I've just read Erica Jong's excellent piece on Hillary Clinton in the Huffington Post and though I agree with much of what she writes, I don't think it goes far enough in making some fundamental points about the Democratic race. I see far more than sexism in the denegration of Hillary Clinton; I see ageism at its most malevolent. Thanks to the Hollywoodization (ugly word, forgive me for it) of the news, exemplified in the Obama candidacy, candidates are put on a red carpet to be examined much as film stars on the way to the Oscars. There is a voracious lust for the new, voters are now viewed as a fan base rather than an informed citizenry, and experience is regarded as a negative. We lust after the fresh faced fast talking candidate as we do the new big-screen star, the thinnest, largest TV, and the latest Apple gadget, spitting out those who have demonstrated probity, pragmatism, and wisdom, as indigestible old virtues in today's world.
Of course people who have been around the block have made mistakes - serious mistakes - the vote on the war being a perfect example of a serious Hillary blunder, one that gives me pause, but such mistakes cannot be blown up to such a size that they rob the candidates of the valuable experienced garnered, the decency of past acts, and the possibility of future greatness. The disposal of Dodd, Richardson, and Biden, the most informed, most experienced of the Democratic candidates, is telling to me. It says that America has now become a huge supermarket fan magazine where the photogenic are the only viable candidates. Pluck out that gray hair or cover it with bleach and for God's sake go for an eye-job if you want to run a race in America today, or better yet, speak in such obfuscating generalities that you are everything to everyone, and thus nothing to anyone.
If you think this is an attack on Barack Obama, it's not. Yes, I am suspicious of the schoolgirl/schoolboy crush that so many otherwise bright and caring people have upon this candidate - it appears to me to be more high school than real life - unless one regards high school as real life - and even I can see his many virtues. Idealism has its charms, aiming high can get you to the moon, but still...but still...I worry about his approach to political life which has too much of the grandiose about it, too much the acceptance speech and too little of the practical. I may well choose to vote for him when all is said and done, when I hear more about what his plans are for this country's daunting problems (not the talking points he puts out on his web page, but the talking points he actually speaks in a debate) but for the moment I am reserving judgment, something that John Kerry might well have done, if he was not so eager to attach himself to a rising star, and slap down his older Senate colleagues. Incidentally, I thought his endorsement of Obama was a travesty - it was so full of gas and cliches it was more like an ad for Tums than the considered evaluation of the candidates. Maybe life with Theresa, a smart, plain speaking woman, is rough enough to make him turn against the Clinton candidacy, but as one who has been married forever to a smart, plain speaking woman, I find the wisdom of such women something to treasure, and not to be dismissed by the glamour of the current Hollywood political star. Can someone please tell me what is wrong with waiting and seeing, with reading, watching and evaluating the candidates carefully? Why this rush to judgment? Of course I know the answer, or at least a part of it. The political press has become just another form of star chasing paparazzi, and that is part of my deep concern about this coming election.
