Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Clinton Campaign: Running on Ambien

By Barbara Ehrenreich, Barbaraehrenreich.com. Posted October 3, 2007.


The black and female candidates for president, especially the latter, are suffering from severe lack-of-personality disorders.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Barbara Ehrenreich

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Just a year ago the hot question was: Is America ready for a black or female president? As the campaigns wear on, the question has shifted to: Can America survive the tedium of its black and female candidates?

Obama, for example, hasn't turned out to be any more challenging to white America than re-runs of the Cosby show. He was slow to pick up on the Jena 6 case and never showed up at the rally -- although, to be fair, neither did Clinton or Edwards. Like the others, he has refrained from noting that Giuliani, in addition to being a cell phone exhibitionist and a 9/11-abuser, presided over a New York City police department famed for its torture and killing of young black males.

But it's Hillary who's causing the citzenry's heads to pitch forward and collapse on their chests. Every time she opens her mouth, her flat, monotonic voice lays out yards of opaque white gauze, muffling any possibility of "discourse." Where does she stand? Over here, and a little to the side, and maybe a few steps to the right. Hers is known as the "flawless" campaign, but no one in it seems to be able to turn off the endlessly triangulating tape in her head.

Lately she's taken to emitting to sudden, inexplicable, bursts of deep laughter -- known in the media as "the cackle." Whether this is a deliberate "humanizing" touch or a glitch in the computer program no one knows. According to the New York Times, the "weirdest moment" came in response to a question from Bob Schieffer about Republican charges that her health plan would lead to "socialized medicine." As the Times reports, "She giggled, giggled some more, could not seem to stop giggling -- 'Sorry, Bob,' she said -- and finally unleashed the full Cackle."

Maybe she has a better sense of humor than I'd imagined, because the thought that her plan to turn health care over to the private insurance companies might be "socialist" has me rolling on the floor too.

I just wish I could work up the same degree of enthusiasm for Hillary as my friend Katha Pollitt, who recently told the Times: "If people don't stop saying incredibly sexist things about Hillary Clinton, I may just have to vote for her." But what are these incredibly sexist things? True, there was the whole faux "cleavage" issue, and the occasional whack-job who writes to enlighten me about Clinton's bisexuality or Chelsea's true daddy.

Then, in of all places -- feminist Maureen Dowd's column on Sunday -- I found a genuinely sexist comment about Hillary. Dowd apparently approvingly quotes Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, saying that Clinton is "like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won't stop nagging you until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone."

Now I'm all for having literary editors, poetry editors, and the like commenting on our political process, but the "nagging housewife" image is not only a sexist stereotype -- it's about 50 years out of date, stemming from an era when most married women were financially dependent on their mates. Besides, male politicians are never likened to stereotypical husbands, even though some of them can be equally hard to dislodge from the recliner in front of the TV or, as the case may be, the Oval Office.

But the "hellish housewife" comment does not make Hillary a feminist martyr, nor does it make me any more willing to listen to her, either now or for the next five years. Trying to say nothing to offend, she ends up saying nothing to inspire or even inform, and Obama, though still far more engaged and human-like, risks ending up with another Ambien candidacy.

Part of the problem is structural. We make our presidential candidates campaign for at least a year at a stretch. Take a normal person and subject him or her to month after month of trail mix and chicken Caesars, sleep deprivation, and the need to be "on," smiling and handshaking, 16 hours a day. No solitary moments of reflection, no walks in the park, no escape into thrillers. What do you get after a few months of this? A golem, the artificial, man-like creature of Kabalistic lore, a personoid incapable of normal responses.

