Due Credit

This blog has been sharply critical of both Hillary and Bill Clinton during the primaries, and justifiably so. That being said, they both came up huge this week, stepping up for Obama with every indication of genuine enthusiasm, putting the greater good above their personal disappointments, and both deserve even more praise.

Maturity Watch

I thought the voting age was eighteen.

Allegedly thousands of Hillary Clinton supporters are still threatening to cut off their noses to spite their faces and not vote for Barack Obama in November’s election. Women who six months ago described themselves as part of Hillary’s cadre of political realists, dismissing Obama’s candidacy as pie in the sky, are now whining about party favoritism (though Clinton supporters played a large role in originally denying representation to the Florida and Michigan delegations), sexism (though Hillary herself was happy to play the victim for much of the campaign, and Geraldine Ferraro et al didn’t mind dropping a racial reminder or three), or whatever else they can think of to “prove” their candidate got jobbed.

As a free service, The Home Office is happy to say what Hillary Clinton would probably like to say and Barack Obama can’t say:

Grow the fuck up. If you’d shown ten percent of the passion for caucuses you’ve shown for whining, Hillary Clinton would be the nominee. You want to point fingers, look in a mirror.

A Special Comment

And now, as threatened—er, I mean as promised—a Special Comment.

There was a time when this reporter had only two “must see” television shows: Seinfeld and the Sunday Night SportsCenter, with Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann. Olbermann left, and immediately disappeared onto the maw that was early MSNBC, only to re-appear when he caught on to George W. Bush’s sleight of hand faster than most.

While it must be admitted that many of Mr. Olbermann’s Special Comments are spot on, no one can view his delivery of these comments for long before becoming repulsed by the false and inappropriate histrionics used in their delivery.

[Turn to face other camera.]

Not content to let the words speak for themselves, your manner of speaking approaches a level of scenery chewing associated with watching William Shatner perform King Lear. Your voice trembles, your head shakes with indignation, though only moments before you concluded a segment with the words, “Today’s worst person in the worrrrrld!” after poking fun at whoever earned your daily wrath.

Those who find themselves in your crosshairs richly deserve it. It is the exaggerated venom and ire of the Special Comments that we take issue with. You may say it is entertainment, and you clearly relish your self-appointed role as the Bill O’Reilly of the Left. Yet it is you, sir, who usurp the gravitas of your betters by appropriating Huntley and Brinkley’s theme music, and Edward R. Murrow’s sign-off.

[Rustle prop pages and return to Camera One.]

Last Friday you took Hillary Clinton to task for juxtaposing comments about her will to remain a presidential candidate with the assassination of Robert Kennedy. A crude and tasteless statement, to say the least. Yet you, sir, devoted virtually seventy-five percent of your broadcast to this matter, then another [add tremor to voice] one thousand, nine hundred and nine words of personal commentary.

[Turn to other camera while spittle is removed from lens of Camera One.]

These additional words shed no light. They added little to our understanding of the matter. They served only to show your audience the depth of your self-indulgence and self-importance, running past your broadcast time into the next program because you—you, sir!­—had to ensure your loyal viewers knew how you, the only voice who felt the injury to its deserved extent, felt.

One thousand, nine hundred and nine words devoted to a fifteen second comment that may or may not have discussed the hypothetical death of a single human being. One thousand nine hundred and nine words. Yet Abraham Lincoln, a man you profess to admire at every opportunity, Abraham Lincoln required only two hundred seventy-eight words to pay eternal and sincere homage to the fifty-one thousand casualties at Gettysburg. We have no videotape of Mr. Lincoln’s address, yet we may be safe to assume it did not include the melodramatics you so regularly append to your comments like decals on a car window.

One thousand, nine hundred and nine words. The Declaration of Independence consists of but thirteen hundred and twenty-two, with no visual aids. John Kennedy’s inaugural address that inspired a generation is thirteen hundred sixty-six. Yet you needed one thousand, nine hundred and nine words to ensure that everyone watching you on Friday, May 23, 2008, one thousand, eight hundred and forty-nine days since the announcement of “Mission Accomplished,” knew the sincerity of your emotions.

[Shuffle prop papers and make obvious effort to compose yourself.]

Sincerity and depth of emotion are not measured by the number of words or accompanying theatrics, sir. Well chosen words, plainly spoken, contain all the meaning and sub-text necessary if their subject is suitably horrendous; if it is not, no quantity of vocal tremolos, or catches in the voice, will do so. Do not listen to me; view the tapes of your spiritual master, Edward R. Murrow. One will do. Watch him ask Senator Joseph McCarthy if he has no shame. Murrow did not play to the camera, nor to the baser tastes of some who were watching. He spoke truth, the unvarnished truth, sir, which has always been, and will always be, adequate to express any emotion. This is why Murrow will be remembered long after you have faded from the memory of even those who study such matters.

Good night [throw prop papers from desk with disgust] and good luck.

Enough

Hillary Clinton has become an embarrassment to her party and to this nation. Not to herself; she is well beyond anything that relates to shame.

Yesterday’s comment in South Dakota to justify remaining in a race she cannot win probed a new low, even for her. Her lack of an apology has shown she is less interested in the welfare of her party, or this nation, than she is in getting she wants. Her only possible reason to remain in the race is because she’s Hillary Clinton, and she’s entitled.

She’ll make every effort to become the victim again. The misogyny cries have been loud the past few weeks, even though no responsible voice has uttered any such comments. The usual suspects—crackpot, rednecks, Fox News anchors—made the usual sophomoric arguments; no one who might have voted for her listened to them, anyway. Playing the victim is an unorthodox way of petitioning for a position of leadership; some might consider such a tactic unworthy.

