Skip to content

Loyalty and other inconsistencies

April 10, 2008

With the discovery of a lungless frog, and the birth of a bifacial baby, news rolls by in multiples of the speed of thought. All the planets in our solar system have more moons that I learned in grade-school Rocks and Stars. I’ll never catch up and it’s hopeless to try.

I suppose it’s no wonder that inconsistencies in the thought processes of people touted to be brilliant simply find no landing place in people’s awareness. The electorate is besieged to the point of oblivion, for instance, when the very important notion of “loyalty” is introduced.

It should have been hard to miss, but if you did, The Clintons are miffed with Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, the only Hispanic governor in the United States. They were counting on his endorsement of Senator Clinton, because Governor Richardson had served in President Clinton’s administration as Ambassador to the United Nations, a position probably festooned more with garlands of prestige than any real importance. Quite possibly, Governor Richardson saw himself at the time as being set up for a future payoff. Hillary Clinton’s intent to run for President is hardly a sudden impulse, and the Hispanic vote is no small commodity.

Governor Richardson, of course, endorsed Senator Obama as the potential Democratic Presidential nominee. This would have passed as uninteresting had the Clintons not returned fire in all directions, mostly at themselves.

First, the Clintons claimed that Governor Richardson’s endorsement was unimportant–who needed it, anyway. Then they really let him have it.

Longtime Clinton conduit James Carville called Richardson “Judas.” Now, that is very weird, because if he thinks Richardson is Judas, he must have some bizarre messianic delusion about Hillary Clinton. But who knows about Mr. Carville’s delusion life.

Then Bill Clinton’s ire at the mention of Bill Richardson blew everyone away at a superdelegates meeting. Loyalty to the Clintons was the order of the day, and where was Richardson’s, and all that. Loyalty? Was it lost on everyone that Bill Clinton’s loyalty to his wife has been found compromised at times in the other-women department? But thinking in principles is a rare facility, and electorate memory is the shortest measure of time imaginable.

And there is Hillary Clinton’s steadfast proposition that superdelegates should be able to vote however they choose for the good of the Party. But that can’t be expected to apply to superdelegate Bill Richardson, who, after all, owes the Clintons more than he owes the Party.

We are blanketed with news of lungless frogs and bifacial babies, and cats trapped behind sheetrocked ceilings. What mindspace is left to take in the inconsistencies of logic and temperament of those who are “ready to lead?”

They don’t call it “news coverage” for nothing.


One Comment
  1. April 10, 2008 10:12 am

    I think you summed up all I need to know about politics, current news, and cultural algorithms.

Comments are closed.