I understand why people don't like Hillary Clinton.

She is not cuddly and approachable. She probably doesn't understand why people like me even introduce the subject of her likability, for she understands that it ought not make any difference, that qualifications and experience, acumen and vision ought to be the reasons we vote for a candidate, not because we entertain fantasies of someday drinking a beer with them. Governance is hard and she's proven she can do it--why does she need us to like her?

Although I live in Arkansas, where everyone has a history with everyone, I don't know Hillary Clinton. We have friends in common, and her friends will tell you she is warm and thoughtful and fun to be around. I believe them, though it is one thing to be a companionable friend and another to be the sort of person who is perceived as "genuine" and "authentic" on television.

We have spoken once or twice, we've been in the same room a handful of times, I helped Rex Nelson write his book about her, but she doesn't know me. I know because two years ago I was less than five feet from her at a party in Manhattan and she looked right through me. She showed no recognition whatsoever.

I didn't feel offended but couldn't help but think about how in 1992 Bill Clinton somehow caught my eye across a crowded union hall in Phoenix and swam furiously through a crowd of hundreds just to ask a vaguely familiar face what it was doing in Arizona. But that's Bill.

Though the Clintons seemed to share a wonkish delight in the closely tooled calibrations of governmental systems, their talents were always different and complementary, and I believed she shaded more toward policy than politics. For years I doubted she'd ever be a candidate, and once I was proved wrong I doubted she'd ever run for president. I didn't think she wanted the job--I thought maybe she'd want to be on the Supreme Court. But like I said, I don't really know Hillary Clinton.

I do know that she's the sort of person that people find it easy to make up stories about. She's had a very public life, and she's had some very powerful and prominent enemies. She is married to Bill Clinton, and she's stayed married to him despite everything. Some things are none of our business, but that doesn't stop us from speculating about them.

The way I see it, there really was a kind of a "vast right-wing conspiracy," and while it failed to evict Bill Clinton from the White House, it inflicted collateral damage. There are a lot of people who find themselves politically simpatico with Hillary Clinton who are unable to trust her for reasons they can't quite articulate. Part of that is due to an orchestrated campaign that went on for a couple of decades. It's interesting that some of Bernie Sanders' supporters have picked up this right-wing drumbeat, but most of the smoke that some perceive around Clinton has been blown in by professional operatives looking to obscure the truth.

I know some people don't want to believe that. They believe what they want, despite any and all evidence, and the Clintons are public figures used to hearing despicable things said about them. If nothing else, they've proved they're tough enough to face a little calumny.

I don't like her speaking fees either, though I understand why the once not-so-rich Clintons are interested in making money. (Everyone likes money--David Geffen once said Bob Dylan was as interested in money as anyone he'd ever known. That doesn't make Blood on the Tracks a cynical endeavor.)

It's also possible to honestly disagree with Hillary Clinton on any number of issues. She's a careful candidate, with a record of being less progressive on social issues than I'd like. I'm glad Sanders is in the race and that his candidacy is still (barely) viable. Not necessarily because he's going to pull Clinton to the left, but because he's demonstrated to future candidates that there's room on that side of the spectrum. He's doing his nation and his party a service by reminding us that we have options, that the range of possibility is far wider than what mainstream candidates usually consider.

Yet I don't think Sanders has ever entertained the idea that he will become president. While some of his acolytes--members of the One True Church of Bern--will probably not support Clinton under any circumstances, she seems the most likely eventual winner. And probably the person best equipped for the job.

She has the contacts file. She knows the environment. She won't be a disaster. I agree with Sanders supporter (and secretary of labor under Bill Clinton) Robert Reich, who recently said he thought she'd be the best president for the government we have, while Sanders would be the best choice for the kind of change we need. But unlike Reich, I don't sense revolution in the air. I think we'll see a regression to the mean before we get any great swing to Bernie- (or Trump)-style populism. Things change incrementally, until they don't. But we're a big country, and our very diversity argues for baby steps, no matter how angry the white men become.

I'm not sure any of the people who are presenting themselves as candidates will be a real disaster as president--the courts and Congress would frustrate Donald Trump or Ted Cruz as much as they have Barack Obama. Sure, things could be partially undone, mischief might be instigated, but most of us fortunate enough to read Sunday newspapers and argue about politics would probably feel little fallout. (Then again, some of us could be in camps come January. Hope they let us bring guitars.)

I've heard Hillary compared to Richard Nixon, and that's fair up to a point. She's Nixon before dishonor, before the dirty tricks and Watergate. She has been waiting her turn, she isn't particularly inspiring, but she may just be the best person who has put themselves forward for the job this term. That's not an endorsement, only an observation.

What seems odd is how little enthusiasm her race seems to have engendered. We're on the very brink of putting a woman in the White House and no one seems to want to talk about that other than Killer Mike. Maybe that represents progress, that we can be as uninspired by a woman in a pantsuit as we can an old guy in a power tie.

pmartin@arkansasonline.com

Read more at

www.blooddirtangels.com

Editorial on 03/13/2016