Liberal Values Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

If Hillary Clinton’s pandering and lies should allow her to win the Democratic nomination we could wind up in the unusual situation by modern standards that the Democrats have the more socially conservative candidate, as well as the candidate who comes closes to carrying on the Bush legacy. Michael Tomaskyhas also noticed the transformation of Hillary Clinton to the right wing:

Twice this week now, Hillary Clinton has stood there smiling like the Cheshire Cat as the governor of North Carolina used the word “pansy” and then as a union leader in the same state, who more famously referred to her “testicular fortitude”, went on to inveigh that Hillary was the only thing that stood between the good and God-fearing people of North Carolina and the “Gucci-wearing, latte-drinking, self-centred, egotistical people that have damaged our lifestyle.” Clinton, according to the report linked to here, “smiled sheepishly before breaking into a nervous laugh.”

As campaign moments go, these may not be up there with the Iraq-withdrawal debate or, Lord knows, truly important things like Barack Obama’s failure to wear a flag lapel pin. But they’re worth marking all the same.

These are explicitly right-wing tactics and talking points. Those of you across the pond may be unfamiliar with a very famous soundbite from the 2004 presidential campaign, which featured in a commercial that ran early that year in Iowa and was produced by the anti-tax group Club for Growth.

In the ad, a husband and wife discuss Howard Dean’s plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts. The happy couple join forces to say the following: ”Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs.”

It was garbage, but at least it stood to reason, under the logic of this country’s political climate, that a ferociously right-wing group (Club for Growth is known for finding even many Republicans to be “soft” on the tax question, backing right-wing anti-tax acolytes against a few Republican congressional incumbents) would employ such rhetoric against a liberal, Democratic candidate.

And now we are greeted by the spectacle of one Democratic campaign – no, not directly using, but getting a nice little happy kick out of seeing almost exactly the same rhetoric, right down to the choice of beverage, used against a fellow Democrat.

Clinton has had the opportunity to bring the campaign to a higher level, as Obama has done, but clearly chooses not to:

Clinton had the opportunity to say, during that ABC debate, something like: “You know, I don’t think the fact that Senator Obama served on a board will Bill Ayers some 25 years after the Weather Underground ceased to exist is relevant. Right-wing websites can traffic in that, and the mainstream media can if you want to. We Democrats don’t do that sort of thing.” But she piled on, even disingenuously implying that Ayers made comments “about” September 11 just because some remarks he’d made about his past happened to appear in the New York Times on September 11, 2001.

So, let Clinton revel in her incarnation as the sworn enemy of latte drinkers and Gucci wearers. If she somehow wins the nomination, it won’t last long. I expect the American people will be reminded of various episodes from her past that I won’t catalogue here because to do so would be to engage in the very kind of mud-slinging I’m rebuking.

And when they come up, those Gucci wearers and latte sippers will start looking better and better to Clinton and her backers. But don’t come crying to me.

Don’t come crying to me either. I won’t be voting for her.