Sunday, April 24, 2005
Hillary Clinton Has A Big Head
Last Thursday, I went with Sam, Kevin, my parents, and my grandmother to the EMILY's List Majority Council Conference Dinner. If you're interested, you can read about EMILY's List here, but I'll provide a brief summary. Basically, they're a political action group whose goal is to get pro-choice, Democratic women elected to office in the United States. Don't worry - this isn't a political post.
I attended the dinner due to my father being a volunteer for EMILY's List. My dad is a lawyer by trade. He's been a lawyer for, oh, about thirty years now. Not only that, but he's a patent and communications lawyer. I've joked that his job is "helping the rich get richer", and while that's not entirely true, he certainly isn't Mother Theresa in his professional life. But what's kind of funny is that "helping the rich get richer" is exactly counter to my dad's personal philosophy of how the world should be. He's a hard core liberal, a lifelong Democrat, and about as politically active and knowledgeable as anyone I know. (Of course, I'm biased.) He's involved at all levels of government, from the school board and county executives, all the way up to the Democratic National Party and the Presidential campaigns. Last year he gave more money than any reasonable human should to the DNC and Kerry-Edwards. That's not what I would choose to do with my money, but more power to him. He has his core beliefs, he's committed to them, and he's willing to make sacrifices on behalf of them. That's a big deal.
A few years ago, my dad was getting burnt out on being a lawyer. I think he was actually considering quitting, which somewhat surprised me. My parents aren't really extravagant, but they do like the comforts that my dad's profession affords them. My dad being a lawyer allowed my mom to go to school and then start her own acupuncture practice, and my parents tend to like to fly somewhere on a whim. So, I told my folks that I think they'd be a bit frustrated if my dad quit, but maybe he should consider working part-time. He liked that idea, and chose to work only four days a week. The fifth day, he decided to volunteer at EMILY's List. He loves it. I think he's been doing it for a couple of years now.
The next question is, "Why EMILY's List"? To be honest, I don't know. I think it's a pretty good place to meet chicks, but somehow I don't think that's my dad's goal. He's definitely a feminist, and before you think that means he's crazy, you should realize that feminism is the ridiculous idea that women are EQUAL to men, not superior. I know, pretty radical. And, before we get caught up in semantics (or revert to the affirmative action argument), it's really not the idea that men and women are identical, but rather that they should be afforded the same opportunities in life. Using that definition, I'd be willing to be that some of you are feminists. Gasp! Don't worry: I won't tell anyone.
At any rate, like I said, they're committed to getting pro-choice, Democratic women elected to public office. He feels passionately about abortion rights, and clearly is a Democrat, so good for him. I don't know if that's what I'd choose to dedicate my time to, but he seems to get an immense deal of satisfaction out of it. (As a side note, I've often brought up that such a narrow definition of who gets supported by EMILY's List is somewhat limiting. What about a pro-choice women who wasn't a Democrat? What about a pro-choice Democrat who was a feminist, but not a woman? I think it ends up being irrelevant because they never have enough money to go around anyways, so broadening their scope isn't necessary yet.) At any rate, he invited all of us to this dinner, at which the four female Democratic Senators who are up for re-election in 2006 would be speaking.
I've got to admit, it was pretty cool. The setting was quite intimate - at most there were 300 people there. Aside from the speakers (Dianne Feinstein of California, Maria Cantwell of Oregon, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and Hillary Clinton of Illinois, I mean Arkansas, I mean New York), there were plenty of other muckety-mucks there. I believe the Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, was there, as well as a woman running for Governor of Georgia. Also, Betty Castor, who lost the race for Senator in Florida in 2004, and her daughter, Kathy Castor, who will be running for U.S. Representative in Florida, were there as well. So, that was all kind of impressive, to be surrounded by so many high-powered women.
I know what you're all thinking: Were they hot? Ha. Just kidding. But to answer your question, Kevin and I concluded that Maria Cantwell was probably the hottest Senator, in a MILF kind of way. Apparently Jennifer Granholm is a knockout, but I didn't see her. I know I just undermined everything I just said about women's rights, so let's get back to the task at hand.
