28
Ugh
OK, it’s no secret that I’m an Obama guy and that the Clinton campaign has done some stuff lately that’s ticked me off.
But still. There is no excuse for this level of Richard Cohen wankery:
So it could be that Clinton would lose the Democratic nomination even if she were a gifted politician. But she has no such gift. Her smile is strained. She is contained. She seems unknowable, and there is that melancholy Billie Holiday air about her — all those songs about a suffering woman. Most of us would prefer Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow),” the upbeat theme of Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign.
Why does every Washington pundit think they’re qualified to psychoanalyze politicians? Can someone please tell me where Richard Cohen got his degree in therapy?
[Walks off mumbling and grunting.]
Singularity said,
February 28, 2008 at 17:15
Why, from Wanker U, of course!
moondancer said,
February 28, 2008 at 17:16
RE: NYT Op-Ed staff
There’s Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, and a group of self absorbed assholes. Probably time to survey your staff and make some changes.
Seitz said,
February 28, 2008 at 17:19
Hollywood Upstairs Medical College?
Prospero said,
February 28, 2008 at 17:19
Her smile is strained.
She is contained.
She seems unknowable,
And there is that melancholy…
Maybe Cohen should be forced to rap out his column. Would that be improvement?
fardels bear said,
February 28, 2008 at 17:22
Even if he were a licensed medical practitioner, he would insist on seeing the patient before making a diagnosis and becoming familiar with the patient thorugh a close examination of the patient’s medical history and consulting with the patient’s previous medical caretakers.
The idea that any medical person would make a diagnosis simply by veiwing some videotape is laughable! No one would take such a doctor seriously and would instantly proclaim such a diagnosis as a cheap political trick rather than having any basis in medical expertise.
That sort of thing just doesn’t happen in the twenty-first century US.
Susan of Texas said,
February 28, 2008 at 17:24
I love to pretend to psychoanalyze politicians. It annoys conservatives so very much. But I never dreamed anyone would pay for it. Especially since he bases his analysis on Village gossip about Clinton’s affair.
dbt said,
February 28, 2008 at 17:25
They don’t feel compelled to do it for every politician — this is simply part of The Clinton Rules Of Press Conduct.
Sickduck said,
February 28, 2008 at 17:26
I think it’s the law or something: nothing positive can ever be said about Hillary in particular and the Clintons in general. Bill Clinton’s Fairy Tale remark will be distorted and reviled forever, while Michelle Obama’s Proud for the first time remark will be quickly excused and swept under the carpet.
gbear said,
February 28, 2008 at 17:27
Has Cohen checked to see if she paints her toenails black and listens to old Ministry CDs in her car?
Zifnab said,
February 28, 2008 at 17:35
Ok, come on. Be fair.
Clinton has always come across as a bit stiff. That Cohen picks up on this might be less than tactful – kinda like pointing out that McCain’s ridiculous comb-over isn’t hiding the fact that he’s bald – but its not like you need a Ph.D. to catch what he’s saying.
It was easy to love Bill Clinton because he was relaxed, he had musical talent, and he didn’t let on that he was screwing your wife. Hillary is the polar opposite – incredibly uptight and insecure when she’s in front of a camera for a debate. Her laughs are strained, her face is locked in that plastic grin… she just doesn’t look good. I’m sorry.
This doesn’t say anything about how she would govern (I’ll leave that to her voting history and her choice of Mark Penn as campaign manager). But it does say a great deal about how she reflects with people. Her image just needs work.
Jim said,
February 28, 2008 at 17:35
Given the cartoonishness of his assumptions?
Wossamotta U.
OneMan said,
February 28, 2008 at 17:53
Her smile is strained
She acts all constrained
She appears unknowable
All Billy Holiday pained
She goes to a state
only generates hate
Wants to think ’bout tomorrow
Yesterday is her fate
Cohen thinks she should quit
He’s on top of that shit
Says the girl can’t campaign
He’s a pundit, that’s it.
witty1 said,
February 28, 2008 at 17:58
Shorter Cohen:
A gifted politician is someone who can sell us their lies convincingly, and that politician is not George W. Bush, er, I mean Hillary Clinton.
