The Soap Opera of Politics

I find myself addicted these days to the daily back and forth and subtle advances between/among the presidential candidates. The more I pay attention, the more irritated I become. Sure, it has (always) been about spin and the media, but it amazes me how little moments and small statements can take root in the media outlets and grow into prominent stories. Then, the candidates jump in and spin some more. It's all so painful sometimes.

The rhetoric between the Clintons and Obama has really grabbed my attention, mostly because I've been paying enough attention and watching enough speeches and interviews, that I have had a glimpse into how the candidates (read: Hillary) attempt to redraw previous comments.

There are two threads that I've followed recently... first, Bill Clinton saying that the media's depiction of Obama's record on the Iraq war was a "fairy tale." Obama was asked for his reaction to this statement, and he said is was a mis-representation of his record. Then, Obama proceded to clarify how his stance against the war is not inconsistent with his vote to provide funds to support our soldiers that were already fighting in a war he did not agree with. I fully agreed with his representation of his votes on this matter. Despite my disdain for this war, I think it was disgraceful that our troops were not properly armed and it would be immoral to deny funds to protect them (within reason, of course). To end this "fairy tale" exchange, in an interview with Hillary Clinton she was asked for her reaction to Obama's comment that the original slam was a misrepresentation of his record. She continued the attack and listed Obama's voting positions (as he himself mentioned in the interview) but left out the details that easily clarified the logic and consistency behind these votes. She is clearly going on the offensive without any real concern for the heart or significance of the matter... just desperately searching for little openings for attack.

The second string of comments is regarding Hillary Clinton's recent comment on Martin Luther King. I find it all so darn intolerable because Hillary changes her rhetoric nearly daily to address the mood and polls of the day. When Obama won Iowa on the message of "Change" and of "Hope," Hillary attacked those visionary themes by saying it is not wise to stand on "false hopes." In a speech, Obama then mentions that some would deride him for having false hope, but what if JFK just said that the moon was too far or if Martin Luther King said that the dream was dead. Again Hillary goes on the attack and denigrates Obama for comparing himself to JFK and MLK. Instead of putting down her shovel and walking away though, she grabs ahold and slams it into the dirt and starts digging, as she attempts to separate Obama and his message from these other inspirational figures. She mentions that JFK had many years of governmental experience before becoming president and that MLK would not have been nearly as effective if it weren't for the political policies and laws enacted by Lyndon Johnson, etc. When I heard her make this comment it was instantly obvious that she'd taken that shovel and hit a gas line. A few days later the media starts hyping on this statement. Clinton's response: no, not an apology or a clarification of her original intent (which was just an attempt at throwing venom toward her opponent and didn't have any substance anyway) but another accusation- it's Obama's fault for misconstruing my words! What?!!! I heard her words, and they were not wise. It's not a good idea to downplay the role of an American icon who was the primary force behind the civil rights movement. So, even if Obama's campaign did push this story into the headlines, they definitely didn't have to misconstrue anything. When asked about this story, Obama just asserts (as he consistently does) that he and his campaign had nothing to do with promoting the story and that the MLK statement that she made was ill-advised.

The conclusion I've come to from all of this is that Hillary is still struggling to change her message and her image to conform to the tide of the voters. In the process, she tries to inconspicuously sling mud behind her back. I find it very distasteful and not very refined. If you are going to assert that you are a new kind of politician, you better either eliminate the old dirty tricks or at least polish them better so that they aren't such obvious declarations of your own venomous hypocrisy.