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

[jeskiley]

Wow, you are a really great interviewer. Part of it really creeped me out though, good thing it was only a dream! Advertising, funny!

[whatsthatsound]

If Hillary completes a second term, technology will by then have advanced to the point where Chelsea and the Bush twins can be genetically morphed into a "bipartisan" uber-presidente! Peace and tranquility will reign at last as our red and blue states smudge up against each other harmoniously, and lobbyists will be able to own two parties for the price of one.

Clush Rules!

[middleoftheroad]

Right On! God, if she is elected it will be ANOTHER 4 years of Washington at war with itself. The country divided. Don't you all as "progressives" resent the idea of two families in the White House for the last 27 years-31 if she does win? It's crazy. Let's bring the country together.
myspace.co­m/republic­ans4obama

[Beatitudes]

And this, Jane, is exactly why you should stick to fiction, or is that friction or faction, or fraction, whatever; it was a little bit meaningless for the political discourse and a bit like what you seem to want to convey about Hillary. Contrived, pedantic, obtuse, silly.
Lyn

[isis]

Hate her all you want. She is one candidate who even bothers with all of us "balcony people." I want to like Edwards but when I caucus for him and his staff never even talks to me, what am I to think? Some of these candidates might be attractive to Brittany Spears who likes men who ignore her but for the rest of us,Hillary and Obama are paying attention to us.

[Cestmonavis]

I see Hillary as having the guts to fight this through and win. I am happy to support her as the first woman president.
Who do you support??

[GuiltyByStander]

I was at the JJ and you've got Clinton pretty clearly my estimation. But I don't remember Joe Biden screaming -- not that it wouldn't be in order. I do remember that he was specific and realistic about his plans. (Edwards was specific and unrealistic. Richardson just lost me in his ramble. Dodd's ... nice.)

So you were more impressed with Obama. How do you contrast him with Clinton? Or do you?

[Meteor]

Hillary Clinton has through her votes and her words created her own image.

Jane brings that image into focus as a perceptive and talented writer.

That Hillary is not trusted and does not inspire is, unfortunately, not fiction; it is a political truth.

[jackpinesavage]

Ha! I laughed, i cried, and then i laughed some more.

I understand that many women would dearly love to vote for another woman who had a real chance at election. I would too. But i still hang on to that romantic silliness that a woman would do a better job because she wouldn't act like a power hungry man. (I try to forget that Ms. Thatcher even happened.)

Nothing about Hillary Clinton suggests to me that she won't out men the men, particularly her defense industry contributions.

[ihavenobias]

Anyone who supports Hillary needs to give a *good* explanation for why we should trust a candidate drowning in special interest money.

For example, she's taken more money from the health care industry than ANY other candidate, democrat *or* republican. I don't care how good you think her health care plan is (It's not the best IMO but for sake of argument let's assume it is). You expect her to reform health care for the benefit of most Americans in the context of who her donors are?

It's one thing to be able to raise *some* amount of money and have *some* level of popularity (I realize voting for someone who can only raise $20 and is 1% in the polls isn't a good idea) and quite another to be raising THIS much (largely) special interest money.

That job used to be primarily for republican candidates (you know, the guys who sell us out to big oil, big pharma, etc. only to retire to those industries after serving in public office) but apparently many democrats have forgotten that and buy into the media frame that the candidate who raises the most money must be the best candidate.

http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2007/10/23/92744/085/tytvideoclips/Where-does-Hillary-get-her-Money-

[MitchW]

Jane,
Did a Clinton aide give you those questions?
:))

[audiophileguy]

The Hillary fans become quite apoplectic when Ms. Smiley or anybody else captures the essence of their candidate in words. Of course, this is a fictional dialog; nevertheless, it very accurately conveys the problem many folks have with Hillary. The more she speaks, the less genuine substance comes out of her mouth. I have no idea why this is so, but Hillary literally seems unable to be authentic in any way, when this is all we really want from her. You can complain all you want about Ms. Smiley's fiction, but the core of the problem is found within Hillary's own public persona. She just isn't there....

[ipitombi]

Nancy and Hillary... all talk and b.s. No positive changes will happen with those two in power. Georgie's got them kissing his feet.

[MPeter]

Have you seen this? Even a man known to be so biased and Clintonite has been warned :
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------

Hillary Clinton Camp Threatens Wolf Blitzer, CNN: No Ganging Up on Hillary
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------

By Jackson Simpson
Nov 13, 2007


Is the pressure really getting to Hillary Clinton this much already? A report from Matt Drudge appears to suggest that the democratic frontrunner is still reeling so much from her disastrous performance at the last Democratic presidential debate that her camp is reaching out in what sounds like a threatening way to CNN and their host Wolf Blizter.

[waiguoren]

Jane Smiley --- Outstanding!