Perhaps the one thing that got Bill Clinton almost thrown out of office was not so much the affair with Monica or the blue dress, or even his initial lie about it. What really pissed people off was his brazen “depends what the meaning of is, is.” Even Clintonistas turned away in shame at this foul attempt to weasel.
Ten years later, and seven years after Rove/Bush elevated the Clintonian weasel into their own art form by redefining Constitutional provisions to suit their own imperial neo-con interests, the Hillary campaign is boldly and shamelessly following suit by redefining fundamental questions related to running for president and serving as commander in chief.
Hardly breaking a sweat, the campaign just recently has 1) created new credentials to be commander in chief– experience over judgment–and defining experience in terms of being spouse to the president; 2) creating out of whole cloth the candidate’s own foreign policy experience– actually a USO show in Kosovo (with Sinbad), and cheerleading the President in Northern Ireland; and 3) creating new definitions for “pledged delegates”–where caucus delegates are suddenly the weak cousin to the pledged delegate. Clinton also suggests her opponent lacks the credentials to be commander in chief but doesnt lack credentials to be a heartbeat away from being commander in chief.
Such Clintonian weaselry presumes the media and American people confuse truth for ‘truthiness,’ Stephen Colbert’s term which means a version of truth that comes from the gut, rather than from evidence, logic, facts, or intellectual examination.
Although ‘truthiness’ may be a corporate media calling card, the question remains regarding the public’s continued tolerance.
After two presidencies replete with travesties in ‘truthiness’ regarding monica (Bill), and the Constitution (W), might not the American people finally be ready to vote in somebody who does not embody a parody of the oath of office.
Hey, how about an honesty threshold?