Yes, Digby's perfect. Do you think Broder knows or cares how many people who should be his readership, or carry some sort of respect for him, think this of him?
About a year ago, I was reading a message board full of otherwise sane women who insisted that Hillary's refusal to divorce Clinton proved that she was of low character. I think the logic was that it proved that she cared too much about her career and her image (because they would have divorced him in a second, or something).
Oh my God. People act as if journalists are recording the thoughts and feelings of all Americans, when really they're mostly rich white people who went to Columbia J-School to learn how to sell sexy articles to their editors. Why isn't this obvious to everyone, that you can't read the NYT to "find out" what voters are thinking about? Of course, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy--the NYT decides what the issues will be, and then everyone runs around saying, "The Clintons' marriage is so important!" without realizing they didn't think it was important before the NYT told them they thought it was important.
I'm going to go bang my head against the wall for an hour.
I'm anti-HRC for President, so I might not be entirely trustworthy on this, but I don't really have a problem with the Broder article. Her marriage, and more specifically, her husband, is going to be an issue. Whether or not that's appropriate.
Takes away all of her agency, doesn't it? Says what marriage means, or should mean, to them is what it must mean to her. Actually, when you think about it, that's right. Adultery is much more threatening when the spouse knows, acknowledges, yet makes it clear she wants to keep the marriage, having the option to do otherwise (financial, etc.) So they must assume only political ambition keeps them together. Acceptance, forgiveness, love, the reserved right to do the same, must be much more disturbing to contemplate, so they don't.
Oh, I wouldn't vote for her myself -- her position on the war settles that. But this:
Her marriage, and more specifically, her husband, is going to be an issue. Whether or not that's appropriate.
It's going to be 'an issue' because these putatively neutral horrors are making it an issue. Leave it up to her opponents to bring it up, if they're going to, and then report on the attacks -- without attacks, or any evidence that the voters give a damn, this is a media created issue.
7: Pretty much. It must be political ambition. (And I say, so what if it is? Wanting to be president is a pretty important ambition, at least as important as 'we're staying together because I can't afford to divorce him', 'I want to give him a second chance' or 'For the sake of the children', and it's not like the country is going to elect a single woman any time soon.)
8: I don't have a root belief, anymore, that the media, and especially opinion writers, are distinct from various matched opponents. Broder's column might have come about after a conversation with a Republican about HRC's chances, or it might have come about after a conversation with a Dem rival, for example. I'm betting on the latter.
Yeah, the obnoxious thing about the Broder quote is the passivity of the phrasing. "The fact that I just found a bunch of naked pictures of David Broder and posted them on the Internet is a clear signal – if any was needed – that his scrawny genitalia will be widely featured on web pages soon once the massive ad buy is complete."
And I say, so what if it is? Wanting to be president is a pretty important ambition, at least as important as 'we're staying together because I can't afford to divorce him', 'I want to give him a second chance' or 'For the sake of the children', and it's not like the country is going to elect a single woman any time soon.
This I don't get. (I should note that, by most accounts I've seen, it isn't true.) But if a candidate came out and said, "I'm not divorcing my spouse because it will hurt me in the election," I think it would influence my vote. Though I feel certain it isn't true, I want to believe there are limits to the ways in which a candidate will allow his overweening ambition to shape his life. It's a bit like saying, "I had kids because people trust parents," or "I got married because otherwise voters would have thought I was gay." I can imagine that happens; I assume it happens. But it makes me sad, and a bit distrustful of the speaker.
Why can't it be true that the Clintons have a great deal in common, and part of what they have in common is their political savvy and ambition? Both of them seem genuinely to care about several core issues that matter, and both of them are willing to sacrifice what they see as "fringe issues" for diplomatic purposes. I think both of them, like Oprah, are willing to build cults to their personalities in order to get done what they want done.
In both their cases, this willingness to sacrifice "fringe" ideals makes me feel very little respect for them, since I believe that it's only through real feminism, real anti-racism, and real pro-queer activism that we'll achieve things like health care and workers' rights. However, it seems like wonderful glue for a marriage. The blowjob aside, I think they have each done things that the other would respect and admire. The people casting aspersion on Hillary about her possible marital hypocrisy are the same people who think Bill is a hypocrite.
15: What is it that you like/don't like about her? I've heard a huge (and conflicting) variety of reasons for feeling one way or the other from a lot of people.
Of course, if she came out and said it, it would make me think twice. (I don't think it's true, either.) But that might be just because there are some things in politics that aren't said even though true: the first lady's new hairstyle results from a campaign decision to make her look more motherly, but she's supposed to explain that she just felt like a change; or the President publicly walking to church because he polls better when people think he's religious.
I'm actually hoping for Al Gore. Since he was elected president in 2000, I figure we at least deserve a chance to see what it would have been like. He seems like a perfect candidate for the "Democratic mop-up crew" that takes control after a few terms of Republican excess, so that they can then be slandered when the Republicans return to continue trying to vandalize and destroy the government. Although Hilary would probably do just as well in that role. She always struck me as a reasonable and moderate Republican -- just what we need.
the first lady's new hairstyle results from a campaign decision to make her look more motherly, but she's supposed to explain that she just felt like a change; or the President publicly walking to church because he polls better when people think he's religious.
What's that I hear about gambling going on in here?
In brief, the ambition, calculation and policy seriousness are what I like, and somewhat contradictorily I confess, the trimming and tracking to the middle what I dislike. I resolve this for myself by saying I support her right to take the positions she does and the significance for our society of the role she plays, but I don't trust her political skills or judgment. It's like the ambivalence you feel about the bad woman boss: you understand up to a point, and don't want in any way to give fodder to those who oppose her for inappropriate reasons, and you can't be entirely sure you don't yourself, but, still, you wish she were better.
You really must stop reading the New York Times. Or at least, you must stop regarding it as a serious source of news. If you wish to treat it as the sniggering output of the fingernail-door-scratchers from the court of the clown prince, then by all means, have at it.
I can tell you this: if you stop reading the New York Times, and replace it with, let's say, the BBC, the only news you will not get is the obsessive navel-gazing over e.g. Judy Miller. And you will be spared Nagourney, Bumiller, and the rest of the silk stocking set.
29: Few mind reasonable and moderate Republicans. Weld wins in MA, as does Romney. Pataki wins in NY, Guiliani wins in NYC. What we mind are the people you're hanging out with.
I do. I mind them immensely. Anyone still in that party is enabling the whack-jobs. Obviously, I mind the whack-jobs more. But I am intensely annoyed at the GOP for trashing the whole idea of what it means to be conservative.
You really must stop reading the New York Times. Or at least, you must stop regarding it as a serious source of news. If you wish to treat it as the sniggering output of the fingernail-door-scratchers from the court of the clown prince, then by all means, have at it.
But I can't read the BBC on the subway, and my local newsstand doesn't carry anything beyond the Times and the NY tabs (which are entertaining, and have the comics, but don't cover anything in much breadth.)
See, I have a problem with this. It's almost certainly just my problem, but I mention it anyway: I can't think of the Democrats as my party. I vote for 'em, sure. But I'm non-party registered. And the Dems are so powerfully inept, I can't possibly say, ayup, that's my party.
30: Romney is less moderate than Weld. People voted agains O'Brien, because they thought that she was an insider political hack, a product of Beacon Hill.
Weld won, because John Silber was a pro-life wacko control-freak. BU is only barely beginning to recover from his reign. Weld also pledged to get rid of the Department of Motor Vehicles which everyopne loved. (Actually, I don't think that his policy was quite that extreme. I think that he wanted to let town clerks take over the responsibility for registering cars, not administering driving tests--a perfectly sensible policy, if you ask me.)
Weld's tenure was not without real consequences. Dukakis got a universal pay-or-play health care scheme enacted which Weld managed to get repealed.
You like "ambition, calculation and policy seriousness" (which sound like political skills to me) but "don't trust her political skills"? So does that mean you think she has political skills, but you think they are bankrupt or untrustworthy in some way, or that you don't think she has political skills?
Yeah. I don't despise moderate Republicans, but I do disagree with them; someone like Pataki or Weld gets credit for not being a raving lunatic, but they can still do a lot of harm.
I default to the Democrats, because I take a Democratic Primary ballot, and have been ever-more-frequently mobilized in recent years by friends and neighbors.
And I remember my dad's whole-hearted endorsement of Michael Harrington's prospectus for what I think he called "Democratic Socialists."
That Viereck reference was for you, slol, to further explore my notion that we have the exact same library.
Dude, that is a really good idea. How does one do that?
In iTunes, go to Podcasts>Podcast Directory, search on BBC. The "BBC Newspod" is the daily summary.
Also available via iTunes, and well worth one's while:
In Our Time, a weekly program on a single topic (e.g., recently, John Stuart Mill, Faeries, Astronomy, the Peterloo Massacre, etc.) in which the interviewer assembles a panel of scholars and herds them through a capsule explanation of the subject
Start the Week, a weekly program with artists, writers, historians, et cet. talking about their recent work
The Now Show, a weekly humorous program mocking the news. For this you have to be a little more attuned to British current events, idioms, etc.
If you're a real junkie, you can use Audio Hijack to record some or all of the live stream of the Today Programme, which is the flagship news show that airs 6-9 AM Greenwich Time, and then download that to your iPod. Same goes for any other Radio 4 programme, of course.
I call myself a Democrat and think of myself as one because IME, they have always been preferable to the possible alternative. It's not that I don't have serious points of ideological difference and even more serious points of tactical difference with many or most Democrats, it's just that when faced with a ballot, I have never found myself in the position of preferring the Republican.
Silvana, I admire and defend her for having ambition, calculation, and policy seriousness. Particularly the latter, where she is in my opinion most admirable and lucid. I remember being impressed by her articles in '92; Garry Wills in NYRB gave me the links. If I think she is being attacked for have those qualities, then I defend her. I've got her hankerchief pinned to my t-shirt right here.
But I think she has a tin ear, and lacks grace, and don't trust myself not to be feeling so because I'm subconciously admitting what I'm consciously denying about women
I do not understand flag-burning, either the pro-ban or anti-ban sides. Banning it sounds totally unnecessary, and going to the mat to protect it also sounds unnecessary. I understand the speech argument, that flag-burning is a political speech-act rather than, say, vandalism or intimidation, but I also can't really see a ban on it as the first step on a slippery slope. It would need a Constitutional amendment, wouldn't it? That just sounds like overkill; I *am* against changing the Constitution for silly symbolic gains.
Am I missing something, or am I just being wobbly here?
It would need a Constitutional amendment, wouldn't it?
Right, it would need an amendment to ban flag-burning, and at various times over the past few decades Republicans have mobilized to try and get such an amendment happening. Which would be an abomination were it to come to pass -- such a ridiculous thing to tag onto the end of our founding doc -- but it seems vanishingly unlikely to me that it ever would happen outside of a general slide toward fascism much further along than the contemporary one. IMO the reason to speak out against these efforts when they are happening, is that not to do so normalizes fascist rhetoric.
So, if I understand what you're saying, TMK, people should aggressively oppose flag-burning-ban proponents because cluttering up our Constitution with that sort of stupidity is just so petty and mean?
people should aggressively oppose flag-burning-ban proponents because
it infringes on your property rights. You bought the flag. You own that flag. You can do as you please with it.
Think of it this way. You buy a Mickey Mouse doll. You can decapitate it, have tea with it, do as you like; the doll is yours. "Mickey Mouse" is not yours, and you can't reproduce the image in any way without heavy penalty. But the doll is yours to use as you see fit.
To a degree: I meant that, if the government on behalf of the people wants to assert a right to control the symbolic value of the flag, they can do that in the same way people can control their IP rights. E.g., there is a code, part of the U.S.C., for the flag's proper display. But the actual physical flag you bought, that you own.
Um, you know, not necessarily. Maybe she actually loves her husband and accepts that he's a philanderer. BFD, people.
