Shots In The Dark
Saturday, June 23, 2024
  A Reason Not to Vote for Hillary
In the Washington Post, Lois Romano has written a fascinating story about Hillary Clinton's female inner circle, known to itself as "Hillaryland."

Once seen as a tight little sorority, today the group -- happily self-described as "Hillaryland"-- is at the center of a front-running presidential campaign. Never have so many women operated at such a high level in one campaign, working with a discipline and a loyalty and a legendary secrecy rarely seen at this level of American politics.

Older and tougher, they have formed a closely knit Praetorian Guard around Clinton that plots strategy, develops message and clamps down on leaks. But their extraordinary protectiveness also contributes to an ongoing perception of insularity around the candidate and the campaign.

I read this with dismay. Most of these women—Ann Lewis, Minyon Moore, Evelyn Lieberman, Mandy Grunwald, Melanne Verveer, and others—served with Hillary in the Clinton White House, and even then they were notorious for a number of things:
their insularity, their fanatical devotion to Hillary Clinton, and their us-against-the-world mentality.

Some of the group, such as Minyon Moore and Cheryl Mills, were highly competent. Others were not.

There is obviously a case to made for earning and rewarding loyalty. But there's also a case for bringing in fresh voices and differing perspectives. The groupthink prevalent in Hillaryland was astonishing; talking to one of its members, you'd think you were talking to a member of a cult, and you kept wanting to urge the person to wake up. They never did, and it sounds like they still haven't.

It was members of Hillaryland, for example, who largely wrote Mrs. Clinton's memoir, a book equally disingenuous and boring. (The best thing about it was its cover, taken from a photo shoot we did for George. Mrs. Clinton had promised to do an exclusive cover; she then reneged on her promise when asked to be on the cover of Talk, whose owner, Harvey Weinstein, subsequently raised money for Mrs. Clinton's 2000 Senate race.)

I can't speak authoritatively on the subject, I hope, but my guess is that being disingenuous and boring at the same time is something not easily achieved.

And yet, this is Hillary Clinton's largest problem: When she opens her mouth, no one believes a word she says.

Except, perhaps, the women of Hillaryland.
 
Comments:
Fortunately it doesn't matter--for me--how secretive, insular, liberal/progressive she is or isn't--I will never vote for because we need to break, now, from this habit of electing only Bushes and Clintons to the White House. Even if she were superbly talented and suited for this office--and she might be--dynastic politics is (theoretically, at least) unAmerican and certainly poisonous to the Republic.
 
"Some say Hillary = evil; and also, some say, a girl. Blah blah blah."

Meanwhile every Republican candidate (except Ron Paul) has views of foreign policy and constitutional structure that are literally insane. No news there!

Meanwhile a top Romney campaign aide is a serial police impersonator.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/06/22/romney_aide_is_the_focus_of_probe/
And one of the closest members of Giulani's inner circle, on his payroll, is a priest suspended by his diocese after molestation charges.
"Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota would not confirm to the Long Island newspaper Newsday at the time of the report's release in February 2003 that Priest F [in an indictment] was Alan Placa. Spota would say, however, that "this is a person who was directly involved in the so-called policy of the church to protect children, when in fact he was one of the abusers." Multiple media outlets have named Placa as Priest F. Placa implicitly acknowledged as much to the New York Times..."
http://salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/22/placa/

But look over there! John Edwards's anti-poverty programs also raised his own visibility after his electoral defeat!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?hp

And look over there! Hillary Clinton has many advisors who are FEMALE, and to many people they seem SECRETIVE and DEFENSIVE.

Any chance that a gossip blog can set an example of moral seriousness? Worth a shot, isn't it, in the dark though it may be.

SE
 
SE,

Moral seriousness, me? You ask too much. I'm just stumbling along like the rest of us, trying to say and do the right things in this crazy old world.

However, I would like to mention that the blog frequently posts unflattering items about the GOP candidates. (That Romney thing is pretty hilarious, though.)

But moral seriousness from Mrs. Clinton? That's a stretch.

