Monday, January 7, 2008

Hillary's Laments


A bit more politics. First, above, today's much talked about clip featuring Hillary's "tears" at a campaign event, which, if I read the blogs right, has brought all the sharks out. Oh, get over it. In fact, I thought Hillary responded very honestly and eloquently to the question posed, showed some emotion, and let's move on, people. The amount of dumb, fuck-up things candidates say on the road, as a result of campaign wear or sheer stupidity, Hillary should be allowed a moment of exhaustion and emotion.

Second, the clip below, in which Hillary vents a bit of frustration at being painted as the establishment candidate, versus the candidate(s) of change. One, I have to empathize with Clinton -- she's worked long and hard in her political career caring about the right issues, and working for positive change, and up against hard odds all the while, and in the narrow-vision game of politics, it must be just a nightmare to have worked the right side of the line, and one day wake up to find that your on the wrong side, through little fault of your own. Two, the one valid criticism of Obama that I think can continue to play out in the primaries is his actual inexperience in governance. It would be easier to palate, of course, if Hillary or Edwards had more than a couple of years experience on Obama, as executives or Senators, which they don't. But it is one of the very few lines of attack that would concern me about, say, a McCain-Obama match-up (and what a strange article about that very real possibility over at Slate.com!)



My favorite part of that clip? Bill Richardson running for the Vice President nod by amicably swiveling around in his chair like a ten-year old with ADD. But, Hillary, "false hopes!" Ooh, that'll get you in trouble sooner or later.

4 comments:

Eli said...

well, maybe the swivel was so all would consider him for VP. Lots of suggestions than in Iowa his campaign made a deal with Obama's campaign to choose Obama as a second-choice in districts where Richardson didn't pass the 15% threshold.

rone said...

"I have to empathize with Clinton -- she's worked long and hard in her political career caring about the right issues, and working for positive change, and up against hard odds all the while, and in the narrow-vision game of politics, it must be just a nightmare to have worked the right side of the line, and one day wake up to find that your on the wrong side, through little fault of your own."

Umm... what? Are we talking about the same Hillary Clinton here?

Anyway, my pet fringe theory is that the Democrats will suddenly realize that America isn't ready to elect a woman or a black man, and Edwards will magically win the nomination.

karsten said...

What America needs, honestly, is a royal family.

If we had a king and queen, maybe we could obsess over their facial tics and stubbed toes instead of the candidates'. Because American politics seems to be one long string of sitcom gaffes. Hilary Clinton cries. Howard Dean says 'yeah!'. Dukakis rides a tank. Bush would be fun to drink beer with if only he drank beer. Kerry has a head like a frenchified peanut. Obama's black. What kind of personal fulfillment are we looking for in these people? They're not running for Bruce Willis, they're running for president.

Or maybe we just need to get rid the winner-takes-all system. Because, you know, representative democracy means that people have to vote for candidates who represent their interests, and America no longer believes in this kind of democracy. Guiliani makes fun of France for its mandatory four weeks' vacation, and if people actually voted for their interests this would make him unelectable, but instead it's his cross-dressing that makes him unelectable. Because Americans seem to be looking for someone who represents their posturing when they start yelling in a bar or the hopes of manliness they have for their sons rather than their actual, material political interests. And you know, this is what a modern-day king is supposed to do: look nice in a suit and posture publicly for everyone's amusement.

Anyway, I too am wondering what Hilary Clinton you are talking about who has been on the right side of things for so long. Hilary Clinton the war hawk?

Ritik Dholakia said...

Well, looks like Hillary picked up NH and we got a real race now. And the Feb. 5 primaries should be interesting -- bigger states, Dem. only voting, probably the Democratic machine politics are more influential.

Eli, yeah, I think VP is Richardson's angle through and through.

Ron, other than the fact that Hillary missed big on the Iraq vote, and the style of her politics (the whole calculated, triangulation thing) are sort of distasteful, she (and Bill) have an approach to governance and a set of values that I by and large agree with. Unless you are well left of the whole lot of Edwards, Obama, and Clinton, it's hard to really think that Hillary's positions over the years have really been on the wrong side of the fight.

Ron, also agree with your fringe theory. I distinctly remember in '88, various adults in my neighborhoods discussing how they would vote for Jesse Jackson, but they were just afraid he would get assassinated, so they were going to vote for Dukakis instead. Andrew Sullivan is already citing the "Bradley effect," where people say they are going to support a black candidate, but then don't, for the mis-leading NH polls.

Karsten. I think I agree with all of your points. I just wish there were more Dukakis riding a tank moments. That was sort of awesome. There is that clip where John McCain sings "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann." That's worth something, right?