The Clinton Campaign: Running on Ambien

Just a year ago the hot question was: Is America ready for a black or female president? As the campaigns wear on, the question has shifted to: Can America survive the tedium of its black and female candidates?

Obama, for example, hasn’t turned out to be any more challenging to white America than re-runs of the Cosby show. He was slow to pick up on the Jena 6 case and never showed up at the rally – although, to be fair, neither did Clinton or Edwards. Like the others, he has refrained from noting that Giuliani, in addition to being a cell phone exhibitionist and a 9/11-abuser, presided over a New York City police department famed for its torture and killing of young black males.

But it’s Hillary who’s causing the citzenry’s heads to pitch forward and collapse on their chests. Every time she opens her mouth, her flat, monotonic voice lays out yards of opaque white gauze, muffling any possibility of “discourse.” Where does she stand? Over here, and a little to the side, and maybe a few steps to the right. Hers is known as the “flawless” campaign, but no one in it seems to be able to turn off the endlessly triangulating tape in her head.

Lately she’s taken to emitting to sudden, inexplicable, bursts of deep laughter – known in the media as “the cackle.” Whether this is a deliberate “humanizing” touch or a glitch in the computer program no one knows. According to the New York Times, the “weirdest moment” came in response to a question from Bob Schieffer about Republican charges that her health plan would lead to “socialized medicine.” As the Times reports, “She giggled, giggled some more, could not seem to stop giggling –‘Sorry, Bob,’ she said – and finally unleashed the full Cackle.”

Maybe she has a better sense of humor than I’d imagined, because the thought that her plan to turn health care over to the private insurance companies might be “socialist” has me rolling on the floor too.

I just wish I could work up the same degree of enthusiasm for Hillary as my friend Katha Pollitt, who recently told the Times: “If people don't stop saying incredibly sexist things about Hillary Clinton, I may just have to vote for her.” But what are these incredibly sexist things? True, there was the whole faux “cleavage” issue, and the occasional whack-job who writes to enlighten me about Clinton’s bisexuality or Chelsea’s true daddy.

Then, in of all places – feminist Maureen Dowd’s column on Sunday – I found a genuinely sexist comment about Hillary. Dowd apparently approvingly quotes Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, saying that Clinton is “like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won’t stop nagging you until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone.”

Now I’m all for having literary editors, poetry editors, and the like commenting on our political process, but the “nagging housewife” image is not only a sexist stereotype – it’s about 50 years out of date, stemming from an era when most married women were financially dependent on their mates. Besides, male politicians are never likened to stereotypical husbands, even though some of them can be equally hard to dislodge from the recliner in front of the TV or, as the case may be, the Oval Office.

But the “hellish housewife” comment does not make Hillary a feminist martyr, nor does it make me any more willing to listen to her, either now or for the next five years. Trying to say nothing to offend, she ends up saying nothing to inspire or even inform, and Obama, though still far more engaged and human-like, risks ending up with another Ambien candidacy.

Part of the problem is structural. We make our presidential candidates campaign for at least a year at a stretch. Take a normal person and subject him or her to month after month of trail mix and chicken Caesars, sleep deprivation, and the need to be “on,” smiling and handshaking, 16 hours a day. No solitary moments of reflection, no walks in the park, no escape into thrillers. What do you get after a few months of this? A golem, the artificial, man-like creature of Kabalistic lore, a personoid incapable of normal responses.

So yes, America is ready for a black or a female president. Just be sure to wake us up when it happens.

Comments

[roger]

the fact that jesse jackson and al sharpton show up in jena, louisiana is sufficient evidence for me that the jena protests are nothing more than continued race baiting. if jesse and al had any conscience at all they would address the horrific black on white violence so prevelant in america today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channon_Christian

dont be surprised that you have not heard of this crime. the main stream media has successfully buried it.

[roger]

and this account:

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/05/14/christian-newsom-murders-media/

[Tom M.]

So these are our choices in '08? Ambien v. Lithium--I mean, Clinton v. Giuliani? Mind numbing.

[Maya's Granny]

Having been born during WWII, I was so hoping that the first woman candidate for president would be someone I could vote for. How sad, she isn't.

