 |
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) robinmckinley | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is probably a mistake, but I’ve already spent too much time writing it so it’s this or nothing. I’m not capable of running a political blog—the extreme lack of originality of the following will prove that very nimbly—and, don’t worry, I don’t want to. Eight years ago I wasn’t even two or three pages’ worth of interested. (Maybe I should have been.) But . . . whatever the flaws, disadvantages and drawbacks of the front runners for the Democratic presidential nomination this time, it is absolutely thrilling that those front runners are a white woman and a black man. And nothing can take it away from us that we’ve got this far at least. Let us celebrate something we can celebrate, while we can celebrate it. A year from now reality will have us by the short hairs again, however November turns out. So this is my small warped gesture of appreciation. Tomorrow our normally scheduled service will resume. Politics. *twitch* *twitch!* I'm totally with you here. I thought I'd grow into a thoughtful, balanced understanding of government and the democratic [sic] process. Uh. No. I have never been able to read Political Commentators: they speak some other language. Campaign trail speeches are mostly a hollow booming sound. My inability to engage with any political thinking (a) is one of the things that taught me to believe I’m stupid and (b) is one of the things that taught me that I don’t think like people who can follow politics. I prefer the latter, if I get a choice, which still allows for the possibility of thought occurring.* But I do seem to come to my inconclusions by roundabout ways, and so much of government, including seeking office in it, seems to be going on on another planet, like someone is staring earnestly into my eyes and insisting that red is green.** Well, I don’t see it that way. And I do see everything through a red/green filter of believing that anyone who wants to be a politician has something wrong with them and is someone I don’t want governing me or administrating my country. Which I realise is a common problem. And I assume is one reason why voter turnout is often so dismal—this attitude makes choosing candidates by making sense out of their mushy rodomontade kind of hopeless. I’ve recently subscribed to TIME, which is the first I’ve subscribed to any political or current-events mag, ie American mag, since I emigrated.*** But I want to pay some attention to the run up to the election this time, and while I’m pretty used (this includes braced and aggrieved) to the British view of America† I want some American input.†† A couple of things strike me from the issue I’ve just read. First, Joe Klein, speaking of political commentators†††, saying that maybe the media should get a grip. Well, yes. Us girls aren’t allowed to choose our candidates emotionally, or anyway there’s a lot of low-budget cavilling from people who assume we do‡, but what the hell are we supposed to call what the media does? In my politer moments I’d call it unleashing a barrage of phoney emotional spin. And, second, leading directly on from this is the what-seems-to-me whole ridiculous hoohah about Hillary having a teary moment while she was talking to a group of women about what she would like to do if she were president. Hillary has been bashed for being a cold hard calculating bitch from the beginning—to the extent that my emotional opinion is that her obvious control freakery has been driven to make her one, whether she was one to begin with or not. And then her eyes fill up a little in a comparatively minor moment with a few supporters and now the baying media is all over that. Lighten up, guys‡‡, just like Joe Klein says. The moral seems to be that the woman isn’t to be seen to do anything right: this would certainly make me a little tense and jumpy. This also leads me to my own bottom line about Hillary. Given the political climate since . . . gods, how far back do we go? Roosevelt? Eisenhower? When Adlai Stevenson lost? I’m not a Kennedy fan, so it has to be before that. But given the political climate that Hillary is forced to move in, how the bloody hell does a woman go about running for president without everyone hating her for being a woman ambitious enough to run for president? Hillary is not perfect, and she’s done some pretty imperfect things. ‡‡‡ But I look at that rather too clenched face and posture, that tendency to be too cautious at the wrong times and to make the wrong calculations from being over-calculating, and I see a woman who just may be holding her own goddam line the best she can and is not going to let the bastards grind her down. I could be wrong. She could just be a naked burning flame of ambition. But I don’t, personally, think so. I think behind that ambition for ambition’s sake—and hey, wouldn’t it be great to be the first woman President of the United States? Why isn’t this something dream about?§—there’s a real, if not perhaps a barrel of laughs, human being who furthermore might make a better president than any we’ve had recently.