Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I cringe a bit every time I hear "Hillary" instead of Clinton. I do think it is diminutive. But I understand first that she is trying to differentiate herself from her husband and second that she is fashioning herself as a brand. Given her rather stuffy image, I can see how she might embrace the diminutive whenever possible. She's not the first to do it: plenty of folks liked "Ike" when "Eisenhower" was an unmanageable and uncomfortably German sounding name.
I think, however, that in the end this will backfire for her. Perhaps it's a deficit of imagination on my part, but I find it very hard to envision a President "Hillary" representing our nation at a G-8 summit or delivering a State of the Union address. I can't conceive of a President "Hillary" Memorial Library or a statue of "Hillary" gracing the lawns of the capitol. If she's going to embrace the diminutive to brand herself for the election, she's going to have to make sure it doesn't keep its grip on her long after she's ready for it go away. And given that women start out with a disadvantage in that arena, it seems quite a gamble indeed to me.
I really think the only reason people talk about "Hillary" is because "Clinton is running for President" would be confusing. None of the terms used to distinguish the Presidents Bush, e.g. "Daddy Bush" and "Baby Bush," are any more respectful (not that either of them deserves much respect, but that's another matter) and I don't remember anyone talking about the "Mondale-Geraldine ticket" back in 1984.
Anyway, call her what you will, I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination, because she is guaranteed to be better than anyone the Republicans are going to nominate. Seriously. She's way too far to the right for my tastes, but Clinton vs. Giuliani or McCain or Romney or Thompson or any of those nutcases is like your annoying neighbor vs. Joe Stalin.
Some here claim Hillary will be "more of the same"...that was the absurd argument Nader supporters gave of Gore vs. Bush...we saw how ridiculous and consequently dangerous that argument was. We have soldiers dying for the difference between Gore and Bush. Hillary or Rudy...more of the same...if you think they would be the same, I have a bridge I can sell you...remember, Hillary kicked Rudy's ass before, and she would do it again. Romney would be destroyed by her...I was just in Mormon country, Salt Lake City. What a scary, bizarre place...
Intelligence and competence as the major difference between our former president Bill Clinton and our current president George W. Bush is quite important, considering where we are now with GWB. Iraq is an issue but it is not the only issue. GWB is in the process of dismantling our constitution by using the war as cover for a presidential power grab. This is about the only thing he has done competently.
However, if GWB were intelligent, perhaps he would not have been so easily manipulated by the neocons he chose to advise him. Would he still be a shallow, power-hungry bastard? Surely. I am not sure he would be any more dangerous.
Whether or not we would have gone to war with Iraq if Bill Clinton had had a third term is easy to speculate upon but impossible to determine. Whether or not Gore would have gone to war with Iraq is also impossible to determine. Whether or not Kerry could have extricated us from the mess is also impossible to determine. If I had a dollar for every American who supported the war but now opposes it, I would be a rich woman indeed.
The real questions that matter are where all the candidates stand on a number of issues and can we trust them to be truthful about the stands they say they will take. In other words, when their lips are moving, are they lying?
In this interview at least, Senator Clinton seems straightforward. While the interview was a good one, I keep wondering when anyone in the media is going to really try to pin the candidates down on what they each will do to rollback those decisions -- like the suspension of the right of habeas corpus -- that are much more of a threat to our freedom than any terrorist attack or even the war itself.
I hate to sound utterly cynical, but I too doubt any of them will truly withdraw all our troops from Iraq. Bluntly, there is too much oil there. I suspect we will continue our conquest of oil nations no matter which party is in power and no matter who holds the presidency. Bill Richardson talks impetuously, he promises the moon, and he has been caught lying more recently than any of them.
I suspect my politics are as close to Hillary Clinton's as anyone on earth (other than her husband). Nonetheless, she has an annoying habit of substituting pablum for specifics.
Others have commented that there was substance in her interview; I didn't see any of it. What's her position on Iraq? "No one can know what the situation will be on January 20, 2009." Really? Let me make a wild guess: it's not going to be any better and all our troops will still be there. What you would today if you became president today and what you will do on January 20, 2009, are going to be about the same. You want my vote? Give me a little hint. You want to throw b.s. at me, I'm off looking for another candidate, thank you.
She's dropped the "Rodham" again, eh? Must be an election coming up.
It's too bad she can't change the 3,000+ military deaths that have occurred due, in part, to her support of a war that gets excoriated daily in this very web journal, as easily as she changes her name.
I challenge anyone who claims Hillary is not more qualified than Barack Obama and John Edwards to spend some time researching all that Hillary has done. I am always at a loss to encapsulate her vast experience - she has done so much. Hillary was working on behalf of disadvantaged women in countries all over the world when Barack Obama was still partying at Harvard, and long long before any of us knew who John Edwards was.
Do the research. It is all on record and all available on the internet.
I am thrilled she is running for President.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
