|
|
 |
|
Where’d You Get That Crazy Idea? |
 Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton ...O.K., she's ambitious! |
O.K., the lady's ambitious;
What's so bad about that?
By GERALD NACHMAN
of TheColumnists.com
I’m not (yet) much of a Hillary Clinton fan, but it isn’t because of her “ambition.”
When did ambition become such a dirty word
in America, or at least American politics? Isn’t ambition
what America is about? Wasn’t that the theme of all those
countless, much-admired, inspirational childhood books Americans
once grew up on-- the Horatio Alger myth? Up from slavery, or
the bootstraps, rags to riches and all that.
Edison, Ford, Lindbergh, Carnegie, Einstein--ambitious boys every
one. Nobody reads Horatio Alger any more, but nearly every popular
biography today still strums the ambition chord pretty hard.
Ambitious used to be a good thing to be, indicating industry
and initiative, generally considered sterling American traits.
Perhaps it’s not Hillary’s ambition so much as it is
her so-called “naked” ambition, which sounds more to
me like somebody else's naked sexism.
Men get to be ambitious as hell, but an ambitious woman has become
a synonym for ball-buster, with “ruthless” the implied
modifier. Nobody who runs for President is a shrinking violet--not
even sweet ol’ Barack Obama, and maybe least of all Barack
Obama. Perhaps Obama, with his who-me? attitude, is just cannier
at cloaking his naked ambition in modest attire (no ambitious
power necktie, for starters).
Has there ever even been an un-ambitious politician? Do we really
want a slacker for President? America loves the fantasy that
a truly great leader would never be immodest enough to actually
thirst for the Presidency. Such a vulgar idea. We like the Ike
model--a great man who, because the country loves him for himself,
reluctantly runs for office or is drafted by a groundswell of
devotion. Ike may have been the last who-me? President, or was
it Gerald Ford? It’s hard to recall many Oval Office accidents.
Not counting Jesus Christ--and I’m not so sure about him--has
anyone hugely successful ever made it to the top on sheer humility?
Was Lincoln, heaven forbid, ambitious? I vote yes. How else would
a poor, raw-boned, homely, gawky, self-educated small-town lawyer
dare aspire to the Presidency? There is even evidence that Mother
Teresa was one ambitious--some even say pushy--little nun.
The underlying assumption seems to be that Hillary Rodham married
Bill Clinton because she planned to ride his own proudly ambitious
coat-tails and one day become a powerful politician herself.
That’s a big leap, but even assuming it’s half-true,
what of it? A more logical assumption is that, about mid-point
in Clinton’s Presidency, the idea occurred to Hillary, “Hey,
I could do this!” Which is pretty much what ignites all
politicians--Congressmen, mayors, corporate bosses, consumer
advocates, farmers.
Americans love to believe that great politicians just sorta,
ya know, er-um stumbled into greatness, Jimmy Stewart-style.
It’s what fuels the whole goofy “American Idol”
mania: that any self-deluded no-talent off the street very well
might, if things break right for him--and if he only dreams hard
enough--become a rich and famous pop singer. Right. Look at Sinatra,
a modest kid from Hoboken who was just in the right place at
the right time. Or Bing Crosby, who actually titled his autobiography
“Call Me Lucky.”
We all love the myth of the girl (Lana Turner) who is sipping
a soda at Schwab’s when a talent scout happens to spot her
and asks if she might like to take a screen test, or the oft-told
tale of the friend who drives an actor buddy to an audition and
is asked if he also cares to try out, and, by golly, the friend
turns out to be named, yes, Henry Fonda.
So, let’s just concede that Hillary Clinton is extremely
ambitious, unlike John McCain, Joe Biden, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt
Romney, Chris Dodd or Dennis Kucinich. How they got to be senators,
governors and mayor beats me. Must be their looks.
©2007 by Gerald Nachman. The Nachman
caricature is ©2000 by Jim Hummel. The cartoon is from IMSI's
Master Clips Collection, 1895 Francisco Blvd. E., San Rafael,
CA, 94901-5506, USA. This column first posted March 12, 2007.
You
can comment on this column online. Please address your message
to either "The Editors" or Gerald Nachman. To send
an email, click here and don't forget to mention Gerald's name:
talkback@thecolumnists.com
|
|
|
Archives |
|
|