Thursday, May 10, 2007

We're All Puritans Now

Last political post of the month, I promise.

Slate's Emily Blazeon writes of a certain person seeking the Oval Office:

This is a man whose life is filled with poisoned intimate relationships and who appears to be responsible for much of the poisoning. It's not only the religious or the uptight that can be put off by an utter lack of personal morality in a presidential candidate.


Really? I seem to remember a time not very long ago when a political party for which 99 percent of Slate's staff seems to vote every year insisting that exactly the opposite was true.

I say this not to chastise my friends at Slate--goodness knows this change in worldview can only be positivie--but merely to welcome them to the Land of the Unsophisticated Prigs.

I can only hope that they'll still think this way after Giuliani loses the GOP nomination and Hillary wins the Democratic one.

7 comments:

Michael said...

You are wrong about the nature of the transgressions. You need to compare the body of work of the two.

Clinton is a smooth talking southern boy, a charming rogue - he can't help it. Women love him and men hate him for that. Hillary catches him, gives him hell, he turns on the charm and she forgives him. And they get back on with their lives.

Doesn't Monica still like him? Think about it, he gets BJ's for free, throws her under the bus, and all the women involved still loves him. Everybody wishes they could get away with it.

Rudy is just an a$$hole when it comes to women. You have the mother's day press conference. You have the questionable jobs his "female friends" seem to get. You have his kids hating him and his new wife. And the fact he treats everybody else this way, the innocent guy who was shot by the police.

Dave S. said...

I can only hope that they'll still think this way after Giuliani loses the GOP nomination and Hillary wins the Democratic one.

Assuming you are discussing Bill Clinton's morals, how does/should Hillary's nomination have any effect on that? (I know what you're getting at, I just want you to show your work.)

Those looking to turn 2008 into a referendum on Bill Clinton, distinguishing characteristics and all, may end up wishing they hadn't.

Anonymous said...

I, for one, welcome the new Puritanism.

I don't know enough about Hillary's personal life and how much blame she deserves for causing Bill to cheat on her, and how much her shrewishness has caused Chelsea pain. I also don't know how much Barack has hurt his mother, grandparents and siblings over the years. But now I expect a series of investigative reports from Emily Bazelon about them. Because these things really do tell you about a person.

And for first commenter michael, who says that Bill is a rogue and all the women love him for it, I have two names: Paula and Juanita. I'm sure there are more!

Anonymous said...

Keep up the political posts going. The mix of politics and pop culture is what makes Galley Slaves great.

Anonymous said...

You don't understand, JVL. IOKIYAD.

Rob said...

only marginally well-played, sir. I don't know about Emily Brazelton, but if Mr. Clinton was running for the nomination today, I certainly would not vote for him. And I suspect that's true of many of us who did vote for him in '92 and '6. In both years, we could at least hope that what people were saying about Clinton was not true. But we already know about Giuliani.

Anonymous said...

All the women love Bill? Sorry, count me out. He's the ultimate smarmy louse and only lacks a pencil thin mustache to be complete.