The New Clinton and Campaign Hyperbole

November 30th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

The Associated Press notes in one of its latest reports on Senator Hillary Clinton’s future in Barack Obama’s administration that the Obama campaign did its best to ridicule Clinton and her foreign policy credentials during the primaries but that all top advisers and staffers are now suddenly embracing and heralding her as some kind of foreign policy genius.

The report, which is more an opinion piece than anything else, points out that Obamites blasted Clinton only a few months ago.

“What exactly is this foreign policy experience?” Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. “Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no.”

Greg Craig, selected to serve as White House counsel in the Obama administration, also attacked Clinton earlier this year saying: “She did not sit in on any National Security Council meetings when she was first lady.”

And he wrote in a memo: “There is no reason to believe … that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton administration.”

Susan Rice, a top Obama adviser likely to land a spot in his administration, made fun of Clinton back in March. “There is no crisis to be dealt with or managed when you are first lady,” Rice sniffed last March. “You don’t get that kind of experience by being married to a commander in chief.”

All that has changed considerably in recent weeks.

Obama adviser William Daley over the weekend said, for instance, that Clinton would be “a tremendous addition to this administration. Tremendous.”

Senior adviser David Axelrod called Clinton a “demonstrably able, tough, brilliant person.”

So, what happened?

Well, what happened is simple: they were campaigning back in the early spring and late winter. During campaigns hyperbole is used quite frequently. As David Gergen, who has served as an adviser to both Republican and Democratic presidents said: “That was then; this is now. Campaigns are thus.”

“Generally speaking,” Gergen said, “there is a recognition that campaigns bring a certain amount of hyperbole, and when it’s over you try to find the most talented people you can find to work with you.”

And that is what happened between Obama and Clinton: months ago, Obama had to ridicule Clinton just as she had to ridicule him. The goal was to win the presidential nomination of their party, not a role in the administration of a rival. During campaigns you will have to spin everything in as negative a manner as possible for your opponent.

It’s not personal. It’s politics.

Now that the campaign has ended and Barack Obama has become the president-elect, there is no need to continue ridiculing each other. Now, both sides are only interested in furthering their own career and, of course, improving the Democratic administration which will be in power for at least four, possibly even eight years.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Interested
    December 5th, 2008 at 11:26
    Reply | Quote | #1

    and to totally grind the “change” meme into powder

    Preparing for her new role as secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton is moving to surround herself with a cast of die-hard loyalists and veterans of her husband’s administration to help her cope with world crises and backstage Washington power plays.

    not that anybody expected anything more out of a clinton.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.