what you don't have you don't need it now

This is almost the end of the road for Hillary Clinton's campaign. She won't be VP. Aside from the historical baggage the Clintons lug around with them, H. Clinton could have been Obama's VP. However, her primary campaign foreclosed that option. Pursuing an all or nothing strategy, she will have to settle for nothing and another fifteen minutes of fame on the second day of the Democratic convention and the symbolic roll call vote. I don't expect either Clinton to be an effective campaigner for Obama: he stole their legacy, or at least deferred it until 2012. Hardcore Clinton supporters continue to overlook the wafer thin policy differences between Hillary and Barack, preferring to remain fixated in a self-destructive form of resentment that could advantage McCain (who shares none of the policy positions of H. Clinton). 

finally the campaign begins

After months, the Democrats have their candidate. One question remains: will feminists abandon the Democrats in November?  The fall election offers a test of the state of the Second Wave, whose disappointment over the decline of the inevitable Hillary Clinton presidency threatens to put McCain in her place. On substance, there is a wafer thin difference between Obama and Clinton (leaving aside her war vote). Their contest boiled down to differences in political style, melanin, and chromosomes. It is unnecessary to worry about those who oppose Obama based on his melanin advantage. It is more necessary to worry about those who may reject him based on gender.

*

Why Clinton? Why have older women and feminist organizations hitched their wagon of dreams to such a controversial figure? Clinton promised much, in particular a return to the good old 1990s when the economy boomed and the Yankees were world champions. However, she became a shape-shifter in the face of Obama's utopian wave. First, she was the most experienced candidate ('Ready on day one'). Later, she became the populist candidate of the single parent waitresses. In the end, she came out as a feminist candidate. Which Clinton is the real one? I would suspect the latter self-presentation is the truest. But it is fair to ask whether the difficulty she faced was not only sexism in the media but also her own personal history. Hillary Clinton is not just a woman candidate, she is a brand name. And her brand is not untarnished. Her front-runner status in January 2008 was based on name recognition. Once this shown to no longer suffice to move voters to her cause, the game was over. Her 'experience' advantage was not so overwhelming; hence, it didn't turn the tide against Obama. And her 'experience' in the area of policy in which she is most passionate, universal health care, was an abject failure. (Perhaps she thought this failure was erased from the memories of the Democratic electorate). Moreover, something else went without saying: Republicans would fight to the death to defeat such a policy proposed by a second President Clinton. Hillary Clinton's legacy in this area is much like her legacy as the first woman to crack the political glass ceiling: her defeat opened the door to more pragmatic choices. 

*

Political feminism should not be depressed over the dramatic fall of the inevitable one. Other less problematic women candidates exist and will emerge in time. Hillary Clinton was probably not the 'best chance' for putting a woman in the White House, although this particular nadir in Republican party prospects is a good chance for any breathing Democrat.

permanent campaign

Hillary is back, Barack still leads, when will it end? Clinton is making her claim on the nomination more effectively than Obama in the big states. Why? Maybe people in these states, especially the unionist, labouring classes, identify with the "I'm in your corner, fighting" assertions offered by Clinton. They are in no mood for the pragmatic idealism of Obama, preferring the pragmatic realism of the senator from New York. But can either candidate be effective if and when they occupy the Oval Office?

*

Both Clinton and Obama would face difficulties once in office. Unless the Democrats can secure 60 votes in the Senate, a Democrat President will struggle to put through major proposals (such as universal health care). My hunch is that Republicans would dig in firmly against Clinton (the "base" will demand it). Sure, she'll "fight fight fight" for her ideas, but I sense a repeat of 1993 is in the offing for her centerpiece program on health care. Obama might be able to use the "bully pulpit" of the presidency more effectively than Clinton, which would put pressure on recalcitrant republicans not to filibuster legislation or attach poison pill amendments.

*

Clinton, now in desperation mode, has found her "voice" again, which is negative. She's figured out a way to attack Obama's "character" without using the "racial profiling" tactic. For whatever reason, Obama hasn't figured out how to reply in kind while remaining on his theme of a "new politics." The easiest route is to turn Clinton's new claim of "electability" against McCain into an issue. For example, Obama's surrogates should insist on the release of Clinton's tax records: without having transparency, there may be fodder that McCain could exploit in the fall. Obama should question the premise that he would not win the big states in the fall. Is there any way that California or New York would suddenly vote republican just because Clinton is not the nominee? Finally, Obama can make the case that he can put into play those "purple" states that would not fall into the Clinton column. Finally, Obama has to put Clinton on her heels in any future debate, especially on the universal health care plan. But he'll need new talking points which basically suggest that a republican controlled senate won't pass her plan but will pass his.

*

For her part, Clinton  must decide whether she is willing to risk the alienation of the most fervent Obama supporters for the sake of achieving the nomination. The fact that she's even crossing over the line means she must believe there is no way a Democrat can lose in the fall. This was the same belief the Democrats held in 2000 and 2004. For now, it appears Clinton is on a "win the battle, lose the war" path.

Schneewittchen

The latest debate demonstrates that Hillary Clinton is best when she's on the attack, when responding to a sense of victimization or outrage. This is the Clinton modus operandi. Let's take the charge she announced early in the debate (with an allusion to SNL), that Obama has been coddled by a fawning media. Let us assume this is true. What might she gain from making this claim during a debate? Her commanding performance last night may gather votes from those who share this perception and thus shift empathetically towards the underdog (if Hillary Clinton could ever be considered the underdog). Feminist appeals might tilt the 60+ set, who feel Hillary's pain, more solidly into the Clinton camp. So there is something to be gained by this performative gambit. 

However, there's another, larger reality that the claim of "unfairness" in media coverage does little to counteract.

1. Her message that Obama is inexperienced (generous) and full of hot air (ungenerous) hasn't made a difference. If she intends to compete with Obama, the emphasis on experience needs to be replaced by one that emphasizes that she is not just qualified, but that she is the right person for the job.

2. Her beseeching the media to go after Obama is basically asking the media to do what she has failed to do: pierce his aura. She really should ask the cable networks not to televise any speech by Obama. 

3. Politics is about managing perceptions as much as it is about action. In the campaign so far, Clinton has failed miserably to regain the aura of inevitability since her defeat in Iowa. 

I remember the fanfare that came with the selection of the Clinton campaign theme song (has it even been played on the campaign trail?): the Sopranos motif, the coverage of the event as a sort of Hollywood premiere. There was an air of invincibility around the campaign. In December 2007, the story was Hillary and the Seven Dwarves. Now, Snow White has tasted the poisoned apple of public rejection in 11 straight primaries. Will she be able to save herself?

ready but losing

I'm puzzled by Hillary Clinton. The New York Times quotes her saying "One of us has faced serious Republican opposition in the past -- and one of us is ready to do it again." What I don't understand is how she can claim to be ready to defeat the "Republican attack machine" when she can't defeat an opponent, Obama, who isn't attacking her at all. 

It is also puzzling that Team Clinton hasn't found a way to pierce Obama's aura. Her characterization of him as an inexperienced speechifier hasn't stuck. His characterization of her as a representative of the "old divisive politics" has stuck. In fact, Senator Clinton would prefer more divisiveness in this campaign. Obama's self-discipline is remarkable so far; he has remained "on" his upbeat "message". But then, he's got nothing to lose, he's not supposed to be in the lead.

McCain's victory speech last night prefigured the line of argument he would make against Obama in the fall. It is basically a rehash of Clinton's line of argument. However, McCain might be a more credible person to mount this criticism of Obama's lack of experience. I suspect Obama will be able to draw out McCain's temper (as he did in the kerfuffle over "ethics reform"), which makes the senior Senator look like an angry old man. 

chromosomes or melanin

First it was Gloria Steinem; now it's Robin Morgan who is calling global feminism to order. It is time to support Hillary Rodham.

Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she's the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because her progressive politics are as strong as her proven ability to withstand what will be a massive right-wing assault in the general election. I support her because she's refreshingly thoughtful, and I'm bloodied from eight years of a jolly "uniter" with ejaculatory politics. I needn't agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama's -- and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she's already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, and because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first US woman president, but as a great US president.

As for the "woman thing"?

Me, I'm voting for Hillary not because she's a woman -- but because I am.

*

So there is a gender gap among Democrats. According to exit polls (certainly, a precise science), older women go for Rodham, white men go for Obama (other gaps: young people for Obama, latinos for Rodham, lower income for Rodham, higher income for Obama, lower education for Rodham, higher education for Obama, blacks for Obama, labor for Rodham). Identity politics 101. Hence the Democrats face two choices with historical implications. Either nominate a woman or a black male. Morgan, picking up Rodham's talking points, finds her more qualified. That's the bottom line; but above the line is the resentment of years of taking a back seat, of deferring, of being bypassed by someone younger, etc., und so weiter...Moreover, the nomination of Rodham is an opportunity to stick it to the Republican hatemeisters. On these points, one can agree with Morgan. But the last sentence sticks in the mind: vote for Rodham because of your chromosomes, not because of Rodham's.

*

Is this what Second Wave Feminism has come to? The Second Wave, splintered by the divide between cultural feminists and sex radicals and the divide between "women of color" and "white feminists", has become virtually invisible as a political-cultural force (just the opposite of the presence of feminist theory as an intellectual force in the academy). I once posed a question in an undergraduate classroom: who among you identifies as a feminist? Not more than five hands went up among the sixty in attendance. Are we now in a post-feminist situation in which the recriminations of the 1980s and 1990s, and the decades of anti-feminist conservative backlash, have made the idea of feminism itself an impossibility? The glass ceiling remains and masculinist symbolic and physical violence continues to define and restrict the social space for women. What does a Rodham presidency portend for changing these conditions? 

*

What is interesting in this season of XX, XY and melanin sufficiency is that presumed "loyalties" have been affirmed and transcended. Black politicos are barracking for Rodham; Women politicos are barracking for Obama. Is this progress? I view it as such. I fall on the side of transcendence rather than strategic essentialism. It is possible to deconstruct gender and racial profiling without remaining within the episteme. Rodham and Obama have mostly sought to do this. It would be nice if their supporters would get this clue.

*

Women's Liberation Front 1987 (for Alison)+

Against the grand conspiracy

-- essentialist philosophy of history

Of primordial white-male supremacy

-- got to keep it away from me

Fists punch through the cloudy sky

--I'll seek my salvation

To keep the dogma free of lies

-- in a hormone-free situation

United by anatomy

-- I won't deny the difference

Become the wrath of society

-- but won't inflate its significance

________________________________

+ Ascona (1987)

one giant step for Manning?

Politics is football carried on by other means. Thus, on Super Tuesday an overdog faces off against an underdog, the Perfect Team confronts the wild card qualifier, the scheming genius tangles with the likable little brother. Let's prognosticate. 

*

The underdog only recently arrived on the scene. A first round pick in the 1994 draft, he impressed the scouts with a verbal vertical leap that was off the charts. Following in the footsteps of a Presidential Hall of Famer (Lincoln), he promised to be the Great Emancipator of American politics; he would free the political system from the slavery of lobbyists and the negativity of past decades. After beginning the campaign with a long drive, he scored first (a field goal in Iowa). Yet, the game has become a battle for field position, with setbacks (Nevada) and one turnover (New Hampshire) in the early going. But now, the young quarterback is behind by 4 percentage points, and the final quarter is underway. Will this precocious challenger be able to "shock the world" in the waning seconds of the game?

*

What about the opponent, the leader who was ready to win on day one, the one who could withstand scandal, and go on to run up the score on hapless opponents? Will her hubris to go for it (unleashing long bomb ex-President Bill) on fourth down -- in an obvious field goal situation in South Carolina -- come back to haunt her? Surely, she has the game plan and experience to pull off the perfect season. Or, in defeat, will she sprint off the field in the final seconds, offering begrudging praise to the underdog ("he got the endorsements, we didn't.")?

*

I like something about both the young quarterback and the evil genius coach. Everyone likes an underdog and the audacity of his bid for the highest office inspires hope. I also like the grey-hoodied coach, plain but ruthlessly efficient, destroying opponents and treating each victory as inevitable. How does one pick between them: the improvised brilliance of the underdog's the hail mary pass towards destiny or the meticulously orchestrated defensive plan of the old coach intended to smash the upstart in the mouth?

*

The Final Score....right after this commercial break.

-------------------------------------------------------

photo credits: Eli Manning (Newsday); Bill Belichick (The Onion)

eternal flame

The media says Ted Kennedy handed the passkey to Camelot over to Barack Obama. Which made me wonder, why it wasn't passed to another Kennedy. I remembered today why this didn't happen: the lineage had to go through JFK. Caroline Kennedy never positioned herself as heir. However, her brother sort of, maybe, did. But John, with the striking initials (JFK, Jr.), died in 1999. He would have turned 48 in this year, would be older than Obama and lacking none of the charisma. Would he have been a presidential candidate this year? Probably not, unless he had sought some "office." Heading the now defunct George magazine would not have been sufficient to answer Hillary Clinton's mantra of 30+ years of "experience." But then, perhaps he would have run for the Senate (in New York state) in 2000 and Hillary and Bill would have moved to New Jersey to launch her carpet-bagging political career. However, this was not to be. Hence, yesterday Ted Kennedy outsourced the Kennedy legacy.

