Lois Romano has an interesting profile of Hillary Clinton’s staff in today’s Washington Post. It’s good reading. The key staff is all female and they call themselves, collectively, ‘Hillaryland’. The piece is flattering to Ms. Clinton, showing that she reached out to middle class and lower middle class women to fill keys jobs. It demonstrates a remarkable reciprocal loyalty which can be seen by the stability of her staff.
The staying power of this group can be seen as remarkable in light of what they’ve been through: the health-care debacle, dragged before a Whitewater grand jury at their own legal expense, pushed to take lie-detector tests, crying at their desks during a humiliating sex scandal and impeachment. But it is also what binds them together.
One upside of a Hillary presidency would be the totally unprecedented amount of women that would move into positions of real power. This can’t be discounted when considered the merits of Clinton’s campaign.
On the other hand, this group seems a little too loyal…kind of like they’re all in a foxhole together. It’s understandable, considering all the trying times they’ve gone through together. But it can have some drawbacks. If they are too much of a club it will be hard for them to integrate new people into their clique. Nevertheless, the article is a good piece of fluff journalism and it does help humanize Ms. Clinton a little bit, which is what they wanted.
Or all women?
I’d hate to think that voting a white woman as president means more of the same bullshit I would expect from a white guy. As president.
Her staff isn’t all white. Important staff are black, Hispanic, and (Asian) Indian.
Her former CoS, Maggie Williams, is African-American, as is Minyon Moore. I’ve also heard that Clinton and Williams are close. There are also women of varying racial and ethnic background, too.
It still doesn’t mean I’ll vote for her in a primary (see downthread). Interestingly enough, my Mom is completely sold on her! This is all very funny to me as my mother tends to be traditional in some ways and nontraditional in others (well truthfully, aren’t we all to some degree), even if she doesn’t admit it. Unfortunately, she’d never describe herself as a feminist but you should have heard her when my Dad said he didn’t like her last night–she said, “Oh, it’s just because she’s a woman, isn’t it? But I don’t want to hear it, because she’s smarter than all of them.” And it’s really funny, because when it comes to me, he’ll tell you in a heart beat that he raised me to be educated, and not a door mat.
When my parents are being nontraditional, I just sit back and enjoy. 🙂
That’s a HUGE consideration in my book. There have been times when my opinion of a candidate was very much enhanced after meeting supporters (Wes Clark), and other times when I’ve been turned off by what seemed like attractive candidates who had cadres of obnoxious supporters (Howard Dean). If this article is an accurate profile of Hillary’s ‘kitchen cabinet,’ then I think she becomes a more attractive candidate, IMO.
It’s good to “see” you since I haven’t seen you post anything in a while. Heck, I don’t post as much as I used to because of time constraints…and shouldn’t be posting now. Heh. :<)
Back on topic, I have to admit that I paused and smiled a little when I saw the picture on the Post’s website. Still–given who’s she become, on top of the whole Bush-Clinton dynastic #$@!, I’m not supporting her. IF she wins the nod, I’ll do what I’ve done for the past 15 years or so…vote against the repub candidate and hope for the best.
Hey AP ! Good to see you again as well 😀 !
Pro. The shift in perspective alone would be historic. The potential shift in power structures could be tectonic. And I can only imagine that it would be for the better.
Con. We’ve seen more than once what that kind of mentality can do to an administration.
Like almost everything else I know, or think I know, about Hillary, this leaves me fiercely ambivalent. My feelings about a Hillary candidacy continue to oscillate at a higher frequency, as they have all along.
not “amount.”
Sorry, had to say something.