My Pretend Interview with Hillary Clinton

Saturday night, I went to the Jefferson Jackson dinner in Des Moines, Iowa, and listened to Nancy Pelosi and all of the Democratic candidates (except for chic-magnet Dennis Kucinich, who wasn't invited). By the way, Nancy, it was me, who in moments of silence, kept shouting "Impeach Cheney!" I wasn't heckling you. I was REMINDING you. Here's the rundown:

Edwards was the most dynamic, Richardson was the most reassuring, Biden was the best screamer, Dodd doesn't stick in my mind, Clinton was the most programmed, and Obama was more serious and mature than I had expected from his pictures.

Subsequently, I read Andrew Sullivan's article in The Atlantic about the meaning of Obama's candidacy, Joe Klein's article in Time about Clinton, Joseph Stiglitz' article in Vanity Fair detailing the economic shit that is going to hit the fan as a result of Bush's War Crime (and here I decided I had better move to France if I don't want to be impoverished in my old age). I read the Blackwater contract in the October Harper's (a must-read). And then I had a dream in which I interviewed Hillary Clinton:

Hillary: Thank you, Jane, for interviewing me, and giving me a chance to discuss my real feelings about the issues confronting the American people.

Jane: My pleasure, Senator, but please don't use that phrase "the American People." Whenever anyone uses that phrase, I know that he or she is about to pronounce some bit of political bullsh*t.

Hillary: What is your first question?

Jane: What is it that you most want to happen to the U.S.?

Hillary: I want to end the divisions in the American People between the right and the left, and to calm the political storm that we see round us. I want to move forward toward a more just society where children have healthcare and Americans feel safe--

Jane: Excuse me, Senator Clinton, but these phrases don't mean anything. They are too general. Let's take the issues of your candidacy one at a time. In the hypothetical situation that your candidacy proves as divisive as polls say it will be (84 percent of Republicans would not vote for you under any circumstances), how would you expect your candidacy to quell divisions?

Hillary: Giving speeches, advertising, enunciating policies, and plain old familiarity could reduce that number.

Jane: Opposition to you is more entrenched than it is to any other candidate.

Hillary: Well, to tell the truth I don't care about that. This is something I want to do. I feel that I have worked hard and I deserve this. This is my payback.

Jane: But don't you risk taking the whole Democratic party down with you?

Hillary: That's the business of the Democratic party, not me. I want to do this, and I have the money and corporate support. The donors know me, and I know them, and we understand each other. That's what's important to me.

Jane: On to another question, then. On many issues dear to the Democratic base, you have voted with George Bush. You have failed to act on your stated opposition to his disastrous policies. Why is that?

Hillary: I have always explained my votes. There are details to every issue that the American People don't understand that I do understand. Elected officials are expected to know more than their constituents, and I do. The average citizen really can't have an informed opinion, but I am very experienced, and my opinion is the best informed.

Jane: So, on balance, you have agreed to Bush's policies, even though they are almost uniformly deleterious to the U.S. economy, society, and world prestige?

Hillary: I don't AGREE with them, but I don't MIND them. I can see his point of view. And when things come up for a vote in the Congress, I DO see his point of view. Don't forget, I've been in the White House. A president doesn't like to go hat in hand to Congress, or have his or her ideas subject to Congressional oversight. I want to be president, so as a member of Congress, I don't plan to pre-empt my own future power. That's the most important thing.

Jane: What about your ties, and those of your husband, to powerful corporate donors?

Hillary: CEOs are people like anyone else. They have needs and desires. Just because they have lots and lots of money doesn't mean we should ignore them. And it is good for my campaign not to ignore them. Look at John Edwards. He can't even afford TV advertising in IOWA of all places. It isn't realistic to act in opposition to your own ruling class. You can give them most of what they want and still have okay healthcare and schools and infrastucture. At least, that's what I believe now. We'll see how that works out when I am elected.

Jane: Why do you want to stay in Iraq for your first term?

Hillary: Because it would be a sign of weakness, in me and in the American People, to cut and run. I'm a woman and a Democrat. I can't simply redefine character and courage. The American People like to swagger and act tough, and I have to act that way in order to get elected, which is my first priority. Also, we've built all those buildings and bases over there. We can't just walk away from them.

