Send in the Clowns, Part 2

Someone asked me last night what I thought of the Republican and Democratic conventions the past two weeks.  She was somewhat disappointed that I watched neither.  I watched not a minute.

I don't believe much of what either party says.  And I continue to use the old Judy Collins song title, "Send in the Clowns."  And, apparently, the Dems did just that.

Some comedienne (Can I still use the feminine version or am I creating a microaggression?) who I never heard of called Bernie Sanders supporters "ridiculous."  The "Bernie or Bust" folks were booing throughout the first few days of the convention.  And this comedienne, in her speech, said, "To the 'Bernie or Bust'  people, you're being ridiculous."  Hmmm......  So that's what the Dems now think?  People who are expressing their opinions, right or wrong (and you know where I stand on Sanders), are "ridiculous?"  I guess that isn't a surprise, is it?

My son has offered a unique opinion.  He thinks Trump might well be running as a joke of sorts, that soon he'll just say about his campaign, "I was just kidding."  I don't think so, but the newspaper the other day suggested something similar.  "Is Trump trying to get Clinton elected?" the editorial headline read.  That's food for thought.  After all, has Trump over the years been a booster of the Clintons?  I really don't know, not having been a follower of Trump or, for that matter, a fan of either of the Clintons.  But there have been clips of Don saying good things about them.

There are many reasons not to vote for Trump.  There are also many reasons not to vote for Clinton.  I have cited them previously.  But to follow one theme of last week, that Clinton would continue the legacy of Obama, is yet another to shun the Democrat.  Do we really need another four or eight years of the divisiveness of Obama, of the lies of Obama (I know, I know, "But Bush lied."), of the gov't intrusion of Obama, of the putrid economic growth of Obama, of the disastrous foreign policy of Obama, and the list is practically infinite.

OK, I know it's probably not PC to used "comedienne" for a female comedian.  After all we can't use "actress" any longer.  It's "actor," whether male or female.  We can't use "stewardess" any longer,  In fact, it's attendant.  We can't use "chairwoman" any longer.  It's "chairperson."  (I remember long ago, when "chairman" and "chairwoman" first were frowned upon, I referred to an education-type as the "chairwoman."  She was indignant, insisting on being called "chairperson."  I asked why and she referred to the apparent insult of "-woman," demanding the neutral "person."  I considered her wishes and conceded, henceforth referring to her as the "chairone."  Isn't "one" a neutral pronoun?)  But isn't there some boob tube show called "The Bachelorette?"  (spelling?)  If so, why isn't that a similar microaggression?  Or is Hollywood enough of a safe place to get away with it?