The dinner was basically to celebrate the year that EMILY's List had, and to thank their supporters. I'm sure it was a fundraiser as well, but my dad paid for all the guests, so I don't know the details. (It's at least reassuring that my dad's redistributing some of that upper-class money, just like he plans to do with his tax cuts. He made more, but paid less in taxes this year than last year. Something's not right there.) All four Senators gave speeches, and the best part was that they were short. Well, that's not completely true - they're all excellent speakers, and they had some good political arguments, but it was nothing new or radical. They were very generous and seemingly level-headed, mostly talking about how thankful they were for EMILY's List's support.
The four Senators were set up on a little podium on the stage. They basically had a panel set up, as they planned to answer some questions after the speeches. When the dinner started, though, only three of the four women were present. You can guess who was late. We were reassured that Senator Clinton would be arriving shortly. Senator Feinstein was first, and talked for about five minutes. She was quite impressive - very polished and focused. I found her genuinely inspiring. She left right after her speech - I guess Senators really are busy. Who knew?
Hillary still wasn't there. Senator Cantwell spoke next. She was a little shaky - kind of quiet, and a little less assertive. Overall, she was decent, but not too amazing. It's her first term, so we'll have to give her a little time. (If she wins again, that is - she only won by 2,000 votes last time.) Cantwell's speech was a little shorter than Feinstein's.
Still no Hillary. Senator Stabenow started to speak, and I think she was that actual star of the night. She had a very genuine smile, and came across as completely natural. She gave the impression that she was legitimately honored to be there, and was still proud and excited to be a Senator. It was very easy to like her immediately. Her speech was also good and short, but maybe I liked it more because she seemed to likeable herself.
About halfway through Stabenow's speech, Hillary appeared (with her entourage) at one of the rear doors. Some of people turned to see her, and my first thought was "Wow, she's got a big head." Not like she was haughty or arrogant, but rather that her cranium was disproportionately large compared to the rest of her body. I think part of it was her "hair helmet" - she clearly had her standard hair style sprayed into place. But it's always a bit disconcerting to see such a metaphorically large figure, and realize that she's actually a physically small person. Her face usually dominates the images of her you see, but she's pretty tiny. I'd estimate she's no taller than 5'3".
So, Hillary, or rather, for consistency's sake, Senator Clinton, entered the room. Did I mention that she was chewing gum at the time? Practically, if she goes from event to event and shakes a billion hands, it makes sense that she'd chew gum to keep her breath fresh. But you'd imagine she'd have some lackey whose sole job it was to proffer his hand before she arrives at a function so that she can spit the gum out. (And then the lackey would sell the gum on eBay, of course.) At any rate, she sat down and waited for Senator Stabenow to finish.
When the time came, Hillary must have stuffed the gum in her cheek, because it was nowhere to be seen. She gave a fine speech, but the difference between her and Stabenow could not have been more stark. Stabenow was gleeful and buoyant and smiled all the time. Hillary had a scowl virtually the whole time she was there. Her remarks seemed sincere, and she was definitely well-spoken, articulate, and convincing, but her body language was a little off. I don't think she didn't want to be there; rather, I think that if you have to be "on" all the time, it gradually wears you down.
Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about Hillary either way. And I guess I'm one of the few - some love her, and many hate her, both for reasons that I've never completely understood. But she's not entirely humorless. While she was being introduced, the emcee for the evening said, "Senator Clinton will run for re-election in 2006, and who knows what after that." Hillary was reviewing her notes at the time, but when the emcee said that, she looked up, with her eyes to the ceiling, and kind of bobbed her head back and forth pretending to look all innocent. Definitely very amusing.
That topic interests me in and of itself. It seems to be a foregone conclusion that she'll run. In fact, Republicans seem more convinced than Democrats do that she'll run, because it fits into the whole "The Clintons are evil megalomaniacs" theme that they seem to cling to so tightly. (That's the only way to justify the impeachment trial.) I'm not so convinced. Someone else made the point that she'd have an uphill battle, as 45% of the country starts out voting against her. That's definitely a good point. Why it so, I'm not sure. Maybe we need EMILY's List more than we know.