So yes, America is ready for a black or a female president. Just be sure to wake us up when it happens.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: campaign, clinton, obama, democratic candidates

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of thirteen books, including the New York Times bestseller Nickel and Dimed. A frequent contributor to the New York Times, Harpers, and the Progressive, she is a contributing writer to Time magazine. She lives in Florida.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
But can the country endure any more Democratic "leadership"?
Posted by: Rune on Oct 3, 2007 12:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The lack of "personality" (i.e., candor) displayed by Clinton or Obama is bothersome, but it is minor compared to the impact of furthering and expanding the rule of a corrupt and unresponsive Democratic majority by voting for any politicians who remain attached to that party while it perpetuates illegal wars and occupations, helps the Republicans scapegoat the free speech of groups that are usually faithful to the Democrats (if not to genuine progressives), refuses to impeach obvious criminals in the current administration, and primarily occupies itself with courting and hoarding the same outrageous levels of corporate cash that long ago corrupted the Republicans.

It is time to put it to the Democrats. Either force the party to stand up for the major concerns of the majority of Americans that are within the power of the Democratic majority in Congress to insist upon (if not force outright) or leave the party before the primaries start if you want the votes of those of us who stand anywhere to the left of neocon and fascist drivers of current legislative and policy trends. Anything less is just a recipe for perpetuating the most serious abuses of the Bush administration--though not necessarily with as much overt enthusiasm (oh, there's that candor thing again!)--which continues to get its way on most matters just as surely as when the Republicans held the rubber stamp. Either the party most come back to its roots or its candidates must turn their backs on the party and embrace the people they claim to represent if we are to have leadership that progressives and liberals can support or vote for in good faith.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where do we turn?
Posted by: vox persona on Oct 3, 2007 1:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Being a third party protest voter all my adult life (except for '04 when so much was obviously on the line), I just can't understand why our campaign system yields such clunkers. The system is now devised in such a way that for a candidate to do what they have to to get elected (raise insane amounts of money, pander, lie, fudge, triangulate, etc) actually impugns their character. Who do we even have out there? If Hillary is nominated, it will be 28 straight years of either a Bush or a Clinton being on the ticket, which is unacceptable to me. The nepotism aspect alone makes me queasy. And I don't want 4 or 8 more years of scandal politics. Obama is just too green for me, he's been in the Senate for what, a month? Edwards (my former Senator) used his whole term to run for President, he might have even been a shoe-in if he pulled a couple stints, became Governor, you know....governed a little. His ambition is blatant and unattractive. He was chosen by Kerry in a contrived way to run as VP because of his Q factor, he didn't even help carry his state. Who does that leave? Biden is more heavyweight, maybe when Democrats wake up and consider the electability factor, he can squeak in. Otherwise, the best I can hope for is a hung convention and a draft pick from off the board (like Even Bayh), or maybe a unity ticket....Sam Nunn/William Cohen, or Gary Hart/Chuck Hagel or some other unlikely combination. I'm reaching hard, I know, but that's the only way I'd ever vote for a Rethuglican who isn't Ron Paul. I wish there was someone else I liked running besides Biden, I'm tired of the campaign already. There should be public financing, a rotating regional primary system, & rules against our eternal campaign system. Tweak the system in the right way and we just may get better candidates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Where do we turn? Posted by: efficacy
» RE: Where do we turn? Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: Where do we turn? Posted by: christastropher
» RE: Where do we turn? Posted by: Intellect
» RE: Where do we turn? Posted by: Joe
wrong on hillary
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Oct 3, 2007 3:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"the cackle" everyone is talking about and is mentioned in the article was just a laugh. it seems that there might have been some time delay between the moderator, Schieffer, and Clinton which gave the laugh an odd 'out of place-ness' unless you happened to be paying attention and noted the time delay. much ado about nothing. someone's trying to pull a john dean on you and you simply parrot what you were told, not what you heard. get it straight.

as far as hillary herself. competent. driven. and probably would do a good job except for those anti-clintons, who would see nothing good in her at all. does she also have a personal agenda? now who's being naive? each and every person seeking that office has a personal agenda. a to-do list. most effective as a president, a good chance at being so, but not, however, my choice. at this point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: wrong on hillary Posted by: maestra
» RE: wrong on hillary Posted by: Basenjis
» yes, the reasons i don't like her Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: wrong on hillary Posted by: JonA
» RE: wrong on hillary Posted by: 1gma
» RE: imperialist hillary Posted by: peacelf
Boring can be good.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Oct 3, 2007 3:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having a distinctive personality can often be a warning sign in a leader. Ever notice how many leaders of progressive Western and Northern European countries are boring geeks, and how many despots are interesting characters?

As for gender and race, our obsession with a meaningless milestone of having our first female or black president seems to subject those candidates to a separate standard. Is Obama too white to be the first black president? Does Hillary lack the warm nurturing qualities to be the first female president?...And does this article suggest that black/female candidates must be less boring than white males?

Maybe we should have a new way of picking a president. They're all sequestered and subject to a gag rule for the entire campaign, and nobody is allowed to know the color or gender of the candidate. Their only communication would be to submit a 500 word essay on why they should be president. Of course, this assumes that most Americans can read and have an attention span of more than 10 seconds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and the winner is?
Posted by: rocketman on Oct 3, 2007 3:56 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite the fact that the democratic candidates lack much, experience being the most glaring, the total destruction of the Presidency by Bush will certainly guarantee one of them taking office.. I fear it will be another "Jimmy Carter" though - a back lash without much thought! No body wins

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

None of the above
Posted by: Christie on Oct 3, 2007 4:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In spite of being told incessantly that Hillary, Obama and maybe Edwards are the forerunners, we sound quite ho-hum, even weary of contemplating this situation. Al Gore may actually be the forerunner when we consider that he gets about 10 % of the votes without being given as one of the choices. Al Gore was the first political figure to oppose the Iraq war, he is also the lead champion in the fight against global warming, a passionate defender of our Constitution, and an unyielding voice against the Bush Administration's abuse of power. Given his unmatched experience and leadership on issues of moral imperative, Gore is the leader this country needs to regain our democracy, There are several Draft Gore grassroots efforts covering a number of states. I believe that many, many people would be enthusiastic and eager to support his campaign for President of the US if given the chance. Let’s make it a possibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» i wish, along with you Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: None of the above Posted by: rocketman
» "Clinton stigma" Posted by: NWCrow
» RE: "Clinton stigma" Posted by: peacelf
» hagio-Gore Posted by: giles
» Well said, G....well said Posted by: vox persona
» RE: hagio-Gore Posted by: Intellect
On the subject (sort of...)
Posted by: Leman on Oct 3, 2007 5:18 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all - thank you for a thoughtful yet prickly piece. It was serious yet entertaining. I will not comment on the substance of it, since I neither consider Mrs. Clinton a viable candidate nor would be too excited to see her elected.

[...] What do you get after a few months of this? A golem, the artificial, man-like creature of Kabalistic lore, a personoid incapable of normal responses.

It depends...
Her husband did not turn into a golem, did he? I will always remember him as not only a smart politician but also as a pretty cool guy. He could've skipped the whole "I didn't enhale" embarrassment - but other than that he was pretty far from "a personoid incapable of normal responses".

Anyway, the main reason I am posting is (as always) to provide a right turn to the discussion. I understand that both the author and the audience are not interested much in what's going on on the other side of the campaign fence at this point. But since we are talking about a possibility of electing a female President - why is it that nobody mentions one lady who is immencely more qualified than Mrs. Clinton?

Her career track included positions of the Federal Trade Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Transportation and a Senator. She was widely expected to become the Vice President in the current administration (except for sudden twist where You-Know-Who searched thoroughly and decided he was better qualified for that post).

So, every time we talk about potential female Presidents - why not be fair and mention Elizabeth Dole too?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: On the subject (sort of...) Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous
» Age factor Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Age factor Posted by: salmagundi
» elizabeth dole is a bush a**-polyp Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» Are you friggin' kidding me? Posted by: vox persona
» Thanks Posted by: Leman
» RE: On the subject (sort of...) Posted by: Intellect
Some Have Been Able to Overcome That "Lack-of-Personality" Disorder
Posted by: kgosztola on Oct 3, 2007 5:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While Obama and Clinton may be suffering from lack-of-personality disorder because they have been subjected to "month after month of trail mix and chicken Caesars, sleep deprivation, and the need to be "on," smiling and handshaking, 16 hours a day. No solitary moments of reflection, no walks in the park, no escape into thrillers," some candidates still have maintained their personalities.

