« Maybe It's A CD-R? | Main | A Sign of Hope »
June 3, 2007
"The Young Hillary Clinton" -- And That Matters Because?
Bernstein's opinion piece actually covers the arc of her life from college to the present.
But the title to Bernstein's piece raised a question for me. Why should it matter what Hillary Clinton said or did in college or law school or even as an employee of the House Judiciary Committee as it investigated Nixon?
I ask because Ronald Reagan was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat before joining the GOP after becoming president of the Screen Actors Guild (when, it is rumored, he was bought off by Lew Wasserman -- the Hollywood ubber-agent and founder of MCA in a deal that guaranteed a lucrative stream of royalties for the studios at the expense of the actors' interests whom Reagan purported to represent).
No one was a greater flipper than the Gipper.
I suppose one could (and will) argue that Reagan's conversion -- and I'll assume it was heartfelt, rumors aside -- became a powerful metaphor for the wrongheadedness of the Democrat[ ] party's policies. So why question his past when he himself was saying, "gee, what was I thinking (before the payoff) [oops]."
Clinton, on the other hand, apparently left the Republican party for the Democrat[ ] party. So, because she's not disavowed her post-GOP past, she must always be held to answer for it. Were she to move (or return?) to the Republican fold, I doubt she'd get the reception Reagan did. Even her relatively robust views of executive power get no quarter from the GOP.
In any case, while I certainly think it's important to know whether, for example, a person seeking the presidency has run every company he's ever managed into the ground (like Geo. W. Bush did, for example). I also believe that what a person did or said during the same chronological period preceding Reagan's ascension to president of SAG should barely merit a footnote -- unless the candidate touts it.
I believe that to be true for Clinton as much as Guiliani (wife #1 of 3), McCain (bad student who made up for it by being a party animal), and Romney (pro-choice, right?).
Posted by shertaugh at June 3, 2007 5:15 PM
Comments
You really have to spend a little more time editing your posts. I can't tell if you mean to say that a candidate's past is not important or that it is important. You seem to go back and forth.
Here, you seem to say it's not important:
"Why should it matter what Hillary Clinton said or did in college or law school ...?"
and
"So why question his (Reagan's)past...?"
Yet here you seem to say it IS important:
"In any case, while I certainly think it's important to know whether, for example, a person seeking the presidency has run every company he's ever managed into the ground..."
Then, we go back to unimportant, unless the candidate brings it up:
"I also believe that what a person did or said during the same chronological period preceding Reagan's ascension to president of SAG should barely merit a footnote -- unless the candidate touts it."
Then, we go back to important, or maybe not:
"I believe that to be true for Clinton as much as Guiliani (wife #1 of 3), McCain (bad student who made up for it by being a party animal), and Romney (pro-choice, right?)."
So, my question is you believe what? Are you trying to say that what's good for the goose is good for the gander? If so, this sure is a tortured way to go about making the point.
Posted by: Dave S. at June 4, 2007 4:10 PM