What Role Will Hill Play From Here on Out?; or, In Politics, Politics is More Important Than the Personal

New York Times, on Hillary Clinton in Light of the Palin selection.

A snippet we've been waiting for, though it's too watered-down, and we wish it was coming from the Senator herself:

Mrs. Clinton’s friends said she was galled that Ms. Palin might try to capitalize on a movement that Mrs. Clinton, of New York, built among women in the primaries [. . .] Guy Cecil, the former political director of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, said it was “insulting” for Republicans to compare Ms. Palin to Mrs. Clinton.

Meanwhile, from the "no shit" category, although again, we'd rather here it from Obama himself in front of cameras:

Mr. Obama’s advisers sharply disputed the argument that Clinton supporters might be drawn to Ms. Palin on the basis of sex, given that Ms. Palin opposes abortion rights and other commonly held positions for Democrats.

And then from the "depressing as it gets, if this is true" category:

But Clinton advisers presented a more nuanced view, saying that some of her supporters — they could not specify how many — could be open to the McCain-Palin ticket depending on how Ms. Palin performed and whether she appeared to be a forceful, sincere advocate for the concerns of working women, their families and for policies that would help them.

Here's the Real "Money Line" from the article:

“It is insulting to compare Hillary’s lifetime of service and her commitment to progressive causes with that of a novice, right-wing governor,” Mr. Cecil said.

Perhaps the Palin selection will give some people pause before they assert so assuredly from now on, that "the personal is political." The conviction behind this statement is often attributed to the more theory-leaning academics, but it has arguably infected the popular culture as well.

Certainly, the Republicans are banking on the likelihood that it has.