I haven’t hid my displeasure at the prospect of a Hillary nomination. However, I do give credit where credit’s due. For instance, Hillary’s response in the last Democratic debate to a Tim Russert question. Russert caught everyone off guard, including her, when he told her that her husband supported torture in a hypothetical scenario. The audience watched intently as Hillary smiled, and a moment later stated, “I’ll have to talk to him about that later.” It was a soft touch, a deft touch, nay, a masterful response.
So despite my aversion to her candidacy, I think I can be fair when assessing their particular performances.
Last week, the big story was Hillary’s loud, prolonged, and pronounced laughs in an interview with Chris Wallace. The “cackle” became news, and some rushed to her defense. Some said, see she look’s robotic. I am more in the latter group.
More specifically, not that she’s merely robotic (a la Gore), but that she’s not credible. It seems she pre-plans these laughing sequences to look more human, or to buy time to search for the proper talking point in her mind. Either way, it’s phony. Credibility is an issue which voters decide in every race. Court cases often turn on the credibility of witnesses, adjudged by either the judge or a jury. This can be the witness’ evasiveness or even, yes, laughs. So it is a fair topic of discussion.
Obama’s pin situation is not the same. A reporter asked him why he didn’t wear an American flag pin, and he responded:
”Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.
”I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism.”
Obama’s credibility is not at issue here. Just his “patriotism.” But he explains he is distinguishing himself from empty displays of patriotism. So far the only candidates who have criticized Obama’s position are Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, marginal far-right candidates.
The Chicago Sun-Times said, “his polarizing comments make him sound like a hardened leftist.” However they also stated, “We’ll concede that pinning a flag to your chest is a phony litmus test of patriotism.” They continue, “Why not wear one, and wear it proudly, and explain what it means to you? Isn’t that better than having your red, white and blue credentials questioned?”
Ron Chusid at Liberal Values compared this behavior to the episode of Seinfeld where Kramer refuses to wear an AIDS ribbon at an AIDS Walk. The other participants berate and intimidate Kramer to get him to wear the ribbon.
So there is no substance in Obama’s case. His critics are just telling him to pander to the jingoists. Meanwhile, Hillary’s calculated histrionics validly call her credibility into question.
Crossposted at Worldwide Sawdust