It sounds like you are being emotionally blackmailed by her. Break free, friend. Break Free. There is someone out there you can call your own. Break free.

It sounds like you're stoned and trying to make a muse out of a long-term booty call.

I'm not sure what it is that separates us, but I think I can tell you something about why, no matter what she does, I will always come back to Hillary.

(Emphasis added.)

If you really feel that way - that you will support her no matter what she does - then you have a relationship based on faith. Not thinking.

If that's the case for you, that's fine, I guess. But don't try to wrap your faith up in reason and rhetoric. And don't expect others to use the same lack of reason in picking their candidate.

People having faith without reason gave us George Bush.

No politician is worthy of blind faith - there lie monsters.

My $0.02.

Your revolution is a struggle that will leave you severely disappointed and void of any satisfaction!

Sometimes a clean break hurts less than several paper cuts?

How many cuts are you willing to endure, before the pain becomes intolerable?

It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush.

One of my main objections up front years ago to the mere idea of her candidacy was Bill. Not that I didn't love him when he was president (except for the part where he was too damn stupid to keep his pants zipped when he knew they were watching). But I hate the whole idea of political dynasties. They are anathema to participatory democracy, IMO. The thought of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, makes me want to reconsider guillotines and knitting needles.

No more political aristocracy, thank you. She wouldn't be where she is right now if her name wasn't Clinton. God, why does that sound so familiar?

sorry - I honestly didn't mean to be so critical of her personally - I just really do believe with my whole being that this whole repeating presidency by families that my least favorite founder, John Adams, started, is terrible. I hate it.

Billy, that was very well said. I can relate to a lot of that, although my wife (whom I met shortly after the 2000 election) imbued me with a different perspective on the Clinton years. I think it's the best defense of Clinton supporters that I've read.

Although I was afraid that the sappy movie quote you were going to use was "You complete me" from Jerry Maguire. But maybe that's a better quote for some of my more emotional Obama cohorts.

Billy, I have another question, one which I think articulates the subtext of the comments about dysfunctional relationships.

Why?

Not why do you go back to her. Rather, why should you? Why should we? What you describe is a visceral association between Clinton and the revolution. It does not explain, in rational terms, why she is the right person to advance the revolution. In other words, you return to her because you must, not because you should.

For those of us without that visceral association, it's of course a mystery. You can tell us about your experience, but you can't share it with us. I don't claim that my connection with Obama is entirely rational either, that I don't viscerally associate him with my own version of the revolution. But I try, to the best of my ability, so separate that out, to acknowledge that he's just an smart, eloquent guy who may or may not be able to accomplish something, and to base my support on why I think that he's more likely to accomplish something than the next guy (or girl).

You sound like a crazy person.

Get a grip. Seriously.

Well, at least now I understand where you're coming from. Not that it's sane or rational, but at least it's explanatory.

Some of us never fell in love with either of the Clintons. Bill was, in my estimation, not an awful President, but neither was he great or exceptional. He's been bookended by a father-son tag-team of exceptional crooks which makes him look better, but his shit, I must inform you, stinks just like everyone else's does and the same can be said of his wife.

His economic policies were primarily conservative in nature: Alan Greenspan, NAFTA, Glass-Steagall. Monetary and trade policies to be sure, but let's be realistic and admit that nobody really enacts conservative fiscal policies (welfare reform could be cast in this light, but this is arguable). Any professor of economics can tell you that the G component of GDP never decreases.

His foreign adventures weren't much better. I think it's fair to give him points for Bosnia and perhaps Ireland (though I'm a bit loathe to give a guy who comes of the bench in the fourth credit for winning the game), but there was also the complacency on Rwanda, the bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory and the half-million Iraqi children who died under sanctions.

