From Hillary Clinton today:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a wide-ranging interview today with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporters and editors, said she would have left her church if her pastor made the sort of inflammatory remarks Sen. Barack Obama’s former pastor made.
“He would not have been my pastor,” Clinton said. “You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.”
Leaving aside the transparent reason she’s decided to speak out about Wright (“Deflect!!! Deflect!!!“), the level of hypocrisy here is staggering.
Hillary Clinton saying she’d walk out on a problematic situation? She’d just get up and leave someone who’s been close to her if they were offensive?
Snarkiness fails me. She’s an exceptionally good liar.
C’mon, folks, let’s not give the old gal too much grief. After all, it is so obvious why she couldn’t leave her cheatin’, lyin’, tomcat of a hubby: if she had, there is no way she could have kept the house.
And, as we all know by now, with Hillary it is all about the House.
I thought sticking it out when things are tough in your marriage was a sign of character.
John — actually, I’m of the opinion that the decisions a person makes about whether to stay in a marriage (or not) in a situation such as Hillary’s is absolutely a private affair. It’s a call none of us can possibly make.
My point here was not to attack her decision about her marriage. It was to call out the fact that she has demonstrated, quite publicly, her ability to stick with a problematic relationship when she chooses to do so.
I agree with Polimom that Hillary’s decision as to whether or not to stay married to Bill is a personal one. OTOH, I don’t think that “stand by your man” includes being an active participant in his deceptions (even if the extent of her participation was to publicly deny what he was doing.) That, to me, smacks more of co-dependency.
In other words, it would be as if Sen. Obama went on TV and claimed that Rev. Wright really didn’t espouse some of his more, inflammatory positions.
I know, but comparing a marital relationship with a pastor relationship seems quite unfair. It read more like a “gotcha Hillary” bit than anything else.
John, it actually is a “gotcha” on Hillary. The relationship between Obama and Wright has been portrayed / spun to be extremely close — so much so that we (the American electorate) are clearly expected to conclude that it approached a Vulcan Mind-Meld.
Or perhaps a spiritual marriage.
So… no, I wouldn’t normally try to equate a husband with a pastor. But Hillary’s politically-expedient dismissal of that relationship (which is only under fire because of the presumed closeness) does not compare well in my mind to what some see as her politically-expedient acceptance of another relationship.
I think she’s actually said remarkably little about the whole issue, considering how much hay she could probably make of it.
She was (inevitably) asked what she thought, and she answered. If one thinks the answer was dishonest, it would be fair to point out some similar relationship that she maintained.
But no, it’s always back to Bill’s philandering, isn’t it?
I’m not a partison in the Clinton/Obama race, but I will observe that proponents of both are remarkably blind to the sins they accuse one another of when they occur on their own side of the fence.
I see that having cited in an unflattering way Sleazy Willie’s marital “indiscretions” for the first time (as far as I can remember) ever, you are now being accused of being a member of the “. . . it’s always back to Bill’s philandering . . . ” crowd.
Welcome to the vast right wing conspiracy! Always room for one more . . .
I also note that despite claiming to “not be a partisan in the Clinton/Obama race”, John seems quite sensitive to any criticism of Hillary or her tactics. (She is very good at avoiding questions she does not want to answer; clearly she decided that answering the question would serve her purposes.)
I love these “Democrat rules”, i. e. no criticism allowed of Democratic candidates, unless you want to criticize the one you favor. No doubt the Republicans will honor them as well . . . . How refined . . .
i’ve written about my concerns with the Clinton campaign. I’ve also written about why I like obama, how impressed I was with his race speech, and said many times that I will enthusiastically support him if he is the nominee. I’ve written more lately about what I hear from obama supporters because I’m finding it increasingly personal and accompanied by a smug “we’re above thos nasty Clinton political moves” stance, which I think is a bunch of crap and always has been.
You may disagree with what I think but you’re expressing disagreement with a convenient strawman. It’s tedious and intellectually dishonest.
This, from my observation, is a very consistent attribute of pretty much any form of advocacy (whether political or otherwise), and I think it forms the basis for the “before you complain about the speck in your neighbor’s eye, remove the log from your own” speech given some 2,000 years ago.
:sigh: But, John, it is not all about “Bill’s philandering”. Unfortunately – otherwise that story would have been relegated to the scandal sheets and Talk Soup reruns years ago. It is about Bill engaging in a deliberate effort to use the “street cred” of his office (the Presidency) to affect a legal proceeding against him, in the process committing perjury – and the fact that Hillary publicly supported his fraud. Then (in this instance), she has the gall to claim that she would bail on a close relationship, if faced with circumstances similar to those Sen. Obama faces with Rev. Wright. Puh-leeze.
I really like Obama. But the fact that he can inspire people who I KNOW are smart people to suggest that what it would take for you to change churches and what it would take for you to abandon your spouse are comparable makes me concerned. I don’t want a president who inspires that kind of thing; in fact, it reminds me of the current dynamic in which someone can offer a detailed critique of the president and be dismissed as having “Bush derangement syndrome.” It’s not healthy.
(As a side note, I find how people deal with the misdeeds of those they DON’T have close personal relationships with much more interesting. If you’re looking at a husband and wife, there are so may things that bind them together that it’s hard to make generalizations about them. Pastor? A lot less of that. That’s why I think that McCain cozying up to John Hagee is most troubling of all – no personal relationship, so you can take it at face value.)
at the same time that I’m reading what other bloggers have to say about both candidates and participating in discussion like this, I’m observing the comments that come into my Chronicle blog – and weirdly enough, I have gotten really nasty and highly personal stuff (which I don’t publish to the site) from two groups of people EVER there – those who don’t like gay people and Obama supporters when I say something positive about Clinton or negative about him.
This wouldn’t bother me so much if I didn’t think Obama was a good guy who’d make a very good president. Honestly, it gives me the creeps. Obviously, there are plenty of people supporting Obama who are not turning into little attack-bots, but there are enough to make me stop and notice it.
None of that, of course (and for the millionth time) would make me not vote for him. I think he’s a good candidate.
Hi John —
Since I’ve never ever had a relationship with a pastor such as Obama has described, I have to take him at his word that it was close. That he admires the man. That he views him almost as an uncle. That he brought Obama to Jesus. Etc etc etc. None of those strands exist for me in any relationship outside of a valuable one, and so I can only parallel with what I consider a “close relationship” to be. I don’t think the casual church-goer who wasn’t brought into the faith as an adult really can connect easily to what Obama’s talking about here.
I’m sorry you think I’m drinking some Kool-aid on this one, but I don’t feel as if I’m reaching, or knee-jerking.
Aside from the particulars of this post, though — I agree with you about some of the Obama supporters. They’re quite fervent and quick out of the gate. But I’ve been part of some really vicious threads elsewhere where I foolishly said something negative about Clinton and was swarmed. OTOH, I’ve criticized them both here, and folks haven’t lost their minds. Part of the problem, as you know, is your readership over there…
But it’s not just the Obama-ites that are emotionally invested.
Oh, I agree. My personal experience has been that there’s been a particularly personal tone from the Obama-ites, but of course my experience with my blog comments may or may not be representative of the group.
Mostly I find the whole thing exhausting at this point, and I’m really distressed by the polls showing supporters of one candidate or another saying they wouldn’t vote for the other should their favorite lose the nomination, which I think is warped (and seems to be an issue in both groups).
Is it time for a general election yet? Please?