Clinton at Rushmore: Our Soundbite Culture Paralyzes

Clinton stood before the four former presidents [on Mount Rushmore] and listened in as a park ranger explained some of the history. At one point, she was asked if she could one day picture herself up there. She smirked and shook her head as she contemplated whether to offer a quick soundbite.

"I …" she started to say, before throwing her hands up.

"You think Bill Clinton should be up there?" another reporter asked.

"Why don't you learn something about the monument," Clinton finally said, before walking away to greet some more tourists.

Maybe Clinton is fatigued and frustrated and beleaguered. Maybe the soundbite-hungry nature of our culture, our technology, and our media weighed so heavily on her mind she was unable to say anything, paralyzed by the fear that she would again make instant, accidental, and unwanted news.

I don't know. Whatever the reason, I'm strongly and perhaps irrationally sympathetic.

Comments

I have less sympathy.

When you are running against a black candidate and losing. All that we ask of you is not to bring up is the word "assasination" and yet you can't keep your mouth shut can you Hillary.

How many other things could she talk about that would not be sound bites, but she always crosses the line. Always.

Posted by: Christian on 05/29/08 at 10:00 AM Respond

I'm with Christian, though perhaps less vituperatively so. The question was lamer than lame, but so was her photo-op. And if she's tired of these shenanigans, if she wants to move on to a whole 'nother conversation, she can concede, endorse Obama, and go to bat for him. I sincerely think it'd be a fun change of scene.

Posted by: Sean Dongre on 05/29/08 at 10:18 AM Respond

Some reporters may be into a game of bear-baiting instead of being sincerely interested by the sense of mission of a stateswoman. There seems to be a growing polarization within the Democratic Party. I don't think Clinton will ultimately be able to "hand over" her troops. And perhaps that is ultimately a good thing, because the gender question goes so far beyond a specific female candidate.

I'm sure -- had she dared say that her face or a female presdient's face should be up there with the other four faces --she would have come off as quite presumptuous in the eyes of sexist onlookers many of whom are ironically ... other women.

Posted by: Kathy Giannini on 05/29/08 at 11:46 AM Respond

The War. She supported The War. If not for that we are celebrating the great gender advance and not witnessing the spectacle of women calling women sexist.

Posted by: Patrick on 05/29/08 at 2:23 PM Respond

Clearly a cunning stunt.

Posted by: capt - Hussein on 05/29/08 at 3:49 PM Respond

Kathy,

If she had dared to say her or her husband's face should be up there, then YES, almost universally everyone white, black, brown, yellow, male, female would have found her presumptuous. If she had said a woman's face should be up there, I don't think anyone would have been up in arms.

Posted by: homer on 05/30/08 at 6:14 AM Respond

Sexist this sexist that, give it a break Kathy. I'll tell you what on the million to one odds that Hillary manages to steal the nomination (and that's all she could do to win at this point), then I will vote for a female third party candidate and prove to you that not all Hillary haters are sexist we just don't care for corporate pro war DLC types.

Posted by: Michael Z. on 05/30/08 at 4:40 PM Respond