It's been funny to see all of the accusations flying this cycle about the adoration surrounding Obama in light of the very real cult of personality among Democrats with respect for the Clintons. It's quite odd after World War II and the Cold War that we see this same psychological short-coming in our own nation. Maybe it's just human nature, but I don't go in for idolatry. I prefer to look to people who seek to tell the truth rather than people who seek power and, all said and done, simply don't screw the pooch too badly when they get it.

Fortunately, you can still have your underdog love-affair with Hillary even though she likely won't be President this go around. And the rest of us can move on.

I hear you, Billy Glad. Only I never associated her with a revolution, albeit she loomed large over my teen years. Nevertheless, I get you; I feel your emotion.

Just so you know, I did start out this election year in her camp. But then I met my revolutionary in Barack Obama when he spoke after he won Iowa. I bought his first book on tape and knew that the speaker after Iowa was no mirage. I’m not sure I’m capable of the same level of loyalty that you evince. Life seems so long and yet so short and can we really be so true hearted for prolonged periods of time? Only time will tell. I respect the fact that you have kept your inner revolutionary intact. Join us, Billy. It’s time for another revolution.

I'm here, Genghis. I'm still thinking.

I'm not sure kensdad reads the Recent Reader Posts. I don't think I've seen him comment in the diaries.

It is interesting that people can develop such intense and one-sided emotional bonds with people they don't even know personally. But sadly, this post has little to do with the the policies Hillary Clinton has and will defend, the actions she has and will take, the political forces and allies she has and will represent, or the world she would bequeath to the next generation. You write as though you and "Hillary" are the only two people in the world.

People are dying man. They are counting on you, and all of us, to make a mature and responsible decision about the leadership of this country and the direction it is going to take beginning in 2009. So grow up, and stop sobbing about your tragic "love affair" with Clinton. Do you think the life of some soldier in Iraq should depend on the warm fuzzies you feel when you look at Hillary Clinton through your TV screen, and remember all those personal emotions you experienced in the 90's? Snap out of it! This is no time to be guided by your personal Hillary "relationship", or some Clinton-infused psychodrama. And I have news for you: unless you are in actual non-telepathic communication with Hillary Clinton, you have no relationship with her. Sheesh. You sound like an infatuated teenager pouring out your puppy love for the latest pop idol, and fantasizing that you have some sort of real relationship with her.

I find it most strange that you would regard the Clintons as the heirs of any kind of 30's-era revolution. Clinton was the very embodiment of the triumph of the DLC, the "Third Way" and the "New Democrats", which had as its goal turning the Democratic Party away from the labor-driven New Deal coalition that had dominated it since the 30's, and into a more pro-business party. Perhaps Clinton's most famous line was "the era of big government is over." Most saw him as ringing down the end of the New Deal era, not giving it a rebirth.

If you honestly believe that the world will be a better place under Hillary Clinton's leadership than under Barack Obama's leadership, then by all means vote for Hillary Clinton. But don't vote for her because you liked the role she played on TV in "That Clinton Show."

You say, "As time goes by, I hope everyone committed to Barack Obama will continue to feel that way about him, too."

I should hope not! The reason to support Obama, in my view, is that he is an intelligent and capable leader, with sound perception of the world as it actually exists in 2008, with a certain amount of imagination and creative thinking about how to deal with that world, with an experienced understanding of how to unite people to achieve collective ends, rather than divide them to achieve nothing but the prolongation of the unsatisfactory present, and with fewer debilitating ties than Clinton to the lobbying groups and powerful interests who are part of the problem - and who have marched us into a three trillion dollar quagmire in the Middle East. I don't want anyone to fall in love with Barack Obama. I just want them to elect him, and then hold him responsible for the sober and intelligent conduct of the country's business, with a skeptical ear and a wary eye.

You are an adult citizen in a self-governing republic. The president is a public servant who works for you. A president is not supposed to be the object of your "love affair". That's a slavish, doltish attitude that better characterizes the groveling and ignorant masses in the non-democratic kingdoms of yore, who were superstitiously dazzled by their resplendent kings and pharaohs.

This post has a shockingly low ratio of recommends to comments. Isn't it rude to keep commenting below it without recommending it (ok, I did that, but still)? Isn't that kind of like when you watch a movie on cable, and keep saying you don't like it, but you don't turn it off? Maybe that's how we Obama supporters look at the Clinton campaign.

I like Alec Baldwin's idea. President Obama should appoint Hillary to the Supreme Court. Perfect job for her!

Billy,

I admire your guts to be so honest. You make voting for Hillary sound like an S'n'M thing.

Me? I don't fall for images on a flicking screen. Hillary is running for a job. You have the option to employ her or not.

I have employees I enjoy working with. But if they started lying or misrepresenting themselves, do you know what they would find?

A pink slip from me. My company is too important to be held hostage by a bad apple.

Same goes for the country.

Sure I love Obama's speeches but if he turns out to be another Deval Patrick, I will be ruthlessly cutting him off as I did with Clinton a while back. Obama has won because both Clinton and McCain have failed spectacularly - he's the only one left holding promise. We cannot afford this visceral attachment - it's a country, not an amorous relationship, and the reins should be handed to the person with the most integrity and competence. I have no problems kicking the "bums" out if they fail us. Come to think about it, I'd have no problems kicking any lying, abusive SO out either.

True, not meant for me, but your comments are posted on a public site and thus subject to reaction from fellow posters.

It is somewhat paradoxical that you're describing an overwhelming emotional response to a *book* and yet you pooh-pooh Obama's *words*.

I agree, words, music, art, as well as other forms of expressions can touch someone and fundamentally change their lives even, independently from the author. Hemmingway, Picasso, all *ssholes irl, it doesn't take away from their work.

I appreciate Obama's words, and it seems Bill's words are also worth $$$ millions, *but*, I can also separate the meaning and impact of those words from the man who speaks it, and will reserve my judgment of his political career based on his past, current and future deeds.

I am as clear as can be in my own mind what this vote/support means, as do a lot of other Obama supporters - we all *hope* we will be vindicated in our decision, but we're not gah-gah over this guy.

But the episodes you're describing are akin to some schoolgirl's crush on Bill and Hillary and yet you scathingly berated Obama supporters for their admiration of his charisma, temperament and presence.

The Clintons are *not* Ghandi, Hillary makes obscene lucre from "cattle futures" and Bill gets blowjobs from assorted bimbos and interns, dragging the government through hell and a feminist Hillary supporter like yourself gushes about pink bikinis emblazoned with "I miss Bill" peddled to young women...oh the irony.

Thank you for this thoughtful explanation. You may wish to reconsider, because I find your position in this essay to be completely comprehensible.

so true, so true...

While we smile seeing Bill's sardonic grin and hearing his clever turns of tongue, we forget about his entirely wasted second term - the endless GOP investigations, the corporate sell-off of White House rooms, the massive loss of Democratic seats in Congress - all these wasted months resulting in nothing for us, the helpless bystanders who voted for him and had counted on him.

Putting the "fondly-remembered" Clintons back in that White House will bring all that shit back, too. Not good.

Revolution imposed from above is not a revolution in my view. Hillary Clinton ran a top down campaign - she's the establishment candidate, the big money, inevitable, etc.

Revolution - real revolution - comes from the bottom up - think "uprising". It comes from the "I sick of this, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" feeling in all of us. Revolution is what created unions - workers tired of being abused, and refusing to take it anymore. Revolution is what drove the Civil Rights movement - Rosa Parks was tired, and refused to take it anymore. Young black men and women were tired of being treated like second class citizens and wouldn't take it anymore. Revolution is what drove much of the women's rights movement - women were tired - and wouldn't take it anymore. Revolution is that seen in Norma Rae where she gets on the table with the Union sign - and finally the other workers realize - they are tired, and just won't take it anymore.

