Skip to main content

What if Hillary had ...

As liberals rail against the debt limit deal and Barack Obama’s choices leading up to what they see as an epic capitulation, it seems fair to wonder if a different president -- someone with, say, a reputation for toughness and savvy and with a history of combating Republican obstructionists -- could have produced a better outcome. Someone like, oh, I don't know ... Hillary Clinton?


That, after all, was the premise of Clinton's Democratic primary campaign in 2008 -- that Obama might be able to inspire the masses, but that only she had the experience and know-how to get results. And now here's Obama seemingly validating it -- and hardly for the first time in his presidency. Can we now safely say that Democrats made the wrong choice three years ago?

The short answer is: No. Believe it or not, the best evidence is that if Clinton were now the president -- or, for that matter, if any other mainstream Democrat were -- the differences would be very small. (Jonathan Bernstein, “Would President Hillary be a stronger leader than President Obama?,” Salon, 3 August 2011)

It's in her wish

If Obama could somehow have made America continue on in a spirit of Krugman-style never-ending growth, it would make him uncomfortable -- his style is to walk about a handsome, kept-in and composed aristocrat, granting assurances and placations amongst townspeople subdued into a hunch of abayance, a non-arousing, defeated cloister of mottled greys and unassured, uninspiring greens. Hillary would mostly dig it. Something in this is why Obama was chosen over Hillary: they -- the people -- too had become unnerved by what might be drawn if things shine too spritely sweet and gay, and fled Hillary's buoyancy and often-cheerful resonance for more spent "country."

Both WOULD have followed pretty much the same course. But that wouldn't be the thing. Everything about Hillary would sit uneasily with, would be gainly testing, mocking, its spirit, while Obama is in entirety all smooth cooperation. (Remember Hillary's -- referring to whole body airport scanners -- "I'd avoid them if I could," which read as "don't go quietly into this good night!," and her meaning it.) About all this kowtowing to the debt: there is something in her that would keep us reminded that she could be prompted to REALLY avoid it if she could, while, as Greenwald reminds and reminds, Obama would spit venum at any voice that could forestall America becoming growth-stalled and frozen for at least ten years. He -- Obama -- knows Hillary is one such voice. But the plan I think was to keep her sort of relevant, and thereby placated and subdued, until voices like hers resonate only with an easily demolishable minority, until people like her and Krugman are but absurd and entitled, fully dismissal-worthy douches.

Link: Would President Hillary be a stronger leader than President Obama? (Salon)

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...
3 comments
Read more

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...
2 comments
Read more