- And then there is the Hillary Clinton described to me by people who have worked with her, people I admire, people who understand Washington in ways I never will. Their Hillary Clinton is spoken of in superlatives: brilliant, funny, thoughtful, effective. She inspires a rare loyalty in ex-staff, and an unusual protectiveness even among former foes.
Obama administration officials, up to and including the president, badly want to see her win — there is something in the way she acted after the election, in the soldier she became and the colleague she showed herself to be, that has curdled the pride they felt in winning the 2008 primary into something close to guilt.
This is the Gap I set out to understand. While reporting this story, I spoke to dozens of people who have worked with Clinton in every stage of her career, going back to her time in the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion. Every single one acknowledged its existence. Many were frustrated and confused by it.
This is just fascinating. It has raised my estimation of Clinton significantly. I'd always characterized her as someone with no beliefs, who just grabs on to the latest "thing" and goes with it. But... ya know... if she is doing that because it is what people are telling her they want, then she's governing, by the people, and for the people. And that's a rare thing. I need to spend a little more time being a little less judgmental about Hillary Clinton, I think...
The Liberal Party in Canada often has this problem, for the same reason. Their party goal is to represent what the people want. if what the people want is different from 4 years ago, their platform is different.
But... well... if the party is actually "liberal", that means their beliefs and platforms should be changing, according to public desire, new data, experience, and new goals. Being ossified and intransigent is not "liberal". So, arguably, the Canadian liberal party is doing it right, by being flexible.
I agree - However changing your platform even in subtle ways can be bad for a political party because you get spun into being someone who "Waffles".
This is a fascinating piece of imagery for the origin of statutory language. Granted, it's probably a bit rose-tinted. This piece does a lot to explain the myriad dubious connections Clinton has had in the past. In her effort to pass laws and build a coalition, she's said yes to some people who are less than perfect or are assholes in their own right. But... this is literally politics.It turned out that Clinton, in her travels, stuffed notes from her conversations and her reading into suitcases, and every few months she dumped the stray paper on the floor of her Senate office and picked through it with her staff. The card tables were for categorization: scraps of paper related to the environment went here, crumpled clippings related to military families there. These notes, Rubiner recalls, really did lead to legislation. Clinton took seriously the things she was told, the things she read, the things she saw. She made her team follow up.