I first ate cookies at Hillary Rodham’s house on Wisner and Elm in 1960. Were they her now-famous chocolate chip cookies? Perhaps. But whether this is the recipe for the cookies I ate doesn’t matter. The main dish that Hillary served, even back then, was politics. I had met Hillary in the fall of 1957—in the fifth grade of Eugene Field… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (14)Page 1 of 1 pagesIs there anyone out there who likes both Clnton and Obama? Am I the only one?
Posted by anthony.phillips29 on May 2, 2008 at 1:51 PM If only she had kept to simply making cookies. . .
(Anthony - not me! I like Obama, but detest HRC. And even more, detest family dynasties, including the current one.)
Posted by wolf on May 2, 2008 at 7:32 PM Oh my goodness! Hillary political? You bet!
Although I have been supporting Obama since a year ago, and am a fourth-generation MidWesterner (N. Michigan) and given my birthright
I grew up reading the Sunday Chicago Tribune since the 1940’s—my dad was a diehard Republican Sheriff for 12 years—and gave me Dewey posters to nail to telephone poles in Marquette County, MI just prior to the presidential elections in 1948), it’s interesting to know that Hillary was most likely caught in her parents’ political leanings. (Certainly a ‘considerable distance’ from Obama’s more recent experience/work in Chicago in the late 1980-90’s )
Maybe this is really what this election is all about—a time for serious and considerable change.
Obama is the so-called, “less politically experienced” new ‘Lincoln’ from Illinois—
Thank God for us, when one considers both parties’ timeworn “DC Beltway” PAC-bought (and its results) of the last two decades
And Obama is ready to lead this country to some needed changes, versus the Republican (and ‘old Demo’) “politics as usual and beyond” that we have been paying dearly for—(and will continue to do so for several more years), given all that the Neo-Con Bush oligarchy has wrought upon us since 2001…
Posted by Douglas Scott Treado on May 2, 2008 at 7:57 PM I don’t think the Liberal/Progressive Left has any idea how seriously they have alienated those of us who are also liberal/progressives and are still supporting Hillary Clinton. I keep telling myself I am going to do the mature, sane thing and vote for Obama in November but after reading articles like this one I want to mark my ballot for any other available alternative to McCain. Maybe I’ll save that recipe and bake those cookies when I vote for anyone but Obama in November. After spewing hatred of Clinton for months and months, how do you imagine we are going to all come together? Where are you getting those happy mushrooms you all must be taking?
I am supporting Clinton because I don’t think Obama can win the Presidency. I hope I’m wrong, but my gut tells me I am not.
I am also supporting Clinton because I am a liberal Democrat and I want a candidate who is also a Democrat and proud to defend the positions and the accomplishments of the party. I don’t want a candidate who make nice about Ronnie Reagan and wants to talk about all the good ideas the Republicans have had.
Finally, YOU ARE WINNING AL RIGHT ALREADY! It really would take a miracle for Clinton to win the nomination at this point. You need to back off from the nastiness now and hope the rest of us can forget what little you know whats you’ve been to date.
Posted by soisam on May 2, 2008 at 9:32 PM I believe that if there is some nastiness being directed at Her Majesty from us deluded, cultist Obama supporters, a bit of that might be a result of the fear-mongering, race-baiting and utterly Rovian campaign she has been (and will continue) running.
There might also be some residual nastiness among many of us due to her support for the (illegal) Iraq war and her giddy delight in signing the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, something none of those running against her (Biden, Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson, Obama) were comfortable with. They must have missed the DNC memo that declared that designating the entire Iranian military a terrorist organization, thus giving Bush yet another Muslim nation to target, is a liberal/progressive ideal.
I guess there’s still a few of us “liberal/progressives” that drwa the line at “obliterating” 70,000,000 people and generally approving of things like murdring 500,000 children through sanctions. Call me old-fashioned, but that just doesn’t strike me as liberal/progressive.
Posted by opeluboy on May 3, 2008 at 1:24 AM Those of us liberals who are supporting Clinton were and are equally distressed by the war. However, we do not for a minute believe that Clinton would have gotten us into this disastrous war had she been president. She would have let the inspectors do their job and that would have been the end of that. Even Obama admitted that he didn’t know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate at the time.
Neither candidate supports this war.
On race, I beg to differ. It is the Obama campaign that has played the race card in this campaign from day one . In fact they’ve talked so much about race, they’ve made this campaign about race. It’s the dumbest move I’ve ever seen.
You can’t win in November if you belittle the people whose votes you need. You can’t win if you call them racists and you can’t win if you call them murderers. People really do resent that. And you can’t win if you are perceived to be elitist.
I keep getting the feeling that many Obama supporters think the problem with this nominating process is that too many people are acting like Democrats instead of seeing the light and converting to this grand vision of a brave new world. Obama is running as a Democrat, I believe. And if he is not a Democrat, what is he doing in my primary?Queen Hillary vs. Saint Obama? In terms of policy there is little difference between them. I do not approve of many things Clinton has done but I do know that Clinton is a pragmatist and I think that is what is needed at this point in time. I like Obama. I’m just not sure he is ready for prime time. I think the Republicans will eat him alive—with more than a little help from his own enthusiastic supporters.
Posted by soisam on May 3, 2008 at 5:28 AM Right. But at least the liberals and progressives who support him will enjoy the moral victory of watching him lose the general election.
