Thinkin’bout Stuff

Gina Cobb’s blog-post today, Hillary Lite, asks an important question: Will we be fooled by Hillary’s makeover? In Hillary: Mommy or Mommy Dearest?, we barely scratched the surface of the senator’s makeover, focusing on the image softening that is being used to establish a connection to our prospective new national mommy. Gina points us to an interesting editorial that comes to us from across “the pond”, written by Gerard Baker. To be fair, I usually am not much interested in the opinions of folks outside the US on the topic of who we elect to lead our country, but since the writer is clearly very perceptive, (which I know because I agree with much of what he says), I’m sharing it

The article is titled “The vaulting ambition of America’s Lady Macbeth” and here are a few excerpts:

(Discussing the State of the Union Address) … Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton … arranged for the son of a New York policeman sick with lung cancer to be there. As it happened, the man’s father died that day, and the son’s grief became a sad and very visible coda to the event.

This little incident, the skilfully choreographed exploitation of a human tragedy, the cynically manipulated deployment of public sympathy in service of a personal political end, offered a timely insight into the character of the politician who this week launched the most anticipated presidential election campaign in modern history.

As you consider her career this past 15 years or so in the public spotlight, it is impossible not to be struck, and even impressed, by the sheer ruthless, unapologetic, unshameable way in which she has pursued this ambition, and confirmed that there is literally nothing she will not do, say, think or feel to achieve it. Here, finally, is someone who has taken the black arts of the politician’s trade, the dissembling, the trimming, the pandering, all the way to their logical conclusion.

Fifteen years ago there was once a principled, if somewhat rebarbative and unelectable politician called Hillary Rodham Clinton. A woman who aggressively preached abortion on demand and the right of children to sue their own parents, a committed believer in the power of government who tried to create a healthcare system of such bureaucratic complexity it would have made the Soviets blush; a militant feminist who scorned mothers who take time out from work to rear their children as “women who stay home and bake cookies”.

Today we have a different Hillary Rodham Clinton, all soft focus and expensively coiffed, exuding moderation and tolerance.

Her first Senate campaign was one long exercise in political reconstructive surgery. It went from the cosmetic — the sudden discovery of her Jewish ancestry, useful in New York, especially when you’ve established a reputation as a friend of Palestinians— to the radical: her sudden message of tolerance for people who opposed abortion, gay marriage, gun control and everything else she had stood for.

Once in the Senate she published an absurd autobiography in which every single paragraph had been scrubbed clean of honest reflection to fit the campaign template. As a lawmaker she is remembered mostly, when confronted with a President who enjoyed 75 per cent approval ratings, for her infamous decision to support the Iraq war in October 2002. This one-time anti-war protester recast herself as a latter-day Boadicea, even castigating President Bush for not taking a tough enough line with the Iranians over their nuclear programme.

All politicians, sadly, lie. We can often forgive the lies as the necessary price paid to win popularity for a noble cause. But the Clinton candidacy is a Grand Deceit, an entirely artificial construct built around a person who, stripped bare of the cynicism, manipulation and calculation, is nothing more than an enormous, overpowering and rather terrifying ego.

Wow! This is a great start to what will need to be a lengthy reminder of who Hillary Rodham Clinton really is, not based upon her words and newly found soft-spoken, let’s all chat demeanor; but through her actions and the radical positions she holds on many of the critical issues facing this nation that would eliminate her from any consideration for election to the presidency if the people of the United States could remember the truth and see who the good senator really is through the smoke and mirrors of her handlers.

There is nothing wrong with taking a stand for what you believe in. For example, you may believe in partial birth abortion on demand; we have a right to disagree and even debate the issue. But if you are running for office, I have a right to choose not to vote for you based upon a fundamental disagreement on an issue of great importance to me.

On the other hand, there is nothing but wrong with pretending to be someone you are not, trying to fool just enough people for just enough time, to get elected to the presidency so that you can push your own agenda. The ultimate in arrogance is to believe so deeply that you are right on an issue that you will deceive those who disagree with you to gain their confidence, and their vote, and then write them off as so much dirt beneath your boots once they have served their purpose (your election) and are no longer even worth your disdain, let alone your honesty and respect.

This goes for all of the 2008 candidates for president. Tell us who you are and what you believe in; tell us what path you intend to lead this country down. We will decide whether your path is one we choose to follow. And if you choose to lie about who you are, there’s a whole new voice in America just waiting to expose the truth… just ask John Kerry.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 26th, 2007 at 2:46 pm and is filed under Election 2008. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.