Even Hillary’s early missteps on the national stage are strangely reminiscent of Barack’s. For all the furor elicited by his “bitter” remarks, her comments about how she could have “stayed home and baked cookies and had teas” revealed a similar (if more truculent) unfamiliarity with – and disdain for – the lives and concerns of those less privileged (or with different priorities) than she.
Ultimately, Hillary Clinton has only two advantages when it comes to selling herself as candidate most in touch with blue-collar America. First, she has been divested of her long-time status as the darling of the nation’s liberal elites, from Hollywood to the newsroom to the faculty lounge to the netroots. No longer is she held up as the #1 victim of the “vast right wing conspiracy” she herself first identified. For Americans who distrust those who once championed her so fervently, that’s a big plus.
And finally, of course, she has “experience” that Obama lacks. Whether that means she’s finally come sincerely to respect the normal, hard-working Americans who make this country great (and not just because they’re voting for her) – or she’s simply become more skilled at hiding her condescension for them – well, only she can say. We all know what she’d tell us; the problem, of course, is that Hillary Clinton is hardly known for her veracity.
When it comes to policies, priorities – and Supreme Court appointments – there’s little difference between the two Democratic candidates. Indeed, many of the big government solutions beloved by both signal a profound lack of confidence in the capability and common sense of their fellow Americans. If elitism is as elitism does, Everyman is once again sadly underrepresented in the Democratic field.
Burke opposes out-of-state political contributions – unless they help her campaign | Adam Tobias | 329
After film crew shot, Omaha mayor says ride-along decision left to police chief | Deena Winter | 155