From the Hillary “Moments” to the War and Controversy over the Health Care Mandate and NAFTA: Why Obama Should Be the One Saying: “Shame on You Hillary Clinton!”

February 24, 2008 
Category: Analyses & Opinions

It is strange that it is at this very late date that Hillary Clinton chose to “voice” her “indignation” at the two mailers she says the Obama campaign has been sending to Ohio voters, mailings that she claims have distorted her record on NAFTA and her plan on universal health care. Her Feb. 23 “Shame on you, Barack Obama,” however, sounds as fake as her “moment” in the last minutes of Thursday, Feb. 21 CNN/Univision debate in Austin, Texas.

It is important to note that Hillary Clinton’s indignation is totally misplaced, therefore entirely calculated. Why? Because the claims in the Obama mailings are not new. In his response to Hillary Clinton’s angry outcry in a press conference on Saturday, Barack Obama said the mailers had been out there for days, if not weeks.

What is more, Obama has made the same claims in person during the last two one-on-one debates that opposed him to Hillary Clinton, as well as in a number of previous ones before there were only two contestants left in the Democratic race. Hillary Clinton therefore knew about these claims by Barack Obama and his campaign weeks before Saturday morning. Assuming as Hillary claims that she did not know about the mailings, one remains skeptical, however, about this sudden outcry because the constructions in the mailers are based exactly on official claims made during the debates by Barack Obama. What difference does it make that he write down in a mailer claims that he had already been expounding in so many other ways? Must Obama stop running his campaign and sending mailers simply because Hillary does not like what he has to say?

Secondly, as has become almost normal in most political campaigning nowadays, both campaigns have engaged in similar distortions and constructions as they sought to gain an advantage over their opponents. To make those claims and “distortions” by the Obama campaign sound as though they were entirely new is certainly not honest, and points to some degree of disingenuousness on the part of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Barack Obama himself put it very well during his rebuttal press conference on Saturday when he argued that he was rather puzzled at this late Hillary Clinton’s outcry, especially when one considers the attacks the Hillary campaign had launched against him in the past, as well as the distortions she had made on his health care plan, which she claimed was not universal and was leaving 15 million people uninsured. “It makes me think there is something tactical about her getting so exercised this morning,” Obama said in reaction on Saturday.

Clearly, Hillary Clinton seems to want it both ways. On the one hand, she cries wolf for discovering in Obama’s mailers “distortions” which her own campaign has engaged in. On the other, she complains of distortions that are not really distortions. She did support NAFTA when her husband was in power. In fact, it was her own husband Bill Clinton who promoted and signed the NAFTA agreement, with Hillary Clinton’s full support, Obama argued on Saturday. On this point, Obama’s characterization may be stronger than needed, but the gist of the mailer is entirely accurate. Hillary’s own health care plan does also make of mandates a center piece of her position on the issue, and the sole real factor that distinguishes her health care plan from that of Barack Obama.

“With respect to the health care mailer, Obama said on Saturday, she has been the one who has made this difference about mandates the centerpiece not just of the health care debate, but practically her campaign. What this mailer does is point out this difference that she herself surfaced, and describes what the mandate that she is calling for would mean. Which is that the government would force you to buy healthcare. That’s indisputable. So, the notion that somehow we are engaging in nefarious tactics is pretty hard to swallow.”

It was therefore surreal to hear Hillary Clinton contradicting herself on Saturday on her own health care stance as she sought to “muddy” Barack Obama on, really, a non-issue.

“Sen. Obama knows it is not true that my plan forces people to buy insurance even if they can’t afford it,” she said.

But this line of defense is in very clear contradiction with her own position. Her big “thing” has always been to point out that because Barack Obama’s health care plan does not include a mandate, it will leave out 15 million people. Yet, when she says “it is not true that my plan forces people to buy insurance even if they can’t afford it,” she is implying that her mandate is not really a mandate. If her plan cannot force people to get insurance, it becomes perforce a copy of Obama’s plan, that is, not a mandate, as it does not force people to buy into health insurance. Obama’s plan, rather, aims at making health insurance affordable so as to allow everybody to sign into it, thereby leading to universal health coverage.

In the end, the outcry reveals itself as being a very fake and awkward attempt at provoking a debate on something that makes no sense. Attacks and distortions are part of the game of politics and Hillary Clinton herself, by claiming that Obama’s plan is leaving 15 million people out, is doing precisely what she reproaches Obama: She is distorting his plan.

