by NYWoman, Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:45:04 AM EDT
From the posts I read today, there is a consensus that it is over for Senator Clinton. Conversation almost instantly pivoted to her plans, especially a Veep slot on the Obama ticket. I think we are a bit ahead of ourselves here. First, the Senator has every right to continue. Secondly, I do think the remaining states should be allowed their day in the (albeit setting) sun of the primaries. This long contest has been, in many ways terrific, for the party. It had been years since I stood on a street corner on election morning waving a sign to support my candidate. Obama has made my husband and myself reliable doners to the party. The last check I wrote out was not to Obama, but to my local assemblywoman. This is great stuff! Numerous apolotical friends and co-workers have experienced the same transformation. We aren't going anywhere now. We will pick up our cudgels and turn our attention to the Republicans.
Thirdly, Senator Clinton has to start paying attention to New York state. Senator Obama is arguably much more popular here than Senator Clinton. Her gas tax foolishness was a direct assault on the citizens of the state she represents. We are extremely dependent on mass transportation, and we also need the tax to serve that and our rural roads and briodge infrastructure. We also haven't completely forgiven her for the war. There is talk that Senator Clinton might be a future governor here. She could be a geat one, but she needs to come home and say hello to us. So, let's all relax and give everyone time to digest the reality of what looks like a fanstastic campaign.
by NYWoman, Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:11:40 AM EDT
I have been thinking quite a bit today about the money the Clintons have raked in between 2001-2006 (we don't have any data for 2007 yet). 100 million plus is a lot of potatoes. And it all seems legal even if offshore companies in the Cayman Islands are involved. What strikes me is not that the Clintons got rich -- but how rich they got. What does this level of greed mean? Al Gore also has gotten rich -- mainly through stock options from very transparent consulting gigs with companies like Google and Apple. He worked for the money. Bill -- on the other hand -- earns his by entertaining rich people at $150,000 a pop and by hanging out with shady folks like the Guptas and Ron Burkle (sp?). Somehow, it just seems over the top, shabby and more than a little said.
It is something that continues to mystify me -- along with the Clintons' bizarre dependence of Mark penn. What is about them that compells them in this direction, even when it hurts them politically?
by NYWoman, Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:06:21 AM EST
I just spent some time reading and pondering one of the main arguments of the Clinton candidacy -- that only she can secure the "base." What is the base of which she speaks -- the ever shrinking white working class ethnics that will be so important in PA, African Americans, Latinos and mainly working and middle class women over 60. She is securing this base by taking both the high (populism) and low road (racial codes, moslem bashing, etc.) Of course she already has lost part of the base -- African Americans -- and Obama has shown that Latinas will vote for him in Illinois so what are we really talking about?
The working class ethnics -- the so-called "sons and daughters of the Reagan democrats."
Curiously, I find this the weakest part of her electibility argument. Once we leave the primaries -- white ethnics will surely splinter with a large part of them going to McCain. They also -- in tactical terms -- represent an ever shrinking part of the voting population. What do I see then? If Clinton somehow games the nomination, we lose. Enough African Americans, young voters and others stay home, incidentally depriving the Democratic party of its furure life's blood. McCain becomes president and re-unites the Republicans under the double mantra of defense and no taxes.
by NYWoman, Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 12:27:52 PM EST
I watched Charlie Rose's interview with Bill Clinton
from a psychological slant. A man who usually seems so
perfectly in turn with the mood of the country seemed off
kilter and out of sorts. While thinking this over, it struck me that simple jealousy might be impeding the ex-President's judgement. Is President Clinton part of an aging generation angry at the possibility of passing on power to a
post-boomer? Is the reality that we might actually elect a
truly black president getting under his skin?
This is all speculative and perhaps I have been snow bound
for too many hours today. Any thoughts on this rather
freudian laden post? The generational aspect of this primary