monster mash

I usually enjoy Joan Walsh's editorials, even when I disagree with them.  But in writing of the Hillary/RFK flap she makes the kind of comment that has become all too common among Democrats this year:

"The world is divided between people who consider Bill and Hillary Clinton monsters, and people who don't."

Really?  Where's the evidence for that, other than in the diffused rage of some Clinton-right-or-wrong supporters (among whom Joan should not be included)? 

I've been as critical of the Clinton campaign as anyone.  I've been appalled by Hillary's political calculus from the very beginning (which I date to her war vote in 2002, although you're welcome to disagree.)  And I felt that there was a deliberate racial strategy in the Clinton camp.  Yet I don't believe, nor have I ever said, that they were "monsters."  Selfish?  Yes.  Cynical?  Yes.  Monsters?  No.  I've always maintained, and continue to maintain, that they're complex people with much to offer.

Hence my ongoing sense of disappointment.

Joan then mischaracterizes the criticism of Hillary's RFK statement as if it were all based on the premise that she was deliberately playing on assassination fears.  Some people have made that assertion, but a lot of others have merely pointed out that it was a stunningly insensitive thing to say.  (Clinton defenders seem to spend a lot of their time defending comments that are, at best, stunningly insensitive.  And few white commentators seem concerned with how this remark resonated among African Americans.)

Personally, I don't know what the hell Hillary was thinking.  And I think she's said far worse things during this primary season.  ("White Americans," anyone?)  But she's been saying for a year now that she's more experienced and more street-smart than Obama.  The most generous interpretation of this statement - that she made a foolish blunder - undercuts that argument.

No, wait - the most generous argument is the one Joan makes:  that Hillary has absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for this flap.  She's a victim, and nothing more.  I don't buy it.  Joan goes on to describe the "Clinton-hate" in the Democratic Party, as if Hillary and Bill had no responsibility for that, either.  Yet a year ago they were wildly popular in the Party, and Hillary was the odds-on favorite for the nomination.

Do they bear no responsibility for their stunning reversal of fortune?  Is it all somebody else's responsibility - Keith Olbermann's, maybe?  Wow.   Bill and Hillary:  Innocents abroad in the brutal world of politics.  Who knew?

Joan then chastises the Obama campaign for capitalizing on this gaffe.  (What?  You mean they play a better game of hardball than the Clintons, too?  That was the other Clinton complaint about them - not tough enough.  Remember?)  She goes on to hit the Obama campaign with a litany of complaints, most of which I don't buy (but a couple of which I do). 

How should we react to this indictment of Obama's tactics?  Should we conclude that "the world is divided between people who think Obama is a monster and people who don't," and determine that these criticisms are symptomatic of an epidemic of "Obama-hate" that will destroy the Democratic Party?

Personally, I just think we disagree.  I'd like to be given the same respect when I criticize the Clintons.  Is that too much to ask?

Comments

[lally]

great response man, once again you say it better than I could

[lally]

great response once again man, you say it better than I can