The problem with Hillary Clinton is that she is literally an emotionless, cold person. As a result, she tends to show emotion only in a very deliberate, calculated way. Being a real, caring and connected person should generally imply that your emotions and empathy for others will show every time you speak and every time you interact with those whom you have pledged to “save.” Obama has systematically connected with his electorate because people perceive him as genuine. He may be inexperienced, but his soul is literally there for all to see and feel. People do not feel threatened by him, and they like him precisely for his newness and lack of extensive connections with Washington. But for Hillary Clinton, it does not happen that way. She needs her special moments. The problem is: If one always needs special moments to show that one cares, then the emotion is fake and one become non-believable.

A look at the “fake” special moments Hillary Clinton has shown so far is very revealing:

1. The “That Hurts My Feelings” Moment: The Jan. 5 debate saw the real beginnings of a deliberate Clinton strategy aimed at re-humanizing her and changing her perceived image as a coldish and emotionless person, an image which, when combined with Obama’s depiction of Hillary Clinton as the candidate of the past, seemed to have turned voters off.  In rare moment of emotion and humanity, Hillary Clinton managed to humor over a question asked her by a journalist regarding her likeability and the fact of most Americans liking Obama more. Acting as an injured woman, she commented: “Well, that hurts my feelings, but I’ll try to go on.” This “moment” seems to have been sufficient to win her a crucial debate ahead of the New Hampshire showdown. It also signaled the beginning of a campaign strategy aimed at building a different kind of image for Hillary, an image of likeability and humanization. These “hurt feelings” of Hillary’s may have played a crucial role in her New Hampshire victory just a few days later.

2. The “New Hampshire Cry” Moment: On January 7, one day before the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton, after a woman asked her “how do you do it?”,  faked a “cry” that “surprised” people in what had appeared to be a real show of real emotion. Clinton suddenly, and uncharacteristically, appeared as the person who cared the most about America. This show of emotion, which humanized her just for the occasion, seems to have given her the victory in New Hampshire as women voters flocked to the polls to tip the balance in what had, until then, been expected to be a sure victory for Obama according to the polls. Interestingly, the woman whose question had “triggered” Hillary Clinton’s emotion ended up voting for Sen. Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary. Her reason? She had been turned off by how quickly the New York senator regained her “political posture” after the fake cry, she said in an ABC interview.

“But then when she turned away from me, Marianne Pernold Young, 64, a freelance photographer from Portsmouth, N.H., said, I noticed that she stiffened up and took on that political posture again,” she said. “And the woman that I noticed for 10 seconds was gone.”

3) The “New Voice” Moment: On the night of her unexpected victory in New Hampshire on January 8, Hillary Clinton had another very noticeable moment: She declared she had finally found her own voice. However, later during the campaign, we found out that she never in fact did. Her campaign has changed campaign themes a zillion times in zillion attempts to convince voters that she is not only real, but also the real thing. To no avail. Compare that to Barack Obama’s message of change which has now captivated audience in America and abroad for close to a year now, without showing any sign of weakening. Conversely, Hillary has had to change hers so many times that no one really knows now where she stands. The dishonest maneuvering in New Hampshire (the “cry”), as well as the rhetoric on the “voice” finally found, however, were sufficient to put her back in the news and give her some momentum, even if only for a brief moment.

4) The “Loan to Campaign” Moment: As if the above ploys were not already sufficient, we were suddenly treated to the shocking news of Hillary Clinton’s campaign being in the red as far as campaign funding was concerned, and the strange act of Hillary loaning $5 million to her own campaign ahead of the Super Tuesday primaries. But, later, we all discovered that while the being-in-the-red for overspending and mismanagement was true in essence, especially when considering the more than $100 million raised in 2007 by her campaign, Hillary Clinton basically arm-twisted her supporters into contributing money to her campaign. Basically, it was now to her supporters to “save” her from the “danger” of Obama winning. Instead of her pointing to her own weaknesses in management and spending, Hillary made of this opportunity a rallying slogan against the crushing financial power of Obama, and prompted her supporters to match Obama dollar for dollar in order to stop him before it is too late. This “fakeness” comes out even stronger when one compares Hillary Clinton’s maneuvering to Barack Obama’s more honest approach. The Illinois Senator never had to go on TV with a ground-shaking announcement in order to solicit the support of voters. They flocked to him because of what they perceived to be a real genuine message of change. But still, even after much ploy and maneuvering, matching Obama dollar for dollar did not seem to help Hillary Clinton win the hearts and souls of America: Barack Obama has been trouncing her in primaries and caucuses since Super Tuesday on Feb. 5, 2008.

5) The “Moment” of Moments: Then came the Texas debate moment of Thursday, Feb. 21, a moment that many pundits say “stole” the debate victory from Barack Obama because of what, once again, was perceived as a genuine show of emotion and humanity by Hillary Clinton.