*

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton again affirmed the wisdom of Ted Kennedy's choice by indicating she will attempt to seat delegates from primaries in Michigan and Florida that she, Obama, and Edwards promised not to contest. This is a classic example of trying to win ugly. It is clear that for the Clintons, winning is everything. Obama should take note of this. The Clinton legacy should be put into play; he should attempt to divide the family by questioning her support for things that are not popular with the liberal base: NAFTA, "welfare reform," No Child Left Behind, The Defense of Marriage Act. If Bill can "Jesse Jackson" Obama, Obama can certainly raise the spectre of another Clinton presidency full of expediency and a rightward tilt (thereby masking Obama's own fairly centrist positions). In other words, if the former president is running against Obama, Obama should run against that president as hard as possible. 

___________________________

photo credit: Corbis (Washington Post); Ted Kennedy and John Jr. in 1964

political panhandling

The Race is On! according to my mail:

We are in the midst of a hard-fought and tight race. Super Tuesday awaits us, and we must work even harder than before! Presidential campaigns are about strength from supporters and leadership from the candidate. With your support, I know we can win the nomination and go one to win the White House. 

Ascona, securing the nomination depends on results on February 5th. We're weeks away, and we must have the resources to fight anything that is thrown at us. Your contribution of $100 will help us build on our momentum and deliver the votes to win New York on Super Tuesday. Can I count on your contribution today?

The stakes couldn't be higher. Events couldn't be moving faster. With everything on the line, let's show them what we're made of. Please send your contribution today or go to www.HillaryClinton.com/ now to make an immediate impact. 

Thank you for your continued support.

Hillary

n.b. Ascona tithed once to Senator Clinton's first senatorial race, but continues to receive requests for additional funding.

no dice

Hillary Clinton's roll of the racial dice has come up snake eyes. Barack Obama has taken the "high road," again refusing to wallow in the muck:

Obama: "I think that I may disagree with Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards on how to get there, but we share the same goals. We're all Democrats....We all believe in civil rights. We all believe  in equal rights. We all believe that regardless of race or gender that people should have equal opportunities....They are good people, they are patriots. They are running because they think they can move this country to a better place." 

The contrast in styles is real and has substantive consequences. The Clinton campaign is more comfortable with slash and burn politics; it thrives on attack and counter-attack. But this style requires someone to play the role of adversary. In the 1990s, the adversary was the Republican party and a vast conservative "conspiracy." Such existential foes made for existential battles, culminating in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. The problem the Clintonistas face now is that Obama refuses (more or less) to play the adversarial role. He tends to deflect the blow rather than responding in kind. Hence, the Clinton campaign is force to fight a phantom and here the strategy flounders. My sense is that Clinton would be a formidable and relentless candidate in face of a Republican in the fall election, in particular because Republicans can be expected to fire all their remaining ammunition at her. This is the preferred terrain for Clinton; two military formations meeting on a single field of battle, face to face. As the presidential nominee, Obama would have to remain above it all without appearing aloof; the goal would be to demonstrate the desperation of the Republicans by refusing to answer every volley; political honour would then hopefully prevail over an extravagant display of arms; in the end, the beefy class ruffians would succumb to the compelling nobility of skinny class president. I am not sure this style would prevail, but clearly Obama has no desire to engage in gladiator politics.

it's all about the 'he said, she said' bullshit

Finally, the Democratic presidential campaign has gone back to basics: identity. Whereas Republican identity politics center on claims to the Reaganite inheritance, to god, small taxes, and big weapons, Democrats are more inclined to obsess over gender and race. At the moment, the Clinton and Obama campaigns are fixated on the latter. There are historical reasons for this: southern whites abandoned the Democratic party over the pro-civil rights legislation of the mid-60s (more on that later); hence, the black vote is an essential component of any Democratic "southern strategy." But the reason today is that South Carolina (in which the majority of registered Democrats are black) is the next primary battleground.

