Hillary The Icon

John Heileman writes:

What strikes me as inarguable is that Hillary is today a more resonant, consequential, and potent figure than she has ever been before. No longer merely a political persona, she has been elevated to a rarefied plane in our cultural consciousness. With her back against the wall, she both found her groove and let loose her raging id, turning herself into a character at once awful and wonderful, confounding and inspiring—thus enlarging herself to the point where she became iconic. She is bigger now than any woman in the country. Certainly, she is bigger than her husband. And although in the end she may wind up being dwarfed by Obama, for the moment she is something he is not: fully, poignantly human.

(Emphasis supplied.) The highlighted statements strike me as curious. Her husband was the only Democrat to win reelection since FDR. Obama is the nominee of the Party. He can be President. If he mean in terms of political power NOW, he may be right. But he seemed to be speaking of something different. In any event, it is an interesting article.

< Pakistan: The Ignored Threat | Hillary On Sexism And Misogyny In The Media >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    the guy was on Joe this morning (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:43:21 AM EST
    it seemed like CYA to me.
    more than a little smarmy.  but maybe I am being over sensitive.  I dont even like for them to talk about the Clintons anymore even if the are saying good things because I dont believe it.

    at least I think it was the same guy (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:44:43 AM EST
    it was the same topic.

    I barely believe BTD (none / 0) (#11)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:53:22 AM EST
    Although his drum beat has been consistent and long standing.

    Ha. (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:01:22 AM EST
    I'd like to book a seat on that (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:44:55 AM EST
    "rarified plane."

    Ha! Hope it has extra leg room (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:51:46 AM EST
    Just read that "long article" (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:49:46 AM EST
    What irks me to no end, are the leaps into her psychology.  They always look for a pathology in the Clintons, whereas people like McCain and Obama are given high virtues.  

    Yet, who cares more about people?  

    "Found her groove"? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:52:28 AM EST
    Actually, maybe the author and other journalists need to make Hillary Clinton into an icon so they can smash their creation again.  

    Pundit security blankie gone (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:55:05 AM EST
    pundits must get Cliton security blankie back to soil and drool on some more. wahhhh pundit blankie come back...

    I'm With You (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by daring grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:10:55 AM EST
    I reject the pop psychoanalyzing of all the candidates.

    To me, it reveals more about the psyches of the writers (and, really, who cares about THEM?).


    Right on (5.00 / 7) (#86)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:14:00 AM EST
    This is a long-standing sexist tradition.  Pathologize the female.  In every profession, female groundbreakers have been subject to pathologization of the female psychology.  Law, medicine, engineering -- it's always how the peculiar psychology (sometimes cast as evolutionary biology when the psych route isn't working) of women makes them unfit for whatever.  They're too emotional, their brains can't handle all that tough, tough male logic, and plus they get 'periodically down'.

    worse for Hillary? (1.00 / 0) (#88)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:17:39 AM EST
    how about this about Obama -

    "she is something he is not: fully, poignantly human."

    Sweet. Obama not quite fully human.
    What a jerk in every way. this guy.


    Huh? ClubObama still thinks she's a monster (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:57:47 AM EST
    His closest advisor put that in the news, even.

    This is one news item.

    Your stretch for outrage here couldn't be be less obvious if you put it on a bungee and dropped it off a cliff.


    One person says (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:06:01 PM EST
    something stupid and that person immediatly becomes a surrogate for every other supporter,

    I guess that's the inevitable flipside of Hillary-is-me.

    "Club Obama" vs Club Hillary. This is starting to sound like the Serbs and the Croats. Or The Judean People's Front and The People's Front of Judea.


    huh? (1.00 / 1) (#116)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:16:29 PM EST
    Let me get this straight. Saying someone is less than fully human is a way of saying that they are "above all that", just pure virtue???

    Wow. I dont wanna know what it takes to twist one's brain to that conclusion...


    The reporter didn't use the (none / 0) (#125)
    by tree on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    word "less than" to describe Obama. That might help you understand what the poster is saying. Also, you left out the word "poignantly" which in context with human usually implies showing humanity with all its foibles.  

    I Only Read the Excerpt (none / 0) (#91)
    by daring grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:22:20 AM EST
    You're right.

    What a jerk.


    That stopped me short too! (none / 0) (#105)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:15:47 PM EST
    As enraged as I was that her own party elders would forthrightly deem her not "noble" enough to share a ticket with their guy, Obama,.....that comment

    "she is something he is not: fully, poignantly human."

    was what I would have bolded too! That is outrageous. Jeez...


    I don't think (none / 0) (#127)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:03:13 PM EST
    he meant that as a compliment to her.