“I think everybody here knows I’ve lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life,” she said as she built the “moment”. “And I am grateful for the support and the prayers of countless Americans. But people often ask me … ‘How do you keep going?’ And I just have to shake my head in wonderment, because with all of the challenges that I’ve had, they are nothing compared to what I see happening in the lives of Americans every single day.”

She punctuated this with a vivid description of amputated and wounded soldiers she had seen at Brooke Medical Center in San Antonio, a description whose emotion was so strong that many said this was the moment that won Hillary Clinton the debate.

But, even here, we see in Hillary Clinton a candidate as calculating as it gets. Seeing that she had basically lost the debate against an Obama who, more than ever, seemed in command of most of the issues, Hillary Clinton went on to recite a very calculating line which has now been shown to parallel a similar line used previously by John Edwards.

“Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine … she said. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that’s what this election should be about.”

The similarity of these lines with those used by John Edwards is a previous debate in December 2007 came to blur what had almost passed as a real show of emotion, thus testifying to an act that was as coldly prepared as it was coldly calculated. It was not Hillary Clinton speaking, but the “voices” that convinced her that to win a debate against Barack Obama, she had to fake another “cry.”

6) And now, the “Outcry” Moment: the faked and calculating nature of Hillary’s indignation and outcry did not seem to escape anyone. As we have already demonstrated, she knew about those attacks for weeks now, and did nothing. And now she is acting as though any of those had been new or controversial. No wonder voters have been flocking to Obama. When it is too fake, too calculated, people sense it. Hillary will probably win in both Texas and Ohio, but that will not be because of her message. None of her victories has been because of her message. She has basically been riding on the record of her husband as opposed to her own, and a number of people have instinctively voted for her. Which is why, each time the voters have come to discover who Barack Obama actually is, and what he stands for, they have tended to desert the Clinton camp.

But there are even more disturbing aspects of Hillary Clinton than one would expect. As of today Saturday, Feb. 24, one can see on the very campaign Web site of Hillary Clinton a very interesting slogan that she is using as a way of motivating her supporters to contributing money to her campaign. On the very first page of the Web site that comes up after the splash page, a graphics on the left shows a money-raising goal of $2.2 million with the estimated amount raised so far towards this goal standing at 1.8 million. On the right side of the graphics, a message says: “Help us raise $2.2 million to match our opponent’s ad buys in Ohio and Texas.”

Now, this gives us some pause. Why is it that to be able to raise money from her supporters, Hillary Clinton must use Obama and depict him as an enemy that must be opposed? Secondly, why is it that, to raise money, she cannot content herself with simply convincing her supporters on the basis of her message and what she intends to do for America? Taking the pretext of Obama as an opponent is, just like all the other pretexts she has used in the past, fake. A campaign is primarily about the message. Is Hillary Clinton now telling us that her campaign’s message is now about stopping Barack Obama as opposed to convincing the voters about the superiority of her agenda for America? It is certainly hard to understand why Obama’s ad buys in Ohio and Texas should be responsible for her not raising the money she needs, and why the aim of her fundraiser should be about stopping Obama as opposed to her agenda for America.

In the end, it may well be that Hillary Clinton’s ploys, fake emotions and calculated moves, as demonstrated by the latest “outcry” over the Ohio mailers, are precisely the types of things that tend to turn voters away from her campaign. Likely voters need to be convinced of why they must support a campaign with their money and votes. This means that each campaign must motivate and convince voters on the basis of the issues that are important to them, as opposed to assaulting them with pretexts, ploys and ways of doing things that diabolize the opponent without addressing the core issue of change in America.

It more and more appears that Hillary Clinton has already lost her “never-really-found”  New Hampshire voice altogether. Desperation is, in the end, what is prompting her to move from an erratic campaign strategy to an angry campaign strategy. One thing remains true, however: After coming so far from behind to become the Democratic frontrunner without having had to go nasty, or use ploys, pretexts and maneuvering in order to win at all costs, it is Barack Obama who should say, “Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!”

Dr. Daniel Mengara
The author is an Associate Professor of French and Francophone Studies at Montclair State University (New Jersey). He is also the leader of Bongo Doit Partir (Bongo Must Go), a movement of expatriated Gabonese citizens opposed and seeking an end to the 40-year-old dictatorial regime of Omar Bongo in Gabon.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Leave a comment or send a note
  1. (required)
  2. (valid email required)
  4. (required)
  5. Answering the security question below
    Examples:
    What color is a could? Answer = white
    1 plus 1 equals what? Answer = 2
  6. Captcha
 

cforms contact form by delicious:days