the L-word
by Sandra Kinne
Published: January 5, 2008
No, not Showtime’s lesbian drama. The other “L” word. Think “Cher” or her other “Clueless” friends. The “L” with your index and thumb across the forehead.
That’s right. Loser.
I know what you’re thinking. “A ‘Clueless’ reference? It’s 2008, not 1995.” But, I figure if Hillary wants to return the country to its Glory Days of 1995, why not invoke a classic film from that year? (That’s right. A classic film. I’m a Generation X’er. Deal with it.)
Or, maybe you’re thinking, “Who’s the loser?” To that, I say, “Hillary Clinton.” Specifically, she’s a sore loser.
With her surprising third place finish in Iowa on Thursday, Hillary and her wonks are turning negative, bashing her opponents, specifically Barack Obama, and playing down the relevancy of the Iowa caucuses.
Without offering specifics on her plans, her campaign offered to ABC News Obama’s liberal positions and apparent changes in his policy beliefs. According to Time, the Clinton camp even directed the alphabet-network to 2003 Obama footage that seemingly contradicts his current positions. Some say opposition research, some say going negative. To-may-toes, to-mah-toes.
The Clinton camp is also downplaying Iowa. As her chief strategist, Mark Penn, said in The Wall Street Journal, “The worst thing would be to over-count Iowa and its importance… Iowa doesn’t have a record of picking presidents.”
Even better, her traveling press secretary, Jay Carson, also in the Journal, said, “Iowa is so small, it’s like a mayor’s race in a medium-sized city. It wouldn’t be wise to put too much emphasis on it.” Given the amount of time, money, and people-power the Clinton campaign spent in and on Iowa, then it sounds like the Clinton campaign is pretty unwise.
And really, who wants to elect an unwise person to run the country? Oh, right, 51 million people in 2004.
The comments Clinton’s camp is offering since Iowa remind me of children battling it out on the playground. One of them loses a game, stomps off and pouts about it until the bell rings - or until the end of the day if they’re particularly sore. Instead of sulking at their desks, the Clinton camp stomped off to New Hampshire, pouting all the way.
Hillary went from being a leader on the proverbial playground to the bully who pushes others around because of her/his shortcomings. In my classroom, she’d go to time out or have her recess taken away for a few days. From the looks of it, though, voters are going to make sure she loses recess for the rest of the year and has to sit on the sidelines watching Obama play her game. After Iowa, it’s clear he plays it better - and wants the games to end.
Nevermind that I’m totally biased. The Obama sticker has been on my car’s bumper so long it’s starting to peel. But, this isn’t about Obama; it’s about Hillary, and I’d say the same thing if John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich came in first in Iowa and the Obama team reacted the same way. (Though, if Kucinich won, I’d have a heck of lot more to say!)
Don’t tell me Iowa isn’t important when Hillary’s spent more time there in recent weeks than serving in her elected capacity as Senator. (And as a New York State resident, I’d thank her to either resign her Senate seat or get back to her work for us.)
Don’t tell me where your opponents stand or where they stood four years ago. Tell me where you stand. Tell me what your specific plans are for health care, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to create jobs in our country. The more specific, the better.
Rather than suck it up, admit the poor performance and correct the mistakes, the Clinton machine has stuck to its strategy: spin, go negative and spin some more. Next week, I fully expect her to cite the “vast right-wing conspiracy” or her husband’s “troubled childhood” as the reasons for an underwhelming performance in Iowa.
Plain and simple, Hillary’s being a sore loser. Emphasis on sore.
Oh, what the heck. Emphasis on loser.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