This is why I think Obama is succeeding where Clinton is failing. The American people are tired, and we just don't want to take it anymore. We are tired of fat cats running our government. We are tired of lobbyists. We are tired of our hard earned money going to people who are on easy street. We are tired of mortgaging our children's future. We are tired of war. We are tired of people lying to us. And we aren't going to take it anymore. People are attracted to Obama's candidacy because they believe what he's telling them. They see honesty and intergrity. They don't see a person who is beholden to special interests. They see someone who came from the bottom, a truly self-made man. For many Obama supporters, Clinton personifies all the things we are tired of - lobbyists, microtrends, ridiculous wealth, war, lies, diviseness. Perhaps that's unfair to Clinton. But it (in my opinion) is why Obama is filling arenas - why he has millions of small donors, why he has thousands phonebanking for him from home, why he has people volunteering like crazy. He speaks to that "I'm tired and I'm not going to take it anymore" feeling with "You can do this - you can change it - your can make a difference." He empowers his supporters to make change happen. This isn't "I feel your pain". This is "if you won't take it anymore - then stand up and change it."

Billy - I do feel your pain. If Clinton is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for her. But I'm tired of holding my nose - which is why I want to vote for Obama!

billysumday has a good post up on Hillary and the Diva Theory. Like water to fish, I think Obama loyalists don't quite get the difference between Obama and the idea of Obama. The fact that Hillary embodies an idea of Hillary that is able to transcend the ups and downs of a national political career is lost on them.

So you liked Bill because he was about hope and change. And now you're against the guy who's about hope and change. Okay, got it.

"All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die," Says the man next to me out of nowhere It's apropos Of nothing He says his name's William but I'm sure, He's Bill or Billy or Mac or Buddy And he's plain ugly to me And I wonder if he's ever had a day of fun in his whole life We are drinking beer at noon on Tuesday In a bar that faces a giant car wash The good people of the world are washing their cars On their lunch break, hosing and scrubbing As best they can in skirts in suits

They drive their shiny Datsuns and Buicks
Back to the phone company, the record store too
Well, they're nothing like Billy and me, cause

[Chorus]
All I wanna do is have some fun
I got a feeling I'm not the only one

--Cheryl Crow

:)

(this came out more like two posts.)

Post 1:

About this cult of personality thing...

Knock it off. Really. Stop it.

All of you. Billy and others with the creepy emotional attachment to Clinton, and all of you who gush about Obama like Oprah: "He is The One!"

They are human beings. They are politicians. They have egos that drive them to grab the most powerful position in the country.

Find that inner cynic, realist, the teen who had the "QUESTION AUTHORITY" and DK stickers on your binder. Sit down and ask them what they think.

Post 2:

Right now, I miss Bill, too. Though I don't have that printed on any of my underwears. Compared to president (insert favorite expletive), he's FDR/Lincoln/Kennedy.

I shot off fireworks in the January snow when Clinton was first inaugurated. By 1996, I didn't bother to vote -- the motivation was gone. Didn't hate him, didn't love him. He was just ok. But he seemed to become the mainstream, the centrist, not the head of any revolution I wanted to belong to.

I get the feeling that Hillary is also the centrist who's making some populist/progressive noise to rally the base.

I think Obama's the best choice. He rocks. But if he suddenly changes for the worst, I'm going to be pissed.

I don't understand the unquestioning loyalty to a politician. It almost seems un-American. Like when the country went through a phase where making fun of or criticizing Bush just wasn't allowed after 9/11. (okay, maybe this was one post, as it seems to have gone in a circle)

I don't understand the unquestioning loyalty to a politician.

Me neither. Remember there were those that wanted Washington to be a king!

Some of these posts should be remembered when Americans mock the Europeans and their fascination with royalty.

We are all really tribal gorillas after all.

