Bloodless Coup

i don't question hillary's ongoing self-absorption, although i think it's risible to imagine that anyone who runs for the senate doesn't have that same quality in some substantial degree. the dogged egotism required to run in today's environment selects for a particular brand of megalomania identifiable in just about all of the senators, and probably every nationally notable politician across the board (holding a few spaces for the truly extraordinary, not one of whom comes to mind at present).

but if we're going to indulge the fiction that only the senator / presidential candidate / whomever we're talking about is guilty of whatever crime / insensitivity / self-indulgence is of interest at this precise moment, it's worth noting that, with only each of their records to go on (given that they're all single-minded egomaniacs who will run over anyone in their paths given the chance), hillary, bucking just about everyone's expectations, did a masterful job of balancing her prominence and the institutional role played by freshman in the senate, and appears never to have heavily played her celebrity (or otherwise connived) for legislative advantage in her time as a legislator. one might make allowances, that is to say, for an overreaching first lady to an overreaching and very young president during its most overreachiest time in office.

she's still an egomaniac, she's still just out for hillary, but she's a far more wise (and wizened, perhaps) person and politician than she was nearly 15 years ago. she's taken her knocks and paid her dues.

i still can't imagine voting for her in the primary, to be clear, mostly because she is to democratic orthodoxy what mccain is to its republican counterpart, and i refuse to vote for anyone so relentlessly positioned and poll-refined and so utterly devoid of clear personal vision, ideological or otherwise. but the idea that she's some harpie who even vaguely resembles the follish younger person who tried to stuff universal health care down the country's throat . . . well, that's just silly. and holding a grudge over that is equally silly. i've got perfectly good reasons to favor other democratic candidates in the here and now, based on my assessment of her agenda in her own terms and her record as a public servant. i don't need to go digging.

and getting one's panties in a twist over "demonization?" oh come on. that's not a common political tactic on both sides of the aisle? people don't speak candidly and in coarse terms when doing politics behind closed doors? bill bradley never cursed up a blue streak to someone? whatever.

Hmmm - I would have thought you would've used Romney as the preeminent example of the poll-driven Republican, but sure, McCain largely fits that profile too ...

But back to Hillary - I get what you are saying, and think it's precisely because of the growth you are talking about that she's acted the way she has in the Senate. But I don't think that takes anything away from the possibility that she (and Terry McAuliffe and the rest of the Clinton game) still plays politics with a ferocity and intensity that is not the same as every other senator. And I think it's precisely because of having run-ins with that pattern of behavior that a lot of the Democratic hands in DC are less than enthused about her candidacy (which is nonetheless quite popular with many Democrats outside DC). Will it help get her elected? Quite possibly. Will it complicate her election? Quite possibly.

Will most senators have big egos? Sure. Will many be arrogant? Sure. But I don't think we've seen equivalent patterns of behavior in a lot of the other Democrats who are serving in the Senate or running for president. Doesn't mean we won't as time goes on. But she's more associated with that style than others. And given that insider types who frame campaigns have memories of such patterns of behavior I'm still curious to see how that's going to play itself out over the course of the campaign.

And just to throw the card, because someone has to and it's always me... why is this always such an issue with her and not all the hims out there.

Well in this instance I think it's more a characteristics of the entire team. If Bill was running again he'd get this kind of thing written about him, between now and election day this kind of thing will be written about a lot of her fundraisers and advisors, I don't think that in this case gender has a lot to do with with the Clintons are viewed this way. It's more a team characteristic.

But will she be presented as a dragon lady given this past and her gender? I'd certainly expect so.

Hillary is the most arrogant, self-absorbed,lying individual I have ever heard and seen. I am very upset that the news media does not spend more time on 'factcheck' on Hilary's campaign fund-raising, her foreign policy experience, her 80 trip itinary while in the White House, the white house paper on her experience. All I hear is more 'biased remarks' on Obama. Here is a man of high 'integrity' to has to keep 'fighting back' the insinuations made of him. Hillary is doing the old Clinton machine tactics. Why doesn't anyone check on her 'integrity' and why is it not reported about the garbage she has. Surely, someone in the media is not afraid to put her on the front page to explain her role in fund-raising, especially in her Senate run. The Clintons seem to have a 'stranglehold' on the news media.

Hillary is the most arrogant, self-absorbed,lying individual I have ever heard and seen.

Well, I would alter that statement to read "Hillary is among the most arrogant, self-absorbed,lying individuals I have ever heard and seen, just like like all the other presidential aspirants." It's pretty much a job requirement, and some candidates are better at finessing its appearance than others. Politics is ugly and nasty, but we (read: the public) don't want to believe it.

I would alter your statement to read "Hillary is among the most arrogant, self-absorbed,lying individuals I have ever heard and seen, just like her husband and the professional Clinton sycophants."

The Clintons really are a class apart. They always have been.

I don't know. A guy I went to grad school with went to law school in the same era as Santorum, and he said one of their professors said that little Ricky was the most nakedly ambitious, arrogant and willing to do anything to get ahead people he had ever seen (after teaching law for decades). Not to slam just Ricky as fun as it is, but that people who want to be president get started early, and invest heavily. That kind of commitment to a quest for power sort of ups the ante for what they're willing to do, don't you think?