For instance, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel have shown that they can bring wit, heart, and intelligence to the campaign trail that Americans need to see in candidates. The two have shown how advantageous it can be to have a candidate that does not cater to the establishment or allow themselves to be a slave to the corporate interests or special interests.

I do not think Obama or Clinton suffers a "lack-of-personality" disorder because he or she cannot hack it on the campaign trail. I just think they are robotic and too much like clones to be interesting to the American people because they have to watch who they offend.

The test is this: If any of the Democratic candidates can appear on the Real Time w/ Bill Maher show and walk away having gotten laughs and applause, than he or she deserves to be president because he or she will have proven that he or she can be trusted and be loose, not tight, in front of the American people. So far, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich have proven they can open up to the American people and not hide anything by allowing Bill Maher to ask them tough questions Americans deserve to hear answered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

glow
Posted by: glow on Oct 3, 2007 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read Alter-net to get some alternative views and information that is not making it in the corporate media. So could we read more about issues and less about personalities or lack thereof?
Is this becoming just a silly provocative entertainment site or can we get real.
To poke fun at or to try to make an issue out of politicians because of their laugh or their caution on the campaign trail is just plain boring and corporate media redundant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: glow Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: glow Posted by: animalleaderisgreat
» RE: glow Posted by: 1gma
The Lonnnnnnng, Lonnnnnng Campaign
Posted by: catullus13 on Oct 3, 2007 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think part of the problem is how lonnnnnng presidential campaigns have become. What is it now? Two years? It should be two months, the way it was back in the 19th century.

It's like a perpetual job interview, where you're being put under the microscope and asked over and over: What would you say your greatest strengths are? What would you say your biggest weaknesses are? Where do you see yourself in five years? What do you hope to achieve here?

Yi! I've gone through that all too much recently, but not continuously day after day, week after week. If our candidates seem a bit robotic, I give them points for even being able to stand upright after many months of this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is so bad about being normal?
Posted by: wrensis on Oct 3, 2007 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have the opportunity to elect probably the brightest person available at this time for president. Frankly my dear....I am not at all interstested in "personality". I am looking for a leader. What ARE you people looking for? A a TV sit com? The laugh is a very well orchestrated response to offensive questions. She has done a remarkable job in NY as a Senator and will given the opportunity will be someone this country can at last hold up their held and admit to having voted for. After 6 1/2 years of the worst president this country has ever known no one is going to be able to take you back to your disney land perspective. To clean up the mess left in 08 will take an enormous amount of intelligence. Something sorely missing in this discussion and article. What you want Guiliani?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Personality Drain
Posted by: Urstrly on Oct 3, 2007 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well put, Barbara. As soon as a Democrat shows a little spontaneous vitality, the consultants start replacing it with some synthetic mix that they think will sell. Think Al Gore in 2000, Howard Dean in the 2004 primaries who was replaced by the "electable" John Kerry, who wouldn't even stand up for his own record of heroism and principled opposition to the war in which he fought. Hillary's practiced chuckle (not to mention her pathetic attempt to talk black for the NAACP) gives me the creeps. Did you note that she signed on to yet another warmongering resolution last week, this time against Iran?

