What the Hill?
Everything Hillary Clinton does is viewed in the context of her seeking the presidency in 2016. But twitter? Really?
What the Hill?
Okay, look, I understand that social media rules the world and has replaced all that used to be considered journalism and I suspect nobody and nothing -- fairness, accuracy, intelligence, reasoned debate, common sense, etc. -- is ever going to be the same.
The Washington Post is ga-ga over what to me seems the largely meaningless factoid that Hillary Clinton now tweets.
In fact, the Post suggests that this development is tantamount to a formal announcement that Hill is now officially in the race for the White House in 2016.
The article (which you can, if you dare, read here) notes that tweeting is (a) "a requirement" for anyone seeking the presidency and (b) in Hill's case, a clear attempt to span the generation gap she's likely to face as an aging candidate (she'd be 69) in a modern world.
Her Twitter bio, I'll grant, is fun: "Wife, mom, lawyer, women & kids advocate, FLOAR (First Lady of Arkansas), FLOTUS, US Senator, SecState, author, dog owner, hair icon, pantssuit aficionado, glass ceiling cracker, TBD..."
And, of course, the "to be determined" set the twittworld abuzz.
By the end of her first day of tweeting, she had 300,000-plus followers.
I don't tweet.
Despite the entreaties of bosses, friends and others who constantly suggest I'm missing out on an endless stream of useful info, clever thoughts and just plain fun, I can't come to an understanding of how hashtagged messages of 140 characters or less can help me better grasp the workings of government and politics.
Or in any way enchance my life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
But, Hill, a/k/a #tweetsfromhillary, enjoy your swim in social media. As real media continues its decline, you've no doubt chosen the right wave to ride.
@HillaryClinton's (so far) only Tweet: