I've always found Clinton hatred a bit of a baffling phenomenon. At times, I've disliked the political timidity of the Clintons, or thought that Bill Clinton allowed his personal appetites to overwhelm his public duties to the detriment of the country, or felt that Hillary Clinton approached the presidency too much like a middle manager and too little like a director, but I've never gotten the hatred. Which is why Andrew Sullivan's blog has been particularly fascinating this year. Read his liveblogging of last night's debate. Edwards never even makes an appearance. Obama, who Andrew is deeply committed to, hardly even qualifies as a walk-on character. Instead, it's Clinton. It's Clinton and Clinton and Clinton and Clinton. At 9:30 we learn that "Just like Bush, she cannot talk about her own weakness." At 9:50 she "manages to pivot the sub-prime mess to pander to blacks, Asians and Hispanics...Her tone is a little hectoring as well." At 10:57 we learn "You have to understand that she can tell lies almost as well as her husband."This isn't, mind you, an article on Hillary Clinton. It's a debate analysis. And it's fascinating, because it's the real world thought processes of someone who genuinely loathes Hillary Clinton. Everything becomes evidence of personal cynicism and ambition. Nothing is a slip, or harmless, or just politics. Every word, gesture, and political feint is evidence of Shakespearian levels of cynicism and power-lust. And this belief in the Manichean size of her traits makes her the center of gravity. Her failures are so deep, her appetite for conquest so epic, that everything must revolve around her story. I watched the debate and saw her and Obama basically did equally well, which, given the dynamics of the race, was a win for her. Edwards came off as likable and committed, but didn't do much to insert himself into the storyline. Sullivan watched and saw...Clinton. A particular version of Clinton, but Clinton nevertheless. It's a whole different way of experiencing politics.(Photo used under a Creative Commons license from Flickr user hassan abdel-rahman.) CLINTON HATRED.
I've always found Clinton hatred a bit of a baffling phenomenon. At times, I've disliked the political timidity of the Clintons, or thought that Bill Clinton allowed his personal appetites to overwhelm his public duties to the detriment of the country, or felt that Hillary Clinton approached the presidency too much like a middle manager and too little like a director, but I've never gotten the hatred. Which is why Andrew Sullivan's blog has been particularly fascinating this year. Read his liveblogging of last night's debate. Edwards never even makes an appearance. Obama, who Andrew is deeply committed to, hardly even qualifies as a walk-on character. Instead, it's Clinton. It's Clinton and Clinton and Clinton and Clinton. At 9:30 we learn that "Just like Bush, she cannot talk about her own weakness." At 9:50 she "manages to pivot the sub-prime mess to pander to blacks, Asians and Hispanics...Her tone is a little hectoring as well." At 10:57 we learn "You have to understand that she can tell lies almost as well as her husband."This isn't, mind you, an article on Hillary Clinton. It's a debate analysis. And it's fascinating, because it's the real world thought processes of someone who genuinely loathes Hillary Clinton. Everything becomes evidence of personal cynicism and ambition. Nothing is a slip, or harmless, or just politics. Every word, gesture, and political feint is evidence of Shakespearian levels of cynicism and power-lust. And this belief in the Manichean size of her traits makes her the center of gravity. Her failures are so deep, her appetite for conquest so epic, that everything must revolve around her story. I watched the debate and saw her and Obama basically did equally well, which, given the dynamics of the race, was a win for her. Edwards came off as likable and committed, but didn't do much to insert himself into the storyline. Sullivan watched and saw...Clinton. A particular version of Clinton, but Clinton nevertheless. It's a whole different way of experiencing politics.(Photo used under a Creative Commons license from Flickr user hassan abdel-rahman.) 
