Monday, June 25 , 2018, 11:33 am | Overcast 66º


Jamie Stiehm: Hillary Clinton Trudging to Antarctica When She Should Be on Top of World

Hillary Clinton’s long hard slog to the White House shall soon rival Sir Ernest Shackleton’s endurance expedition to Antarctica, but the lady has plenty of pluck and persistence. Isn’t that the way to get to the top — or the bottom — of the world? 

Things will never be easy for Clinton’s quest. She barely won the Iowa caucuses, giving the media a chance to chop, chop at her honesty, likability, ambivalent support and love of money.

Outlandish speaking fees on Wall Street make it hard for her to rail against the 1 percent, when she’s one of them. 

As we speak, an avid storyline of an “enthusiasm gap” between Democratic front-runners is fast being told in print and spun on air. It’s probably a fair point.

But over and over, the gap takes on a life of its own, just as the claim that Sen. Marco Rubio’s third-place finish in Iowa’s Republican primary is something special.

Of all people, vacuous Rubio is getting generous spin, even from David Brooks, a New York Times columnist who ought to know better.

Meanwhile, Clinton gets her usual meager ration of gruel.

The Washington Post ran a news story saying young voters find Sen. Bernie Sanders, 74, her archrival with the Brooklyn cadences, “cooler” than Clinton.

That may be the unkindest cut since Barack Obama said during a 2008 debate, “You’re likeable enough, Hillary.” 

“She shouts,”​ Bob Woodward says on MSNBC after Iowa, scolding Clinton for her “​unrelaxed” speaking style and delivery. The subtext: She’s unladylike.

Woodward has an easy straight-up Midwestern way, but he’s not running for president. Like Clinton, Woodward grew up in Illinois and went to Yale, just before Hillary Rodham went to Yale Law School.

Yet there’s no love lost between the ace Washington Post associate editor and the Clintons. 

Let me ’​fess up: I liked Clinton’s spirited speech in Iowa at the end of a long night. Yes, I did, finding it better than her usual best.

She honestly dealt with losing Iowa before, in 2008, when Obama swept farmers away across that small state. That’s where the young black senator started making history.

Somehow, Clinton’s historic first win as a woman in Iowa is not having that wind-at-her-back effect as she trudges to the South Pole by way of New Hampshire. Life on the hustings is so unfair.

The former secretary of state was thrilled, striking a defining line: “I’m a progressive who gets things done for people.”

The red suit was pitch perfect. She looked years younger, and yes, she raised her throaty voice and may have even beamed and laughed. That’s what winners often do after the first close contest of the presidential season.

Fox News (an oxymoron) accused her of screaming. Who cares?

More seriously, it’s no secret the media has never been fond of Clinton. If the traveling media mindlessly sets up the 2016 campaign as a superficial race, as it did between Albert Gore and George W. Bush in 2000, then we can kiss the republic goodbye for good.

Look at the failed 21st century, largely because the media on the planes decided Bush was friendly and affable, and Gore was serious and stiff, not a good guy to share a beer with. A tragic chorus.

That begs the question: how likable is Ted Cruz or Donald Trump?

Since the first chapter of Bill Clinton’s presidency, the first lady was criticized in the media for running health care reform behind closed doors; for a White House travel office kerfuffle; and for a Whitewater land deal, setting up a sordid investigation that turned up Bill Clinton’s affair with young Monica Lewinsky.

At the midway, Woodward reported Hillary Clinton had an imagined conversation with Eleanor Roosevelt. When her husband’s philandering went public, it softened hearts all around. 

The New York Times endorsed Clinton for the Democratic nomination, praising her policy depth on reproductive rights, the international front and more: “Mrs. Clinton has done her homework on pretty much any subject you’d care to name.”

On the same day, The Times ran an essay, “The Women Who Should Love Hillary,” by cultural muse Gail Sheehy.

After encountering anger toward Clinton among her liberal shipmates, she wrote, “I would love to be a true believer. I’m feeling ambivalent.”

Then there’s the noble Sir Ernest Shackleton, who never quite got to his grand goal.

Will Clinton follow in his footsteps?  

Jamie Stiehm writes about politics, culture and history as a weekly Creators Syndicate columnist and regular contributor to U.S. News & World Report, The New York Times and The Washington Post. Follow her on Twitter: @jamiestiehm. The opinions expressed are her own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >