Empty Heart of Hillary

them's fighting words....I think Dowd has a streak of creative genius which neither of the other two might claim, as fond as I am of them.

Oh, I'd agree with that, Blatham. But when she's at her worst...

At her worst, (IMO) Dowd is petty and gratuitously cruel.

Coulter however, is a relentless hatemonger, albeit a clever one.

there was a post about Coulter's new book outselling Hil's, (on Amazon) according to the NYT's, Hil's book is still number one in non-fiction sales, Coulter's new book is not in the top ten.

That post was on abuzz, too. The claim was that Amazon sales were greater for Coulter's book than for Clinton's. Turned out to be not so. The, some helpful soul listed various sources from which to gather lists of best selling books - and Coulter was nowhere on it.

Scrat here - sailfree on abuzz. Meanwhile, I read where they're lined up over in England for Clinton's book.

Been reading Maureen Dowd for years. She can be bitingly funny, and just plain biting. Lately, she seems to be in a biting peeve. She seems to be at her best when she can do good parodies and sarcastic take-offs, and the colorless Bushes apparently offer less in the way of subject matter, so we're back to the Clintons.

Where's McG? Does this thread prove that, no matter what is there, Hillary;s heart isn't empty?

About Dowd, I almost always enjoy her work. She can be so clever and when I agree with her, I never think she's too cruel. :-) But she's irratated me about Hilliary.

Tartarin, I agree about "women's lib" it seems foolish to me to declare total independence from men.........I am so fond of them...... Such "independence" is a prison. Silly.

Mamajuana, I wonder if Dowd's mood lately has to do with the unfunny insanity running rampart in the White House at present. It's certainly getting to me.

About Hilliary's heart being empty.........she seems fine to me. I don't understand those who seem to hate her so. She's a busy woman, she can't be everything to everybody. And I'm glad her book is selling so well. I tried to buy a copy, but they were sold out. Have to go back to book store soon. Or maybe I'll just order up from Amazon.

Tell you what just popped into my mind reading everyone's comments -- it's something which hits on my feeling about Hillary:

Does Hillary matter?, or maybe:

Is Hillary courageous and independent?

(Without knowing a whole lot about it, my instinctive answers to both would be, Not much or Not very.)

Jesus - the woman excelled in school, survived a jacked-up (fidelity wise) marriage to raise a self-sufficient, smart kid and launch a successful senatorial campaign; now she's a best-selling author a couple of times over. By what yardstick are you measuring Hillary?

Or perhaps her mood has to do with the funny insanity running rampant in the New York Times at present.

A telling point, JJorge

Snood -- I think she's worked very hard and done some good things, but my questions remain -- in the context of expectations, of course.

that's what I mean - whose expectations?

I suppose if I have a criticism regarding Hilary, it is that she is very much a modern political animal - what we see is more of a facade or a presentation than I would like. Also, I don't think she is her husband's equal in terms of affability and engagement, so she can seem distant or cold.

The relative lack of charisma doesn't seem terribly important, other than she would likely inspire less than did Bill. The first complaint concerns me more. I long for politicians who get angry and don't just fake it, or temper it so as to avoid offending. My favorite guy, Trudeau, was like that, one time giving some protesters the finger as photographers snapped away, and another time suggesting in Parliament that an opposition speaker mange la merde. Still, I think her an extraordinary woman.

On Dowd, I agree more with Lola than Jjorge regarding the charge of any 'cruelty', but I think Tartarin has it closest when she uses the term schtick....Dowd will take some theme and very creatively builds her column around it, which has produced some of the best writing in modern journalism (I think), but sometimes this technique fails her and she ends up dragging a dead moose through the column.

If someone is looking for a candidate with a chance to unseat the Dimson, I can understand if they're scrutinizing Hillary through a very critical lens.

But in terms of just whether or not a person has worked to fulfill his/her own potential/aspirations, I think I'd take a good hard look at anyone who casts aspersions on her.

mama

That's interesting...scrat and sailfree reading the same sources...no great surprise in that.

Dowd's column fell quite flat in the period after 9-11...did you notice that? Satirical humor was very tough to do at that point, things being as serious as they were, and it seemed she was casting about for some way to make her column and her style work for her. I think she is now as seriously aghast as many of us here are at what is happening with this White House and at the fools populating it, and again, I think that seriousness does not facilitate what she is really the best at.

I'll add that the satirist who I think has not stumbled is Garry Trudeau...he has been consistently brilliant throughout this period.

For my money, Trudeau hits the nail on the head every time. I have him on my home page, which means I get to see him daily. All round, I like Molly Ivins better than almost anybody. I think she can be devestatingly funny. I agree about Dowd, but I think she'll find her sea legs again. And Safire makes me laugh. You can really go nuts between him and Novak, but both of them have gotten old enough to indulge themselves from time to time.

