Had some thoughts about the whole “Hillary Clinton’s ‘experience’ in foreign policy” broohaha that is being batted back and forth.
First, though, I admit that I haven’t really researched this thoroughly.
Which puts me somewhere on the scale between unenlightened demagogue and network news reporter.
Which, some would suggest, is redundant.
What I do know is that Hillary and her Van Goghs of spin are doing their best to paint Barack as unqualified to be commander in chief, owing to his lack of experience in foreign policy and herself as ready to “lead on day one” owing to her wealth of experience.
My first thought is…huh?
Right off the bat, I’m a little tired of hearing “lead on day one”.
And not so much because it’s not a nice thought as much as it sounds to me like the bastard stepchild of the Ford slogan.
Quality is job one.
I totally understand that politicians totally understand, or think anyway, that the only way to reach people these days is to boil things down to sound bytes and bumper stickers and I wont speak for you, but when I hear those catch phrases, I always feel my shields going up as I instruct Mr. Sulu to take me to the intellectual equivalent of Def Con 4.
Catchy phrases are meant to get your attention, to be sure.
But they’re also designed to divert your attention, too.
Like “New and Improved”
Sound inviting?
Fair enough. But doesn’t it also make you want to say, “so, if the product is new and improved doesn’t that mean the previous version was old and crappy?”
And, frankly, I’m tempted to want to ask Hillary, “well, tell me there, Hill, what exactly IS day one?”
January 20?
You mean you’re going to swear a fast oath, skip the parade and the inaugural balls and zip right down to the Oval so you can start leading?
Oh, you mean after that?
So, you’re actually saying that you will be ready to lead on day one, but you wont actually start leading until day two? Yes, I’m aware that I’m splitting hairs to the point of annoyance.
Hmm. Maybe I should run for office.
I really haven’t made up my own mind when it comes to the choice between Clinton and Obama.
I’ve pretty much ruled out McCain because he is looking and sounding more and more every day like the sequel to Dubya.
And we’ve already seen the plot of the sequel to Dubya.
It was called “The Second Term.”
No thanks.
But as I ponder, weak and weary, over many a volume of catch phrases and sound bytes and try to weed through the bickering and bantering to get to the heart of what these two have to offer, I realize that I’m a little confused about this whole “foreign policy experience” meal that Hillary is trying to feed us.
Because if memory serves, she’s only been elected to one office so far.
Senator.
And while I’m sure she’s had some lovely chats with players from other countries, I don’t recall seeing her signing any peace treaties or announcing any quarantines of ships to and from Cuba (there’s an oldie but a goodie, huh?)
So, if I’m reading this correctly, she is essentially trying to equate eight years of being married to a president to having the experience of eight years of being president, at least from a foreign policy perspective.
Well, here’s a catch phrase that might come in handy at this moment.
“We shot a bear…Pa pulled the trigger.”
Of course, there is always the possibility that during the eight years of the Clinton presidency, Hillary was actually the one getting shit done.
We have some pretty solid evidence that Bill had a tendency to get distracted by happy meals and horny interns.
Well, I don’t know what kind of chops Hillary really has here. And it’s pointless, at this point, to do a line item check in the quest to root out the truth no matter how validating it is or how much deception it exposes.
Fox News will take care of that.
What occurs to me is how little credit we’ve given to the other wives who have lived on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Because if Hillary gets to claim sufficient resume to run this country’s foreign policy on the basis of eight years of “being in the room (or bedroom as the case may be), then…
Belated thanks to Jackie for her part in making Khrushchev take those nasty missiles out of Cuba in 62.
And thanks to Lady Bird for giving blacks so many opportunities as a result of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 64.
A big shout out to Nancy Reagan for getting the hostages released from Iran.
And on day one, too. The real day one.
Mamie Eisenhower gets props for her assistance in turning the tide for the Allies with the planning and execution of D-Day. Okay, so that was before they were in the White House, but this is politics. Who cares about veracity?
Then again, Ike did give us Nixon. So Mamie’s contribution is probably a wash.
And fair being fair, Lou Hoover has to take the fall for the Depression.
And Laura will just have to learn to live with the responsibility for having gotten us into Iraq without a clue about how to get us back out again.
Over the next few weeks, we’re going to hear more and more about who’s on the short list of consideration for the respective vice presidential nominations.
You can’t help but wonder if that whole discussion is becoming more and more academic.
Because the vice president is only going to have a say in the way this country operates if the president dies or resigns.
But that face across the breakfast table?
Well, apparently, they’re going to be part of the process from day one.
No comments:
Post a Comment