"Yes, these days it takes a lot of money, a lot of glad-handing, a lot of talking up the benefits of ethanol in Iowa, a lot of skirting around an issue if you think a particular ZIP code disagrees with your actual feelings on the matter . . . . All things it would seem that a John Bolton type would find himself at a disadvantage."
--Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editorial, Wednesday
Well, there's no confusing John Bolton, a former jack-of-most-trades in a couple of administrations, with Hillary Clinton, who used to live around here somewhere. Can you imagine John Bolton not answering a question directly? More likely, his PR people in any campaign of his would be doing their best to get him off-camera soonest, lest he tell another reporter something way too close to the truth, and much too directly.
So no need to worry about his candidacy. He pulled himself out of the running for president of the United States last week.
If you go looking for his opposite--somebody definitely in the running in 2016, but who might not come clean in a press interview on a bet--try the former first lady of Arkansas, and at one point, these other states.
Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported how Big Labor was all-in for Hillary Clinton, even as she has skirted around the issues Big Labor loves, or hates, most. Or as somebody active in labor politics told the paper: "Hillary's about the only person we've got who's viable."
What support, what backing! After "she's all we've got," what ringing endorsement could possibly come next? Somebody explaining that she's better than nothing?
Big Labor is fighting the latest trade agreement, this one with a dozen or so Pacific Rim nations--just as Big Labor fought NAFTA all those years ago when the president's name was . . . Clinton. The thing is, the current president, this one named Barack Obama, is pushing the latest trade agreement, and his former secretary of state supported it when she worked for him. But as the fight heats up, Hillary Clinton is . . . not so much silent as neutral. In what could be considered a deluge of information coming from the Team Hillary campaign, she issued one statement and answered one question on the trade deal.
In New Hampshire several weeks back, she told reporters: "Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security. We have to do our part in making sure we have the capabilities and the skills to be competitive."
(Pause.)
(Longer pause.)
Who could disagree with that? That wasn't as much a statement as just linking truisms and hoping it makes sense. Or maybe hoping that the reporter is so confused by the gibberish that he moves on to the next question.
Any trade deal has to produce jobs? Who would-a thunk? And increase our prosperity? Isn't that the point of all trade deals? We have to be competitive? Who thinks otherwise?
Her statement reminds us of far too many editorials in modern America, in which too many newspapers have decided the best way to keep readership is to never offend anybody on their editorial page. Instead, say nothing in as many words as possible. It's an easy process, actually. Just give the background of today's topic, make the case for both sides, throw in a couple of platitudes, and after 15 or 20 inches, wrap it up with Attention Must Be Paid and move on to the next day's work. Maybe some of Hillary Clinton's advisers are lapsed editorial writers? It wouldn't be hard to believe.
But not just the candidate and her handlers have chosen to say nothing--at length--when it comes to the latest trade deal. In a speech last month, the AFL-CIO's president said anybody who wants Big Labor to back their campaign had better come down against the trade deal. Asked what he thought about Hillary Clinton's not-exactly-in-opposition "stand," the AFL-CIO's top man said . . . not much. Something about how Hillary Clinton needed to go on another listening tour.
Other reps in Big Labor say as long as Hillary Clinton doesn't campaign for the trade deal, they're not inclined to say much against her. Or as the president of one union said: "Right now, personally, there's no reason she should take a position on [the trade deal]. She's not a government official."
Well.
Some would say she certainly wants to be a government official. Namely, the president of the United States. It would seem that on a matter as important as free trade, somebody wanting that job would take a stand, one way or another.
And not just speak. But say something.
Editorial on 05/21/2015