There should be an expression in English for the act of grinning and gnashing your teeth at the same time. You know, that thing you do when you feel contemptuously amused - when your lips say "how droll" and your eyes say "I will kill you." I do it all the time, and I have no idea what to call it. Grinnashing? Sort of like grimacing, but with dental repercussions? Let's use it in a sentence: "I have been grinnashing so much lately that my veneers are starting to crack." Okay then.
Let's get to business: Kit Seelye in the NYTimes has a dispatch from the YearlyKos convention, where Mrs. Clinton spoke to the unwashed masses, and this transpired:
At one point, she said she would not be influenced by campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists.The explanation from Mrs. Clinton is golden.
At another, she said she would continue to accept such contributions.
“Yes, I will. I will. You know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses. They represent, you know, social workers. They represent -- yes, they represent corporations. They employ a lot of people. The idea that somehow a contribution is going to influence you — I just ask you to look at my record. I have been fighting for the same thing, my core values have not changed. But I do want to be the president for everybody.”Seelye writes that the crowd "had just been warming up to her when she made the comments right in front of them. They booed at the time and immediately began posting critical items, including an examination of her vote in favor of a bill to change the bankruptcy law that was heavily supported by credit-card companies."
Of course, none of them will find a quid pro quo (if it were there, we would know it by now). Instead it'll be the typical old left "if you are corporate, you are evil" mantra, chanted ad nauseum while they benefit from the largess of financiers like Soros and Corzine. Where old-school class politics is concerned, these guys never connect the dots - they just stumble around in a haze of "got to get back at The Man" that owes more to Freudian than Marxist paradigms.
I posted a comment expressing my patriotic umbrage, but I know it won't show up. I don't think the Times cares that much about the hit-or-miss quality of its "comments" mechanism. Anyway, I pointed out the irony of the YearlyKos crowd booing Hillary for not giving them the answer they want to hear, when they themselves are a classic "special interest" engaged in a form of lobbying - even if the activity can't be financially valuated... or can it? [hmmm... she is a sitting Senator... I wonder if anyone mentioned specific, pending legislation?] When push comes to shove, these guys don't want a candidate who shows independence - they want someone who will tell them what they want to hear. Read more!
