१५ ऑक्टोबर, २००६
"The real question ... is whether she can put some great idea ahead of her own political upward mobility..."
"...whether there is a cause so important to her that she will risk her political security for it." The NYT wonders if Hillary Clinton will ever have a "a profile-in-courage moment." The answer is no, isn't it? Wouldn't she admit that to a confidante? She will probably some day have something that looks like a "a profile-in-courage moment," but when she does, it will be because never having one is perceived as more of a political risk than having just the right, precisely calculated one.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२१ टिप्पण्या:
Holy smokes I am defending Hillary (in a way). Could the NYT ask this question about every one of our sound-bite scripted office-holders (except maybe Sen. Santorum)?
On the other hand, the question strikes at the heart of Clintonism because ..there are few core beliefs except it's all about winning".
Her husband planned the "Sister Souljah moment". Who is to say that (with help from the NYT) that she won't choose a moment like that against someone inococuous in the Dem party. She won't go after the Anti-Semites in the Daily Kos, firedoglake or James Wolcott. Instead, she will go after Harry Reid when it looks the tide will swing against him. The Hoouse of Clinton is loyal only to the House of Clinton and the NYT is their lapdog.
Voting to remove Saddam Hussein and sticking by it seems pretty courageous to me, given her party.
I think her profile in courage will happen when the slaps the face of Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, editor of the Daily Kos. She's been known to go after Big Bill with lamps and frying pans, she'll have no trouble knocking Kos down. Giving her that all important "Sister Souljah" moment. Harry Reid has been known to fight back, with fists.
isn't it the sort of cynical calculation the Democratic Party could use more of?
Only if your wish is to continue the posing, poll-watching, race to spin every event, no matter how mundane, for cheap political points. After all, it really is all about winning, self-interest, and doing whatever it takes to assume what passes for power these days.
The health of the country be damned: there are elections to win.
Until a viable third party that is more interested in addressing the serious problems that face the country rather than pissing in the Wheaties of their opponents arises, we will continue our slide into the pits of political hell, dragging the entire country down with us.
But by all means, let's stress the need for cynical claculation above all.
NYT: "We love her so much it hurts."
She's a careerist--nothing else is as important in the boomer ethic. But if the Dems take the House or Senate or both, it could be her worst nightmare. She and her party will have to actually govern; will she support the inevitable impeachment hearings and ending funds to continue the war? We shall see.
Her profile in courage moment came and went with "that woman" - Monica Lewinsky. Turns out the "vast right-wing conspiracy" was in of all places her husband's pants. Once exposed, Hillary chose the defense mechanism of denial -- her courage failed to overcome her fears.
It takes courage to stand up for and to one's self, courage to divorce an adulterous lying cuckholding sexual-harassing spouse after 23 years of marriage, and courage to remain true to one's principles - of equal rights and equal opportunity - and to refuse to enable a serial betrayer of those principles simply because he's the most powerful man in the world and you happen to be married to him.
Throwing lamps and frying pans does not reflect courage - it reflects loss of control and emotional imbalance.
Hillary may have had a moment of courage but she failed to display it. Those moments rarely come twice.
I agree with JJV that her sticking by her Iraq stance is courageous.
My guess is that Hillary, for now, is trying to avoid arming her opponents; she is going by the book and avoiding any great thematical or technical mistakes.
Further, you cannot really manufacture true moments of courage or passion. Do any senators really inspire, and if not, isn't that inherent in the job?
I've disliked Hillary forever, and voted for Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush going back the past few elections. But I do think she has the right type of detail oriented mind to follow through on the Iraq process. Bush, who is rather "big picture," left the details of Iraq to Rumsfeld, who has managed to create a disaster through sheer force of will. A great policy undone by incompetence.
Iraq may be Hillary's profile moment.
Hillary will never have a "profile-in-courage" moment unless it is passing on a run for the presidency.
In my mind a Profile-in-courage means to sacrifice political advantage to do what is right for the country.
A "Sister Souljah moment" is the opposite. A calculated ploy FOR political advantage. Bill was a master. Hillary learned from Bill.
Do you ever bother to put together any kind of supported argument about either Clinton?
Here, you're just speculating that she will never do anything courageous, because she's so calculating.
Groundbreaking stuff, Ann. I can see why Reynolds was so impressed.
Sometimes we find what we need when we`re not looking for it.
Not another Hillary post....how many more Hillary posts from now till 2008 ???
Hey, you haven't done the obligatory post, yet, about Farrah's anal....
.....cancer.
Waiting on that.
Peace, Maxine
Ceadarford: Excellent analysis. I agree with your list of possible Sister Souljah moments. Most of them are near and dear to my way ot thinking. From what I've read of Sen. Clinton's positions, given the right conditions, she might just be the leader to get one or two of them implemented. Note what Mackan says above.
The problem with your list is that it is too much like actually governing, something that doesn't seem to have much utility these days.
