|
January 14, 2008
– "I have no intention of standing by when I think tactics are
being employed which are not in the best interest of our country."
And so Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
fired the shot that crossed the media's bow, letting them know
plainly that she is not Al Gore, she is not John Kerry. Again
and again on Sunday, Clinton stood strong and did something no
Democrat this millennium has done: take on unfair statements
by an interviewer and biased, inaccurate media coverage. Gore
was bullied endlessly. Kerry calculated and caviated.
But Hillary Clinton showed herself to be
a candidate even Republicans would be proud of. Her tone
wasn't one of shock or outrage, it was one of understanding and
expectation. While Gore never seemed to notice the media's
nastiness and bias, and Kerry noticed but didn't respond quickly or
regularly, Clinton made clear that this time there is a Democrat who
won't leave voters feeling frustrated and abused by the media's
agenda and tactics.
Russert tried to insert right-wing
talking points again and again. Polls that say Clinton would
lose to Huckabee. Quotes from right-winger Maureen Dowd and
the media's favorite African American fake liberal, Donna Brasile.
Unlike her predecessors, she didn't take
the bait. Without pause, and again, with that tone of, "Yeah,
I know what this nonsense is and that you will keep up with it," she
simply replied, "I can find quotes/polls that say the opposite."
With that, she took the strength out of the sentiments. In the
past, candidates would argue or go on the defensive, which amplifies
and empowers the quotes given. By not only summarily
dismissing them, but asserting that they are not representative on
anything meaningful, Clinton has fundamentally changed the game.
Most amusing was that Clinton began the
show with an opening statement/monologue which debunked Russert's
next fifteen minutes of planned misrepresentative material.
Russert had no real choice but to move forward with things like the
playing, out of context, of Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment and
quoting Obama's 2002 anti-Iraq war speech. Problem was, both
had been responded to so thoroughly before they were even brought up
that rather than putting Clinton on the defensive, once again her
role on offense left Russert on the defensive as to why he was going
ahead and playing something that had already been debunked as being
taken out of context.
Clinton dismissed Russert in general
later on, when he made yet another attempt to trap her with
something out of context with, "I know this is what you do."
Bam.
Only Republicans to date have so
dismissed the media as being untrustworthy, and for years, since
Reagan really made it a staple, it has been one of their most
effective tools. Now the tables have turned, which makes sense
as the media conversation has been driven to the far-right over the
past two decades. Why Clinton is the first Democratic
candidate to seem to notice this - and to take it so seriously - is
baffling. But enough of the past, Hillary is taking head-on
the media that sold the nation George W. Bush and the Iraq War while
savaging the prophetic Al Gore and decorated John Kerry.
As for substance, the most interesting
exchanges came with relation to Iraq. And again, Clinton took
a page from of all people Ronald Reagan.
Russert, following the right-wing
talking point of the day that dominates the media, tried to state as
if fact that "The Surge" was being successful, as evidence by, among
other things, the change this past weekend which will allow some
Baathists back into the Iraqi government.
Clinton's response was dazzling.
It wasn't The Surge that was responsible, she said. No, it was
fear of her.
That sentiment harkens back to 1980,
when then-candidate Ronald Reagan asserted that the Communists in
Cuba were afraid to have him take office and that Iran knew if he
was elected, they'd better turn the hostages right over or perish.
In this case, Clinton stated repeatedly,
as Russert tried to say The Surge had caused this development that,
no, "...from my perspective, part of the reason that the Iraqis are
doing anything is because they see this election happening and they
know they don't have much time, that the blank check that George
Bush gave them is about to be torn up. I have said that as
soon as I become president, I will ask the Joint Chiefs, secretary
of defense, my security advisers to give me a plan to begin
withdrawing our troops within 60 days."
This is the most profound shift in
American foreign policy sentiment in a generation. Ever since
Reagan asserted that America's enemies would endlessly abuse Carter
and cowered at the thought of him taking over, Republicans have used
the idea again and again that this or that group around the world
hopes the Democrat will be in office because they are weaker.
Now, Clinton plainly asserted that the opposite is the case; that
George W. Bush will sit with endless inaction, as Carter did during
the hostage crisis in Iran, while "they know" that once Clinton is
in office, the game will be instantly up.
The Baathist agreement came because the
Iraqis know "time is running out," she said. Bush will do
nothing for the next year, and nothing can be done about that.
But "come January 2009..." She didn't say it directly as
Reagan liked to, quoting the likes of Clint Eastwood, but it was
heard loud and clear: there will be new sheriff in town - one
who won't put up with any crap.
In her own words from the
MSNBC transcript, "I think that the large part of the reason
that we're seeing the Iraqi government do anything is because time
is running out. And yes, I believe President Bush will give them the
rest of this year no matter what we try to do, and we don't have the
votes to reverse course. But as of January 20, 2009, we will begin
to bring our troops out of Iraq. Therefore, I certainly believe it's
in the interests of the Iraqi government and the people of Iraq that
a lot of this reconciliation that I've been calling for going back
four or five years start and actually get implemented now."
For once, Democrats could feel strongly
represented, and America could see a Democratic candidate that won't
have them feeling abused or hog-tied.
"That is an unfair and unwarranted
attempt to misinterpret what I said."
Strong words.
The Iraqis, "...see this election
happening and they know they don't have much time, that the blank
check that George Bush gave them is about to be torn up."
"...time is running out." "they watch us, they listen to us. I
know very well that they follow everything that I say... It is a big
factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they
should have been doing all along."
She might as well have said, "Those weak
Bush Republicans, those war-loving conservatives. They haven't
managed to lead the Iraqis as they should have "all along" for more
than half a decade. That will end on the day I take
President."
Reganesque indeed.
She avoided the traps. "Is Obama a
workhorse or a showhorse?" Russert asked. He asked
again. "Is Obama ready to run?" He asked. He asked
again.
In both cases, she deftly avoided the
traps and focused on herself.
Strong. Deft. Extremely
well-prepared and, being so, able to play offense. And yes,
with her statements on the way the Iraqis know that her first day in
office will be their last day of a free ride, her arrival as an
international ass-kicker.
For Clinton, this was yet another
clearly presidential performance. And beyond that, it was a
watershed moment in which she obliterated the Republican dominance
of foreign policy superiority and left them limp as she became the
feared one.
No, it's not the tears that have voters
flocking her way. It's one word that sums up Clinton and her
candidacy thus far: strength.
. | 
