Conservative Donnybrook

Obama has been calling Clinton out for her claims to executive experience due to her years as first lady:

“There is no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in her and consulted with her on issues, in the same way that I would consult with [my wife] Michelle, if there were issues. On the other hand, I don’t think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a United States senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I’ve done.”

This seems like a pretty smart issue to hammer Hillary on. The thing is, she can make a good case that her years in the White House amounted to solid executive experience. She certainly at times had more power and access than most vice-presidents, and many cabinet members, do. But in order to make that argument she has to call attention to her role as First Lady as Co-President (or “two for the price of one”) which many people aren’t too comfortable with. It also calls to mind the issue of dynasty and Clinton-Bush fatigue. Finally, she’ll be forced to talk around the colossal failure of her healthcare scheme.

Share This

Slate has put up a good essay/slide show about Charles Schulz and Peanuts, inspred by a new biography that explores Schulz’s troubled life. The essay nicely captures the strip’s often grim tone as it grappled with themes of failure and depression.

The Peanuts merchandising machine and the treacle of A Charlie Brown Christmas allow Peanuts to be remembered as something sweeter, kinder, and more lovable than it truly was. The cognitive dissonance represented by the mass-merchandising success of this prickly, often despairing, sour, and snide work might have been worth more thought in a book of this scope than Michaelis gives it.

Many also forget how excellent the strip was. This is due to the sickly-sweetness of Peanuts merchandise but also because Peanuts peaked in the ’60s and ’70s, and by the late ’80s to the end of the strip Schulz’s powers were in decline.

Share This