Pen-Elayne on the Web

Our Macaca Moments

I see Clinton Derangement Syndrome has been rearing its ugly head again. While I admit I was disappointed in the ex-President's private-made-public behavior while in office, even as I acknowledged it was none of my business, I never got this weird utter hatred that many people on both sides of the aisle seemed to have for Bill and Hillary (and, for all I know, even Chelsea). Was it some sort of knee-jerk anti-hippie thing? I saw some of the same crap at work when Kerry was running for president. It was as if anyone who reminded certain people that the 1960s were full of good and positive things (peace, love, hope, expansion of our inner and outer worldviews) rather than the way they preferred to frame the era in their heads (losing a war [in which we should never have gotten involved, kinda like today], promiscuity and rebellion against authority, those uppity black people and their messy non-violent protests) needed to be demonized, in the same way they try to demonize "the '60s" themselves.

The thing is, it doesn't work any more. Enough footage exists of things that went on culturally and politically in that era that, coupled with the easier-than-ever access folks with computers have to audiovisual information nowadays, can put the lie to any nasty propaganda in short order. Citizens can find out things for themselves and make up their own minds about What Really Happened better than we ever could before. And the same goes for modern politics. As George "Macaca" Allen found out, politicians can no longer get away with much of the rhetoric and code they used to use in public. The public is onto them.

Likewise, great swaths of the public seem better able to prioritize what should be emphasized than the traditional media, even sections thereof which seem to lean liberal. Take the recent brouhaha, completely fabricated on the part of said media, over Clinton being named Obama's Secretary of State. It was as if nobody had ever discussed the very real possibility that the person who got the highest vote totals ever for a party primary also-ran. It was as if nobody remembered how fascinated (in a good way!) a huge section of the electorate was with her. No, all that was forcibly stuffed into a memory hole as new talking points came along. Her foreign policy opinions differ from his!, as though his won't overrule hers when he's President, or as if they can't learn from each other and each modify their positions, or as if their respective positions were pretty much a hair's breadth apart to begin with.

(Mark Evanier phrases it thusly: "Didn't some of us vote for Barack Obama in the primaries because we didn't want Hillary Clinton managing U.S. foreign affairs?" No, I honestly don't think so. For many of us it was a toss-up, an embarrassment of riches; we would have been happy with either candidate. But I truly don't believe specific foreign policy experience was the deciding factor here.)

And what about Bill! What is this, 1994? What about the ex-President, who's now raising money for the Clinton Foundation to fight AIDS and poverty? How the hell does this constitute any sort of conflict of interest?

Now, look, I love Rachel Maddow. But enough is enough; she returned from her short vacation to harp on this for two straight days, replaying Clinton's difference of foreign policy opinion with Obama over and over like some sort of mantra, as though by repeated intonation it would suddenly sound more sinister than a minor disagreement hyped up by a heated campaign where the media was rooting for blood. It's like they still are! Finally (and thank goodness), Maddow turned to Malcolm Gladwell, who had to explain to her like you would a child that This Is A Good Thing, that a man who has a world of wisdom but not a lot of foreign policy expertise is surrounding himself with experienced players who do have that expertise, in a cabinet designed to enrich us all. And thatthis is what constitutes the "change we can believe in," rather than how the media wants to interpret that phrase as "this means he must bring in all-new people who've never governed before!" As in Bush-style cronyism?

I think Hillary Clinton will make a fine Secretary of State. I think she would have made a fine VP, and a fine President. I think the media is really out of it on this one, trying to once again create drama where there is none. I think -- well, I think What Digby Said.