I just turned on the California Democratic debate. I find myself surprisingly okay with Hilary Clinton.
I'm baffled that Michael Graham at Nation Review thinks either candidate fell flat on the CEO question. Obama shivved Mitt Romney with his answer -- based on how they've run their campaigns, the Dems certainly know what they're doing better than Mitt.
Hillary is certainly not shy about playing the gender card. I think it's fantastic that a woman and a black man are odds-on favorites to be the next president (I
m not sure if I expected to see such a thing in my lifetime; when I was ten, I thought either was forbidden by the Constitution). But unlike some, I don't think either represents an overriding qualification, either. Both have had to face discrimination in a way that rich good-ol'-boys like me or George W. Bush can't comprehend. But identity isn't compelling in a vacuum, and Hilary Clinton's principle are such a vacuum.
A questioner observed that anyone born after 1962 has always had a Bush or Clinton on the ballot (actually, I think she was counting since 1970, but I think the Vice presidential slot in 1980 counts). That is ridiculous. There has been a Clinton or a Bush in the White House since I was seven years old. I'd sure like a chance to vote for a different family for a change. Is this how Republicans felt about FDR?
And then a friend called, and I missed the rest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment