Avenue G

What blue dress? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I was a naïve 40 year old Democrat in 1997, when the first whispers of “Monicagate” hit the political airwaves. There was a lot of rumor and innuendo, but no proof that President Bill Clinton, serving his 2nd term, was having an affair with anyone at all. I was a Clinton supporter, and couldn’t imagine that the rumors had any credibility. Clinton was already confronting the Paula Jones accusations; in a Jones deposition he denied any rumors about the 22 year old intern, Monica Lewinski. That Clinton was willing to settle out of court with Paula for $850,000 should’ve clued me in. That’s a nice chunk of change even for a sitting president and ex-lawyer. To friends and anyone who would listen I’d say, “These accusations are ridiculous! There are cameras and people all around!”. I figured that Paula was just a gold-digger. And diehard Clinton-haters were behind all the rest of it.

I was surprised and concerned when the Drudge report broke the story on January 17, 1998. Everyone in my Supply Chain class huddled around the TV in the lounge that afternoon, as the story played out on CNN. This was only Day One, and already the snarky jokes had begun. It seems that Monica Lewinsky, a college intern from an affluent California family, had “inappropriate relations” with Clinton from 1995 thru 1996. Lewinsky’s superiors, well aware of the situation, decided to place her at the Pentagon – well away from the President. There, the love-struck girl became friends with the (still) serpentine, evil Linda Tripp – a motherly, middle-aged confidante with book royalties and political intrigue coiled up in her heart. Lewinsky confessed all to Tripp, who dutifully recorded the conversations and handed them over to Ken Starr, the Independent Counsel investigating Paula Jones. Starr gave Lewinsky “transactional immunity” if she would spill the beans on Clinton. Very reluctantly, Monica did just that – otherwise she could’ve been prosecuted for perjury. She even turned over the infamous “blue dress” (kept at Tripp’s suggestion) to help seal the deal.

The blue dress became the watershed evidence – no longer was there any he-said-she-said. Clinton had to come clean (so to speak) and at the very least admit an “improper relationship”. The rabid Republicans in both houses of Congress were champing at the bit for any reason to take the rascally, popular president down. Imagine their delight when it looked like there was just cause. The House voted to issue Articles of Impeachment, and a 21-day trial ensued in the Senate. Clinton was acquitted of all charges and remained in office. His Arkansas law license was suspended from his earlier false testimony to Starr, but that was his only punitive consequence.

AFTERMATH OF A SCANDAL

Monicagate very nearly became the orbital center of our pop culture for the two years that it played out. Moralists decried the fall of American values. Comedians mined it heavily for a mother lode of jokes which produces gems to this day. Middle aged matrons wagged fingers at Monica – “That filthy tramp!” – without pausing to think that the 50-something Leader of the Free World might have had some control over his own situation. Tripp was easily vilified as the ultimate betrayer and portrayed by John Goodman on SNL. Republicans used Monicagate for “Holier Than Thou” posturing until Larry Flynt came calling, bringing down GOP Congressman Robert Livingston, aspiring Speaker of the House, as the sacrifice that comes of hypocrisy. The scandal produced catch-phrases that resonate to this day:

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
“This vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since he announced for Predident…”
“It depends on what the definition of the word is is”.

Clinton later attributed his indiscretions to stress and pressure. “I cracked, I just cracked”. He since has rebounded admirably as political operative and husband to Hillary who herself has soared as NY Senator and then Secretary of State under Obama. As for Monica, she had a short-lived stint as a C-List celeb after Monicagate, publishing a bio, and attempting a purse line. She has since finished a Masters degree in Psychology from the London School of Economics and otherwise keeps a low profile, away from the glare of publicity. If she never does a noteworthy thing, her contribution to our historical and cultural lore will be inestimable.

© 2010 blogSpotter

Labels: Humor, Politics, Society

Who do you love? -- Picture courtesy of Eagle Vision

by blogSpotter
Today’s article is a bit of a mixed bag -- movie review and political commentary. The two are actually (however remotely) connected, for readers who might think I’m totally stream-of-consciousness in my writing. I just watched Blue State, a small-budget sleeper movie from 2007. In it, Breckin Meyer plays John Logue -- a young, Kerry-Edwards campaigner disillusioned by the 2004 Presidential election loss. He decides to act on a drunken campaign promise and move to Canada since Bush has just been reelected. He takes on a fellow traveler , Chloe (played by Anna Paquin), to share gas and travel expenses and they embark on an adventure of romance and new awakenings.

The movie is billed as a comedy but is dead serious in its exploration of our loyalties, our egos and our sometimes empty political posturing. I have to acknowledge that even as a damn liberal Democrat, some of my very best friends are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, as is much of my family. Blue State makes it very evident how many different shades of red, blue and purple there really are, and how nearly impossible it is to dismiss the different shades. (Spoiler alert) -- the movie brings out the fact that John’s older brother was a casualty in Iraq and it shows John’s stridency (shared by many of us even now) that Iraq is a bad, unnecessary war. The movie doesn’t solve any big political arguments or serve to change anyone’s mind -- it serves rather to show us how deeply mired we are in our family and cultural origins. No amount of Houdini maneuvers can free us from that.

Now speaking of good and bad wars, much has recently been made of Barack Obama’s decision to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan with an eye on exiting in 2011. Liberals such as Michael Moore decry the escalation while conservatives decry the pre-announced withdrawal date. To conservatives, I would admonish that no large expenditure of men and money should be without expected benchmarks, targets and yes, time goals. None other than Bush’s man Rumsfeld expounded the idea (although he didn’t act on it). If the pivotal date arrives, and the results aren’t at hand, the date will probably be slipped but it’s something that our military will seek to avoid.

To liberals, I would remind them that crazy Arabs flew some airplanes into our buildings eight years ago. We haven’t caught Osama Bin Laden, we haven’t closed any Madrasas schools that teach anti-American hatred, we haven’t laid a finger on Wahabi Arabs that sponsored most of the terrorist activities, we haven’t significantly reduced Taliban influence in Afghanistan or Pakistan and we haven’t done much more than inflame Al Quaeda. Given the sad, sorry, namby-pamby, illogical and politically correct response we’ve given to this over eight years, I would say we should finally, at last, focus American man-power and attention to the people and geographic locale(s) that actually produced 9/11. To do otherwise is to invite a reoccurrence.

In sum, I think Obama gave a reasoned reaction to the events going on. It’s not a blank check or an open-ended engagement. It’s a stated objective and let’s hope for the sake of everyone involved that the objective is met. It would be politically expedient and tidy if it's met by 2011, but it might not make that date. Afghanistan differs from Viet Nam in significant respects, but should it come to develop a resemblence let us have the wisdom and grace to cut our losses and learn from our mistakes.


© 2009 blogSpotter

Labels: Politics

Too beautiful not to report? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Newspapers and magazines (old media) are over a barrel these days. As Time pointed out, they were already suffering from internet sites giving all the same stories and insights away for free. Then the September 2008 market crash did nothing to help matters. The mid-January issue of Time had a scant 56 pages, giving immediate testament to the severity of the problem. Their ads have taken a dive.

Now, along comes President Barack Obama and he is truly a God-send to the magazines, given the dire circumstances. Regardless of your political views, Obama is manna from Heaven for Time and Newsweek. Here is why: he and Michelle are stylish, young, photogenic and even a little bit mysterious. My coworker's 5th grade daughter is an Obamaphile along with her entire class -- she has a stack of news magazines featuring Obama on the cover. How can there be such a blatantly "lookist" phenomenon and what might be the implications?

15 years ago, Lady Diana was the talk of the town. Magazine publishers the world over knew that they could boost sales a lot by putting her face on their covers. Magazines like US and PEOPLE could do it unashamedly -- give the people what they want. The tabloids rejoiced, there was no limit to Di-namic media profits. But serious news magazines had a bigger quandary -- how do we work Lady Di into a legitimate news cover story? There were a few things -- her divorce, work with AIDS and land mines and of course her tragic death. News organizations had to "pump it up" to justify much beyond the headline-quality material. Pump they did, because a Diana cover could sell twice as many magazines in one week.

Now come Barack and Michelle. They are probably the first truly attractive, vibrant, chic couple since the Kennedys 46 years ago. (With all due respect to the Clintons, Reagans and others). Not only do they sell magazines, they're the First Couple of the Free World -- Time and Newsweek can pretty easily justify a cover every other week. This brings me to other knotty questions about the obligation of news outlets in a capitalistic system of news-selling. The top tabloid subjects this week are as follows:

* John Mayer and Jennifer Aniston
* Justin Timberlake
* Britney Spears
* Zac Efron
* Tiger Woods
* Angelina Jolie
* Rhianna
* Octuplets Mom
* Academy Awards
* Oprah Love Triangle (alleged)

These are the topics that engage Americans standing in line at Krogers -- hardly material for Meet the Press. I remember being disappointed that PEOPLE shifted to a tabloid style @ 10 years ago. Then, I realized that they actually had stories about heroism, coping and politics toward the back of the magazine. The truth was "out there" -- it just wasn't glamorous or superficial enough to rate a front page appearance. I've noticed very much the same "lowest common denominator" at work in TV and movies -- see my blog, Television for Dummies.

