A little background and context for the preceding post

When I first read the Obama quote discussed in the previous post, I was wondering about the context of it. Specifically, I was wondering the origin of the phrase "false hopes." I have since discovered the origin and context, and that makes Hillary look even worse.

The phrase "false hopes" was used by Hillary during the January 5, 2008, Democratic debate. I did not know this earlier because I have not watched any of the debates. I think they are largely a waste of time. What I want or need to know about them I can read after the fact. Anyhoo, the topic of "change" was discussed extensively during that debate, and here's part of what Hillary had to say:

Well, making change, making -- wait a minute. Now, wait a minute. I'm going to respond to this.

Because obviously -- obviously making change is not about what you believe. It's not about a speech you make. It is about working hard.

(emphasis added). Huh? Making change is not about what you believe? Really? Notice that she did not NOT say "Change is not just about what you believe..." Instead she said that belief and ideas have nothing to do with bringing about change. That is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in this campaign. It is also patently incorrect. You can't have change without ideas and belief in those ideas. Does change require hard work? Absolutely. But without beliefs and ideas, what is there to work on? Unless people believe in the need for change and believe in ideas that represent change, there will be no change. It's just that simple--and that bloody obvious.

This statement by Hillary supports something I said in the previous post, namely that Hillary thinks inspiration is overrated and unnecessary.

But wait, there's more...

So, you know, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered. The best way to know what change I will produce is to look at the changes that I've already made.

(emphasis added). In the context of this campaign, there is no question that this was an attack on Obama. Kevin Drum's analysis of this statement is really good--and be aware that Drum is supportive of Hillary:

I don't like to obsess too much over single sentences in presidential debates, but by far the most jarring statment I heard in Saturday's Democratic debate was Hillary Clinton's admonition that "we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered." This came at the end of her now-famous defense of her record of change, and I think I understand what she was driving at: she thinks that Obama's belief that he can work in harmony with Republicans to pass liberal legislation is a naive pipe dream and that we all need to be a little more reality-based about what it's really going to take to get our policy preferences passed into law.

*******

I thought she was doing fine up until that moment, but I'll bet that "false hopes" line stuck in a lot of craws. After all, I'm pretty sympathetic toward her, and it stuck in mine.

But what really struck Drum (pun not intended), was that this "false hopes" line was actually not new.

But what's surprising isn't just that the way she put it was horribly off-putting, but that it wasn't just a momentary gaffe. Back in December, when Obama's poll numbers first started turning up, she said the same thing:

Clinton's response has been to turn aggressive. For the second day in a row, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination in national polls sharply attacked her leading rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, using some of the harshest language of the campaign. Arguing that her campaign is in a "very strong position," Clinton hammered Obama for offering "false hopes" rather than action. She predicted that voters will want, in her words, "a doer, not a talker."

This language backfired back then, so why would she deliberately resurrect it in front of a national audience?

Possibly because she herself has no inspiration or hope to offer. Or maybe because she actually thinks that ideas and inspriration are unnecessary. Or maybe she doesn't care about the ideas and hopes of others because she thinks she knows what is best for everyone, so other ideas and beliefs are not needed. Or maybe she's just not that smart.

Take your pick.