A BRIEF RETROSPECTIVE ABOUT A KEY BOOK REVIEW AND COMMENTARY CONTAINING DAVID AXELROD’S PITHY VIEWS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON, THE CANDIDATE AND THE POLITICAL PERSONALITY
IT SEEMS LIKE — YOU CAN’T FOOL ALL OF THE PROGRESSIVES AND ALL OF THE LIBERALS ALL OF THE TIME
AS HILLARY CLINTON IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A MAJOR DAMAGE CONTROL EFFORT OVER HER E-MAIL AND BENGHAZI PROBLEM[S], GENERALLY IS TRYING TO FEND OFF THE “VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY” AND OTHER CLINTON HATERS IN THE MEDIA, GETS READY TO ROLL OUT YET ANOTHER RUN FOR HIGH OFFICE, APPARENTLY HAS HUMA ABEDIN SCOUTING OUT LOCATIONS IN BROOKLYN FOR CAMPAIGN OFFICES, AND AGAIN HAS HER OTHER AGENTS WORKING HARD TO CREATE A NEW IMAGE FOR HER — DON’T FORGET THAT MANY WHO CONSTITUTE THE BACKBONE, MUSCLE AND SINEW OF THE CURRENT DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAVE NO LOVE FOR HILLARY
Over a month ago, there was a very interesting post that was put out there by “Slate” right before Hillary fell flat on her face over her public E-mails on her private server (See “Liberal Amnesia – Have Obama’s supporters forgotten how much they once disliked Hillary Clinton ?” by Alec MacGillis, 2/20/15, Slate [http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/obama_s_supporters_may_have_forgotten_how_much_they_despised_hillary_clinton.html]). In that article, Alec MacGillis discussed David Axelrod’s then-new book “Believer,” and quotes Mr. Axelrod quite often with respect to his views on Hillary Clinton.
SOME OF WHAT AXELROD HAD TO SAYHere’s some of what MacGillis had to say about Axelrod talking about Hillary: “...Hillary Clinton does not offer the country a ‘fresh start.’ ‘For all of her advantages, she is not a healing figure,’ he continues. ‘The more she tries to moderate her image … the more she compounds her exposure as an opportunist. And after two decades of the Bush-Clinton saga, making herself the candidate of the future could be a challenge.’...” YES, THAT’S AXELROD ON HILLARY – according to Slate’s Alec MacGillis.
MACGILLIS’ ANALYSIS OF AXELROD’S POINT ABOUT HILLARYMacGillis also said this: “Axelrod’s book, ‘Believer’] is a reminder of how far liberals who were in the pro-Obama camp in 2008 have traveled in their view of Hillary Clinton—and how much they’ve allowed themselves to forget along the way.... The result is a sort of collective amnesia among Obama supporters when it comes to their former estimation of Clinton—a reluctance to reckon fully with their aversion to her then and what has come of it since. This amnesia may seem harmless now, but one can’t help but wonder if it might come back to haunt Democrats in the general election if it is not confronted more fully before then....
IS THERE ANYTHING DIFFERENT ABOUT AXELROD, AND THE OTHER LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES, WHO ARE “SUPPORTING” HILLARY ?With respect to the Obama-Clinton wars of 2008, “... unlike [other] Obama 2008 veterans, [Axelrod] has not signed up with Clinton this time around, and is willing to recount the grand clash in clear-eyed terms. He recalls Clinton’s weakness for gun-for-hire consultants like the ‘bloodless and calculating’ Mark Penn, who ‘saw his mission as quashing any liberal impulses’ and ‘justified himself with fuzzy polling numbers and a smug self-assurance that made everything grating.’ [Axelrod] distinguishes Obama’s offer of change in Washington from Hillary’s copy-cat rhetoric: ‘The “change” Hillary was offering was not much change at all — certainly not a move away from the raw, divisive politics that had come to define Washington. Rather, she seemed to revel in those politics.... The change she was offering was not away from Washington’s habit of parsing words and passing on tough issues. (She habitually sought safe harbor.) The change she was offering was not away from a system dominated by PACs and corporate lobbyists. (She had taken their money and defended their work.)”
And, Alec MacGillis concluded his February 20th article about Axelrod’s book with this: “... [M]ake no mistake — Axelrod has not forgotten what the differences were that motivated him, and millions of other Democrats, to come to Obama’s side instead of Clinton’s not that long ago. And it would be better for their party’s sake if those [Democratic activists and] voters grappled with those memories and realities sooner rather than later.
AND ABOUT THE DE NIRO THING....Before I go any further into the DeNiro "endorsement" of Hillary, let me remind you of a couple of things that Alfred Hitchcock had to say about actors, because they are particularly relevant to Ni Niro’s oh so public embarrassment about and for Hillary Clinton.
First, there are several iterations of the great director’s opinion that – “...[a]ctors are cattle! They should be treated as such!” The Second quote, is a particularly insightful observation by Hitch, which, if you look deeply enough, is likely to disclose the real “motivation” behind the DeNiro endorsement of Hillary – “When an actor comes to me and wants to discuss his character, I say, 'It's in the script.' If he says, 'But what's my motivation?, ' I say, 'Your salary.'...”
Now what is it that this “Raging Bull” had to say ? In an interview about the 2015 Tribeca Film Festival (now let's look for some Clinton-style "motivation" going into that DeNiro venture, hmmm!) something a little odd and out of place came up. In answer to a question about whether he supported Hillary, the now -elderly actor said this – AS IF ON CUE: “Hopefully it will be her, yes,” said De Niro. “I think that she’s paid her dues. There are going to be no surprises, and she has earned the right to be president and the head of the country at this point. It’s that simple. And she’s a woman, which is very important because her take on things may be what we need right now.”
This pathetic trained-seal performance was as non-spontaneous and inauthentic a moment as anything else having to do with the clunking Clinton juggernaut.
NOW I PUT IT TO YOU ! WHO WROTE THOSE GAWD-AWFUL LINES ? AND WHO DIRECTED DE NIRO TO DEAD PAN THEM ?