This primary season is like a Greek play on the Politics of Principles, the Politics of Justice.
In the New Hampshire ABC-TV debate Hillary was flustered to the point of flashing her anger, claiming ownership of the 'accomplishments' made through the Bill Clinton ascendency and presidency. Seeing this resulted in the following understanding of her and the dyamics of this primary:
Hillary's behavior reminded me of the pre-commitment-feminist stage of resentment many women experience, of wives playing supportive roles for husbands or bosses without satisfying recognition or pay, of women whose careers immoblize when squashed up against the glass ceiling.
I got the feeling that perhaps if Hillary read the primary feminist literature she would agree that women should be treated equally, however that it would be purely an intellectual idea to her when related to all women. (I feel justified saying this because Hillary Clinton uses "I think" and ....
...."I believe" to preface the bulk of her statements, even where 'I observe', or 'I understand', or 'I take the position' are more appropriate.) If feminist ideals and calls for justice made up her principles, she would have taken them to the political arena long ago.
In contrast we see John Edwards who has taken on an equivalent problem -- justice for the impoverished and hurt -- from a principled position and has made a career of clashing with those who profit through the creation and perpetuation of loss and poverty and denial of justice.
If Hillary has embraced any of gender equity it was not as an expression of a principled position but as an expression of personal ambition.
Seeing the Edwards family members in juxtaposition to Hillary Clinton made me realize the Bill-Hillary unit was primarily based on political ambition, while John Edwards and the family behind him were coming from a palpable, unrestrained passion for the principles of justice. Clearly both ways can lead to success in the public arena -- but only one advances justice in our human affairs!
In this personal view of the players I cannot muster seeing Hillary fighting (or "working" as she put it) for my interests as she has lacked the passion and principles to spend any part of her life fighting openly for the principles of feminist justice which even now could have guaranteed her an easier rise to an independent role in politics! Instead she must scrape together a narrative that says being first lady is 'experience'! Sad. Hillary so lacks passion, she cannot even claim to the populist support of an Eva Peron. At most we are offered a subtext that an aging Bill Clinton, already with one heart surgery behind him, is her secret weapon for the next eight years (not that much of a plus if one considers the uncertainties of old age!).
Of all the Democratic candidates, Hillary is most like George W. Bush -- the Constant Campaigner. Just like Bush, she says governing is "hard work". Her real passion, like Georgie's real passion, is the power building, brokering, and marketing of modern campaign politics. Where is Hillary's passion for governing? When she speaks of governing she looks TIRED; it seems to be just drudgery to her, as I read her body language. Hillary was almost invisible in the Senate. Her only alive moments are her campaigning times, similar to George W. Bush's Washington boredom as compared to his campaign trail verve.
It's true, when you love what you do, have passion for it -- like John Edwards expresses his love for justice, his love of fighting for it -- you are carried by that passion, it makes you alive beyond normal living, and sometimes even prolongs your youthfulness.
Watching the debate the other night made me see the Clintons for the tragic players they are, tragic in themselves, and tragic in the fertile soil of NAFTA, WTO, and media consolidation that they left in which the Bush Cabal could grow utter misery and shame for us at home and around the world. And we don't need anymore tragedy. It really is time to put some principled individuals in seats of government.