It’s masterly how Obama’s campaign has managed to claim the word “change”. Months ago, it would have seemed that Hillary could have been just as entitled to claiming that motto. She is a woman after all. And not Bush – among other favorable attributes that formerly made her seem like the surefire candidate.
I had Obama-supporting friends visiting over the weekend, and it became clearer to me how Hillary is stuck with the unfortunate image of a politician who will compromise on any ideal to get ahead.
The week before, I had a friend visiting from out of the country who horrified a group of Democrats over dinner by suggesting that Hillary should have left Bill after the Lewinsky affair. Never mind what ordinary wives do in this situation, she said – how can a female public figure just keep holding up appearances? (That great scene in the Sopranos, when the mafia-wives sympathise with Hillary comes to mind)
I personally don’t care very strongly what Hillary does or doesn’t do. I am just making a frivolous point. From a PR-perspective, I can’t help thinking a little separation or divorce is exactly what it would take to short circuit the current media trajectory. Bill hasn’t exactly been helping her image much in the last weeks of campaigning (with the race baiting and sleeping), so maybe now would be a good time to get that revenge for the Lewinsky affair!
People could no longer claim she wasn’t strong and independent, or into “change”. She would steal all the headlines. Other divorcées and women with faithful husbands would vote for her, and once she was elected, the media could engage in a long Brad and Angelina-type coverage of them getting back together. Sweet.
On a more serious note (also arising from this weekend’s conversations), wouldn’t it have been awesome to have a female candidate who made single mothers her campaign issue? She could have touched on education, health care, reproductive rights, poverty, family, gender, labor, immigration, welfare, and peace, all at once.