Ms. Hillary: Shameless with a Purpose
When I sketched out this post last night, I had intended to call it, “Hillary Clinton: Phony” and make some reference to Holden Caulfield, but then as I did my morning blog-read, I chanced (if chance it was) upon Glenn’s link to David Brooks’s insightful New York Times Op-Ed, “Combat and Composure” where he said a lot of what I had wanted to say about Ms. Hillary, but with far more flair:
[Her response to George Stephanopoulos' question on the gas tax] wasn’t just shameless spin, it was shamelessness with a purpose. Clinton signaled that she wasn’t going to concede even an inch to the vast elitist conspiracy. She wasn’t going to feel guilty about ignoring the evidence. She was going to stomp on it, flay it and leave it a twisted mass of jelly quivering on the ground. She was going to perform the primordial duty of an alpha dog leader — helping one’s own.
Shameless. She’ll say or do anything to get elected.
Even in her latest incarnation as what Brooks terms, “an alpha dog leader,” an incarnation which has earned her some admiration on the right, she continues to campaign not as an principled leader committed to improving the world, but as a pandering politician eager to please an audience.
Recall, that on saving her campaign from oblivion by winning in New Hampshire, she didn’t extol the virtues of standing on principle, but said, “I listened to you and in the process, I found my own voice.” She doesn’t find her voice through a lifetime of experience and thoughtful reflection, but in listening to others. A voice dependent on the whims of others.
Perhaps for a politician this is a good thing, to reflect he needs of his constituents, but shouldn’t a leader have a voice, an identity, different from that of the masses? For without a solid sense of one’s own identity, of core values, such an individual could not offer steadfast leadership in times of crisis.
Her phoniness is not just in her pandering, how she shifts her views to reflect the political needs of the moment, it’s also her appearance. Watching her arm gestures in the last debate, I thought she looked like a marionette, moving her arms on the command of some unseen political consultant to look more engaged. Now, look at the picture in this article where she points at someone in the audience. Again, it looks like something Bill told her to do so she could appear to connect with the audience.
Every time I see her on TV doing that pointy thing, it just seems contrived.
While Obama is struggling now, one reason he has emerged as an effective challenger to Mrs. Clinton is that he appears genuine. Or, as David Brooks put it, he “still seems like a human being. He still seems to return each night to some zone of normalcy where personal reflection lives.” Whereas his opponent scorns personal reflection to mimic the multitude.
Hardly someone we want as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief.
4 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again - there is little difference in the ideology which Clinton and Obama share. They could be the same person, for all I care. The only nation’s interest they BOTH have in mind is that of the former USSR.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 6, 2008 @ 7:07 pm - May 6, 2008
The race for the Democratic nomination is about one thing–the candidate who is more successful at deceiving the public about their beliefs and plans for this country will be the nominee. I would like to think that liberals are so f-ing stupid that they fall for whatever comes out of their irrationally-chosen candidate’s mouth, but it can’t be that because when a Democrat is revealed to be just another corrupt, elitist, anti-American hypocrite (and they ALWAYS are), their supporters blindly defend them to the death anyway. At this point, Obama could turn out to be a serial killer and his supporters would respond by arguing that just because he murdered 50 people and buried them under his house doesn’t mean he can’t run the country….and Republicans are in no position to judge Obama’s propensity to kill because it was the inevitable result of growing up in such a racist, hateful society….mean, racist white people MADE HIM a murderer…and afterall, Obama has only killed a fraction of the innocent people Bush murdered in Iraq….blah, blah, blah. Is it really that hard to imagine?
I’m still reeling from Hillary’s appearance on Good Morning America a couple of weeks ago where she said that she would “totally obliterate” Iran if they attack Israel. The words themselves aren’t shocking at all because no one on Earth actually believes it. What’s shocking is that she can just go on national TV and say whatever whimsical lie that pops into her head (i.e., that she narrowly escaped sniper fire in Bosnia) and she remains a front-running candidate for the highest office in our nation. Hillary lies. We know this. Her supporters know this. Ho hum. When she gets caught in a really big WHOPPER, she has to endure the indignity of going on Letterman 48 hours later and making fun of her own lies, but really…how much longer will that be the rule? If Hillary had NEVER addressed the Bosnia lie again, is there any doubt that her supporters would still be behind her? Letterman appearance or not?
Comment by Sean A — May 6, 2008 @ 9:47 pm - May 6, 2008
Sean A, you wrote:
***…Obama could turn out to be a serial killer…***
If he takes the troops out of the Middle East, he will be the biggest serial killer in history, with the blood bath that will ensue. Multiple genocides and the complete obliteration of Israel. I have no doubt he is the enemy within, and a useful idiot to the enemy abroad.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 7, 2008 @ 12:10 pm - May 7, 2008
Obama is quintessentially… a Manchurian Candidate…
Comment by jon and tom — May 8, 2008 @ 10:13 pm - May 8, 2008