The Clinton Campaign: Running on Ambien
Just a year ago the hot question was: Is America ready for a black or female president? As the campaigns wear on, the question has shifted to: Can America survive the tedium of its black and female candidates?
Obama, for example, hasn't turned out to be any more challenging to white America than re-runs of the Cosby Show. He was slow to pick up on the Jena 6 case and never showed up at the rally - although, to be fair, neither did Clinton or Edwards. Like the others, he has refrained from noting that Giuliani, in addition to being a cell phone exhibitionist and a 9/11-abuser, presided over a New York City police department famed for its torture and killing of young black males.
But it's Hillary who's causing the citzenry's heads to pitch forward and collapse on their chests. Every time she opens her mouth, her flat, monotonic voice lays out yards of opaque white gauze, muffling any possibility of "discourse." Where does she stand? Over here, and a little to the side, and maybe a few steps to the right. Hers is known as the "flawless" campaign, but no one in it seems to be able to turn off the endlessly triangulating tape in her head.
Lately she's taken to emitting to sudden, inexplicable, bursts of deep laughter - known in the media as "the cackle." Whether this is a deliberate "humanizing" touch or a glitch in the computer program no one knows. According to the New York Times, the "weirdest moment" came in response to a question from Bob Schieffer about Republican charges that her health plan would lead to "socialized medicine." As the Times reports, "She giggled, giggled some more, could not seem to stop giggling -'Sorry, Bob,' she said - and finally unleashed the full Cackle."
Maybe she has a better sense of humor than I'd imagined, because the thought that her plan to turn health care over to the private insurance companies might be "socialist" has me rolling on the floor too.
I just wish I could work up the same degree of enthusiasm for Hillary as my friend Katha Pollitt, who recently told the Times: "If people don't stop saying incredibly sexist things about Hillary Clinton, I may just have to vote for her." But what are these incredibly sexist things? True, there was the whole faux "cleavage" issue, and the occasional whack-job who writes to enlighten me about Clinton's bisexuality or Chelsea's true daddy.
Then, in of all places - feminist Maureen Dowd's column on Sunday - I found a genuinely sexist comment about Hillary. Dowd apparently approvingly quotes Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, saying that Clinton is "like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won't stop nagging you until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone."
Now I'm all for having literary editors, poetry editors, and the like commenting on our political process, but the "nagging housewife" image is not only a sexist stereotype - it's about 50 years out of date, stemming from an era when most married women were financially dependent on their mates. Besides, male politicians are never likened to stereotypical husbands, even though some of them can be equally hard to dislodge from the recliner in front of the TV or, as the case may be, the Oval Office.
But the "hellish housewife" comment does not make Hillary a feminist martyr, nor does it make me any more willing to listen to her, either now or for the next five years. Trying to say nothing to offend, she ends up saying nothing to inspire or even inform, and Obama, though still far more engaged and human-like, risks ending up with another Ambien candidacy.
Part of the problem is structural. We make our presidential candidates campaign for at least a year at a stretch. Take a normal person and subject him or her to month after month of trail mix and chicken Caesars, sleep deprivation, and the need to be "on," smiling and handshaking, 16 hours a day. No solitary moments of reflection, no walks in the park, no escape into thrillers. What do you get after a few months of this? A golem, the artificial, man-like creature of Kabalistic lore, a personoid incapable of normal responses.
So yes, America is ready for a black or a female president. Just be sure to wake us up when it happens.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As for me, I'm perfectly fine with a woman president. Just not the particular woman (Sen. Clinton) in question. Likewise, not Condoleezza Rice, nor Elizabeth Dole.
Although I confess to sometimes wishing that Elizabeth Edwards, not John, was running.
You will vote for a woman that is not a politician but a wife. In order to win she most be ambitious and do thinks beside supporting her husband.
She's a human being. One with warmth and wisdom, and more toughness than most. If she was running, she would in fact be a politician.
It's called character, Elizabeth Edwards has it, Hillary Clinton does not. Neither do Rice or Dole.
I couldn't agree more. will someone please put something in the water at DNC headquarters so that they wake up and realize--when half your own party can't stand you, how do you expect to win over the rest of the country that is even less inclined to like you? her whole campaign smacks of bill wanting to run things again-sorry, Hillary, who is not a viable national candidate in any case, would be even less so without Bill behind her helping to orchestrate things-and of their taking over the Democratic Party as their own private fiefdom--the good of the country be damned.
"But it's Hillary who's causing the citzenry's heads to pitch forward and collapse on their chests."
Must be why she is ahead in all the polls, beating all Dem and GOP candidates in head to head matchups.
They hate her, they really hate her which is why they are telling pollsters they will vote for her.
When was the last time Barbara Ehrenreich talked to someone outside her Naderite clique?
This post captured some of my frustration with most of what I hear from leading Democratic candidates who seem to be willing to play the unwitting dupe of this insane administration by continuing to fund our disastrous occupation of Iraq. Chris Dodd speaks most clearly to me about our need to return to reason. He dosen't triangulate.