MrWonderful said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:00
What Zinfab said, plus this:
Hillary doesn’t fake-emote smoothly. Her laugh is genuine but when she raises her voice to “inspire” people or “rally the troops,” she sounds forced and grating and insincere and, therefore, condescending.
I don’t think she’s condescending as a person (the way, e.g., Bush is–Bush, who while his own intellectual poverty is on display, nonetheless thinks everyone *else* is stupid). It just comes across that way.
If Bill is Slick Willy, the untrustworthy salesman, Hillary is the Ballbusting Bitch, who “forces” you to do the right thing and “doesn’t let” you have a good time.
Of course, it’s not her psychology that’s of interest here. It’s the personalities and unexamined fears and assumptions of all her enemies. I prefer Obama because Clinton is too mobbed-up, corporatism-istically speaking. But it’s those who loathe her who are the real psych cases.
MrWonderful said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:02
Sorry.
Zifnab.
Legalize said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:04
Teh University of East Wankistan. Go, Gophers!
SamFromUtah said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:06
Great work, OneMan!
It reminds me of my favorite band, Mystik Spiral.
christian h. said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:06
moondancer, it’s Richard “I decide what’s funny” Cohen from the Post, not Roger “Europe must help us invade more countries” Cohen from the Times.
Also, Rich is a total wanker. His Clinton/Gore – hatred has been as pathological as anybody’s, for a long time. Krugman and (mostly) Herbert are the only op-ed writers at the Times who are bearable.
J— said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:11
There are categories of gifted politicians. Hillary Clinton’s gifts are not necessarily those Cohen insists she should have. She’s a two-term senator from one of the most important states in the country and serves on the Senate committees on armed forces; environment; health, education, and labor; and aging. That’s not exactly fail. No, she doesn’t have the charisma her husband and Obama have, but given that a great deal of the presidential race is a popularity contest, I’d say she’s doing pretty well despite this.
Five of Diamonds said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:13
It’s profitable to demonize and make scurrilous conclusions about the Clintons’ character. There’s an industry devoted to that very topic.
Tone In DC said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:14
I think Cohen borrowed C. Krauthammer’s shrink credentials.
The Washington Post’s columnists are predominantly a sorry bunch (Applebaum, Cohen, Krauthammer, Hiatt, Mallaby, Novak, Will, Broder and Gerson come to mind).
Hillary does not come across very well sometimes, but the press loves bashing her so much that every gaffe is magnified as if by the Hubble.
OneMan said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:14
uh-thankyew. uh-thankyewverymuch.
I’ll check out Mystik Spiral. Always on the lookout for good bands.
mikey said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:15
The press has done such a hideous, ludicrous job of covering these campaigns, there’s at least a possibility that something good will come of it. People aren’t stupid, but they do tend to act the part. But eventually, if you keep leaving a flaming bag of poo on their doorstep day after day, the time will come when they learn not to stamp on it.
And then what? Then there is on place for the press and their beltway insiders to go. No way to capture the “credibility” they’ve been awarded without reason for far too long.
Will it happen? I don’t know. But I know that they just keep getting more outlandish and more out of touch. And that has GOT to come with an expiration date…
mikey
atheist said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:15
I think that pundits like to psychoanalyze politicians because it is easy to make almost anything you say sound semi-credible that way. Since they have the mass media at their disposal, pundits only need to suggest things in order to effectively attack people. And since what the pundit is saying is 100% subjective anyway, it is very hard to effectively disagree- there are no underlying facts to attack.
Also, while an actual psychoanalysis would take a lot of skill, work, and objectivity, the kind of bullshit psychoanalysis that pundits specialize in is the easiest damn thing in the world. It takes almost no skill, competence, or knowledge whatsoever. Which makes it a perfect tactic for someone like Richard Cohen.
atheist said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:16
But eventually, if you keep leaving a flaming bag of poo on their doorstep day after day, the time will come when they learn not to stamp on it.
It would be nice, but I’m not holding my breath.
SamFromUtah said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:17
I’ll check out Mystik Spiral.
They’re fictitious, sorry. The rhyme scheme in your (Cohen’s?) lyrics reminded me of one of their songs.
Blue Buddha said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:20
The same place where John Gray (of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus fame) got his psychology degree: a degree mill.