It wasn’t working, so she raised the stakes to martyrdom: she’s staying in case something happens to Obama. What might happen to him? Lots of things; since she brought up assassination, she may consider one of the possibilities to be some hard-working, white American busting a cap in his uppity black ass. Has it never occurred to her that some of her less enlightened supporters—in, let’s say, West Virginia or Kentucky, where she currently bases her claim to be “America’s Candidate”—may consider such comments akin to King Henry II’s comment to his nobles regarding Thomas à Becket: “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”

As if this wasn’t bad enough, her “apology” shows more about her than the original gaffe. When Mike Huckabee made a tasteless Obama assassination joke last week, his apology was immediate, and contained the sentence, “I apologize that my comments were offensive.” Not “might have been construed as offensive,” or, “some may have taken offense.” Were offensive. Period.

Compare that to Hillary’s apology: “I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma…was in any way offensive…”

If? If? What meets her definition of “offensive,” if that does not? While not as callous as George W. Bush’s numerous statements on the Iraq War or Hurricane Katrina, it certainly meets any sapient human standard of giving offense. The lack of even that scintilla of self-awareness alone disqualifies her as a worthy candidate. I can’t wait to see how her supporters try to justify her as vice presidential material now. “She’s the best qualified person to take over when—oops, I mean if—someone clips him?”

Enough is enough. No more of the Clinton camp demanding forgiveness because she’s allegedly being held to a higher standard than Obama. The Obama campaign bent over backward to be gracious when questioned afterward. What would her campaign’s response have been if the roles were reversed? Can you picture Terry “The Prince of Darkness” McAuliffe shrugging it off?

In the words of an old Willie Nelson song, “I’ve forgiven everything that forgiveness will allow.” The sniper fire in Tuzla. Signing a pledge to say Michigan and Florida wouldn’t count, until you needed them to, and your later statements that declared these people had been unfairly disenfranchised, comparing it to women’s suffrage, the abolition of slavery, and the civil rights movement, while still claiming caucus states do not count for as much. Placing images of Osama bin Laden in an anti-Obama ad. The 3:00 AM phone call ad. Kissing up to Fox News and Richard Mellon Scaife. Exploiting William Ayres on the ABC debate. Whining about always getting the first question.

Go away. You are little better than a Rovian Republican in liberal garb. The break this country needs from the politics of Bush-Clinton-Bush demands better than you.

No One's Wrong All the Time

Not even me. Frequent Commenter Runs With Scissors rarely agrees with me, though his comments are always appreciated. He chimed into The Home Office's most recent post with a link in his comment that deserves more recognition than a comment.

George F. Will is someone with whom I rarely agree, even less often as time goes on. Still, once or twice a year he hits one out of the park, such as this essay on Jewish World Review. Not only is he dead on, he evokes a rare nostalgic moment for me, as my first fully realized memory is of listening to Bill Mazeroski hit the home run that won the 1960 World Series for Pittsburgh.

Thanks to Runs With Scissors for reading, commenting, and pointing out this excellent morsel.

Differing Perspectives

My friend, and Clinton supporter, Sean has posted a passionate inventory of his feelings about the events in North Carolina and Indiana last night on his blog. My comments are below:

Running the risk of seeming ungracious (since my candidate is now ensconced as the presumptive nominee), it’s a shame Clinton supporters can't resist sour grapes even when conceding defeat. Much as Bill's impeachment debacle played out, none of what did Hillary in was her fault. It was a conspiracy involving the media, addled voters wearing rose-tinted glasses, and a Rube Goldberg nominating process.

Let's start with "people buying into hope." Here's a brief quiz: Who said this: "Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this. If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." Give up? Bill Clinton, during the 2004 campaign. Obama keeps coming back to the hope theme: Hillary runs ads of sleeping children who will be unsafe of she isn't elected.
Then there's the "media's notion of inevitability." First, she didn’t mind any it six months ago when everyone with a press card presumed she would win. As for lately, it's not the media's notion of inevitability: it's a mathematical notion of inevitability. Even before last night, she couldn't catch up if she matched her best previous performance in every remaining primary. Dropping out isn't defeatist; it's a simple matter of reading the handwriting on the wall.

As for the "tragically flawed nominating process," she had no objections to it until she realized she couldn't win within its rules. There's a good reason for that: Clinton supporters probably played as much of a role as anyone in writing those rules.

What did Hillary Clinton in was a poorly run campaign that assumed this was a coronation, not a campaign. She changed messages and personas as often as Dubya changed reasons for going to war in Iraq in the winter of 2003. It finally caught up to her when enough people decided she was a triangulating chameleon who would say whatever she thought was necessary to sway whoever was standing in front of her when she opened her mouth. In the northeast or a college town? Wonk time. Moving south? Drop those Gs and knock down a few boilermakers in the back of a pickup truck.

Hillary Clinton would have made a fine president, but she would have been more of the same of what got us into the current state of affairs. It's time for something different. Maybe it will be better; maybe not. It sure as hell can't get much worse.

Maher vs. Clinton - No Contest

Slate Magazine recently held what it called a Democratic Mash-up, a form of online debate. The following came from John Dickerson’s follow-up article describing the winners and losers. Click here for the full article.

Press critics swarm after every debate with a list of the zingers and truth-exposing questions they would ask if only they had the chance. They assume that merely asking the question will get the desired answer. Bill Maher asked a sensible right-between-the-eyes question of Hillary Clinton about her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq: "Sen. Clinton, all the senators here, except Sen. Obama, voted for the Iraq resolution in 2002, saying that their decision was based on intelligence that they believed to be accurate at the time. In other words, George Bush fooled you. Why should Americans vote for someone who can be fooled by George Bush?" This was a great question, and Sen. Clinton's answer was nearly identical to the one she has given so many times before in discussing her Iraq vote. Sometimes a great question doesn't get you any closer to a deeper answer.