I cannot even watch Mitt being interviewed because he instantly reminds of 1992 when I turned on the tube and there was the con artist from Arkansas.
What is clintonesque (or maybe not, just stupid) is people taking his under-oath obfuscations about the word “is”, and using it to argue that all words spoken must be taken literally or else you are being like Clinton.
There is a time for literal speech — while you are under oath in a civil case is one of those times.
And there is a time you use sweeping figurative flowery words — like when you are making a campaign speech.
As someone over at Hot Air said — if you were writing this speech, how would YOU get across the point that Mitt’s father marched in MLKs marches, was invited to march with MLK, supported MLK, had the support of MLK, and stood with MLK on civil rights, and do so in a single sentence?
“I saw my father march with Martin Luther King”. That’s how you would say it. Actually, I think you might say “I saw my father march side by side with Martin Luther King”. But that would get you in even MORE trouble with the Amelia Bedelia’s around here.