In It to Win It

January 22, 2007
    Of all the president-wannabes who emerged from their thickets, mole holes, burrows, and termite mounds last week, the funniest was Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas who told a campaign kickoff audience that he was setting off on "the yellow brick road to the White House." Which raises an interesting question: is Brownback running for Wizard of Oz or for president? Brownback represents the Mid Western suburban evangelicals, a sort of death cult composed of people unaware that their own lifestyle has driven them crazy. Unbeknownst to those inside the Beltway or up in Manhattan, though, the heartland of America is in deep enough despair to elect a closet maniac like Brownback. Let's hope that he is found to be connected romantically to a male prostitute specializing in sadomasochism and humiliation.

     Next out is Hillary, who looks as though she is going to jettison her surnames in the manner of Oprah, Madonna, and Paladin. Her kickoff announcement video was all medium and no message. She wants to have a presidency of feelings, and the main feeling is that America needs Mommy. The psychological failure of masculinity in this nation is that acute. Between the millions of lumpen "baby daddys" who impregnate their "shorties" and disappear, and the hundreds of loot-crazed corporate CEOs (not to mention the hapless President Bush), the male ethos has just about lost all credibility in this country. Mommy runs most of the households in the US, so why not the government, too?

     In case you can't tell, I don't like Hillary. I regard her as a monster of ambition. I voted for her husband twice, but concluded sadly that he had accomplished little in relation to his supposed abilities. Bill Clinton now looks like just another wreck on the shoals of male egotism, and seems fated, in the classically tragic sense, to creep behind in his wife's footsteps until he is taken offstage by infarction or aneurysm (or perhaps she will just chew his head off, in the tradition of the more powerful female mantis).

     My original beef is that Hillary virtually hijacked the New York state Democratic party in her 2000 senate bid -- as if there were no actual New Yorkers qualified to represent their state. Mommy was so powerfully entitled that the state party brass and the media bigwigs rolled over and didn't even question her poor residency qualifications, which were glaring. Since then, despite all her plaudits for seizing senatorial leadership, she has done little but grandstand in preparation for this moment of launching to higher office.

      Hillary's presidential campaign kickoff announcement was saturated in phoniness, from the illusion of personal warmth to the bizarre leafy-green exterior background that suggested the announcement had been taped back in August and put in the freezer since then. Worldwide, Mommy leadership has not necessarily been such a great thing. Margaret Thatcher got more credit than she deserved for turning around the British economy (when, in fact, it was the North Sea oil bonanza that did it, and that's over now). Otherwise, the "Iron Lady" presided over more internal rot, including a disastrous open-door immigration policy and the dismantling of the railroad system. Indira Ghandi demolished civil liberties and presided over an extravaganza of grift before she was assassinated. Benazir Bhutto was run out office in Pakistan twice, most recently for money laundering.

      Now, it still might be the case that America would benefit from a Mommy president, but please not this particular Mommy. Behind the WalMart smile sits Nemesis, the remorseless spirit of vengeance, obsessed with smiting enemies. That might work to advantage against the oriental despots lined up to eat America's lunch. But I'm more inclined to think that Hillary would use it against her own countrymen.

     It's interesting that her out-of the-box campaign slogan is "In It to Win It," which sounds a bit like Gerald Ford's old "Whip Inflation Now (WIN)" button, which is to say the war cry of a loser. Check the "no" box on Hillary. Then check it again. And again.

     Barack Obama blindsided Hillary last week, pretty much forcing her hand and making her look artificially spontaneous. I like Obama pretty well. What I like best about him is that he seems to be a genuinely normal human being. He wasn't born with any advantages and he doesn't resort to any false claims of disadvantage either. There's nothing puffed up about him, which is to say, nothing presidential. His popularity so far is based on this genuineness combined with an exceptional ability in writing and public speaking. He appears capable of talking straight. It's even possible he can see straight. He looks very young compared to his rivals, but in 2009 he'll be older than John F. Kennedy was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. The ominous note is struck because such a clear-eyed individual would seem to be naturally fated, in this nation of dangerous cranks, for assassination. Were he to get elected by some miracle, and then rubbed out by some cunning tattooed moron, you could probably kiss this nation farewell.