§§ I realise she takes lack of easy charm and likeableness a little far, but I believe her more for it—even if charm might soften the razor-edge profile of the ambition, which is certainly present and, doubtless, flaming. Compare and contrast this—maybe—with something someone posted here about Barack: that he took on a big-name supporter who feels free to be noisily anti-gay. Oh dear. Well, in my irrationally feminine way I don’t believe Barack is anti-gay: which leaves that he made a big dumb error. One way or another it certainly is a big dumb error. And it seems to me the sort of big dumb error that arises out of inexperience. Let him go off and be a senator for another term or two and get back to us later. I just assumed everyone called her Hillary because otherwise someone might think others were talking about the male Clinton? Yes. I assume there's some of that too; and she seems to have encouraged it herself. Presumably it’s one of her calculated attempts to appear ‘warmer’. I suppose it would be breaking the mould way too violently if she didn’t use her husband’s name but, for example, the one she was born with. Although this would be her father’s name, and then where do you stop? Her mother’s maiden name would have been her father’s name. And this would all be way too Great Goddessy for Joe Voter. And Mrs Joe Voter. [sic] Hillary got enough stick for trying to be ‘co-president’ with Bill. Which I don’t even think she did do. She knew she was a highly intelligent and capable woman, and here she was in the White House, even if only by marriage. I think she was naïve, and it’s the naïve that did her in. And yes, she probably was (and still is) a bit too fascinated by the presidency itself. But I don’t think that’s a hanging crime, myself. They didn’t have to turn her into the Creature from the Black Lagoon. (Who as I recall was also misunderstood.) I don't know. I didn't think there was any intended rudeness behind it, I think maybe it’s just a little easier to call a woman by her first name, and not in a good way. From my experience, for example, of being the twenty-five-years younger wife of an old-fashioned Englishman with old-fashioned manners who also happens to be an Hon, I can tell you that when people call him ‘Mr Dickinson’ and you ‘Robin’ they are patronising you. It may not come fully into their consciousness, but that’s what’s happening.§§§ Hillary will know this, I think—although you never know about other people’s blind spots—but may see those HILLARY banners as a calculated risk. * Although there are definitely days when the buzzing in my head has more to do with the amount of caffeine recently ingested than any contemplative activity. ** And that I should be investing my life savings^ in real estate on Titan. ^ What life savings? *** And if you’re going to point out that it’s the very soft end of politics and current events, yes, it is, but it was a cheap deal. The three months free is nice, but the ugly digital wristwatch with two faces and 1,000,000 functions was an unwelcome surprise—I’d apparently failed to read the small print. The watch is still sitting balefully on a corner of the kitchen table and now and again it beeps. For no reason I can see/turn off. Fortunately I have no desire to wear it to any concerts.
And look, I'm old. I want hard copy. I want something I can read on the train. Although I might listen to the come-on of an on line subscription political feed that didn't send me beeping digital watches. † And from which I’ve learnt a lot, very little of it good †† I suspect whatever is going on here is related to the fact that after twelve years living in England I wrote my first American novel. And then after that I wrote my second. CHALICE is back to my English never-never land however. ††† Although I was as riveted by PRIMARY COLORS as the next, er, expat. Although speaking of the dangers of books into films, I still look at Emma Thompson and think Hillary Clinton and vice versa. ‡ And, okay, I’m a girl. I’m brimming over with hormones by definition^ and therefore unreliable, but I think it’s really stupid not to pay attention to any emotional/visceral reactions you have to things, be they presidential candidates or the glint in the eye of the man/woman sitting at the next table and trying to catch yours. ^Except I’m menopausal so I’m not. I understand that if I were still brimming over with hormones I wouldn’t be in this mess. ‡‡ Guys, in McKinleyspeak, is nongender specific. My three girl whippets were ‘you guys’ all their lives. ‡‡‡ I never did figure Whitewater out. But I’m in good company. § Mind you, if anyone had ever offered me a candidacy, I’d have run to the edge of the world and jumped off. §§ Part of the heart-in-throat thrill of a woman and a black running for the Democratic nomination is that the outgoing Republican president is not—ahem!—popular. We are f------ in with a chance, you know? §§§ I except ordinary working stiffs whom you’re talking to because they’re painting your house or whatever. Any of them call me Mrs Dickinson I feel I’m patronising them. What a nest of snakes ‘class’ is. I loved your post.