I attended the dinner due to my father being a volunteer for EMILY's List. My dad is a lawyer by trade. He's been a lawyer for, oh, about thirty years now. Not only that, but he's a patent and communications lawyer. I've joked that his job is "helping the rich get richer", and while that's not entirely true, he certainly isn't Mother Theresa in his professional life. But what's kind of funny is that "helping the rich get richer" is exactly counter to my dad's personal philosophy of how the world should be. He's a hard core liberal, a lifelong Democrat, and about as politically active and knowledgeable as anyone I know. (Of course, I'm biased.) He's involved at all levels of government, from the school board and county executives, all the way up to the Democratic National Party and the Presidential campaigns. Last year he gave more money than any reasonable human should to the DNC and Kerry-Edwards. That's not what I would choose to do with my money, but more power to him. He has his core beliefs, he's committed to them, and he's willing to make sacrifices on behalf of them. That's a big deal.
A few years ago, my dad was getting burnt out on being a lawyer. I think he was actually considering quitting, which somewhat surprised me. My parents aren't really extravagant, but they do like the comforts that my dad's profession affords them. My dad being a lawyer allowed my mom to go to school and then start her own acupuncture practice, and my parents tend to like to fly somewhere on a whim. So, I told my folks that I think they'd be a bit frustrated if my dad quit, but maybe he should consider working part-time. He liked that idea, and chose to work only four days a week. The fifth day, he decided to volunteer at EMILY's List. He loves it. I think he's been doing it for a couple of years now.
The next question is, "Why EMILY's List"? To be honest, I don't know. I think it's a pretty good place to meet chicks, but somehow I don't think that's my dad's goal. He's definitely a feminist, and before you think that means he's crazy, you should realize that feminism is the ridiculous idea that women are EQUAL to men, not superior. I know, pretty radical. And, before we get caught up in semantics (or revert to the affirmative action argument), it's really not the idea that men and women are identical, but rather that they should be afforded the same opportunities in life. Using that definition, I'd be willing to be that some of you are feminists. Gasp! Don't worry: I won't tell anyone.
At any rate, like I said, they're committed to getting pro-choice, Democratic women elected to public office. He feels passionately about abortion rights, and clearly is a Democrat, so good for him. I don't know if that's what I'd choose to dedicate my time to, but he seems to get an immense deal of satisfaction out of it. (As a side note, I've often brought up that such a narrow definition of who gets supported by EMILY's List is somewhat limiting. What about a pro-choice women who wasn't a Democrat? What about a pro-choice Democrat who was a feminist, but not a woman? I think it ends up being irrelevant because they never have enough money to go around anyways, so broadening their scope isn't necessary yet.) At any rate, he invited all of us to this dinner, at which the four female Democratic Senators who are up for re-election in 2006 would be speaking.
I've got to admit, it was pretty cool. The setting was quite intimate - at most there were 300 people there. Aside from the speakers (Dianne Feinstein of California, Maria Cantwell of Oregon, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and Hillary Clinton of Illinois, I mean Arkansas, I mean New York), there were plenty of other muckety-mucks there. I believe the Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, was there, as well as a woman running for Governor of Georgia. Also, Betty Castor, who lost the race for Senator in Florida in 2004, and her daughter, Kathy Castor, who will be running for U.S. Representative in Florida, were there as well. So, that was all kind of impressive, to be surrounded by so many high-powered women.
I know what you're all thinking: Were they hot? Ha. Just kidding. But to answer your question, Kevin and I concluded that Maria Cantwell was probably the hottest Senator, in a MILF kind of way. Apparently Jennifer Granholm is a knockout, but I didn't see her. I know I just undermined everything I just said about women's rights, so let's get back to the task at hand.