[Tom]

Since both parties are owned by the corporate lobbyists, it isn't going to matter who is elected. They'll still be trying to get out of Iraq 4 to 8 years from now, America is already bankrupt and the dollar sinks lower every day.
The rich will get richer and the rest of us will suffer inflation, depression, and will be fighting each other for the crumbs unless we somehow take down the corporate stranglehold on our government. Capitalism has ruined democracy and the neocons have ruined politics. Besides, since no one is going to be able to change anything substantially, we're all living on borrowed time as the climate will end up destroying our habitat in less than 100 years.

[corvid]

I watched a bit of a discussion among David Gergen, Jim Lehrer and George Stephanopolous on C-SPAN over the weekend. Speaking of Hillary, Stephanopolous made the point that she has a lot of negatives among the general populace but that her best strategy is to just wear everyone down. How appealing.
But I suppose it's true. Still, I don't think I could really bring myself to vote for Clinton, if she were the Dem nominee and someone other than a longshot like Huckabee or Ron Paul were running on the GOP side. So I'm thinking, this may really be the year for a third-party vote.

[Jennifer]

Dowd is about as feminist as my granddad, which is to say, not much at all. And Hillary. Hillary. If she were a woman with a SPINE or a HEART I might be able to vote for her.

[A Canadian]

I'm not an American so I can't vote, but if none of the candidates are worthy of election then who the hell are you gonna vote for? Up here in Canada we have a party called the Marijuana party. Guess who I voted for in the last election? The vote counted for nothing, but at least I voted! I'm wondering....if no one is worthy of election what can your usual American citizen do?

[TahoeTim]

I like the Marijuana Party idea.

[A Canadian]

Roger,

Read your link concerning the murders of Christian and Newsome. Absolutely horrific. Incomprehensible, in fact. I'm not surprised that there was no media coverage.

What ever happened to a "free and independant" press? I thought that is what they were there for; to provide the masses with accurate news and opinions without censorship and propaganda. This world is truly and utterly messed up!

[roger]

independent and free press was lost about the time that the news was expected to earn money.

[chris]

President Bush just vetoed a bill that would have expanded government healthcare coverage for children.

Here's the interesting part. The bill would add $35 billion to provide coverage for 4 million additional kids.

In other words, the new estimate for providing medical care to each kid is $35 billion/4 million or $8,750.

The cost of government healthcare for kids is now pegged at $8,750 per kid.

Thus, if we extrapolate that figure to the entire population, we get an idea of how much the government would spend to provide an inadequate Government Healthcare Plan for Everyone.

Multiply 300 million citizens by $8,750 per citizen for the total.

Here it is:

$2.6 TRILLION

That's a lot!

Moreover, the funding for this expenditure was to come from an increase in cigarette taxes.

Okay. No one really cares about smokers and the tax burden they're stuck with. It's their own damn fault for smoking. They could quit and pay no cigarette taxes. Thus, the tax is paid voluntarily.

However, it's obvious from the bill that to satisfy the funding requirements, the country would need MORE smokers if the tax revenue projections are to be met.

I suppose we could entice more immigrants from countries that ignore the realities of smoking. We could get them to move here and pay cigarette taxes. We'd need them, because the pool of US smokers is declining, though I believe the group still numbers around 50 million.

However, since we've reached the point of extracting punitive taxeds from cigarette addicts, why not go all the way and legalize all drugs. We'd have no trouble generating billions more in tax revenue from consumers of these popular recreational substances.

Today, of course, we squander billions in failed attempts to keep illegal drugs out. Our law enforcement efforts keep prices high, profits to dealers astronomical and tax revenue at ZERO. That's government at its best, don't you think?

Meanwhile, the cost of healthcare is spiraling upward. Thus, it's painfully evident that no one in the US government can claim that a Government Healthcare plan will cost less than the system we have.

Imagine. A family plan based on the federal expenditure of $8,750 per person. For a family of four the annual cost would total $35,000. Is anyone spending that much for coverage now?

[buena]

To get back to Barbara's point -- our candidates turn into robots because that's the only way to survive our ridiculous method of electing them.

Hillary used to be a real person with real ideas. We saw how far that got her. So she's been Stepforded into a candidate.

We need to go back to the original Greek form of democracy where leaders were chosen at random. No money spent on campaigning, no debt to special interests, no pandering to mediocrity.

[Larry In Lethbridge]

I see Chris is trying to play mathematician now with health care dollars.

I saw the many different clips of Shrub Bush saying how he was going to see to these children's healthcare needs. Then his last one.

How all of a sudden he would not support the bill and how it "was the first step towards socialized medicine". Sad day for many of you fine US citizens to see your fearless leader deny children this way. Sad day for many as you probably realized the deep kaka this bozo has gotten you into. Good work.

[Justin K.]

ha ha, I realized that Bush was going to drag us into the mud before he even came in to office. And amazed when this "bozo" (as you put it) was voted back in to office. So much for learning from our mistakes.

[Anarcissie]

As far as I know, no actual binding votes have taken place in primaries or caucuses related to the 2008 election. We may have some surprises coming once the media, the pollsters, and the chattering classes step aside and the voters get to speak. I will be mightily surprised if Hillary doesn't begin sinking.

I am curious as to whether chris's statement about insurance for 4 million people costing 35 billion dollars is accurate. That level of expenditure doesn't make much sense. My insurance (one person, bought through a co-op of sorts) costs about $3000 per year. If that kind of money is being spent, something is seriously out of line somewhere.

[Anarcissie]

Maya's Granny: 'Having been born during WWII, I was so hoping that the first woman candidate for president would be someone I could vote for. How sad, she isn't.'

Margaret Chase Smith was the first woman I know of to be nominated for the presidential nomination of a major party (1964).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Chase_Smith

The first woman I know of to get on primary ballots for the Democratic presidential nomination was Shirley Chisholm. (1972)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Chisholm

Interesting to compare these two with what we've got now.

[Larry in Lethbridge]

Anarcissie wondered:
" I am curious as to whether chris's statement about insurance for 4 million people costing 35 billion dollars is accurate"

Probably not too accurate. Actually, the runt usually backs things up with a source, but this time he was just winging it without doing much research.

I think our bedwetting buddy really jumped to a conclusion here and was wrong again.

I think he is really starting to loose it, don't ya think ?

[Solo]

While we have yet to see the details of any healthcare plan offered up by the Democrats, I believe a compromise system will come into play.

One that requires health insurance companies to cover everyone and reduce deductibles and co-pays and eliminate non-covered items.

The experts who deal with the real cost numbers say that a national system could be put in place for the cost of 9 months of the Iraq war. Think about it. We could have created and paid for a better system 4 years ago.

One of the functions of our government is to "promote the general welfare," it's in the Constitution. Assuring affordable, accessible healthcare is one sure way to follow that mandate.

[Anarcissie]

I don't think anything can be justified by comparing it to the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq is a terrible, vicious, unaffordable, unjustifiable waste of money, to say nothing of the lives consumed by it.

The question chris raises is reasonable on its face, if his figures are correct. If my already wasteful insurance system is costing me about $3000 per year per person, why does another program for children cost $8750 per capita? What happened to the complaint that the American system costs more than the German or Canadian systems, and that the government can do it better and cheaper?

Questions like this should not be handwaved. If you are in favor of Single Payer, you should have a cogent, brass-tacks answer to them. Otherwise it will be very easy for your opponents to cast serious doubt on the proposal among the politicians and their constituents, and we will have a rerun of the Clinton health care fandango.

[chris]

My per-capita figure on the Children's Healthcare Bill are incorrect. The $35 billion spending increase is to be spread over 5 years. Not spent annually.

However, my basic premise stands. The US spends $5,000 per person for the Medicaid program and $7,500 per person for Medicare.

Medicaid covers about 20% of the population, or 60 million people. The additional funds and the new kids receiving coverage do NOT equal a decrease in expenses.

In fact, due to the other changes included in the healthcare bill, it's clear this increase is just a baby-step before the next big hike.

[Ywhxs]

Privet

[Ywhxs]

Privet

[Deborah]

the fact that jesse jackson and al sharpton show up in jena, louisiana is sufficient evidence for me that the jena protests are nothing more than continued race baiting.

******

And what, pray tell, were the nooses hanging from the tree?

[Anarcissie]

chris: '... However, my basic premise stands. The US spends $5,000 per person for the Medicaid program and $7,500 per person for Medicare. ...'

Medicare is paying for older patients. A favorite way for the medical industry to increase its business is to engage in heroic and sometimes even absurd efforts to add a few years, months, or days to the lives of the aged, especially once they're already on the way out. So they have an excuse. The $5000 for Medicaid should be looked into, especially by those who want the government to take over the business generally -- not only as to the money cost, but as to whether good service is being delivered.