Sense from Seattle

Common sense thoughts on life and current affairs by a Seattle area sexagenarian, drawing on personal experience, years of learning as a counselor to thousands of families and an innate passion for informed knowledge, to uniquely express sensible, thoughtful, honest and independent views.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Understanding Hillary


In spite of not writing here recently, I am still tracking the campaign closely, and even though it seems apparent Hillary has lost the nomination, I am still trying to figure her out as a person. I am reading last year's "A Woman in Charge", by Carl Bernstein, and am up to the point where Bill has decided to go ahead with his 1992 run for the White House, and he and Hillary go on "60 Minutes" to address questions of his sexual wanderings.

John from Phoenix has just posted a response to my February 28 posting of "The Fleeting Audacity of Inevitability", wherein I addressed the apparent failure of the Hillary Clinton campaign. His thoughtful comments always stimulate me to respond. Because our current exchange is appended to an article from over a month ago and is likely to be overlooked, I have decided to reproduce it here.

Tom,
I did not respond to this because it annoyed me so much. But since you haven't posted anything for a while, I'll make a couple of comments:

1. Do you not feel comfortable with Hillary because she is cuckold? Or do you not feel comfortable with her because she made a rational assessment of her life and career and decided she would do better by standing by her man? I would like to put Bill's puerile indiscretions outside of rational political discourse, but that appears not to be possible. Who cares if Hillary stayed with Bill because she loves him? That question makes me gag and is appropriate only for soap opera viewers. What is important for Hillary and what is important to the citizens of this country is how she handled a crisis in her life. That reflects on how she would handle national and international crises. I think she did very well.

2. Because we all agreed that a black man would be chosen before a white woman does not imply that that is the correct moral choice. It merely reflects the perceived male bias of the American electorate by the three people who responded. Personally I identify with the women suffragists who were outraged that former male slaves got the right to vote long before women of all color who helped create this country did.

3. To suggest that Bill Clinton would deliberately undermine his wife's campaign is silly. Of course he wants her to succeed. The battle you suggest will come later after she is elected. Will she or Bill rule? I bet on her ruling.

4. The wishful thinking about change without substance is pathetic. The elections of John Kenney and Ronald Reagan come to mind. The former was neutral and the latter harmful to the US. Let's give professionals the job that they are trained for. Obama is not trained and Clinton is. It is simple as that.

John from Phoenix

My response:

1. Hillary married Bill for love and for the power she expected him to make available to them through politics. She knew he had a wayward libido, but she calculated that into her decision to marry him. Apparently she miscalculated the extent of his wandering urge, but when it threatened to derail the power train, she vigorously joined in the war against the derailers, which included personal attacks on the various women with whom he dallied. Staying in the marriage through his various affairs was her business, but purposely misleading the voters, when Bill was running for President, about the extent of his problem and the possibility it would come up again was unfair to the electorate. I share the view of the majority of voters, that Hillary is calculating and not quite trustworthy. How one handles the foolish sexual affair of a spouse pales by comparison with how one would handle an international crisis. Rather than giving Hillary credit for handling Monicagate, I fault her for fooling us (and herself) into ignoring the warning signs.

2. American voters seem more prejudiced against African Americans than against women. At the highest elected level next to the Presidency, the US Senate, there are several women, but Barack Obama is only the third African American Senator since Reconstruction. The Presidency may be different in the eyes of some Americans, because of the Commander-in-Chief role. Having some women rise in the military and serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff would help overcome that. African Americans and women were both denied the vote until the US Constitution was amended, first for African American male voters following the Civil War, and then finally for all women in 1920. Both amendments came in their time, after long struggles to obtain them. Victims of unfair discrimination succeed best when they unite, even if it means recognizing that the time to end one form of discrimination may come before another. We may soon elect an African American President, and in time we will elect a woman.

3. Bill and Hillary are a team, and electing her brings him along. That is bothersome to many voters, like me, who do not want Bill back in the White House, even if he is just the spouse and she is the one with the final say.