Re. Hillary and stuff like "I won't vote for her because of her position on flag-burning." Come ON. That's not a substantive issue, it's no more important than Kerry having said he wasn't for gay marriage. Ignore it. It's so clear to me that she's working to create an image of herself as the candidate who represents moms and families--and I think that's a winning platform. She's the only actually feminist candidate we've ever seen, and she's well-connected in the party, and she's shown the ability to work with even some crazy-ass Republicans: I think that her apparent management skills, along with my sense of her personal philosophy (and I actually do think her marriage is evidence of this--but in a good way) suggest that she'd be a decent president and might actually achieve some of the domestic policy changes the country desperately needs.
Now, I can respect the idea that one doesn't trust her on foreign policy or the war. And that should definitely be talked about. But I worry about the way that people dismiss her out of hand, because I think she is really the chosen candidate. I went to an Emily's List luncheon last year in which it was clear they're going to back her 100%. And the party seems behind her. At the risk of sounding like a feminist version of Kos, it's the party that matters. I think she'd be a good Democratic leader.
So if the government were simply to nationalize and copyright the flag icon, then it could control the use of that IP? Awesome. I want to see somebody make that part of their platform.
B, the counter-argument to the "Hillary has proven management skills" is the healthcare fiasco. DeLong wrote up his recollection some time ago, and while it's surely just one perspective on her, it does suggest that there are potentially a number of former staffers with venomous memories of her. Also: I'm still pissed that she voted for the Authorization of Force despite all of my letters. I know everyone voted for that pile of crap, but she was MY senator, and I expected better of her.
I've never had any Joe-Klein, authenticity problems with her. And if she's the nominee, I'll support her 100%, and because I live in Illinois, I won't have a damn thing to say about it. But I think what I've called her lack of grace will make everything harder and more annoying than it would otherwise be.
B, we've been around this issue before, so I don't want to beat a dead horse. But.
One of the most important issues facing a Democratic president will be healthcare. Does Hillary Clinton, in actual fact, have a good track record on healthcare reform? On the contrary, Hillary Clinton is one of the big reasons we didn't get healthcare reform when we had a real chance in the early 1990s. She screwed up, big time: she failed to court legislators or doctors, and concocted an asinine plan that only a management consultant could love. That shows political lameness, lack of leadership skills, and is also a major and substantive issue that will be used against her in a campaign.
Another major issue is her position on the Iraq War. She's in the same position as Kerry. Were you for or agin? What's your real thinking, here? Why?
Her position on flag-burning is not itself substantive, but symbolizes what was most loathsome about Bill Clinton: a) an essential disregard for civil liberties, b) a willingness to suck up to right-wingers.
That's taking all that Broderesque nonsense aside. Which we shouldn't. Broder's terrible, but he's right: there's a prepackaged anti-Hillary critique that has the press corps slavering.
She would be a bad candidate, and a bad president. I am not for her.
I'm willing to say that the healthcare fiasco was a steep learning curve.
Re. Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton. I'd agree, *but*. The current president is the son of a former president. Hillary is the *wife* of a former president (and she hadn't changed her name until politics forced her to). It's a substantive difference. In sexist societies, the primary way that women rise to power is through their male connections; a *lot* of elected women leaders are the daughters/wives of politicians. There are a couple reasons for this: first, ambitious women are likely to marry ambitious men (and then, the world being what it is, the man's career is likely to come first); second, it's "okay" for a woman to achieve name recognition through her husband, not so much if she does it on her own. It seems to me, therefore, that we're highly unlikely to get a woman president who hasn't been married to a politician. Unless we get an unmarried woman, but can you even begin to imagine? So I think disqualifying women on the principle that husband/wife political teams are a kind of dynasty effectively means disqualifying women, period.
Yes, there are increasing numbers of women senators and representatives who aren't married to politicans. But the first woman in a male-dominated job (and nothing's more male-dominated than the executive branch) generally gets there through family connections, because her relationship to the men in power trumps her sex.
The flag burning thing is a pretty lame reason in itself to not vote for her, but it's sort of indicative of Clinton's tendency towards Lieberman-ish moral hectoring on a bunch of issues, which is a valid concern (not particular to her, I admit- more a complaint about the current Democratic leadership. I still don't want to reward it). And her strengths all pull toward the sort of person I'd want coming in after a strongly Democratic administration- she's an incrementalist most of the time, and I worry that it's not going to be enough to just want to sand down the nastiest bits of the current administration.
Also, Kathleen Sebelius rocks much harder, and I'd like to give her the shot at "first woman president."
I'm willing to say that the healthcare fiasco was a steep learning curve.
"Yes, I've taken terrible positions on both foreign and domestic policy. But I've learned."
That just doesn't sound like a winning argument.
the first woman in a male-dominated job
Are you seriously saying that you support her basically because she's the most plausible candidate with ovaries? Because, you know, that's a terrible reason. The country is on a disastrous course right now, and in some respects is in disastrous shape already. We can't afford the luxury of a president whose principal value is as a symbol of progress.
65: Oh, let's take a few whacks at the equine. After all, we're not going to bring the site down.
Your first point: this is definitely going to be the line of attack. On the other hand, there's the counter-argument that she's the only candidate who has demonstrated an actual interest in health care policy and the importance of coverage for all Americans. I, personally, find that attractive, and the whole "failed to court" thing is somthing she's obviously learned from.
Iraq war: honestly? I think Kerry's position on the war was principled and nuanced. And I suspect the same of Clinton. I'm quite willing to admit that there was a certain amount of pandering going on in "supporting the president" but come on: everyone backed the war initially. Anyone who didn't is going to have other reasons that they'll be dismissed out of hand as an irrational hippy.
Flag-burning, whatever. If I'm willing to give her a pass on "abortion is always a tragedy" because I know that she's pro-choice, you should be able to deal with the flag-burning thing. Yes, it's silly. Yes, in a perfect world we shouldn't have to put up with it. But it's not a perfect world, and what matters is what she'll actually do. Under a Clinton presidency, there's not gonna be a damn amendment against flag-burning, and we both know it.
No, they most certainly did not. This is a very important little piece of history. An awful lot of very bright people, both those with knowledge of American history (i.e., our previous efforts at benevolent assimilation) and those with knowledge of Iraq in 2002-3, argued against it.
I've got to say, B, that while I'm sympathetic to your position, here my virulent republicanism trumps my feminism.
And I disagree with you that we're limited to wives of politicians. Sure, Hillary's done well on her own after her husband's career. But there are other women in politics who've made it on their own. I'd love to see Feinstein run, although she's ruled it out. I even think Rice has an outside chance, probably not in 2008 but down the road, after she gets some domestic-side experience. (I wouldn't vote for Rice because she's tied to the Bush admin fiasco, but then I wouldn't vote for, oh, Lindsay Graham either.) It would be great to see Ann Richards back on the national scene--what's she up to these days? Claire McCaskill's campaign for the Missouri Senate seat looked interesting, as it was written up in this week's New Yorker. Can't we encourage independant women instead of shrugging our shoulders at nepotism in the name of getting feminist candidates?
1. She is, in essence, running against the Democratic Party. She's not arguing that people misunderstand Dems; she's arguing that people are right about Dems, but she's not one of them. (This is roughly the McCain strategy of 2000. I hope it works as well for her.)
2. She won't win, for the same reason Obama couldn't win, no matter what the polling says. People always claim to be more comfortable with these sorts of choices than they prove to be come election day. She'll lose, and she'll kill the chances for a whole class of women politicians behind her. The single best bet for getting a female (or black) President is a female (or black) Vice-President. If it's not Hillary, we'll have a female Vice-Presidential candidate.
3. She has a tin ear. Certainly she does compared to her husband. And the problem is that she's going to run a campaign that is predicated around a politician with her husband's skill. Welcome to Failureville.
4. Iraq. I wasn't alive during McNamara's time, and no one I know was at risk. I only know him through books and interviews. I basically like him - he comes off as a decent guy, who fucked up. People I know who were alive at the time and at risk HATE him. Want to slap me when I express anything but actual, physical revulsion towards him. They think he let a lot of people die for his ambition. I think not a few people (Ivins, I suspect) feel the same way about HRC. I'm not as humanistic as my friends, but this a biggish one for me.
5. How she'll win and who her structural partners will be. She's a DLC candidate, and she'll revive the DLC, which means reviving our dependence on the South. As I said above, I don't mind reasonable Republicans. I hate Southern Republicans, and those are the people she'll commit the Dems to placating. I'd rather have someone who can try to build the party in the West and Southwest. This may be the single biggest thing I hold against her. (McCain is the flipped side of this; I fear him less because I think he'll end up moving the strength of the party out of the South and into the West. That would be very, very good.)
My problem with her (and, you know, if she's the candidate I'll vote for her with enthusiasm considering the likely alternatives. I was enthusiastic about Kerry, and he was as bad on the war as she is.) is that health care and her position on the Iraq war both strike me as symptoms of the same underlying problem: I don't know whether to characterize it as lack of political courage, or lack of political sense.
I don't believe in either case that she really thought the position she came out in favor of was the right one: I don't think she actually thought war with Iraq was necessary or well-advised, and I don't think she thought that that mess of a health care plan she came up with was a better idea than a simple single-payer, cut-out-the-middleman plan. In both cases, I think she was, in a well-meaning way, trying to be politically calculating: I can't stop the war, so I retain more influence and can do more good by jumping on the bandwagon; I can't get single-payer health care passed, so I'll advocate this plan which is the closest I can get.
I don't have a problem with that sort of thinking as insincere, everyone has to do some give and take, I have a problem with it because she doesn't seem to be good enough at it to make it turn out well. I am afraid that she can be stampeded by her sense of the political possibilities into doing stupid things.
Also, Hillary has been unrepentantly hawkish about Middle Eastern politics. From appearing in Jerusalem and calling it Israel's capitol during her first Senate campaign, to supporting the Iraq war, to making saber-rattling speeches now about Iran. Some of it may have to do with NY State politics--locking in the upstate NY vote took some doing--but at a certain point, public statements of position start to look like a trend. I'm too worried about this shit to give her the benefit of doubt: "no, no, she doesn't really mean to invade Iran; she's just pandering..."
73: I didn't back it. I meant "everyone" in the sense of "everyone who had been elected to national office."
I don't think we're limited to wives of politicians only--I just think that ruling out politicians' wives means ruling out a significant proportion of potential women candidates. Given that the proportion of men to women in politics is as lopsided as it is, I'm not willing to toss a sizable chunk of potential women candidates overboard just b/c of who they're married to. But we should be able to encourage independent women *and* recognize that supporting women who are married to politicans should be distinguished from nepotism in the usual sense because of the realities of marriage/ambition for women in the last hundred years or so.
SCMTim's point 4 mirrors so exactly my experience I just felt it worth supporting. I watched The Fog of War about a year ago and was moved by McNamera's contrition and second-guessing, etc. Then I talked to my (libertarian, Canadian, broadly isolationist) father about it, and his raw loathing of McNamera was astonishing to me. There was nothing McNamera could say now that would make a difference. Then I reflected a bit: well, that's how I feel about Rumsfeld...
When I say she's our Nixon, I mean my reasons for supporting her, if it comes to that, will be essentially negative: her enemies are mine, by-and-large.
But I won't apologise for finding her lacking an essential grace that I think many politicians, men and women have to a greater degree, and that Bill Clinton has to a very great degree. I'm not talking about charisma, the desire for which I detest, nor likeability, nor any other irrelevant personal characteristic.
It's a hunch, a guess, a remembered feeling. We could pick apart any position, any statement, and parse its constituent factors, how much or little room she has to manuever, etc. By now I should have more trust that she will do or say an adequate thing at the appropriate, not to say necessary, time.
Further to 81, I mean, good Jesus, this is a really important distinction. If "everyone" was for the Iraq War, then really, we all own it. But if only true believers, misguided souls and persons too craven to trust their better judgment (ahem, Mrs. Senator) supported it, then they own it. And they should have to take the rap for it. Which means not letting them go on running the show.
I can't help feeling that Hillary is not just your average political wife, B. Her husband was President, not Governor or Congressman. She lived and worked in the White House for eight years, and if she were elected to the Presidency, her husband would return to the White House to live and work there again. In some respects, that's even less republican than the father-son dynastic succession. I know holding this reservation against Hillary isn't fair to her individually, but I really do think that political dynasties are a Bad Idea. I don't think I'm alone in believing this or in holding it against a Hillary candidacy. FWIW, people also hold it against Jeb Bush.
