With her campaign nearly as dead as the famous mountaineer for whom she falsely claimed being named, Hillary Clinton has found yet another voice -- and this time it's ugly and irrational.
Desperate times call for desperate measures, but her campaign's latest course threatens both party unity and the Clinton legacy, trespassing far beyond the pale of reasonable politics...or logic.
Over this past weekend Mrs. Clinton manically transformed from being honored by Obama to outraged by him, from opposing "Rovian" tactics to employing them, from promising change to mocking it, and from bragging about her White House experience to dismissing it when convenient.
In short: from viable to vile.
Read on for details and reality checks on her ridiculous, illogical and hypocritical efforts to salvage the glass slipper that just doesn’t seem to fit.
Thursday in Austin, Texas, Senators Obama and Clinton sat on stage like two peas in a pod, or two names on a ticket. There were no advisers to get between the two -- in fact there was barely more than 24 inches and a few minor policy differences separating them.
For two hours the contenders engaged in legitimate platform debates, launched at least one ill-fated jab (which drew more "boo"s than blood), but mainly displayed a lot of civility. At night’s end the crowd roared when Mrs. Clinton exhibited a rare moment of authenticity, gushing with pride for Mr. Obama and for the fact that either of them would be great candidates for the Democratic Party.
Then she left the floodlights and crawled back to the dark embrace of her organization where her tune and tone quickly changed.
Her display of warmth did not thaw the Clinton campaign, but frightened and hardened it: strategists kicked into overdrive aiming to counteract the audacity of its candidate's amity. Over the weekend, they came out swinging and served the public a three-course meal of tripe that has embarrassed Mrs. Clinton far more than it has sullied Mr. Obama:
Appetizer: "Shame on you!"
Many have seen Mrs. Clinton's volcanic eruption and gunslinger's challenge to Mr. Obama, wherein she "shames" him and compares his campaign tactics to Karl Rove...but most don't know what ignited the explosion. It's not clear that she does, either.
In the linchpin industrial state of Ohio, Senator Obama emphasizes the historical fact that the Clintons championed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that is blamed by many in the Buckeye State for draining manufacturing jobs south of the border and leaving them unemployed.
Desperate to distance herself from the truth but unable to deny the record, Mrs. Clinton instead FIERCELY...parsed the journalistic nuances of the topic to provide false fuel to her righteous indignation.
It seems that Mr. Obama’s campaign cited a newspaper story about Mrs. Clinton’s NAFTA support and quoted the article’s summation without clearly delineating that said summary was not a direct quote from the junior Senator from New York. Based on the collective body of her statements on the issue, Newsday reported that Ms. Clinton deemed NAFTA as an economic "boon", Obama repeated that Clinton considers NAFTA as a "boon"...and Mrs. Clinton erupted: not because there is any evidence that she decries NAFTA (which she cannot if she wishes to also do well in Texas), but because she never used the word "boon"!
She supported the agreement, praised it, touted it as an accomplishment and legislative victory that would reap benefits...but never said "boon"!!!!
Yes. THAT is the source of her "SHAME ON YOU" fury.
This awkward, phony attempt to light a spark rang nearly as hollow as her "Xerox" debate moment, but the most politically unsavvy portion of the outburst is not its false bluster, but the self-defeating follow-up: her sudden downplaying of the role of the First Lady.
The hallmark of Hillary’s campaign has been her "experience". According to her campaign, merely living in the White House for eight years provided Mrs. Clinton with incomparable executive experience: she was invaluable to her husband, an architect of his administration, and deserves co-credit for the prosperity and peace that thrived during his terms. So how does she now distance herself from NAFTA -- one of the defining legislative accomplishments of Bill Clinton’s presidency? She dodges any negative repercussion BY POINTING OUT THAT SHE WAS NOT IN THE SENATE AT THE TIME AND DID NOT VOTE ON THE AGREEMENT!
