Last Sunday, my husband started reading to me out loud from the editorial page. He was reading an article written by Molly Ivins called â€œI Will Not Support Hillary Clinton for President.â€
It was a smart, lean, sharp-tongued, no-nonsense, â€œIâ€™m-mad-and-Iâ€™m-not-going-to-take-it-anymoreâ€ article about how she, and most Americans, are sick and tired of lies and lack of real leadership. She spoke up for truth, courage and political reform with impassioned urgency and conviction.
But in light of my own personal experience of late, I had to wonder, did she have to attack Hillary in order to make her powerful point? Did she need to make Hillary Clinton the symbol for fear and equivocation? Or was she just creating a snappy headline that would attract readers?