Originally posted at Liberal Street Fighter
It’s all over the “liberal” blogosphere, the wailing and gnashing of teeth about how the mean ole’ press is picking on Senator Clinton again:
Atrios has written a very important post today on why we should be alarmed at this latest breathless girly gossip about Hillary Clinton. I have received a lot of emails and comments to the effect that Hillary is a (fill in the blank) and so deserves itand therefore we should all be happy that the New York Times is doing God’s work by destroying her candidacy. This is a very short sighted and historically clueless way to look at this. We call these “Clinton Rules” but they are not really about the Clintons — it’s about the press corps and the way they treat Democrats.
Geez, give it a rest already. Hillary Clinton has only herself to blame, and this goes for the most of the rest of the Democrats in Congress, as well as most of the putative candidates lining up for 2008 who aren’t still in the Congress.
Lets do a quick thought experiment. Tell yourself, quickly, a story about Senator Clinton. Who is she? What does she stand for? What is her story? What are her formative experiences, and how do they inform what she does now?
Can’t do it, can you?
No, no, not her curriculum vitae … that’s not what’s missing. Her people spew that crap out on cue. Not her voting record, not her latest plan or faux centrist compromises or flip flops … none of that is what we’re discussing here.
Senator Clinton is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party in DC.
Senator Clinton epitomizes the empty hole that the DC Democrats leave in our government. She, and they, are a negative space, defined by what is around them. They can’t tell you who they are, so Republican whisper campaigns do it for them. They are unable to spin a tale of their lives, compelling reasons for anyone to look to them, support them, lift them onto the people’s shoulders to represent the nation’s hopes and dreams. Notice, remember, understand … everytime another feckless loser is elevated to lead the party, it is done so with appeals to giants in the past, with little or nothing to connect the present empty suits with those who created the New Deal, the Civil Rights Acts … politicians who built coalitions, busted heads, fought and strove to achieve not only their ambitions, not only to fulfill their careers, but to leave a mark, impact the world, BE someone, focus the power and hopes and goals of their supporters.
Do another thought experiment. Think of the story of Bush’s life. Yes, yes, we know it is a lie, but we all know the narrative. We all know of the wastrel’s life. We know of the love of a good woman, and the Love of his Savior and his redemption on his fortieth birthday. We know of his steely resolve and his “values” and how he will fight for those values. It doesn’t matter that we, his opponents, know that this story is a lie. He’s has set it into the public mind. He and his machine have described it and spin it out over and over again, and they weave that story into the tapestry of what they do now. Many of the Republicans do this … go ahead, think about Delay or Santorum or Brownback. They are adept at this essential element of politics. It’s not enough to have plans. It’s not enough to be an “expert”, to offer some promise of prowess and managerial skill, and that’s about all that most of the Democrats offer. How many times have they promised to “win” the war in Iraq, to basically continue the story that Bush started, only to do it “better”?
This isn’t just a question of having the right argument. A politician, a LEADER, must have a reason other than their own ambition to lead. There must be some goal, a goal that is tied somehow to her life, her experiences, her compassion and understanding based on having lived and struggled and worked to become someone, something, to bring something better into the world than was there before. Sadly, many politicians and “leaders” have only pretended to do this, but they at least had the good sense to tell a convincing yarn and make it believable.
Politics is the art of forming collective action out of the shared beliefs of a group of people. It can be focused through a personality or a party or a Constitution or some manifesto, but it is necessary to have some lens to focus that energy. Any group who can’t do that will be defined by one that can. Distortions will be pinned to them like tails on a donkey.
Neil Gaiman, in at Wired, wrote a piece about Superman that is instructive:
About a decade ago, Alvin Schwartz, who wrote Superman comic strips in the 1940s and ‘50s, published one of the great Odd Books of our time. In An Unlikely Prophet, reissued in paperback this spring, Schwartz writes that Superman is real. He is a tulpa, a Tibetan word for a being brought to life through thought and willpower. Schwartz also says a Hawaiian kahuna told him that Superman once traveled 2,000 years back in time to keep the island chain from being destroyed by volcanic activity. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn’t, but it does sound like a job for Superman – all in a day’s work for a guy who can squeeze coal into diamonds.
Politicians are just human beings. Great politicians are people who convince people that they represent something more, and they fulfill that promise. They become, in a sense, a tulpa, a living embodiment of the promises made to their followers. There are, in history, few great politicians, but Senator Clinton has NO chance of becoming one. Failing to define herself, she is defined by her enemies. As Marisacat puts it:
The other thing about the DC Dems is that they have spun losing as winning for so long, they are in terminal confusion.
They are trapped in this self-defeating cycle, and they lack the will or the life experiences to help them escape. There are a few exceptions to this, like Senator Feingold, Representative Conyers or Representative Saunders, but they are the exception that proves the rule. (Go watch Senator Feingold’s campaign ads to see how he deals with Republican distortions, the way a man with a mission can set his own agenda, write his own story, and do it with humor and integrity).
Bitch all you want about the media, but in the absence of another narrative, backed by sincere belief and righteous certainty, the lazy wretches trying to maintain their cozy corporate checks and perks will keep regurgitating the same tired stories, and those stories are all being written based on Republican whispers.
If they want the press to do their damned jobs, they have to show that THEY stand for something, and they have to show a willingness to strike back fast and hard against Republicans attacks.
Sadly, it will take a disappointing election in ’06 and a loss to newly elected President Allen/Brownback/Guiliani before these losers can be dislodged …
Thanks Madman – very well said.
thanks. I’m so tired of the same pathetic bunch of losers selling us out.
My karaoke version kicks ass, if I do say so myself.
So no one told me about her
The way she lies
No one told me about her
Too many people tried
Its too late to say your sorry
(how could I know-
why should I care)
Please dont bother trying to find her
Shes not there!
Let me tell you bout the way she looks
the way she acts
and the color of hair
Her voice is soft and cool
Her eyes are clear and bright
but shes not there!
–Zombies on Mrs. Clinton in 1965
love that song. It was running through my head as I wrote this.
I followed the link prepared to defend Hillary Clinton. Not because I can point to much of anything in her record to defend, but because I think she has been and is still singled out for special treatment. I think she has been and is still getting a raw deal from the corporate media and from many here on dKos. You haven’t changed my mind about that. But on the larger point you make, that the Democrats in Washington are ciphers, “negative space, defined by what is around them”, I have to agree with you. There are a few, a precious few, who actually seem to stand for something, who are willing to take a risk for something that matters. But there aren’t nearly enough of them.
Judging by that criteria, almost the only Democrat worth paying attention to right now is not in Washington. He is on jihad, trying to save the planet. His name is Al Gore.
think about Al Gore, though. Compare him now to Al Gore in 1999. HE’S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MAN. He’s reclaimed his persona. He’s not a lying, self-aggrandizing hack who “invented the internet”, he’s a crusader fighting to save the planet, a son of a tobacco farmer who was awoken to the danger of polution by the death of his beloved sister. HE WANTS TO SAVE OUR SISTERS! Notice that the media, the oil companies, are trying to stick him again to the Al Gore of 1999, but it’s not working.
That’s what I’m talking about. Yes, Senator Clinton is being singled out. She has a ton of cash and is, in the public mind, one of the “leading” Democrats, but she LET’S IT HAPPEN. Every month or so she spews out some pandering crap that reinforces the narative of a venal woman who will do anything for her career. That’s what the stories about Bill’s philandering are all about. “See, she’ll put up with ANYTHING to have power!”
I have no sympathy for her, warhawk traitorous Vichy Dem that she is.
Will Gore be the Nixon of the 21st century, at least in the political resurrection sense?
I don’t know. We could really use a sort of liberal statesman, someone who can redefine what it means to be on the left. I think he might do that better staying an activist.
I suppose that Hillary recognized this, giving rise to her tedious autobiograpy. (Admittedly I read about half of it.) It describes a modest upbringing and much acheivement (shocking, I know.) but doesn’t seem to have gained her any ground with the general public. She was defined during the 90’s and will likely find it impossible (or exceedingly difficult.) to redefine herself. It’s too bad that such an intelligent individual can’t (or won’t) figure out how her energies are better utilized.
Bill used to be able to tell his story, make it interesting. It’s not enough to be smart and successful. You’ve got to say WHY you want to lead, and I’ve never seen her do that. Not once.
Thanks Madman, you crysallized much of what has been on my mind about Ms. Clinton.
We can do so much better than this candidate.
The other thing I’ve been thinking about is that the Right Wing desperately wants her to be our candidate. It’s not the left or center that keeps pushing Hillary in our faces, it’s the corporate owned media and the wingers who won’t shut up about her. They aren’t afraid of her (she’s in league with them too much of the time), it’s a win-win for them.
defined by what is around them. Thank you. I would like to borrow these defining words from time to time if you don’t mind.
please do.
An excellent piece, thank you. I understand more, now, why the I resent references to Sen. Clinton as the frontrunner for the 2008 race.
Still, the MSM’s tilt must be a factor; ditto the electorate’s willingness to be conned. How else to explain the success of Republican politicians who have not implanted a narrative in the public consciousness? Failed Democratic whisper campaigns?
Well, the Dems barely try whispering campaigns, let alone actually attacking someone. It’s pathetic. As for the lousy Republicans who haven’t implanted their own narrative … they hitch a ride on the other Republicans who do, like pilot fish following a shark: