We can't know a whole lot about the domestic relations of the
Clintons, nor, and I say this as a family therapist, about any other
couple's, nor about their motives for staying together. But I think
we can say pretty definitively that whatever those relations are it's
pretty farfetched to think them predictive of her abilities in
foreign affairs. Do you think that what would be to you or me
intolerable marriages are similarly predictive of the performance of
male presidents, say FDR or Lincoln?
We can I think assume that no American president is likely to be
tough enough with the Israelis, though both Carter and Clinton were a
lot tougher than the others.
Obama gets a lot of mileage out of one vote he wasn't there to make.
He's voted in favor of every subsequent war bill. I'd happily vote
for him if he gets the nomination because the alternative is a
Republican, but pretty speeches frankly terrify me. And his
self-proclaimed prophet status probably won't have much impact on congress.
Let's try to remember that each of the candidates has convinced
her/himself that only he/she can save the country. Megalomania for
sure, but maybe moreso in someone with almost no experience and thus
far a record of invisibility in the Senate.
Mark
At 06:39 PM 1/9/2008, you wrote:
>With all due respect for the ways in which the 'casters' can very
>much control the angle of vision that shapes the television
>monitor's eye and ear on different candidates, Hilary remains a
>problematic figure for me in ways that are different than Obama who
>is still relatively 'unplumbed' as a public figure. I know what
>things he would protest - such as the war in Iraq, including working
>towards immediate withdrawal - but I don't know what Obama would do
>to actually change things in the operation and direction of the
>government. But maybe I am not paying close enough attention, or
>maybe we are still very limited in what can be rendered about him as
>a potential President
> Hilary, on the other hand, does comes with baggage in relationship
> to the affairs of her husband as both Governor and President. Why
> did she - if not for purely opportunistic reasons - continue to
> subject herself to his indiscriminate liasons? Was she responsible
> for sending 'them' on their way in ways that would make many folks
> a bit scqueamish, to say the least. If you can afford it, that
> might be common fare among wealthy couples - I don't know. But
> would her sense of protecting the relationship in order to
> further her own political ambitions - as seems the case - infect
> the way, as President, that she would handle domestic and
> international relations? Would she, for example, have the courage
> to stand-up and reject this Government's military and financial
> support for Israel's (outrageous) settlement and occupation
> policies in Gaza and the West Bank. Or would she continue to cast
> this country's blind eye at one of its most dangerous
> 'marriages'. Or do we know
> enough that Obama might cast a fresh eye on the neo-con folks that
> have wed the USA to elements within Israel to produce
> conflagration's in the mid-east that we are supposed to so blindly support?
> Within the inevitable limits of geo-real politik where does
> Hilary's experience really point to?? More or less
> disasters. "Green" or not, this is where I suspect Obama comes out
> ahead. I think if we dwell too much on the toxic nature of gender
> relationships in this country - heart versus non heart, etc.- we
> run the risk of clouding or obscuring some very important stuff.
>
> Stirring the well, no doubt!
>
> Stephen V
> http://stephenvincent.net/blog/
>
>
>
>sharon brogan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: also: Hillary, vs. Obama
>--
>
>
>~ SB | http://www.sbpoet.com | =^..^=
>
>On 1/9/08, Sheila Murphy wrote:
> >
> > Watching CNN last night was not only aggravating, it was infuriating. The
> > treatment of the Clinton campaign was despicable. Seemed to serve as a
> > very
> > direct example of manipulating perspective. Under extreme duress, the
> > victory was acknowledged by 'casters.
> >
> > Interestingly enough there was constant reversal of the sequence of names:
> > O
> > and C, versus C and O.
> >
|