Thursday, December 13, 2018

Camille Paglia Explains Things


For John, BLUFNice review of what is happening now.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

The author and academic discusses 2020, Trump and Jordan Peterson

From The Spectator (US Edition), an interview of Ms Camille Paglia, 4 December 2018.

Here is the lede:

Camille Paglia is one of the most interesting and explosive thinkers of our time.  She transgresses academic boundariesand blows up media forms.  She’s brilliant on politics, art, literature, philosophy, and the culture wars.  She’s also very keen on the email Q and A format for interviews. So, after reading her new collection of essays, Provocations, Spectator USA sent her some questions.
Professor Paglia reviewed the field of her Party's 2020 hopefuls, dismissing most of them.

If the economy continues strong, Trump will be reelected.

The Democrats (my party) have been in chaos since the 2016 election and have no coherent message except Trump hatred.
Senators Kamala Harris and Screechy Elizabeth Warren, as well as Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker (all the gravitas of a cork).  She has no faith in Governor Andrew Cuomo (a yapping puppy).  Both Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are dismissed (way too old and creaky).  She has been looking at Congresswoman Cheri Bustos of Illinois and Governor Steve Bullock of Montana.

As for Hillary, she’s pretty much damaged goods, but her perpetual, sniping, pity-me tour shows no signs of abating. She still has a rabidly loyal following, but it’s hard to imagine her winning the nomination again, with her iron grip on the Democratic National Committee now gone. Still, it’s in her best interest to keep the speculation fires burning. Given how thoroughly she has already sabotaged the rising candidates by hogging the media spotlight, I suspect she wants Trump to win again. I don’t see our stumbling, hacking, shop-worn Evita yielding the spotlight willingly to any younger gal.
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be forthright, but please consider that this is not a barracks.