2008 Soft Power
posted by December 26 at 13:41 PMon
I really just overheard this pre-fab (?) conversation between two old ladies in the QFC:
Old Lady 1: I’d like to see Hillary and Obama run as a team.
Old Lady 2: I’m for Hillary. [And then, I kid you not, this is what she really said]: She has more experience. She’s has eight years in the Senate and eight years in the White House.
Old Lady 1: Obama has experience. He was a community organizer in Chicago.
Old Lady 2: He’s just a junior senator. He means well.
Old Lady 1: Well, [I kid you not, this is what she really said]: I like that if Hillary’s the president, we get Bill Clinton. He’s the smartest president we’ve had.
Old Lady 2: George Bush isn’t very smart. But he won so big.
Old Lady 1: It was the Evangelical Christians. Do you think America will elect a woman?
Old Lady 2: Israel has a woman prime minister. [Take that Ehud Olmert!]
Speaking of “Experience” … I linked the NYT article that questioned HRC’s experience in this morning’s Morning News post.
It truly raises a red flag about a Clinton candidacy.
Remember how the Republicans turned Kerry’s strength (his valor in Vietnam) into a weakness. Well, there’s certainly a GOP opportunity here to turn Clinton’s “strength” into a weakness. A weak woman at that. Here’s some red meat sexist bait for the GOP machine:
Her role mostly involved what diplomats call “soft power” — converting cold war foes into friends, supporting nonprofit work and good-will endeavors, and pressing her agenda on women’s rights, human trafficking and the expanded use of microcredits, tiny loans to help individuals in poor countries start small businesses.
Asked to name three major foreign policy decisions where she played a decisive role as first lady, Mrs. Clinton responded in generalities more than specifics…
I can picture those two old ladies next November.
Lady 1: I want to vote for Hillary, but her experience is so… soft.
Lady 2: Yeah. It’s true. We don’t need soft power right now.