But we should be able to encourage independent women *and* recognize that supporting women who are married to politicans should be distinguished from nepotism in the usual sense because of the realities of marriage/ambition for women in the last hundred years or so.
And we nod at an awful lot of nepotism for men -- I really don't want a higher standard in this respect for women than for men.
recognize that supporting women who are married to politicans should be distinguished from nepotism in the usual sense because of the realities of marriage/ambition for women in the last hundred years or so.
Not much need of distinguishing women here. If you go look at the male Congresspeople, you'll see an enormous number who were the kids of prior Congresspeople. Strangely, I'm a lot more comfortable with kid nepotism than spouse nepotism. I think it's because (a la GWB) I think the parents will have less room to meddle than (ala HRC in the '90s) the spouse. That's just a sense, though.
75: (1) Well, like you're saying, it's working gangbusters for McCain. And I think that, if we're going to talk popular perception (which is what I think things like 3-4 are really about), I think this is more advantageous for the Dems than for the Republicans (though the plummeting poll numbers suggest that the Republican party might be in trouble now, too). The reality is that the Dems have been successfully labelled as a bunch of weak-assed hippies: if nothing else, Hillary's reputation is not weak.
(2) I've actually wondered what we'd do with a Gore/Clinton ticket (which seems a possibility). If anything, it sounds more dynastic than having Hillary follow Bill. However, I'm kind of hoping that Obama will be the v.p. candidate.
(3) Maybe. Very few people have Bill's charisma and rhetorical skill. I really worry more about Gore's ability to communicate than I do about hers. And I wonder if the popular sense that she's handicapped here doesn't have quite a bit of unconscious gender bias built into it. Not that it matters, in the sense that if it does, that's a political reality, but I don't see that she's clumsier at these things than a lot of successful guys (e.g., the current president).
(4) May be the case. Again, though, the idea that she's made too many sacrifices for her ambition skeeves me out on feminist grounds. It may be a political liability, but it's not untinged with sexism, I don't think..
(5) I agree 100% that the Dems need to move to the West. Ab-so-lutely. A Richards would be a fantastic candidate, if she were in the position to run. I'll back Harry Reid. Unfortunately, neither Feinstein nor Boxer is viable: the "California + woman" combo is just way too "fringe." Stupid, but there you are. I definitely think that we should be looking at and promoting people like Christine Gregoire, though. (But the idea that McCain is less scary than Clinton is insane.)
I do think that LB's 76 is a really strong argument. It's the only anti-Hillary argument that I think is about her as a candidate, rather than as a woman, honestly.
83: No, she's not: she's on record as having put her political career on the back burner to support her husband, but as always having wanted a political career--unlike a lot of politician's-wives-turned-politican, who get to combine the nepotism advantage with the gender advantage by constructing their image as having been pushed out of their Happy Supporting Role into public office in order to continue their husband's legacy. Hillary's pretty clearly not running on continuing her husband's legacy.
Anyway, I understand the argument, but I think that in this case it's not only holding women to a higher standard, it's taking a coincidence (the Clinton marriage) and reimagining it as a cause.
I'm sorry if I seem to be turning this into an argument--I just think it's more interesting to talk about why people are so opposed to the obvious front-runner than it is to simply assume it as given. Especially because there are so many interesting things involved in her being the probable candidate. But if I'm annoying the crap out of people, I'll stop.
No, it's interesting. And I think you're right that the valid arguments against her have more force because she's a woman; people object to her position on the war, for example, more than they objected to Kerry's.
Well, I also find it interesting that a lot of the arguments against her seem not to be about *her*, but about her *electability*. Which is all well and good, and electability matters, but I'd just like it acknowledged that a lot of the electability issues boil down to "a woman can't win."
Well, like you're saying, it's working gangbusters for McCain.
I'm completely happy with the idea of Hillary running, and winning the Dem nomination. If, as comparable to McCain, it happens in 2016, after a two-term Dem.
if nothing else, Hillary's reputation is not weak.
It is with non-DLC Dems. They see her as part of the knee-pad Dem faction. And they'll oppose her in the primaries. Whether they carry any weight is an entirely different question.
I've actually wondered what we'd do with a Gore/Clinton ticket (which seems a possibility).
There are other women, and it will be a different woman. I'm hoping for Neapolitano.
I don't see that she's clumsier at these things than a lot of successful guys (e.g., the current president).
The current President is widely considered to be good at these things. That is, people instinctively like him. As they did Bill. As they don't HRC. (And, I admit, as they don't Gore. But he'll be running a slightly different campaign.)
Again, though, the idea that she's made too many sacrifices for her ambition skeeves me out on feminist grounds.
I think we are misunderstanding something here. I'm not arguing that she sacrificed anything for her ambition. I'm saying a lot of other people have--US soldiers, Iraqis, anyone effected by disastrous foreign policy, anyone effected by disastrous domestic policy that came about b/c the President was allowed to remain so strong about Iraq. And some faction of the Dem base will virulently hate her for it. That's a large part of the reason why Gore looms so large as Dream Barbie--he was out of office, so his hands are clean.
Unfortunately, neither Feinstein nor Boxer is viable
Neapolitano is the popular female governor of Arizona. We already have CA. We could use some weight in the NM, CO, AZ, NV area.
But some of them also boil down to Joe O's 69, I think: People have the idea that she's some kind of screaming liberal, and if we can elect a screaming liberal I'd rather have one who's shown some affinity for actual screaming liberal policies. Clinton just hasn't shown herself to be close to me on a lot of issues.
the arguments against her seem not to be about *her*, but about her *electability*.
No, they're not. She has bad judgment, has taken indefensible policy positions, and would make a terrible president. That says squat about her electability. In terms of her ability to do the job, she's about as good as Lieberman. That's all about HRC.
Why do people care so much? It's got squat to do with her being a woman. It's because so much rides on who the next president is. Not only because they'll have to try to fix so much that has been broken, but because they'll have to do so in such a way that the crazies don't get right back into office four years later.
94 to 92. SCMT, I'm not sure about people instinctively liking W; they definitely don't like him personally now, and in 2000 it seemed like the press kept instructing everyone as to how likable he was.
she's a woman; people object to her position on the war, for example, more than they objected to Kerry's.
You seem to forget that an awful lot of people supported Dean b/c of the war issue. The difference is that anti-Iraq war people feel even more correct in their estimations than in '03-'04.
but about her *electability*. Which is all well and good, and electability matters, but I'd just like it acknowledged that a lot of the electability issues boil down to "a woman can't win."
Probably. A lot don't, though, including most of those people have identified above. Look, part of what's interesting to me is that there is such great support for her, despite the fact that (a) everyone acknowledges she's doesn't have a surfeit of charisma, (b) a significant (but perhaps small) part of both our base and their base virulently hate her, and (c) she did a lousy job with the pseudo-executive power she was given over the most important social program agenda of the Dems in a generation. And that, I believe, is entirely because she's a woman.
Yeah -- whatever sort of likability he has, it doesn't carry over to people who disagree with him. The widespread impression among those I know socially has always been 'irritating punk'.
It seems to me taking objections to her as being unacknowledged objections to women, when she has not run or been nominated, merely annointed thank-you-very-much-Emily's-List, denigrates, from my point of view, the literaly hundreds of women leaders I would prefer to her.
And, I think LB's 76 is also a very good summary of why I disliked Kerry, because it applies to him, yet wanted him to win very badly once he was the nominee. I'm sure I'll do the same for her if it comes to that, but I'm not going to be very happy about the process that made her the nominee nor about the nature or the quality of her support.
I think he’d be the strongest Democratic candidate, but matching his brave new, liberated, truth-telling self with the demands of contemporary political campaigning would not be easy and may not be possible. And it’s that mismatch, I fear, that may keep him out of the race, though I feel even more certain now, he’s thinking about it.
Hum, well, you guys are making strong arguments. Maybe I'm wrong.
I'm really worried about the viability of a Gore candidacy. I know that he won the popular vote before, but just barely--and I think that he has a lot of the same perception problems that Kerry did, and the additional burden of having "lost" a previous election. The R's will hammer on that and it seems really easy to me to just use it to magnify the "Gore is a wimp" thing.
she's on record as having put her political career on the back burner to support her husband, but as always having wanted a political career--unlike a lot of politician's-wives-turned-politican, who get to combine the nepotism advantage with the gender advantage by constructing their image as having been pushed out of their Happy Supporting Role into public office in order to continue their husband's legacy.
This is complicated. I think it has something to do with gender, but isn't solely explainable in gender-terms.
There seems to be an ongoing myth in American politics of the "drafted" leader: someone without personal ambition who accepts the popular acclaim despite his or her personal preferences. This goes back to George Washington, and it's lived on in that ritualized interview question: "Are you running for X, and if not, if drafted, would you accept the nomination?" So that's a deep-seated notion--if a bit silly--in American political life. Wives and children of liked political leaders have been able to use this sentimental idea to their advantage, sure, and often in very gendered ways, but the myth isn't necessarily gendered. Remember the "Draft Clark" movement?
Hillary's being upfront about putting her career on the backburner, unfortunately, makes so much of her current success as an independant politician seem like part of a program. It's a bit galling to think she planned out her 2008 Presidential run thirty years ago--what are the voters, chopped liver? Of course most successfull politicians have this calculating ambition (coughJohnF.Kerrycough), but it's always been considered polite to disguise it. Also, like many people, I suspect, I would rather Hillary had put her own political career on the frontburner back then: why hide her light under a bushel? Be the change you imagine! Dunno, it kind of pisses me off.
I'm hoping for the backlash against Bush to cut in favor of Gore/Kerry nerdy intellectual types. I saw someone comment somewhere that the Bush backlash was hurting McCain because Bush had discredited the 'tough-guy' schtick that McCain actually has a real right to.
I thought that the conventional wisdom now--or at least a year ago--was that Gore was "unhinged."
That's the thing. Gore is the exact opposite of Hillary in some ways. Long track record that is seen to be establishing him as moderate-to-conservative Dem (Insty worked on his presidential campaign in '88, I think), and a recent record that makes him the liberal base's darling. He really can track to the center from the start with very little attrition from the base. I'm not at all sure that's true for HRC.
105: Hear! Hear! Remember when Kerry's being a decorated veteran was going to insulate him from attacks on his fitness or patriotism? And that was why we should shut up and support him?
108.2: "The R's will hammer on Gore" is no argument for nominating H. Clinton, though; they'll hammer on her at least as much. Anyway, I really don't think the R's will want to remind anyone of the 2000 election; by November 2008 they'll be trying to pretend W doesn't even exist.
43:If you're a real junkie, you can use Audio Hijack to record some or all of the live stream of the Today Programme, which is the flagship news show that airs 6-9 AM Greenwich Time, and then download that to your iPod. Same goes for any other Radio 4 programme, of course.
Slol, you don't even need to do that. The Today Programme is available from iTunes too! I download the "Lead Interviews," option which gives you the morning briefing, the 750 interview and the 830 interview, but you can get the whole thing!
Where audiohijack would be really useful (I don't have it) is for listening to the Radio 3 stuff that isn't archived, like all those lovely live concerts that are on at 8PM Greenwich/British Summer Time.
I also like In Business with Peter Day.
Another podcast I recommend is Chris Lydon's Open Source, also available via iTunes or direct download.
it was about Kerry's personality. Which is the same problem Gore has.
And the same problem Hillary has.
Look, I'm more or less in the tank for Gore, but I realize that my wants do not perfectly match up with those of either the party or the nation. Maybe Edwards is the guy we want -- he's likeable. And if HRC ends up winning a bruising primary, I'll give her my full-throated support, even if does empower the DLC. By I hate front-runner status.
I think the Kerry problem wasn't about facts, it was about Kerry's personality. Which is the same problem Gore has.
I think this circles around to the subject of the post. A candidate has a 'personality problem' when the media says they do, just like Clinton's marriage is going to be a big issue because the media says it is. I think Bush's 'likeability' and Kerry and Gore's 'personality problems' were all media driven stories -- it's not that it isn't a real story, but we can't evade it by picking an unattackable candidate.
