{Empty title} | The Nation

I thought that was a good point made by Seymour, the first person to respond. Hillary really has not convinced anyone she is running for any reason other than personal aspiration. That does not make her campaign less valid, but I find it contributing to my personal sense of ambivalence toward her. Of course, ask any candidate the question, "Why are you making the bid for presidency?" and you will get a contrived answer, I'm sure. And even if it were groundbreaking and original, few would trust the answer, such is the political atmosphere today.

I'm more interested, however, in Ehrenreich's idea about the length of campaigning. I could not help but think, when she commented on the unfounded Republican accusation of Hillary's healthcare plan, that perhaps Hillary is an easy target for the right. And (thank you, Seymour) she is not convincing many people of her goals as President (the now redundant adage of not trusting Clinton, but not believing Obama will be a strong leader is ringing in my ears as I type this) . That gives her a heck of a lot of room to bend in a conservative direction and scoop up more voters.

So what if there were less time for the other side to respond? What if campaigning took up less of the public's time? It is obvious that campaigning started extra early this time around because the Democrats see it as a chance to seize the moment... if they could only take a firm stance and stop competing with each other, but by now we're all tired of shouting this into the ether over and over again.