Dreaming of Hillary
[Can't tell the difference between politics and policy? Need personal advice of a political nature -- or vice versa? Send your question to Stumped. Questions may be edited.]
Dear Stumped,
I'm having a "Freudian" problem. I'm a liberal, left-of-center woman and, for many reasons, I really hope Obama will win. Yet I keep dreaming about Hillary! (I know, I must need therapy -- this is probably about my mother.) But seriously, in some of my dreams lately she and I snuggle up on the couch and watch the news, eat popcorn, tell jokes, even chat about new nail polish colors. It's girl time at its best!
My question is this: Is my gender controlling my vote? Did Hillary's now infamous crying scene make more of an impression on me than I realize?
Sincerely,
Scared to Sleep
Dear Scared,
Calm down. You are not alone, as this newspaper has reported: There is actually a Web site that compiles voters' dreams of candidates.
First, only you know whether your gender is controlling your vote, as it is your dreams. And I don't think you should feel ashamed that you are having dreams of a candidate you can identify with.
Please don't tell anyone, but I once dreamt I was hanging out with Bill Richardson in Chihuahua, Mexico -- where I grew up and where Richardson's mom is from. We were at a taqueria, eating some tacos al pastor and drinking Dos Equis, talking in Spanish in our distinctly norteno accents, as if we didn't have a care in the world. Then an aide walked up to him, handed him a phone and said, "You'd better take this call, Mr. President." And I was like, "Mr. President?!" You've got to be kidding me!
When he got off the phone, I stupidly asked him if he really was president. And he said, "Of course, you knew that." And I shook my head (where was I during that election?) and asked him what in God's name he was doing eating tacos with me in Chihuahua if he was president. He was in the middle of a long explanation about wanting to take a more low-key approach to the job than his predecessors, about keeping a healthy balance by almost treating the presidency as a part-time gig ... when I woke up.
Okay, maybe we both need therapy.
What intrigues me about your dream, like my own, is how quotidian it all seems: Bill and I eating tacos together; you and Hill eating popcorn. (I'm not going near the snuggling part.) It's almost like we're craving the illusion that these are real people, which brings to mind that "They're Just Like Us!" feature in US Weekly , which captures celebrities shopping for groceries or eating ice cream cones in Beverly Hills or West Hollywood. (And hey, don't give me any grief me for my low-brow cultural references. I only read US Weekly when waiting for haircuts. Really. At home I subscribe to the New Yorker, the Atlantic and the Economist, and will make more references to them when I read the back issues stacked on my coffee table.)
Regardless of whom you vote for, I think you should ratchet up the melodrama in your dreams of Hillary. After all, everything about her candidacy and political life is epic in scope. Ditch the couch and the nail polish -- you should be dreaming of running alongside Hillary on the tarmac in Bosnia, dodging sniper bullets.Or of engaging in courageous civil disobedience on behalf of all those disenfranchised voters and delegates in Michigan and Florida, whom Hillary has compared to the defrauded voters of Zimbabwe. Dream big!
What I really would like to know is how often the remaining troika of candidates dream about each other, and the content of those dreams. Does Barack Obama dream of watching TV with Hillary, or is she his vice president in his dreams (and if so, would they then be nightmares?), disagreeing with him at Cabinet meetings? Does Hillary dream of playing hoops with Obama, or is he her vice president? Please, candidates, post your dreams about each other on www.metaphysicalpoll.com.
Dear Stumped,
How come we do not have term limits for Congress? I know the wise Founders did it for the presidency, as they did not want another king, but for some reason they forgot to include Congress. I believe its up to the electorate to impose term limits by voting against the incumbent all the time. After all, only about 10 percent of Congress is really honest and trustworthy. Maybe. So replacing them every chance we get will prevent the continuation of the disgusting mess that has been Congress ever since Andrew Jackson was president.
-- LR
Dear LR,
The Founders did not impose formal term limits on the presidency, as you suggest, though George Washington's decision not to seek a third term was interpreted as a statement of disapproval for three-term presidencies. Only FDR was ever elected to more than two terms, and within a few years of his death the 22nd Amendment was ratified, establishing that no one shall be elected president more than twice (nothing personal, Mr. Roosevelt).