So far as Hillary goes - she's such a strong personality that she never arouses wishy-washy reactions, and she's super smart along with it. Her becoming Senator in New York was no fluke. She won the hard-nosed, set-in-their-ways upstate new York republicans by some serious hard work. A lot of people dismiss that, but it's a mistake.

Incidentally, Blatham, I think scrat and sailfree are the same anyway. When you look at styles of writing, attempts at humor, the rest of it.............

Whereas her husband was a good ole boy, Sen. Clinton as a politician in her own right has not had decades to hone her self-definition. Thus, we have a woman who is at once very stern, but also one who has a good sense of humor on those rare occasions in which it is displayed.

Before the TV cameras, she is almost like the proverbial duck out of water whose responses to interviewers' questions often seem rehearsed and as cold as ice. She often, to me, seems to be hiding something, just what I don't know.

She needs a lot of polishing and grooming if she is to become a presidential candidate. She needs to have a personality with whom voters can identify. Her handlers certainly need to work with her on her obvious shortcomings.

I feel certain she is a brilliant lawyer and could always hang out her shingle again should the voters throw her out of office. She could probably make more money as a private citizen than as a U.S. senator.

On the other hand, Sen. Clinton and her years of non-elected public service bring to the Senate a commitment that most Americans respect -- and many envy to the point of hating her.

Somewhere during the maelstrom of her senate career, I see Hillary emerging as somewhat of a stateswoman. She may find that she is able to wield more power in the senate than in the White House. That will be fine; the country has too few statesmen and even fewer stateswomen.

I was reading some wonderful oh-golly-gosh articles about Democratic fundraising, the surprise Dean gave everyone, and where-is-this-going/what's-going on-here shock 'n' awe reportage. There's real (and really silly) puzzlement on the part of Dem standard bearers about the rise of Dean and Kucinich (kind of like my father's take on the Everly Brothers -- "where the hell did THAT come from!"). In fact, when I started to get enthusiastic about Dean, I was worried that this was entirely a youth movement, that Dean (and Kucinich) hadn't grabbed the psyches of older Dems and would be dismissed. I don't know about Kucinich's "demographic," but going to a couple of rallies for Dean dispelled any notion that this was a Kollitch-Kid stunt...

Much of their support comes from those who are beyond appalled by Bush and unwilling to glance in the direction of Dem candidates who have been accomodating in any way. Adios (they'd say) to Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman (don't even mention Lieberman's name!), and (this is a tougher one) Hillary. A joke about Bill/Monica, W/Hillary comes from that quarter. It goes: Hillary is to W as Monica was to Bill!

The campaign will have its fervors and some death throes, but one has to take into account (presumably for 2008) the edgy feeling on the part of many activitists that Hillary has been a.... much too accomodating. She's been wonderful in some interviews (and I've said so several times) -- edgy, direct, smart, funny. No one in this household is questioning her intelligence or political abilities. Joe Lieberman is also extremely bright and a deft politician. I've just found her to be unreliable (to put it politely!) and find I'm not alone in this.

Tartarin

The reference to your father and the Everly Brothers....fell off my chair. Lovely.

I've been reading over some recent interviews with Noam this morning and I confess I'm not in a frame of mind that is much willing to support the sort of dem status quo which I think Hillary represents. But...ANYONE OTHER THAN THE PRESENT CROWD! Sorry for shouting, everyone, just a blood pressure thing.

When you total up the campaign chests raise by all democrats - doesn't stack up bad against the Bush repubs at all. And the dems have actualy just started. What's interesting is the approach to all the "little" people. The Bush people, in contrast, are hitting up their same big donators. And I just don't think that the size of the fund will be as important as what they do with it. Joe Trippi, with the Dean campaign, is proving tough, smart, and able. Just read where John Kerry has signed on with MeetUp, the groups that sponsored all those one-on-ones done by Dean.

Back to Hillary - that's the thing about her - this is not a pale personality. And it could be that the thinking for next time is "woman." As of now, there's not a republican woman in sight who can stand up as an independent vision. When Elizabeth Dole won, Bob Dole stoped with the Viagra ads. Makes you wonder.

So if they keep playing up Hillary, there's a candidate in the making. You don't have to be crazy about her, but she's real, she's there. I also am one of those who believes she's given the institution of marriage a strong boost by not allowing hers to sink into a morass of lies and entanglements, but instead has looked at the strengths and long-term commitments, and found them working well for her. As a member of a long-married team, I know about the bad ups and downs, the disillusionments and the joys, and the decisions that go into staying or leaving. Staying, many times, is difficult, demands a commitment and a desire to work it through. For me, this demonstrates some very necessary qualities of Hillary, which transcend the usual look.