God help me. This morning I found my own opinion of Hillary Clinton in Maureen Dowd’s column:
“She hasn’t accomplished anything on her own since getting admitted to Yale Law,” wrote Joan Di Cola, a Boston lawyer, in a letter to The Wall Street Journal this week, adding: “She isn’t Dianne Feinstein, who spent years as mayor of San Francisco before becoming a senator, or Nancy Pelosi, who became Madam Speaker on the strength of her political abilities. All Hillary is, is Mrs. Clinton. She became a partner at the Rose Law Firm because of that, senator of New York because of that, and (heaven help us) she could become president because of that.”
Hat tip: memeorandum
I don’t believe that the 2008 presidential election will be determined by hatred of George W. Bush, by fear of terrorism, by how the war in Iraq is going (and, believe me, it will still be going), by how the economy is doing, by defective products from China, by healthcare, Social Security or any of the 10,000,000 other issues that are on the table, under the table, or can be brought to the table. It will be determined, like every other presidential election that I can remember, by how well the winning candidate (and/or his/her campaign staff) is able to weave his/her life experiences into a credible explanation for why he or she should be president in a manner that paints a positive picture of the United States and its future.
Do that for Hillary Clinton. I dare you. Whenever I attempt the exercise, to paint a compelling picture I’ve got to veer so far from reality that I can’t even see reality from where I’m standing. Mind you, I think that you can make a credible case for Sen. Clinton being the head of a social services agency or a legal services organization or even, since that’s what New Yorkers seem to want, the junior senator from New York.