The only Democrat who doesn't fit the profile is Kucinich, with whom I agree on almost everything but whose persona is already so deflated I can't embrace it. Gravel, Richardson and Dodd still have some spontaneity left in them, but you have to wonder if it's only because the DNC doesn't consider them viable. If we wind up with another Republican actor for president (and there are several in this race) maybe the Dems will finally ditch the consultants.

p.s. I delete all your emails, James Carville, and I'm not buying your books, Bob Shrum and Mark Penn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Personality Drain Posted by: mick3
» RE: The Personality Drain Posted by: Intellect
mick3
Posted by: mick3 on Oct 3, 2007 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not to worry. There's not going to be another election. Does anyone really believe that, having established a "legal" dictatorship (via the Patriot Act, et al., plus presidential signing statements declaring himself above and beyond the law) Bush, or rather Cheney, is going to hand it over to anyone else?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good point Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: mick3 Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: mick3 Posted by: 1gma
PERSONALITY DISORDERS THEN AND NOW
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 3, 2007 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw what I thought were serious personality problems when Bush was running. It was one of many forbidden topics. He had been a serious drinker and while he stopped, the reasons for drinking were/are still there. He was/is quick to anger. I don't see comparable red flags among Democrats. Campaigning began much too early and and we are filling the time with nonsense. I don't blame Hillary for laughing. The Repubicans have a collection of nut cases but again it is a forbidden topic. Dysfunctional marriages=red flags. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Right On Mick 3
Posted by: Nugeman on Oct 3, 2007 7:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
King George and his minion Darth Vader Cheney will never give up their leadership of this country. After all, I read that so many times here in Alternet from so many of the posters, it must be true.

This election stuff is nonsence. Bush will be king for life, so many of you have said because of his actions. So don't waste time on these presidential candidates, cause it ain't gonna happen, baby.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ight On Mick 3 Posted by: VZEQICVA
BUZZ: Proposed People's Campaign to Assert Our Full Democratic Rights
Posted by: etisoppa on Oct 3, 2007 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am sure it is all our experience, or "sense-of-it" that the NWO powers-that-be do not want "people" talking about "mind assault technology" especially as an actuality.

I am going to assume that you are ALL like me 100% four-square behind the US Constitutionals our modern Democratic Western democracy civilization of individual rights freedom of thought, expression and congregation. We did not defeat the Totalitarian Communists just to become a Totalitarian society on ANY basis at all.

I am suggesting a campaign where we assert to these NWO people that we as still Western democracies with ALL our rights 100% intact. NOT one % point of our rights have been forfeited for ANYTHING.

So to make sure they understand this I am proposing that we start a campaign where on this November 23 2007 we are all as free citizens, going to talk about "mind assault technology" to each other , to the media, on the net any place we can, whether we believe in mind assault technology or not.

And for those who may not like to do this on that day, they can do it on November 24 2007. We have to let these NWO people understand that our full Western individual rights are still intact and it is something we are proud of. We feel proud of being part of this civilization which demands the best of qualities in each person.


WE WANT TO CREATE AN INTERNET "BUZZ" THAT WILL BECOME A FULL BUZZ.POST THE IDEA ON WEBSITES ON ALTERNATIVE NEWS SITE ETC. POST WITH PEOPLE KNOWN TO BE 100% BEHIND PUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN POLITICS , MEDIA, GROUPS WITH CONSTITUTIONAL VIEWS ETC.


AS to any who may have any belief-system reservations about doing this ( I sense thee may be some) just remember we must use as role models, those who have lived and are fully living, the Christian principles especially in regards to how they have treated others. To find such individuals, look where there are or have been Christians who have assisted others without regard to their faith or belief and have not tried or conditioned their regard, assistance, respect and treatment on being able preach to or convert others. And remember the lives of those who are from other belief-systems, cultures, religions ( or not) and who have lived just as exemplary lives as these other role-models.


NO one can convince me that usage of this mind assault technology is part of ANY civilized religious practices. And if anyone wants to build a religious practice around this technology, we are ALL protected from such abuses under the Constitutions of our Western democratic civilization!

I am sure no one takes their rights as BS . For psychological and other reasons we ALL HAVE TO DO THIS!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary and the White Male Club
Posted by: peacelf on Oct 3, 2007 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's difficult to be critical of any Dem candidate when the current neo-con administration invites defeat on so many levels. But, for the sake of democracy, we should never check our critical thinking skills at the door of election for the highest office in america.