112: They will, but I think that her *image* makes her harder to beat down, is what I'm saying. She's done a fantastic job of insulating herself from the "crazed feminist, and probably a lesbian" crap precisely by embracing the reactionary window dressing that we're all saying makes her a bad candidate. And yet the remnants of the "crazed feminist" thing are gonna make it damn hard to portray her as weak or indecisive or wussy. Dean was a good liberal: he also got portrayed as "crazy." Gore and Kerry were mainstream: they got portrayed as "wimps." The problem the Democratic party has is that its mainstream is perceived as wimpy. We need someone who is clearly *not* a wimp to run. And I think that Hillary's perceived bitchiness would work.
Which is quite apart from all the stuff about her probable policies. I just think that we've developed a bad habit of not thinking about the importance of a candidate *as* candidate.
103: There seems to be an ongoing myth in American politics of the "drafted" leader: someone without personal ambition who accepts the popular acclaim despite his or her personal preferences. This goes back to George Washington,
It's even older than that. Cincinnatus, anyone? "For the sake of Rome,I will accept the position of dictator, but I'll give it up as soon as possible, because I really want to return to my farm."
Of course, a lot of our Founding Fathers thought that in addition to demanding their rights as Englishmen they were recreating a new Roman Republic.
That's why the W. as Octavian, nephew and adopted son of Julius Caesar, thing wigs me out so much.
BG, I thought there were probably Roman roots to the idea, but my Classical education was pretty crap, so I usually just wiggle my fingers when that sort of stuff comes up.
Any recommendations for approachable one-volume histories of the Roman Republic?
She's done a fantastic job of insulating herself from the "crazed feminist, and probably a lesbian" crap precisely by embracing the reactionary window dressing that we're all saying makes her a bad candidate.
One of us is crazy. I think she's done it entirely wrong. I think that people like me now think of her as one of the step'n'fetchit Dems we loathe so much. I think she hasn't moved the needle at all with the conservatives who hate her--they think she's playing at it; news reports seem to indicate that she's still the biggest money draw for Republicans. That is, she's represents their biggest "anger point." Those people, I think, are entirely unwinnable by her.
You think exactly the opposite is happening, as I understand you.
127: I think B. is right about the impression inside-the-Beltway types have about Clinton -- they think she's tough and centrist and all that. I think you're right about voters: on the left we think she's a sellout, on the right they think she's Eva Braun. And once the campaign starts, the inside-the-Beltway opinion isn't going to do her a lick of good.
I think that Edwards is a bit smarmy too. I think that his wife is great, not Presidential material perhaps, but smarter and with a lot of common sense. She seems compassionate without being manipulative.
I saw her on Charlie Rose after the election, and Charlie was talking to her about her cancer. And basically she said that she was going to be okay, because she had great doctors and good insurance, but that she'd met women on the campaign trail who were uninsured and had cancer. From her it seemed real in a way that it wouldn't have have from Theresa Heinz.
My Republican uncle thinks that Kerry is a total phony. He talks about seeing him at a rally in the 70's and how much the vets loathed him as a manipulative grandstander. He hates John Edwards for being a trial lawyer, but even he likes Elizabeth Edwards.
I'm not saying that she'd be qualified as a candidate, but she'd play well in suburbia.
I hate saying this, because I want to win badly, with Donald Duck if need be, but after this discussion today, a small, mean, despicable part of me would be gratified if she were effectively Swift-Boated, as I believe she is just as vulnerable to being as anyone else. That's the point of 105: it's a tactic, facts are irrelevant.
There are mandates for policy after watershed elections, provided the candidate actually runs on them. I don't believe Hillary actually will run as a women-and-mothers candidate. Most of the time, events beyond their control set presidential policies — I guess we should add now, "if they pay any attention to events" — and therefore what matters most is character.
I have always pulled the D, and the nominee has always been decided before my primary. The time to judge candidates, in the only forum we have, is now. It is as a political leader, not as a strong woman, policy advocate, or interesting person, that I find her deficient.
Last I checked, it was only part of Today you could get. And not the best part; the part I really want is the first forty minutes, minus the sport—where they do the top news stories, the international news, the business news, summarize the stories in today's British papers, and then—my favorite part—the stories from the papers in some overseas city.
Any recommendations for approachable one-volume histories of the Roman Republic?
I just finished reading Charles Freeman, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, which covers just what the title suggests, is aimed at the general reader, and seems to be widely used in survey courses, and the Roman Republic definitely came across as something worth reading more about. If I hadn't already returned it to the library, I could give you Freeman's suggestions for further reading. (And note that amazon allows you to search the 1st edition, but there is a second edition available that works in more recent scholarship.)
I'm irretrievably low-brow, but for the early Empire, shedding some light on the Republic, I, Claudius and Claudius the God are awfully entertaining. And not insanely ahistorical, if I understand correctly.
I read Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic by Tom Holland a little while ago, and really liked it. It's not an academic book, but it's good if you don't have much of a background in the subject. It also reads really well, more of a narrative style.
This article, though the book it reviews does not seem all that worth reading, describes the Catiline Conspiracy in terms that suggest contemporary relevance:
The fate of these prisoners instantly became a cause célèbre. One of the sharpest political debates of the first century BC centred (as it often has since in other political regimes) on the nature of the emergency powers decree. In what circumstances should you declare a state of emergency? What exactly does martial law, a prevention of terrorism act or - in Roman terms - a Final Decree of the Senate allow the state authorities to do? How far is it ever legitimate for a constitutional government to suspend the constitutional rights of its people? In this case, the executions flouted the fundamental right of Roman citizens to a judicial trial (as Julius Caesar himself had recognised, when - with a characteristic stroke of imagination - he had argued in the Senate for the entirely unprecedented punishment of life imprisonment). For all his tub-thumping, for all his reliance on emergency powers, Cicero's treatment of the conspirators was bound to catch up with him; as it did four years later, when he was driven into temporary exile by Publius Clodius on the charge of having put Roman citizens to death without trial. While Cicero was languishing in northern Greece, Clodius drove the knife in even further: he knocked down Cicero's house in Rome and replaced it with a shrine to the goddess Liberty.
Other question-marks hang over Cicero's handling of Catiline's conspiracy. Many modern historians, and no doubt a few sceptics at the time, have wondered exactly how much of a threat to the state Catiline posed. Cicero was a self-made politician. He had no aristocratic connections and only a precarious place in the top rank of the Roman elite, among those families who claimed a direct line back to the age of Romulus (or, in the case of the Julius Caesars, back to Aeneas and the goddess Venus herself). To secure his position he needed to make a splash during his year as Consul. An outstanding military victory against some threatening barbarian enemy would have been best: failing that (and Cicero was no soldier), he needed to 'save the state' in some other way. It is hard now not to suspect that the Catilinarian Conspiracy lies somewhere on the spectrum between 'storm in a teacup' and 'figment of Cicero's imagination'. Catiline himself may have been a far-sighted radical (cancellation of debts could have been just what Rome needed in 63 BC); he might equally well have been an unprincipled terrorist. We cannot now tell. But there is a fair chance that he was driven to violence by a Consul spoiling for a fight and for his own glory. The 'conspiracy', in other words, is a prime example of the classic dilemma: were there 'reds' under the bed, or was the whole thing a conservative invention?
The article was published in August 2001, by the way.
There are translations of Plutarch's Lives and of the historian Tacitus that are quite readable and interesting. I don't know about contemporary histories of the roman republic or empire. I tried reading gibbon, but that shit was tedious.
From Africa to America, political frustration can still conveniently be framed in Cicero's terms - just put the name of your own enemy in place of 'Catilina'. 'Jusqu'à quand Kabila abuserez-vous de notre patience?' demanded one member of the Congolese opposition of the new President earlier this year. 'How long, José María Aznar, will you abuse our patience?' asked an editorial in El País in August 1999, criticising the Spanish Prime Minister for his unwillingness to bring Pinochet to trial. 'Quo usque tandem abutere CRUESP patientia nostra?' chanted strikers in Brazilian state universities last year to their Council of Rectors (CRUESP). Outside politics, too, the phrase proves wonderfully adaptable to a range of enemies and circumstances. In a notorious recent attack, Camille Paglia substituted the name of Michel Foucault for Catiline. And in the closing days of the Second World War a disconsolate lover (Walter Prude), separated by the demands of military service from his new wife (Agnes de Mille, choreographer of Rodeo, Oklahoma! and Gentlemen Prefer Blondes), wrote: 'How long, O Hitler, will you abuse our sex life!' The irony in all this is that the political dynamics of the slogan's original context have been consistently subverted. Cicero may have succeeded in writing himself into the political language of the modern world. But words which started life as a threat uttered by the spokesman of the established order against the dissident are now almost universally deployed the other way round: as a challenge from the dissident to the established order. Catiline should be smiling in his grave.
Rubicon was really fun, but pretty close to being fiction. Not in the sense of being inaccurate, but in the way it was written, and in routinely stating the motives and actions of people we don't know that much about. It's all plausible guesses, and one does learn things about how Rome was back then.
"No, it's interesting. And I think you're right that the valid arguments against her have more force because she's a woman; people object to her position on the war, for example, more than they objected to Kerry's."
But she doesn't have Kerry's position, not even hisold one. It's closer to Lieberman's position, and the same is true in domestic policy.
"I'm hoping for the backlash against Bush to cut in favor of Gore/Kerry nerdy intellectual types."
I find this comment interesting because I've read a conflation of them as nerdy wonks several times on non-political forums. Kerry is the least nerdy guy you could find. He's very much a jock, and he's not a wonk.
I continue to maintain that unlike 04, in 08 there's a significant ideological rift between two sets of candidates: Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and Gore in the event he runs, vs Clinton, Warner, Richardson and most of the 2nd tier candidates.
Part of me is thinking that Kerry's 49% was actually v. impressive in a historical perspective, more so than say Clinton's reelection, so maybe the smartest thing would be to renominate him, Since the incumbent party almost never loses after 4 years, and almost always win after 8. So if you manage to get 49%, you'll probably win next time. It's harder to make an imformed guess how strong the other candidates will be, Kerry's more of a known quantity, and should be good enough.
Yes, Digby's perfect. Do you think Broder knows or cares how many people who should be his readership, or carry some sort of respect for him, think this of him?
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:29 AM
About a year ago, I was reading a message board full of otherwise sane women who insisted that Hillary's refusal to divorce Clinton proved that she was of low character. I think the logic was that it proved that she cared too much about her career and her image (because they would have divorced him in a second, or something).
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:35 AM
This Broder has a marriage? Has it suffered due to his preference for barnyard animals?
Posted by dave heasman | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:37 AM
Oh my God. People act as if journalists are recording the thoughts and feelings of all Americans, when really they're mostly rich white people who went to Columbia J-School to learn how to sell sexy articles to their editors. Why isn't this obvious to everyone, that you can't read the NYT to "find out" what voters are thinking about? Of course, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy--the NYT decides what the issues will be, and then everyone runs around saying, "The Clintons' marriage is so important!" without realizing they didn't think it was important before the NYT told them they thought it was important.
I'm going to go bang my head against the wall for an hour.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:41 AM
I'm anti-HRC for President, so I might not be entirely trustworthy on this, but I don't really have a problem with the Broder article. Her marriage, and more specifically, her husband, is going to be an issue. Whether or not that's appropriate.
The bit about her jumpsuit was strange, though.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:43 AM
Takes away all of her agency, doesn't it? Says what marriage means, or should mean, to them is what it must mean to her. Actually, when you think about it, that's right. Adultery is much more threatening when the spouse knows, acknowledges, yet makes it clear she wants to keep the marriage, having the option to do otherwise (financial, etc.) So they must assume only political ambition keeps them together. Acceptance, forgiveness, love, the reserved right to do the same, must be much more disturbing to contemplate, so they don't.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:43 AM
6 to 2
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:45 AM
Oh, I wouldn't vote for her myself -- her position on the war settles that. But this:
Her marriage, and more specifically, her husband, is going to be an issue. Whether or not that's appropriate.
