i like the idea, now repeated like a nursery rhyme by pundits, that hillary 'has to articulate why she wants to be president'. that is, she has to make up some shit, or simulate some commitments. everyone understands what this means, but no one says it: her actual reasons amount to personal grandiosity (she's not alone in that motivation, of course); now she has to work out how to pretend to have other reasons = whatever excruciatingly empty commonplaces focus-group well this week. everyone obviously understands this completely. now you are not going to vote for someone like that, are you? that would be mere capitulation to a meaningless person or a monster of self-aggrandizement. that's pretty close to the essence of contempo american politics.
or the other little media chant is 'she has to show that she's authentic'. what they mean by this is that she has to simulate honesty or conviction. this is what we want, i guess, and the pundits need to think about this: their whole approach entails this: there is no difference between expressing yourself authentically and convincing people that you are, even if you are a person who couldn't even understand a concept like authenticity. so, if that's who you want telling you what to do, knock yourself out. you could roofy yourself if you want, though the difference before and after will be difficult to detect.