And just so you know, Hillary's advisers *are* secretive and defensive. (I don't think their being female has anything to do with it.) Whether they take after her or she takes after them, I don't know, but it's a huge problem for her campaign, and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

I agree with you on one thing, though--that Times story on John Edwards was weird.
 
"I don't think their being female has anything to do with it."

But your featured reporter of the day DOES think that has something to do with it: she says in the same sentence where she talk about their secretiveness, "Never have so many women operated at such a high level in one campaign."

What does that belief do to her credibility? Is this sexist moron someone you really want to hand your megaphone (ee-ninesy though it be) to? Does her conflating of secrecy/transparency-to-the-media with 'newfangled' ideas about women in politics tell you anything about the larger agenda of the central-casting offices of the media? Find some way to bring down the Democrats's poll numbers, clubbing them in the meantime into giving total access, all of them; and boost the Republicans, using any superficiality necessary on both sides, so we can have a close race and generate consumption of our news products. That's the project. Gender-baiting works super-well for this, and if you can't gender-bait then nancy-boy-bait by talking about someone's haircut, or race-bait by kicking around the false idea that a candidate went to a madrassa ("Bob, what does this false rumor do to the public perception about Obama?" "Well, Fred, this completely false story is bound to raise new questions with voters who wonder...") With Kerry the magic technique was hippy-baiting ("Those war protesters were all the same, and they never change.....").

And look at the self-reinforcing twaddle about 'perceptions,' the very thing that political reporters create with every qualitative story they write: "But their extraordinary protectiveness also contributes to an ongoing perception of insularity."

The password for this stuff, Richard, is Bullshit. Wise up. Don't participate in it. There will be no excuse for our democracy, especially for the purveyors of public discourse, if we have a close election in November 2008.

SE
 
"Moral seriousness from Mrs. Clinton? That's a stretch."

Don't play dumb.

I don't mean moral seriousness FROM her. That's a substantive issue that could be reasonably debated (using evidence, even).

I mean moral seriousness ABOUT her. About the presidency, the Constitution, the duties of a citizen not to play dumb. I mean, come ON. Christ!

{I don't plan to vote for her in the primary. But if she wins the primary I intend to again do all in my power (not much) to extirpate the Bush agenda. That's the only question this election season -- who can do most to undo what this presidency has done? No Republican can make any claim to that task, and none is doing so.}

What a cheesy evasion. What a weak move. "Moral seriousness from that cartoon Hillary C.? Slick Hillary? Ha ha ha, that's a laugh. That's one of the funnier things I've heard in this crazy old democracy-dismantling world of ours! (Oh, did you say Moral seriousness ABOUT something? Well, that's a horse of a different color. Not my department though. I'm going to continue to pretend this is about someone ELSE's personality, not mine as a participant in a democracy.) Ha ha ha! Wouldn't it be funny if there were a LADY President? Guess we'll have gays in the military THEN, won't we? Because we know how femininity works in politics! The next few years will write themselves! Ha ha ha."

Not a fan of superficiality,

SE

PS. Lest I just seem to be ranting (and I really do have work to get to): Your substantive claim is this. "Hillary's advisers *are* secretive and defensive.... It's a huge problem for her campaign, and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out."

IS it a problem for her campaign? Or is it a problem for the REPORTERS COVERING HER CAMPAIGN? Can you see that there's a DIFFERENCE between those two things?
You tell me what policy or leadership issues are raised by this secretiveness, with an example, and then there will exist a real conversation about whether this is a problem or not. There is absolutely nothing self-evident about this claim; indeed, GWB ran the most transparent and friendly of campaigns in modern history, and has run a government more secretive by a factor of eight than any we've had, ever. THAT secretiveness is what I call a "problem"; but it has no correlation with campaign secretiveness.

Scoldily -- due for second cup of coffee --

Standing Eagle
 
And this is your other substantive claim: "When [Hillary Clinton] opens her mouth, no one believes a word she says."

How do you know this is true? Why should we believe you?

Or as I write on my student's C+ papers: "EVIDENCE?"

SE
 
Oops. For "student's" read "students'."