4. I am not sure how one trains to be a professional President of the United States. We do not have such a program. We also do not seem to agree on who were our best Presidents, at least among the more recent ones. Presidents seem to spend much of their time in office reacting to developments, sometimes rather unexpected, sometimes perhaps partially fabricated. The agenda proclaimed on the stump often morphs into a more ideologically driven wielding of power and then settles in to become a combination of practical politics and siege mentality. There is no other job in the country that comes even close in preparing one for the Presidency. Sometimes, like now, voters want a change, and they look for a candidate who appears more trustworthy and less likely to morph into a power hungry ideologue, one who will be guided by practicality and cooperation, rather than by obstinacy and defensiveness. That is the longing into which Barack Obama has tapped.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom,
I know you are a rational person, but I am having trouble understanding your logic:
1. Hillary was fooling us by not denouncing her husband as a philanderer? And therefore she is undeserving of the Presidency herself? Some of our best Presidents were unfaithful to their wives (LBJ and FDR to name two). Some of our worst were probably faithful (Nixon and Carter to name two). I think there is no connection between marital fidelity and being a good President.

Should Hillary have warned the country and "susceptible" females about her dangerous husband? Would Monica have stayed far away from him if she had? We know Monica seduced Bill, but who cares? I don't understand any of what you wrote regarding this.
2. OK, but it might be the other way around. We elect a woman and then a black.
3. I'm not sure why you don't want Bill back. He did the right things for the economy. He was an effective President except for the damage he did to himself and to the country with his phillandering. Why do you not want him back (pick one): 1. His centrist policies were far to the right of where I want a President to be. 2. His phillandering digusts me. 3. I don't want a close relative of a former President being elected. That might be a good argument. John Qunicy Adams and George W Bush were awful Presidents.
4. Pap. Of course there are jobs or positions that better prepare a person to be President. It is a political and executive position. Many CEO's of large companies are well trained to be President. Many military leaders also have the training. But I do agree that some hacks who have no training have turned out to be good Presidents (e.g., Truman). But Truman was no ideologue and that is the thing we must avoid. Rabid adherence to ideological beliefs is the biggest danger whether the beliefs are rightest or leftist. Lately our ideological Presidents have been rightists. I like McCain and the Clintons because they are pragmatic. I don't know about Obama, because he has no history. I will vote for a person with experience over a glib speaker. (Except I can't support McCain for his position on Iraq.)

John from Phoenix

8:34 PM  
Blogger Tom Blake said...

1. In the 1988 campaign, Gary Hart challenged the media to prove rumors of his marital infidelity, which he denied. The media rose to the challenge and came up with the proof. This media inquiry was a departure from tradition and was questioned at the time. But David Broder in the Washington Post set out the new standard when he wrote, "What was at issue was Hart's truthfulness, his self-discipline, his sense of responsibility to other people - indeed his willingness to face hard choices and realities.... The fundamental character questions raised by Hart's actions in this incident remain unchanged, and if they are not vital in judging a potential President, I don't know what would be." Hillary has enabled Bill's failings in the way now referred to as co-dependency, and that makes both her and him unqualified by the Broder test. She did not have to denounce him, but she should have persuaded him not to run in 1992, a decision they had made in 1988, after the Hart implode and the coming of the new standard.

2. Looks like the African American male will come before the woman.

3. Bill cooperated with the rich and powerful to "grow the economy" and what we ended up with was the "loud sucking sound" American job loss Ross Perot warned about, without any improvement in labor standards for foreign workers, obscene salaries for corporate executives, a widening gap between the haves and have nots, and numerous bubbles which have been bursting ever since, all perpetuated and worsened by the Republicans who were able to take power after Clinton in significant part because of his "character" failings. His centrist policies were too Republican for me and his philandering was especially disgusting for its stupidity. I do not like the idea close relatives of a former President running for the office.

4. CEOs lack the necessary working familiarity with partisan politics and Constitutional checks and balances. Answering to single minded stockholders interested in corporate profits is vastly different than dealing with a diverse American population. Foreign policy issues a President faces are significantly different from any multinational dealings a CEO might have. A military leader lacks the political and Constitutional experience, but may have some limited foreign policy experience. The rigid military chain of command makes the executive experience of military officers of highly questionable value for a would be President. The military also are too heavily trained to believe in force as an acceptable solution. Presidential pragmatism may need to outweigh ideology sometimes, but Clinton was too willing to give in, whereas Shrub Bush is just the opposite. I think you sell the experience of Truman short; he was long involved in local politics, and was a knowledgeable and hard-working Senator before becoming Vice-President. I think you also fail to credit Obama for his community service work interfacing with local politicians and for his many years of highly respected service in the Illinois State Legislature before becoming a US Senator.

3:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom,
1. It was called co-dependency way back when Monica was doing Bill. Using the term "co-dependency usually implies a failure on both parties to take charge of the situation. I believe Hillary took charge and decided her future was best served by staying with Bill. I see no weakness in her actions.

Your statement that Hilary should have persuaded Bill not to run is astounding. Why? It would not be in her or Bill's interest. I assume you think it would have been in the country's interest, but what politician in the entire course of world history has decided to pull back for the good of the country, state, empire, or whatever? Personally I am incensed that a good leader is marginalized by sexual behaviors. That has no business in politics.
2. I agree. But there is still time left for Obama to hang himself.
3. Bill Clinton was the best President in terms of the economy that we have had since Eisenhower. Clinton's conservatism restored the economy after Reagan's profligacy. Not many people are able to remember when the Republican Party stood for balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. Then Reagan came along and turned that idea upside down. Since then Republicans in charge of federal and state governments have cut taxes (mostly for the rich) in order to gut the power of government. Clinton turned all that around. But his shenanigans with Monica allowed W Bush to get elected and continue the Republican profligacy. We need another Clinton to resurect our sinking economy. Hve you seen the latest figures regarding the value of the dollar? I see Canadians in large numbers buying homes where I work because the homes are such great bargains and the Canadians are rich relative to us because of the exchange rate. Your idea of the economy is mired in 1950's labor vs management talk and is so far from the real world that I wonder where you have been since then.
4. Today's CEO, and, for that matter, project mangers, engineers, accountants, etc, must work with colleagues from many different countries. My experience in this was with French, Italian, and Japanese colleagues. We all have to do our specific jobs with respect to political, cultural, and our company's interests in mind. The politics in corporate America and the politics of the global economy well serve a CEO to be President.

When you get into the complexities of military leadership beyond the battle ground, you find the politics no different than the politics of the state. Eisenhower was prepared to be a great President because he had already served as a leader of an international military force in WWII. In his position he could not rely on force of rank any more than most CEO's today can.
John from Phoenix

8:51 PM  
Blogger Tom Blake said...

1. When a wife knows her husband is a serial skirt chaser and not only puts up with it but also leads the campaigns to turn truth to lie, in order to fulfill her political aspirations, you may see that as a strength. If it is, it is not one I admire. Powerful people who pull back for the greater good have existed throughout history, but people like the Clintons are incapable of that kind of conduct. I am not a prude and I certainly do not think Bill Clinton did anything warranting impeachment, but I do think that a man who cannot control his lust should be a questionable Presidential candidate. So also with the rest of the seven deadlies: gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.

2. The idea of Obama hanging himself sadly recalls what a southern Sheriff might have told a Federal Marshall back in the days of rampant lynching. The only way Obama will hang himself is if Hillary can get on the other end of the rope, which is exactly what she is trying to do. Watching her and Bill execute [pun intended] this strategy, makes me all the more antagonistic towards them.

3. In spite of (or more accurately probably, because of) being from the party of big business, Republican Presidents generally manage to screw up the economy, especially for their successors. I agree with you on Reagan; he was an economic fraud. Eisenhower had an easy go of it during his years, as the US had almost a monopoly on world manufacturing, while the rest of the world was recovering from the desolation of the War. American labor unions wisely saw to it that American workers shared in the pie, but they failed to work for improvements for workers in the third world, which ultimately has contributed to the loss of US jobs. The unions also failed to see to it that younger Americans were educated on the value of labor unions to the workers and to the economy [I might cite you, John, as an example]. Clinton does not deserve your economic canonization. He gets credit for getting the budget back in balance, but the ultimate question is on whose back it was balanced. Much of the public debt was replaced by consumer debt. The US economic growth of the 90s was largely on paper. We thought we had made progress from manufacturing to information technology, but now we are seeing that maybe it was more of an illusion.

4. My Thai daughter-in-law has a job in a corporate branch here in the Seattle area, where she works with colleagues from many different countries, including India, Afghanistan and Mexico. Unfortunately, since she is foreign born, she will never be able to use that experience in a quest to become the first female Thai President of the United States. So for now she'll just have to settle for the $8.00/hr Subway pays her and other immigrants to do one of the "jobs Americans are not willing to do", make sandwiches.
The military, like all organizations, has its politics. In fact, wherever three people are gathered, politics comes into play. Top level military experience can develop great leaders and administrators, capable of handling awesome responsibilities, but the politics involved in the armed forces is quite different from the intricacies of our civil government. Schwarzkopf and Powell were two top Generals thought to have had possible Presidential capabilities, but both declined to run. Perhaps they are two examples of people pulling back for the greater good.

2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom,
1. Serial skirt chaser? That's funny, but I think you are serious about thinking blowing off established sexual mores makes a person unacceptable as a political leader. We would probably blow away 75% (just a guess) of histotical leaders.
2. An example of PC to its ridiculous extreme. Of course I did not even consider the use of a cliche in terms of a black man. I retract the phrase "hang himself" and will substitute "shoot himself in the foot". Hillary's attempt to show Obama shooting himself in the foot with the "bitter speech" I find very offensive and demeaning to the Clintons.
3. My former wife's father was a union professional for most of his adult life. I know well the heartache felt by union leaders who believed passionately in their profession, but had to face negative public opinion because of the extremes of their leaders positions. The problem wasn't that the unions failed to educate younger Americans of the value of unions. The problem was that union extremism caused the failure of union support. Railroad featherbedding is the easiest example. But my father-in-law had many very personal stories of lazy workers who claimed empty grievances against their employers, and my father-in-law had to defend them. He was disgusted with the attitude of the union worker of that time. He started his career as an idealist in the 40's and ended his career disillusioned in the 70's.

Don't think he was a rebel. At his death he was lionized by the Portland Oregon leadership: union, political, and industrial. The catholic church was overflowing with people who came to his funeral. He was given a full military funeral because of his participation in WWII. I'll never forget my wife's weeping as the military leader handed her the American flag.

The American union movement had its great times. It certainly helped the US worker and maybe saved the US from political extremism such as communism or facism. But it had its weak and sickly times about the time when you and I entered the labor force.

4. I don't get your point. Your Thai daughter-in-law works for low wages, and I hired Chinese workers at high wages? We were all Honeywell employees. Nobody said the Chinese workers I hired should make sandwiches. If your Thai daughter-in-law had the skills of the people I hired then she would make more money. That is called capitalism.
John from Phoenix

8:55 PM  
Blogger Tom Blake said...

1. That was then; this is now. Lest we think it is all prudery, some of it is based on more respect for the rights of married women regarding the sexual activities of their spouses.

2. Hillary actually likes negative campaigning, but most voters are sick of it. Her tactics are turning voters against her.

3. You and I have gone many rounds on unions. I don't know to what you are referring when you speak of union extremism. You give the example of featherbedding, and specifically on the railroads. Wikipedia has a good article on featherbedding, with some history and up to date information. As the article points out, featherbedding today occurs more often in mid-level management positions. Unions were only extreme in the eyes of employers who did not want unions to exist at all. These are the people who have the power to control the message the public receives, and they use that power relentlessly to fight the very concept of unionism. They believe it is essential for them to keep the working person in desperate financial straits in order to keep their own power.
Unions are obligated by law to represent all worker grievances, and if the union tries to discourage baseless grievances, the grievant can then turn on the union and make trouble. This process creates some incentive for employers to hire a few troublemaker types and then tell the workers that unions only exist to help flakes at the expense of good workers, thereby undermining the good worker support for unions.

4. I was just being cute about my daughter-in-law. Actually she is shifting over to a better paying job and will be upgrading her job skills as she and my son settle in more permanently. Speaking of capitalism, if the richest people would make the best President and VP, then for years it would have been President Gates and VP Buffet. Now Buffet would be the President and Gates (who has fallen to #3) almost would not have a job, except that the new #2, Carlos Slim Helu, is not a US citizen.

12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

4. I suppose you are being cute again, but where did I write that the richest people would make the best presidents? I said the experience of a CEO of an international business would be good experience for the Presidency of the US.
John from Phoenix

11:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home