    I'll Take Your Word For It (none / 0) (#90)
    by daring grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:20:26 AM EST
    that it's worse with Senator Clinton, because, as I said, I really don't look at it once I see what it is.

    I guess I included all the candidates in my response, because I see them as all exceptionally complex people not so easily dissected, probably, even by those who are closest to them.

    But our culture promotes an attitude that such examinations are easily and well done by any hack with a computer and a public podium to disseminate their ideas. (So casual writers like us can do this kind of thing just like the 'professionals.') if he want to. And when you look at many blogs you see that many of us want to.


    One good thing about the article (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:03:33 AM EST
    the article did have a ot of actual Hillary quoptes.  I thought it was worth reading for those nuggets.

    "her raging id"? (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:50:05 AM EST
    that's a tad overheated, but I agree that she has become an iconic figure.

    Her husband and Obama may end up as more historically significant figures, but that's not quite the same thing.

    They "ain't seen nothing yet". (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:02:22 AM EST
    Raging id?  

    My id is raging off the charts this morning - the DNC moves to Chicago in the matter of a few days (now how did that happen...if not planned months ago?); Dean won't even let HRC's name be put into nomination for a roll-call vote (hey, forget that she won MORE VOTES than the guy that is being forced down our throats); and I read that Obama "will let" all of the MI and FLA delegates be seated at the convention (oh, thank you, Lord Obama!).

    I am over the edge.  And raging!!!!


    Things are coming into focus (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:16:32 AM EST
    This quick move of the DNC has been planned for a long time. Obviously, we can now see why Dean stayed in the background through the primary. His power had been relinquished to Obama, or he was taking orders from them to save himself from an embarrassing dismissal.

    I want to know who the top puppeteers are, what they are doing, and why.


    About that DNC move (none / 0) (#74)
    by songster on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:55:53 AM EST
    - don't go off the deep end too quickly.  The rumor that they have shut down the DC phone lines can be easily checked, and as of this morning at 8:30 it was not so.  202-863-8000

    Moreover, when I probed a little with the person on the telephone ("aren't you moving your offices to Chicago?  Where are they?  Can I visit?") the response was, well, some of our people are moving into the Obama campaign headquarters.  So it would not take months of plotting to make that happen.  Low-level people can be made to double up in offices at short notice to get space.  I've seen it done in academia lots of times.


    If they're "low-level people" (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:46:44 AM EST
    why are they being moved at all? Isn't there a lot of expense in moving people from one state to another and uprooting their lives?

    I don't see why low level people would be moved with the important ones allowed to stay in D.C


    Obama is probably excising those... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:30:43 PM EST
    low-level people and replacing them with his local hand-picked minions.

    Ahhh, the beauty of "new politics".  


    No, I meant (none / 0) (#128)
    by songster on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:12:35 PM EST
    lower-level people can be made to double (in my case, fourple) up to free up nice offices for the higher-ups coming in.  That's how it was done to me as a grad student, anyway.

    A comment too late I suppose.


    Wait, (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:36:56 AM EST
    whose id is raging?

    Really, now.


    I have the answer (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:51:56 AM EST
    American leftists and liberals etc are uncomforatble with exercising power.  

    Clinton is blamed for being a two term success.

    When the neo-dems complain about Bill losing the House and Senate in 1994 It's like blaming Blair and Brown for losing local council elections.

    Why would anyone rationally blame Bill for ineffectual Senators and Representatives for losing their seats?  The Dems could have been bombarding Bush and Reagan with a single payer bill every six months until the pair of them cried uncle. That's why they lost their Congression sinecures.  not Bill.  

    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by eric on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:21:54 AM EST
    Blair and Brown are blameworthy inasmuch as they supported the war against Iraq.  It has cost Labour a lot of its reputation.

    With that being said, I understand your point.  The 1994 debacle was a result of a comprehensive, well orchestrated exercise of Republican hardball.  They started from day one with the impeach Clinton/Clinton is a failure stuff.  Congress was so afraid they didn't even fight back.


    yet they have held power (none / 0) (#51)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:30:03 AM EST
    for longer than Kinnock, Smith (he died untested by election), Wilson, Callaghan.  Losing midterms is natural enough.

    It's not like Obama will dare to take the chance to reform healthv=acre and go the one term way of Attlee after he enacted the NHS.  Obama's not ready for that sacrifice.


    Think what IDS Hague or Howard (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:31:43 AM EST
    would have done with the war.  We'd be in Turkestan by now defending wild fortresses deep in the interior of central asia.

    We know what frightened the media (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:30:09 AM EST
    Hillary had the ability to end run them, to speak beyond and over them.

    They knew, if she were elected president, she'd have a power that they couldn't match.  And the requisite skill and knowledge to exercise that power.