You are so on point about the Hilary/Barack (or should I say Clinton/Obama?)* issue. The charm has made me uneasy for quite some time, Good. I tend to get funny looks when I say that I usually dislike charismatic people on sight. I do too: with rare (inevitably embarrassing) exceptions it not only doesn’t work on me it makes my alarm bells go off. I do want to approve of Barack—I especially want to approve of him if he gets the nomination, because I will perforce then be voting for him—but I still don’t want to vote for him (yet) because I don’t think he knows enough to be both a good and an effective president. It’ll be interesting to see if he manages to think of a way out of, say, alienating the gay vote by this turkey he’s signed on. How a politician oozes out of mistakes is a crucial point. Furthermore, voting for a candidate based upon personality** just seems to be a bad idea in general, although many are guilty of it. If I remember correctly, a lot of people used this reasoning when Bush and his "compassionate conservatism" first came on the scene in 2000. I always thought it was mind control. Stuff . . . the . . . Florida . . . ballot . . . boxes. And clearly they were excellent judges of character.***
*I guess it doesn't matter as long as one is consistent? Or parallel anyway. If you call the one one you have to call the other the same.
**As opposed to issues and past record
Although this does depend somewhat on your ability to translate platform rhetoric, something I have a lifelong problem with.
***Hope the sarcasm comes across strongly enough.
Hey! You seem to have turned green with irony! These footnotes are addictive! But I suspect reading answers to them is going to be even worse than one of my bristling epics. Tags: politics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly, I'm just thrilled that I can be content with whoever the Democrats end up nominating–my primary's in May, so I don't really have to worry about it. I've been waffling between Clinton and Obama for awhile. Like you, I have problems with Barack's charm, and he seems to be trying too hard to please everyone. On the other hand, I'd love to have a good speaker in the White House (every time they play Bush sound bites on NPR I have to turn off the radio) and I love seeing so many people my age (college) excited about him. He makes us all feel like we can undo the last decade of damage.
I'm leaning towards Clinton at the moment, though, probably because of the media frenzy. There's been some especially nasty stuff in my local paper, and I want to strangle every single one of those writers while telling them all of the good reasons why she would be an excellent Commander in Chief!
But everyone in my home state is too busy trying to defend Mitt Romney, so they probably wouldn't pay any attention to me. To which I say: c'mon! He's a filthy rich, white male who got elected in Massachusetts! His problem isn't his religion, it's his effing campaign! Which is BAD!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: anne_d |
Date: January 16th, 2008 02:47 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
Well spoken, or written. All right, so I agree with you, but still, good work. Yes, I'm very excited about the diversity this time around, and it's about time and a good start.
Poor Senator Clinton can do no right - if she walked on water, half the pundits would accuse her of showing off, and the other half would say she didn't do it right. Also, I think that calling her "Hillary" and the other candidates by their last names is a putdown; it's like calling a woman "little lady" or "honey" and addressing the men in the room as "sir".
I would really like to hear some campaign speeches about what the candidate actually wants to do, with real numbers, even, instead of "I'm for change and my opponent isn't", which we're getting from all of them, and it's pretty much all white noise. Not to mention the debates, if you can call them that, which all seem to be prewritten campaign speeches all over again.
With an election junkie husband (he's staying home on Feb 6 to watch the primary returns) and a 19-year-old daughter who is excited about voting in her first presidential election and an election junkie, it's all politics all the time around here. I'm glad she's involved and interested, but sometimes I just want to crawl into a hole until the 5th, and then crawl back in until November.