Jane: Your main principle seems to be to talk big and carry a small stick. When I heard you in Des Moines, you seemed to want the "Hillary production" to distract us from what you were saying -- you left specific ideas for the end of a long speech, during which your supporters, who had been equipped with inflatable bats to beat together, repeatedly prevented the audience from actually listening to what you were saying.

Hillary: That is my principle, and who's to say, if it gets me elected, that it's not a good principle? I'll do anything to get elected, and my handlers think that voters respond better to hypnosis than they do to ideas. That's fine with me. My whole campaign is about the power of advertising.

Jane: At the same time, if you enunciated your principles more clearly, then we would have something to hold you to in the unlikely circumstance that you were actually elected while forgoing the votes of something like a third of the voters.

Hillary: Exactly! Why should I give you something to hold against me? You liked my husband when he was president. That should be enough for you.

Jane: Is it enough for you?

Hillary: Absolutely.

Jane: Do you see what a dangerous moment in U.S. history that this is?

Hillary: I say I do.

Needless to say, I woke up from this dream screaming.

Comments

[truthyguy]

GREAT COLUMN!!! IT IS RIGHT ON!!!

[brooklyncitizen]

This is hysterical.

It is frightenning because she really comes across this way: very willful and out of touch. I have no sense that she wants to give something, change something,improve something...it is all about her.

She absolutely will not have my suppport and interestingly enough it has taken me a while to come to that stance.THe Clintons were fine in the '90's, and certainly imperfect. Obama is looking less and less 'good to me'...undoubetdly Kucinich though less viable is the healthier for America choice.

[livesimply]

Good post, Jane. I personally don't dislike Hillary' and though she is not my first choice, I would definitely vote for her. I sure don't want to hear all the garbage that will go on if she gets the nomination though. What a nightmare it would/will be with most of the media attention on all the petty accusations and name-calling while a huge chunk of time will be wasted not dealing with things that matter. Too bad so many Americans just suck it up.

[MikeDu]

Just a reminder, the one thing WORSE than senator Clinton winning the White House is senator Clinton NOT winning the White House. I'd vote for anyone or anything that kept another Skalia from being place onto the Supremem Court. It would be like letting the Nazis win because you didn't much care for Weimar candidate running against them. If the past seven years have taught us anything its there are MUCH worse things than having than a center-right big business democrat in the oval office.

[Northlite]

One more life-long but realist liberal concerned about all this Hillary critique, particularly those here who hate her moderation. The country is just not going to elect a leftist or our ideal candidate. We are dealing with candidates who are human, with all the pluses and minuses of all humans. Our desire for perfection and anger at all who don't meet our standard leads to another Nader moment and a victory for the RThugs. To the right, Hillary is a "socialist", to the left, she's a "corporateist." Get real people: We will have a moderate liberal, whether its Hillary or Obama. We are dealing with better and worse, not right and wrong. I for one will vote for any Dem candidate over the R candidate, and know in my heart that that is better.

[researcher]

brillant interview very well put. the liberal demos will put her in there to lose they want a woman so bad they would put eva braun in there to run and let hitler stay in the white house if she won and she would if she would promise tax cuts to the american people and cheap gas.

god I would love to have a woman be pres god knows we white males have screwed this country up so bad it looks like fascism is around the corner.

[dsigeorge]

Why are the main stream media and the Republicans paying so much lip service to Hillary? Could it possibly be that corporate America wants her to be 'our candidate'. Yes, I mean all the blind unthinking sheep-like Democrats who would vote for her because she is female and will have to be 'better than' any of those awful Republicans. It would then matter not to corporate America as they will win in the end as Rudy/Hillary will assure them continued control. More and more war, more and more fascim and less and less freedom in store for us if either is elected. I trust in the wise people of Iowa and New Hampshire to begin the rollback of the queen Hillary machine.

[dsigeorge]

Jane,
Your dream was such a realistic nightmare that I could see the floating whisp of Hillary moving emptily away. Very scarry! Even more scarry is the prospect that this empty soulless person could become the most powerful individual on earth. Don't vote for her...vote for any other democrat or even Ron Paul. The world and America can't stand another disaster in our white house.

