In the competition for the Democratic Party nomination, it pains me to say, one thing has become increasingly clear: Hillary Clinton has what my grandmother used to call a "complex relationship with the truth." Or, as my wife says with her characteristic directness: "how can anyone take what Hillary says seriously?"
Going into this, I really didn't have any problem with Hillary Clinton. I was no fan of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, mostly because of policy, but also because of his ease with bullshit like "I smoked but didn't inhale" (was he lying to his friends then, or to us now?). Hillary struck me as smarter, and I wrote off the criticisms of her as an "American Evita" as annoyingly offensive comments from people who obviously knew nothing about Eva Perón and had every reason to smear Hillary Clinton.
But then someone actually challenged the Democratic establishment and, far more importantly, her position in it. Suddenly, caucuses don't matter because they favor candidates who ask more of their supporters than simply pulling a lever. After South Carolina, the votes of the most loyal sector of the Democratic voting public didn't matter. Then, those of us in "red" states don't matter either, because Democrats won't ever win in our states anyway. In short, the actual voters in this internal election simply can't be trusted, because they have committed the ultimate political sin -- the one that reveals their irrationality -- by not giving their votes to the only candidate that truly counts: Hillary Clinton. The kind of insolence shown by the people who decided that perhaps another candidate was better (gasp!), her campaign insists, is just the kind of thing that the Superdelegates were created to stop.
She knows better than we do, and that we don't realize this is a sign of our ignorance, shows that we have been duped, we are irrational. We must be stopped.
Privilege trumps democracy.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The 'Threshold...'
Some people that support Hillary Clinton find it hard to believe that she is anything but honest and well-intentioned. Strange.
Let's try using a little logic here. I'll use an example that Clinton supporters like to bring up with some confidence, rather than Ferraro's impression of Limbaugh talking about McNabb. Since the Clinton campaign actually hasn't waffled on this point, it seems like something that Clinton supporters should see as (to borrow an Obama expression) "a debate they can win."
Let's see.
Hillary Clinton has claimed to have "crossed the commander in chief threshold." At first this might seem a reasonable rhetorical flourish. But then she seemed to actually believe it.
The thing is, this "threshold" is actually very clear, so much so that it is actually written in to the US Constitution. It is that clear. What is it? It is simply becoming President of the US. It really is that simple. When Bill Clinton was sworn in, he passed that threshold, despite his phenomenal lack of experience. When George Bush Jr. was sworn in, he passed the threshold, regardless of the sham of an electoral process that brought him there and the disastrous exercise of the position once he got to the White House. Eisenhower, on the other hand, did not cross it until he was sworn in as president.
This really isn't a matter of opinion, nor is it something that is somehow open to interpretation. Look up the meaning of "threshold:" it is a point of entry. To have "crossed" the threshold is to have entered. Now, look at the Constitution (or ask any 5th grader). If you "cross the commander in chief threshold" it means that you have been sworn in as commander in chief; it means that you have become president. There is no other way, unless you just make things up. Even photo ops in front of US flags don't put you over the threshold.
So, has Hillary Clinton ever been president of the US? No. So, has she "crossed the commander in chief threshold"? No. So, is she just making things up and hoping that nobody is smart enough to actually look at how the "threshold" is defined? Sure sounds like it to me. Not exactly honest, is it?
If we rollback the "crossed" part of things, the whole idea simply falls apart. It seems that one could reasonably say that they were "at the commander in chief threshold" in a few instances: if one holds the Vice-presidency; if one is either the Democratic or Republican nominee in the general election; or, most forgivingly, if one is the clear front-runner well into the primaries. Hillary Clinton cannot claim the first two, and Barack Obama -- with his lead in delegates, states won, and popular vote -- seems to have a stronger claim on the latter.
Or, at best, we might say that she somehow has the kind of executive experience and proven track record that would give us confidence in her capacity to eventually become commander in chief. She's "tested," the argument goes; Obama isn't. More on that in a minute.
What happens if we paint this in the most forgiving light and we assume that she was talking not about the actually existing threshold as it is defined in the Constitution, but is instead talking about some imaginary "threshold" of her own invention (i.e., "experience"). Well, that kind of falls short, too. Having just heard her interview on NPR this morning she feigned offense that she would even be asked such a ridiculous question as to what exactly her "experience" is, since "everybody knows" already. She cited her travel; she cited being present not "at" the negotiating table, but near it; and then she laughed at the thought that Barack Obama might have comparable credentials.
