Friday, January 26, 2007

The hysteria over Hillary

Mrs. Clinton is running for President as the first serious female candidate in American history. I don't think this is unexpected or outrageous, given the number of women running for elective office at all. Moreover, I'm told that every Senator looks in the mirror and sees a potential President. Nothing alarming or unusual there. So why is Mrs. Clinton alone repeatedly vilified as the Antichrist of our time in some corners? The London Times American editor, Gerard Baker, has an extraordinarily nasty and vituperative column about Mrs. Clinton today in which he calls her America's "Lady MacBeth"--a pretty serious charge. He cites as evidence

a) that Mrs. Clinton has moderated "radical" views over the years to conceal them from us

b) that she parlayed her husband's infidelity into a successful Senatorial campaign(I guess you are not supposed to take any advantage whatsoever of favorable circumstances)

c) that she cheered the President on in the runup to the Iraq war, then(gasp)CHANGED HER MIND(!)about the wisdom of the war

d) that she is nothing but a creature of dark, boundless ambition who would doubtless run over her grandmother, a la Chuck Colson, to become President.

Where does this animosity come from? On what grounds does her Presidential run make Mrs. Clinton Lady MacBeth? Can anyone explain how and why so many otherwise rational people seem to believe that she is the Antichrist? I agree there are problems with a Clinton candidacy, not least the role of the tall man who lives in the same household with her, but I can't see that she is any more radical, or ambitious, or ruthless than any other politician. She won 78% of the vote in New York State last time, an impossible task for a radiclib harridan. So why all the bile?


Blogger jodmeister said...

I think I saw on a HRC biography that one of her Yale classmates predicted HRC would be the first female POTUS. Will she be correct?

3:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Free Web Counter
hit Counter