     Then there is Bill Richardson, who I also like pretty well. Whatever else he represents, he emits a sense of gravitas, of a purposeful, accomplished, and intellectually-honest person. He's been on the world scene as an effective crisis negotiator and America's UN ambassador. He's been a Secretary of Energy, so it's possible he has some grip on the nation's fossil fuel problems. If nothing else, he will inject some seriousness into the debates.

     Then there's John Edwards, who has essentially remained a candidate since his defeat for Vice-president in 04, babysitting the odious John Kerry. I like Edwards pretty well, too. His origins were humble. Despite his movie star exterior, he seems capable, decisive, and sympathetic. He has his finger on the pulse of the biggest not-yet-articulated campaign issue: the demolition of the middle class.

     Deep in the background stands Al Gore. He seems to have overcome his "previously-owned" aura, but perhaps not his fear of the arena. He put out a great movie last year, but America needs something beyond a great movie producer.

      There's no point in even discussing Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd, whatever their merits as husbands and fathers.

Comments

[Cathode Ray]

Who the presidental candidates might be is quite irrelevant until there is free and fair elections in the US.

[The Blue Rider]

Only slightly sexist.

[kd]

Nicely put, Jim.

Indeed, whatever Edwards' problems as a candidate are, at least he's serious about one important issue: the demolition of the American middle class.

Hillary (well said, btw, about how she has jettisoned her surname -- how show biz) is indeed a monster of ambition. That's the last thing this country needs.

[Tom W.]

Your evident misogyny does not become you - so much of what you hold against Clinton is gender.

[asoka]

"There's no point in even discussion (sic) Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd, whatever their merits as husbands and fathers."

I guess there is no point in discussion of Kucinich either, since you never mentioned him.

[The Interloafer]

What? No mention of Rudy Giuliani?

[gene]

Does it really matter who gets elected KING president. This country is simply toast, burnt toast that is. It would take someone with a formula for cheap, clean energy in abundant supply to save this nation of morons. Oh by the way, would you really want to save a bunch of greedy, selfish morons who would just continue to degenerate into something that smells like puke, looks like puke.......OH MY GOD!!!....it is puke.

[Kevin]

I absolutely would not underestimate someone like Sam Brownback in the future, he may be the corn pone Nazi we've been warned about, but we aren't that bad off yet.

For now, our society is too fascinated with celebrity and how to become a celebrity (See American Idol-how broke down people get when they find out they aren't good enough to be a celebrity). It is this fascination with celebrity is why I think Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate for president.

Going by the one name like Cher or Madonna is a good marketing ploy for her.

[C.JoDI]

"She wants to have a presidency of feelings, and the main feeling is that America needs Mommy. The psychological failure of masculinity in this nation is that acute."

You've got to be kidding me. You don't feel that George W. Bush is the culmination of the completely hyper-yang cult of machismo that pervades our culture at the moment? Or are you saying that this hyper-yang state is a perversion of healthy masculinity? If so, what else is new? What portion of our national psyche isn't a product of some underlying neurosis or maladjustment?

And what makes you think that Hillary wants to play *mommy*? She seems even more committed to realpolitik than Bill.

[Scott]

I wonder if Hillary is having difficulty defining herself is the reason she seems so wooden? It does seem a predicament for a female presidential candidate to appear to be tough enough to push the button yet not appear to be a bitch just lookin' for a pair of balls to kick.

[bud4wiser]

Oh, pray tell, what will be the "issues" of the next election for prez? Penis size, stock option deals from 1992, voting records on meaningless clusterfuck congressional bills?

Will any of the these burping-bags-of-bullshit have the honesty to tell Americans that they're broke and running out of gas and there's not much they [or anyone else]can do about it?

Carter could get some kicks, recounting "how things were" when HE tried to get re-elected. And what has happened since then.