In the 1990s, term limits were all the rage as part of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America," but the effort soon fizzled in Washington. Meanwhile, efforts in the states to impose term limits on their representatives in Congress were rightly struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. (Qualifications for serving in Congress are established in the Constitution. States can't alter those criteria.)
To your question: Stumped opposes term limits in any form. They are undemocratic and assume that the electorate is too ill-informed or too easily duped to vote out unworthy incumbents. There are admittedly plenty of incumbent-protection tricks that need guarding against (dodgy redistricting maps, overbroad campaign finance rules, etc.), but adopting across-the-board term limits prevents the re-election of too many experienced legislators. Your suggestion that people automatically vote against their incumbent would amount to a mass abdication of the electorate's democratic prerogative to distinguish between good and bad representatives.
It is true that many states have imposed term limits for their legislatures. But after spending time in California, I can tell you that draconian term limits exacerbate the problem they intend to fix. If you think legislators with too much job security are too aloof and complacent, I can assure you that lame-duck legislators who can't be re-elected are even less accountable -- and even more mischievous.
By Andres Martinez |
May 30, 2008; 12:00 AM ET
Previous: Is McCain Too Old? |
Next: The Ex-President Tax
Posted by: jhbyer | June 3, 2008 9:16 PM
2008 May 31 Sat 14:23 EST
From: RA Fritz Skees, FritzYeCat@Yahoo.com
I might see eliminating term limits, but Not during a Fascist Bush style Republican regieme: Remember that Hitler was Voted In to office, but it took WWII to oust him.
Don't give up on Hillary: She hasn't given up on US !
2008 May 10 Sat 11:11 EST ASCII Filename: DownHill.txt
From: RAF Skees FritzYeCat@Yahoo.com Down Hill after Hillary
I am by now quite disgusted by the litany of requests that Hillary Clinton step
aside and endorse the so presumably inevitable Obama nomination for President,
"for the good of the Democratic Party." The spectacle of such sanctimony from
various crass politicians is vomitous past puking.
Just How does thusly ensuring the election of John McCain in November advance
our Democratic Party cause ?! Hillary is doing her level best to save us all
from our own stupidity, and therefore she must be encouraged beyond all limits.
It is Barrack Obama who must step aside for the benefit of Democracy, America,
and the World. Through little fault of his own, he jeopardises our existence.
Hillary knows what i know, from real street experience in everyday America, as
opposed to some idealistic America in the trendy minds of the University Elite.
Racism is here to stay in America, as deep and strong as ever, and the party
which ignores this will neither make racism go away, nor make itself electable.
Getting Elected is Job One for the Democratic Party: the Republican party Must
be assessed the maximum penalty for its evil behavior during Eight years of GW
Bush Republican MisAdministration of America and the World. Democratic agenda
which imperil this First Necessity must be deferred until later, Or We Fail !
Hillary and Barack are both attractive candidates for the Democratic Nomination
for Democratic Presidental Candidate for 2008: but only Hillary is Electable in
our National Election in which Republicans Also are empowered to vote: in which
the Republicans are without a doubt running the very, very strong John McCain.
Any Democrat who underestimates the power of John McCain to draw many Democrats
into the Republican camp must have Alzheimers: John McCain definitely does not.
Rather than take the sure path to a Democratic victory in 2008, Edward Kennedy
and many more wiley old politicians see the current weakness of the Republican
Party as the opportunity to push All the old social agenda and win: but they
overreach their power badly. Congress again will be deadlocked, there even may
be bloodshead and rioting resulting from overinflated glorified racial agenda.
Had we sanely chosen John Edwards and consolidated our position with the widest
possible electoral base, including some Republicans, we should have swept the
2008 elections on a sound Party Platform, then rappidly implemented fiscal and
diplomatic sanity, and then had years to further the traditional social agenda
in a measured and judicious fashion. Instead, revolution is in the air and too
many people are careless of just how many more shall bleed in the insurrection.
Apparently, Democrats are scrapping for a fight simply for the excitement, but
such entertainment shall prove exorbitantly costly to the Democratic party, the
future of our country, and to the World as a whole. They just couldn't see the
way to appealing to the Adult Wing of America. Too, too bad. Instead, they have
followed the GW Bush lead to affrontry, confrontation, jingoistic ideology, and
divisive politics as just previously, rather than real change for a reasonably
certain constructive policy and reasonable collective goals world wide.