My fear is, of course, that when the Democrats retake the House and possibly the Senate, they will be so into an impeach Bush feeding frenzy that politics will end up even more poisoned than they are, making future governance by any President extremely difficult unless he/she were to have commanding majorities in Congress. With a divided nation on the horizon, that doesn't seem too likely.
So, we could easily find ourselves in the position of electing a pre-hobbled President, with the parties in Congress at each others' throats, all the while corporate interests enjoying the gridlock, and our foreign enemies having a field day.
Am I being too pessimistic?
DaveG said...
Until a viable third party that is more interested in addressing the serious problems that face the country rather than pissing in the Wheaties of their opponents arises, we will continue our slide into the pits of political hell, dragging the entire country down with us.
Amen
Finn Kristiansen said...
I agree with JJV that her sticking by her Iraq stance is courageous.
It is calculated........Bill Clinton is a big money draw for the Dems. This gives her insulation. People may not like the Iraq war but in general they do support the troops and a US win. A flip flop could be interpreted as desertion of the troops, US security and resurface 'The Path to 9/11' controversies. Last I read Bill Clinton backed the Iraq war.
By US security I mean that if the US were to lose, Iran would increase in Middle Eastern stature, gain de facto sovereignty over Iraq and as presently the worlds 3rd largest oil producer, with Iraq in its pocket it would rival Saudi Arabia in oil production and perhaps attempt to destablize the Kingdom and oil flow.
Cedarford said...
He was saved both by his brains and the 1994 loss of Dem Control of the House. And became a wildly popular President like Reagan...
It was the economy that made him 'wildly' popular. Would he have been re-elected had the economy lapsed back into recession? I doubt it.
Call me crazy, but Hillary is one of my more-preferred Democratic candidates. Other than Lieberman, I would probably choose her over the entire Democratic field.
She's one of the only Democrats that understands the War on Terror. She's been studiously quiet about it - it might all be a ploy, but I think she understands that most Americans are not about to roll over and give up on Iraq.
While I question her motives, her very calculation makes her policy positions predictable. That makes her less scary than Dean/Pelosi/Boxer. She has a decent sense of where Americans stand on the issues, and won't stray to far from that. (For example, her ambivalence on abortion, or the death penalty.) If she wants to be popular, she won't make unpopular/crazy decisions. My only real concern is on the domestic side. Money buys popularity, expect an explosion of social spending.
And what ambivalence might that be, perchance?
There is none. She uneqivocally believes the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion.
She did take the empty slogan "safe, legal, and rare" and update it to "safe, legal, and never" -- i.e., she favors throwing enough tax money at sex education and birth control to completely eliminate unwanted pregnancy. But since since no amount of money or education will eliminate all unwanted pregnancies, the difference between Clinton's position and that of every other pro-choice politician is merely one of rhetoric.
Let's not forget that most of the original eight politicians profiled by Kennedy had taken stands that ended or constrained their political careers. Sen. Clinton will not take such a step unless by accident.
I've never been fond of Hillary. However, if she isn't trying to push her "Great Ideas" on the public, I may have to reconsider my feeling towards Sen. Clinton. It's the politicians with the "Great Ideas" that implement gigantic f**k ups. Isn't Bill Clinton's ever improving legacy built on the fact that he effectively managed the economy and didn't try to do more than tweak existing social policy. Give me boring competence.
To the extent HRC is capable of a profile-in-courage moment, she had it in 1992-93, when she was pushing Hillary-Care and gays in the military. As you will recall, that didn't work out too well for the Clinton Team, whereas small-bore triangulation did. For HRC, that's a painful lesson that, once learned, she won't forget.
For those who think sticking with her Iraq position may qualify, the problem is that she is already well on her way to dumping that position.
Ceadarford: Again, really good analysis. I hope you have a blog--can't tell from your profile.
Anyway, I agree with both you and Altoids about Sen. Clinton. I've been less than happy with her in the past, but it looks like the stars are beginning to align in her favor.
As a Massachusetts resident, I must say I'm not as impressed by Mitt Romney. He's a perfectly competent Governor, and an intelligent and solid person. It's just that his square-jawed, blow-dried style is very irritating to those of us used to...uh..."colorful" Massachusetts pols. Plus his twangy voice betrays him as Not Being From Here, something very suspicious to the locals. Romney is the last of a string of Republican Governors trailing in the long wake of Bill Weld and probably could not have been elected otherwise. Plus, his last opponent was a State House hack (female, not that it matters) with every loathsome piece of old Democrat insider baggage you can imagine.
Romney would have been an excellent Governor of Utah, but he's seriously wierd for Massachusetts. I don't know if his record or his style will play well on the East Coast, but he might be OK nationally. Of course his being elected Governor was not really about being Governor, but about grooming himself for bigger things.
Damn! I need an editor. That's "Cedarford." And while you're at it, strike that last "about" in the final sentence. Sometimes I read my own writing, I really do....
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा