|
Edited on Wed Sep-22-10 03:17 PM by karynnj
Hillary Clinton is a not just one of the players in what happens in the White House. She has been a public figure with many who have advocated for - or against - her since 1992. I suspect that this leads to many accounts that over weight her actual involvement. Not out of dishonesty, but simply because a writer might ask more questions on "What was Hillary's view?" or "What did Hillary do?" than they might about say, Jim Jones. I do remember many accounts argued that she sided with Gates and McChrystal. It was never clear if this meant she was an active, independent voice or whether she opted to go with the military.
Even on foreign policy issues, there are periodically articles that have read like puff pieces on her accomplishments as Secretary of State. Not to mention, there were many puff pieces following the NYT's meme that HRC was a quiet, backbencher when she entered the Senate raising to be a leader who developed rapport with people on both sides of the aisle. Yet, there never was an example given of any major legislation which she took the lead role on getting passed - nor, was there an example where she brokered a deal that created a compromise - even one that failed.
Now, it is very clear that HRC is articulate, hard working, and very smart. She also has a large group of media pundits who have been on her side for decades, who looked forward to her becoming the first woman President. What I wonder is whether the articles that push her achievements beyond what they are actually are counterproductive to her at this point. They create a bar where they expect her to preform that is not given for others.
|