Fighting grade inflation one C+ at a time,

SE
 
That sexist moron, SE, happens to be a woman....
 
SE, I think it's pretty common knowledge that Mrs. Clinton is seen as slick, insincere, and not saying what she really thinks and feels. The proof, I would suggest, is in the pudding. As Andrew Sullivan has shown on his blog, if you put an anonymous Democrat against a Republican on a poll, the Democrats win the presidency handily. But put Hillary on there, and that "Democratic advantage" vanishes. People just don't trust her.
 
The appeal of Obama is more EVIDENCE. He is strong where she is not: the perception that he is speaking honestly and from the heart.
 
Going back to who SE would vote for after the primary... I'm always to the left of any major presidential candidate, but I would probably vote for the Republican instead of Hillary. Two exceptions: Giuliani, and Romney. In that case, please, Bloomberg, run! But as damaging as I think McCain's Iraq policy is--and who's to say it'll be the same in Jan '09--he is an honorable and principled man and I could vote for him.
 
What's more importanrt than Iraq, eadw? And what could be worse than having a president who's trying to win Vietnam in Iraq? Where Clinton will also keep us -- too much money involved. But I'm for Edwards in the primary, with SE Clinton if she wins. Bloomberg will be Nader redux in effect if not intent.
 
"I think it's pretty common knowledge that..."


--I stopped reading right there.

SE
 
Standing Eagle...you can write long boring paragraphs of endless drivel and Rich writes one pithy paragraph in response that starts with a phrase that you do not like and you "stop reading right there." Way to engage the debate!
 
It's a figure of speech on the Internet. I didn't really stop reading. I imagine most readers got my point -- you can't defend yourself against the charge of superficial conventional-wisdom parroting by claiming to have the conventional wisdom on your side. (Especially when you live in New York City and hang out with well-ensconced media types -- an echo chamber if there ever was one.)

The single fact Richard adduces -- that Hillary polls badly -- could be explained by any number of factors, including the one the eadw posted at the top of this thread. Obama is NEW, and could be more appealing for that reason alone.

Or maybe people agree with him more than they agree with Hillary! Wouldn't that be a startling thing -- though God knows how in this media environment one learns without intensive research what ANY candidate stands for in terms of policy.

SE
 
Since RT asked me a question, I'll try to answer... but with a question of my own: What's Hillary's Iraq policy, exactly? Or even roughly? I think McCain knows enough about Vietnam and is sufficiently clear-minded not to be "trying to win Vietnam in Iraq." It's 18 months from any McCain presidency; his hands will be largely tied by then, and finally (American involvement in) the war will be winding down due to forces more powerful than the president.
 
The real tragedy is that Al Gore won't run. To think we could have had Gore for President and ended instead with a moron who has caused the biggest mess in the Middle East anyone could imagine...

There will be no easy way out of that mess, and ample additional opportunities for other messes. So who is up to the task? It's not clear that Hillary is, nor is Obama. The sad thing is few in the Democratic Party with a chance of winning have very few creative ideas on foreign policy... and the Republicans who have at times been more equipped in this area, brought us Iraq.

Perhaps we should be watching for which of the candidates in either party seems to understand the complexity and gravity of the issues facing the nation and seems inclined to recruit talent widely, outside their inner circle, to deal with these issues? Of course the clique that Richard describes is indicative of just the opposite, so perhaps a sign that Hillary is not up to the task. I also agree with eadw that dynastic politics is unAmerican and poisonous to the Republic, although I would have appreciated if George W. had depended more on his father's advice on foreign policy.

There are very difficult times to come.
 
Thanks eadw. Hey, I'm worried about Clinton and Iraq too, as I said, which is why I'll only vote for her in the General Election in preference to voting for a Republican. I once didn't vote the D ticket, but the last 6 and a half years have changed that, and nothing about McCain, including faux or real alliances with Teddy K., could sway me. Clinton will at least be reined in some by the left, and will do stuff like health care.

