Like you, when I want a good bracing shot of fake altruism, self-serving moralizing, and pseudo-principled expressions of outrage, I turn to Republicans. I know they're good for it, because that's all they're good for.
Sorry. That's all for which they're good.
Recently, though, I've discovered a Democratic source of this all-too-renewable natural resource. She is, as the N.Y. Times noted on June 12 of this year, "a top Clinton fund-raiser, telecommunications entrepreneur and member of the Democratic national convention's platform committee." She's married to a British Lord.
She's Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild. You may remember her from such recent accomplishments as telling Anderson Cooper, regarding Barack Obama, "...frankly, I don't like him. I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him."
Yeah, that old gag: "elitist," which we thought had been retired along with Newt Gingrich's relevance. Here it is, uttered by a woman who is mistress of the 3,200 acre Rothschild family estate, and who was introduced to her husband (Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild) by Henry fucking Kissinger at the Bilderberg Conference.
(Don't bother applying to attend. Wikipedia: "Attendees of Bilderberg include central bankers, defense experts, mass media press barons, government ministers, prime ministers, royalty, international financiers and political leaders from Europe and North America.")
Forester was recently on the radio here in L.A., talking to the excellent (and Huff Post blogging!) Patt Morrison. The topic: Hillary loyalists, and how they will or will not be able to reconcile themselves to Barack Obama's victory and join in the effort to get him elected in November. It turns out that, alas, Lynn Forester may not. In fact, she may vote for, and possibly work on behalf of, John McCain.
Now, this matter was previously autopsied in these pages on June 13 by Richard Silverstein, here.
Silverstein quite understandably dealt with it by not really believing the Lady meant what she said. So he wrote a few paragraphs and wisely bailed out.
But why should that stop me? Because a month later she's still saying it. Here is what Lynn Forester told (what sounded to me like an audibly incredulous) Patt Morrison. (Listen to the whole thing here, under "Hillary Holdouts.")
"At the end of the day we are choosing the President of the United States, the most powerful job in the world for the greatest county that ever existed on the face of the planet."
(All right, I have to interrupt for a moment and invite you to join me, as we smash our heads against the wall at this GOP-style American-exceptionalist frothing. Can't the U.S.A. be a great country without having to be "the greatest country that ever existed on the face of the planet"? Which itself is kind of a mixed cliché. She means either "on the face of the Earth" or "on the planet." Never mind. Let's move on.)
"And we cannot say that our party, or our loyalty to our party, is our first obligation. We are obligated to choose who will lead this country best, who will work harder for all the people in this county. And so I don't feel guilty at all if I don't vote Democratic. And it was California's Ronald Reagan who said, he did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him."
It's hard to know where to start to adequately describe the bad faith, uber-disingenuousness, and sheer baloney-rich nonsense of this statement. So let's not try yet. Instead, let's just review what "Dan from Brea" (a former Hillary supporter) said when he called in. Because he nailed it:
"I cannot believe anyone who seriously supports the fundamental principles that Hillary campaigned for could say with a straight face that they would consider voting for John McCain...I have a hard time taking your position seriously."
Tell me about it, Dan. Because here's what this woman, whose claim on our attention is predicated on her having worked passionately for Hillary Clinton, would have us believe:
1. That she is of the sincere opinion that John McCain, whose positions on major issues are almost identical to those of His Catastrophic Chimpitude, George W. Bush, will "lead this country" better and "work harder for all the people in this country," than Barack Obama, whose positions on almost every issue are almost identical to Hillary Clinton's.
2. That this attitude represents a selfless devotion to country, if need be at the expense of petty Party loyalty.
3. That Barack Obama has not given Forester "a reason to trust him," but John McCain has.
4. That this position is adequately explained and justified by something Ronald Reagan -- California's Ronald Reagan -- once said.
If you listen to the broadcast, you hear Patt's other guest, Jill Iscoll (fundraiser for HRC and chair of her Senate campaigns) take a somewhat less ridiculous stance. Iscoll, to my ear, even sounds a bit embarrassed by the full-throated absurdity of her sister Hill-raiser.
What the two women have in common, however, is a shared sense of indignation at how Hillary was treated by the press during the primary. There was misogyny. There was sexism. "The press tried to marginalize her," Iscoll said. "She was not a marginal candidate."
"Marginalize"? After months of writing and broadcasting about Hillary's "inevitability"? Whatever. And yes, there were strains of misogyny and sexism in the coverage, just as there were strains of racism. But then Iscoll says, about her candidate, "She is the greatest figure of our age for millions and millions of people, not only in America but around the world."
Again with the face-of-the-planet hyperbole. Meanwhile, neither of these women mentions any of the half-truths, lies, contradictions, fudgings, or evasions for which Hillary was responsible, from I-was-shot-at-in-Bosnia to the-voters-of-Florida-deserve-to-be-heard-even-though-I-earlier-agreed-that-they-didn't.
What we have here, in other words, are two feminists still pissed that their gal lost. They're entitled. Lynn Forester is even entitled (whatever that can possibly mean, coming from me, a nobody with a Dell and broadband), to vote for, work for, and give money to, John McCain.
But don't pretend to justify it on the basis of "leadership." Have the simple honesty to identify your position for what it is: sheer, unadulterated, 99 44/100ths percent pure spite -- one of the most blatant examples of spite on the face of the planet.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. After all, spite is to revenge what masturbation is to sex.
So go enjoy yourself. But don't ask everyone else to applaud you for it, or to adopt your (bogus, nonsensical, pseudo-selfless) "reasons" as their own -- or, worse, to take them seriously and try to dissuade or appease you.
We've had, thanks to the thoroughly corrupted Republican Party, eight nightmare years of lies, propaganda, and insults to the intelligence of ourselves and our household pets, all presented as ostensibly matters of principle and patriotism. The last thing we need is more of it from Democrats -- regardless of their titles.
Cross-posted on What HE Said.