Zifnab said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:21
“–She’s a two-term senator from one of the most important states in the country and serves on the Senate committees on armed forces; environment; health, education, and labor; and aging. That’s not exactly fail.–”
She ran as a Democrat in New York against a no-name opponent without any real financial backing or grassroots support. She got on all those panels because of her political connections, not her military experience or education background or union credentials.
That’s not exactly “fail”, but – much like being on the model UN or getting picked class President – it says more about your networking skills than your leadership skills.
Again, its worth noting that McCain isn’t much better. He sat out most of Vietnam in a POW camp getting poked with bamboo poles. Somehow “torture victim” makes him a stellar candidate for President, despite his being the most pro-torture candidate in the race. But we’re supposed to ignore his extensive lobbyist ties and repeated policy flip-flops, along with his hopelessly naive view of Iraq.
Both of these candidates tout “leadership” and “experience” as their biggest selling points. I see McCain bandy off after Bush in lock-step support and I see Clinton make gaff after gaff on the campaign trail.
On top of all that, neither of them come across as particularly photogenic. That Cohen decides to talk about Hillary’s laugh lines rather than her fiscal policy proves how shallow and inane our punditry has become. But if you’re going to judge people on looks, at least he hits the mark.
Zifnab said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:26
Ok, I’d like to apologize. I’m getting way, way, way to serious on a blog entitled Sadly, No!
So, here:
Richard Cohen clearly obtained his Ph.D. in psychology from the Wolf Blitzer Halloween Facial Grooming Technical Institute. If facial hair indicates journalistic aptitude, I suspect Santa Claus must secretly publish the Enquirer.
Scott said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:33
My dream is to get mega-rich (selling plasma or something. My plasma’s way hot), but a coupla national newspapers and magazines, sign Cohen, Dowd, Brooks, Broder, and Krauthammer to exclusive, 20-year contracts, and then put ‘em to work mopping up the basement the whole time.
Joe Bourgeois said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:34
Part of this is “Clinton Rules.” Part of it’s an underlying problem with the media as a whole — infotainment over info, plus massive corporatization. If you look at it carefully, the discussion of political candidates is pretty closely parallel to celebrity gossip:
– Bush is the kind of guy you’d have a beer with.
– Clinton is a fake, though.
– Obama thinks he’s better than you (this week’s new meme).
– Edwards is really a faggot.
– McCain’s an old-fashioned straight shooting guy.
The valence is People Magazine. The particulars end up favoring the preferred candidates of the media ownership.
Some Guy said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:45
well, fuck.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23389508/
That just killed any hope I had of this turning out well. Christ, I have no useful skills too apply to the feudal street gang war lords in the impending post-apocalyptic dystopia.
I gotta go learn how to make fucking wrist mounted crossbows…
Susan of Texas said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:51
“So we’re still for a strong dollar.” (Bush)
Yep. There’s our dollar policy, right there.
FuriousGeorge said,
February 28, 2008 at 18:52
If this was a sports article (and, really, it might as well be) then Hillary would be the Alex Rodriguez, psychoanalyzed to the bone and shat upon for her choking chokiness, and Barry O would be the David Eckstein, tiny and gritty and hustly and dirt-eating.
Smiling Mortician said,
February 28, 2008 at 19:02
McCain isn’t much better. He sat out most of Vietnam in a POW camp getting poked with bamboo poles.
I think McCain’s a dishonest, damaged, dangerous guy who shouldn’t be in the senate, let alone the White House, but still . . . “sat out”? Jebus.
montysano said,
February 28, 2008 at 19:08
“there is that melancholy Billie Holiday air about her”
Yes, yes……… often, when I look at/listen to Hillary, Billy Holiday comes to mind. Just as Obama has that Dick van Patten sense of fashion, and McCain is channeling that Bootsy Collins sense of funk.
Jeezus what an idiot.
Teh Sammich said,
February 28, 2008 at 19:18
As long as we’re doing diagnosis-by-video-monitor…
Anyone remember Bill Frist of teh Kitties?