If they do not triangulate they go to single digits.
BTW, why do you call Maureen Dowd a feminist?
She is an embarrasment to her gender.
Maureen Dowd perpetuates the worst stereotypes about women; that they are airheads unable to discuss serious issues, obsessed with gossip and trivia.
Maureen Dowd spent the 2000 election obsessing over Al Gore's sighs, earth tones and gushing about "amiable" Bush. She helped install Bush in the white house.
She is going to spend the 2008 election talking about Hillary's "laugh". She seldom talks about Hillary without accusing her of being ambitious and calculating. She never accuses Rudy/Obama
uh... what else is there to talk about in reference to Hillary?
That she is very smart
Don't forget how fixated she is on John Edwards' hair. It amuses her to depict Democratic men as feminine - as if that's an insult. Since when is a feminine trait an insult to a feminist? Not.
I stood pretty close to John Edwards at two different events and noticed that he is way more handsome than on the TV machine. He is so good looking that I'm better able to understand the pettiness of smear-journalists; it's envy, poor lads. So, what's Maureen's problem? Why the envy of drop-dead gorgeous men? I remember how weird it was to hear TV guys talk about what was wrong with Gore's nose. I'm not even going there. It would be sweet, though, to have a President Edwards that the camera loves, as they say, since the courtier class need to drool over the Decider and talk about his manly virtues. ( Ugh! Why do they do that? It is so unseemly and so fake in the case of Bush and Thompson and the other guy, no, all the other guys on the R. side. Hey, our side too). Nevermind.
DonB - I'm with you re Dowd, 100 percent. If Ehrenreich things Dowd is a feminist, that severely diminishes my opinion of the former.
Great post. Does anyone take Maureen seriously?
She recently denied that she had been anti- Gore in the 2000 election.
You nailed it, Barbara. Hillary gets a "D" for her lack of inspiration and specifics. Obama gets a "D" for his lack of courage (Jena, MoveOn and Iran votes) and specifics. I reserve the F's for the repugnants.
This is not about inspiration or courage this is about running the country
I don't fault Obama for Jena—that is not the clearcut case of racism rearing its ugly head the MSM would like us to believe and have a kneejerk reaction to.
And I don't fault him for not taking part in the vote on the MoveOn ad. He released a statement essentially saying it was a complete waste of time and resources, and I think we all agree with that.
I DO fault him for not voting on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, though. Inexcusable.
Some background on Jena:
http://new
See, Babbs, its like this: Hilary speaks in full sentences, gets all the tenses and grammar correct, and has such a quick and thoughtful response for every topic, we can tell she has actually given some thought to whatever it is.
That alone is a breath of fresh air.
I am sure you know that true equality will be when a mediocre female can win high office just like mediocre males have off and on for 200 plus years.
But thankfully, we don't have to settle for that...Mrs
Her supporters include friends she has made and kept for a lifetime, the same for her husband Bill Clinton.
Unlike a certain TANG recruit who can't find a single man with whom he claims to have served to step forward and admit he was there.
After the past 7 years, its a bit late to be deciding we have any special standards for voice modulation, or that we can stand a smirk but not a belly laugh, when we have not even required a POTUS to be able to speak a full sentence or tell us the truth.
How about a candidate who answers questions, rather than espousing vague generalities punctuated by inappropriate cackling, like Senator Clinton does?
I agree completely. I have yet to find a reason why Hillary is no different than any other politician who cares more about winning than about standing up for what's right (see: her Iraq vote) other than her naughty bits. And besides, David Geffen was right - the LAST thing America needs right now is another partisan lightning rod in the White House. If she wins the presidency, she will never be able to win over the substantial amount of Americans who hate her, and I'm not keen on another 4-8 years of vitriol and anger taking precedence over reason and intelligence.
Wake me up when it's over.
So, what do you tell people who insist that Hillary is a fine candidate who's running a wonderful campaign-- and if you find her off-putting, it's because you've been brainwashed by the corporate media?
I ask because certain bloggers-- Bob Somerby of http://www
I guess if Hillary wins-- gack-- it won't matter. But if she doesn't, I hope you have a snappy comeback for those who will insist that she's a highly qualified candidate running a strong campaign-- and if you disagree, you either weren't paying attention or you were bamboozled by our corrupt and decadent Fourth Estate.
Ah, LittleBrother, the brainwashing worked, then.
Gore does what politicians should do: he puts forward positions, and then he acts on those positions. If you don't like his positions, argue against them. If you this he's a puppet, it's you with the neurological difficulty.
Just like their blind adoration for Princess Diane and the Royal Family, too many Americans seem captivated by Hillary Clinton and the Clinton and Bush royal families.
It's time we moved away from the ongoing failures of the Bush and Clinton families, and elected a REAL PERSON, who represents and will stand up for the poor, middle and working class... and unfortunately thus far, there does not appear to be a candidate that fits that bill from either party.
Wrong. Edwards does.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