So. New books? Oh, goody! *Claps hands in glee* You write 'em, I'll read 'em.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROFL @ green with irony!! Who knew her (his?) colors would change like that! I also subscribe to TIME [and I did NOT get a watch, so what's up with that? My son would have (a) loved it and (b) tamed its beeping via that mysterious sympatico that 13-year-old boys have with all things technical. So hrmph.] but I spend more time reading political blogs. Hullabaloo, written by digby and others at http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/, is probably the most interesting and well-written far left blog I've found, in the unlikely event that you have a second to look at one. Of course, most of the left embrace Markos Moulitas (spelling?) at Daily Kos at http://www.dailykos.com/ which is certainly a prolific (if whiny and contentious) community! In any case, I wanted to comment on Hillary, John Edwards and Barack (brace yourself because I love this stuff). I've been lucky enough to see all three in person during the past few months, and I was stunned by how genuine Hillary came across in person versus either of the two men. In person, to a group of about 400 or so in Palo Alto, Hillary was a *real* person, one with the values and ideals that I would WANT our President to have. She spoke of the things that I treasure and care about and I TRULY BELIEVED that she cares about those things too. Also, I believe that her own campaign deliberately adopted the "Hillary" nomenclature, so it's perhaps less disrespectful than it would have been had outsiders assigned it? One of my good friends went to law school with Barack. I saw him speak to a much bigger crowd in Oakland, and he came across as a bit slicker, a little less spontaneous. He's also a more idealistic choice, I think, because he represents SUCH a blank slate (in terms of experience), and only we idealists could project the best contents for that slate. However, one of my good friends here went to law school with Barack, and she's a big supporter, not just because of her "old law school network" but because she genuinely likes the guy (and her husband worked for Bill Clinton as an appointee, so they're extremely politcally savvy, as well). John Edwards, though his concern for poverty seemed real, came across in San Jose at a rally as entirely a used car salesman. He carefully chose things to say to make the crowds cheer. I saw him as manipulative and phony, and I have serious concerns about his running given his wife's awful prognosis. I am about to vote in the California Democratic primary (absentee) and I'm seriously torn between Barack and Hillary. Do I want the more practical, experienced, and FEMALE choice, or will I surrender to the idealist? In this race, I think it'll matter what I choose; in the presidential election I plan to vote absentee and then do some get out the vote activities in Missouri, likely to be a swing state. So those are my perceptions but as I said before, I'm SO THRILLED to have THREE reasonable Democratic contenders that I could just burst, and I CANNOT WAIT TO ELECT SOMEONE TO REPLACE THE A*****E THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE WHITE HOUSE. Is it typical for an expat like you, seventeen years gone, to be invested in this stuff? You're unusual in so many other ways, is this one, too? -Kath |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: al_zorra |
Date: January 16th, 2008 06:24 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
Viva Edwards!
However, that none of these 3 dem candidates -- hillary, edwards or obama -- objected to msnbc turfing kucinich out of the Las Vegas debate last night, was Not Good.
At this point, none of the primary media are any good at reporting what really matters, because they are all owned by billionaire corporatists, and billionaire corporatists have vested interests that are Not Good for democracy. Thus the turfing out of Kucinich from the debates and making him look stupid. Now that he's been disappeared, they can really go to work on disappearing Edwards. Yet every unofficial poll shows that most dem voters prefer Edwards. so even the polls are rigged to make the process dump the anti-corporatists. I was called by one of those last night, phoned at 9 p.m. as I was beginning to wind down from a day that began at 4 a.m. The pollster was determined that the only candidates were hillary and obama. I refused to cooperate with their questions. I kept repeating, "Edwards and Kucinich are still working, they are part of our choices, and I chose Edwards." Drove the pollster insane it did. This was a poll commissioned by the National Democratic Committee.
