The Clinton news round-up

A couple of interesting stories in the news about Hillary Clinton have gotten my attention this week, the first being a piece by Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.com concerning the dangerous game some Clinton supporters are playing by adopting the persona of the "Hillary Haridan" as their own. Latwick's overall point is surprisingly not one that had occured to me, perhaps because it seems so obvious - basically, it's that in the aftermath of the democratic primary, the persistent media image of Senator Clinton as a crazed and wild-eyed fishwife was transferred to her supporters. Senator Clinton had quietly withdrawn from the stage but scores of vocal Clintonistas remained, and their disillusionment became grist for the power-hungry, madwoman mill.

As I say, this isn't a particularly earth-shattering revelation; however, Lithwick takes the idea a step farther by pointing out the dangerous game that many Clinton supporters are playing by adopting the image of the madwoman as their own. By embracing their inner Clintonistas and proudly declaring themselves PUMA's, Lithwick argues that these women are appropriating and reinforcing the very imagery used to marginalize them. It's as if the monster in Frankenstein picked up a torch and joined the lynch mob.

While I see Lithwick's point, I'm not sure if I absolutely agree. There is, after all, a history in the US of turning the word used by the rest of the world as gendered epithets into in-group badges of honor - consider words like 'faggot' for the gay community or 'nigger' for the black community. By appropriating these words as their own, these marginalized groups removed at least some of their sting. If the MSM is afraid of the "Hillary Haridans" and their 'mad as hell and not going to take it anymore' attitude, that means that they're at least being taken seriously. Maybe if Senator Clinton had embraced her inner 'bitch' a la Margaret Thatcher, saying "I know I am but what are you" to all those kooks at Fox News, the campaign would have gone differently. Who knows?


Another story in yesterday's Newsweek finally asked the question I'd been waiting to come up ever since Obama started his slow slide in the polls - WWHD (What Would Hillary Do?). In a way, a small but significant portion of democratic voters (those Hillary Haridans) never stopped asking this question, even as the primary was decided and Clinton conceded. But as long as Obama's poll numbers made it look as if the outcome in November was a foregone conclusion, the WWHD brigade gained little ground among the party's mainstream. But, boy - what a difference a few months makes. In the wake of her defeat, Hillary more or less remained off the MSM radar, wholeheartedly threw her support behind Obama (or at least made it look that way in public) and noted that she would be happy to consider the VP slot (even though the Obama camp would rather poke their own eyeballs out with dull spoons rather than offer it to her - perhaps understandably). In the meantime, the God-like aura that had surrounded Obama started to wear a little thin. He didn't gain enough ground with key voters, he seemed unable to convince Clinton supporters that he was their man, he became a flip-flop machine, and he bent his own rules regarding running a clean campaign free of the usual political garbage.

Suddenly, it seems, Vice President Clinton doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

Personally, I think that the only thing that's going to save Obama from an ugly battle to November that will force him to completely abandon his principled stand on political issues is VP Clinton. She's used to taking and dishing the dirt, and no one would be a better attack dog for him. Nothing would shut down team McCain faster than an Obama/Clinton ticket. And now that Obama clearly needs a little political help, he would be smart to ask her.

Unfortunately, I don't think he's that smart. And no matter which middle-aged white guy he picks on Saturday, it's not going to do much to help in the lead up to November.