Apparently, Sen. Hillary Clinton was here at Temple two weeks ago. If you blinked, you probably missed her.
She came like a cat burglar in the night, while most students were away on their spring breaks, napping on their front lawns. In and out, with no damage done. You might want to check for your valuables.
If you’re concerned that you missed one of the momentous junctures in history, then you’ve nothing to worry about. She spouted the same rhetoric that we’ve been hearing the entire campaign, perhaps with a little more spunk and urgency since she’s fallen behind in the delegate count.
If she held the rally while classes were in session, who knows what kind of chaos would have ensued – crowds, protests, maybe even – gasp – an impromptu Obama rally? In fact, the rally at McGonigle Hall is emblematic of her entire campaign.
She creates an artificial atmosphere to convey an image of cohesion for all the television cameras and plants questioners in her audience to praise her while accusing dissenters of being plants from the other side. It’s as though she’s been reading from former George W. Bush adviser Matthew Dowd’s playbook page for page.
Temple political science professor John Masker, while agreeing that she runs an image-obsessed campaign, is more cautious when assessing her decision to come to the university on spring break.
“I could hypothesize that (a) somebody didn’t bother to look at the schedule, or (b) that someone did look and thought it was ideal because there could have been some sort of counter rally, or (c) it was just her schedule and how it worked out,” Masker said.
While at Temple, she touted her experience in the Oval Office and raved about how we, the voters, must think about whom we want to hire for the “toughest job in the world.” If she’s referring to her relationship with Bill, then this is true. But if that is the case, why not just put Monica Lewinski on the ticket?
She said that it took a Clinton to clean up the mess that the first Bush made and it’s going to take a Clinton to clean up the mess the second Bush made. I’m sorry Ms. Clinton, but there was no mess to clean up after the first Bush.
Bush Sr. waged a successful, swift and just war and the only reason the voters held a grudge against the man was because he raised taxes after his campaign platform was no new taxes. Remember, “Read my lips…”
Bill Clinton reigned in perhaps the easiest decade in American history to be president. In the ‘90s, the economy was strong and resilient, there were no foreign threats – or so we thought – and the people were content.
In fact, one could argue that Bill Clinton set up the economic conditions we now face with the establishment of NAFTA and that our current Middle Eastern conflicts are a product of his ignorance of Middle Eastern tensions.
But let’s not go there. How about we just release the oligarchic grip that threatens our democracy and pass the torch to a new era of politics? One that addresses the true ailments of our society, like race and inequality, with a transparency that leaves that no questions in our now dubious minds.
Sam Benesby can be reached at email@example.com.
I was curious about Clinton’s visit to Temple and all I found here was ad hominem attacks on her. Did you attend the rally? It doesn’t sound like it from your description. What I see here is irrelevant references to “her relationship with Bill” and putting “Monica Lewinsky on the ticket”.
As a postdoc, the attitude many students have towards Clinton makes me uneasy. You say she “spouted the same rhetoric that we’ve been hearing the entire campaign”, but you fail to mention what that is. Why don’t you explain her “rhetoric” and refute it if you think she’s wrong? I’d like to see some evidence that the students who reject her understand the issues and the real differences, not marketing differences, between the two candidates.
I once had an opportunity to meet Clinton, who was nothing like I’d imagined. She was very engaging, and far more intelligent than I’d expected. The breadth of her knowledge and the depth with which she comprehends a wide variety of issues is impressive.
Also, what do you know about life in the ’90’s. Weren’t you born in the late ’80’s? Do you have any facts to back up your assertion that it was the easiest decade to be president? I find this assertion to be particularly strange because most Obama supporters (which you clearly are) blame our poor economy on G.W. Bush; yet, when referencing Bill Clinton’s tenure in the ’90’s you say “the economy was strong and resilient”, while not attributing this to the president (Bill Clinton). Can you elaborate on why in one case the president is responsible for the economy and in the other case he is not?
My concern is that many people are making sweeping generalizations about the candidates based, not on concrete differences between their policies and leadership approaches, but on perceptions about each candidate’s personality. Our country’s problems are too great to allow ourselves to make choices based on appearances rather than substance.
By the way, I think that Clinton is the more substantive candidate, based on the clearly delineated plans she has set forth. I only regret that Temple students either weren’t able or willing to hear Clinton speak in depth about her plans for addressing the key problems America faces today. Maybe, if they’d had this opportunity, they would keep an open mind about her qualifications for president.
Rather an un-fair attack considering many college campuses are on Spring Break consecutive weeks. Sounds more like a biased report to me. GO HILLARY 2008!
It’s called opinion for a reason people
Andrew Garraway can suck a mean dick, yummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!
I couldn’t agree with you more MaryLou Jones, but bios and opinion are one in the same thing. You have yours. I have mine and the author has another. All’s fair in love and debate. I am a Hillary suporter and fan and will be a reader of this blog as well.