Love, C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And (sorry, but I cannot resist) two other quick thoughts: I gave all three Democrats some money, Obama most and Hillary (who seemed to need it least) least and got on their email lists, which have been run AMAZINGLY well, especially Edwards'. I don't think you need to donate to be on their lists. Al Gore in his book "The Assault on Reason" says that the Internet may revitalize democracy, and the way the the Democratic campaigns have used emails to inform, to motivate, and (most importantly for them) to recruit and fundraise is nothing short of astonishing. Four years ago, even with Dean, there was NOTHING like this going on. Everything from emails wishing supporters happy holidays and sharing recipes to emails urging immediate action on one issue or another. Once Edwards asked for money because Ann Colter had called him gay and he wanted to prove to her that 10,000 people thought she was both wrong and hateful (of COURSE I gave to that cause!). So if you're interested I urge you to sign up with the campaigns for emails. Also, another favorite blog that you might like is Kevin Drum's Political Animal, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/. He's quite funny. I don't always agree with him, and he's also more personal about his own life than most political bloggers, but sometimes he says EXACTLY the right thing. And I should say, about DailyKos, that it's the most popular political blog on the web, bar none, with over 1,000,000 hits a day or some such (last time I heard which was quite a while ago). So while *I* find them whiny, if you avoid the comments you can still learn quite a lot from the Kossacks. OK, sorry everyone, I'll stop now. I am passionately interested in this stuff so I wanted to share.... -k |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once Edwards asked for money because Ann Colter had called him gay and he wanted to prove to her that 10,000 people thought she was both wrong and hateful (of COURSE I gave to that cause!). ************* Okay PARDON ME HERE but why is being called gay HATEFUL? I'm sure she meant it badly, but is it still necessary to be hysterical about it? . . . Okay, we've got the woman, we've got the black, we need the gay candidate. . . . Also, another favorite blog that you might like is Kevin Drum's Political Animal, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/. He's quite funny. I don't always agree with him, and he's also more personal about his own life than most political bloggers, but sometimes he says EXACTLY the right thing. And I should say, about DailyKos, that it's the most popular political blog on the web, bar none, with over 1,000,000 hits a day or some such (last time I heard which was quite a while ago). So while *I* find them whiny, if you avoid the comments you can still learn quite a lot from the Kossacks. *********** Okay. Will look. Can you send DailyKos addy again? It's already buried here . . . Thanks, I think. :) |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: January 16th, 2008 06:50 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
Here's the other really really annoying thing about the misty-eyed moment that was supposed to reveal Hillary Clinton as being real, etc.: if she had been having misty-eyed moments from the get-go, she would have been labeled as too emotional (female? soft?) to be considered a serious candidate by at least half the press and probably at least half the public, too.
I suspect, without knowing anything about it, that she's not the kind of person who would ever wear her heart on her sleeve, and she's had an adult lifetime, in her own career as a lawyer and as a politician's wife, of being careful about what she says in public. I myself have no problem with this, especially when I consider the unfortunate remarks that our current fearless leader comes out with when he's being spontaneous and unscripted.
Whatever (some) men subtext when they refer to "Hillary," I think women use her first name because they identify with her, one way or another, and I'd guess that's a big thing behind her "Hillary" signs. Plus it's co-opting what her opposition would do.
By the way, thank you for the reference to "Four Left Feet" in yesterday's comments--I will look it up. There is a dog sport here (don't know if they do it there too) called "freestyle" which is, essentially, dancing with your dog. My girl is far too physical and enthusiastic for this now--maybe in a couple of years when she (hopefully) learns some impulse control!
Diane in MN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the other really really annoying thing about the misty-eyed moment that was supposed to reveal Hillary Clinton as being real, etc.: if she had been having misty-eyed moments from the get-go, she would have been labeled as too emotional (female? soft?) to be considered a serious candidate by at least half the press and probably at least half the public, too.
***************** YEEEEEEEEEEESSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I suspect, without knowing anything about it, that she's not the kind of person who would ever wear her heart on her sleeve, and she's had an adult lifetime, in her own career as a lawyer and as a politician's wife, of being careful about what she says in public.
***************** My guess is that she is this way inclined and has got pretty well pathological about it because of the way she's been treated.
I myself have no problem with this, especially when I consider the unfortunate remarks that our current fearless leader comes out with when he's being spontaneous and unscripted.
*************** Indeed. Although why he got elected, let alone *re*elected, despite this is . . . way beyond depressing. (Of course he *didn't* get elected the first time. . . . )
Whatever (some) men subtext when they refer to "Hillary," I think women use her first name because they identify with her,
************** Yes, but this seems to me a bit dangerous.
one way or another, and I'd guess that's a big thing behind her "Hillary" signs. Plus it's co-opting what her opposition would do.
************ Good point. I hadn't thought of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: robinmckinley |
Date: January 17th, 2008 01:01 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: Why do people hate Hilary Clinton so much?
|
What I don't understand is why Hilary Clinton inspires such a visceral hatred.