That's why we have to ask, not if america is ready for a woman or black president, but if the candidates fit our ideals about furthering democracy in a thin or weak democratic nation.

Let's face it, whether we had/have a democracy is in question, because the people speak and know-it-all politicians pretend to listen, then ignore us. For example, the mandate in the last Congressional elections was "get us out of Iraq! NOW!" We all cheered when the Democrats regained control of Congress. Nearly one year later, the Iraq war surged, and the Dems continued funding the war.

Now, the Dems say they'll get us out of Iraq when they win the presidency in 08, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich who has voted against funding the war and plans an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces upon his election.

Hillary, on the other hand, refuses to set a timetable for withdrawing troops and has more than suggested a permanant U.S. presence in Iraq.

Robert Terry's essay on "The White Male Club" might shed some light on Hillary's role in american politics. Terry writes:
"A club is an organization of people which projects a distinguishing purpose(s) - different from other clubs, selects members in keeping with that purpose, bestows supposed material and psychological benefits on the membership for joining and keeping the membership in good standing, distributes influence and power among its members, establishes some form of organization in terms of institutional procedures, practices, and policies to carry out internal and external objectives and legitimates certain life styles and requires at least public acquiescence to them."

That we live in a white patriarchal dominated society (aka, "the club") is well known, so to explain Hillary's
poll-driven, lobbyist-influenced politics, they are rooted in her desire to be a part of the club. Obama, for the most part, seeks membership as well, but let's stick to Hillary.

Not that I want to blame them-- the rules for white male club membership are long established, and any candidate who seeks political offices either plays by the rules, or risks being marginalized by the corporate-owned white patriarchal media. Because, the white male club owns and operates everything to their benefit.

Every institution, from education to agriculture, corporations to state welfare, is designed to benefit the club. Enthusiastic membership in the club can gain one position and power, even riches. But, challenge the club's power and existence!...you're sure to end up like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X or Robert Kennedy.

Hillary became a full fledged member of the White Male club in 1994 when she backed down on universal health care. Eventually, childrens learn. Today, she supports neoliberal economic reforms that increase the profits of the health insurance industry by either government augmentation of health corporation profits for low income people and by forcing middle income people to buy health insurance.

Black, female, Latino, or caucasion; it doesn't matter; if you're not part of the club, you're part of the club's detractors, thus excluded.

But, membership is priceless!

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: two thirds? Posted by: peacelf
our homogenized politicians
Posted by: zooeyhall on Oct 3, 2007 11:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is no surprise. The people running for office today are so interested in getting elected regardless, that they avoid anything controversial. Per the advice of their legions of highly paid campaign advisers, they refuse to tackle or address in any meaningful way the real issues and problems that the electorate is facing. They are so worried about appearing or being labled "extremist". Being "centrist" is the only possible position to take nowadays.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WOULD IT BE TOO MUCH TO ASK
Posted by: Mewsician on Oct 3, 2007 11:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....for people like Ehrenreich to stop the mindless bitching and freaking GET BEHIND the Democrats in this election cycle? I read pieces like this and want to scream. Would the author and others who have made such scathing comments on this thread prefer that we elect another Republican? Can anyone really, seriously doubt that any one of the Democratic front-runners would be a ten-thousandfold improvement over the disaster of these past years? What in the hell is wrong with anybody who, short of taking a Dem to task for proven murder or outright buggery, thinks it's the better course to nitpick and tear down the GOP's opposition at this crucial point in the country's history? This nation will not survive more of what we've endured in recent years. It simply will not. No Dem candidate may be perfect, but my God - compared with that endless stream of sorry losers the GOP is trotting out, can anyone seriously believe that the Dems aren't far and away the better alternative? Grown-ups understand that you go into the election with the choices you have among candidates, not the choices you WISH you had. And yes, our political system is rotten to the core with special interest money, and desperately needs to be fixed, but the Dems have to play the game as it's conducted and that means they have to do all the fundraising it takes to win. At no level could there be serious argument as to whether Clinton-Obama-Edwards (or any combination thereof) is the better course in the '08 election. So Barbara and others - please stop stoking the flames of the anti-Democratic ilk in this country by picking the Dems apart. Let's get one of them in the White House and THEN start fine-tuning things (election reform, getting out of Iraq, etc.), for God's sake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Personality schmersonality!
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 3, 2007 12:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, Ehrenreich, electing a president is like a Mrs. America beauty pageant? No only be beautiful but have personality, too?

