In May 1969, Hillary Clinton (then Rodham of course) gave Wellesley College’s commencement speech. Hillary was 21 years old, and was graduating with honors in political science, having written her senior thesis about a political activist who questioned the status quo.
Clinton’s speech, the first given by a student at a Wellesley graduation, was itself a reaction against the status quo. She began by spontaneously criticizing a U.S. Senator who had spoken before her. She declared that she and her classmates were seeking “a more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living.”
Clinton came to college as a Republican and former Goldwater supporter, but her politics changed during the turbulent 1960s. Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated as her junior year came to a close. During that upside-down year, 1968, Clinton drove to New Hampshire and worked on anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy’s presidential campaign. McCarthy nearly beat incumbent President Lyndon Johnson in the New Hampshire primary, prompting LBJ’s withdrawal from the race. Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, ultimately took the Democratic nomination. Humphrey, who initially supported the escalation of the Vietnam War but came to speak of seeking peace, lost to Richard Nixon in the general election.
Thinking of what Hillary Rodham must have been like in 1968 and watching the two Democratic candidates this year, the thought comes to mind: would that Hillary choose Obama in 2008? It is, of course, impossible to neatly match the political circumstances of 2008 with those of 1968. There are some similarities—a divisive war overseas, some claiming that withdrawal would bring catastrophe, others arguing for the troops to come home. There are differences– Hillary Clinton is not an exact match for Hubert Humphrey and Barack Obama is not a Gene McCarthy clone. And of course, there is an element of the surreal in wondering whether Hillary Clinton might vote against her older self. But if we entertain a little whimsy, it is interesting to consider this "what if" scenario.

Watching the two campaigns, it is easy to imagine the Hillary of 1968 moving, like so many of us, toward Obama, reveling in his energy, responding to the aura of hope and promise that swirls around him, applauding his decision to oppose the war in Iraq from the beginning, and imagining a completely different political reality, a new country, born from his election.
None of this is to dismiss the Hillary Clinton of 2008. That Hillary, like her counterpart in 1968, has plenty of enormously positive traits. She is fiercely intelligent, a powerful debater. She has eminently reasonable ideas on the economy, health care, the environment. She would be leagues better than the hapless, utterly failed current occupant of the White House.
She has the misfortune of running against an opponent whose every word sends a shock of excitement,
inspiration, and hope through the listener. The listeners, we Americans, are ravenous for what Obama
promises. After seven years of a president who misled us, who divided us, who let us down, who lied to us, we are sick of the status quo. Those of us who are Democrats (and many who are not) want no more of an endless war in Iraq, of tired slogans about tax cuts that lead only to better times for a few at the top of
society. We want a candidate who will win in November and change the failed policies of the Bush administration, who can inspire others in the way he inspires us and bring in new voters, independents, perhaps even some Republicans.
Though she is not the Humphrey of 1968, Hillary Clinton in 2008 is an establishment candidate. For months, she seemed to be the safe choice. She has been cautious as a senator, voting to go along with President Bush by authorize the use of force in Iraq, and doing the same with Iran. She had lined up all the right backers and financial donors.
It must sound ridiculous to women who have waited years for Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, but she seems
like a candidate who would have been better suited to a different time. She would have been preferable to
Kerry in 2004. She would have been fine in the 1990s. At this moment, against this opponent, she is overshadowed.
None of this is an attempt to tell women they must wait their turn. It is an ugly mark against this country that women have been kept outside of the inner circle of power for so long. We must reject the idea that talking heads can ask insulting questions about whether America is ready for a woman president, a woman as commander in chief.
The Hillary of 1968 would, undoubtedly, be moved by the prospect of a woman winning the presidency. But is hard to imagine her, or anyone, associating the Clinton of 2008 with the “immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living” that Hillary Rodham spoke of at her college graduation. It is easy to think of Obama when we read these words.
The Hillary of 40 years ago might find a lot to like about the Obama candidacy, and his story. After all, the subject of her senior thesis was a community organizer in Chicago, a member of a minority group (Jewish) who she described as “a compelling personality” with “exceptional charm.” She concluded that Saul Alinsky, who she met and wrote about, was unsuccessful in forming a viable national movement. She might have reached a very different conclusion about Obama.
Chris Edelson is a lawyer in Washington, D.C. who writes frequently about current political and legal issues. His writing has previously been published in The Philadelphia Inquirer, Metroland (Albany, NY) and at commondreams.org.
</img> </img> </img>


(Source Link)