    In short, a president they couldn't push around.  Not a George Bush who they could build up and smack down.  But a President with a genuine power base.

    And what she might do with that power, especially in relation to the flow of wealth, scared the media senseless.


    It took FDR four terms. (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:33:39 AM EST
    Mayb the clinton's deserved three.  That's a thought that has been rattling around in my head for the last week.  

    Suppose the Dems needed that name brand and time on the job to accomplish what FDR did?

    well, we wont ever know.


    I tried to make that point ... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:41:02 AM EST
    to many of my Obama supporter friends.

    Unfortunately, too many of them are too naive about political power.  They seemed to think all presidents are equal in the power they can wield.



    Actually (none / 0) (#89)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:19:32 AM EST
    Although FDR won 4 elections, he only served 3 terms and couple of months or so.

    please grow up (none / 0) (#108)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:39:55 PM EST
    I can give you the date he died and it's geopolitical implications if you like.  

    huh? (none / 0) (#114)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:13:16 PM EST
    he died April 12, 1945, less than three months after being inaugurated for his fourth term.

    What is your point?


    and what's your point? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:50:27 PM EST
    that he didnt serve 4 terms (none / 0) (#120)
    by tben on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:56:15 PM EST
    it didnt take him 4 terms to accomplish what he did.

    We are quite happy (2.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:56:55 AM EST
    with FDR, who was a four-term success.  I'm pretty sure Bill Clinton is "blamed" (with IMO middling justification) for triangulating away important Democratic planks.  Doing so wasn't an inherent part of the exercise of power.

    This'll be interesting. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:01:26 AM EST
    I just find it curious (2.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:14:06 AM EST
    that you'd blame congressional Dems for not "bombarding" GOP presidents with single-payer bills, but not blame Bill Clinton for completely botching healthcare reform.  And ceding territory on welfare and trade.  That wasn't Congress's fault -- that was the explicit Clinton agenda.

    I've gone back and forth on this topic (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:20:33 AM EST
    at Dkos, and for i time I thought that the clinton's were less than sincere about providing a really big reform.  Indeed their overall numbers on the healthcare front were not very good comparing insured in 1992 to insured in 2000. it's a mixed record because it was about political reality and powersharing with the GOP congress after teh Dems were wiped out in the house.

    Yet...you have to wonder why the various Democratic "Mavericks" who sabotaged the effort in the 1990s(who still remain in the senate and House) will not treat any effort today the same way they treated the Clinton effort.  Kerry's on the books saying UHC is DOA. Some of the UHC effort's principle Democratic opponents are still there and they backed Obama.

    One conumdrum is that teh Dems will end up blocking Comnyers/Kucinch Single Payer.  How that's going to be rationalized is going to be entertaining.


    Furthermore, (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by eric on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:27:01 AM EST
    the health care reform proposal wasn't botched, it was assasinated by insurance companies who were screaming SOCIALISM as loud as they could.  I remember the ads.  I remember the conventional wisdom that prevailed.

    Absolutely, the AMA and Pharmas (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:39:35 AM EST
    went crazy.    Advertising scared those who were insured.  Ads screamed that people would wait 6 months for emergency care.

    Frightening voters works (once again).
    The Pharmas and Insurers were able to keep their huge profits and control of health care.

    Whoever has the most money...uses propaganda with the public...and it works.

    Hopefully now, people are starting to see propaganda and question it.   Otherwise, our nation is headed downhill fast.

    Big money will rape and pilage...and then leave the country for greener pastures.  


    What about this Primary... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:46:20 AM EST
    ...amkes you think that either the people or the Democratic party are not still highly suseptable to propaganda?

    When people see that they (none / 0) (#69)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:51:35 AM EST
    have been taken in by the "hope" candidate.

    I am not "hopeful" really.   Just dreamin' of what could be...what should be.


    The AMA was most successful. (none / 0) (#123)
    by wurman on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:41:28 PM EST
    They put together a $1,000,000 warchest, spent $50,000 apiece on 20 senators & killed the whole thing in committee.

    Bill & Hillary Clinton met with all of the stakeholders at Jackson Hole WY after the election & set up a process to overhaul the healthcare process.  The insurance poobahs were there & they agreed, mainly because they got to stay in business.

    After the inaugural, they reneged.  Totally.

    Some folks (sorry about that generic) were of the opinion that the AMA rolled 'em over.


    From PBS Online NewHour's (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by tree on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    timeline on the health care debate:

    The success of HIAA ads ["Harry & Louise"] give an immense boost to the organization's fund-raising. In the space of a few weeks, the budget for the campaign expands fivefold from $4 million to $20 million. In the end, HIAA raises and spends about $30 million more than its normal annual operating budget of $20 million -- a grand total of almost $50 million to the lobbying effort. The money HIAA accumulates for the fight pays not only for the Harry and Louise ads but also for a grassroots campaign that dwarfs anything the interest group has ever done. The effort produces more than four hundred fifty thousand contacts with Congress -- phone calls, visits, or letters -almost a thousand to every member of the House and Senate.

    (note: HIAA is the Health Insurance Association of America)

    Read the whole timeline. Its worth it to remember how hard the battle was and how much opposition there was from industry lobbyists and Republicans. It also reminds one that Whitewater, the manufactured faux scandal, sucked a lot of time and energy away from Clinton accomplishing worthwhile things during his Administration.


    OT: Community Organizing Style (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:52:03 AM EST
    By the way, Oculus, this article will really explain many of the frustrations that I had with this whole thing that I may not have articulated.  

    Explains what community organizing is, vs. what the Obama campaign did.  

    That's a good piece. (2.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:08:07 AM EST
    IMO organizing for a campaign is, by definition, not the same as community organizing.  It really can't be.  

    It has been interesting, though, to see how Obama's campaign has co-opted the model a little bit.  Historically, campaigns have very rarely left much of an organized structure (whether local or national) behind after they end.  Obama's won't necessarily, but it just might.  We'll find out how personality-driven it actually is, I guess.

    (Disclosure: I've done a fair amount of field work for Obama, and Schultz gets a few key points wrong, most notably "telling" vs. "listening".  And he only talks about the Fellows program in the update.)


    Personally... (5.00 / 16) (#10)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:52:28 AM EST
    I'm more than a little tired of all these men psychoanalyzing Hillary Clinton.

    she both found her groove and let loose her raging id, turning herself into a character at once awful and wonderful


    Perhaps Samantha Power (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:58:26 AM EST
    ghost-wrote the article?

    This is the year of psychoanalyzing (5.00 / 10) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:04:57 AM EST
    all of us.

    Pennsylvanians were bitter/clingy. We disaffected Democrats are going through a "grief process" (LOL).

    They think they know what we're all about.

    Hint:  They're wrong.  And this may be their undoing.


    Were she not divisive AND ambitious ... (5.00 / 9) (#26)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:07:43 AM EST
    ... she wouldn't have experienced the decline and fall.

    Perhaps women will learn this lesson of not making a spectacle of themselves and so obscenely -- nakedly! -- running for office.

    Don't worry, ladies, our historical "time" will come someday. Even Obama said that his young daughters will be inspired (also someday) by the good workout/ spring training that Hillary gave him.


    All those polarizing bits of legislation... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:12:43 AM EST
    ...on a bipartisan basis with the Republicans.  Tearing the nation apart they were.  snark.

    See, Napoleon would have worn smaller pearls (5.00 / 11) (#15)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:59:13 AM EST
    The Hillary I encounter a few minutes after Obama leaves the building is somber, prideful, dark-humored, aggrieved, confused--and still high on the notion that she is leading an army, Napoleon in a navy pantsuit and gumball-size fake pearls. She is keenly aware of the weird dynamics in play as she contemplates her endgame: Albeit temporarily, the loser has more power than the winner. She, not Obama, is in a position to bring the party together or rip the thing to shreds. She, not he, has the capacity to orchestrate a merger of their warring factions of supporters.

    Oh my.

    And my sibs keep asking me why I've never watched a soap, evah, or serial reality shows (apart from rubbernecking the news).

    And would have been less "shrieky" (5.00 / 9) (#35)
    by Inky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:12:47 AM EST
    In Iowa she was "uninspiring on the stump, her speeches either wooden or shrieky."

    Darn it all -- she could have won if only she had been less of a harpy.


    Hillary Would Have Won Iowa (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:01:28 PM EST
    if Reverend Wright had been on the table at the time.  That story didn't break until after our caucuses.

    I can guaran-dam-tee you that Iowa would not have gone for Obama if we'd heard "God damn America."


    Snark? (2.33 / 3) (#112)
    by margph on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:02:30 PM EST
    Ellie and Indy, it is difficult to tell whether you are being facetious and snarky or if you are the real thing --- ie. one of the haters.  It is a sad commentary to think that one has to even question that.  However, given some of the things I have read not only on this site but others, nothing said surprises me any more.  We really have descended into uncivil and shameful territory at times.

    You make no sense whatsoever but have a nice day (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    Stay in drugs and stay off school, y'hear?

    Sorry to be obtuse ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Inky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:09:00 PM EST
    I'm not a hater, so I guess you could label my comment as snark. Language like "shrieky" has been getting under my skin of late. For instance, just yesterday I was spending Father's Day with my father-in-law, and a nicer man would be hard to find. But when we got on the subject of this election, my f-in-l explained that Hillary's big problem, the one that lost her the nomination, was that she came across as too "strident" -- I don't know if he gets that language from reading Frank Rich religiously or if that's his own unmediated perception, and I'm also sure that he doesn't perceive any sexism in that observation. But I, as a woman, and perhaps a strident one as well, do.

