“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.
Worth repeating...
Your analysis makes sense. I tend to favor Occam’s Razor whenever an explanation is up for grabs, and this certainly fits. If it were this one comment by Bill, taken by itself, then I’d readily agree with you that I read too much into it. The only reason I felt it worth mentioning was that I DID notice it, and it’s the totality of the comments between the tagteam of Hillary and Bill that bothers me. At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised at too much. That said, your well-reasoned comments hold weight, and I’m happy to cede. Should there actually turn out to be any real subtext, we’ll find out in most definite terms anyway. Won’t have to speculate.
Thanks for your post.