Alright, alright . . . I know this is supposed to be the new touchy-feely, 'why can't we all just get along' dKos, but I think the title of this diary is apt.
Sen. Clinton has quite a few positive attributes. One of them would probably be her tenacity. However, at some point there becomes a place of diminishing returns where your greatest strength turns into your biggest weakness. In Sen. Clinton's case, it's driving tenaciously forward, in full blinders mode, so much that she has become totally divorced from reality.
She is the campaign equivalent of our policy in Iraq; a never-ending series of shifting rationales and goal post movements.
Today's doozy is Sen. Clinton's complaint of a media 'double standard.' The problem is not that there is a double standard; there is. The problem is that Sen. Clinton benefits from the double standard far, far more than she is hindered by it.
Here's the short ABC story:
Asked about press accusations that the only way she can win is if she's "willing to win ugly," Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., told NPR's "All Things Considered" on Tuesday that she has faced "something of a double standard" throughout her presidential bid.
"Senator, I want you to react to something that I keep hearing among voters, and increasingly among people who cover the campaign -- both those who are reporters and those who speak about the campaign on television, on radio -- the statement that the only way that Hillary Clinton can win is if she’s willing to win ugly," NPR's Michele Norris told Clinton.
"When you hear that," Norris continued, "what does that mean to you? How do you react to that?"
"Well, I don't know what it means because there is no way for Senator Obama to win unless he also obtains a significant number of superdelegates," said Clinton. "I understand that there has been, throughout this campaign, something of a double standard. I accept it; I live with it."
Asked what the double standard is, Clinton at first demurred.
"Well, I think that it's pretty obvious to anybody who has followed it," said Clinton.
When Norris followed-up again, saying, "Just in case it's not clear to someone, I don’t want to assume. I just want you to tell me what you think the double standard is because I don't want to assume," Clinton unloaded.
"No, but you know – for example, why is the question directed at me?" she said. "I mean, neither of us has the number of delegates to win. It is a problem for both of us. And Senator Obama's supporters refuse to support a revote in Michigan, which I thought was rather odd for the Democratic Party to be against another vote. Senator Obama's supporters wanted to end this contest and short circuit it so that the votes of the people in the next upcoming contest wouldn't count because he has a slight lead. And it's by no means definitive. It would have been like calling the championship game last night with two minutes left to go because somebody was ahead. And that’s not how it turned out."
First, enough with the sports metaphors. I've heard enough of the 'calling the game before it's over' analogy. It's not applicable in any way, shape, or form.
Second, one of the problems with your campaign, Sen. Clinton, is that a large percentage of the electorate doesn't trust you. The reason they don't trust you is because they don't believe what you're saying. The reason they don't believe what you're saying is that they believe you're willing to say anything to advance your political career. The reason they believe you're willing to say anything is because you try to take the benefits of every position without being responsible for the burdens.
So, here's the burden of being Sen. Hillary Clinton: you get increased scrutiny on the campaign trail. It's a hassle sometimes; suck it up and drive on.
And here are the benefits:
- You get to run for senate in a state in which you've never lived despite having never held elected office [and push all other contenders to the side].
- You get to tap into your husband's financial donor network [which automatically makes you the front-runner when you run for president].
- You get to never have questions asked about a certain portion of your life [i.e., Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, Webster Hubbell, cattle futures] because your husband cheated on you.
- You get to stay in the race and command attention from the press as you lose 11 consecutive contests through an entire month.
- You get to claim that you were a tireless advocate for everything that was good about the 90's while denying any responsibility for anything bad [and saying that even the things that passed you were secretly against].
- You get to not release your tax returns for an inexplicably long period of time despite having no excuse to do so.
Actually, I think I'll stop here. This could go on all night. And by the way, "why is the question directed at me?"
Notwithstanding the obvious gender inequity of this statement . . . WAAAHH! I thought you were supposed to be tough. Show a little toughness then rather than whining about getting the question first.
NOTE: Yes, I fully understand that terms such as 'whining' have gender connotations, which made me consider another term. However, I'm sorry--it fits.