Clinton's language

The more I listen to Hillary, the more I realize she is the consummate politician. I'm honestly starting to wonder if she's capable of speaking in a straightforward way. Her answers to some questions on CNN about semi-firing Mark Penn illustrate this.

""I don't think [it will hurt], because I think people want to know where I stand," Clinton said on CNN's American Morning, reiterating her opposition to a free trade agreement with the Colombians."

But that's exactly the problem! People DON'T know where she stands. She takes one position, and a key advisor takes the exact opposite position. But instead of acknowledging the confusion, she just denies it.

And then, as if she can't help herself, she goes into spin mode, and uses it as an opportunity to bash Obama.

""I find it kind of curious, we took action, and I think it was appropriate," she continued. "Contrast that to Senator Obama's campaign where, as far as I know, nothing was ever done when one of his top economic advisers representing the campaign, unlike Mr. Penn who was not representing the campaign, but Mr. Obama's representative told the Canadian government basically not to pay any attention to what Senator Obama was saying about NAFTA.""

The line "I find it kind of curious" is an interesting use of spin. The word "curious" suggests innocence, which is duplicitous. She's just "curious," that's all. She's just kind of wondering. No agenda on her part! She's making herself out to be the innocent party here. Ludicrous.

And then she goes right into attacking Obama. Of course, this is all "as far as I know," so if she's wrong, she can claim that she didn't know. She mentions what the Obama campaign allegedly didn't do. The problem here is that no one will remember whether or not the Obama campaign did anything, because it's a trivial detail that's in the past. So she can paint Obama as not doing anything, because no one is going to challenge her. Whether or not that's true is irrelevant.

But the big whopper is where she sets up the contrast: one of Obama's top advisers, in this case, was "representing the campaign," whereas Mr. Penn was not. So, according to Hillary, this is the issue: an Obama staffer was duplicitous, so we can tag the Obama campaign, and the Senator himself, as duplicitous. But because Mark Penn wasn't representing the campaign, it's OK!

How absurd can you get? Someone in the Obama camp may have sent different signals to the Canadian government - I don't remember the details well enough. But even so, it's perfectly normal for politicians to send different signals through different channels. That's called diplomacy. But what Mark Penn did was qualitatively different, because he, as one person, took two different, diametrically opposed positions. As a top adviser for Hillary, he represents her campaign. But in his role as a lobbyist, he took a position, and was paid to lobby for it, that directly undermined Hillary's position. The fact that he wasn't representing the campaign is exactly the problem. He should have been representing the campaign. But, as Hillary spins it, not only is it not a problem, it's better than whatever Obama did!

I think I'm starting to understand her psychology. When confronted with a conflict or a contradiction, she just automatically thinks in terms of whatever is in her best interest, and how to turn it to her advantage. She doesn't think in terms of whether or not it's honest to say something. As long as she can say something that isn't technically a lie, she will.