It's going to be 'an issue' because these putatively neutral horrors are making it an issue. Leave it up to her opponents to bring it up, if they're going to, and then report on the attacks -- without attacks, or any evidence that the voters give a damn, this is a media created issue.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:47 AM
7: Pretty much. It must be political ambition. (And I say, so what if it is? Wanting to be president is a pretty important ambition, at least as important as 'we're staying together because I can't afford to divorce him', 'I want to give him a second chance' or 'For the sake of the children', and it's not like the country is going to elect a single woman any time soon.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:49 AM
8: I don't have a root belief, anymore, that the media, and especially opinion writers, are distinct from various matched opponents. Broder's column might have come about after a conversation with a Republican about HRC's chances, or it might have come about after a conversation with a Dem rival, for example. I'm betting on the latter.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:50 AM
9: yes, but my point is that any reason on your imputed list is easier for them to take than any of my alternative suggestions would be.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:54 AM
Yeah, the obnoxious thing about the Broder quote is the passivity of the phrasing. "The fact that I just found a bunch of naked pictures of David Broder and posted them on the Internet is a clear signal – if any was needed – that his scrawny genitalia will be widely featured on web pages soon once the massive ad buy is complete."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:54 AM
I just noticed from your quote and the post Broder's failure to use the subjunctive.
STANFORD GRAD STUDENT ATTACKS POST COLUMNIST IN OFFICE
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:58 AM
And I say, so what if it is? Wanting to be president is a pretty important ambition, at least as important as 'we're staying together because I can't afford to divorce him', 'I want to give him a second chance' or 'For the sake of the children', and it's not like the country is going to elect a single woman any time soon.
This I don't get. (I should note that, by most accounts I've seen, it isn't true.) But if a candidate came out and said, "I'm not divorcing my spouse because it will hurt me in the election," I think it would influence my vote. Though I feel certain it isn't true, I want to believe there are limits to the ways in which a candidate will allow his overweening ambition to shape his life. It's a bit like saying, "I had kids because people trust parents," or "I got married because otherwise voters would have thought I was gay." I can imagine that happens; I assume it happens. But it makes me sad, and a bit distrustful of the speaker.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:58 AM
I feel completely upside-down about Hillary. The things people in general dislike the most about her are what I like best about her. And vicee-versee.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:08 AM
Why can't it be true that the Clintons have a great deal in common, and part of what they have in common is their political savvy and ambition? Both of them seem genuinely to care about several core issues that matter, and both of them are willing to sacrifice what they see as "fringe issues" for diplomatic purposes. I think both of them, like Oprah, are willing to build cults to their personalities in order to get done what they want done.
In both their cases, this willingness to sacrifice "fringe" ideals makes me feel very little respect for them, since I believe that it's only through real feminism, real anti-racism, and real pro-queer activism that we'll achieve things like health care and workers' rights. However, it seems like wonderful glue for a marriage. The blowjob aside, I think they have each done things that the other would respect and admire. The people casting aspersion on Hillary about her possible marital hypocrisy are the same people who think Bill is a hypocrite.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:11 AM
15: What is it that you like/don't like about her? I've heard a huge (and conflicting) variety of reasons for feeling one way or the other from a lot of people.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:12 AM
I should add that, while I sounded pretty harsh on them just now, My Life was majorly impressive. I read it in the tub. In tears. Loved it.
Posted by A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:12 AM
Of course, if she came out and said it, it would make me think twice. (I don't think it's true, either.) But that might be just because there are some things in politics that aren't said even though true: the first lady's new hairstyle results from a campaign decision to make her look more motherly, but she's supposed to explain that she just felt like a change; or the President publicly walking to church because he polls better when people think he's religious.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:13 AM
I hope she just doesn't run.
I'm actually hoping for Al Gore. Since he was elected president in 2000, I figure we at least deserve a chance to see what it would have been like. He seems like a perfect candidate for the "Democratic mop-up crew" that takes control after a few terms of Republican excess, so that they can then be slandered when the Republicans return to continue trying to vandalize and destroy the government. Although Hilary would probably do just as well in that role. She always struck me as a reasonable and moderate Republican -- just what we need.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:20 AM
I read it in the tub. In tears.
Wow, you cry enough to bathe in it? Was this immediately after an Alice-in-the-hallway style shrinking episode?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:21 AM
the first lady's new hairstyle results from a campaign decision to make her look more motherly, but she's supposed to explain that she just felt like a change; or the President publicly walking to church because he polls better when people think he's religious.
What's that I hear about gambling going on in here?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:21 AM
Although Hilary would probably do just as well in that role
I think he's too devoted to his polar-explorer career to consider going into politics.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:23 AM
She always struck me as a reasonable and moderate Republican -- just what we need.
What policy positions must one hold (if, indeed, it is policy positions that lead you to declare Hillary a Republican) to qualify as a Democrat?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:23 AM
My attempts to pwn Kotsko have been foiled by my ignorance.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:26 AM
In brief, the ambition, calculation and policy seriousness are what I like, and somewhat contradictorily I confess, the trimming and tracking to the middle what I dislike. I resolve this for myself by saying I support her right to take the positions she does and the significance for our society of the role she plays, but I don't trust her political skills or judgment. It's like the ambivalence you feel about the bad woman boss: you understand up to a point, and don't want in any way to give fodder to those who oppose her for inappropriate reasons, and you can't be entirely sure you don't yourself, but, still, you wish she were better.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:28 AM
Two ells, Adam. She was named, so the story goes, not for the saint but for the mountain climber.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:31 AM
You really must stop reading the New York Times. Or at least, you must stop regarding it as a serious source of news. If you wish to treat it as the sniggering output of the fingernail-door-scratchers from the court of the clown prince, then by all means, have at it.
I can tell you this: if you stop reading the New York Times, and replace it with, let's say, the BBC, the only news you will not get is the obsessive navel-gazing over e.g. Judy Miller. And you will be spared Nagourney, Bumiller, and the rest of the silk stocking set.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:35 AM
as a reasonable and moderate Republican -- just what we need
Hey, we agree!
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:42 AM
29: Few mind reasonable and moderate Republicans. Weld wins in MA, as does Romney. Pataki wins in NY, Guiliani wins in NYC. What we mind are the people you're hanging out with.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:44 AM
Few mind reasonable and moderate Republicans
I do. I mind them immensely. Anyone still in that party is enabling the whack-jobs. Obviously, I mind the whack-jobs more. But I am intensely annoyed at the GOP for trashing the whole idea of what it means to be conservative.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:47 AM
31 gets it exactly right. Reasonable, moderate Republicans are Barbara Hafer, Lowell Weicker, and James Jeffords.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:49 AM
Maybe this is an opportunity. There ought to be room in our party for Peter Viereck conservatives, at least.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:50 AM
You really must stop reading the New York Times. Or at least, you must stop regarding it as a serious source of news. If you wish to treat it as the sniggering output of the fingernail-door-scratchers from the court of the clown prince, then by all means, have at it.
But I can't read the BBC on the subway, and my local newsstand doesn't carry anything beyond the Times and the NY tabs (which are entertaining, and have the comics, but don't cover anything in much breadth.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:53 AM
There ought to be room in our party
See, I have a problem with this. It's almost certainly just my problem, but I mention it anyway: I can't think of the Democrats as my party. I vote for 'em, sure. But I'm non-party registered. And the Dems are so powerfully inept, I can't possibly say, ayup, that's my party.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:53 AM
But I can't read the BBC on the subway
You can download it to your iPod, and listen to it on the subway. This is how I do it, anyway—not on the subway, but on my morning commute.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:54 AM
30: Romney is less moderate than Weld. People voted agains O'Brien, because they thought that she was an insider political hack, a product of Beacon Hill.
Weld won, because John Silber was a pro-life wacko control-freak. BU is only barely beginning to recover from his reign. Weld also pledged to get rid of the Department of Motor Vehicles which everyopne loved. (Actually, I don't think that his policy was quite that extreme. I think that he wanted to let town clerks take over the responsibility for registering cars, not administering driving tests--a perfectly sensible policy, if you ask me.)
Weld's tenure was not without real consequences. Dukakis got a universal pay-or-play health care scheme enacted which Weld managed to get repealed.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:55 AM
IDP, I'm confused.
You like "ambition, calculation and policy seriousness" (which sound like political skills to me) but "don't trust her political skills"? So does that mean you think she has political skills, but you think they are bankrupt or untrustworthy in some way, or that you don't think she has political skills?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:57 AM
Yeah. I don't despise moderate Republicans, but I do disagree with them; someone like Pataki or Weld gets credit for not being a raving lunatic, but they can still do a lot of harm.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:57 AM
download it to your iPod, and listen to it on the subway
Dude, that is a really good idea. How does one do that?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:58 AM
Hillary Clinton wants to ban flag-burning. That in itself says a lot about her unfitness for the presidency.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:01 AM
I default to the Democrats, because I take a Democratic Primary ballot, and have been ever-more-frequently mobilized in recent years by friends and neighbors.
And I remember my dad's whole-hearted endorsement of Michael Harrington's prospectus for what I think he called "Democratic Socialists."
That Viereck reference was for you, slol, to further explore my notion that we have the exact same library.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:02 AM
Dude, that is a really good idea. How does one do that?
In iTunes, go to Podcasts>Podcast Directory, search on BBC. The "BBC Newspod" is the daily summary.
Also available via iTunes, and well worth one's while:
If you're a real junkie, you can use Audio Hijack to record some or all of the live stream of the Today Programme, which is the flagship news show that airs 6-9 AM Greenwich Time, and then download that to your iPod. Same goes for any other Radio 4 programme, of course.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:09 AM
I call myself a Democrat and think of myself as one because IME, they have always been preferable to the possible alternative. It's not that I don't have serious points of ideological difference and even more serious points of tactical difference with many or most Democrats, it's just that when faced with a ballot, I have never found myself in the position of preferring the Republican.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:10 AM
Silvana, I admire and defend her for having ambition, calculation, and policy seriousness. Particularly the latter, where she is in my opinion most admirable and lucid. I remember being impressed by her articles in '92; Garry Wills in NYRB gave me the links. If I think she is being attacked for have those qualities, then I defend her. I've got her hankerchief pinned to my t-shirt right here.
But I think she has a tin ear, and lacks grace, and don't trust myself not to be feeling so because I'm subconciously admitting what I'm consciously denying about women
I tell you, she's our Nixon.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:10 AM
my notion that we have the exact same library
Yes, I noticed that. One of these days you're going to have to tell me how you accrued it. (You can email me if you like, my handle at gmail.)
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:11 AM
I do not understand flag-burning, either the pro-ban or anti-ban sides. Banning it sounds totally unnecessary, and going to the mat to protect it also sounds unnecessary. I understand the speech argument, that flag-burning is a political speech-act rather than, say, vandalism or intimidation, but I also can't really see a ban on it as the first step on a slippery slope. It would need a Constitutional amendment, wouldn't it? That just sounds like overkill; I *am* against changing the Constitution for silly symbolic gains.
Am I missing something, or am I just being wobbly here?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:12 AM
"I download the BBC podcast to my iPod so I can listen to it on my morning commute"?
While sipping your latte, commie?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:20 AM
It would need a Constitutional amendment, wouldn't it?
Right, it would need an amendment to ban flag-burning, and at various times over the past few decades Republicans have mobilized to try and get such an amendment happening. Which would be an abomination were it to come to pass -- such a ridiculous thing to tag onto the end of our founding doc -- but it seems vanishingly unlikely to me that it ever would happen outside of a general slide toward fascism much further along than the contemporary one. IMO the reason to speak out against these efforts when they are happening, is that not to do so normalizes fascist rhetoric.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:22 AM
Hillary's nomination is as inevitable as the perpetuation of this slur against her family life.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:22 AM
Hillary's nomination is ... inevitable
Would you please ... STOP ... saying that! It's hurting me!
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:24 AM
as inevitable
D'you mean they are both inevitable or neither one?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:25 AM
So, if I understand what you're saying, TMK, people should aggressively oppose flag-burning-ban proponents because cluttering up our Constitution with that sort of stupidity is just so petty and mean?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:25 AM
While sipping your latte, commie?
Lattes are for weenies. Also, supercalorifitastic. Double espresso, svp.
And, since when is the British Empire for commies?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:25 AM
Or something more subtle like "the perpetuation of this slur ensures that she will be nominated"?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:25 AM
53 -- yeah that's basically it.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:27 AM
people should aggressively oppose flag-burning-ban proponents because
it infringes on your property rights. You bought the flag. You own that flag. You can do as you please with it.
Think of it this way. You buy a Mickey Mouse doll. You can decapitate it, have tea with it, do as you like; the doll is yours. "Mickey Mouse" is not yours, and you can't reproduce the image in any way without heavy penalty. But the doll is yours to use as you see fit.
Same goes for the flag.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:28 AM
Same goes for the flag.
Au contraire -- I am free to reproduce the flag image at my leisure.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:31 AM
Au contraire
To a degree: I meant that, if the government on behalf of the people wants to assert a right to control the symbolic value of the flag, they can do that in the same way people can control their IP rights. E.g., there is a code, part of the U.S.C., for the flag's proper display. But the actual physical flag you bought, that you own.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:35 AM
It must be political ambition.
Um, you know, not necessarily. Maybe she actually loves her husband and accepts that he's a philanderer. BFD, people.
Re. Hillary and stuff like "I won't vote for her because of her position on flag-burning." Come ON. That's not a substantive issue, it's no more important than Kerry having said he wasn't for gay marriage. Ignore it. It's so clear to me that she's working to create an image of herself as the candidate who represents moms and families--and I think that's a winning platform. She's the only actually feminist candidate we've ever seen, and she's well-connected in the party, and she's shown the ability to work with even some crazy-ass Republicans: I think that her apparent management skills, along with my sense of her personal philosophy (and I actually do think her marriage is evidence of this--but in a good way) suggest that she'd be a decent president and might actually achieve some of the domestic policy changes the country desperately needs.
Now, I can respect the idea that one doesn't trust her on foreign policy or the war. And that should definitely be talked about. But I worry about the way that people dismiss her out of hand, because I think she is really the chosen candidate. I went to an Emily's List luncheon last year in which it was clear they're going to back her 100%. And the party seems behind her. At the risk of sounding like a feminist version of Kos, it's the party that matters. I think she'd be a good Democratic leader.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:39 AM
So if the government were simply to nationalize and copyright the flag icon, then it could control the use of that IP? Awesome. I want to see somebody make that part of their platform.
B, the counter-argument to the "Hillary has proven management skills" is the healthcare fiasco. DeLong wrote up his recollection some time ago, and while it's surely just one perspective on her, it does suggest that there are potentially a number of former staffers with venomous memories of her. Also: I'm still pissed that she voted for the Authorization of Force despite all of my letters. I know everyone voted for that pile of crap, but she was MY senator, and I expected better of her.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:51 AM
I've never had any Joe-Klein, authenticity problems with her. And if she's the nominee, I'll support her 100%, and because I live in Illinois, I won't have a damn thing to say about it. But I think what I've called her lack of grace will make everything harder and more annoying than it would otherwise be.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:51 AM
Of course, if she were the nominee, I'd vote for her.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:51 AM
Also, Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton is not really my idea of a functioning republic.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:52 AM
B, we've been around this issue before, so I don't want to beat a dead horse. But.
One of the most important issues facing a Democratic president will be healthcare. Does Hillary Clinton, in actual fact, have a good track record on healthcare reform? On the contrary, Hillary Clinton is one of the big reasons we didn't get healthcare reform when we had a real chance in the early 1990s. She screwed up, big time: she failed to court legislators or doctors, and concocted an asinine plan that only a management consultant could love. That shows political lameness, lack of leadership skills, and is also a major and substantive issue that will be used against her in a campaign.
Another major issue is her position on the Iraq War. She's in the same position as Kerry. Were you for or agin? What's your real thinking, here? Why?
Her position on flag-burning is not itself substantive, but symbolizes what was most loathsome about Bill Clinton: a) an essential disregard for civil liberties, b) a willingness to suck up to right-wingers.
That's taking all that Broderesque nonsense aside. Which we shouldn't. Broder's terrible, but he's right: there's a prepackaged anti-Hillary critique that has the press corps slavering.
She would be a bad candidate, and a bad president. I am not for her.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:58 AM
And, I forgot, but 64 is exactly right. We might as well wad up the Constitution and chuck it at that point.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:59 AM
I'm willing to say that the healthcare fiasco was a steep learning curve.
Re. Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton. I'd agree, *but*. The current president is the son of a former president. Hillary is the *wife* of a former president (and she hadn't changed her name until politics forced her to). It's a substantive difference. In sexist societies, the primary way that women rise to power is through their male connections; a *lot* of elected women leaders are the daughters/wives of politicians. There are a couple reasons for this: first, ambitious women are likely to marry ambitious men (and then, the world being what it is, the man's career is likely to come first); second, it's "okay" for a woman to achieve name recognition through her husband, not so much if she does it on her own. It seems to me, therefore, that we're highly unlikely to get a woman president who hasn't been married to a politician. Unless we get an unmarried woman, but can you even begin to imagine? So I think disqualifying women on the principle that husband/wife political teams are a kind of dynasty effectively means disqualifying women, period.
Yes, there are increasing numbers of women senators and representatives who aren't married to politicans. But the first woman in a male-dominated job (and nothing's more male-dominated than the executive branch) generally gets there through family connections, because her relationship to the men in power trumps her sex.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:07 AM
The flag burning thing is a pretty lame reason in itself to not vote for her, but it's sort of indicative of Clinton's tendency towards Lieberman-ish moral hectoring on a bunch of issues, which is a valid concern (not particular to her, I admit- more a complaint about the current Democratic leadership. I still don't want to reward it). And her strengths all pull toward the sort of person I'd want coming in after a strongly Democratic administration- she's an incrementalist most of the time, and I worry that it's not going to be enough to just want to sand down the nastiest bits of the current administration.
Also, Kathleen Sebelius rocks much harder, and I'd like to give her the shot at "first woman president."
Posted by Moleman | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:13 AM
She is a centrist who everybody thinks is a leftist. We need a leftist who everybody thinks is a centrist.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:14 AM
I'm willing to say that the healthcare fiasco was a steep learning curve.
"Yes, I've taken terrible positions on both foreign and domestic policy. But I've learned."
That just doesn't sound like a winning argument.
the first woman in a male-dominated job
Are you seriously saying that you support her basically because she's the most plausible candidate with ovaries? Because, you know, that's a terrible reason. The country is on a disastrous course right now, and in some respects is in disastrous shape already. We can't afford the luxury of a president whose principal value is as a symbol of progress.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:15 AM
65: Oh, let's take a few whacks at the equine. After all, we're not going to bring the site down.
Your first point: this is definitely going to be the line of attack. On the other hand, there's the counter-argument that she's the only candidate who has demonstrated an actual interest in health care policy and the importance of coverage for all Americans. I, personally, find that attractive, and the whole "failed to court" thing is somthing she's obviously learned from.
Iraq war: honestly? I think Kerry's position on the war was principled and nuanced. And I suspect the same of Clinton. I'm quite willing to admit that there was a certain amount of pandering going on in "supporting the president" but come on: everyone backed the war initially. Anyone who didn't is going to have other reasons that they'll be dismissed out of hand as an irrational hippy.
Flag-burning, whatever. If I'm willing to give her a pass on "abortion is always a tragedy" because I know that she's pro-choice, you should be able to deal with the flag-burning thing. Yes, it's silly. Yes, in a perfect world we shouldn't have to put up with it. But it's not a perfect world, and what matters is what she'll actually do. Under a Clinton presidency, there's not gonna be a damn amendment against flag-burning, and we both know it.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:15 AM
Sorry, "we both know it" is a li'l more aggressive-sounding than it should be. I'm not really feeling adversarial on this, I was just typing quickly.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:18 AM
everyone backed the war initially
No, they most certainly did not. This is a very important little piece of history. An awful lot of very bright people, both those with knowledge of American history (i.e., our previous efforts at benevolent assimilation) and those with knowledge of Iraq in 2002-3, argued against it.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:18 AM
I've got to say, B, that while I'm sympathetic to your position, here my virulent republicanism trumps my feminism.
And I disagree with you that we're limited to wives of politicians. Sure, Hillary's done well on her own after her husband's career. But there are other women in politics who've made it on their own. I'd love to see Feinstein run, although she's ruled it out. I even think Rice has an outside chance, probably not in 2008 but down the road, after she gets some domestic-side experience. (I wouldn't vote for Rice because she's tied to the Bush admin fiasco, but then I wouldn't vote for, oh, Lindsay Graham either.) It would be great to see Ann Richards back on the national scene--what's she up to these days? Claire McCaskill's campaign for the Missouri Senate seat looked interesting, as it was written up in this week's New Yorker. Can't we encourage independant women instead of shrugging our shoulders at nepotism in the name of getting feminist candidates?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:19 AM
Fuck Hillary, for oh-so-many reasons:
1. She is, in essence, running against the Democratic Party. She's not arguing that people misunderstand Dems; she's arguing that people are right about Dems, but she's not one of them. (This is roughly the McCain strategy of 2000. I hope it works as well for her.)
2. She won't win, for the same reason Obama couldn't win, no matter what the polling says. People always claim to be more comfortable with these sorts of choices than they prove to be come election day. She'll lose, and she'll kill the chances for a whole class of women politicians behind her. The single best bet for getting a female (or black) President is a female (or black) Vice-President. If it's not Hillary, we'll have a female Vice-Presidential candidate.
3. She has a tin ear. Certainly she does compared to her husband. And the problem is that she's going to run a campaign that is predicated around a politician with her husband's skill. Welcome to Failureville.
4. Iraq. I wasn't alive during McNamara's time, and no one I know was at risk. I only know him through books and interviews. I basically like him - he comes off as a decent guy, who fucked up. People I know who were alive at the time and at risk HATE him. Want to slap me when I express anything but actual, physical revulsion towards him. They think he let a lot of people die for his ambition. I think not a few people (Ivins, I suspect) feel the same way about HRC. I'm not as humanistic as my friends, but this a biggish one for me.
5. How she'll win and who her structural partners will be. She's a DLC candidate, and she'll revive the DLC, which means reviving our dependence on the South. As I said above, I don't mind reasonable Republicans. I hate Southern Republicans, and those are the people she'll commit the Dems to placating. I'd rather have someone who can try to build the party in the West and Southwest. This may be the single biggest thing I hold against her. (McCain is the flipped side of this; I fear him less because I think he'll end up moving the strength of the party out of the South and into the West. That would be very, very good.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:22 AM
My problem with her (and, you know, if she's the candidate I'll vote for her with enthusiasm considering the likely alternatives. I was enthusiastic about Kerry, and he was as bad on the war as she is.) is that health care and her position on the Iraq war both strike me as symptoms of the same underlying problem: I don't know whether to characterize it as lack of political courage, or lack of political sense.
I don't believe in either case that she really thought the position she came out in favor of was the right one: I don't think she actually thought war with Iraq was necessary or well-advised, and I don't think she thought that that mess of a health care plan she came up with was a better idea than a simple single-payer, cut-out-the-middleman plan. In both cases, I think she was, in a well-meaning way, trying to be politically calculating: I can't stop the war, so I retain more influence and can do more good by jumping on the bandwagon; I can't get single-payer health care passed, so I'll advocate this plan which is the closest I can get.
I don't have a problem with that sort of thinking as insincere, everyone has to do some give and take, I have a problem with it because she doesn't seem to be good enough at it to make it turn out well. I am afraid that she can be stampeded by her sense of the political possibilities into doing stupid things.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:26 AM
Also, Hillary has been unrepentantly hawkish about Middle Eastern politics. From appearing in Jerusalem and calling it Israel's capitol during her first Senate campaign, to supporting the Iraq war, to making saber-rattling speeches now about Iran. Some of it may have to do with NY State politics--locking in the upstate NY vote took some doing--but at a certain point, public statements of position start to look like a trend. I'm too worried about this shit to give her the benefit of doubt: "no, no, she doesn't really mean to invade Iran; she's just pandering..."