He’s got yer long-distance diagnosis!
christian h. said,
February 28, 2008 at 19:21
Well, I just learned that 1 in 15 African American adults are behind bars. Since it is impossible that racism – which so totally doesn’t exist anymore – has anything to do with it, I expect B. Hussein Obama X to denounce – nay, reject – these criminals in the strongest terms!
moondancer said,
February 28, 2008 at 19:24
christian h
Thanks for the heads up on my mixing my cohens. I still like Rich, Herberts OK too.
Lawnguylander said,
February 28, 2008 at 19:29
On top of all that, neither of them come across as particularly photogenic. That Cohen decides to talk about Hillary’s laugh lines rather than her fiscal policy proves how shallow and inane our punditry has become. But if you’re going to judge people on looks, at least he hits the mark.
Doy, just doy. And the same goes for the “sat out the Vietnam war” remark. So doyful.
Hysterical Woman said,
February 28, 2008 at 19:32
Nothing can be as bad as “Bush Derangement Syndrome”.
Me said,
February 28, 2008 at 19:44
Bush at his press conference: “Why don’t we let stimulus package 1, which seemed like a good idea at the time, have a chance to kick in?”
Seemed like a good idea at the time? You mean right now?
Me said,
February 28, 2008 at 19:47
As for Hillary, I’ll admit that a part of me wanted to see her elected president, just to see all the proper heads explode. But then I realized that this particular joy would be transient–like say, inauguration day.
After that, it would be all ugliness all the time, and the country just doesn’t need that shit right now. Obama’s gonna take enough shit as it is.
Zifnab said,
February 28, 2008 at 19:53
“–I think McCain’s a dishonest, damaged, dangerous guy who shouldn’t be in the senate, let alone the White House, but still . . . “sat out”? Jebus.–”
Well, that is to say, he wasn’t riding a swift boat into enemy territory. Flew in, got shot down, and was captured. Then he got to experience the suck of POW’dom, but it’s not the sort of thing you would imagine would flesh out a job application. Kinda like asking a recently-freed Mexican tomatoe farmer in Florida what he did for a living and getting the reply, “Mostly, I was whipped.”
It speaks to your grittiness and your scarred psyche, but if you were applying for a commercial job – rather than a political job – I can’t see it bringing a great deal of job skills to the table.
Batocchio said,
February 28, 2008 at 20:14
Richard Cohen aspires to be Maureen Dowd – taking the vapid and adding teh stupid.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
February 28, 2008 at 20:16
Batocchio said,
February 28, 2008 at 20:14
Richard Cohen aspires to be Maureen Dowd – taking the vapid and adding teh stupid.
The funny thing is, he thinks he’s funny.
Joshua said,
February 28, 2008 at 20:29
Yea, and why is it that these guys only seem to psychoanalyze the Democrats negatively? Their analysis of guys like Bush, Cheney, McCain, Romney, are all so positive – Bush is the likable, no bullshit straight shooter you want a beer with and would run the country like a business, Cheney as the wizened, experienced Washington insider, McCain as the tough talking, no bullshit straight shooter (huh, a lot of R’s are like this I guess!), and Romney as the brilliant businessman who who would run this country like a business (huh, a lot of R’s are like this I guess!) and has great shoulders and hair.
But Democrats… they are always weak, whiny, unsure of themselves, effeminate, vain, snobby, and hypocritical. You can apply any of these adjectives to pretty much any analysis the liberal media has done to any candidate. And if someone tries to point out, say, the fact that Bush was clueless, aloof, and actually quite mean-spirited (“d-d-don’t kill me”, etc.) they have words for that – CLEARLY you are suffering from “BDS” – Bush Derangement Syndrome! Case closed!
I mean, Obama is a man who graduated from Columbia, went to Harvard Law, was at the top of his class at Harvard Law (no gentleman’s Cs here), worked on the ground as a community organizer and lecturer at a top US law firm. Yet the media talks about none of this – they just can’t stop talking about how the guy is actually a Manchurian candidate, a Muslim terrorist.
It’s just terrible.
g said,
February 28, 2008 at 20:35
She ran as a Democrat in New York against a no-name opponent without any real financial backing or grassroots support. She got on all those panels because of her political connections, not her military experience or education background or union credentials.
