Hillary's Angry? So What Else Is New?
As to whether recent comments made by Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman about New York’s Junior Senator develop into a notable news story it remains to be seen.
But it really shouldn’t.
At least, it shouldn’t if it is true that only newsworthy stories should develop into news stories. If Nancy Pelosi switches parties, that’s news. If Pat Robertson comes out in favor of gay marriage, that’s news. But a “revelation” that one of the Democrats’ leading players – specifically Hillary Clinton – is an angry person? Sorry, it just doesn’t measure up.
The fact is that when Mr. Mehlman made his comments about Senator Clinton’s rage on ABC’s “This Week” show last Sunday, he was only reaffirming what most, if not all, America knows. The only point where a significant number of people might differ with him is in his contention that such a high level of anger is not what the American people want in a president.
Yet, while those who do want that in a president are in the minority, it is a significant minority – of the general population – nonetheless. And when one looks to the constituency that presidential aspirants in the minority party must appeal, such rage in those candidates is hardly surprising.
The angry people who desire an angry president, although in a minority of the general electorate, are a clear majority within the activist ranks of the Democrat party. Witness the obscenity-laced posts on prominent left-wing blogs, particularly when Republicans score any victory in the political arena. Witness the comments of “celebrity Democrats” like Alec Baldwin, who used a vulgar term to describe Senate Democrats who didn’t vote to filibuster Sam Alito. Witness the incoherence that makes such rage manifest in displays like the “pot-banging” demonstration outside the Capitol while President Bush delivered his State Of The Union Address inside.
These are the people who, at this point in history, stand to choose who the Democrat candidate for President will be two years hence. Thus it is these people to whom those who want George Bush’s job must make their appeal. It is to these people that Democrat Presidential contenders have to make the case that they are political and ideological soulmates.
That’s not to say that the Hillary Clintons and John Kerrys wouldn’t be angry anyway, but it helps to explain why they don’t worry so much about letting their rage show anymore. They have to make a public display of their like-mindedness to convince the faithful that they can be counted on to carry on the good fight against the “real enemy” – the Republicans and conservatives. Hence Senator Clinton’s “plantation” remarks about the Republican Party – she was speaking to her base. Just as Senator Kerry was when he unleashed his foul-mouthed tirade just off the Senate floor the day his “Alito Filibuster” attempt failed.
But it is a fine line that leading Democrats must walk, not only in 2008, but in this election year as well. Because while Americans may not always agree with the policies pursued by a particular party, there are enough rational minds in the electorate to absolutely fear a party whose main unifying factor is the hatred toward “the other side” that all the faithful possess. After all, which party, when in power, is more likely to be willing to silence voices of dissent within the population, the one already in power with which whose policies an individual might disagree, or the one that has already shown a pattern of misdeeds designed to keep opponents from being heard?
The beauty of it all – at least where Senators Kerry and Clinton are concerned – is that they don’t have to worry about their displays hurting them in a general election this year: Senator Kerry is not up for re-election, and Senator Clinton is effectively unopposed in a state that would probably re-elect her anyway. The difficulty may arise two years down the road when they, like all their rivals, have to think beyond merely appealing to the far-left, that has taken over their party. Will the nation as a whole remember what it saw when they revealed their true selves?
But it really shouldn’t.
At least, it shouldn’t if it is true that only newsworthy stories should develop into news stories. If Nancy Pelosi switches parties, that’s news. If Pat Robertson comes out in favor of gay marriage, that’s news. But a “revelation” that one of the Democrats’ leading players – specifically Hillary Clinton – is an angry person? Sorry, it just doesn’t measure up.
The fact is that when Mr. Mehlman made his comments about Senator Clinton’s rage on ABC’s “This Week” show last Sunday, he was only reaffirming what most, if not all, America knows. The only point where a significant number of people might differ with him is in his contention that such a high level of anger is not what the American people want in a president.
Yet, while those who do want that in a president are in the minority, it is a significant minority – of the general population – nonetheless. And when one looks to the constituency that presidential aspirants in the minority party must appeal, such rage in those candidates is hardly surprising.
The angry people who desire an angry president, although in a minority of the general electorate, are a clear majority within the activist ranks of the Democrat party. Witness the obscenity-laced posts on prominent left-wing blogs, particularly when Republicans score any victory in the political arena. Witness the comments of “celebrity Democrats” like Alec Baldwin, who used a vulgar term to describe Senate Democrats who didn’t vote to filibuster Sam Alito. Witness the incoherence that makes such rage manifest in displays like the “pot-banging” demonstration outside the Capitol while President Bush delivered his State Of The Union Address inside.
These are the people who, at this point in history, stand to choose who the Democrat candidate for President will be two years hence. Thus it is these people to whom those who want George Bush’s job must make their appeal. It is to these people that Democrat Presidential contenders have to make the case that they are political and ideological soulmates.
That’s not to say that the Hillary Clintons and John Kerrys wouldn’t be angry anyway, but it helps to explain why they don’t worry so much about letting their rage show anymore. They have to make a public display of their like-mindedness to convince the faithful that they can be counted on to carry on the good fight against the “real enemy” – the Republicans and conservatives. Hence Senator Clinton’s “plantation” remarks about the Republican Party – she was speaking to her base. Just as Senator Kerry was when he unleashed his foul-mouthed tirade just off the Senate floor the day his “Alito Filibuster” attempt failed.
But it is a fine line that leading Democrats must walk, not only in 2008, but in this election year as well. Because while Americans may not always agree with the policies pursued by a particular party, there are enough rational minds in the electorate to absolutely fear a party whose main unifying factor is the hatred toward “the other side” that all the faithful possess. After all, which party, when in power, is more likely to be willing to silence voices of dissent within the population, the one already in power with which whose policies an individual might disagree, or the one that has already shown a pattern of misdeeds designed to keep opponents from being heard?
The beauty of it all – at least where Senators Kerry and Clinton are concerned – is that they don’t have to worry about their displays hurting them in a general election this year: Senator Kerry is not up for re-election, and Senator Clinton is effectively unopposed in a state that would probably re-elect her anyway. The difficulty may arise two years down the road when they, like all their rivals, have to think beyond merely appealing to the far-left, that has taken over their party. Will the nation as a whole remember what it saw when they revealed their true selves?
posted by JeffreyH | 1:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home