If you like to read WSJ, UTNE Reader, obscure blogs or Newsweek, you are in the minority in so many ways. Not only are you NOT reading the most popular weekly, you are probably demanding a higher quality of analysis, reporting, news-worthiness and even for that matter, grammar. I have no major, Earth-shaking conclusions here except that true news may end up in the domain of non-profits (think PBS, NPR, church, AARP and charity-affiliated magazines).

The all-mighty dollar is less mighty when it turns America into drooling, tabloid sex junkies that care more about J-Lo's cleavage than they do about the credit crisis. It's a free country, so maybe J-Lo's cleavage should get all the air time that the dollar bill requests. Considering the sad state of our economy, J-Lo is probably helping the economic stimulus. But less exciting things like Citibank nationalization should still find a forum in some medium that doesn't have to tart itself up for space at a Kroger's news stand. In my idealistic mind, I think that such a place must exist -- let's please create it if it's not there already.

© 2009 blogSpotter

Labels: Politics

Does Caroline have the right stuff? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Kennedy scion Caroline has recently thrown her hat into the ring to take over Hillary Clinton's New York senate seat. I'd like to preface my remarks with the statement that I revere the Kennedy family and have profound respect for their contributions to America. After reviewing Caroline's political viewpoints (pro-Choice, pro-Human Rights, etc) I'm very aligned with Ms. Kennedy's political point of view. So you can see my position and probably feel a "but" or a "none the less" headed this way -- and you'd be right.

Caroline Kennedy seems to think that "Senator" is an honorarium given for a combination of family prominence and noble thoughts. I hate to break it to her, but Senator is a job title and it really needs to be earned. It was pointed out on the Today Show this morning that Caroline has never held a long-term, full time job. Mind you, her resume is very impressive. She's a graduate of Radcliffe and Columbia; she has a law degree and sits on many impressive boards: NAACP Legal Defense, American Ballet and the Kennedy Library Foundation to name but a few. But everyday work calls for true grit and tenacity -- the kind that generally comes from holding a position of financial or personal responsibility. Caroline's main two stints of employment were long ago -- as a photography assistant at New York Daily News (@ age 20) and as a part-time research assistant at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Both jobs were before marrying exhibit designer Ed Schlossberg in 1986.

Caroline took a long time out to parent her 3 children (now young adults) and is apparently warming up again to the outside world of working and doing. There is yet another thing to consider -- and this one you must pose delicately. Caroline has a reputation as being quiet, shy and a little bit remote. She's been seen as such since she was a little girl living in the White House. There's nothing wrong with a shy, sweet personality but it's at direct odds with the kind of happy Irish, glad-handing, back-slapping people-centric friendliness of her Uncle Ted.

People have thrown out other examples of politicians who succeeded with little experience in business or in office. (One of them was George W. Bush as Texas Governor -- wouldn't that be a counter-example?). Nay, in both the experience and people department, Caroline is not a match for the job. Her family connections are such that she still may get it, but New York state may not be the winner in that transaction, should it come to pass.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Labels: Politics

Drinking with the Prez... -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
As I recall, the operative question in both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections was “Who would you rather have a beer with?”. W. Bush was seen as a folksy, accessible “one of us” type guy. Gore was characterized by the Bush camp as an effete, politically correct, enviro-actionary snob. Kerry was similarly seen as a patrician, elitist, rich man who was more taken with Maybach automobiles than with middle class issues.

The fact is that the Bush family is one of the oldest, wealthiest, most “patrician” families in America. W. Bush is worth millions and he’s also a Harvard graduate. He did spend a great portion of his early years in Midland, Texas which probably helped give shape to his Texas twang. His slightly crossed eyes, which convey the opposite of intellect, can probably be credited to some unusual combination of chromosomes from his parents, George and Barbara Bush.

It was with particular satisfaction in 2004 that conservative pundits publicized statistics that most Americans (in the thrall of shows like American Idol and Survivor Fiji) would rather take a car ride or share a frosted mug with Bush than with Kerry. I will admit myself that an American President should be convivial and approachable; never did I think however that the requirements for this noble office would devolve only to that. I will also admit there is a distinction between the qualities of being book-smart and people-smart – we’ve had Presidents who amply exhibited one or the other, sometimes both. Reagan and Clinton were people smart – Carter was probably more of a wonkish policy nerd. W. Bush, regrettably seems to lack both qualities; his Texas macho is far from showing the personal, people-smart touch; he’s always lacked intellectual curiosity in the extreme.