[StaroftheSea]

Boswellian---I'm with you. I think this sense of entitlement of HC voters who attacks anyone and everyone who question the desirability of her as the nominee, is alittle scary not to mention off-putting.
I mean are they actually saying that it's a done deal, and we're just a bunch of HC haters??? Spare me! Just because she has the most money, and just because she's been annointed by the MSM, doesn't necessarily mean that when folks really start voting she's to get the nomination. How could she not have name recognition nationally? It cuts both ways.

I am a Kucinich supporter because I am to the point in my life where character and real leadership are critically important to me. I would vote for him if he were a Republican even though I have never in my life voted GOP.

I don't hate Hillary, I just don't trust her to bring any fundamental change to business as usual in Washington. We musn't forget that BushCo policies are systemic, not wedded to BUsh. I don't see HC making systemic improvements---she is just a fist in a glove, if you ask me.

[Janelynne]

The Democrats had better wake up soon and understand how they are getting manipulated.
*If only Obama could come to Washington DC and remake the beltway and get rid of the lobbiests! If only Obama could materialize his fondest dreams. What a fine Christmas that would be! Bill tried that in his first year in office and fomented hate that chased him down like hunted prey and still lingers 16 years later. Obama has no idea how much hate he faces and how much he will get slammed. The conservative machine will chew up his watercolor dreams.
*If only Kucinich could get Bush impeached! If only Kucinich could get the respect of the Democrats. If only Kucinich could answer a question like a grownup.
*If only Edwards could stand up to expensive haircuts! If only Edwards could stand up to the hatefulness that attacks him as a rich trial lawyer.
Every article that bashes Hillary or any of our own candidates with empty rhetoric and band wagon gaity, sets the progressives farther back. It used to be that the registered voters would nominate the candidate. Now it is up to whomever can control the narrative and whip up a bitter frenzy to dissemble, to tear down, to destroy. Hillary is not the enemy. The GOP is the enemy. Furthermore, Hillary is the strongest, most resilient candidate.

Who else can go to DC to fight, who has the chops and sway to get something done? (I am not asking who would do the best if he had a rabbit's foot and some pixie dust. I am not asking you to chose the one person you want to have dinner with. I am not asking you who would fly if we lived 200 years ago.)

Progressives, open your eyes. It is a brand new world, and not your father's oldsmobile. Our relentless attacks on our own candidates are right out of the GOP dirty trick playbook, and designed to deny us the White House.

[Bigtexxx]

I think the reason Fox News and their ilk continue to trumpet Hillary/Obama as the frontrunners is, they know a Repubelican candidate can beat either one of them.

[RedRooster]

I remember listening to NPR's Daniel Shorr on Election night 2000.

He discussed how pollsters and campaign consultants had so blurred the lines between the two candidates that a close race was inevitable. He couldn't have been more prescient...

In 2008, I don't want to participate in a race to the "political center"...and I WON'T actively work for a candidate who attempts to stake out that position.

But I will enthusiastically support a Liberal Democratic candidate who will restore our party and our nation to its historic place - Left of Center.

Vote for a real Liberal in 2008!
Vote for real change!

[chrysalis]

I agreed completely with Walterba. Is this constant critisism by the left meant to help the process? Is it constructive can it promote positive change? Has the left abandoned there nearly certain nominee?

Will they let the Repubs win because of whatever critisism of the day seems fashionable? The Repubs know better how to support their candidates...Pat Robertson and Rudy Guiliani, strange bedfellows yes..republican supporting a republican even though their views differ...yes!

As member of the left I am disheartened at my party because of this division over Hillary. It seems counterproductive to the party regaining the whitehouse. Is there some alternative candidate, that can win, that is out there, that you would like to bring on board? If so, go get them. Provide an alternative a person that can win. Get Al Gore to run. Short of that. It might be a good idea to check you motives in this 'tear down Hillary' mode.

It makes me wonder if I am on the right side. My party has no unity. And as such may let the party of Darth Vader, fear mongering and complete manipulation by the mega elite, back into office. I am shamed.

Ralph Nader did it before. Looks like it will happen again. How sad to have to resign oneself to such a real possibility because the party cant unite.

[hiflyer2]

If hot nuts clinton really likes the Demo. party, why didnt he stump this hard for al gore when he was running for president? whats going on here?

[VillyVal]

Jane, you weren't channeling Hillary in your dream. I think you picked up a FOX News mock up being beamed off Bill O'Reilly's head.