Yeah, what America needs is more actors. More entertainers, more likeable leaders--like Reagan. I admit that's a big part of what gets politicians elected. But it has zero,zip,zilch to do with governing. Plato tells us it is the fatal weakness of democracy. It gets George Wallaces and George Bushes elected.

Now I can understand, having heard you speak, Ehrenreich, how you are touchy on the issues, since you come across in the same way. Instead of telling a candidate how to look good, I suggest you find a way to deal with your own sense of inadequacy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What disturbs me the most
Posted by: improperly_sedated on Oct 3, 2007 3:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
about Hillary is how much this seems like eight years ago.

Our rulers have chosen the next president, and we shall now be led through the empty ritual that we persist in calling an "election." It's hard to find many actual Hillary supporters, and yet the latest "survey" always tells us she's our "choice." If she winds up being appointed by the Supreme Court, I will be unsurprised.

Be seeing you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rot In Hell!!!
Posted by: MAD on Oct 3, 2007 3:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"According to the New York Times, the "weirdest moment" came in response to a question from Bob Schieffer about Republican charges that her health plan would lead to "socialized medicine." As the Times reports, "She giggled, giggled some more, could not seem to stop giggling -- 'Sorry, Bob,' she said -- and finally unleashed the full Cackle."

That's precisely why you won't get my vote you lying bitch!! God forbid we socialize medicine. God forbid we even insure children for the paltry sum of $5 billion a year. Oh well, that money is better spent making amputees out of Iraqi children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You are correct. Posted by: Sojourner
There are very few in the Prez race that are not
Posted by: SamFox on Oct 3, 2007 5:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CFR members. Two who are not are Ron Paul & Tom Tancredo.

Hillary & Obamma are both CFR. so Is Rudy the cross dresser & Freddy T.

Bush is skull & Bones. Another division of the New World Order crowd.

What we need more than any thing else in the US at ATM is a return to true Constitutional original intent government. That is where Ron Paul comes in. He has a 100% PRO constitution voting record. He wants to RE establish State's rights & personal liberty & responsibility. He wants to get back to the Constitution & Founder's advice regarding the relatively new US foreign policy of interventionism. He would prefer the US mind it's own business regarding other nations. Trade with them, dialog with them but quit meddling in their affairs.
None of the Dems & few of the Repubs will stop the war.

Here is part of where I am coming from.

Here is a bit about our rosy economy:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd288.htm

Hillary will end the War?

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin402.htm

A Christian Pastor takes on the religious right-

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin401.htm

Here are some articles on the CFR-
http://www.google.com/search?q=+CFR&btnG=
Search&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newswithviews.
com&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newswithviews.com
(Above is one link cut for space)

Here is why it was illegal for GWB to invade Iraq-

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin32.htm

Ron Paul-
http://www.newswithviews.com/Betty/Freauf107.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff151.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd272.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Takala/rudy19.htm
Here are some YouTube vids about Ron-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqlnl-T3Gxk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PTMgLTgiDY
Ron Paul & blow back-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjqGBBFiowE
A lady talks up Ron Paul-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn7Nq4Z2-Sg

That's enough for now. Check out Ron Paul. He is a great hope for the US but he can't do it alone.

SamFox

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democrats Dance United
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Oct 3, 2007 6:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dearest Barbara Ehrenreich . . .

Again, I applaud your awareness for nuance. The "Clinton cackle" and the actions of the Ambiance candidate cause me great concern as well.