As for Clinton’s - and the Democrats’ - support of the Iraq War resolution: the congressional Democrats lined up along party lines in opposition to the Persian Gulf resolution fifteen years ago, and they got plastered in the following two elections. According to some progressives they should have committed political suicide in 2002 and voted against the IWR.
The progressives are as much of a drag on the Democratic party as the fundamentalists are on the Republican party, clinging to the moral victory of defeat as the fundies cling to God, guns and the good ole GOP.
Posted by Major Major on May 3, 2008 at 11:59 AM Hey, I like Obama and Clinton and would vote for either in a heartbeat. I feel that both can work with each other.
Looking at the Republican alternative I am left with little choice but baking chocolate chips for the Euro American Woman or the Afro-Euro American Man. I am tired of seeing the rich White minority’s way ough (sic) doing politics.
Posted by glenglish on May 3, 2008 at 3:20 PM People who think that Obama is the second coming are to be sadly mistaken. I like the guy and would vote for him. If he is unable to counter the attacks from the Clinton camp, then we need to realize that he has no chance in the fall. Politics is an ugly business. The Republicans will chew him up and spit him out.
i think that he is great, but many times we have heard politicans give great speeches and then produce nothing. There is nothing to suggest anything different this time. I only pray that we don’t let McCain into the White House!!!!
Posted by anthony.phillips29 on May 4, 2008 at 1:59 PM For me it really isn’t whether Clinton or Obama is the more practical person. It is whether most of America can be practical in realizing that race or gender does not determine the better candidate. My impression is that the Republican party may draft Sec. Rice into the fray for VP, or may try a fast one with Colin Powell , just to level the playing field so to speak and tell the Americans that we better expect Chocolate chip recipes for any presidential menu. As for who will get chewed up by who my bet is still the Democrats look better to anyone that uses more than their eyes to see and taste better to anyone whose taste extends past their mouth.
When the bottom line is what have the Republicans done for you and what have they done to you, then it almost don’t matter if you only uses your eyes to see and mouth to tastes (pardon the dialect).
I don’t think Obama or Clinton is the second coming but I do think their coming is better than anything the Republicans have to offer. on their menu
It is going to take a very good economic strtegist to work out the financial fubar that this administration has put us in. And that will involve who is put in the head of the Fed. In regards to what makes a person a good president the speeches have to come off good even when there is little time to cook one up, but the choices for who will run the various branches cannot be half baked.
Posted by glenglish on May 4, 2008 at 5:44 PM (edit) ...the choices for who will run the various branches cannot be half baked.
There is an edit icon. Now I read it.
Posted by glenglish on May 4, 2008 at 5:47 PM I cannot fathom the reason the “soisam” believes that Obama “played the race card”—-Of all the candidates, he has been more the statesman than provacateur. Bill Clinton, on Hillary’s behalf, has played this nasty card, and in a way, it may be the Clintons’ ultimate downfall . I also believe that with continuing support, Obama can win the presidency; this is not a time to have doubts and give up the ship…
One major problem with Hillary’s campaign, particularly in regard to the “race issue,” is Bill Clinton.
No question that these primaries has been a “Billary”-infected approach from the Clinton camp since New Hampshire. Although the campaign had temporarily stopped Bill from commenting to the Press, he quickly returns for more of his politically-charged comments to demean Obama, and very subtle way plays the race card—and Bill Clinton sees himself (in a very ego-driven and even socially psychotic way) as someone who “understands” Blacks…or, actually can “use them”—which really means he feels he can rest on his previous support (in the 1990’s) and still consider himself the “white soulman” even now… Help!It’s really unfortunate that the Clintons, in their manic drive to get back into the White House, can ignore the need for real change in Washington. The Clintons have profited very well from their time in Washington and since—in many millions of dollars—They are both products of the political process that has brought us to this disastrous time in American politics—they play the game in a very similar way as the Republicans. We really need change. I helped elect Bill Clinton in 1992…..
Time’s up now, however. I do not see Hillary as separate from Bill—they’re definitely in this together, as I don’t hear Hillary distancing herself from him (she’s stuck with him) and his comments ...as Obama has had to do publicly and consistently at least twice in regard to the Rev. Wright….
(And unlike most on this blog, I’m happy to put my real name to this statement.)
Posted by Douglas Scott Treado on May 5, 2008 at 3:04 PM (And unlike most on this blog, I’m happy to put my real name to this statement.)
How do we know it is your real name? What difference does it make if it is your real name or not?
Posted by Jiminy Cricket on May 9, 2008 at 4:42 AM I’m an Obama supporter and campaign volunteer, but I must say, this author does not understand how the element of surprise works in writing. The conclusion comes out of nowhere, apropos of nothing. What is Vandercook’s point, that Rodham-Clinton is an uppity woman? That she used to be a Republican? If it is the latter, I am always astonished when I see public officials pilloried for their past policies. If people are not allowed to change their minds/policies/etc., then what is the point of activism? Isn’t it to get people to change their minds/policies/etc.? If we will forever damn people for their previous mindsets/policies/etc., what incentive is there for people to change? As said, I am an Obama supporter and campaign worker. I am also a member of Mensa. But when I finished reading this article, I scratched my head and said, “I don’t get it.”
Posted by Robin_Rubin on Jun 5, 2008 at 6:36 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Betsy Vandercook
- Hillary for Class President
Chocolate Chip Cookies and Her Eighth Grade Campaign
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2008 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
