Hillary: Stop.
Last week NPR aired a brief interview with Hillary Clinton.
This interview made me furious.
Here’s the thing: I used to be happy about the possibility of voting for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In January and early February, I listened to her in the debates and thought: “You know? Either way this goes, I’m thrilled.”
But then Obama racked up a commanding lead in delegates, states, and the popular vote, and the Clinton campaign got desperate. Desperate because Clinton would need 62% of the vote (it’s now increased to 64%) in every remaining contest to overcome Obama’s lead. And in their desperation, they shamelessly flipped the fear-monger switch.
Thanks Hillary. That’s what we need right now. More blind, mindless fear.
It stayed down in the gutter after that, and I was rapidly losing patience. When I heard this interview, I lost it completely.
Excerpts of breathtaking political double-talk follow, along with my reaction1 in the car while driving to work that day. I think I transcribed it accurately, but there may be mistakes.
(On the topic of seating the Michigan delegates.)
Inskeep: You say that is a fair result, even without Barack Obama’s name on the ballot?
Clinton: Well, that was his choice, Steve. I mean…
Inskeep: Wasn’t it the Democrat party’s choice that it would not be a result that would be counted, and most people took their names off the ballot?
Clinton: No, I think that the Democratic party said that they would not, under the circumstances, count the votes. But we all had a choice as to whether or not to participate, in what was going to be a primary, and most people took their names off the ballot, but I didn’t.
So, when you say “No” here, what you actually mean is “Yes”.
Inskeep: Let me ask you about your recent suggestion that perhaps people could vote for both you and Senator Obama, presumably on a joint ticket. Nancy Pelosi, the house speaker, has said this week that she thinks you have fairly ruled that out by saying that Barack Obama is not as qualified as John McCain on national security issues. Is she right about that?
Clinton: Well, I think we’re mixing apples and oranges here.
Wait, I have to butt in here. Are we mixing apples and oranges here? Really? Could you point out what is the apple and what is the orange? Or is this just a generic, completely inappropriate rhetorical technique to vaguely insert the general notion that the fairly obvious point Inskeep has raised is somehow illogical?
You know, people talk to me all the time as I travel around the country about how they wish they didn’t have to choose between us. You know until one of us gets the nomination, neither of us has any ground to offer anything to anyone and of course I haven’t.
Are you kidding me? Who do you think you’re kidding here? You offered him the V.P. position. Stop treating me like an idiot.
Inskeep: Are Obama’s national security credentials sufficient that he could serve as Vice President, meaning he could have to step in the oval office at a moments notice.
Clinton: Well, I think that, uh, we’re gonna go through this process, and see where it ends up. [...fluff snipped...]
Inskeep: But if you say McCain is more qualified than Obama isn’t that essentially saying
Clinton: Well
Inskeep: that would be a problem if Obama is on the ticket?
Clinton: Well I, I don’t recall actually saying that. What I did say is that Senator McCain will make national security a centerpiece of his campaign. Everybody knows that. He will bring his lifetime of experience into the general election. I believe I am better positioned, based on my experience, to go toe-to-toe with Senator McCain.
Let’s take a look at what you said then:
“I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”
— http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/04/clinton-mccain-has-more-_n_89758.html
Yes, I see that you did not use the word “qualified”.
And if you think that statement has any other interpretation than “Obama is not as qualified as me or McCain”, you’re a moron. While you apparently think I am a moron, I do not share the same opinion of you. Which leaves the equally unappealing conclusion that you’re the standard political word weasel.
I. AM SO. TIRED. OF BEING TREATED. LIKE AN IDIOT.
[experience questions snipped because I'm getting tired of transcribing this]
Clinton: There is no doubt I played a major role in many of the foreign policy decisions.
[Inskeep presses the point, essentially saying that, hey, people have begun to present reasonable doubt on that point.]
Clinton: What I was, was part of a team. And that team included, obviously, the principle negotiators, under the direct authority of my husband. I wasn’t sitting at the negotiating table, but the role I played was instrumental.
My willingness to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one has degraded substantially at this point.
And while I’m at it, shut up about experience already. I’m tired of hearing that Obama has no experience. And I’m tired of it being your number one argument. ‘Cause you know what? Experience counts, but it’s not everything. Or…oh horror…could it possibly be that experience might not even count at all?
Inskeep: If we get to the end of the primaries, and Obama is leading in delegates, which statistically seems like a good possibility, and it’s up to the superdelegates to make a different choice, will you be comfortable if the superdelegates make a different choice than the voters seem to have.
Clinton: Well there are three ways people become delegates.
…wait, what? I thought this was a simple yes or no question…
They become delegates through Caucuses, smaller gatherings. They become delegates through primaries. They become delegates because they are appointed to be delegates by the Democratic national committee. Each delegate has an equal say in the process. That is the system that was set up and has been in place for decades.
Inskeep: So you’re comfortable if the voters seem to make one choice and the superdelegates vote a different way.
Translation: Nice try, please answer my question.
Clinton: Well, the voters haven’t spoken yet, we have a lot of contests to go and I think we’ll wait and see where the voters are at the end of all these contests.
And, as Inskeep mentioned, statistically it is extremely improbable that you will gain the delegate lead by the end of the contests. So this is a pretty reasonable question to answer now.
Inskeep: But you’re comfortable? If voters go one way and superdelegates go another?
Translation: Um, again, please answer the damn question.
Clinton: Well, I’m not going, I’m not going to speculate. I’m going to see what happens, from Pennsylvania to Puerto Rico. I want to see what happens in Michigan and Florida. Um, because I think that again it would be very short-sited for the Democrats to defranchise [sic] two states we have to win. With all due respect, unless there is a sea change in American Politics, we’re not gonna carry Alaska, we’re not gonna carry North Dakota, we’re not gonna carry Utah. We have to look at the electoral map, Steve. Look at who can anchor the states we need to win.
…
(Chris pauses for a moment to take a few deep breaths.)
…
Look, if Hillary gets the nomination, I’ll vote for her. As Chris Johnson reminded me,
- John Paul Stevens turns 88 next month
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg just turned 75
But dammit, Mrs. Clinton, just…STOP!
1 - What? So I think in hyperlinks, is that weird?
March 31st, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Mr. Ashworth,
I am somewhat upset by your desire to vote for either candidate not matter the fact that just spent an entire article bashing Hillary. How can you possibly vote for someone whom you obviously do not trust. I believe you called her a “standard political word weasel.” which in my simplistic understanding of the english language means that you think she uses words to wrangle out of every situation and never really tells you the answers you were seeking in the first place. I think I am ranting on this only because I hate the notion that people vote for the democratic candidate only because they are democrats and not because they actually want that person to be president. I admit I have not read your entire blog to see if you equally distrust McCain or his views, but really if the race is between McCain and Hillary would you choose Hillary because you believe in her ideas or because she has a nice little donkey pin on her lapel?
Sincerely,
The true inventor of QLab