Must Renounce the accepted solution, policy of being Black, even as i have long
ago eschewed being White: in the True Spirit of Dr Martin Luther King. But many
act as though, despite all the politically correct trendy obligatory misquoted
verbal holliday respect, that they never really knew what King Meant: that the
policy some thought weak is in fact the strongest way to achieve reconciliation
but force does the opposite, which contradicts the spirit of his entire method.
This is the demographic reality of America, in which true Blacks, no matter how
the definition of Black is stretched and biased to inflate the statistics, have
always been a small minority in America, and always shall be. Therefore, the
1/2
people who would wear this demographic label with pride must also always hold
the moral high ground concerning human rights: the minority, although protected
by our Constitution and rightly so, must beware the fearsome power of All the
Rest who hold the Power of the Majority to Protect Itself against All perceived
threats to its security, also rightly protected by our Democratic Constitution.
That many views held by many citizens are often misguided is neither avoidable,
nor in the short span of a generation or three, amenable to reason nor emotion.
So we who work for the progress of All Humanity in the face of Religion, Greed,
War, Nationalism, Race, Disease, Ignorance, and Stupidity, must keep steadfast.
And we must be practical, seeing Politics as it Is, not as we would have it be.
Keep the Faith: Regardless keep the real path to success. Get Smart! A gram of
wisdom is worth a kilo of regret. A gram of prevention is worth a ton of cure.
2/2Z
Posted by: FritzYeCat | May 31, 2008 3:28 PM
I voted for Hillary, but I dreamed about Pamela Anderson. Sadly, neither dream will come true.
Posted by: Maggots | May 30, 2008 11:22 PM
No comment, just here to say that Stumped is one of the best things in this paper.
Posted by: csdiego | May 30, 2008 9:37 PM
No one since FDR has deserved more than two terms in office. 12 years of George Walker Bush would destroy his country. I thank God for the day of deliverance...01.20.09
Posted by: A.Lincoln | May 30, 2008 3:48 PM
No one since FDR has deserved more than two years in office. 12 Years of George Walker Bush would destroy this country!!!
I thank God for 01.20.09
Posted by: A.Lincoln | May 30, 2008 3:46 PM
Dear Stumped,
May be I need therapy too as I find your response to "scared" to be quite funny! Am I reading the same column as these other commenters?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 30, 2008 3:04 PM
Regarding term limits, the other real problem with them is that they prevent the development of strong leaders over time. A term limit on the presidency is O.K. because one can't really seek a higher office after that, but if we limit all people in office to a certain number of years, many of them are forced from office before they have the opportunity to move on to a higher office that requires more experience to get elected.
In this respect, Republicans really shot themselves in the foot back in the '90s with term limits because most of the states enacting term limits were Republican-leaning states. Now, I would argue, the pool from which to draw Republican leadership is drastically reduced as many governors are restricted to two terms.
Posted by: blert | May 30, 2008 1:59 PM
Obama will lose the swing states and lose the General election.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/05/the_friday_line_mccain_vs_obam.html
Posted by: Grace | May 30, 2008 1:07 PM
Pretty funny dreams, but the results from this poll say everything. YOU WON'T BELIEVE THESE RESULTS!
Posted by: Imans | May 30, 2008 12:58 PM
POOR STUMPED!
Was it something bad you ate?
I think rotten tomatoes and decaying nuts cause that.
Posted by: Ruby | May 30, 2008 12:49 PM
Some amusing dreams:
Attending a live sermon by Jeremiah Wright.
Watching a mob kick Jack Cafferty's ass.
Posted by: berrymonster | May 30, 2008 12:33 PM
Funny how term limits only become an issue when Democrats control Congress. Hmmmm. Why would that be (tapping chin with finger)?
Posted by: CT | May 30, 2008 12:07 PM
Any dream with Hillary in charge would be a NIGHTMARE.
This is why we should VOTE FOR RON PAUL instead of what the media is trying to force upon us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg-qsOA0NPk
Posted by: tncdel | May 30, 2008 11:22 AM
So strange to read about the Hillary dream...last night I had a dream that I was exchanging emails with Barack Obama, like pen pals. It's the first time I've ever had a dream about a presidential candidate. I woke up very confused. But now I don't feel so alone!
