|
August 01, 2007
Hillary has "political post-traumatic stress disorder"
So says Andrew Sullivan, in a damned good post contrasting Hillary Clinton with Barack Obama. Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in thier defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder. She saw her view of feminism gutted in the 1992 campaign; she saw her healthcare plan destroyed by what she saw as a VRWC; she remains among the most risk-averse of Democrats on foreign policy and in the culture wars.While I don't always agree with Sullivan, I've been reading him a long time, and this is a sage analysis by someone who has been watching Hillary from the very start. I can't resist this either: The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement.Considering that Obama doesn't have a prayer, I'm hoping that the choice in the 2008 general election will also be between the defensive crouch and a confident engagement. The mere thought of reelecting Hillary is enough to activate my own political post-traumatic stress disorder. Must be a contagious disease. posted by Eric on 08.01.07 at 01:01 PM |
|
August 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2007
July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
The false flag that falsely flags itself
After Pakistan Hillary has "political post-traumatic stress disorder" Laundering alimentary values Anticipating an epiphany (on behalf of "ordinary people") Build a better world by destroying wealth! Meanwhile in Berkeley.... "We cannot have intact testicles on government property!" Crime, punishment, and blurred distinctions Nerds
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Reelecting?
You are assuming the Clintons' 'two for the price of one' rhetoric in '92 was honest, I guess.
In which case we are in danger of reelecting Hillary/Bill in '08, but that doesn't seem likely.
If the Dems hold the Congress then Pres. Hillary Clinton won't have to tack towards the center the way Pres. Bill Clinton had.
She won't govern the same way Bill did, if she gets the chance, and she may keep Bill far away from DC leaving 'First Lady' duties to Chelsea.
A President Hillary as liberal as she wants to be is a pretty scary thought.
(I still don't see what states she wins that Kerry lost, she may win certain states by much larger margins, but I don't see any 'purple' states flipping blue in '08 compared to '04)