In other words, she just ignored what is a very clearly-defined "threshold" in our Constitution in favor of some definition of her own choosing that shall remain undefined lest someone actually compare it to her actual record. This imaginary "threshold" seems to boil down to either 1. having lots of stamps on your passport and being in rooms with important people -- something that would also put any decent NPR foreign correspondent over the "threshold"; or, 2. she is simply saying that the "threshold" is not actually becoming President (as the Constitution defines it), but being First Lady -- a threshold that I don't see McCain having crossed, frankly.
Hillary Clinton took something that has a pretty clear definition, changed the definition, asserts that "everyone knows" that she has "crossed" this invented "threshold" while never actually defining exactly what it is that she thinks that she has crossed -- all the while hoping that nobody will notice that in her repeated use of the word "crossing" she didn't just make a claim (exaggerated or not) that she was qualified to be commander in chief, she was actually claiming that she already was.
And then the icing on the cake: she uses this convoluted invention to praise the Republican nominee and belittle the person most likely to be her own party's nominee.
Let's try using a little logic here. I'll use an example that Clinton supporters like to bring up with some confidence, rather than Ferraro's impression of Limbaugh talking about McNabb. Since the Clinton campaign actually hasn't waffled on this point, it seems like something that Clinton supporters should see as (to borrow an Obama expression) "a debate they can win."
Let's see.
Hillary Clinton has claimed to have "crossed the commander in chief threshold." At first this might seem a reasonable rhetorical flourish. But then she seemed to actually believe it.
The thing is, this "threshold" is actually very clear, so much so that it is actually written in to the US Constitution. It is that clear. What is it? It is simply becoming President of the US. It really is that simple. When Bill Clinton was sworn in, he passed that threshold, despite his phenomenal lack of experience. When George Bush Jr. was sworn in, he passed the threshold, regardless of the sham of an electoral process that brought him there and the disastrous exercise of the position once he got to the White House. Eisenhower, on the other hand, did not cross it until he was sworn in as president.
This really isn't a matter of opinion, nor is it something that is somehow open to interpretation. Look up the meaning of "threshold:" it is a point of entry. To have "crossed" the threshold is to have entered. Now, look at the Constitution (or ask any 5th grader). If you "cross the commander in chief threshold" it means that you have been sworn in as commander in chief; it means that you have become president. There is no other way, unless you just make things up. Even photo ops in front of US flags don't put you over the threshold.
So, has Hillary Clinton ever been president of the US? No. So, has she "crossed the commander in chief threshold"? No. So, is she just making things up and hoping that nobody is smart enough to actually look at how the "threshold" is defined? Sure sounds like it to me. Not exactly honest, is it?
If we rollback the "crossed" part of things, the whole idea simply falls apart. It seems that one could reasonably say that they were "at the commander in chief threshold" in a few instances: if one holds the Vice-presidency; if one is either the Democratic or Republican nominee in the general election; or, most forgivingly, if one is the clear front-runner well into the primaries. Hillary Clinton cannot claim the first two, and Barack Obama -- with his lead in delegates, states won, and popular vote -- seems to have a stronger claim on the latter.
Or, at best, we might say that she somehow has the kind of executive experience and proven track record that would give us confidence in her capacity to eventually become commander in chief. She's "tested," the argument goes; Obama isn't. More on that in a minute.
What happens if we paint this in the most forgiving light and we assume that she was talking not about the actually existing threshold as it is defined in the Constitution, but is instead talking about some imaginary "threshold" of her own invention (i.e., "experience"). Well, that kind of falls short, too. Having just heard her interview on NPR this morning she feigned offense that she would even be asked such a ridiculous question as to what exactly her "experience" is, since "everybody knows" already. She cited her travel; she cited being present not "at" the negotiating table, but near it; and then she laughed at the thought that Barack Obama might have comparable credentials.
In other words, she just ignored what is a very clearly-defined "threshold" in our Constitution in favor of some definition of her own choosing that shall remain undefined lest someone actually compare it to her actual record. This imaginary "threshold" seems to boil down to either 1. having lots of stamps on your passport and being in rooms with important people -- something that would also put any decent NPR foreign correspondent over the "threshold"; or, 2. she is simply saying that the "threshold" is not actually becoming President (as the Constitution defines it), but being First Lady -- a threshold that I don't see McCain having crossed, frankly.
Hillary Clinton took something that has a pretty clear definition, changed the definition, asserts that "everyone knows" that she has "crossed" this invented "threshold" while never actually defining exactly what it is that she thinks that she has crossed -- all the while hoping that nobody will notice that in her repeated use of the word "crossing" she didn't just make a claim (exaggerated or not) that she was qualified to be commander in chief, she was actually claiming that she already was.
And then the icing on the cake: she uses this convoluted invention to praise the Republican nominee and belittle the person most likely to be her own party's nominee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