A writer for the New York Times (can’t recall his name) recently referred to the Bush trifecta:
• Iraq War
• Katrina disaster
• September 2008 Market Meltdown

To be fair, the Clinton administration got the ball rolling on thrift loans. But it took eight years of a self-regulated derivatives-loving Wall Street to get where we are right now. If I could travel back in time, there are probably several Presidents I’d like to chat with (Lincoln being the foremost). We might even have beer (although mine would be a non-alcoholic beverage). That quality – convivial drinking in a bar – is far from what I’d ever use as a quality Presidential gauge. Who would you rather have a beer with now? If W still drank, he’d be crying in his.

The $700 billion bail-out has been passed in Congress, but CNBC financial analysts estimate that it will take a minimum of one month to give adequate electro-shock to our markets. That’s about the time left until Election Day. America, please turn off Dancing With the Stars for five minutes and give serious consideration this time to what we are doing. It’s more than a drinking buddy.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Labels: Politics

Labels: Politics

Labels: Politics

The Bill and Hill Show -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Was thinking of how it might play out if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency in 2008. The GOP was so rankled by three terms of FDR, they enacted the 22nd Amendment in 1951, barring any person from serving more than two consecutive terms. Now if Hill and Bill come back to town, Americans may get eight more years of the "Hill and Bill" show. They'll swap name tags, but who can say that the result will differ by much. Assuming that Hillary is over that Monica thing, I'm guessing that the Clintons at least share a bed -- if only just for sleeping. Even so, they share common political views and I can't help thinking what their "Pillow Talk" will be....

"Did you take your cholesterol pill?"
"Yes Honey"
"Would you be a darling and turn out the light"
"Certainly"
"And what do you think I should do about Immigration?"
"Well, I think the John McCain compromise wasn't half bad -- it could probably be floated by the American people one more time ..."

So much for True Romance. This is the ultimate power couple and each needs the other one for intense, passionate, hot, sweaty policy wonk discussions. If they never do much more than air kisses and butt pats, they still have an impressive marriage.

Bill has said that as "First Gentleman" he will gladly do some of the things done by traditional First Ladies. He'll decorate the White House Christmas Tree, help entertain Heads of State and maybe even sponsor improvement programs like "Reading is Fundamental", "Just Say No" or "Beautify America". He's a social, convivial man and in truth he may have the best of all worlds -- freedom to roam while still wielding enormous influence over public policy. (As a "damn Liberal" that doesn't bother me too much. :-)). I can't imagine what Bill would say "No" to, and he would probably prefer to beautify America more with leggy women than with blue bonnets and wild flowers.

This last speculation makes me wonder about how Hill will situate Bill's office. If I were her, I'd put him in the West Wing, just down the hall. She should put hidden cameras and mikes everywhere -- tell him it's a requirement of the Secret Service. Maybe put a tracking device on his leg, to make sure where he is at all times. To be honest, Bill was such a horn dog that it's questionable whether he could make it all the way to the men's room or the water fountain without having an affair. At minimum, it seems like he would "honk" a woman's breasts somewhere in the hallway. A last good measure would be to give him either a male secretary or a much older, wiser female secretary. And don't allow interns anywhere near him. It might be that Hillary has "reasoned it away" and doesn't really care what Bill does as long as he's discreet.

Talk show comedians and trashy news magazines are the least of the beneficiaries -- all of America would up the entertainment ante if the Hill and Bill show were to come back for an eight year encore. Let’s see what happens – “Billary” might even enact some good policy, rebalance the budget and get us out of Iraq.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Labels: Politics

Bush on Air Force One -- Photo courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Before I broach the title topic, I have an off-topic sidenote. Just figured out how to display iPod photo slideshows ands videos on my TV screen. All that was needed was a $19 AV cable, and some patience to understand that (1) it works only w/ the video iPod, not the nano and (2) you must set 'TV out' to ON. The guy at the Apple store was going to have me buy an entire home entertainment kit for $99. For a 'gee whiz' type of experiment, $19 is a much better price. But I digress...