Rather than rehash the terms of the current clash over the proper way to speak about Martin Luther King Jr., I'll wander over other topics. On King, this much can be said: he is one of the three saints of Democratic party politics: Martin, John (Kennedy), and Bobby (Kennedy)  (more on John later). Hence it is important for both campaigns to commemorate King in an effort to align with his "legacy." One might ask why Clinton would keep the dispute over King alive, when there are clearly risks of committing a racial "offense." I have no idea what is the real intention in this, but clearly it has had this positive effect (from the standpoint of the take-no-prisoners Clintonistas): it drags Obama into the muck of political trench warfare which he so far has assiduously avoided, and it raises the racial stakes for Obama. What are these stakes? They are two-fold. First, Obama's own "racial authenticity" can become a political issue in a highly racialist black community and, second, it may force Obama to engage more directly in racial politics, an engagement that would jeopardize his ability to claim the standpoint of the national universal as the candidate of "unity." Hence, the risks are actually more significant for Obama than for Clinton, who already has a solid bloc of black supporters.

*

What is of more interest to me is the continued invocation of one of the three saints, JFK. Bill Clinton claimed his entry into politics came through meeting JFK. Obama has situated his candidacy in relation to JFK as well, and the media has made inevitable comparisons of the two youthful, optimistic Senators. JFK is useful since the memory of the murdered prince of Camelot evokes the memory of tragedy and of promise. The tragedy of his assassination cut short the promise of his presidency. And, of course, JFK was a Democrat (the other "great" Democratic president of the 20th century, FDR, has receded from public memory). However, this "social memory" of JFK should not, following Halbwachs, be confused with history. JFK initiated a more significant involvement of U. S. troops in Vietnam during his brief presidency; Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) escalated this involvement and consequently doomed his own legacy. JFK is the light and LBJ the dark in Democrats' social memory of the 1960s. However, another "memory" is possible: under Johnson, a striking shift in a long-standing policy of over 300 years occurred in the signing of the Civil Rights Act (by LBJ). Fearing the desertion of Jim Crow southern Dixiecrats in the 1964 election, JFK equivocated on civil rights. Under LBJ and the pressure of the moral persuasion of Civil Rights activism (led by saint Martin), the historical mess of legally sanctioned institutional exclusion was cleared up in two years. In the terms of realpolitik, if there were "beneficiaries" of the Kennedy assassination, one set would be southern blacks.

*

The association of JFK in particular with the mainstream liberal vision is not an act of nature. Depending on one's position in the political hierarchy, it could appear confusing that JFK, remembered more as geist than as mensch, is so closely identified with the political liberalism of the Democratic party. LBJ, whose sole, decidedly negative political value has come to be identified with Vietnam, was the sponsor of the Great Society, the most comprehensive liberal policy agenda in American history (Ok maybe the New Deal was more comprehensive). In particular, the domestic legacy of the Johnson years is the "second" welfare state, whose "needs-based" criterion and "new subjects" (the chronically un- and underemployed, single mothers, children, and students) share an uneasy coexistence with the "first" welfare state, whose "contribution-based" criterion and "old subjects" (ethnic, working-class men) continue to be more politically defensible (it is probably not a coincidence that Bill Clinton carried through his campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it" in 1996). JFK's New Frontier looks decidedly complacent in comparison to the Great Society. However, it is the symbolic reappropriation of JFK that is the foundation of liberal Democratic politics rather than Johnson and the Great Society, which is burdened with the spectacle of Vietnam and the anti-war movement, as well as political crimes of the neo-conservative imagination -- i.e., big government, welfare corruption, reverse discrimination, crime, the erosion of values, etc. Because LBJ's record is decidedly mixed ("right" militarily, "left" socially), the Texan is unfit to function as the spiritual source of the politics of the liberal Democratic mainstream. The fact that the exclusive access to the Kennedy aura remains a point of honor to a generation of liberals and Democrats whose political well-being is based on hoarding the memory of the fallen JFK could be seen in the exchange between Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen and Republican Senator Dan Quayle during the 1988 Vice-Presidential debate (Bentsen to Quayle: "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy").

*

Hillary Clinton's "error" was to invoke LBJ  in seeming opposition to saint Martin. Her rhetoric tread upon the sacred, and the critical response was predictable. In the fine tradition of the debauched American public sphere, she has turned the tables on the critics and Obama by claiming the criticism has introduced "race" (obviously "divisive" and obviously inconsistent with the communitarian imagery of Obama's speeches) into the campaign. Which is exactly what Clinton wants.

cry me a river

Big girls don't cry. Or maybe they do. And when they do, their sins (and ours) are washed away. It appears that an emotional "moment" has derailed the Obama Express to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Or has it? Pull up a tissue and let's figure it out.

*

There are two views (because I say there are!) of the Great Meltdown of 2008. One, which will necessarily find association with the Royal Society of Hillary Haters (the RSHH), sees these bitter tears as just more manipulation,  an orchestrated bit of classical Clintonian triangulation (or cryangulation), a brand of glassy-eyed political strategy. As the two chaps in the Guinness beer commercial say: Brilliant! And the RSHH says: How Dare They! A few drops of water cascading from the eyes of the Ice Queen of American politics does not make her human, nor should we be duped into thinking otherwise. The other view, which seems to coalesce a non-existing coalescence of Oprah (who supports Obama) and Gloria Steinem (representing resurgent 2nd wave feminism), holds that it's OK to cry and, gosh darn it, there's wisdom in those soggy eyes. "It's My Turn" is the unofficial theme song of the Emotionistas, the "Girlfriend Mafia", the BFFs in their global sisterhood. Confronted by these opposed viewpoints, what are we to believe? What exactly happened in New Hampshire and will weeping be the factor that decides the Democratic Party nomination contest?

*

From our stiff upper lipped perspective, one thing is clear: the pollsters got it wrong when it came to Clinton. From now on, it would be better to consult a poison oracle than to believe the predictions of quantitative research. Also, our post-election hermeneutics are likely to only reveal partial aspects of an irrational reality. All we know for certain about Clinton is the following: veni, weepy, vici. It could be that the gender gap swung in favor of Clinton in New Hampshire (unlike in Iowa) because women saw the video of The Moment. Or maybe they heard about it. Or maybe they were on Clinton's side already. Who knows and who bloody cares! Get over it.

*

In reality, we must focus on the sorrows of the young Obama himself, which can be traced to his campaign strategy. He needs to talk to Democrats about the things Democrats care about. We (i.e., we Amerikuns) are not in a "crisis" on the order of the 1860s that calls for Lincolnesque eloquence and a lofty vision of America the Beautiful. There are things like foreclosures, health care, and the state of public education on the minds of the Democratic voters. Clinton, the Yoda of Wonk, has mastered the art of talking about these things in detail. Tedious, yes. Effective, yes. If the theme of "change" can be co-opted by Clinton, so can the wizardry of wonkism be mastered by the Harvard J.D. 

*

So let's pen no more sonnets about the Deluge in the Diner. Pull yourself together and get on with it!

conservatives discussing the clintons

Conservative #1: I want to say only a couple of things. I blame Mr. Clinton for our lax attitude toward terrorism. There was plenty he could do and he didn't do. Apparently Waco and Elian Gonzales were bigger problems. I believe life under Mrs. Clinton will be very bad. Universal health care is one of her craziest ideas that comes to mind. She has no understanding of the Middle East. No understanding of economics.

Conservative #2: The real danger of Hillary's election will be the undermining of the Republic. One or more ACLU lawyers like Ginsberg will be put on the court. Someone totally scary will run the justice department. And there will be nothing to stop the democrats in control of all branches of government from pushing the most far left agenda since FDR's New Deal. If you think Healthcare is the goal, you're not thinking big enough. This power grab will be the biggest in our lifetimes. Expect your taxes to go way up, expect your civil rights such as how you r raise your children to be eroded. Expect us to give away more military secrets to hostile nations, etc. etc.

Conservative #1: I remember when Mrs. Clinton talked about eliminating the Electoral College. Talk about a fascist. That could be our next president.

Conservative #3: There is good evidence that when the Clintons first took office, Mrs. Clinton wanted to make a Communist Party fellow traveler Secretary of Education.

Ascona: I've heard Hillary plans to abolish Christmas.

Conservative #4: Ascona, rather than pass on (or create) rumour and speculation, why don't you reference news articles or reliable web sites that mention that tidbit. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous.

electability

If she were to win the Democratic Party nomination, I wonder how the Right will "swiftboat" Hillary? Not that it would necessarily succeed: the Right has thrown everything at her over the last 16 years, but she's still around. Her very existence seems to agitate a subset of American conservatives like nothing else. Maybe they'll pull quotes from a samizdat copy of her B.A. thesis at Wellesley (or maybe they'll just make them up), which will prove who the "real Hillary" really, really, really is. Ironically, what is actually revealed in the Right's Hillary obsession is the unconscious of this group of conservatives: their recurrent fears, deepest anxieties, and secret pleasures.