Who knew that the lesson Democrats drew from the '04 election was that declaring victimhood will win over the voters. It seems to be the "in" thing to do.
First, John Edwards claimed that the forces of Satan want to "shut him up" about health care reform, and that's why his pricey haircuts made news.
I hate to break it to Edwards, but the reason his $400 (or more) haircuts made news is that he's always running around talking about how poor he was as a child.
MATTHEWS: What‘s it feel like? I‘ve never been poor. You have. I‘m not talking about the haircuts and all the nonsense. I‘m talking about your own personal experience as a human being. You know what it is like to be poor. Tell the people watching right now who have not been what it is like.
EDWARDS: Well, you go into a restaurant with your family and you sit down, and everybody—especially when you‘re young—that is the only time I was poor, Chris. And you sit down, and then you start to order something, and your father says, we have to leave, because we can‘t pay for this. And you get up and leave, and it is humiliating. It feels humiliating when you are young. And it is particularly humiliating to see your mother and father have to go through that.
Edwards' dad was a manager at the mill. That's not exactly poor. And he wouldn't be the first person to walk into a restaurant, look at the menu, gasp at the prices, and walk out. That's frugal, not poor. Poor is hunting squirrels to feed eight people, like my dad recalls doing when he was a kid.
So, if Edwards is taking a hit over his expensive haircuts, it's because it's pretentious, not because we don't want him talking about health care.
Next, Hillary Clinton joins the victim brigade claiming fellow Dem candidate Barak Obama "attacked" her by calling her "Bush-Cheney lite." I hate to break it to Hillary, but whining that she's getting called names isn't doing much for the feminist in me. If you wanna play with the big boys, you gotta get tough. The big boys call each other all sorts of names (although, I'll admit that comparing President Bush to Hitler is a bit out of bounds). It doesn't seem inappropriate to me that Obama would want to tie Hillary to a president who is very unpopular with his party's core.
But Hillary wasn't done being the victim. Next, she was supposedly victimized by WaPo fashion writer Robin Givhan, who noted Hillary's cleavage as she spoke on the Senate floor. Is pointing out that her boobies are on display now "victimizing" her? It's just a fact: Hillary was showing cleavage. Even Givhan pointed out that it wasn't the most important issue of the campaign. So, why is Hillary making a big deal out of it?
Because Hillary learned a long time ago that playing the victim helps her with her feminist base--who think all women are victims of Teh Patriarchy--and she's looking to cash in.
Because the victimization of Democrat presidential candidates is all about getting campaign money. Edwards used his wife's cancer as a fund-raising event. He also used snide remarks by Ann Coulter to raise cold cash. Hillary sends out fund-raising letters every time someone looks at her funny.
This just highlights the disgusting underbelly of liberal politics: everybody is a victim. No one is responsible for the things that happen to them, and no one can take care of themselves. We need the government to come in and take care of life for us.
But my question for the people who believe this is, do you really want to elect another victim as president? If pointing out your cleavage is enough to send a candidate into a pearl-clutching frenzy, how is that person going to react when faced with the wrath of France?! If complaints about your expensive haircuts gives you the vapors, what happens when some U.N. yahoo gets on the floor and criticizes the U.S. for not giving even more of our taxpayers' money for senseless (and useless) projects?
Don't you want someone to be president who isn't busy being a victim?