Part of the reason I can't just write off supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton for President - besides the fact that she will most likely be the Democratic nominee and I refuse to shoot myself in the foot and refuse to back her - is that she just gets the nut jobs frothing. Looking back over the 1990's, part of the fun of the time was the psychotic break Clinton forced upon so many. Here was a guy, moderate in his politics, personable in his character, certainly a womanizer (but how many politicians have forgone this obvious perk of power?), whose one obvious flaw was that he wore his ambition on his sleeve. Yet, for all that and all that, all sorts of horrors were attributed to him, from murdering one of his oldest friends (because his wife had an affair with him, broke it off and he was going to go public with it) to running a huge drug smuggling operation while governor of Arkansas (and here we thought it was the CIA who ran drugs, via the Contras, during the 1980's).
The attacks on Hillary were, and continue to be, far worse. Her sexual identity is attacked. Her parenting and spousal skills are impugned. Her religious faith is mocked. Her integrity is considered, by all insiders of whatever stripe, to be non-existent. Nothing she says or does is ever taken on whatever merits it might have, but always seen through the strange, distorted lens of Hillary hatred.
Two of the latest examples, one of them repeating a tired chestnut concerning Sen. Clinton's sexuality, can be found here at Media Matters. This first one is a doozy, because it works on the assumption that everyone assumes they know something about Hillary Clinton that (a) is factually inaccurate, and (b) would be irrelevant if true. Trying to "smear" Clinton as a lesbian assumes there is something bad about lesbians. Of course, this all begs the question of the relevance of personal questions in public debate - something these same folks get all purple-faced about when questions are raised about Mary Cheney's sexual orientation.
The other item, also at Media Matters, has Tucker Carlson whining about Hillary Clinton's voice. You know, this is just the kind of thing a closet queen would carry on about - while he sits down to listen to Barbara Streisand records (but, oh, so sorry, I shouldn't drag up questions of sexual orientation because they don't matter, right?). This is among the really stupid things the media obsess over - all one has to do is tune in to Hardball on any given night and Chris Matthews will be sifting through the Clinton's underwear drawer, concerned as always with whatever it is the couple might or might not be doing together.
While I still think, despite my sister's boredom with him, that John Edwards would be a great candidate, his early mistakes - the $400 haircut thing will never go away now, no matter how hard we try to erase it - show he has yet to put together a disciplined team to deal with inconsequential matters. I think that, despite his tremendous gifts, not the least of which is passion and dedication, he won't get it. Obama is too new, too green. For good or ill, I think Clinton gets the nod, and whomever the Republicans put up, no matter how hard they try - all they will do is remind people how much they loved her husband, how much better things were when he was President, and she will waltz across the finish line, in my humble prediction, with close to 350 electoral votes. I bet, and I will stick by this for the next eighteen months or so (yes the election is that far away), the solid south for the Republicans won't even hold.
The truth is, part of me wants to support Sen. Clinton because she inspires such pathological hatred among those who have done so much damage to our country for so long. Nominating her would guarantee months of ranting and raving, much mouth-frothing and tantrums on the right, keeping a Republican victory ever more at bay. This is perhaps not the best reason to support someone, but, you know what, a fun campaign would be better than a dull one.
Virtual Tin Cup