Instead of the Iranians, now we have Bush holding America hostage, it will be interesting to see how the spin-doctors make this election a "vote Republican or else" issue.

[David Mathews]

> "Bill Clinton now looks like just another wreck on the shoals of male egotism, and seems fated, in the classically tragic sense, to creep behind in his wife's footsteps until he is taken offstage by infarction or aneurysm (or perhaps she will just chew his head off, in the tradition of the more powerful female mantis)."

I hate to admit it, but I like this image ... if any American woman could, would, should emulate the mantis, Hillary is the one. President Clinton deserved that fate back in the 90's.

I am in favor of a constitutional amendment forbidding anyone named "Bush" or "Clinton" from ever becoming President of the United States of America. It is time for some new blood in the White House.

If Barack Obama runs, I'll vote for him. I don't care about his politics, etc. I will vote for him and have no regrets.

And ... one final note: Tony Dungy is going to the Super Bowl! Good job, Indianapolis Colts, but get Tony Dungy the Super Bowl ring that he should have earned with the Bucs five years ago!

[Kevin]

"What? No mention of Rudy Giuliani?"

I think it is interesting that the Republican party hasn't announced any candidates yet. I am not a Republican, but to me, this shows that the Democrats haven't come up with any game plan since the 2004 election. They are still trying to undermine George Bush and the reason to elect Democrats is that they aren't Bush. The Dems really have no real issues or plans to run on, so they will come out a year earlier than usual and attack Bush for a year longer.

[toner]

I am in favor of a constitutional amendment forbidding anyone running as a "Democrat" or "Republican" from ever becoming President of the United States of America.

[Patrick]

Does anyone else here have a problem with Hillary for this simple reason:

Bush I 1988-1993
Clinton I 1993-2001
Bush II 2001-2009
Clinton II 2009-whenever

This country is not an heirloom to be passed between two different families.

[c roast]

Richardson used to live in my old neighborhood. The old timers in the neighborhood association told me that when he and his wife first moved in, they wanted to know who all of the connected people were in the neighborhood so they could invite them to dinner and schmooze them up. Of course it wasn't long before he left his new-found acquaintances in Downtown for Uptown. My old friends tell me that he is now the biggest bully in Santa Fe – and extremely profane.
Ambition is nothing new in politics, but Richardson is just not a very nice person.

[David Mathews]

Hello Toner,

"I am in favor of a constitutional amendment forbidding anyone running as a "Democrat" or "Republican" from ever becoming President of the United States of America."

I second the motion!!!

Let's just get rid of all these politicians, wipe the slate clean, and start the democracy experiment all over again. Because America is a country which is sorely in need of regime change and democracy.

[edgar]

You sound as if you think this is still a democracy.

[Harry]

CFNers:

The electoral process in this country has come to resemble the figures that on the hour emerge from the clocktower of the rathaus. They come out on schedule, beat each other over the head while making calmorous noise, switch places, and go out the way their opposition came in.

This is a ridiculous way to run a nominal democracy. A nation as vast as the U.S., pushing a population of around 300 million, isn't well-represented by just two political parties. The country, in particular that diminishing middle class and eviscerated working class, is so deluded and cheated and betrayed, that they waste votes on anybody who says what they want to hear, and presumably looks good while lying.

I don't know what will escalate the outrage to the extent that people will demand a change to the system. Giving free air time for political ads would be a simple way to get money out of the equation. Of course, people would complain their entetainment is getting interrupted by real-world issues. But living with a representative government means, well, that you got to represent.

But I'm reminded of Virginia's Readjuster Party of the 1870s-1880s, led by former Confederate general and railroad baron William Mahone. He wasn't an actual social progressive or civil rights activist, but an opportunist, and as a politician, unsavvy, ill-tempered and dictatorial.

Mahone sought to bring together the white and black working class at a time when both Republicans and Democrats wanted blacks, and most working class whites, out of the voting process. The Conservative reasoning was, fewer people voting would lessen the risk of corruption, and Virginia politics at the time were rife with influence peddling and graft. Corruption was just bid' ness.