Which is it Mrs. Clinton - do you deserve shared credit for the accomplishments of Bill’s reign, or did your lack of an official role shield you from responsibility?! More importantly, if your accountability and your ability to shape laws and achieve policy goals did not start until you could cast a vote, how do you claim a vast experience advantage over Senator Obama when you have spent all of 7 years as a legislator compared to his 10?!
Entree: Change is bad...no good....no bad.
The Clinton political machine has appeared rusty throughout this campaign season -- often a day late and five million dollars short when it comes to perceiving the popular pulse. On no issue have they been more tone deaf than "change".
While, Senator Obama has preached the need for change from the outset, Mrs. Clinton initially dismissed his "rhetoric" in favor of her experience. When that failed she jumped on the bandwagon and stressed that her experience would be necessary to effect change. With that approach lacking traction she now derides "change" as a mere smokescreen of the unqualified and paints it as a clear link between Obama and Dubya (an unseemly comparison that the Clinton camp itself termed "the worst kind of tactical political maneuvering" in more confident days).
In a Saturday speech, Senator Clinton postulated that:
A) George W. Bush promised "change";
B) George W. Bush turned out to be evil and incompetent;
C) Obama similarly promises "change", and;
D) the American people were fooled by Bush but should not be fooled again;
Therefore: by a skewed transitive property, Obama would only be the next Mr. Bush.
Mercifully, she stopped short of pointing out that Hitler also promised change.
Of course, she also stopped short of pointing out that SHE IS SIMILARLY PROMISING CHANGE ("we have to bring change to America and put our country back on the right track," "we have to change our trade policy, we have to change our tax policy, we have to change our vision," "the question is not who will make history, but who will change America).
So if promises of "change" are merely signs of an empty candidate, why does she echo them?
Additionally, her position ignores the obvious logical paradox that if Bush has been evil and incompetent, then we MUST need change from the status quo...to rule without change would be to extend his evil incompetence! If this argument would hold water, it would be an ingenious trap -- either Obama wants change and is therefore like Bush, or he won’t change and is therefore an extension of Bush. It doesn’t.
Such a position is actually just the height of sophism -- perhaps an apt description of her entire campaign at this point.
Dessert: "The Picture"
According to the The Drudge Report, on Monday staffers from Hillary Clinton’s campaign circulated a photo of Senator Obama in Somali garb taken during a 2006 tour of Africa and intimated that the press should be making a big deal of the "Muslim-esque" snapshot.
This stunt wrapped the weekend with a bow and became the icing on a contemptible cake.
Confronted with the charge, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign did not deny its role, but amazingly tried to take the high ground by stating that there was nothing wrong with the photo and that Mr. Obama should be proud of his heritage. Is that why they circulated the pic, just because they thought it was a flattering shot of their opponent?
Please.
The statement is correct in that there is nothing wrong with the photo -- but it is wrong to distribute the imageas if it’s a dirty secret with the suggestion that it should be damning. The approach is disturbing, racist, fear-mongering and everything wrong with the "Right Wing Conspiracy" and "Rovian Tactics" that the Clintons simultaneously decry...and practice.
The Big Picture
At the outset of this campaign, the collective constituency of Democrats, Liberals and Progressives were so united in their excitement to unseat George Bush that it barely seemed to matter which candidate was going to be the nominee. Naturally there were preferences for Clinton, Obama or Edwards -- but the prevailing sentiment was, "I'm for any of them!".
This has changed.
No longer do voters think that "either will be fine": the nasty, desperate, schizophrenia that has spewed from the Clinton camp seems to have turned many Democrats against her as though she were a Republican. It's a feeling in the air that is born out by the numbers.
Through all the derision of Mrs. Clinton over the years, even her detractors have agreed that she is a brilliant woman -- but these latest frenetic follies indicate that either she lacks intelligence, or believes the voters of Ohio do. It is most likely the latter, and they have the chance to prove her wrong next week.
Here's hoping that her party will evict her contrived divisive tactics, but hold itself together.