Saturday, January 20, 2007

Hillary Clinton is the NEW James Bond

Walk with me Hillary... I like you. Or at least I think I like you, and I’d sure like to know I like you. I suppose that’s your first hurdle. Bill’s time was a long time ago, memories have faded, and if I recall, you did your best to be a non-issue after a rough first few years as the first lady. Does that track with your memories? Probably not, especially given the scandals, but like I said, it seems like a long time ago.

I’d caution against is playing to the nation the way you play to your New York constituents. Really, you need to start from scratch. So although it might seem laborious, it’s actually a real advantage. I suppose I’m just trying to drive the point home that despite your name recognition, we know your husband, not you. Your husband is the reason you enjoy National relevance. Maybe that hurts to hear. But again, it’s not a bad thing.

Think about it this way. You, Hillary Clinton, are the new James Bond. Now 007 enjoys quite the fan base. It’s also a known entity. People paying to see the newest James Bond movie have a very good idea what they’re paying for, and doubly so if the actor playing James Bond is reprising his role. And Hillary, we liked Bill as James Bond. At the same time, it doesn’t hurt the buzz around the franchise when a new James Bond is introduced.

Take Daniel Craig. He’s the newest James Bond. His first 007 movie, Casino Royale, premiered back in November 06. But that’s far from the beginning of the story. When it was announced that Daniel Craig was going to be the new James Bond, well before filming even started, some of the 007 faithful staged a popular revolt. It gained enough momentum to be entertainment news. They even created a website entitled; Daniel Craig is not Bond. Sound familiar? Can you relate?

The thing of it is, Daniel Craig was the new James Bond, like it or not, and there really was nothing to be done about it except hope that he was up to the task. The same goes for you. Like it or not, now that you’ve decided to run, you’re the new Bill Clinton--the sequel. What’s more, you have the potential to be a better Bill Clinton. Last I heard, Casino Royale broke all box-office records for a Bond movie. I’m guessing Daniel Craig proved good enough for a majority of those doubting fans. But having seen the movie, and personally considering it the best 007 of the lot (not that it was perfect), I suspect that there was a little more too it than just Daniel Craig stepping up.

Casino Royale, like Daniel Craig, proved a bit different from what a fan might reasonably expect. It was still 007, but without shying away from its predecessors, it one-upped them with its realism, its lack of polish, its blood and pain. It recognized that its audience had matured and become more sophisticated. In short, it gave Bond fans a Bond that didn’t date them or require them to suspend reality.

Your campaign, not your potential presidency, is the sequel. Everything leading up till now has just been buzz and tilting at windmills. Now is when we find out if casting you was a mistake, or a masterstroke. You’re not George Lazenby, Shawn Connery, Rodger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Bronson, or even Daniel Craig. But you are the new James Bond, and if this country isn't ready for a Bond that doesn't require it to suspend reality, you're probably better off not leading it.


JohnMcG said...

After 20 years of Clintons and Bushes(maybe call it Bond and Rocky), I'm ready to watch something different.

With Clinton, the lines are drawn. The people who hate her hate her, and aren't going to stop hating her, and we're going to have the same kind of politics we've had for the past 20 years.

This might not be fair to her -- she may be objectively the most qualified candidate. To be honsest, if he had a different name, I think I would support Jeb Bush for the GOP nomination. But he doesn't -- he's got this brother's baggage, and even if Dubya were a great success, I don't think it would be good for the country to have three out of four presidents from the same family.

Hillary may be a good Bond. I'm just not sure we need another Bond right now.

symbnt said...

You’re right about one thing John. People that hate Hillary really do hate her. So much so that I suspect a majority of Americans will find them more than a bit irrational. Their ugly venom will go a long way toward defining Hillary as THE enemy of my enemy.

JohnMcG said...

True -- Hillary will probably bring out the worst in the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world, which will bring her sympathy. I think this will especially true because she's a woman -- the story of a woman being ganged up on treated unfairly still has resonance.

Which makes me even less excited about her candidacy.

For the first time in a long time, there will not be a candidate with strong ties to the incumbent administration. What this means is that it could be about the future and where we're going (though I'm not convinced it will be).

A lot of the arguments for the war amounted to pointing and laughing at the more exteme elements of the anti-war movement. I don't want to elect a president based on pointing at laughing at how mean Limbaugh and Coulter are.

Elbo Ruum said...

To John and smbynt.

Hate of Hillary Clinton is the touchstone.

I hope that those that hate Hillary really do hate her, because the reasons thereof betray their nature.

Fuck them.

This world does not spin on their dime.