The president of the United States has to be able to shrug off criticism of all sorts. Indeed, the president needs to be able to ignore personal attacks and focus on the real issues that affect the country. Today, Hillary Clinton's reaction to something that Donald Trump said makes me wonder if she would be able to handle the job.
Yesterday in a speech, Trump pointed out that Hillary lost in 2008 after everyone in the media said she would win. Trump said that Hillary was "schlonged, she lost". Following that remark, the Clinton campaign decided to portray Hillary as the victim of some heinous attack by Trump. Imagine! Trump used what the Clinton campaign spokesperson called a "degrading" term.
Now let's stop there. Basically, what Trump said is that in her effort to win in 2008, Hillary got screwed. He was, however, less direct than that. If the Clinton campaign thinks that such language is degrading and an attack on women, then they better start criticizing Bill Clinton who has been repeatedly quoted as describing his affair with Monica Lewinsky by saying, "I screwed up with this girl." I doubt that the Clinton campaign would call that degrading to women because it wouldn't be to Hillary's advantage to do so.
The truth is that Trump used language that could have been better. Everyone would agree to that. But nothing that Trump said makes Hillary or anyone else a "victim". Indeed, Hillary has repeatedly been called all sorts of things that were far worse than even the worst interpretation of the Trump remark.
But think of this: in the last three weeks, the Moscow press controlled by Vladimir Putin called president Obama a "monkey". They also called Obama and idiot and many other not so nice words. The USA, however, still has to deal with Putin and Russia. Would Hillary be able to do that as president? Or would she take offense if Putin called her "old" or "a bag of wrinkles" or "a liar" or some other negative names?
The reality is that what Trump said is no big deal, and Hillary knows it. The real question is whether or not the whole issue raises more of a question about Hillary than about Trump.
Yesterday in a speech, Trump pointed out that Hillary lost in 2008 after everyone in the media said she would win. Trump said that Hillary was "schlonged, she lost". Following that remark, the Clinton campaign decided to portray Hillary as the victim of some heinous attack by Trump. Imagine! Trump used what the Clinton campaign spokesperson called a "degrading" term.
Now let's stop there. Basically, what Trump said is that in her effort to win in 2008, Hillary got screwed. He was, however, less direct than that. If the Clinton campaign thinks that such language is degrading and an attack on women, then they better start criticizing Bill Clinton who has been repeatedly quoted as describing his affair with Monica Lewinsky by saying, "I screwed up with this girl." I doubt that the Clinton campaign would call that degrading to women because it wouldn't be to Hillary's advantage to do so.
The truth is that Trump used language that could have been better. Everyone would agree to that. But nothing that Trump said makes Hillary or anyone else a "victim". Indeed, Hillary has repeatedly been called all sorts of things that were far worse than even the worst interpretation of the Trump remark.
But think of this: in the last three weeks, the Moscow press controlled by Vladimir Putin called president Obama a "monkey". They also called Obama and idiot and many other not so nice words. The USA, however, still has to deal with Putin and Russia. Would Hillary be able to do that as president? Or would she take offense if Putin called her "old" or "a bag of wrinkles" or "a liar" or some other negative names?
The reality is that what Trump said is no big deal, and Hillary knows it. The real question is whether or not the whole issue raises more of a question about Hillary than about Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment