Projo Subterranean Homepage News

My friend Providence Phoenix news editor Ian Donnis, on his Not for Nothing blog (Hillary: Short on substance?):

There's sometimes a sense of inevitability about Hillary Clinton's pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination, given the nexus between her success in raising money, the power of the Clinton machine, and the way in which Democratic elected officials are falling into step behind her. And everyone knows that she's "scary smart." Writing this week in the Phoenix, however, Steven Stark says there's good reason why two new Hillary biographies are inducing yawns: 

Steven Stark likes Barack Obama's story better: "if you’ve read his book, you know he’s genuinely interesting," It's okay if he'd rather have a beer with Barack. These biographies probably aren't even good chick flicks. But Stark also says, "Hillary’s real claim to fame is that she married a political star. " Damning politicians for how they got their start isn't new, but in this case, the charge isn't even true.

Stark writes,

It’s true that, according to the Hillary myth, Hillary’s classmates were wowed by her at Wellesley and that she gave what they considered to be a stirring graduation address when she left. But giving a great graduation address is not a qualification for the presidency. And, even if it were, it would have to be a lot better speech than Hillary’s, which, to be kind, has not stood the test of time as well as, say, the Gettysburg Address.

I was at Wellesley with Hillary, although I didn't know her well. We were in different dorms. I had skipped an early grade, so I graduated in the class ahead of her. I am not a friend of Bill or Hill, have never been to a Wellesley reunion, and give a newsroom hairy eyeball to politicians.

But I was a fly on the wall there then, and Steven Stark was not.

Hillary Rodham and Sheila Lennon both sat in Professor John M. Cooper's American political history course, where, ironically, we were shown on the blackboard how the a third-party candidate effects change in American elections: He lets major-party candidates -- nearly indistinguishable as they bunch up to appeal to the hump of voters that make up the vast voting middle -- differentiate themselves.

Positive public response to the outrider lets candidates modify their positions but still look moderate in comparison. The outrider actually shifts the middle and breaks the headlock. This would play out in 1992 with the candidacy of Ross Perot and the subsequent election of Bill Clinton rather than a second term for George H. W. Bush.

Hillary sat in the front row in that class, and often lingered to ask questions as the rest of us were shooting out the door Friday afternoon on our way to weekend dates.

On her own, Hillary Rodham was elected student body president, and made headlines at the time with that 1969 commencement speech. Its page on the Wellesley College site begins with a welcome to guest speaker Sen. Edward Brooke, R-Mass., the first black man elected to the U.S. Senate:
Ruth M. Adams, ninth president of Wellesley College, introduced Hillary D. Rodham, '69, at the 91st commencement exercises, as follows:

In addition to inviting Senator Brooke to speak to them this morning, the Class of '69 has expressed a desire to speak to them and for them at this morning's commencement. There was no debate so far as I could ascertain as to who their spokesman was to be -- Miss Hillary Rodham. Member of this graduating class, she is a major in political science and a candidate for the degree with honors. In four years she has combined academic ability with active service to the College, her junior year having served as a Vil Junior (chosen to help orient incoming freshmen), and then as a member of Senate and during the past year as President of College Government and presiding officer of College Senate. She is also cheerful, good humored, good company, and a good friend to all of us and it is a great pleasure to present to this audience Miss Hillary Rodham.

Hillary's speech followed.

And that was a tough crowd. This was one formidable woman even back then, and she linked up at Yale Law with a formidable man. There was no doubt she was going places -- there were jokes then that she'd be the first woman president.

That she would choose to live her life in partnership with a remarkable man is hardly unusual. Children, traditional expections and life circumstances often make for an odd trajectory in women's lives. But this woman has long been remarkable in her own right.

Her challenge is to be remarkable now, when America most needs that.

---

2 Comments

joyce said:

Ugh. Certainly columnists are entitled to their personal opinions, and to have them printed in the paper.

However, describing someone who seems never to have opened her mouth in public without first calculating how it would play politically, and who voted for a disastrous war when millions of people who took to the streets could see it was going to be a disaster, as "remarkable," well, yes she is "remarkable," but I think not in the way you mean.

Remarkably unfit to be President at a time when we really need someone with the qualities of a statesperson, is the way I'd put it.

Al Gore, please run.

Link | June 24, 2007 3:25 PM
Report Abuse

---

Sheila Lennon said:

Joyce, I'm guessing you don't agree that there's too much negativity around our election process.

I'm weary of snarky takedowns of candidates who would all be better than what we have now. (That's an opinion, unlike the events of nearly 40 years ago I related in the blog post.)

If Al steps into the crossfire I'll probably haul out primary sources and facts that clarify deliberate distortions about him, too.

How these candidates would govern interests me most. War spending is bankrupting our country. Municipal budgets are in crisis, wages are stagnant and the cost of such essentials as energy and food are rising. Businesses will fold because we don't have much left over to spend. "Statesperson" is only part of what we need.

There'll be plenty of time to discuss all this intelligently, and there's a better chance of having that discussion if Americans swear off the cheap thrills of nasty propaganda. Why help Karl Rove?

btw, blogs don't run in the paper.

Link | June 25, 2007 3:38 AM
Report Abuse

---

Leave a comment

Name:

Email:

URL:  

Remember personal info?

Captcha:

Type the characters you see in the picture above.