Posted by: Firehat | May 30, 2008 10:40 AM
I also believe it is up to the people to "terminate" terms. I have proposed on a site of my own that we use our vote to bring Congress under control. http://www.reelectnoone.com I believe it is the only way to control Congress and that term limits, per se, are not the answer because if we do find a good and honest member we don't want to throw them out with the bath water.
Posted by: Paul Kruger | May 30, 2008 10:37 AM
Fish oil pills are cheap people! Start buying them and popping them. It can get better - really.
Posted by: Jack | May 30, 2008 10:37 AM
"It is true that many states have imposed term limits for their legislatures. But after spending time in California, I can tell you that draconian term limits exacerbate the problem they intend to fix. If you think legislators with too much job security are too aloof and complacent, I can assure you that lame-duck legislators who can't be re-elected are even less accountable -- and even more mischievous."
-----------------
If only people understood this about their vote for Obama. I haven't found one person yet who actually KNOWS why they are voting for him other than he is not GWB or McSame.
Sounds to me like they need to take a look at CA and apply the reasons that waste of a state is so bad off, to what the entire country will look like after Obama gets in there with no intention of actually winning a second election. He just wants to create a legacy for his family to help other Black Liberation Theologists rise in the ranks of the political process. Thus is reference in his famous "Race" speech..."This will take much more than 1 generation to attain..." See where he is going with it?
I for one don't think he represents me or my values of a peace loving and patriotic American. It seems he has a vision of a "different" America that doesn't include more libertarian ideals, but rather a nation of social programs like Europe where we can all learn to live our lives through mediocrity while we hand over world power to those that didn't earn it like Iran and N.Korea.
If not setting term limits for local leadership is a good thing because it allows one to keep experienced people in office... People that take longer than 4 years to accomplish good things.... Why is everyone running out and voting for Obama?
Yes he represents "change", but nobody knows whether that change is "good" or not since they are still wondering where this new rockstar came from...
Posted by: WhyVoteForAN00B | May 30, 2008 10:22 AM
Also, TURN OFF the all caps if you want anyone to pay attention to you! Just my opinion.
Posted by: tl | May 30, 2008 9:59 AM
grace ,i wish only you would be effected if mad dog mc bush lite were elected , i wish only your loved ones were sent the next foreign country they decide to invade, i wish only you had to pay high and very high gas prices, i wish your home was the only one foreclosed on,i wish food prices only affected you and your family.and finally i wish you were the only laughing stock of the world because you had been duped 3 times by lying, stealing maniacs who just want to control the oil and your limited little mind.
Posted by: dee schmidt | May 30, 2008 9:59 AM
As a life long Maryland resident and voter (well at least since I turned 18) I'd be very upset if term limits were introduced. Barbara Mikulski has been our Senator since Jesus was a baby and there has never been the slightest whiff of scandal about her and she works very hard for our state. Until his recent retirement the same could be said about Paul Sarbanes.
Posted by: tl | May 30, 2008 9:58 AM
Term limits won't change anything. What we REALLY need is a law to eliminate the revolving door between lobbyists/industry and Congress. Ban members of Congress AND staff from taking a position with a lobbying firm, or with any private-sector company in which they would be in contact with lawmaking or regulatory processes for a period of five years from leaving Capitol Hill. And the same going the other direction - no lobbyist could take a position in Congress without a minimum five-year interim.
Posted by: B | May 30, 2008 9:45 AM
Bodo: The error I make over and over again is assuming a healthy sense of shame exists within each soul; that the harsh light of the general election will moderate the tenor of the debate. I am consistently disappointed [and swiftboated].
Now THESE are the thoughts of a registered Democrat. "GRACE" is more likely a registered liar [or Joe Lieberman, but I think he's too busy at the moment to be lurking around here...].
Posted by: mobedda | May 30, 2008 9:45 AM
This is further evidence that Hillary is using subliminal marketing schemes and mind-controlling demagoguery in her campaign! How much lower can the woman get?!
Posted by: dcp | May 30, 2008 9:23 AM
Really?
This is what we get both from a person as talented as Andres and a newspaper that just won all those Pulitzers? OMG!
Are there no editors left at the Post?
Posted by: editorial chick | May 30, 2008 9:18 AM
We need term limits. Career politicians become stale. Change is good.
While we are at it the president should have line item veto power.
Posted by: Mark | May 30, 2008 9:14 AM
In my happiest dreams, women everywhere suddenly wake up to the fact that Hillary is a liar, Hillary is self-centered, and Hillary is a demagogue. They immediately force her out of politics and turn to women currently in politics who have integrity to carry their standard. Hillary is sent weeping back to her mansion, and she spends the rest of her life plotting revenge against everyone who she thinks is responsible for denying her the Presidency. Feminists everywhere realize that they would have succeeded with a different woman, and in the next election a woman who is a positive, eithical candidate wins the Presidency in a landslide. Hillary is reduced to babbling "it's unfair" and "It was supposed to be ME!" The public is not the slightest bit sympathetic to her.
Posted by: Sweet Dreams! | May 30, 2008 9:04 AM
Please use the correct terminology. Any dream that includes Hillary is probably a nightmare.
Posted by: Jimbo | May 30, 2008 8:20 AM
Actually, Stumped, I think you are way off base. Term limits on the Hill is precisely what we need. If we had strict term limits, there would be a lot less opportunity for endemic, entrenched corruption. Our elected officials would have to make their corrupt wealth a lot quicker. That usually causes sloppiness and increases the chances of being caught.
And oh, did I note, I also believe that we should actually lock up former elected officials, such as Presidents and homicidal Vice Presidents (how relevant the term Vice has become under Chaney) for the crimes they commit while in office.
Posted by: Joel | May 30, 2008 8:15 AM
@ mobedda:
If you think the Hillaryous May Dreams of the lunatic fringe are amusing, just wait for their Nutty November Nightmares.
PS: Perhaps Grace should not have revealed that she is a registered Democrat.
Posted by: Bodo | May 30, 2008 7:57 AM
.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
ADVOCATES OF DEMOCRACY UNITE!!!
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Why: The DC corruption must be stopped.
(Isn't this why millions of people came
out to vote, this past mid-term election)
When: The DC Marriott
When: Sat. by 10am (They're saying the
Rules and By-Laws Committee will not meet
until the afternoon - but we must be one
step ahead of them)
.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 30, 2008 7:31 AM
I was going to comment, but "GRACE" [the last person to post here] was so hilarious I forgot everything else. What a maroon. Registered Dem? Just as likely Mensa's newest member...
Posted by: mobedda | May 30, 2008 7:00 AM
HERE'S THE NIGHTMARE. OBAMA WINS IN NOVEMBER AND OUR WHOLE COUNTRY IS PURCHASED BY OIL PUMPING NATIONS. OUR BANKS, RAILS, ROADS, HEALTHCARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM AND DEFENSE PROGRAMS LIKE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY ARE ALL BOUGHT AND SOLD IN BONDS. THESE BONDS ARE BOUGHT BY SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS (HEGDE FUNDS FOR OIL COUNTRIES) AND ISSUED ON THE STOCK MARKET. REMEMBER THE HEADLINE "DUBAI PURCHASE OF BRIDGES AND TOLLS" WELL THE SAME IDEA.
70% OF AMERICANS ARE SCARED OF OBAMA.
90% ARE TERRIFIED OF HIS WIFE MICHELLE.
WAKE ME UP IN NOVEMBER SO I CAN VOTE FOR MCCAIN. I AM A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT.
Posted by: GRACE | May 30, 2008 3:53 AM
Why??? HRC Now ..EJ???
'WHAT HAPPENED' by Scott McClellan...damn Proof of the GWB & CO. Fear & PROPOGANDA and you're wast'n space on HRC??
that's my ???? WHY E.J.???
Posted by: NCSteve | May 30, 2008 2:56 AM
Anyone who has a dream about themselves and a public figure that they don't know probably needs therapy.
Posted by: George | May 30, 2008 12:40 AM
Some people are having dreams of Hillary dragging primary to convention and democrats losing in November. Then lack of jobs and health insurance, then they just go mad and broke.
Posted by: Realist from Texas | May 30, 2008 12:14 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.











No doubt being a woman helps me to see this, but "scared to sleep" and the dream website are riffs on the same gently sexist joke. Seriously, Andres.