    I'll read all of it later, but (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:59:54 AM EST
    I did get in the first couple of paragraphs. Seems to me he came to bury Hillary, not to praise her.
    When they first spy each other in the corridor, Clinton hugs the wall deferentially to let Obama pass; their brief tête-à-tête only ensues at the latter's instigation. When the chat is over and the nominee strides toward the freight elevator to make his exit, his Secret Service agents brusquely shoo away Clinton's aides: "Stand aside for Senator Obama! Make way for Senator Obama!"
    Then again the title is "The Fall and Rise of Hillary Clinton."

    all I can add (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by NJDem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:02:07 AM EST
    is that I watched the news for the first time in about two weeks and it's still all about her!  To the point that when they showed clips of MTP, they showed Russert interviewing...you guessed it.  Boy, they really miss her (and they're not alone).  

    I was thinking this morning about (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:02:12 AM EST
    her class and style and his Crass and speaking style. This article makes him seem king like in the step aside and make way for Senator Obama. I don't know if he could ever let his ego aside to be able to run with Hillary. And this morning it was written that the Obama camp thinks it can win without Ohio and Florida. They are assuming he will get Penna I guess.

    Heileman is right about Hillary becomming the most powerful woman in the country right now. I guess we all felt she spoke for us. As for Bill, currently she is more powerful, but I do not understand why people can not ackowledge his 8 years in office. His successful 8 years I might add. Peace and prosperity. I believe they do not need to put him down in comparison in order to elevate someone else. Although, I am glad it is Hillary this time at least.

    It was all triangulating away the legacy (4.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:09:30 AM EST
    of FDR according to Pegasus (see above).

    Of course Obama actually thinks that the New Deal suxxorZ and is crumbling.


    Um, I thought Clinton was a very good POTUS. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:17:14 AM EST
    Very good for the country, although not necessarily for the Democratic party.  I just thought you were making a pretty strange point up there about Democrats being afraid of success or something.

    We will see how it plays out. (3.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:27:10 AM EST
    And yes the Dems were/are fearful of success--or of successful processes that develop into reform. Congressional Dems made sure we couldn't have another behemoth like FDR because they backed term limits for the POTUS. Clinton would have crushed Bush in 2000 for example. ON FDR-- for many dems who backed the amendment he was too much of a Dynasty and his reforms were too far reaching.  

    term limits on the president (3.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    Have proven in the case of the transition from Clinton to a feeble man like Bush to have been a disaster.

    The Amendment wastes political talent.  America is enough of a Democracy to allow the career of a talented pol to die a natural death and not set an arbitrary limit.  

    Speaking for myself only.


    Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:58:57 AM EST
    absolutely.  Term limits (over the long term), I think are probably very good.

    Statement number one has nothing to do (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by tree on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    statement number two. No elected official in the US has absolute power.

    There's an unintended and unforeseen negative to term limits. If you are term limited out of your elected office it pretty much guarantees that you will have to find other employment after your terms are up. The most likely and easiest job to get would be working for those who lobby elected officials. Therefore term limits make it more likely that elected officials would be more receptive to lobbyists, realizing that they may need a job from these firms after they leave elected office. Its happened a lot, and never to the public's benefit.


    the amendment was specifically designed (none / 0) (#87)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:14:57 AM EST
    with FDR in mind.

    Yes, I'm aware of that. (none / 0) (#94)
    by tree on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:29:36 AM EST
    I was responding to Sam's post, which I took as an endorsement of term limits in general. There are several states now that term limit elected officials.

    (No offense intended. I find your points generally instructive.)


    Not so. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:13:03 AM EST
    American culture is at its heart democratic. That Amendment exists to prevent another FDR like round of reform and maybe even block comprehensive healthcare reform specifically.  FDR was there for approx 16 years and was succeeded by Truman. That was the last time we really had the conservatives on the run. Quite literally. It's a highly unnatural thing to see political talent squandered because of a time limit that is justified by lord Acton. the voters get to decide if a pol stays on.  The congress and courts can check him at any time.

    I think that they should be able to run again (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:43:19 AM EST
    If it was just consecutive terms, I would have liked to see a popular President run again after a term of not running. As if in 2004, if Clinton had been allowed to run again. Super.

    The worse part was the comments section (5.00 / 10) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:06:10 AM EST
    full of Hillary hatred. From all white women who supported Hillary are racist to how the AA community and the "creative class" plan to organize to defeat Hillary and deprive her of her Senate seat when she is up for reelection.

