I think it was George Santayana who characterized fanaticism as redoubling your efforts when you’d lost sight of your goal and nowhere is that truer than in the contest over who will become the next president. Conor Friedersdorf explains why Hillary Clinton has never made much sense as a Democratic presidential candidate:
As Hillary Clinton loses ground to Bernie Sanders in Iowa, where her lead shrinks by the day, it’s worth noticing that she has never made particular sense as the Democratic Party’s nominee. She may be more electable than her social-democratic rival from Vermont, but plenty of Democrats are better positioned to represent the center-left coalition. Why have they let the former secretary of state keep them out of the race? If Clinton makes it to the general election, I understand why most Democrats will support her. She shares their views on issues as varied as preserving Obamacare, abortion rights, extending legal status to undocumented workers, strengthening labor unions, and imposing a carbon tax to slow climate change.
But most Democrats hold similar positions on those issues. So why are Democrats supporting her in a primary bid? She’s awful on other issues they’ve deemed hugely important.
Maybe it’s just the pursuit of power for its own sake. It will be interesting to see how Sec. Clinton continues to wrap herself in her husband’s legacy while repudiating his policies. Interesting in a grim sort of way, I mean.
She is a lousy candidate. I suspect there are some people who actually support her based upon the sum total of her policies, but I suspect most just support her because they think she can get elected and/or she is a woman.
Steve
Republicans went after Hillary in a big way when her husband was President. Very strange in a way — Eleanor Roosevelt, perhaps, had a number of critics, but usually First Ladies are treated politely. Bess Truman, Mame Eisenhower, Jackie Kennedy, Lady Bird Johnson, Pat Nixon, Betty Ford, Rosalynn Carter, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, Michelle Obama — How many of these women were accused almost daily as murderers, tax cheats, and threats to the American Republic? None that I can recall.
So by constantly harping on her evilness, Republicans made Hillary into A Big Fracking Deal. Every day she escaped assasination or impeachment for her crimes was a victory for Democrats, every election when she ran for office on her own had the life-or-death importance of a gladitorial combat.
But wait, there’s more! Not only has she become important in her own right, every victory she wins serves to burnish the reputation of Bill Clinton, who was the Democratic President most hated by Republicans before Barak Obama came along. And every victory for Hillary is a victory for W*O*M*E*N!!! because all American women just know Hillary wouldn’t be getting the crap she gets if she were just another male politician.
So. She’s acquired a sort of symbolic importance which transcends her actual accomplishments. Like Juan Peron or FDR or Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher or the Pope.
How many of those whom you mention were touted by their then-sitting president husbands as “two presidents for the price of one”? How many had major political roles in the administration?
She was a college educated woman working outside the home in a professional field — law — for years before she and Bill came to the White House. There was not the slightest possibility that she would pretend as Frst Lady to be a happy 1950’s housewife with just a modicum of interest in public affairs. It was inevitable that this situation would arise as women entered the workforce and we’d all be better off if the Republicans if had the sense to shrug at Bill’s remarks and let things go. They didn’t.
You asked a question. I answered. She took a political position while First Lady. She was treated like a politician.