Hillary Making Medea Rounds

[DonViejo]

Jamie Stiehm
September 17, 2017

So Hillary Clinton is on her Medea tour — ahem! — media tour.

But this is a different version of Herself — ahem! — herself. Ironically, this is the winning version, much more true and real. It’s a shame she didn’t show up at the carnival — ahem! — the campaign. She’s here to tell us “What Happened,” the title of her new tome. It may make you weep, but a good cry never hurt anybody.

Besides, the sisterhood is still in deep grief and disbelief. One question arises from the tour: Why didn’t this Clinton run for office? She’s surprisingly wry, open, yet as well-spoken as ever. Even her hair looks more honest.

I don’t know about you, but I wish she had turned and confronted Donald Trump at the debate when he stalked her. That would have been an unscripted small step for womankind. If she had acted like she had nothing to lose, maybe she would have won.

Oh, but she was always such a good girl, wasn’t she? The Democratic nominee was perfectly pristine and prepared with her 10-point plans and restrained manners in debating the beast — ahem! — bad boy Donald Trump. Clinton never lost her cool with her lurking opponent, and that may be part of the whole Greek tragedy.

Speaking of that, the myth of enchanting Medea is that her fury at her ex, Jason, was so great that she famously took revenge when he left her for the princess of Corinth. She killed their children.

more
https://www.creators.com/read/jamie-stiehm/09/17/hillary-making-medea-rounds

[DK504]

1. The hypocrisy of Hillary supporters, haters, apath-tics.

When she was running against President Obama she did show herself and the M$M called her too emotional, she acted like a woman and that said to all she was too emotional to be president. When she did show herself they called it an act.

This time around she was just trying to make her case, make the points and show the American people what she had to offer. Even when she showed herself, we never saw, the M$M were very busy showing the Twit-ster boasting about his penis and promoting violence in his rallies. He got over 3x's the press coverage he did and still it was never enough. She got screwed and still the media runs as far away as possible in their responsibility in the election of a grifter to the most powerful position in this country. (We're no longer the most powerful in the world because of him)

Hillary did a good job, she even got 3 million more votes and still lost. Dumpster got 10 million less votes and he still won. Can we call this a fucked up country yet?

[riversedge]

2. I recall that if she got emotional-teary eyed, she would be mocked for weeks on end. damn.

[oasis]

3. Hillary is taking names and kicking ass from now on.

No more playing nice.

[ucrdem]

4. Rec for the mother of all clickbait titles

p.s. just did a jury but I think the alerter misunderstood


pps: I disagree with the author -- if she'd gone off righteously on anyone or anything it would have been the end of Hillary -- but I don't think it's disrespectful. Haven't read past the OP tho.

[Control-Z]

5. Honestly, I don't get it.

Maybe you could explain it to me. Seems quite negative. Is this supposed to be a deplorable's POV?

[DonViejo]

9. Here's a bio of the author....

who just happens to be a woman.

JAMIE STIEHM

Jamie Stiehm says she was a journal-ist before she became a journalist, as a diary-keeper most of her life. Cities are her favorite things, and several of the great American cities appear as datelines in her widely published work.

Jamie worked as an assignment editor at the CBS News bureau in London, where at 25 or 26, she came to a realization: She cared about the words, not so much the pictures, in news-gathering. This was her first paid job in journalism, and she adored almost every minute of it. But the best times were when the scripts were written and she could peek over a producer's shoulder and help a little.

Then, after sending an op-ed essay everywhere on both sides of the Atlantic, The Boston Globe published it, with a drawing: "An Anglophile's Disillusionment." The lede is etched in her mind: "I have seen the Ugly American, and I am It."

When Jamie and her English husband (now ex) moved to the States and set up shop in San Francisco, she caught the eye and ear of Ed Clendaniel, Perspective editor of the San Jose Mercury News. Clearly, luck of the Irish. That paper published most of her early pieces.

During this period, Jamie wrote an op-ed for The Christian Science Monitor on a liberal's mixed feelings about Ronald Reagan. Every byline gave a small vote of confidence, but when Jamie moved to Washington, she encountered a second tradition of journalism that frowned on her ambitions. Summed up by the legendary Bill Marimow, then deputy editor at The Baltimore Sun: "You can't be a great columnist without being a great reporter first." She learned how to be a reporter, first at The Hill, a scrappy start-up led by Martin Tolchin and Al Eisele.

