Saturday, January 20, 2007

Hillary's in... yawn

David Seaton's News Links
Full disclosure: I don't like Hillary. In no way do I find Hillary sexually threatening, which is the reason that Sharon Stone, renowned, if not exactly for her political analysis, gives for thinking that it's "too soon" for Hillary.

I imagine that I've become too "European", but frankly I couldn't care less what she or any other politician (including her Bill) does or doesn't do in bed. I imagine (if I have to imagine) that she, like most middle aged people who work that hard, is like Lee Dorsey's coal miner: "when Saturday roll around, she too tired fo' havin' fun." Politician's sexual adventures are only interesting when they have previously set themselves up as paragons of virtue, because exposing a pharisee is always glorious fun. But the question is not about, or shouldn't be about Hillary being a woman. Everybody with any experience knows that pound for pound and all other things being equal, women make better managers than men. Women tend to be more realistic than men, for one thing and better listeners, for another. Hillary's being a woman, for me, is her biggest plus.

I think the valid question is more about what sort of a human being she is and what sort of a president of the USA, America and the rest of the world need post-Bush. Certainly such a transparently triangulating, phony as Hillary Rodham Clinton doesn't fill that bill. I also find this "dynasty" thing very, very decadent: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton(?) and remember Jeb (barf) waiting in the wings. Can't a republic of 300,000,000 people do better than that? DS

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Hey, next year could be the year of female rulers. Clinton, Royale, Merkel, even Benazir Bhutto might be making a come back if Musharaff decides to stop being a tyrant. New Zealand has a female Prime Minister, Chile I believe has one too.

And why not?