Dear Hillary, There is no Day One
March 5, 2008 | Filed Under Election 2008, Opinion and Commentary | Leave a Comment
This article appears on the The Huffington Post. Sometime in the mid-1990s I recall saying that if Hillary Clinton ever ran for president, I’d quit my job and go to work on her campaign. Over the years I changed my mind. By the time she did announce her candidacy for president I was saying, “If she is elected, I might have to leave the country.” But, during this long election season, at the dozenth or so debate point, I began to feel that I had perhaps been rash. The woman did seem to have experience, smarts, toughness, and Washington savvy. Sometimes she even made some of the men in the initial field look like amateurs. Now she just makes everyone else look incredibly decent, ethical, and fair.
This is typical of the roller coaster ride that is the Clinton’s story. I had such hopes for both of them on January 20, 1993. Which brings us to why there is no Day One and can never be a Day One for Hillary. If she were elected, January 20, 2009 would actually be Day 5845 for her, that is, if we count the days since Bill Clinton was sworn in as 42nd president and his two-for-one presidency began. Since she is leveraging their joint White House legacy in the current campaign, and if all that experience is supposed to count, it seems fair to look at things that way.
Yesterday, or Day 5523, I decided I was done with giving Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt. This is so clearly Barack Obama’s moment that I wish that the Democratic Party apparatus that she and Bill are no doubt cajoling, bribing, threatening, and blackmailing at this very moment would tell her to get lost. The Red Phone ad, and the deliberate hesitancy in asserting the non-issue of Obama’s religion – not to mention her failure to bring up her experience of attending Congressional members’ Christian prayer breakfasts with him when she was asked about the Muslim rumor – eroded any fragile hope I had of her rising above the petty and the political.
To me her answer, as so much of what she says, is leveraged as an opportunity, in this case to give the speculation oxygen rather than to cut it off.
In the answer below, substitute “I know he is a Christian” for “as far as I know” and you’ll see what I mean about opportunism. “KROFT: You don’t believe that he’s a Muslim? HILLARY: No. No. Why would I? There’s no … No. There’s nothing to base that on - as far as I know.”
The negative campaigning leading up to her desperate bid for Ohio and Texas was the final straw. I have little doubt that the Hillary I am seeing now is part of a longtime pattern. Those days since January 1993 have been a terrible mix of political missteps, centrist compromises, expediency, psychodrama, a failure to both live up to the youthful Clinton ideals and to understand how to achieve them in Washington, and amoral ambition. I’ll grant that there were enough successes to make me love Bill Clinton in spite of his compromises and his enormous personal shortcomings. Given his successor in the White House, it was enough to make one weep with longing every time that Bill spoke. Oh, to have a president with a brain again!
And then Bill hit the campaign trail for Hillary, behaving in a way that made it impossible to forget the man who had betrayed the best hopes of his wife, his daughter, his friend Al Gore, his party, and his country for the sake of a few minutes of bizarre sexual gratification. It wasn’t about the sex; it was the puerile bid for attention, the enormity of his self-indulgence, and his lack of character that came to mind again and again every time the man campaigned for his wife.
When we look at the Days, there is a long and sad and dirty trail of history that makes the Day One slogan both appalling and ridiculous. It would have been compelling and stirring if this indeed were Hillary’s moment, but the dual Clinton story has doomed her to tragedy that would be Shakespearean if it were not so cheesy. It’s time to get her off the stage, or let her act out her part as a Senator. I want no more of the Clinton maneuvering, politicking, cunning, blundering, and alternating meanness and expediently misty-eyed authenticity in my White House.
Finally, the thought of Bill Clinton in the White House again, butting in, eating donuts, wandering the halls, and goodness knows what else, takes away my appetite. I have every confidence that he would screw things up for both of them again (although she seems quite able to do that on her own). And then we’d have only a four year Democratic run, hampered by unceasing Clinton static, 
and followed by another Republican regime. The question is not just one of whether she is electable. Would she be re-electable? As for that morally repugnant ad, I have the feeling that when the red phone rang at 3:00 AM, it’d be Bill who grabbed the receiver. Imagine Hillary gripping his wrist in mid-air and screaming, “It’s my turn, goddammit!” And I doubt very much that our children would be safer with Hillary in the White House with Bill in tow. Certainly not if your child happens to be a White House intern.
See an excellent Michael Seitzman piece (posted on the Huffington Post) on how Hillary would behave on Day Two.
UPDATE, May 10: See also, with thanks to Donna G for pointing this out to me, see Camille Paglia’s salon.com pieces on Hillary. Very interesting.
More intelligent writing and thinking about the Ameya Preserve
October 23, 2007 | Filed Under Opinion and Commentary | Leave a Comment
Check out writer Charlotte Freeman’s article on the relationship between Alice Waters and the Ameya Preserve at the “Ethicurean” blog. The blog is about “tasty things that are also sustainable, organic, local, and/or ethical,” and Freeman raises the question of why Waters, with her values of community and sustainability, is involved in the Ameya Preserve. The motto at epicurean.com, is “chew the right thing,” and it will be interesting to see if Waters, who has a reputation for chewing and doing the right thing, has an answer.
City Commissioner Election is November 6
October 15, 2007 | Filed Under Opinion and Commentary | Leave a Comment
11/7 A.M. Results are in.
It’s almost time to elect or re-elect Livingston City Commisioners, and LOL has no doubt that the electorate is holding its breath to see whom LOL will endorse. There are two seats available on the Commission. Commissioner Rick Van Aken and commissioner Patricia Grabow have been filling terms that expire in 2008, so they are up for re-election. Juliann Jones is a new candidate for Commissioner.
All three candidates are passionate about our wonderful town and care about its present, past and future. But there are substantive differences, especially in approach. Looking at the City Commission meeting minutes to see the incumbents’ records, and watching the Commissioners in action both in the meetings and on the streets is a must for anyone taking the right to vote seriously. While Commissioner G’s proponents think that she is a populist rebel fighting City Hall on their behalf, they are missing the contexts in which Commissioner Grabow is the single “no” vote. This is not always a sign that she is doing right. [See notes on a recent meeting at the end of this post.]
My bias is toward effective representation and leadership. That means, working with one’s colleagues, building consent, putting the larger interests of constituents ahead of personal vendettas, fostering cooperation, exercising good and fair judgment, raising and resolving issues reasonably, setting aside differences to accomplish the common good, and getting things done. On those grounds as well as the public record, LOL endorses Commissioner Van Aken and candidate Juliann Jones.
If Commissioner Grabow wants what is best for Livingston, she also gives the impression that she is the final word on what is best for Livingston. Does she talk to constituents? You bet. Does she give them unfiltered and accurate information, and does she represent their interests above her own? That’s up to you. LOL thinks she is a wildcard in that department, and past experience (e.g. the Calamity Jane Productions flap a few years ago) indicates that she sometimes presents conclusions, assumptions, and allegations that do not accurately represent what people have said or done. And then there are her tedious and frequent Livingston Enterprise Letters to the Editor. Coming from someone in a position of power, they create and foster a climate of distrust and easy accusations that can intimidate people who fear that their reputation, organization or business, or their key issues might well be up for grabs if they dare to disagree.
This year she continued her habit as a private citizen by using the Letters to the Editor in The Enterprise to air her grievances as a Commissioner. When called upon to exercise good judgment and not misrepresent issues on the opinions page with her Commissioner hat on, she cried freedom of speech. One section of the crowd was on its feet, mistaking these reckless opinions for the true and full story. It seems some people missed the difference between freedom of speech and exercising good judgment. (Recall the old adage about shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater.)
Most depressing, the blindly cheering few actually believed Commissioner Grabow’s opinion page nonsense that fellow Commissioners were really trying to stifle dissent. Of the many insinuations that have been leveled against anyone who gets in her way, tarring fellow Commissioners with a charge of attempting to violate her rights is Commissioner Grabow’s most heinous to date. These are honorable people of good character. But, never mind, Commissioner Grabow felt it was a-ok to freely speak of them in the most dishonorable, disrespectful, mistaken kind of way. Meanwhile, the Commissioners’ right to speak was stifled by their own sense of decent behavior and good judgment.
Now that Commissioner Grabow is suing the City Commission over the East Side School, she has further diminished her ability to do something within the system. On the question of effectiveness in using her elected position to create change, she has to come up with a pretty low score. While “plays well with others” might not be an absolute requirement for the job, one has to wonder if there is a profound misunderstanding here of how to use the office and be an effective representative.
Commissioner VanAken has a long and honest record of caring about and for the city. He has long understood the interests of Livingston’s seniors, a group often sidelined, and devoted his own time to them. He has been an effective, balanced, and representative voice on the Commission. Juliann Jones is, to some people, probably not as well known. We should all attend the forum later this month (watch the paper for announcements and candidate profiles), or one of her fund raisers, to hear what she has to say. Juliann is an artist and a former downtown business owner (The Flat Space, 8 years) and “is committed to innovative strategies for keeping our unique town economically vital, and believes that well-managed sustainable growth can generate a bright future for Livingston.” My personal knowledge of her is that she is objective and doesn’t have a personal agenda that comes before a balanced representation of a broad range of Livingston residents or respect for reasonable processes.