Is Bush the Devil? Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela suggested so last week in an address to the United Nations. Charles Rangel and Nancy Pelosi used it as a political opportunity to show that they're red-blooded patriots in spite of extreme liberalism. They sharply denounced Chavez. I myself will entertain thoughts from any source, and pondered ... what would an actual Prince of Darkness do, masquerading as President? Here are some things ...

o He might propose torture. The Great Satan might even propose doing away with Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, thereby opening the gates to Hell all the way. We torture you ... and oh, a footnote -- you can torture us too.

o He might propose full-scale eavesdropping and wiretaps. The Devil is nothing if not inquisitive for knowledge. Even if his methods are ham-handed and wrong, the ends pretty well justify the means.

o He might prevaricate (that's a $10 synonym for 'lie') about mass destruction weapon's threat to start a war that Neocons have been chomping at the bit to fight for 10 years.

o He might run up the national debt, robbing Peter (our grandchildren) to pay Paul (ourselves). He's nothing if not short-term and expedient in all his calculations. The Prince of Darkness trades thoughtful strategy for immediate gratification of one sort or another.

Now, one other thought about Satan. Satan can probably pronounce 'nuclear' and he has a certain method to his madness. Bush can't enunciate even simple words -- paging Professor Higgins. Bush has really shown few fox-like qualities -- no real mendacity or shrewdness. His six years in office are more like watching a 15 year old boy drive a stick-shift muscle car for the first time, without Driver's Ed. He has bumbled and bumped and bruised everything in site. Bush isn't the Devil or even a demon -- he's an unfortunate historical event, unfolding before our eyes. I don't know of any real 'dates' on which to focus, for when W gets out from behind the wheel. January 1, 2007 -- this date signifies Bush's last year to get much done. 2008 will be consumed by the noise of a new election and 'where Bush went wrong'. Devil, no. Boob, yes. Now in the meantime --- maybe an iPod video can distract me from the sad spectacle on our political stage.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

Labels: Politics

Sheehan (left), Anti-war demonstration (right)

by blogSpotter
Cindy Sheehan is the grieving mother of Casey Sheehan, a young man who was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004. The 48 year old woman has gained a following (or notoriety depending on viewpoint) for her stand against the Iraq War and for putting President Bush in an awkward spot -- insisting on a personal visit outside his Crawford Texas ranch. For people given to logic, but not emotion there are two very simple things to point out:

• Casey joined the U.S. Army of his on free will, in 2000. A parent of a Viet Nam draft casualty might have a stronger argument than Sheehan -- that a peace-loving son was taken at the hands of a war-mongering state. Also, Cindy had voiced quiet doubts about the Iraq War prior to her son's death, but didn't become a strident activist until afterward. One might conjecture inconsistency due entirely to her own personal experience.

• Bush did meet with Sheehan and other deceased soldiers' parents in June 2004, at Fort Lewis near Tacoma, Washington. She expressed some reticence then about how the war was handled -- but she thought Bush was sincere in his motives and that he had given her a reason "to be happy". A month later, a certain remorsefulness and anger had set in -- she criticized the meeting with Bush and described him as "detached". Again, observers following a path of pure logic excluding all emotion might find an inconsistency here.

Sheehan took America by storm following these events. Most notably, she staged a sit-in in Crawford Texas seeking a meeting with the President. In what was a regrettable public relations move for Bush, he ignored her. I can only imagine how Clinton would have turned such a lemon situation into lemonade -- grand-standing before the cameras and showing bitter grief. (I’ve always felt that politics is three parts acting and one part policy -- Reagan and Clinton knew all too well). Bush ignored her, and her public juggernaut gained momentum. In months since, Sheehan has met with BBC, the President of Venezuela, and a multitude of celebrities. Her last, recent publicized event was a hunger strike with a woman's antiwar group called CodePink.

In spite of my ‘criticisms’ above, I actually empathize greatly with Sheehan. I supported the Iraq War at the outset, and now regret that stance. Cannot, did not imagine the incompetence that would prevail on the part of senior officials executing the war. I think that losing a son would be like losing an internal organ with no anesthesia. It would bring to bear all my thoughts about how wrong the war is -- instead of whispering my doubts, I would shout my agony. Cindy Sheehan is every Mother with a heart. There is a hawkish twist to my dovish sentiments. I think we invaded Iraq with far too few troops. If Iraq had been properly occupied, there would be law, order and way fewer casualties of Iraqis or Americans. We are in the despicable middle -- too few troops to stanch the anarchic violence and too many to avoid roadside bombings.

