Again with the constitution. The second half of his statement would seem to negate any suspect negative allusions proferred by the first part. But the video tells a different story, to me anyway. He comes out with this very emphatic constitutional reference, using the self-satisfied tone of one who knows he's nailed it... then seems to catch himself, glances down and to the side to pick up another thought to cover the too-revealing comment.
Obviously, this is not an exact science, (and I detest those charlatan body-language experts that conjure meaning out of hay fever or tight underwear, like on O'Reilly's show), but we're now watching him with the advantage of more than 12 years of accumulated pattern. Reading him now is a much easier proposition.
Here's the video: http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/Former-Pres-Clinton-speaks-about-Obama/1217931831.html
“He comes out with this very emphatic constitutional reference, using the self-satisfied tone of one who knows he’s nailed it... then seems to catch himself, glances down and to the side to pick up another thought to cover the too-revealing comment.”
Let me stipulate that WJC is a slimey horn-dog. That said, I think you are reading too much into his remark. It appears to me that the reporter asked him whether he thought Obama was qualified to serve as president; the self-satisfied smirk came from Clinton’s finding a way to duck the question while seeming to answer it. Implicitly his answer amounted to: “Obama is technically qualified (because the Constitution says so), but the PEOPLE decide who would be the better president. There’s now 2 choices (Obama and McCain).” Of these 2, Clinton believes Obama should win.
The sneakiness of his answer lies in that a) he never provides his personal opinion of whether Obama is qualified in more than a pure technical sense; b) he frames the answer as being a choice between Obama and McCain (and hence never has to even implicitly address whether Obama is more qualified than HRC or whether SHE “should” have won the
nomination/presidency; and c) he’s left enough ambiguity about “should” that some will interpret it as WJC’s endorsement of Obama as the better candidate while others will interpret it as I believe Clinton intended it: in light of the conditions specified—i.e., that the people will choose—Obama “should” (i.e., is likely to) win. I think it is a forecast/speculation, NOT a normative statement.
“He comes out with this very emphatic constitutional reference, using the self-satisfied tone of one who knows he’s nailed it... then seems to catch himself, glances down and to the side to pick up another thought to cover the too-revealing comment.”
Let me stipulate that WJC is a slimey horn-dog. That said, I think you are reading too much into his remark. It appears to me that the reporter asked him whether he thought Obama was qualified to serve as president; the self-satisfied smirk came from Clinton’s finding a way to duck the question while seeming to answer it. Implicitly his answer amounted to: “Obama is technically qualified (because the Constitution says so), but the PEOPLE decide who would be the better president. There’s now 2 choices (Obama and McCain).” Of these 2, Clinton believes Obama should win.
The sneakiness of his answer lies in that a) he never provides his personal opinion of whether Obama is qualified in more than a pure technical sense; b) he frames the answer as being a choice between Obama and McCain (and hence never has to even implicitly address whether Obama is more qualified than HRC or whether SHE “should” have won the
nomination/presidency; and c) he’s left enough ambiguity about “should” that some will interpret it as WJC’s endorsement of Obama as the better candidate while others will interpret it as I believe Clinton intended it: in light of the conditions specified—i.e., that the people will choose—Obama “should” (i.e., is likely to) win. I think it is a forecast/speculation, NOT a normative statement.