In many years of sitting on and leading corporate teams, an environment that sometimes bears a striking resemblance to small town civic life, I have to say that my bias is toward effective representation and leadership. That means, working with one’s colleagues, building consent, putting the larger interests of constituents ahead of personal vendettas, respecting fiscal constraints, fostering cooperation, exercising good and fair judgment, raising and resolving issues reasonably, setting aside differences to accomplish the common good, and getting things done. On those grounds, LOL endorses Commissioner VanAken and candidate Juliann Jones. I think that whether we like or don’t like any individual vote or decision that may come our way, we must seek representation that will be good overall for the Commission and its ability to create a responsible, trusted, and accountable government. (The kind that I believe we had when Commissioners Horiel and Ebinger sat with Blakeman, Caldwell, and Beebe.)
Get informed for yourself. There is a City Commission meeting tonight at 7:30 in the City-County building, and another one on November 5, the evening before the election. Visit the City Government pages and look at the minutes. Understand the context of what you read there. Attend the forum on Wednesday, October 24 at 7 PM at the City County Building. Talk to the candidates. Talk to other residents about the election, the issues, and the candidates. Then get out and vote on November 6.
———————-
Notes from tonight’s Livingston City Commission meeting: Resolution Number 3897 was on the agenda for Commission approval, a resolution of “The City of Livingston, Montana, of its intent to increase the rate for collection and disposal of solid waste for residential customers in the amount of $1 per month and a 10% increase for commercial customers.” City Manager Ed Meece and Public Works Director Clint Tinsley both summarized city data to the effect that in 2003, the city decreased the rate by 10%, and that the city operates in the red with respect to costs of solid waste disposal, has lost money over the past three years, and is using reserves to meet increasing disposal expenses. Also, in real terms, the rate after the increase would be less than what commercial customers were paying before 2003. Commissioner Grabow spoke of the burden on commercial customers, a point that is surely a given and a crowd-pleaser–that is, no one wants to put a burden on commercial customers. She voted “no” on the resolution. On the face of it, the public might think Commissioner Grabow was voting for their interests, but in fact, she was voting that the city continue to operate in the red and continue to use cash reserves to cover the rising cost of disposing of solid waste. As for the data presented, Commissioner Grabow stated, “We have the right to determine if in our own opinion the facts are correct.” Numbers and data are not up for a vote. Unless this was a sideways suggestion that the parties with the data came to a public meeting with made-up numbers, the implication is that we are free to opine about proven facts. In my opinion, the world is flat, for example. In government, every good idea translates to numbers, that is, everything has to be funded.
Commissioner Grabow also voted “no” on Ordinance Number 1989 to change zoning on a lot in Section 7, Township 2 (Green Acres area) from RI to RIII. My heart is with her on this one, and I applaud her concern about high-density zoning. But the law dictates that the annexed property be zoned within 90 days of annexation, and practicality dictates that it be zoned with enough breadth to allow the developer to bring real plans for approval. Those plans would also be subject to a public hearing. In other words, why force the private property owners to create plans for a lower-density development if, in fact, what they want to seek approval for is a high-density development? The RIII zoning is a necessary step in a discussion of real intentions and plans, and allows for an accurate idea of what the actual cost would be for city services. As much as I hate to see development crowd out the land, or destroy our architectural heritage (these developments aren’t always beautifully constructed), I cannot disagree with affordable housing or with the idea of concentrating development rather than sprawling it out. In this case, we have to follow the legal and practical process. Voting “no” might win points, but it obstructs the process. As the process unfolds, I stand with the fellow who spoke during the public comment period. I wouldn’t want a two-story dwelling next to me either. And I hope he and his neighbors turn out for the public hearings. But, like it or not, we either go back and rewrite all the state and local legislation governing the process (perhaps not a bad idea), or we play things out with the due process of a public hearing about real plans, not artificially induced ones.
I’d be the first person to applaud principled stands if I saw them here, but a truly principled stand is also responsible, not to mention rational. Exercising a “no” vote to make a personal point and to obstruct the process is a reckless use of the office to which Commissioner Grabow was elected and serves no one but the Commissioner herself.
I’d like to see some of Commissioner Grabow’s better ideas realized. But that takes not only money, but, in my opinion, it takes abilities that I haven’t seen her show: focus, prioritizing, due process, and consensus building. It takes effective leadership.