Given that their records on progressive issues are very similar--despite any possible gaffes on votes, Obama still has the most progressive voting record--the issue becomes effectiveness. Hillary does not have the temperment and the demonstrated ability to pull together progressive coalitions. Beginning with her health care debacle, she is a "fighter," not a coalition builder. Obama has demonstrated skills in bringing people together to support progressive causes. He is, by far, the most effective leader of the two. They are not close, as so many of their respective staff members and former employees and co-workers attest. He's a fabulous listener and amazingly subtle as he weaves together desparite interests into a unified process. His apeech on race was epochal in it's empathy for both sides of the racial divide; America listened and responded by at worst, not further polarizing the races at a time when Obama's association with Wright threatened to make things much worse. He demonstrated in that speech that he has truly remarkable skill at keeping people together. Hillary has no demonstrated ability to do that. That's the main reason I think that Obama is far superior to Hillary. Add the judgment he made on Iraq while his candidacy was on the line in Illinois, and his superiority rating increases exponentially. She is not dumb. She and Kerry made a political vote at a time when we needed the utmost character to prevent a horrifying tragedy; she has admitted her mistake but not the self-serving reasons for making it; that's truly heinous, although we're not used to calling it what it was. Too many people are numbed out and winking at that kind of politicization of the lives of combatants and populace. Also add his far superior, often demonstrated intelligence in analyzing issues and getting to the bottom of them, as in his questioning of Petraeus. The subtlety and balance of his position was striking, unique in modern political life. If he'd had more time, it's clear to me he could've gotten to the sharpest argument for his withdrawel plan, that the risk difference between his plan and the Administrations is minimal at worst. Petraeus did say that the decision to withdraw is all about risk assessment. When Obama cogently called for "measured" withdrawel, he meant something like what Petraeus means when he calls for a 45 day assessment following an intevention. The key is in how you intervene after you withdraw each brigade. You come in massively with diplomacy and guidance as the stakeholders' anxieties and catastrophic fears increase. Obama has in mind working through the problems that arise as each phase of the withdrawel occurs and not proceeding to withdraw if the problems threatening the "messy" stability are not solved. That's a compelling plan, whereas Cinton's presentation of her plan leaves open the charge that something sudden and precipitous is going to happen; that why the Republicans have control of this fundamental, make-or-break-a-candidacy issue. They keep casting the other side as a dangerous, precipitous plan, and only Obama has decisively countered that fear-mongering.
To me, there is no contest. Obama is far superior in every important respect.

Hillary is a living Saint. Canonize her now. Why wait until after she is dead. Those kind of rules are made for ordinary Saints, but not for St. Hillary of Tuzla. She already performed the required miracle by making a band of snipers vanish into thin air.

Perhaps it's a generational thing, but I don't understand the concept of the Clintons as revolution. Compared to what?

In fact I don't even see them very far into the great liberal Democratic Party tradition. Bill was more like the moderate Republicans of my youth.

I go back a l-o-n-g way and can't see the Clintons coming close to the ideals I have held all these years...FDR, the Kennedys, LBJ. They were the Dems who brought revolution.

It would seem that many folks in this thread do not recognize a confession when they see one.

Dear clearthinker,

Forgive me in advance if my response covers some ground that you already see clearly (and I mean no sarcasm by using the word "clearly"). I can't tell from your questions where the storyline stops making sense for you.

Billy Glad is trying to explain why he keeps gravitating toward Hillary Clinton in this primary match-up: He's asked himself why does he keep defending Hillary when she keeps f*cking up? He has examined his "relationship" with the Clintons (he merges them because Bill and Hillary have always been a team, and Hillary was always a protocol-bucking First Lady and person) by going back to the beginning of knowing them. He's figured out there's an emotional component to his preference for Hillary in this election that he can't reason away. He keeps returning to preferring her. So he's trying to find a way to express how that emotional (or "irrational" or "mysterious") component works. He came up with the metaphor of a long-term love affair.

Since he's not literally in love with Hillary Clinton (or, at least not at all times), it's not going to suffice to describe how he is sort of in love with her but not really, even by using a metaphor.