In a few years, Marimow and John Carroll, editor of The Sun, hired her as a metropolitan reporter. By this point, Jamie was syndicated by The New York Times Syndicate -- in a package called the New American News Service -- and had published op-eds across the nation, including in The Washington Post, the Wisconsin State Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News and The New Orleans Times-Picayune. Marimow said she had to give that up, and so she did.

At The Sun, Jamie learned to cover everything, from a murder trial to a snowy Opening Day for the Orioles. She learned to interview just about anybody, from the Catholic cardinal, to the denizens of Little Italy. In the decade spent reporting there, she saw the golden high-noon era of Carroll and Marimow at an excellent big-city newspaper -- and saw it set.

The time to stay was over, and Washington beckoned. Invited to be a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Jamie broke ground researching a biography of Lucretia Mott, the famed Quaker anti-slavery and women's rights champion whose statue stands in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda.

In 2009, she became a regular on the opinion page of USNews.com. Jamie also recently became a contributor to The New York Times Civil War series, "Disunion."

Jamie, born during the Thousand Days of the JFK presidency, witnessed the tumult of the 1960s through a young child's eyes. Raised partly in progressive Madison, Wisc., she loved the lively conversations on the university campus by Lake Mendota and missed Madison when her family of five moved to California. Jamie went to public schools there, graduating from Santa Monica High School. At 17, she returned to the East, to Swarthmore College in Philadelphia, the co-ed liberal arts college, which could not have been more different than carefree "Samohi." That's where the love affair with history began. And the rest is ... we shall see!

https://www.creators.com/author/jamie-stiehm

[Control-Z]

10. And?

Her bio does nothing to help me understand. I still don't get it as being something other than negative. What am I missing?

[DonViejo]

11. Did you read the full article at the link? If so, how did you not understand...

But it's a beautiful thing to see her sleekly styled new book in hand, telling Anderson Cooper — and by extension, all of us, what happened in the 2016 presidential contest. Don't we know it: losing the Electoral College while winning the popular vote by nearly three million votes.

Three million. That's a mantra many of us live by to stay sane in Trump's dark, mean and ugly version — ahem! — vision of America. Trump makes a Hobbesian jungle, where life is brutish, nasty and short, look like a Cambridge cricket match.

We the people know that American democracy failed us again. We mostly voted for her, flaws and all. Women (overall) voted for her. The vast majority of white men, not so much.

Now Hillary Clinton is willing to share her flaws with us. Ahem again! Make that shortcomings. And by the way, we'll never have Wisconsin.

[Control-Z]

13. Meh.

It doesn't look any different to me than it did the first time I responded. If the writer's point is truly not a negative one then it qualifies as word salad it's so confusing.

[DonViejo]

14. Oh, I see, you're confused so, it's the author's fault. Gotchya! Nice chatting w/you

[Control-Z]

17. Oooh. You're angry.

Why? You didn't write this piece, did you? There is absolutely nothing to be angry about. I don't care for the article. You do. To each his own. Really.

[ucrdem]

12. I could be wrong, for sure

but I thought the author was making the point that dlk makes below, namely anything she did would have been criticized, so she might as well have spoken her mind once or twice. It's meant to be cheeky I think but I can see how it might not come off as breezy as all that. But I hope the writer doesn't seriously think that Hillary losing her cool would have helped -- it's sunk more than one politician fast.

[Control-Z]

15. Thank you for the response.

I still don't see it as Hillary positive. I appreciate your effort to explain it to me, though. We can all probably agree on one thing. The writing is bad.

[leftofcool]

6. Just another anti-Hillary's new book thread

[DonViejo]

7. Did you read the article? Your comment strongly suggests you did not

[dlk]

8. No Matter What Hillary Would Have Done, the Misogynists Would Have Found Fault

Given the pervasive level of sexism and misogyny in America, there is absolutely nothing Hillary could have said or done they would have approved of. As was posted recently, Hillary could walk down 5th Avenue, do nothing, and be accused of shooting someone. Granted, no one is perfect. However, we need to take a hard look at the smug air of superiority directed toward her and her loss, and see it for what it really is.

[R B Garr]

16. "Herself" is what the trolls at that JPR website call Hillary, so

that's a huge giveaway that this writer is just riffing, and it's a mindless riff at that.

[Control-Z]

18. Thank you. eom