Earlier this week MSNBC commentator David Shuster made the following remark regarding Chelsea Clinton's role in her mother's campaign: "Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"
As one might expect, this bizarre portrait of Chelsea Clinton as some sort of superdelegate streetwalker resulted in Shuster's suspension from the network. Well and good.
Slightly more perplexing was Hillary Clinton's response to Shuster's statement: "I am accustomed to criticism, certainly from MSNBC. I know that it goes with the territory. However, I became Chelsea's mother long before I ran for any office and I will always be a mom first and a public official second."
Thing is, Chelsea is 27 years old. Now, I'm no math teacher, but I do teach history, and my study of recent history indicates that Hillary Clinton's favorite number is 35 — as in, 35 years of political experience, the fundamental rationale for her ostensible superiority as a candidate. This, I believe, is what one might call "having it both ways" — perhaps not that big of a deal, but for the fact that she's been fiercely campaigning to paint her remaining opponent as some sort of bobble-head neophyte to her wizened elder statesman.
Yet again, we are presented with a clear case of Clinton refashioning her presentation of reality to suit her current needs. Forgive me for feeling a bit nauseous.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Clinton's Three R's: Reading, 'Riting and Revisionist History
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
i think the bit about hillary refashioning reality with her so-called fuzzy math is a reach. it isn't difficult to see the difference between political experience and political tenure.
not to support hillary...there is no shortage of stories with hillary looking bad. no need to search for them in semantics.
35 years ago, in 1973, Hillary Clinton graduated from law school. To assert that she has spent the entire subsequent time period racking up "political tenure" is itself a reach, considering that she filled those years with such activities as serving on the corporate board of companies represented by her own law firm (while occasionally dabbling in the realm of non-profits). If being a full-time corporate part-time do-gooder counts as preparatory work for manning the helm of our fine nation, then I assert that Bill Gates (or any number of others in the private sector) would be the superior choice.
If, however, we are going to count elected experience as elected experience, then just about every other candidate on either side of the aisle (Obama included) has her beat. That doesn't preclude her from being a good candidate, but it does mean that playing the experience card is ridiculous at best and duplicitous at worst.
I agree that there is no shortage of things to find odious about Hillary Clinton. But I disagree that pointing out her arithmetical hypocrisy is irrelevant.
i don't think it is "so-called" fuzzy math. a lot of people have been skeptical about the 35 years of experience she keeps talking about. there was an article about it in the nation that you can read here:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=280103
and speaking of semantics, it was bill clinton who had problems defining what "is" is.
'for manifestly you have long been aware of what you mean when you use the expression being. We, however, who used to think we understood it, have now become perplexed.'
erin, i do not disagree with your argument. 35 years, less than 35 years, whatever--my point is the woman gained political experience while she was not elected. she lived in the white house for almost a decade, so she has an idea about the presidency and what it actually entails that probably none of us (i might) will ever have. and she spent all that time politicking and trying to get free health care for mexico while she was first lady until big insurance told her to knock it off. that's experience, i'd say good experience for a democrat...that you can't just go giving free ass shit away to poor people because the factory owner has a lot of influence.
[insert a lengthy aside i wrote about universal healthcare but deleted due to lack of energy here]
yes, i've read your position about her experience vs. obama's experience. i can't say i'm really swayed by the question at all. for what it's worth i think one of obama's most appealing attributes is his lack of 'experience', or more specifically, his apparent resistance to institutional thought (or actual resistance compared with hillary). that's the only part of the boring "change" theme that i'm actually doughy-eyed about. can we please, pretty please, not have another seasoned money-grubbing status-seeking washington hack, for once?!
and while i'm talking about obama, i'd definitely count his time spent organizing small campaigns etc. part of his political experience for the sake of this tally.
anyway, i don't think it's fair to say that hillary only has 7 years of experience (she's been in the senate quite a bit longer than obama, eh?). i don't particularly care, i just thought this post was particularly pedantic and i'd prefer hillary bashing with a little more meat on it.
BTW---
this recent change on your blogz0rz whereby i can no longer post anonymous comments SUCKS.
Well, you're not really all that anonymous, brother dearest. ;) And actually, you should be able to post anonymously. I'll check the preferences.
Anyway.
First, I've never argued that Hillary Clinton has only seven years of experience, merely that she lacks 35. I'm more than willing to grant her time in the White House as First Lady as worth going on her political resume — but that still only puts her at, oh say, 16 years. Furthermore, I agree with you that years of "political experience" (however those years are defined) are hardly the best way to evaluate a candidate's potential efficacy in office. Give me five years of excellence to 10 years of mediocrity any day.
However, my point here was different, and had nothing to do with how much "experience" any particular candidate has. Rather, the point of this post was that I am sick of seeing a different version of Hillary Clinton every time she opens her mouth, and I think that is quite "meaty" a criticism. What's more, her vacillation is made even more appalling when it pertains to what she herself has touted ad nauseam as one of her most appealing qualities (i.e. "experience").
This constant self-reconfiguration of Hillary the Candidate previews, I think, what we can expect from Hillary the President: "truth" based on what is politically expedient, not what is supported by any constant set of objective facts (even as subjectively defined by her). Indeed, it is what we have seen from Hillary the Senator. When talking out of the left side of her mouth, she calls civil liberties one of our nation's greatest assets and when talking out of the right side of her mouth she co-sponsors the criminalization of flag burning. From her Senate record (the only publicly dissectable portion of her "experience") to her words on the campaign trail, she twists reality through words again and again and again to suit her needs in the moment. And I really do think that's worth nothing as it occurs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no
With a video like that it's just shocking that she didn't carry the home of jazz.
Post a Comment