Hillary is what we want her to be
Stanley Fish takes a whack at the Hillary haters, suggesting that hating Hillary is a bit like hating Bush: mostly irrational, mostly unfair:
She is vilified for being a feminist and for not being one, for being an extreme leftist and for being a “warmongering hawk,” for being godless and for being “frighteningly fundamentalist,” for being the victim of her husband’s peccadilloes and for enabling them. “She is,” Horowitz concludes, “an empty vessel into which [her detractors] can pour everything they detest.” (In this she is the counterpart of George W. Bush, who serves much the same function for many liberals.)
She is definitely a cipher in this respect, a lightning rod, a vessel. I suppose this is why her teary-eyed video in New Hampshire was so welcome. We tried to pour some kind of something into her mythos then, but alas, we couldn’t. She defined herself in that moment, and for once, we could not define her. Fish’s aligning Hillary with Bush is a good rhetorical move, too, and keeps him credible.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top16 Comments to “Hillary is what we want her to be”
the comments following his article are illuminating.
Report comment to moderator
I think my problem with Hillary is less knee-jerk than cautious. I don’t think I know who the real Hillary Clinton really is. She has reinvented herself and tried to be the chamelion and all things to all people; at times contradicting herself to play to whatever audience she is standing in front of. I have a difficult time trusting her. Nothing she says seems genuine. Is that irrational?
Ironically, “Hillary is What we Want Her to Be” seems to be an apt title for the face she wants the public to see at any given time.
Report comment to moderator
For Fish, the middle is a safe place to maintain credibility, but ending up there too often could be a problem in the long run.
I don’t agree BTW. Hillary has her own set of problems such as missing/found billing records, claiming to be a health care guru when it was actually Bill’s program he allowed her to co-opt as hers, and inferring 35 years experience as an operational “executive,” which the President must be, with the ability to take charge by merely moving her desk to the White House—all of which is makes her a consummate liar.
To equate these reasons for Hillary’s disapproval to the Move On crowd’s musings about GWB’s complete lack of veracity is fact vs. stretched fiction.
Report comment to moderator
Hillary Clinton may be what we want her to be, but we do not want her to be President.
Report comment to moderator
I’m still waiting to hear calls for Senator Hillary Clinton to be impeached for supporting issues with which others degree.
That’s what the Bush-haters are doing.
Report comment to moderator
I want her to be able to spend more time with her family this next several years.
Report comment to moderator
Fish does have a point, and ultimately that point is the main reason that I don’t want Hillary to be elected. Political discourse has suffered tremendously during the Bush years, despite calls from the man himself for a raised level of dialogue. Even if Hillary were to have the most innocuous Presidency in decades, there would still be people out there hyper-criticizing her every move. I’m not sure my ulcers can take another four years of that.
Report comment to moderator
Uh, a reason to hate Hillary? How about this…she’s a felon who beat the system countless times, and instead of running for President, she ought to be serving time.
Or how about this?…she advocates for the killing of babies. What if she came out and instead of advocating for killing babies, she advocated for birthing them and giving them up for adoption? How many lives would that save?
Or how about this?…she’s a radical feminist. And feminism has been one of the most effective tools for hurting America ever.
I could go on. I don’t need more reasons.
But I will say this…anyone who votes for her ought to examine themselves…and get some Christian counseling.
Report comment to moderator
Can we not want her to be president without “hating” her? She certainly does inspire a wide range of emotions, though.
Report comment to moderator
And how should we regard her tears?
Is she to be judged by the same standards as a man and be regarded as weak for crying during her campaign? Or is she to be judged as a woman who’s sensitvity is a strength?
Or. . .
Is it simply political strategy like almost everything the candidates do?
Report comment to moderator
That’s a great point, Kyle. Hadn’t thought of it…
Report comment to moderator
You’re frothing, DAV
Fish needs to write a column about the irrational haters who hate Bush, too. Some of them are paranoid schizophrenic. If we eliminate that batch from consideration, I think Fish would find fewer bashers who hate Bush for reasons that are mutually incompatible. They may hate Bush intensely but not so incoherently. And I think their hatred of Bush would dwell on how his character flaws lead to policy disaster, rather than how his character flaws reveal him to be moral monster. Bush killed thousands of innocent people, and he should be indicted for war crimes, but Bush isn’t Hanibal Lecter.
Report comment to moderator
Remember, liberals don’t just hate Bush, they also “hate America.” That makes their hatred different than your typical Hillary hate. Liberals fault Bush for using American militarism and evangelicalism for his political ends, but not for creating the fanaticism that led to the disaster of his presidency. The fault is in ourselves, the dark forces that prompt us to vote Republican, not in our Republican politicians. Liberals don’t blame everything on Bush the way conservatives blame everything on the Clintons.
Report comment to moderator
Although Fish is not interested in this aspect, his essay does suggest a point that Christians might want to pick up on: our need to see other people as people.
One of the easiest things in all politics is to demonize the opponent — to make him or her the embodiment of some evil, or to believe the worst about them. Goodness, I’ve certainly done that with more than a few Republicans in my time. The Gospel challenge is to be principled in opposition while allowing our selves to be surprised by, or to be open to seeing the person in our opponent. Even a Hillary.
Report comment to moderator
9 Do I not hate those who hate thee, Lord? ~ King David
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: I think he appeals to some able-bodied young Americans who feel entitled to be taken care of by the government—to those who want to benefit from the fruit of other people’s labor.
Obama might appeal to people who switch to Vonage due to unpaid phone bills, but I don’t think he’ll get very far with the slacker vote, even if they appeal to him which I’m sure they don’t. Obama wants to put people to work, and he wants to put the government to work, too.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!