Jay Bookman Missed the Mark on Hillary

On March 21, 2016, Jay Bookman, columnist and blogger of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote an insightful essay on today’s political process.  However, as I had earlier responded to Jay Bookman’s column, I do not believe he painted the political and governing skills of Hillary Clinton, within his overall excellent essay, with depth and insight.

Here is the link to that essay by Jay Bookman: http://jaybookman.blog.myajc.com/2016/03/21/a-somewhat-unified-theory-to-explain-modern-politics/

Here was my original response to Bookman’s column:


” (Bookman): ‘That transformation offers a reminder that change that is barred from occurring organically and gradually will instead occur suddenly, with a jolt.’
Very well-stated sentence, above.  Almost Jeffersonian in its view of the evolution of ideas, i.e. events.
Excellent and well-analyzed column.
I remain concerned about your perceptions of Hillary Clinton, however.  I don’t think you see her much beyond surface givens.  When there is depth, there is much to be explored and many layers of the onion to be unwrapped.  Your thoughts on her depth fall short, imo.  But, I have faith that your perceptions of Hillary will grow, in time.
I always believed that Obama should precede Hillary as President of the United States for he is more visionary than is she, and I believed that she would learn much from his vision.  And, she has.  Moreover, she has furthered his foreign policy vision through her efforts as Secretary of State and his domestic vision in her support of Obamacare, as only one of many examples.  Obama knows this, also.  That is why he has supported Hillary for President.
America is not prepared to go as far as Bernie Sanders’ vision.  That is why Sanders will not win the nomination.  Hillary’s vision is more centrist and to push America – now – as far as Bernie’s vision would be jolting (as you say) to America and to the world.  Please look deeper into what Hillary Clinton is about.”
Here was my response to another poster to that column regarding the comparative gifts of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, as I see it:
“Bernie has a blind spot.  He does not see the ramifications of his policies in bringing too much upheaval, too quickly to the world.  We are changing as a planet exponentially faster everyday, in population growth, technical advancement, egalitarian ideas, etc.
Hillary will steer the ship’s course of this national and worldwide organic, dramatic change “steady as she goes” for our nation and our world.  She is the best person to do that now in history. She knows that and, more importantly, she knows why she must be steady in going forward.  Her trajectory is on the right course. I predict that she will win more people in the world to that course as she goes forward.”

Finally,  here was my response to another poster who had agreed with Bookman’s assessment of Hillary Clinton:

“Hogwash as to Hillary’s not being a ‘modern’ politician.  That, as I had mentioned to Jay Bookman earlier, in different words, is a surface analysis of Hillary Clinton, and Bookman is capable of understanding greater than surface.  However, imo, either he has not followed Hillary’s political campaign and her growth with depth for this election cycle, or he has built in biases toward her which keep him from seeing her gifts with more insight.  ‘A more modern alternative’ to Hillary is a catching phrase that is easy off the tongue, but it has little truth in it.

Who is more ‘modern’ – Shakespeare or current playwright David Mamet?  Both are fine playwrights, but Shakespeare, who understood the dimensions of human nature and the English language in more depth and range than the outstanding Mamet I would argue, is timeless in his writing gifts and,  thereby, Shakespeare is greater than simply ‘modern,’ which is more limited in connotation.  Two hundred years from now, people throughout this planet will still be reading and performing Shakespeare, but relatively few will know who David Mamet was.

Hillary Clinton is not a one-note candidate.  Sanders soars high and so does Elizabeth Warren and so they both impress of the moment, but they do not have Hillary Clinton’s gifts, and therefore lack her staying power.

I retract my fleeting thought, earlier, that Elizabeth Warren should be Clinton’s Vice President.  Warren’s silver-quick, but limited, tongue and mind seduced my thinking, temporarily.  She, too, is a one-note candidate, like Sanders.

Hillary has compassion, humor, nurturing, high intellect of a penetrating and nuanced kind as mentioned by Barack Obama, and he should know.  That type of candidate never goes out of style. Labels defy the depth of her worth to this nation, and to this world, at this point in history.





This entry was posted in Hillary Clinton for President, Hillary Clinton for President of the United States, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s