The Mahoneistas were ambitious but flawed. The party ran the state for almost 10 years, electing a governor, controlling the state legislature, and sending Mahone to Congress as an independent. The Readjusters carried out educational and prison reform and seemed on the verge of a successful coalition, although few blacks ever rose through its political ranks, and that wasn't encouraging.

The Readjusters had little maneuvering room in the socio-political world of Virginia at that time. Little progress was made on the social front -- if Mahone had been more progressive, more insightful, he might've created flocks of networking types to build committees and coalitions throughout the state, and to do so, seek bolder reforms. But it wasn't his character.

Long as Mahone could hand out patronage jobs, his party ruled. Then about 1881, Mahone started voting with Republicans and his influence in the party he engineered diminished. The Readjusters had achieved much of what they sought to do, and Mahone didn't readjust his initial agenda to further the party. Then, Jim Crow eclipsed everything.

Antipathy betwen the races was given the federal impimatur on Oct. 15, 1883 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared the 1875 Civil Rights Act unconstitutional. It is one of the worst dates in U.S. history, as it opened the way to state-by-state oppression of people of color. The lone dissenter was Judge John Marshall Harlan, who in 1895 also opposed Plessy v. Ferguson.

That today we have a United Colors of Benetton-style field of Democrats up against a pale grey row of Republicans, is at least a show room window version of progress. But that nobody else that can get and hold the media--well, there is C-SPAN-- because money is everything -- is the real issue here.

In a larger way, a third party candidate in this country these days is stuck in a bind that not enough people want to hear that heroic effort must be made to right the current predicament. Few wish to hear of "sacrifice" unless it involves killing A-rabs, and actually, not so much even then, according to the polls.

Or, if a third party candidate should speak of "sacrifice" then a cogent plan of getting beyond that stage has to be sold, and that's always the rub. That we the people have allowed this to transpire is to our shame.

Whoever ends up getting the White House in 2008 will inherit an intractable mess and is getting set up right now to be a version of Herbert Hoover.

Who, in his or her right mind, at this juncture, would even want the job?

[Tonton]

Listing disasterous women politicians one might also add the imcomparable Evita Peron.
Although the list of terrrible male ones would be very lengthy too...let's see, Bush,Blair, Saddam...etc etc.....the list is endless !!

[t]

Both Hillary and Obama are devoted to the fantasy that we can solve our energy problems with ethanol and coal to liquids. Obama actually wants to further increase the already high subsidies for ethanol.

Not sure about Edwards on that score; I'm hoping that he is more reality based. But then, this is the race for President so it is likely that all appeals to reality are off the table at least through the next election.

Rest assured, all the candidates, from whatever corner, will assert their devotion to everlasting growth as the ultimate answer to all our problems.

[Rev. John]

I always look forward to reading your posts, agree with most of your core opinions, and appreciate your analysis. However, though I do not like Ms. Clinton either, your critiqued of her is disappointing in substance and offensive in tone.

[just a thought]

Interesting how when we are more familiar with the politicians we dislike them more...Many North Carolina Democrats dislike John Edwards because of his opportunism. He couldn't even serve out one Senate term before abandoning his post to run for president. He didn't do the Democratic cause in N.C. any good by that move. All he did was ensure that the state now has two Republican senators. Edwards gave North Carolinians the same brush-off that JHK complains that Hillary gave New York politicians..

I think Sen. Evan Bayh, D-IN, would be a great contender; he has the brains and the experience. But he has prudently decided not to run

[Rev. John]

I always look forward to reading your posts, agree with most of your core opinions, and appreciate your analysis. However, though I do not like Ms. Clinton either, your critiqued of her is disappointing in substance and offensive in tone.

[Weaseldog]

"Who, in his or her right mind, at this juncture, would even want the job?" - Harry

The next President will be handed over the mantle of a "War President". Most of the candidates I believe are anxious for their turn to play soldier and prove that they can win, where Bush couldn't.

We have a plethora of a Napoleon wannabees coming out of the woodwork.