********** YES.
I really don't want the answer to be because she is an ambitious woman, yet evidence seems to be pointing this way.
************ YYYYEEEEESSSSSS.
I agree with you about ambition. Barack Obama's entire campaign seems to be running on ambition bound with hope, and yet this is seen as admirable. Does this come back to the fact that it is admirable for a man to be ambitious, but a woman has to mask it, at least in the political arena?
************** I believe this is a big part of it. Aggravated by the fact that Barack is naturally charming and Hillary is not.
Finally, I don't understand (okay not finally, there is a lot I don't understand) why women of my generation (in their twenties/thirties) seem to be so anti-Hilary Clinton.
************* Yes, even I've noticed this, and it's depressing. Reminds me of how many of your generation of women think feminism is something that's so over. I'm like, WHAT? --If it were just that it's easier to be an idealist (and so prefer Barack) when you're young I could understand that. And it's good for us sour old hags to remember to be idealist too.
It is almost as though Barack Obama is the cool kid on campus to support whereas supporting Hilary Clinton is seen as selling-out to the establishment. Well I guess come primary time in California I will just have to be a sell-out
*********** Well I won't argue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: January 16th, 2008 03:04 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
rofl @ footnotes! (I read online a few days ago that the first step towards feeling better is to laugh, and being as I'm sick at the moment - thank you :))
I'm a citizen far away, like yourself, and I'm thinking it's important that I go to the embassy and see if I can register so I can actually vote.
really hard to follow these things, but hey - even on your blog, which I frequent *much* more often than any political blog/newspaper/anything, I can find some input, so yay!
and I, too, would like to see a Democrat in the White House.
maya.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a bit of a madhouse over here, politically. Oddly enough, having two fairly reasonable Democratic candidates for once has caused some strife of its own; for the first time in my life I'm at political odds with my friends (they're for Obama, and I'm for Clinton) and it's just bizarre to be in a situation where there's enough choice in the matter to have any room for dissent. Last election it was a simple matter of "Get Bush out, NOW" (and when that failed we all got blindingly drunk for the first time ever).
And you are not alone in the inability to understand the rhetoric, but I maintain that it's not our fault. What is anyone supposed to get out of "I plan to mmmblemmrrf some stuff when I'm President"? And should an actual statement be made, how many times will it stand up to being asked why and how?
I ended up for Clinton because a) she's enough of an a&#@!%e (battle axe? harridan?) to DO something instead of just talking about it, and b) I think she's in a position to understand many difficulties facing America's social minorities, since she is obviously a member of one herself. And yes, I think she's less idealistic than Obama, but I have a hard time seeing that as necessarily a bad thing. So many of us are less idealistic after eight years under Bush; instead of saying "It'll turn out alright," we've gotten to "we'll MAKE it turn out alright, dammit."* We're just hoping that she'll help us with that.
And I LIKE that she cried (even though I hate, hate, HATE the media buzzards who snatched at it as the Ultimate Proof That Women Are Too Emotional For Office). I've been wondering for a while if there are any politicians with, you know, humanity left to them. I don't think robot zombies cry. Even evil political robot zombies.
*Hopefully, so long as this attitude is directed inward instead of at random Middle Eastern countries, it'll do more good than harm. Like overturning that law just passed that says people can be arrested for being suspected of having terroristic thoughts. Seriously, what kind of madness is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: January 17th, 2008 08:48 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
A number of people wondered why Hillary Clinton inspires visceral dislike.
I can only speak for myself as one of those people who viscerally dislike her, and other people's reasons will have to remain a mystery.
I'm neither liberal nor conservative. I mostly just want to live and let live. My liberty and that of everyone else is very important to me. I want to see someone of high ethics in office, and I know that anyone who wants the job is unlikely to meet that qualification, but I look for the best possible candidate who is likely to do the least amount of damage.
My dislike of Mrs. Clinton is independent of sex. As a woman, I would certainly like to see a woman in the office, but it matters to me who that woman is. The person who is Hillary Clinton could be man or woman, black, white, or purple with a bald, silver head, and I would never vote for her.
