Will Hillary Work For Low Wages, No Benefits?
According to plausible scuttlebutt, the Obama campaign is hoping that the spearhead of its response to Sarah Palin will be: Hillary Clinton. That's "The Audacity of Hope" for you! A week ago the professional experts were declaring that McCain's unorthodox VP pick had doomed his campaign to a defeat more ridiculous than McGovern's. Now the Democratic ticket's two "Presidential" senators are so intimidated by the former mayor of Wasilla that they're running for shelter under the skirts of the Presidential aspirant they defeated. I think they'll find that Hillary's wearing pants.
Hillary Clinton would probably like to know why Barack Obama didn't support her run for the Presidency. And it certainly wasn't very respectful of Obama's Democratic supporters to declare HRC's candidacy dead-on-arrival as early as mid-January, and then continue to imply, for months afterward, that the Senator from New York had a lot of nerve even to run a campaign against Obama, as if by seeking the Presidency herself she was standing in the way of A Historic Achievement. Hillary's assigned role in History, like theirs, would be to stand aside and salute the parade as it passed.
One has to wonder at the wisdom of politicos who think the best way to win an election is to avoid a campaign. Because in a democracy the important offices usually go to those who win campaigns. The assumption that campaigning shouldn't be necessary if you are supporting the right causes (or "policies"), and correspondingly should be forbidden if you aren't, is actually a chapter in the conceptual poli sci textbook of progressivism, an axiom that almost all progressives (a/k/a liberals) accept to some degree; and Hillary's own acceptance of it did as much to cost her the early Democratic primaries and caucuses as Obama's campaigning. The people who dismissed Hillary Clinton and her campaign for the Presidency--and they did dismiss her, and it--they thought they were doing a very smart thing. But they weren't.
Nine days ago the incomprehensible name "Sarah Palin" stirred the liberals/experts out their torpid complacency into such an uncanny terror you'd think they'd discovered a horse's head in their bed. John McCain was campaigning for President! He was practicing "Karl Rove politics"! Is that the American Way? Is it legal? What do we do? What expert do we call? Who on our side would know something about campaigning for President?
Hmm, what about Bill Clinton's wife, that nasty pit belle who caused "America" such a pain in the ass by winning those primaries against Barack Obama after the real Superdelegates had already decided that History was a done deal. Let's get her to do to McCain what she did to Barack! Ka-ching!
Well here's a news flash for Barackocrats: Hillary Clinton does not want to Make History as the first person, male or female, to be nominated for the ceremonial, part-time position of vice-vice-president of the U.S. The responsibilities, wages and benefits are well below those of the job she has, and if in any way she does agree to do contract work on behalf of her erstwhile rival, she will only embarrass him, because the better she does at campaigning, the more people will wonder why they can't vote for her, i.e, why Hillary Clinton wasn't the nominee in the first place. Barack Obama doesn't want to be seen as a guy who asked the senator from New York to mop the glass ceiling for him. If he needs that kind of help, maybe he can get John Kerry at a reasonable rate.
posted by Post-Liberal @ 12:17 PM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
I'm just curious-what policies do you support?
What state do you believe the country is in?
What are your dreams/aspirations for the country?
You're not obligated to answer, but it would make my day if you did. It's pretty easy to poke the eyes of liberals (how come the only people who perceive such a "right/left" spectrum are doctrinaire Rush Limbaugh conservatives?), but maybe not so easy to answer some questions in the affirmative? So I won't sit up nights waiting for your response.
Dear Natesmith: Really full answers to your questions would very long-winded and complex. After all, the "state" of the country has many dimensions, and even if the two of us could agree on an enumeration of them I doubt either of us would claim to have a position on every one.
But if you'll settle for a short and humble answer, I'm not basically in disagreement with the perspective that McCain offering in his acceptance speech. I think we have a lot of work to do, and I think there are many symptoms of our failures we can point to, the outflowing economy being one of them. My aspiration for the country is that we all feel like one family, determined to work for the common good, but mature in the recognition that hard intellectual work and creative risks will be called for.
As for policies, my support for any policy is always provisional. I don't believe in shortcuts, and I don't believe that a country can be better than its actual citizens. That is why, as a matter of political philosophy, I can no longer subscribe to liberalism as an ideology. "Post-liberal" does not mean conservative, although I know quite well that most liberals think that conservatism is the only alternative to liberalism, and they'll consider me a conservative. What can you do? Call me what you want.
I feel very strongly that John McCain is more devoted to the commonwealth than any person who has run for President in my lifetime, and that he is more mature in his understanding of what leadership and statesmanship really mean. McCain is a very unusual politician, much more of a change than Barack Obama, who is a conventional democrat in every respect. If that's what you like, by all means vote for it. But it's not going to improve the country much. We've had several democratic presidents in my lifetime, and except for the Civil Rights Act of 1965 I can't say that much has improved on their watch. Jimmy Carter in particular was one of the worst presidents ever, and if you ever wonder why we have such a bad president as Bush, one of the reasons is that the Democrats have a long and consistent history of offering unsatisfactory alternatives. If you really want to see some history made, you might consider voting for a good Republican when you get the chance.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home