Hillary Clinton, taking a brief break from scolding Obama's "bitter" remark, also launched a new attack on her Democratic opponent in her speech in Pittsburgh today, focusing on his stance on the upcoming Beijing Olympics.
The problem: It's also kind of her stance, when she's not attacking him.
She argued that Obama hasn't made a decision on whether Bush should boycott the opening ceremonies, and said it shows he won't stand up to China:
“Now, I’m still waiting for my Democratic opponent to give us a clear answer on the Olympics, he says he is of two minds. Well, as a president you’ve got to be able to make up your mind and you’ve got to be able to stick with your decisions. And if you can’t stand up to China over an opening ceremony, how are you going to stand up to China when it comes to trade?”
This would make it appear that Clinton has decided that the opening ceremony should be boycotted. But as recently as March 25, she said, “Let’s wait on that; I don’t have an opinion on that.” So, in 19 days, not deciding yet has turned from her position into a big litmus test of leadership?
She next raised it on April 7: "At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government."
Notice the phrasing: It allows her to pretend that she has called for a boycott, but actually she hasn't -- she's said the president should or should not boycott, depending on whether China makes "major changes." Which is really no different than what Obama said in his response::
"If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the President should boycott the opening ceremonies....Regarding the Beijing Olympics this summer, a boycott of the opening ceremonies should be firmly on the table, but this decision should be made closer to the Games."
Hillary then teed it up again last Wednesday with this statement: “I wanted to commend Prime Minister Gordon Brown for agreeing not to go to the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing. That was an important decision by Prime Minister Brown and I am calling on Senators McCain and Obama to join me in my request that President Bush also not attend the opening ceremonies.”
One problem: You can't tell if her previous qualification -- "major changes" -- still applies. Another: She was "wrong" about Brown, who was skipping only the opening ceremony,according to the Times of London:
"Downing Street said that Mr Brown publicly accepted an invitation from Wen Jiabao, the Chinese Prime Minister, to attend ......
....the Games when he went to China in January. According to officials, he told Mr Wen that he would go to the closing ceremony as that would mark the handover to London for the 2012 Olympics."
Even the Dalai Lama, Tibet's leader, is undecided, the Times noted: "Tibet’s spiritual leader, who used a visit to Tokyo to make an attack on China’s violent suppression of free speech, said that if matters improved on that front he would 'personally want to enjoy the big ceremony.' ”
So where does this leave us? One possibility is that Hillary actually does want to close the door on negotiations over Tibet and Darfur, and simply boycott China's opening ceremony without trying to use the threat of a boycott as leverage to affect their behavior -- which is an unusual approach to helping people in Tibet and Darfut.
The other possibility is that, like Obama and McCain, she believes the threat of a boycott should be used as leverage and -- despite her pose -- has left the door open to not boycotting. But because she has used a "boycott... unless" sentence, and falsely claimed that the British prime minister is on her side, she feels entitled to pretend to be more resolute.
Is she really going to tell us that the Dalai Lama isn't tough enough, either? It's all just playing with words to fabricate an attack line. Misleading cleverly is a presidential skill? Democracy means fooling people into thinking there are issues where there aren't? It's supposed to be more than word games.