    I Stopped Reading Comments (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by daring grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:18:00 AM EST
    in newspaper and certain other websites--salon, Huffpost, for example.

    I can't stand the creepy nonsense and vituperative repetitiveness of it on all sides. And, whenever I did read in these places, I could feel it rotting my brain just being exposed to it.

    Sometimes I think those places are inhabited by a bunch of overstimulated adolescents, seeing how provocative and hateful they can be and feeling rewarded by others' outraged responses. Nyah nyah.


    Just admitting I was once a proud (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:22:39 AM EST
    democrat is showing itself to be embarrassing these days.

    Who would have thought the D's would have been the party to go militant.


    don't worry too much those posters (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:31:15 AM EST
    attention spans are probably no longer than their posts. they typically are the last ones to vote. heck they are too busy watching reruns of american idol don't you know.

    hatred and haters (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:34:28 AM EST
    so, so, so tired and saddened by the haters.

    She isn't up for re-election until 2012 ... (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:37:58 AM EST
    won't most of the Obama supporters have grown up by then?

    LOL (none / 0) (#66)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:46:41 AM EST
    That's good.

    No, (none / 0) (#122)
    by Left of center on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:01:19 PM EST
    most of them will only be about 16 years old by then.

    hard to stop those fires (5.00 / 11) (#79)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:06:39 AM EST
    once you get them started. The Obama campaign (as well as some of the dnc leaders) definitely started a fire of Hillary hate. Funny how it has a life of it's own, it's as if the followers of the movement believed what they were told about Hillary being so evil. I guess when you run a movement, it's hard to say, hey stop, we were just playing politics, she's not really evil, we need her now. Oopsie. There is definitely a down side to a "movement" and some of those downsides can come back to bit you eventually.

    Being a woman in this world (5.00 / 13) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:08:19 AM EST
    this statement in the article was most striking to me.

    Clinton, in fact, makes no bones about the matter when we speak. "I'm not a very comfortable public figure," she explains. "I don't particularly like the attention. I like the work. I like the sense of forward movement and progress. At the end of the day, what I'm interested in is what we've done that actually moves the agenda forward."

    I was very ticked about the misogyny stuff at first but it was Clinton's policies that brought me onboard with her.  Witnessing the daily dynamic in quotes above caused me to feel ever more loyal to her.  Look, if you are a woman, an "illegal" alien in this country, a gay or transgender person in this country....the above is how we live our lives every single day and that's the best we can do.  AND we must always believe in ourselves because if we don't we are sunk and there are people out there who mean to sink us and all they feel about it is justification.

    We also fear ambiguity because you can't believe the ways that ambiguity has almost destroyed us at different times and under different situations.  That is what FREAKS ME OUT about Obama and now you can add to that that he isn't even talking about getting out of Iraq now.  Already his past ambiguity is threatening my own personal well being and this is how McCain seems more trustable.  If someone is going to "F" me over it is much easier on me to prepare for and survive it if I know it is coming.  It is the surprise "F"ing over that does the most damage and for me that is what Obama represents and with each passing day he seems to only be representing that to me more and more.

    What florid pose. He makes her sound (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:17:59 AM EST
    like Shiva.

    I found it tiresome (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:21:18 AM EST
    I was thinking that too (none / 0) (#63)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:44:45 AM EST
    Or did you mean Kali?  I was thinking more Kali.

    Considering (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:54:32 PM EST
    Kali is the Dark Mother, I'd be more inclined to say Kali Mah.  Esp. since most people don't seem to remember she's got a very powerful maternal side to her. Slayer of Demons, protector of small children.

    They are both similar (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:53:21 AM EST
    in their ability to be all facets of beauty and horror, birth and death.  

    my cat georgie could meow into (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:27:19 AM EST
    a microphone on morning joe and make more sense than this guy. just how do these so called writers and pundits get these gigs? are all of them sellouts?

    Does your cat podcast? (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:10:37 AM EST
    Cause I'd rather listen to that than much of the yowling in punditstan. (Also, most kitties I've met have too much class to yowl except in real emergencies, like trying to save me from the vacuum cleaner.)

    well georgie in all honesty (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:15:40 PM EST
    is a beautiful cat however he has a real love for his food bowl. when i fall down on the job so to speak and don't jump at the appointed time, then i hear a yowl that would wake anyone in 100 feet. otherwise he is a loving jovial cat who dearly loves driving the female kitties here nuts. he gets their favorite places, their favortie toys and would get into their bowls for food if i didn't watch him. he is a real character and i don't know what i would do without him.

    so a podcast of georgie might be better than the pundits. he is focused on the issue and very direct.


    LOL. I want one of those jobs (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:12:37 AM EST
    I've been listening to some horrible talk radio (had to see what it was all about) and watching the hacks on msnbc and foxnews, and man I want one of those idiot jobs. Let's see, what are the requirements and can I do them:

    Can blather on about nothing for hours -- check

    Can be rude to everyone in politics -- check

    Have no idea and don't care what's going on -- not so much

    Can talk against something that's obviously true - no

    Darn, guess I can't do it. Maybe that does take some special talents to be able to do that. I stand corrected.


    Today's Journalists just aren't satisfied (5.00 / 9) (#58)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:37:58 AM EST
    merely reporting the news, they seem to have to make a statement to label themselves insightful, as well.

    It wasn't difficult to figure out Hillary's campaign. She is committed to shaping the country into a place where life is pleasant for all. Where healthcare doesn't rob a family of its ability to feed and house themselves. She believes her ability to accomplish this is greater than Obama's desire to do the same. Millions of people believed in her.

    I'm so tired of these... (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Marco21 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:45:27 AM EST
    salutes to Hillary now that she's out of the race.

    They couldn't give her props or treat her fairly when it mattered, so now they pile on the niceties and often  (like this article) the back-handed compliments.

    One unintended benefit (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:27:06 AM EST
    is that the post-mortems, however disingenuous or cya, do have some effect on public opinion.  And that will help her (not a great deal but some) in whatever she does next.

    That's what I think about when trying to get over the fact that these wordy paeans to her were nowhere to be found during the campaign.  Half the party voted for her and yet I can count on one hand the number of blitherati who wrote anything positive about her.  (I'm not counting BTD bc he is not blitherati).

    I do think it's more than cya and such, though, because anyone looking at the polls, esp. yesterday's Gallup poll showing 8% of registered voters are specifically voting for neither Obama or McCain (that's besides the 7% undecided) may finally be making some people nervous.  Gallups got them separated by 2 points today, and Rasmussen by only 4.

    Now that she's safely out of the way, it's ok to build her up in the hopes that her support for the party will sway people for him at the polls in November.


    This: (5.00 / 10) (#80)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:07:35 AM EST
    Was Clinton engaged in an ill-conceived effort to strong-arm Obama into putting her on the ticket? Was she being supremely Machiavellian? Or had she simply lost her mind?

    How about none of the above, you nitwit?

    Yeah, that was one of the worst (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by tree on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:22:58 AM EST
    bits of the article, most of which I found rather interesting and sort of positive in spite of itself.

    Of course, the media boyz and teh Obama campaign had decided that Tuesday was supposed to be the night she conceded, even though no other Presidential candidate had ever conceded the primary on a night that s/he won an election. But she didn't go along with THEIR script, and their new roolz, so she must have been evil or insane.


    I'm in the minority (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by kempis on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:38:58 AM EST
    I thought the general tone of the piece was admiring and respectful, and I appreciated it.

    I thought it nice to see Hillary getting positive coverage for once. And he's right: her coalition is broad and deep and she got stronger and stronger as the campaign continued. She truly has reached iconic stature through sticking it out and getting better in the face of tremendous adversity: a media against her and an opponent with a superior political organization who can outspend her 2 or even 3-1.

    I personally think her achievement was remarkable, I'm proud of her, and I agree with the author who considers that she may actually have replaced "Reagan Democrats" with "Hillary Democrats."

    I haven't felt this way about a political figure in my lifetime. I am stunned that Hillary Clinton won not only my vote but my admiration and abiding respect. And I think that's true for a lot of us.

    People talk a lot about Obama's "phenomenon" but Hillary has matched him on that. It's just that the superdelegates chose to hand the crown to Obama--unfortunately, probably, for the Democratic party. The writer "gets that."

    All in all, I really think the writer's respect and admiration for her comes through--and she makes some astute and candid points about the race and the challenges of the general election.

    Good article.

    She will NEVER be dwarfed by Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:11:07 PM EST
    My God, if she's bigger than Bill Clintoin, she'll always be bigger than Obama.

    Misogyny and sexism (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:43:04 PM EST
    are natural sub-headings that occur after the intial dehumanizing damage is done. Since 60 minutes has recently discovered that people in less compulsivly hyper-competive nations like Denmark are on the whole much more content, Im betting that one of the manifestations of that contentment would include a relative lack of sexism and racism in the bitter, strident, forms we find here.

    Nobody wants to hear it, but, "You can have it all" materialism with it's attendent frustrations, demoralization and spiritual alienation leads to misogyny, racism and a host of other malaises as surely as night follows day, IMMHO.


    Oops (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:44:20 PM EST
    that was meant for the other thread.

