone knows how to create a winner, it's Geffen (not pick 'em, but create 'em).
If Geffen really thinks that the mood of the nation is to yearn for a unity figure, foremost, then I'm no one to second guess his expertise and I have a lot of company. If he is really on about war as an end rather than his means, then I would second-guess his judgment that the mood in the country has yet shifted to pacifism and he it's clear he doesn't have the Clintons on board. For them, "mistake" = "soft on defense" at the hands of the GOP spinsters in the national election, and the have already made their decision that they aren't going to go there, for good or for ill among the Democratic base. If he'd just like for Clinton to earn it, then that's good too.
On "authenticity", I think there is probably a Mark Twain quote in that somewhere, about expecting truth from politicians. Show me an authentic politician and I'll show you the party's stooge. Joking aside, I'll bet that perception is everything here, still, at this stage.
There is an authentic story about Hillary, about her as a girl growing up and so forth, but she doesn't tell it ... like, like ... Ronald Reagan told his or George H.W. Bush told his. Also, she is guarded, as one must be in politics, so she doesn't come across with the kind of dripping authenticity that Geraldine "Let-me-just-say-this" Ferraro did (Rudy is really Ferraro in drag ...). Last, it depends on how much the election turns out to be a vote against Bush, who was very, very authentic as a candidate, but, in the end, more polarizing than a dollar bill on the floor in the middle of the room.
sullylink
