Hillary Clinton Without Having To Worry About "Manhood" Issues Might Be A New And Better Kind of President

I listened to the recording of Hillary Clinton at the Al Smith dinner and I have to say that I liked her self-deprecating and, at times, funny delivery, though I hate that kind of event.  Political roasts are one of the lowest forms of socializing, they are an awful thing.   I've come to really respect how she is handling her public persona.   That woman is brilliant and, unlike the guys, she's not going to let her self-image get in the way of doing what's sensible and what's right.  Understanding why she, of all politicians during my lifetime, has a reason for keeping herself within carefully determined bounds I'm glad she isn't a great stand-up.  She knows more than anyone that the media and her opponents will use, literally, anything and everything she does to attack her and, when she doesn't provide them with anything to make into a weapon, they'll lie those up, to expect her to be spontaneous all the time or any of the time, on camera or at the mic,  is ridiculous.

The role that American male presidents' male egos, the role the imagined status of their "manhood" has played in bad policy decisions, certainly in presidents from Truman right down to Obama, should be considered more seriously.  I think having men as leaders in a democracy comes with a real price, certainly when they let their gender insecurities play a role in their decision making.

I wonder if we're about to find out that a woman without that baggage has a real potential to be a far better president than a man with that particular and dangerous hangup.

The American media, made up these days of college graduates who are more likely chosen for what they look like on camera and who they know,  love to cherish the most insultingly condescending stereotype of American voters, the common people, the plebs.   One of the most revolting of those so often repeated lines is that Americans are so stupid and so superficial that we choose to vote for who we do on the basis of imagining what it would be like to have a beer with them.   Barack Obama fell for the nonsense when he had his infamous "beer summit" with Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley, which really didn't do anything for anyone.   Barack Obama has many fine qualities but he shares in the same kind of condescending view of the American People that people of his class, prep-Ivy educated professionals,  love to believe.*

Well, I think Americans generally are more mature than we're given credit for and if treated with respect for our intelligence we are quite able to surpass the self-serving media promoted stereotype of us served to us like a cheese burger made of their crap.    Hillary Clinton is not going to be the "kind of guy that you'd want to have a beer with".   She's a serious person who has worked harder than just about anyone with her opportunities for self advancement, not for herself but for the common good.

In voting for her I certainly wasn't doing so out of some fantasy scenario where we were best buddies, I think that when the white-collar-correspondence dinner class media does that they are projecting their own fantasies onto those of us who don't maintain them.  I doubt any of her voters are voting for her on that basis.   I voted for her because she's far smarter than I am and far better informed and has proven to be dedicated to the serious business of leading a potentially great democracy into doing what's right and what makes sense instead of what is wrong and what serves the elite few.  

I don't want her drinking beer with the guys.  If I got one of my dearest wishes it would be for her to pass up that annual correspondents dinner.  It's a sign of how little integrity the DC media have that they would be dining and playing with the very people they're supposed to be reporting on.  And the fault is all theirs, they have a professional obligation to not do that, the politicians have no corresponding professional obligation to not try to use them.

I want Hillary Clinton to be a great president, a president who will, no doubt, do things I don't like at all but one who will seriously try to do what's right and what is in the interest of all of us, even those who are so superficial and stupid as to want a president to be one of the guys instead of a great leader. The guy who runs the small business a mile away might be a great guy to have a beer with, or, in my case, a cup of coffee, but, believe me, he's not presidential material and neither of us mistakes the other for such.  We don't harbor those kinds of fantasies.  

*  Even the good guys in the media love that condescending view of The People.  This conversation between Ezra Klein and Molly Ball drips with condescension and I'm sure neither of them begins to realize it.  I especially found the subtitle quote from the Yalie, Molly Ball, to be aggravatingly condescending.  If you really believe what she said is true, you've got no reason to believe that democracy can work.

This is not an election about policy. Possibly none of them have been, and we’ve all been fooling ourselves our whole lives. I feel like that’s been one of my learning experiences — that elections were, maybe, never about ideas. Maybe they were always about issues of identity and tribe and people’s sense of where the interests of their group lie and who they identify with.

My suspicion is that this kind of stuff comes from the college class being sold on the degraded view of human beings promoted in the social "sciences", though that, as well, is a creation of class assumptions and the dominant materialist academic ideology.  If you don't start out with the idea that people can be better than that, you wonder why Ball and Klein would be in the business of journalism and what effect it has on their thinking and writing about issues.   She continued:

It’s bigger than the “political system” writ small. It’s the whole system — the class system of “out of touch elites” who fly on each other’s jets and give expensive systems and hobnob in the same circles and go to Davos. Trump may be the billionaire in the race, but there’s a vulgarity to him that makes him not part of that polite civilization.

You have to wonder who it is that Ball imagines she's writing to inform and for what purpose.  Though it might be quite unfair to hold her up as embodying all of the worst of our media, I think that the exchange between her and Klein, hardly the worst of them, is illustrative of the general attitude of those who seem to think that The People are a force to be channeled instead of as individuals whose better natures can be addressed and supported and whose intelligence needs accurate information.   Maybe if the media did that job instead of presenting us to ourselves as base superficial idiots we could get the American democratic train back on track.

Update:  I keep the option of posting stupid comments when those are useful to illustrate points. Simple Simels posted one that illustrates my point:

steve simelsOctober 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM
"Barack Obama has many fine qualities but he shares in the same kind of condescending view of the American People that people of his class, prep-Ivy educated professionals, love to believe."

You're so right, Sparkles. That's why it was Obama who called them the deplorables, not Hillary. 

Oh wait....

Stupy mistakes the racists, misogynists, bigots, gun nuts,.... Trump guys, who Hillary Clinton was talking about as comprising the majority of the American People instead of a minority of people who aren't typical of every-day Americans.  Or at least that's what he's stupid enough to claim.   That's something the Trump deplorables also think.  It was clear that Hillary Clinton was referring to the people who give in to their worst inclinations instead of the majority who aspire to overcome those.   I think we stand a good chance of finding out that Hillary Clinton makes a finer distinction than that, in fact I would bet on it.

Barack Obama had his "deplorables" moment, his "guns and religion" gaff,  which was comparable to Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" gaff, which she apologized for, to the anger of so many a blog snob of the Simels' kind.    I would point to one of Obama's policies that shows his hierarchical thinking is a big part of him and that's his "Race for the Top" program, which could hardly be more revealing of his belief that winners matter, those who don't win really don't.   If Obama hadn't had such an inclination I think he would have had a far more successful presidency.  It is one of his great weaknesses and that of many of the people he appointed.   I have high hopes that Hillary Clinton won't be so inclined, if she doesn't she and we will benefit, if she does, it will be an Achilles heel.


Update 2:

steve simelsOctober 22, 2016 at 2:26 PM
"Barack Obama had his "deplorables" moment, his "guns and religion" gaff, which was comparable to Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" gaff"

Neither of those was a gaff [sic] you moron -- they were accurate descriptions of a huge percentage of the American people. And gaffe is spelled with an e at the end.

gaff2   [gaf]  noun

1. harsh treatment or criticism.

1895-1900, Americanism; compare earlier British use: nonsense, humbug, Scots dial.: loud laugh, guffaw; of uncertain origin; cf. guff

You really should have learned to use a dictionary in the 4th grade.

Update 3:  Simps, you're going entirely off your rocker.