Last Tuesday's debate ended with the Senator from NY telling us she "would be fine" no matter how the election turned out in terms of result. It was actually one of her best moments of the campaign. There were some of us who saw this as a sign of hope (excuse the pun). Not because -as some others suggested -there was some signal of concession from Clinton in those remarks. Rather it seemed (at least to me) that there was the possibility that the remaining primary contests and the balance of the campaign could be conducted in an atmosphere of healthy mutually respectful debate.
Sunday morning I woke to the clock radio and the sound of the same senator's voice screaming that her fellow Democrats should be "outraged" at the way her opponent's campaign flier had characterized her health plan proposal. She was telling Obama he should be ashamed of himself.
The flier in question characterizes Clinton's health plan as compelling people to purchase coverage "whether they can afford it or not." This was the prime source of her outrage -this "twisting!" She was also angry that the fact that the previous Clinton administration (wherein she claims to have garnered so much "experience") had been instrumental in enacting the NAFTA agreements -that this was taken to be a tacit endorsement of the policy from her.
"Shame"?
By Clinton's own description of her own health care plan it would involve unspecified "penalties" used to engender "individual mandates" to purchase insurance in order to attain "truly universal" coverage. As yet the nuts and bolts specifics (her supposed strong suit, remember) have yet to materialize on those "penalties" -We don't yet know what coercive force will be behind these individual "mandates" -those that would apply so "universally" after all.
On NAFTA, the senator from NY now maintains she was against it from the start. We may not have heard about it at the time, but the First Lady was supposedly imploring President Bill Clinton not to sign NAFTA. It's all there in her book, she says. That wasn't tacit approval, that was some form of silent suffering. To suggest otherwise...
"Shameful!"
Columnist David Sirota, read the book, Clinton's memoir,"Living History" -he noticed the senator describing NAFTA as one of a number of " Bill's successes" not a bone of contention between them.
He also points out that her chief strategist, Mark Penn, heads a firm that is right now pushing to expand NAFTA into South America.
Last Fall Senator Clinton was asked in the forum of a public debate if she thought "Ross Perot was right" when he criticized NAFTA in past debates with Al Gore. (Remember that "sucking sound"of jobs heading over the border? Remember pointer and the easel full of visual aids? The ears? ) Hillary Clinton laughed. "All I remember is some charts," she said. When pressed on the question she admitted the agreement had been a mistake "to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would."
At the time, Senator Obama, criticized her for only then admitting the "extent" of the mistake. "I think it's important to note that Senator Clinton was a cheerleader for NAFTA for more than a decade," he commented.
Yet the voice that was hollering about shameful politics Sunday Morning was complaining that this was "something right out of Karl Rove's playbook!" The implication was that this was some form of last minute subterfuge, a specious political torpedo, that had the senator from NY feeling supposedly shocked and dismayed.
Here's Barack Obama in a somewhat quieter voice in answer: "I'm puzzled by the sudden change in tone unless these were just brought to her attention. It makes me think that there was something tactical about her getting so exercised this morning."
That's a fairly shameful rhetorical device Obama is using there -known as "understatement'.
Watching Clinton's tirade on CNN conjured up images from The Taming of the Shrew. My initial reaction was to question why, for even a moment, I had ever imagined that this person would make a good president. After watching her tirade again, I came to the conclusion that there are only two logical explanations for her shrill behavior: Either she has come "unhinged" or her true nature, the shrew within, has been unleashed. Whatever the reason, I think she hurt herself far more than she harmed Obama's campaign.
by
TennMom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 2:51:31 PM
If Clinton's shrill negativism is tactical, then she is a hypocrite. If her shrill negativism is real, pretty scary. Can we trust her finger on the military arsenal when she is in one of her moods?!
by
Bonnie Niebruegge (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments)
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 9:48:09 AM
3 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