    This is the reason - I would never VOTE for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by dlkincaid on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:46:16 PM EST
    My opinion - as a free Black 62 year old female. I would as much vote for Obama as I would for Clarence Thomas, John McCain, George Bush - the DNC is worst than the GOP. I knew the hatred coming from the GOP, but the evil from the DNC surprised me.

    Those of you who need Obama - God Bless, you will be in for a rude awakening - ask Mrs. Palmer in Ill.

    interesting BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:57:34 PM EST
    is it august already? damn, how time flies! no, sen. obama is not the official dem. nominee, no one is, yet. many things can change between now and the convention.

    i actually happened to agree with the author's characterization of sen. obama as appearing not poigniently human. if anything, he comes across as totally disconnected from the rest of us. whether that's merely a facade, to make himself appear "intellectual", or that's his real personality, i haven't a clue.

    you can be outraged all you wish, but there it is.

    The highlighted quote (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by anydemwilldo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:43:39 AM EST
    The highlighted quote seems fairly clearly to me to be a statement of immediate influence, not historical value: Obama, being the party candidate (and, hopefully, president), will clearly be able to exert more influence over party affairs in the immediate future than either Bill or Hillary.  And this is as it should be, frankly.

    Can't we all please put the hatchets away?  I read this article to the end, and it's overwhelmingly a positive take on the Clinton campaign.  I thought it was great, honestly.  Why are you digging for insults where none exist?  Stop picking fights.

    Please reply to the comments (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:47:23 AM EST
    you are actually replying to.

    I do not appreciate stand alone swipes.

    I assume you are not referring to my post.


    Uh... I am. (none / 0) (#104)
    by anydemwilldo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM EST
    I am replying to your post, which is why I posted at the top level and referred directly to the highlighted quote you were taking issue with.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.

    The winning team has to put the hatchet away . (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:53:13 AM EST
    Although Primary 2008 is increasingly looking like an act of regicide. The promises on the end of the war and healthcare reform ar e all be dialed back so fast it's hard to keep up with the offcial manifesto for November and the 2009-2013 term.

    No kidding (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:55:25 AM EST
    And if I'm getting this stuff that was the last thing that I wanted what else I'm going to get that was the last thing I wanted?

    The winning team doesn't seem to be swinging (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by anydemwilldo on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:17:30 PM EST
    I don't see any hatches from either the Obama campaign or, as I pointed out, this article.  It is, like I said, overwhelmingly positive.  What BTD did was to take a single quote and interpret it in the most uncharitable way, then post to TalkLeft in the hope, I presume, of generating discussion.  I thought that was unfair: if you're a Clinton supporter, this is a good article, not something to flame about.

    Icon Power (none / 0) (#22)
    by daring grace on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:03:16 AM EST
    Okay, I'll take a crack at an interpretation.

    There's no doubt that Hillary Clinton emerged from the primary season as a powerful symbol for many people, not just for her supporters, but also for her detractors. Yes, that ability to tick people off and provoke them to loathe you is just as powerful as the one where you inspire their love, respect and support.

    She and Obama both seem to have become (willingly or not) fonts into which many pour their dreams and aspirations for what a president should be (whether the actual candidate always measures up or not). That's icon territory. Look at McCain. Does he inspire this? I don't see it. Maybe it's the "historic first" nature of the candidacies, but I think it's more than that. I think each of these people, themselves, embody this quality.

    How icon-power translates into pragmatic political influence remains to be seen.

    I think Bill Clinton's stature as the only twice elected Dem president since FDR is what it is. But what it is, as time passes, is more a historic pedestal. Depending on what he does now, he may become, again, more relevant, power-wise, in the present in the political realm.. But, at the moment, I think his wife is better positioned for it.

    He must be talking about her cultural status (none / 0) (#85)
    by kayla on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:13:04 AM EST
    compared to Bill.  This is the articles summary:

    How, in her diminishment, she became huge--an instant icon with more cultural potency than her husband. On the day after her final defeat, the unlikeliest of populist heroes discusses what exactly happened to turn her from wonk to phenom.

    Personal, Proffessional, Political Transformation (none / 0) (#113)
    by fctchekr on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:09:07 PM EST
    The comparison to RFK is apt..the irony of her being the frontrunner to discover that she would transform right before our eyes to become a politician/person shaped by the need we had, not only in her policies, but in her delivery and the depth of her committment to us.

    In her own right, she's as much a transformational figure as Obama.  

    "Barack Obama--reared by a single mother, married to a strong-willed woman, father of two daughters--has an unblemished record of support for the goals of the mainstream women's movement. Yet, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll taken over the weekend Clinton withdrew, in a hypothetical matchup with John McCain-- whose record with respect to those goals ranges from indifference to hostility--she would win among white suburban women and Obama would lose."