Uh, welcome to the world of politics. All politicians get on those panels through the same process. She’s not unique in this, so if you’re going to slam her for this, then slam the whole Senate, because this is how it works. I don’t have a problem with Hillary in this regard.
Me, I wish she’d stay in the Senate. I think she’s a pretty good asset to the Dems as a Senator. I just don’t want her to be Prez – or be the candidate.
sxwarren said,
February 28, 2008 at 20:40
Personally, I want President Obama to name Hillary Clinton to AG, and then watch as several
hundredthousand Republican officials and K-Street douchebags trample each other trying to get on the last flight to Paraguay.Now, THAT would be pure entertainment.
El Cid said,
February 28, 2008 at 20:43
Actually, just this weekend I was talking about the notion of Hillary as A.G. Not only would she ruthlessly pursue any target of investigation, she’d do it right down to the last detail, and yes, she’d make a whole lot of right wingers fly to Paraguay with dirty underpants.
Candy said,
February 28, 2008 at 20:57
President Obama
Vice President John Edwards
Atty Gen Hillary Clinton
Sec’y of State Bill Richardson
Sec’y of Def Wesley Clark
That would work for me, for a start.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
February 28, 2008 at 20:57
I’d like to see a real U.S. District Attorney like Sheldon Whitehouse doing the job. He kicked ass during these hearings.
Candy said,
February 28, 2008 at 21:05
In a gesture to bipartisanship maybe John McKay, fired US Attorney for the Western District of Washington, could be appointed to a prominent position in the hierarchy. (Or hell, any of the prosecutors fired for non-persecution of Democrats would do.)
It would make Alberto Gonzales cry.
atheist said,
February 28, 2008 at 21:06
Yea, and why is it that these guys only seem to psychoanalyze the Democrats negatively? Their analysis of guys like Bush, Cheney, McCain, Romney, are all so positive – Bush is the likable, no bullshit straight shooter you want a beer with and would run the country like a business, Cheney as the wizened, experienced Washington insider, McCain as the tough talking, no bullshit straight shooter…
That’s how toadies act. They decide who is the most powerful, then suck up to that person. The media has decided that Republicans are more powerful. Therefore, they will suck up to them.
sxwarren said,
February 28, 2008 at 21:21
Candy,
Just picking a nit, here, but I don’t think Wes Clark’s officially been a civilian long enough to legally serve as SecDef until late in 2009 (?). OTOH, he’d also make a decent Sec of State.
El Cid said,
February 28, 2008 at 21:24
Yes, maybe, but that’s forgetting that under the Unitarded Executrix Theory of the Fourthbranch of government, nothing can defy anything the President wants, so this doesn’t matter.
Unless that theory only works for Republicans.
Smut Clyde said,
February 28, 2008 at 21:25
Also, while an actual psychoanalysis would take a lot of skill, work, and objectivity, the kind of bullshit psychoanalysis that pundits specialize in is the easiest damn thing in the world.
It’s tempting to print off some letterhead stationery for the World Association of Psychobabbling Pop Analysts, and then send letters to every second pundit accusing them of practicing without the proper affiliation.
WAPPA exists to enforce professional standards, you know. We insist that our members undergo rigorous training before they make crap up and treat public figures as white screens on which to project their own assumptions and their editorial message.
atheist said,
February 28, 2008 at 21:48
That’s a great idea Smut Clyde. That should totally be a Michael Moore skit or something- pretend to be from the WAPPA, and go to Chris Matthews or Wolf Blitzer or Nora O’Donnel and demand royalties. I wonder if you can have a concealed video camera or something….
atheist said,
February 28, 2008 at 21:50
Yea, and why is it that these guys only seem to psychoanalyze the Democrats negatively? Their analysis of guys like Bush, Cheney, McCain, Romney, are all so positive – Bush is the likable, no bullshit straight shooter you want a beer with and would run the country like a business, Cheney as the wizened, experienced Washington insider, McCain as the tough talking, no bullshit straight shooter…
Or, go with the Chomskyan explanation- the pundit’s employers see republicans as being more in line with their corporate interests & so they tend to employ the type of person who loves Republicans and hates Democrats.
PeeJ said,
February 28, 2008 at 22:14
McCain: ISFJ
Clinton: ENFJ
Obama: ENTP
Who needs no steenkeeng degree?