I too am distressed by the lack of responsiveness her rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards demonstrate on issues of import. The soft response to Jena Six situation is among many malleable moments amongst the front-runners. The continuance of private programs, that the Big Three title Universal Health Care frightens me. I suspect if we sustain the status quo, as the three think apt, all will worsen.

I wish I could blame the weak stances of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards on the length of the campaign, the food they ingest, or sleep deprivation. I do not. I think if we focused on other than image, the months available to meet and greet the candidates would be grand. I believe this could be a wondrous opportunity to engage authentically with the Presidential aspirants.

As I assess the campaign, I feel as though I am at a high school dance. Most of the boys look for the "girl' who will make the best impression on their chums. Fellows yearn for a strong woman, one that stands above the crowd. Chaps crave the popular cheerleader type. She understands the need to fight for what is right. If her friends and family are powerful, all the better.

The female types who wish to dance want to hang with a winner. The women also take a long look at the guys. Tall, dark, and handsome is appealing. Sincerity is sweet. A gentleman who adores his family is fine.

I share my reflection and invite your review . . .
Democrats Dance United; Kucinich Differs. Exit Iraq, 2007 or 2013

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

L Fleetwood
Posted by: ArthurTHimmelman on Oct 3, 2007 6:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have to get real about the mentality of the American people, particularly the 50 to 60% of us who vote. We are, for the most part, an incredibly ignorant and simple-minded people. If anyone doubts this, think about the fact that the American people elected Bush even after he was handed the presidency he lost by the Surpreme Court, and even after we knew him very well. Most Democratic presidential candidates are boring, timid, and uninspriring not only because of the nature of their personalities, but also because they realize how consistently Americans vote against their own best interests. If you dobut this, try to tell the truth about any of the major issues of the day and see if you can get elected to anything more than a congressional seat in a highly "progressive district" or, on the rarest of occasions, a senate seat. And, even so, you know what happened to Paul Wellstone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary for nuclear invasion of Iran
Posted by: herbal on Oct 3, 2007 10:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For peace activists there is no more urgent issue than this concerning the Primaries:

Hillary addressing AIPAC (3 min.):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVWagtd8uwM&mode=related&search=

Hillary's "No options left on the table..." nuclear threat.

Then consider the company she keeps at AIPAC:
Rev. Hagee the self-described Christian Zionist. rapture cultist: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDRxmqOn7x4&mode=related&search=

Will US foreign policy continue to be directed by AIPAC under Hillary Clinton? All the candidates need to be asked if they have accepted donations from foreign agencies and lobbies like AIPAC. It is time to join with the Jewish peace activists here and in Israel, and not fear the Lukid zionist backlash of AIPAC. Israelis are deeply divided over war and peace issues; we simply don't get their news past the US corporate media censors. Hillary Clinton represents a travesty of an added 4 to 8 years of the same world hegemony as Bush Jr. Let us not forget her perfect Bush agenda voting record up until the day her campaign began! There should be no options left on the table to defeat Hillary Clinton in the Primaries. We certainly must remember the Republican media campaign to declare all candidates as "unelectable" with the exception of Kerry (Yale, Skull and Bones, Wall St.) in 2004. This article seems to be cast in that mold that we see being cast in the TV "debates"; downplaying the most progressive candidates while focusing on the least threatening to the status quo. What do Carl Rove, Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton have in common? Invasion of Iran fixation.

Hillary AIPAC video address:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVWagtd8uwM&mode=related&search=

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

only someone who is asleep would....
Posted by: drblack on Oct 4, 2007 1:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only someone who is asleep would think Hillary is anything more than a corporate schill who will sell out Americans Freedom and prosperity like Bill and george have done as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not related
Posted by: Jeanne on Oct 4, 2007 6:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but... this was on Media Matters: (Ann) Coulter: "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president" I think this proves she (Coulter) is a he. Otherwise would (s)he really advocate disenfranchising him/herself? So, despite the perceived tedium of the Obama v Clinton campaign, remember, the alternative is sooo much worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is only so much they can say. They are not their own people.
Posted by: american on Oct 5, 2007 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The one who created th