But I digress. To the grieving Peace Mom, I give my hope and support. Her son Casey will live every day in her heart, and his death will haunt anyone who knew and loved him. There are no "good" wars -- one or both sides are always in the wrong. But does your son need to die for Rumsfeld's experimentation in 'light manpower'? Does your son need to die for an ill-conceived colonial war? Cindy Sheehan's grieving opens the door to that much needed discussion.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

Labels: Politics

Coming Attraction, 2008

by blogSpotter
Hillary Clinton, ex-First Lady and Senator from New York, generates excitement and controversy wherever she goes. Hillary' isn’t just exciting, she’s also a survivor -- she's now survived Whitewater, Filegate, a failed health care gambit of the 90's, Vince Foster suicide rumors, Monica Lewinsky, a Gandhi misstatement, and recent remarks about young peoples' laziness. If she were a cat, she'd have maybe two of her nine lives left. Some see her as a hero -- she's the first ex-First Lady to be a Senator. Others cast her as a carpet bagger, serving a New York political office without previously living there. Still others see her as a career-obsessed enabler in a marriage of convenience -- showing far too much tolerance for a philandering husband.

Which one is the real Hillary? She can be used almost as a political litmus test -- people on either extreme of the Left-Right spectrum tend to revile her. The Right sees her as a machinating Lady Macbeth, and the extreme Left sees her as a sell-out on Iraq, abortion and health care where her views have moved closer to the center. As New York Senator, she's made a noticeable splash. She's served on the Armed Services committee, focused on 9/11 recovery and homeland security, supported the initial Iraq incursion, and opposed Bush tax cuts. In the 'strange bedfellows' department, she's joined forces with Newt Gingrich to promote incremental health care; she's also joined with Joe Lieberman to promote the Family Entertainment Protection Act -- to rid video games of violence. One might say her moves have been 'all over the map.' She's made a couple of politic (some may say opportunistic) nods to the Right, but has generally stayed closer to the Left on tax cuts and federal judicial nominations.

It will take a national 'village' to decipher all of this in 2008. That is when Hillary is expected to run for President, possibly being the first woman nominee of a major political party. Victoria Woodhull was the first woman candidate, in 1872. Woodhull was nominee for the Equal Rights Party and Frederick Douglas was her running mate. Successful Democratic candidates in the recent past, including Hillary's husband Bill have been centrist males from Southern states. Hillary lived in Arkansas as an adult, but has a much more Yankee persona. John F. Kennedy was the last elected liberal from the Northeast, and that was 46 years ago. Hillary's poll ratings are at least respectable; in May 2005, 29% of general voters said they were 'very likely' to vote for Hillary and '24% said 'somewhat likely'. We're not talking landslide here, but who knows? Depending on where the chips fall, there could be a President Rodham-Clinton in the future.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

Labels: Politics

The Avenue Award goes to Eleanor (left) and Anna...

by blogSpotter
The two ladies hi-lited in today's blog are already recipients of many accolades and honors, not the least of which are Pulitzer prizes and numerous published books. I won't try to enumerate any of that; will just share my own observations of Eleanor and Anna.

Eleanor Clift holds up the liberal end of the set on The McLaughlin Group. There usually is one other liberal, maybe one other woman to 'even' it out. With about six panelists, you'll normally have four conservatives up against two liberals. Depending on the issue, Eleanor may get support from John, the host, and even from Pat Buchanan (most recently on Iraq issues) -- once in a blue moon. But usually, Eleanor is holding down the fort, trying to out shout Tony Blankley or some other conservative male. Her tenacious ability to hold up under pressure, yell back, and maintain intellectual consistency all at the same time is impressive. There should be a new award given for this 'roller derby' skill set -- she does it admirably. In her spare time, Eleanor is a Newseek editor who gives us great observations about our national governance.

Anna Quindlen does a semi-monthly editorial column for Newsweek. She takes up for society's underdogs and shines a light on current issues -- such as the Enron aftermath, the death penalty, post-partum depression. Sometimes, the topics lean toward women's issues but more often the topics are general in nature. Her compassion and caring reach through -- her writing isn't distant and academic. It's up-close and deeply felt. Anna fulfills one of the stated goals of journalism: to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. What's that you say? How can Newseek, a national news magazine, be so biased toward liberals? Well, Newsweek also gives us the near-Libertarian editorials of Robert Samuelson and the conservative essays of George Will. The magazine does offer balance; this blog however tilts -- it tilts in the direction of Newsweek's leading ladies, Eleanor Clift and Anna Quindlen.

© 2006 blogSpotter.

Labels: Politics