Johnny Coelacanth said,
February 28, 2008 at 22:28
Her smile is strained.
She is contained.
She seems unknowable,
But her hubby is blowable
Ask the interns
ask all the bitches
ask Lucianne Goldberg’s
Little Snitches
Ok, that’s all I got.
Lawnguylander said,
February 28, 2008 at 22:38
Does the WAPPA’s brief cover armchair psychoanalysis of opinion writers by blog commenters? Because I don’t want to get in trouble but WTF is going on inside MoDo’s head? After raking Clinton over the coals for trying on so many campaign personas she spewed forth:
Somebody please fucking slap me if I ever even notice any changes in Michelle Obama’s hairstyle over the next 9 years but if I become unsettled I ask that you contact my loved ones without delay.
Smut Clyde said,
February 28, 2008 at 22:38
I think that pundits like to psychoanalyze politicians because it is easy to make almost anything you say sound semi-credible that way.
Yep. I can imagine an alternative universe where the competition between rival forms of pseudo-science worked out differently, so that astrology ended up winning the credibility and the intellectual cachet, leaving psychoanalysists to write joke columns for the back page of the paper.
In that alternative universe, in order to dress up their attack messages as Serious Insights, Cohen and MoDo are explaining how Clinton’s chart includes Venus in trine and Mars in the house of Ophiuchus.
…Come to think of it, this is pretty much what PeeJ is implying with the Myers-Briggs stuff.
PeeJ said,
February 28, 2008 at 23:05
…but WTF is going on inside MoDo’s head?
Absolutely nothing that matters.
PeeJ said,
February 28, 2008 at 23:07
Yep, Smutsy that’s pretty much what I had in mind.
atheist said,
February 28, 2008 at 23:25
Mr. Clyde, I love how you take something and filter it through a prysm of arcana about early philosophy. May I ask do you study the history of science or something?
Smut Clyde said,
February 28, 2008 at 23:55
No, but remember the WAPPA motto: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must string together half-remembered factoids into an uninformed but plausible opinion.
“Prysm of arcana” is good. Sounds like something that Neil Stephenson or Frances Yates might have written.
FlipYrWhig said,
February 29, 2008 at 2:12
“Prysm of arcana” is good. Sounds like something that Neil Stephenson or Frances Yates might have written.
Sure is _begging_ for a porno spoof.
Christopher said,
February 29, 2008 at 8:33
I might feel a little strained if I were Hillary, since no persona she could possibly project would ever be good enough for the media.
First she’s a frigid ball-busting bitch, who never shows emotions and therefore won’t be able to connect with people.
Then she cries, and she’s an over-emotional woman who’s constant mood swings will keep her from seeing things clearly.
Not only that, but it seems so calculated. Why would she act more emotional?
One thing that really chafes my taint is that I’ve yet to hear anybody theorize that maybe she’s adjusting her public persona to try to deal with the big giant pile of attacks coming from the punditocracy. It’s as though they’re having this conversation:
Pundits: Hillary Clinton acts like a huge bitch.
Clinton: Excuse me, but I’m not a bitch.
Pundits: Who said you were a bitch? Why would you just randomly say that for no apparent reason? It makes you sound kind of paranoid, frankly.
I don’t think Hillary’s amazingly charismatic, but this whole business of analyzing a candidate’s charisma has been so tainted by sexism and general idiocy that I’m not convinced that anybody could possibly wring an even half-worthwhile observation out of it anymore.
atheist said,
February 29, 2008 at 23:58
I don’t think Hillary’s amazingly charismatic, but this whole business of analyzing a candidate’s charisma has been so tainted by sexism and general idiocy that I’m not convinced that anybody could possibly wring an even half-worthwhile observation out of it anymore.
Totally. And, I don’t know, charisma does exist, but even in the people who have it, it seems like an attribute that is as changeable as the tides- some days its on, some days less so. And it is so subjective. Why not just let the people decide what they think about a given candidate’s “aura”, and if they care about that?
Mooser said,
March 1, 2008 at 2:26
Hilary Clinton like Billie Holliday? Could it be that the two democratic candidates are starting to merge?