It's more than that she is ambitious. She Wants To Rule. She strikes me as someone who would do ANYTHING to get in office. She doesn't want to be president to accomplish some goal; being president is an end in itself. Bill Clinton wanted the job because he mainly wants to be liked and loved; he loved the adulation and popularity that came with the job. Remember how he was constantly taking polls and doing what the polls dictated? Hillary is far more intelligent, far colder, far more calculating, and far more interested in power than Bill. She lusts for power. She scares me.
Put that together with her well-known mistreatment of the people who work for her and you have a very scary person. For example, it's well known that she was extremely unkind to her security detail when she was in the White House. These were the people whose job it was to lay their lives on the line for her! The way a person treats "ordinary people" tells volumes about his or her character. This single fact tells me that she is elitist and uncaring about average people. Giving someone power and seeing what they do with it is a good test of character. She failed -- big time. I wouldn't want to give her even more power.
Judith
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: January 28th, 2008 02:39 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Why NOT Hillary?
|
Hello Ms. McKinley,
I have very much been enjoying reading your blog. Just catching up on back entries and read what has been written and commented about the current Democratic primary. I live in Iowa, and I caucused for Barack Obama, because to me Hillary feels entirely too slick and too ambitious.* I mean, after her husband finished his second term, they moved to New York. New York? Not that it's not a nice place to live, but she wanted a political career, and New York is a much better place to pursue one than, say, Arkansas, or Illinois, where she is actually from. New York has a ton of delegates and electoral votes, and it also has the New York Times, a very influential paper, which has, by the way, endorsed Hillary as the Democrat of choice for thinking Democrats. This was _obviously_ a strategic political move on her part.
Okay. So she wants to be senator and now she wants to be president. Well, good for her. She is obviously a strong-minded, ambitious woman, and I am, like you, glad that America can seriously consider the idea of having a female president, and that her gender has not been a liability in the race. That's GOOD.** But Hillary has been touting herself as the "more experienced" candidate, which has not rung true AT ALL for me. She's been in the Senate for seven years, only four more than Barack. I finally found someone else who thinks like I do (and who writes better than I do) at Slate magazine. See here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/pagenum/all/#page_start
I'm not trying to convince you not to support her, but I think her claim of experience is flawed and I wish more people could see that. Barack doesn't have any experience either, but he doesn't claim to. The President of the United States has many, many roles, only one of which involves legislation, and sometimes (especially when it comes to foreign policy) it is a good thing to have someone who is extremely charismatic hosting foriegn dignitaries/visiting as an official representative/sitting at the negotiating table. Witness Bill Clinton convincing Yitzhak Rabin and Yassir Arafat to SHAKE HANDS.
And I'd like to point out (just as a side note!) that Barack has avoided, completely avoided, negative campaigning. My brother-in-law is working for his campaign in California and he says that they are forbidden, when making phone calls***, to even mention other candidates' names. When we caucused+ and the Hillary operative and the Barack operative were working on the undecided in the room, Barack's person presented her candidate's stances on the issues, and Hillary's person presented reasons why Hillary is better than Barack. I understand that campaign volunteers are sometimes weak links, but it still made Hillary look pretty weak- and I think that's what her whole campaign has been like.
Footnotes are great. I used to write with lots of parantheses (my sentences looked like mathematical equations) (showing here) but footnotes, I think, are much easier to keep straight for the reader. Good luck with CHALICE, and I hope your hands get better soon! Hopefully this comment will make it into your approval list and not get lost in the lj void. (Although I realize that probably no one else will read it but you since it's for a post from a month ago!) (See what I mean about the parantheses?)
Yours cheerfully++,
Adrian
*This is a tough one for political candidates, right? To want to be in office, you have to be ambitious, but you can't appear too ambitious or it makes people think you're selfish...
**Although when it's suggested to me that I should vote for her because she's a woman and I'm a woman, it makes me so angry. Equality means equality, which means that she has to prove herself the best candidate just like the men do.
***Political campaign phone calls. UUUGGGGH. Maybe I'll disown him.
+A fascinating experience. You can read about it here: www.spencerandadrian.blogspot.com
++It is fifty degrees here in Iowa today. In January! It's like we've been granted a reprieve from winter!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