My guess is she would inherit what she inherits in Iraq, and keep us there as a 'presence' as we set up the post-democracy puppet or oversee partition. She won't be saying anything definite for around a year, none of them will very much. But at least she won't have Kristol and his ilk as advisors.

You may be right about winding down in the next 18 months, but odds are Petraeus will extend the surge, while Cheney/Kristol will take a shot at Iran if they can. None of this looks good, and Rove will likely do something to derail.

"Have you heard the news?" he said, with a grin,
"The Vice-President's gone mad!"
"Where?" "Downtown." "When?" "Last night."
"Hmm, say, that's too bad!"

Bob Dylan, "Clothes-Line Saga" (Basement Tapes 1975)
 
eadw, it's unlikely that American involvement in iraq will be winding down, even though this is what most people would favor now. It will take 20 years to rebuild that country and right now this is a center of reproduction of terrorism. America will become MORE involved in Iraq, probably in development efforts, not just in security. Our military are, appropriately, currently engaged in development efforts --building roads and infrastructure-- though there may be other ways to achieve the same if security improves in that country.
 
Minor correction about the GOP candidates' smell thing. It was Thompson, not Romney, that Matthews was inhaling -- Romney's smell was mentioned by a CNN anchor or some such.

But here's the follow-on with regard to sexism and the presidency, custom-made for this thread.

And by the way, Richard, of course I noticed that the sexist moron reporter in question was a woman. It changes my point not a whit.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014807.php

On the June 24 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, during a discussion about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), host Chris Matthews asked Kathleen Parker, a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group, if "being surrounded by women" makes "a case for commander in chief -- or does it make a case against it?" [...]

Asked by Time managing editor Richard Stengel, "What are you suggesting by asking does this diminish her as a commander in chief by being surrounded by women?," Matthews replied: "No, the idea that it -- well, let me just get historic. We've never had a woman commander in chief."

As a follow-up to his question, Matthews said: "But isn't that a challenge, because when it comes down to that final decision to vote for president, a woman president, a woman commander in chief, will be an historic decision for people. Not just men, but women as well." Turning to New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller, Matthews added: "Elisabeth, you're always thinking about these things." Bumiller referred to Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher -- women who were elected to lead Israel and the United Kingdom -- and said: "[W]e all remember these women.... I think we can get there." Matthews responded, "But we've got Patton and John Wayne on our side."


This is the way storylines get built. Next we'll be wondering why Obama wears so many earth tones.

I love by the way how "getting historic" becomes a polite way of saying "acting like a Neanderthal."

SE
 
Al Gore will join the race near the end of the summer. I can't tell you how I know this, but I have two-degress of separation from the man, and I'd put money on it.

If for some reason he changes his mind, Hillary will lose to Fred Thompson, losing both Ohio and Florida closely. I have no idea what Fred stands for, but Gore would beat him--though, again, closely.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
Politics, Media, Academia, Pop Culture, and More

Name: Richard Bradley
Location: New York, New York,
ARCHIVES
2/1/05 - 3/1/05 / 3/1/05 - 4/1/05 / 4/1/05 - 5/1/05 / 5/1/05 - 6/1/05 / 6/1/05 - 7/1/05 / 7/1/05 - 8/1/05 / 8/1/05 - 9/1/05 / 9/1/05 - 10/1/05 / 10/1/05 - 11/1/05 / 11/1/05 - 12/1/05 / 12/1/05 - 1/1/06 / 1/1/06 - 2/1/06 / 2/1/06 - 3/1/06 / 3/1/06 - 4/1/06 / 4/1/06 - 5/1/06 / 5/1/06 - 6/1/06 / 6/1/06 - 7/1/06 / 7/1/06 - 8/1/06 / 8/1/06 - 9/1/06 / 9/1/06 - 10/1/06 / 10/1/06 - 11/1/06 / 11/1/06 - 12/1/06 / 12/1/06 - 1/1/07 / 1/1/07 - 2/1/07 / 2/1/07 - 3/1/07 / 3/1/07 - 4/1/07 / 4/1/07 - 5/1/07 / 5/1/07 - 6/1/07 / 6/1/07 - 7/1/07 /


Powered by Blogger