The Search for Substance vs. The Subversion of Style

Perhaps the Clinton machine realized that an overt personal attack carried out on a man liked by a vast majority of voting democrats by a woman who is inherently distrusted by all could backfire and would be unwise. Perhaps they wanted to confront, head on, the rhetoric that must be haunting Hillary in her sleep.

Whatever the motivation, the Clintons have reverted to their seemingly trademarked “gotcha” politics.


The problem here, however, is two-fold.

One, by attacking as plagiarized a small portion of Barack Hussein Obama’s wildly successful, infinitely inspirational and unequivocally empty rhetoric, the Clintons will actually draw more attention to the speeches and generalities which have made for a banner year for smelling salt manufacturers. The very words which inspire demoralized liberals everywhere to rise against the establishment politics embodied by the Clintons will now be further scrutinized by pundits and voters in the wake of the scrutiny placed upon it by the former first family.

Two, in terms of political strategy, assaulting Obama’s approach should take a pronounced back seat to assailing his lack of substance. Hillary Rodham Clinton cannot best Barack Hussein Obama when it comes to oratory, but she can trump his experience, his perspective and his pedigree. She and Bill were on the right track a week or so ago when they began to stress “solutions, not speeches.” Now, trying to undermine Obama’s credibility by claiming he lifted a few stanzas of a political speech is akin to trying to trap a snake with a soccer net.


While it may be too late for Hillary Clinton, there are ways to get at Obama’s momentum.

Preying on Ignorance

Like it or not, much of America on both sides of the political aisle may not be ready to pull the lever and vote–in the general election–for a man named Barack Hussein Obama. While I certainly hope that any and all voting decisions would be made on matters of substance and not superficiality, we all know that trepidations are rampant.

Crunchy granola-types everywhere are all too quick to get their proverbial panties in a twist about their neighbor’s sport utility vehicle and carbon footprint — they scramble over one another to facilitate the creation of a movement to prevent what may or may not be a threat to civilization in a thousand years, all the while America has a genuine, immediate threat on her doorstep and they don’t even take a second look.

America is only six years removed from an attack which defined a generation. She is at war with these people every day. Americans see the beheadings, hear about the honor killings, read about the threats toward Israel and the United States, and yet nothing is done. Instead, Amy Winehouse leads the newscasts. Americans, even the liberal ones, know they have nuclear weapons and apocalyptic ambitions. Americans know they have killed hundreds of thousands in Allah’s name and know they have no qualms about sacrificing themselves for infidel blood, and yet nothing is done. Instead, there’s “more on the latest aesthetically-pleasing kidnapping victim — at eleven.”

Of course, those who lean toward Clinton and Obama do not place the same priority on national security than those who lean more to the right. If they did, those voters would not be leaning toward Clinton and Obama. Still, if Hillary Clinton wants to fight dirty–and she most certainly is not averse to dirty politics–she need only dig into her rival’s family, raise concerns about his ability to objectively engage Islam (perhaps mobilizing the feminists to finally speak out about the subjugation of women in the Middle East), and prey upon the very ignorance that I hope America can soon overcome.

Preying on Inexperience

What has Barack Obama done? Sure, his Global Poverty Act sounds to liberals like the perfect piece of legislation, but committing the United States to $65 billion each year to be sent overseas on top of our current generosity only takes away from resources for education, for healthcare, for all of the liberal pet nanny state policies that attracted people to Hillary Clinton in the first place. After all, isn’t spending more money to help our poor, our homeless, our illiterate one of the primary talking points and rallying cries of the Democratic party?

Clinton may be dead wrong on just about everything, but she has made a career out of advocating those awful and short-sighted positions. Surely, she can show that she has done more for the underprivileged (at the expense of the rest of us, in pure socialist style, of course) than Obama has done. Surely, she can show how, in the eyes of those on the left, she has actually worked toward hope rather than just spoken about it.


Truth be told, I think that Hillary Clinton is done. I’ve thought so since before Super Tuesday. I believe that America’s fascination with celebrity and with superficiality is leaving us ripe for evisceration at the well-manicured hands of a cult of personality.

I believe, based upon his voting history, his youth, and his misguided aspirations, that Barack Hussein Obama may be the worst possible candidate for president at this crucial time. Were it not for the threat we face from Islam, the fragile state of our economy, and the age of our Supreme Court justices, I would be more open to a trial run with a man who certainly talks a good game and absolutely looks as though he possesses the youthful idealism necessary to carry out his ideas. However, with our pending domestic hurdles and the unstable global climate, now is not the time for President Barack Hussein Obama.

As much as the success of America lies in the abandonment of prejudice and preference, the success of Hillary Clinton depends in part upon such ignorance coming out of the shadows. It depends, also, on her ability to use her political acumen to break the spell Obama seems to have upon the mainstream media and the American left. How she does it is her prerogative. Whether she can do it, however, may shape the nation for years and years to come.

Share

Comments

  1. Jonathan Medina says:

    Clinton may still have a chance if she surges in big states. Barack’s silly quoting of that saint MA Gov. Deval Patrick was just lame. A lot of politicians are crooked, but Patrick puts many to shame – not the guy you wanna be quoting unless he has just stolen it from someone else. Oh wait, he did. So much for “change”, Obama campaign.

  2. Jeff Schreiber says:

    You’re definitely right about the mathematics, Jonathan. Despite my feelings on the matter, Clinton certainly cannot be written off.

    Still, the superdelegates are flooding in his direction (though many are claiming that they are just voting with their districts) and, honestly, I have no faith in the voting public on the left seeing past Obama’s rhetoric.

    It creeps me out that I’m actually pulling for Hillary Clinton in some twisted fashion, even if it is only for the Dem nomination. Ugh. I feel like I need a shower.

    Jeff :)

Speak Your Mind

*