Over at Who Knew?, Jeremy Brown commented as-it-happened on (Hillary's introduction and) Bill Clinton's speech to the Democratic convention. He did it with the kind of wicked mockery that friends and sympathisers specialise in:
“[Clinton is striking the right tone, somewhere between that stadium enthusiasm and the sound of an actual human speaking as if off-the-cuff. He hasn’t said anything of actual meaning yet. I’ll let you know when he does]”
“The man should have been a diplomat, a preacher, or perhaps a traveling spokesman for Transcendental Meditation or Insurance. He is also the living embodiment of the fact that public speaking, though it’s a good start, just ain’t leadership.”
(If I ever do go into politics, I expect my dad's 'Blog will be full of stuff like that.)
[…] 29Jul04
Little Big League
Talking of my dad, he'll be very interested in this. It's a shame Harry's Place […]
It so happens he made a good speech. I voted for him in 1992 and soon came to regret having done so. I wasted my next two presidential votes as well by voting for Ralph Nader. I came to despise Clinton as a neoconservative prick during the 90’s. Now I’ve come to agree with many neoconservatives in the Republican party on matters of foreign policy. It’s all very confusing. Part of the result is that Clinton, to me now, is more of a fascinating socio-political case study than anything else. He’s a con artist. But do you mean to suggest that it would have been more fashionable to have torn him down with devastating cleverness? He’s so irrelevant now that I’m simply finding he doesn’t piss me off as much. Those flaccid quips you cite were not attempts to be tough on Clinton; they were my actual thoughts. And I just wasn’t having pissy thoughts at the time.
But do you mean to suggest that it would have been more fashionable to have torn him down with devastating cleverness?
Not at all. (When I write about fashionable things around here, it's almost always to do them down.) I thought your piece was fun and informative and I think you're being rough on yourself by referring to your remarks as “flaccid quips”. I too have mixed feelings about Bill Clinton, but I find him hard to hate.
The title of my post had two meanings: it referred to your being, I thought, (affectionately) bitchy about Clinton; and it referred to my rating your own post as good—the word “bitchin'” does, I understand, have positive connotations in the vernacular of the young people on the streets (as did the word “wicked” before it was adopted by late-thirtysomething local radio DJs).
Even when I'm not having “pissy thoughts” about Tony Blair, it doesn't stop me taking the piss out of him. And, I'm happy to say, my own friends (and father) don't hesitate to take the piss out of me. I wouldn't waste my time associating with people who couldn't hit such a huge target. The same goes for people who can't find anything worthy of derision in Bill Clinton.
Thanks for the response and for the kind words. I seem to be having a slightly paranoid week. This is the second example in as many days of my responding to a person’s pleasant remarks as if I were being mocked. I had automatically assumed that “Bitchin'” and “wicked mockery” were meant to be sarcastic. I’m having a bad stomach week: that’s my excuse. I’ve got to take a massive chill pill.
You’re welcome, Jeremy. And welcome to PooterGeek. Running a ‘Blog is a fast track to paranoia, but PooterGeek is place of endless love and understanding. Never mind the chill pill; take a toke of this. We inhale.