Michelman Blasts Clinton for 
"Disingenuously Playing the Victim Card" -- Part Two of Two

You don’t have to be an “insider” or particular politically astute to have anticipated that Sen. Hillary Clinton’s abysmal debate performance last Tuesday would reverberate throughout the universe of 24/7 politics.

In case you missed it, Sen. Clinton—who is not particularly fast on her feet—stumbled her way through several questions from Meet the Press’s Tim Russert.

In the adult world of politics, when you bumble an answer your rivals bounce on you—and you expect it. When you are the miles-ahead front-runner, as Clinton is, they’re going to be even more aggressive—and you deal with it.

Truth be known, fearing charges of a bunch of guys “piling on” a woman, Clinton’s Democratic presidential rivals tip-toed around, gently pointing out her inconsistencies and obfuscations. That did not stop her campaign from whining after the debate about how “unfair” everyone had been to Clinton, including Russert.

Indeed her website posted a video showing her rivals speaking her name in rapid-fire succession, under the title, “The Politics of Pile-On.” Just to make sure no one missed the point, last Thursday Clinton ambled over to Wellesley College (her alma mater) to speak about trying to break in to "the all-boys club of presidential politics."

Nothing about this is surprising. Why wouldn’t Clinton want to have it both ways? Be treated like “just one of the boys” but cry foul when she is? If she’s not called on it, this would have the much-to-be-desired effect of muffling whatever limited criticisms her rivals would have the guts to utter.

Her rivals have challenged her more forthrightly, but the most straightforward criticism came over the weekend from former NARAL President Kate Michelman. Michelman is supporting former Senator John Edwards, so her comments, posted on a liberal blog, will be discounted, to a greater or lesser degree. But the first question is, of course, not whom Michelman is supporting, but whether what she says is true.

To take just two examples,

#1. “It's trying to have it both ways; walk the fence, something Senator Clinton's good at. At one minute the strong woman ready to lead, the next, she's the woman under attack, disingenuously playing the victim card as a means of trying to avoid giving honest, direct answers to legitimate questions.”

True, but it actually goes beyond that. As noted above, Clinton’s campaign did the dirty work, thus allowing her to respond that’s she not trying to have her cake and eat it too.

#2. “Any serious candidate for president should have to answer tough questions and defend their record.  Any serious candidate for president should make their views clear and let the American people know where they stand on issues.”

Well,  true or false? True, obviously. But it is even more so in Clinton’s case. As her lead over her rivals has mounted, she has become even less forthright than before. Getting a straight answer out of her is like pulling teeth.

The American people have endured a campaign so long it seems to have begun somewhere around 1806. Now, finally, candidates are beginning to engage.

Now things will start getting interesting.

Please send your comments to Dave Andrusko at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

Part One