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:26 AM
73: I didn't back it. I meant "everyone" in the sense of "everyone who had been elected to national office."
I don't think we're limited to wives of politicians only--I just think that ruling out politicians' wives means ruling out a significant proportion of potential women candidates. Given that the proportion of men to women in politics is as lopsided as it is, I'm not willing to toss a sizable chunk of potential women candidates overboard just b/c of who they're married to. But we should be able to encourage independent women *and* recognize that supporting women who are married to politicans should be distinguished from nepotism in the usual sense because of the realities of marriage/ambition for women in the last hundred years or so.
I think that Ann Richards has cancer, actually.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:28 AM
SCMTim's point 4 mirrors so exactly my experience I just felt it worth supporting. I watched The Fog of War about a year ago and was moved by McNamera's contrition and second-guessing, etc. Then I talked to my (libertarian, Canadian, broadly isolationist) father about it, and his raw loathing of McNamera was astonishing to me. There was nothing McNamera could say now that would make a difference. Then I reflected a bit: well, that's how I feel about Rumsfeld...
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:32 AM
When I say she's our Nixon, I mean my reasons for supporting her, if it comes to that, will be essentially negative: her enemies are mine, by-and-large.
But I won't apologise for finding her lacking an essential grace that I think many politicians, men and women have to a greater degree, and that Bill Clinton has to a very great degree. I'm not talking about charisma, the desire for which I detest, nor likeability, nor any other irrelevant personal characteristic.
It's a hunch, a guess, a remembered feeling. We could pick apart any position, any statement, and parse its constituent factors, how much or little room she has to manuever, etc. By now I should have more trust that she will do or say an adequate thing at the appropriate, not to say necessary, time.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:34 AM
I meant "everyone" in the sense of "everyone who had been elected to national office."
But that's not true either.
Here: 133 Congressmen and 23 Senators voted against the AUMF in Iraq.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:34 AM
Further to 81, I mean, good Jesus, this is a really important distinction. If "everyone" was for the Iraq War, then really, we all own it. But if only true believers, misguided souls and persons too craven to trust their better judgment (ahem, Mrs. Senator) supported it, then they own it. And they should have to take the rap for it. Which means not letting them go on running the show.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:38 AM
I can't help feeling that Hillary is not just your average political wife, B. Her husband was President, not Governor or Congressman. She lived and worked in the White House for eight years, and if she were elected to the Presidency, her husband would return to the White House to live and work there again. In some respects, that's even less republican than the father-son dynastic succession. I know holding this reservation against Hillary isn't fair to her individually, but I really do think that political dynasties are a Bad Idea. I don't think I'm alone in believing this or in holding it against a Hillary candidacy. FWIW, people also hold it against Jeb Bush.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:40 AM
But we should be able to encourage independent women *and* recognize that supporting women who are married to politicans should be distinguished from nepotism in the usual sense because of the realities of marriage/ambition for women in the last hundred years or so.
And we nod at an awful lot of nepotism for men -- I really don't want a higher standard in this respect for women than for men.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:41 AM
recognize that supporting women who are married to politicans should be distinguished from nepotism in the usual sense because of the realities of marriage/ambition for women in the last hundred years or so.
Not much need of distinguishing women here. If you go look at the male Congresspeople, you'll see an enormous number who were the kids of prior Congresspeople. Strangely, I'm a lot more comfortable with kid nepotism than spouse nepotism. I think it's because (a la GWB) I think the parents will have less room to meddle than (ala HRC in the '90s) the spouse. That's just a sense, though.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:42 AM
I really hold congresspeople to a lower standard of scrutiny than I do Presidents.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:44 AM
75: (1) Well, like you're saying, it's working gangbusters for McCain. And I think that, if we're going to talk popular perception (which is what I think things like 3-4 are really about), I think this is more advantageous for the Dems than for the Republicans (though the plummeting poll numbers suggest that the Republican party might be in trouble now, too). The reality is that the Dems have been successfully labelled as a bunch of weak-assed hippies: if nothing else, Hillary's reputation is not weak.
(2) I've actually wondered what we'd do with a Gore/Clinton ticket (which seems a possibility). If anything, it sounds more dynastic than having Hillary follow Bill. However, I'm kind of hoping that Obama will be the v.p. candidate.
(3) Maybe. Very few people have Bill's charisma and rhetorical skill. I really worry more about Gore's ability to communicate than I do about hers. And I wonder if the popular sense that she's handicapped here doesn't have quite a bit of unconscious gender bias built into it. Not that it matters, in the sense that if it does, that's a political reality, but I don't see that she's clumsier at these things than a lot of successful guys (e.g., the current president).
(4) May be the case. Again, though, the idea that she's made too many sacrifices for her ambition skeeves me out on feminist grounds. It may be a political liability, but it's not untinged with sexism, I don't think..
(5) I agree 100% that the Dems need to move to the West. Ab-so-lutely. A Richards would be a fantastic candidate, if she were in the position to run. I'll back Harry Reid. Unfortunately, neither Feinstein nor Boxer is viable: the "California + woman" combo is just way too "fringe." Stupid, but there you are. I definitely think that we should be looking at and promoting people like Christine Gregoire, though. (But the idea that McCain is less scary than Clinton is insane.)
I do think that LB's 76 is a really strong argument. It's the only anti-Hillary argument that I think is about her as a candidate, rather than as a woman, honestly.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:45 AM
Can we all agree about LB's 76? I'm happy to let it stand as a proxy for mine, even if I"ve been trying to say it differently.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:51 AM
83: No, she's not: she's on record as having put her political career on the back burner to support her husband, but as always having wanted a political career--unlike a lot of politician's-wives-turned-politican, who get to combine the nepotism advantage with the gender advantage by constructing their image as having been pushed out of their Happy Supporting Role into public office in order to continue their husband's legacy. Hillary's pretty clearly not running on continuing her husband's legacy.
Anyway, I understand the argument, but I think that in this case it's not only holding women to a higher standard, it's taking a coincidence (the Clinton marriage) and reimagining it as a cause.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:53 AM
I'm sorry if I seem to be turning this into an argument--I just think it's more interesting to talk about why people are so opposed to the obvious front-runner than it is to simply assume it as given. Especially because there are so many interesting things involved in her being the probable candidate. But if I'm annoying the crap out of people, I'll stop.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 11:57 AM
No, it's interesting. And I think you're right that the valid arguments against her have more force because she's a woman; people object to her position on the war, for example, more than they objected to Kerry's.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:00 PM
Well, I also find it interesting that a lot of the arguments against her seem not to be about *her*, but about her *electability*. Which is all well and good, and electability matters, but I'd just like it acknowledged that a lot of the electability issues boil down to "a woman can't win."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:08 PM
Well, like you're saying, it's working gangbusters for McCain.
I'm completely happy with the idea of Hillary running, and winning the Dem nomination. If, as comparable to McCain, it happens in 2016, after a two-term Dem.
if nothing else, Hillary's reputation is not weak.
It is with non-DLC Dems. They see her as part of the knee-pad Dem faction. And they'll oppose her in the primaries. Whether they carry any weight is an entirely different question.
I've actually wondered what we'd do with a Gore/Clinton ticket (which seems a possibility).
There are other women, and it will be a different woman. I'm hoping for Neapolitano.
I don't see that she's clumsier at these things than a lot of successful guys (e.g., the current president).
The current President is widely considered to be good at these things. That is, people instinctively like him. As they did Bill. As they don't HRC. (And, I admit, as they don't Gore. But he'll be running a slightly different campaign.)
Again, though, the idea that she's made too many sacrifices for her ambition skeeves me out on feminist grounds.
I think we are misunderstanding something here. I'm not arguing that she sacrificed anything for her ambition. I'm saying a lot of other people have--US soldiers, Iraqis, anyone effected by disastrous foreign policy, anyone effected by disastrous domestic policy that came about b/c the President was allowed to remain so strong about Iraq. And some faction of the Dem base will virulently hate her for it. That's a large part of the reason why Gore looms so large as Dream Barbie--he was out of office, so his hands are clean.
Unfortunately, neither Feinstein nor Boxer is viable
Neapolitano is the popular female governor of Arizona. We already have CA. We could use some weight in the NM, CO, AZ, NV area.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:10 PM
But some of them also boil down to Joe O's 69, I think: People have the idea that she's some kind of screaming liberal, and if we can elect a screaming liberal I'd rather have one who's shown some affinity for actual screaming liberal policies. Clinton just hasn't shown herself to be close to me on a lot of issues.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:11 PM
the arguments against her seem not to be about *her*, but about her *electability*.
No, they're not. She has bad judgment, has taken indefensible policy positions, and would make a terrible president. That says squat about her electability. In terms of her ability to do the job, she's about as good as Lieberman. That's all about HRC.
Why do people care so much? It's got squat to do with her being a woman. It's because so much rides on who the next president is. Not only because they'll have to try to fix so much that has been broken, but because they'll have to do so in such a way that the crazies don't get right back into office four years later.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:12 PM
94 to 92. SCMT, I'm not sure about people instinctively liking W; they definitely don't like him personally now, and in 2000 it seemed like the press kept instructing everyone as to how likable he was.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:13 PM
she's a woman; people object to her position on the war, for example, more than they objected to Kerry's.
You seem to forget that an awful lot of people supported Dean b/c of the war issue. The difference is that anti-Iraq war people feel even more correct in their estimations than in '03-'04.
but about her *electability*. Which is all well and good, and electability matters, but I'd just like it acknowledged that a lot of the electability issues boil down to "a woman can't win."
Probably. A lot don't, though, including most of those people have identified above. Look, part of what's interesting to me is that there is such great support for her, despite the fact that (a) everyone acknowledges she's doesn't have a surfeit of charisma, (b) a significant (but perhaps small) part of both our base and their base virulently hate her, and (c) she did a lousy job with the pseudo-executive power she was given over the most important social program agenda of the Dems in a generation. And that, I believe, is entirely because she's a woman.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:19 PM
Yeah -- whatever sort of likability he has, it doesn't carry over to people who disagree with him. The widespread impression among those I know socially has always been 'irritating punk'.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:20 PM
It seems to me taking objections to her as being unacknowledged objections to women, when she has not run or been nominated, merely annointed thank-you-very-much-Emily's-List, denigrates, from my point of view, the literaly hundreds of women leaders I would prefer to her.
And, I think LB's 76 is also a very good summary of why I disliked Kerry, because it applies to him, yet wanted him to win very badly once he was the nominee. I'm sure I'll do the same for her if it comes to that, but I'm not going to be very happy about the process that made her the nominee nor about the nature or the quality of her support.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:20 PM
You seem to forget that an awful lot of people supported Dean b/c of the war issue.
Well, yeah. Me. But that seemed to come across as more of a positive for Dean than a negative for Kerry, if you see the distinction.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:21 PM
On the subject of Gore, today:
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:28 PM
Hum, well, you guys are making strong arguments. Maybe I'm wrong.
I'm really worried about the viability of a Gore candidacy. I know that he won the popular vote before, but just barely--and I think that he has a lot of the same perception problems that Kerry did, and the additional burden of having "lost" a previous election. The R's will hammer on that and it seems really easy to me to just use it to magnify the "Gore is a wimp" thing.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:32 PM
she's on record as having put her political career on the back burner to support her husband, but as always having wanted a political career--unlike a lot of politician's-wives-turned-politican, who get to combine the nepotism advantage with the gender advantage by constructing their image as having been pushed out of their Happy Supporting Role into public office in order to continue their husband's legacy.
This is complicated. I think it has something to do with gender, but isn't solely explainable in gender-terms.
There seems to be an ongoing myth in American politics of the "drafted" leader: someone without personal ambition who accepts the popular acclaim despite his or her personal preferences. This goes back to George Washington, and it's lived on in that ritualized interview question: "Are you running for X, and if not, if drafted, would you accept the nomination?" So that's a deep-seated notion--if a bit silly--in American political life. Wives and children of liked political leaders have been able to use this sentimental idea to their advantage, sure, and often in very gendered ways, but the myth isn't necessarily gendered. Remember the "Draft Clark" movement?
Hillary's being upfront about putting her career on the backburner, unfortunately, makes so much of her current success as an independant politician seem like part of a program. It's a bit galling to think she planned out her 2008 Presidential run thirty years ago--what are the voters, chopped liver? Of course most successfull politicians have this calculating ambition (coughJohnF.Kerrycough), but it's always been considered polite to disguise it. Also, like many people, I suspect, I would rather Hillary had put her own political career on the frontburner back then: why hide her light under a bushel? Be the change you imagine! Dunno, it kind of pisses me off.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:34 PM
I'm hoping for the backlash against Bush to cut in favor of Gore/Kerry nerdy intellectual types. I saw someone comment somewhere that the Bush backlash was hurting McCain because Bush had discredited the 'tough-guy' schtick that McCain actually has a real right to.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:35 PM
The R's will hammer on that and it seems really easy to me to just use it to magnify the "Gore is a wimp" thing.
To a first approximation, fuck what R's will hammer on. They'll always find something, and if they don't they'll make it up.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:38 PM
I thought that the conventional wisdom now--or at least a year ago--was that Gore was "unhinged."
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:39 PM
Sadly for us nerdy intellectual types, I don't expect backlash ever to cut in our favor.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:39 PM
103: I'd rather she had too, but jesus, we're talking the 1970s here. Be realistic.
105: I actually would like to win this time.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:40 PM
I thought that the conventional wisdom now--or at least a year ago--was that Gore was "unhinged."
That's the thing. Gore is the exact opposite of Hillary in some ways. Long track record that is seen to be establishing him as moderate-to-conservative Dem (Insty worked on his presidential campaign in '88, I think), and a recent record that makes him the liberal base's darling. He really can track to the center from the start with very little attrition from the base. I'm not at all sure that's true for HRC.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:42 PM
105: Hear! Hear! Remember when Kerry's being a decorated veteran was going to insulate him from attacks on his fitness or patriotism? And that was why we should shut up and support him?
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:42 PM
(Insty worked on his presidential campaign in '88, I think),
Man. What happened to him?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:46 PM
108.2: "The R's will hammer on Gore" is no argument for nominating H. Clinton, though; they'll hammer on her at least as much. Anyway, I really don't think the R's will want to remind anyone of the 2000 election; by November 2008 they'll be trying to pretend W doesn't even exist.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:47 PM
I think the Bush backlash is hurting McCain b/c McCain's "tough guy" shtick is so easily undercut by his obvious kissing of Bush's ass.
I hope you guys are right about Gore. But I'm really dubious.
I think the Kerry problem wasn't about facts, it was about Kerry's personality. Which is the same problem Gore has.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:48 PM
OT but don't let the door hit you on the way in. And thanks for the job.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:50 PM
43:If you're a real junkie, you can use Audio Hijack to record some or all of the live stream of the Today Programme, which is the flagship news show that airs 6-9 AM Greenwich Time, and then download that to your iPod. Same goes for any other Radio 4 programme, of course.
Slol, you don't even need to do that. The Today Programme is available from iTunes too! I download the "Lead Interviews," option which gives you the morning briefing, the 750 interview and the 830 interview, but you can get the whole thing!
Where audiohijack would be really useful (I don't have it) is for listening to the Radio 3 stuff that isn't archived, like all those lovely live concerts that are on at 8PM Greenwich/British Summer Time.
I also like In Business with Peter Day.
Another podcast I recommend is Chris Lydon's Open Source, also available via iTunes or direct download.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:50 PM
it was about Kerry's personality. Which is the same problem Gore has.
And the same problem Hillary has.
Look, I'm more or less in the tank for Gore, but I realize that my wants do not perfectly match up with those of either the party or the nation. Maybe Edwards is the guy we want -- he's likeable. And if HRC ends up winning a bruising primary, I'll give her my full-throated support, even if does empower the DLC. By I hate front-runner status.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:51 PM
I think the Kerry problem wasn't about facts, it was about Kerry's personality. Which is the same problem Gore has.
I think this circles around to the subject of the post. A candidate has a 'personality problem' when the media says they do, just like Clinton's marriage is going to be a big issue because the media says it is. I think Bush's 'likeability' and Kerry and Gore's 'personality problems' were all media driven stories -- it's not that it isn't a real story, but we can't evade it by picking an unattackable candidate.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:52 PM
112: They will, but I think that her *image* makes her harder to beat down, is what I'm saying. She's done a fantastic job of insulating herself from the "crazed feminist, and probably a lesbian" crap precisely by embracing the reactionary window dressing that we're all saying makes her a bad candidate. And yet the remnants of the "crazed feminist" thing are gonna make it damn hard to portray her as weak or indecisive or wussy. Dean was a good liberal: he also got portrayed as "crazy." Gore and Kerry were mainstream: they got portrayed as "wimps." The problem the Democratic party has is that its mainstream is perceived as wimpy. We need someone who is clearly *not* a wimp to run. And I think that Hillary's perceived bitchiness would work.
Which is quite apart from all the stuff about her probable policies. I just think that we've developed a bad habit of not thinking about the importance of a candidate *as* candidate.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:53 PM
117: 'real story' s/b 'real problem'.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:54 PM
She's done a fantastic job of insulating herself
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
We need someone who is clearly *not* a wimp to run.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:56 PM
114: Hallelujah.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:57 PM
120: All right, shutting up now. I need to go take a shower and do some work anyway.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 12:58 PM
103: There seems to be an ongoing myth in American politics of the "drafted" leader: someone without personal ambition who accepts the popular acclaim despite his or her personal preferences. This goes back to George Washington,
It's even older than that. Cincinnatus, anyone? "For the sake of Rome,I will accept the position of dictator, but I'll give it up as soon as possible, because I really want to return to my farm."
Of course, a lot of our Founding Fathers thought that in addition to demanding their rights as Englishmen they were recreating a new Roman Republic.
That's why the W. as Octavian, nephew and adopted son of Julius Caesar, thing wigs me out so much.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:07 PM
123 was I.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:09 PM
Am I the only one who thinks John Edwards is both inexperienced and smarmy?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:09 PM
BG, I thought there were probably Roman roots to the idea, but my Classical education was pretty crap, so I usually just wiggle my fingers when that sort of stuff comes up.
Any recommendations for approachable one-volume histories of the Roman Republic?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:12 PM
She's done a fantastic job of insulating herself from the "crazed feminist, and probably a lesbian" crap precisely by embracing the reactionary window dressing that we're all saying makes her a bad candidate.
One of us is crazy. I think she's done it entirely wrong. I think that people like me now think of her as one of the step'n'fetchit Dems we loathe so much. I think she hasn't moved the needle at all with the conservatives who hate her--they think she's playing at it; news reports seem to indicate that she's still the biggest money draw for Republicans. That is, she's represents their biggest "anger point." Those people, I think, are entirely unwinnable by her.
You think exactly the opposite is happening, as I understand you.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:12 PM
Am I the only one who thinks John Edwards is both inexperienced and smarmy?
I totally thought you were talking about John Emerson for a moment.
I don't think that about John Edwards, at least not if I correctly understand the meaning of "smarmy". Maybe he's a little over-earnest though.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:15 PM
127: I think B. is right about the impression inside-the-Beltway types have about Clinton -- they think she's tough and centrist and all that. I think you're right about voters: on the left we think she's a sellout, on the right they think she's Eva Braun. And once the campaign starts, the inside-the-Beltway opinion isn't going to do her a lick of good.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:16 PM
I think that Edwards is a bit smarmy too. I think that his wife is great, not Presidential material perhaps, but smarter and with a lot of common sense. She seems compassionate without being manipulative.
I saw her on Charlie Rose after the election, and Charlie was talking to her about her cancer. And basically she said that she was going to be okay, because she had great doctors and good insurance, but that she'd met women on the campaign trail who were uninsured and had cancer. From her it seemed real in a way that it wouldn't have have from Theresa Heinz.
My Republican uncle thinks that Kerry is a total phony. He talks about seeing him at a rally in the 70's and how much the vets loathed him as a manipulative grandstander. He hates John Edwards for being a trial lawyer, but even he likes Elizabeth Edwards.
I'm not saying that she'd be qualified as a candidate, but she'd play well in suburbia.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:17 PM
I hate saying this, because I want to win badly, with Donald Duck if need be, but after this discussion today, a small, mean, despicable part of me would be gratified if she were effectively Swift-Boated, as I believe she is just as vulnerable to being as anyone else. That's the point of 105: it's a tactic, facts are irrelevant.
There are mandates for policy after watershed elections, provided the candidate actually runs on them. I don't believe Hillary actually will run as a women-and-mothers candidate. Most of the time, events beyond their control set presidential policies — I guess we should add now, "if they pay any attention to events" — and therefore what matters most is character.
I have always pulled the D, and the nominee has always been decided before my primary. The time to judge candidates, in the only forum we have, is now. It is as a political leader, not as a strong woman, policy advocate, or interesting person, that I find her deficient.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:17 PM
The Today Programme is available from iTunes too!
Last I checked, it was only part of Today you could get. And not the best part; the part I really want is the first forty minutes, minus the sport—where they do the top news stories, the international news, the business news, summarize the stories in today's British papers, and then—my favorite part—the stories from the papers in some overseas city.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 2:17 PM
Any recommendations for approachable one-volume histories of the Roman Republic?
I just finished reading Charles Freeman, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, which covers just what the title suggests, is aimed at the general reader, and seems to be widely used in survey courses, and the Roman Republic definitely came across as something worth reading more about. If I hadn't already returned it to the library, I could give you Freeman's suggestions for further reading. (And note that amazon allows you to search the 1st edition, but there is a second edition available that works in more recent scholarship.)
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 2:26 PM
Thanks, eb! I'll take a look.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 2:36 PM
I'm irretrievably low-brow, but for the early Empire, shedding some light on the Republic, I, Claudius and Claudius the God are awfully entertaining. And not insanely ahistorical, if I understand correctly.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 2:52 PM
I read Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic by Tom Holland a little while ago, and really liked it. It's not an academic book, but it's good if you don't have much of a background in the subject. It also reads really well, more of a narrative style.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 2:58 PM
This article, though the book it reviews does not seem all that worth reading, describes the Catiline Conspiracy in terms that suggest contemporary relevance:
The article was published in August 2001, by the way.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 3:15 PM
There are translations of Plutarch's Lives and of the historian Tacitus that are quite readable and interesting. I don't know about contemporary histories of the roman republic or empire. I tried reading gibbon, but that shit was tedious.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 3:38 PM
Tacitus also has a blog you could check out.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 7:43 PM
I liked this bit from an article about Cicero:
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 7:48 PM
Rubicon was really fun, but pretty close to being fiction. Not in the sense of being inaccurate, but in the way it was written, and in routinely stating the motives and actions of people we don't know that much about. It's all plausible guesses, and one does learn things about how Rome was back then.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 05-27-06 3:10 PM
"No, it's interesting. And I think you're right that the valid arguments against her have more force because she's a woman; people object to her position on the war, for example, more than they objected to Kerry's."
But she doesn't have Kerry's position, not even hisold one. It's closer to Lieberman's position, and the same is true in domestic policy.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 05-27-06 3:15 PM
"I'm hoping for the backlash against Bush to cut in favor of Gore/Kerry nerdy intellectual types."
I find this comment interesting because I've read a conflation of them as nerdy wonks several times on non-political forums. Kerry is the least nerdy guy you could find. He's very much a jock, and he's not a wonk.
Interesting phenomenon.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 05-27-06 3:28 PM
I continue to maintain that unlike 04, in 08 there's a significant ideological rift between two sets of candidates: Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and Gore in the event he runs, vs Clinton, Warner, Richardson and most of the 2nd tier candidates.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 05-27-06 3:57 PM
Part of me is thinking that Kerry's 49% was actually v. impressive in a historical perspective, more so than say Clinton's reelection, so maybe the smartest thing would be to renominate him, Since the incumbent party almost never loses after 4 years, and almost always win after 8. So if you manage to get 49%, you'll probably win next time. It's harder to make an imformed guess how strong the other candidates will be, Kerry's more of a known quantity, and should be good enough.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 05-27-06 4:08 PM
The rest of my parts thinks that's crazy.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 05-27-06 4:08 PM