Billy Glad's also a movie buff, and he remembers a scene from The Professionals that happens itself to contain a metaphor, likening one character's devotion to the (Mexican) Revolution to a (hypothetical) man's devotion to a lover.

Since I've never seen the movie, I can't tell you how many layers of metaphor are in the movie quote (which starts with the line, The Revolution is like a great love affair and ends with We die because we are committed). The quote works for Billy G. to answer his underlying question about his emotional attachment to Hillary. Yes, it's a complicated connection, but that's the way Billy Glad's mind works. He makes connections to other pleasures in his life (like movies), he makes connections among his various life experiences (his political awareness over time).

Back to the movie quote: Billy G. knows the dialogue from a 1960s movie is not going to translate to a cynical-yet-naive, post-1980s-abuse-therapy, post-1990s-addiction-therapy, post-9/11 TPM audience (in other words, a younger audience). But he hopes there is some resonance (and he's right, there is), even if the "kids" don't quite get it at this moment in their lives. Maybe they will understand in the future when they have experienced more of life's disappointments.

The movie language is overwrought (not to mention sexist) and Billy can't even elevate the movie above "genre," but the metaphor-within-a-metaphor works if he meticulously discounts the datedness of the language when presenting his idea to a contemporary blog audience.

I happen to think BG did a precise and brilliant job, using the fewest words possible.

I don't know Billy Glad at all, btw; I've never met the guy. Plus, I have a terrible cold and my analysis could be totally wrong. If I were wrong so far, however, I think BG would have said so.

Point 1 is about Bill Clinton

Point 2 is about Bill Clinton

Last I checked, Bill Clinton was not a contender for POTUS this year.

Point 3 is about how beautiful Hillary looked.

I'm not even sure what this means.

Okay. Fair enough. All of my points were supposed to provide supplemental evidence of the mysterious charisma of the Clintons. Yes, I mean both Bill and Hillary, because they operate in tandem. My points are not my views about the Clintons, but they are things I've observed about other people's reactions to the Clintons. I'm somewhat fascinated by the phenomenon of them (the good as well as the bad), which is why these particular examples have stayed with me. Speaking for myself, I have a different take on the Clintons, which I am unable to articulate as cleverly as Billy G. has articulated his.

However, I am quite sure it's an odd reason to want to elect someone president -- though I know there are women who would vote for Obama for that reason.

You are right it's odd, and you are right that some people use "looks" as a primary reason for choosing their candidate. It's not Billy Glad's reason for not-so-secretly wanting Hillary to kick Barack's ass. Nor is it mine.

Still and all, supposed I told you that I refused to vote for Hillary because she was fugly?

Is that as legitimate to want to elect Hillary because you found her beautiful?

No. But I myself don't really fall for "beautiful" people. I generally find intelligence much sexier than physical looks (and certain kinds of intelligence enhance someone's looks for me). It's all in the eye of the beholder.

If you told me you would or wouldn't vote for someone because of their looks, I would probably discount your intelligence in a minute and change the subject to food.

Hope I've made some sense.

Billy,

As someone with conflicted emotions regarding Hilary: I feel your pain, I've been there, I get it. I have found the following to be an immense help during this contentious nomination process:

3 parts koolaid
2 parts vodka (brand doesn't seem to matter}
twist of lime
serve on ice and stir with index finger

repeat as needed.

This often helps me to refrain from posting when someone is wrong on the internet, I wouldn't want to emabarrass a fellow dem.

It's pure sadomasochism.

Love is a drug.

All Hail our great Revolutionary Leaders Bill and Hillary.

But we should not overlook the person that they could not have won the revolution without.

The Clintons' Che Guevara was Ross Perot.

Why does Billy Glad not sell Tee Shirts with the Iconic Image of Ross Perot on them!

I'll just ask him whether he agrees that fish are nearly conscious of water. It's been on his mind lately, well, really on the mind of my Idealized Obama that I can't quite see isn't Real Obama.