The dinner was basically to celebrate the year that EMILY's List had, and to thank their supporters. I'm sure it was a fundraiser as well, but my dad paid for all the guests, so I don't know the details. (It's at least reassuring that my dad's redistributing some of that upper-class money, just like he plans to do with his tax cuts. He made more, but paid less in taxes this year than last year. Something's not right there.) All four Senators gave speeches, and the best part was that they were short. Well, that's not completely true - they're all excellent speakers, and they had some good political arguments, but it was nothing new or radical. They were very generous and seemingly level-headed, mostly talking about how thankful they were for EMILY's List's support.
The four Senators were set up on a little podium on the stage. They basically had a panel set up, as they planned to answer some questions after the speeches. When the dinner started, though, only three of the four women were present. You can guess who was late. We were reassured that Senator Clinton would be arriving shortly. Senator Feinstein was first, and talked for about five minutes. She was quite impressive - very polished and focused. I found her genuinely inspiring. She left right after her speech - I guess Senators really are busy. Who knew?
Hillary still wasn't there. Senator Cantwell spoke next. She was a little shaky - kind of quiet, and a little less assertive. Overall, she was decent, but not too amazing. It's her first term, so we'll have to give her a little time. (If she wins again, that is - she only won by 2,000 votes last time.) Cantwell's speech was a little shorter than Feinstein's.
Still no Hillary. Senator Stabenow started to speak, and I think she was that actual star of the night. She had a very genuine smile, and came across as completely natural. She gave the impression that she was legitimately honored to be there, and was still proud and excited to be a Senator. It was very easy to like her immediately. Her speech was also good and short, but maybe I liked it more because she seemed to likeable herself.
About halfway through Stabenow's speech, Hillary appeared (with her entourage) at one of the rear doors. Some of people turned to see her, and my first thought was "Wow, she's got a big head." Not like she was haughty or arrogant, but rather that her cranium was disproportionately large compared to the rest of her body. I think part of it was her "hair helmet" - she clearly had her standard hair style sprayed into place. But it's always a bit disconcerting to see such a metaphorically large figure, and realize that she's actually a physically small person. Her face usually dominates the images of her you see, but she's pretty tiny. I'd estimate she's no taller than 5'3".
So, Hillary, or rather, for consistency's sake, Senator Clinton, entered the room. Did I mention that she was chewing gum at the time? Practically, if she goes from event to event and shakes a billion hands, it makes sense that she'd chew gum to keep her breath fresh. But you'd imagine she'd have some lackey whose sole job it was to proffer his hand before she arrives at a function so that she can spit the gum out. (And then the lackey would sell the gum on eBay, of course.) At any rate, she sat down and waited for Senator Stabenow to finish.
When the time came, Hillary must have stuffed the gum in her cheek, because it was nowhere to be seen. She gave a fine speech, but the difference between her and Stabenow could not have been more stark. Stabenow was gleeful and buoyant and smiled all the time. Hillary had a scowl virtually the whole time she was there. Her remarks seemed sincere, and she was definitely well-spoken, articulate, and convincing, but her body language was a little off. I don't think she didn't want to be there; rather, I think that if you have to be "on" all the time, it gradually wears you down.
Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about Hillary either way. And I guess I'm one of the few - some love her, and many hate her, both for reasons that I've never completely understood. But she's not entirely humorless. While she was being introduced, the emcee for the evening said, "Senator Clinton will run for re-election in 2006, and who knows what after that." Hillary was reviewing her notes at the time, but when the emcee said that, she looked up, with her eyes to the ceiling, and kind of bobbed her head back and forth pretending to look all innocent. Definitely very amusing.
That topic interests me in and of itself. It seems to be a foregone conclusion that she'll run. In fact, Republicans seem more convinced than Democrats do that she'll run, because it fits into the whole "The Clintons are evil megalomaniacs" theme that they seem to cling to so tightly. (That's the only way to justify the impeachment trial.) I'm not so convinced. Someone else made the point that she'd have an uphill battle, as 45% of the country starts out voting against her. That's definitely a good point. Why it so, I'm not sure. Maybe we need EMILY's List more than we know.
Comments:
Post a Comment
