Cafe Hayek: More on Hillary Clinton's Tears

« Sincere Tears | Main | Naomi vs. Milton» Russell Roberts

January 08, 2008

More on Hillary Clinton's Tears

Don Boudreaux

"Student" and some others wonde r what Ms. Cllnton said, during her tearful episode yesterday in New Hampshire, that gives me solid ground for pointing out that the former First Lady and current U.S. Senator from New York lusts for power and shed her tears, sincerely, at the (terribly delusional) thought of her own greatness and importance. You can read here what Ms. Clinton said. And below is a letter that I sent earlier today, on this matter, to the Wall Street Journal:

Surely I'm not alone in being horrified by the soaring narcissism and arrogance that Hillary Clinton revealed yesterday during her tearful moment in New Hampshire ("Tears Have Turned Campaigns," January 8). She confessed that she could not maintain her brutal campaign pace if she "didn't just passionately believe it was the right thing to do." The Senator continued: "I have so many ideas for this country, and I just don't want to see us fall backwards as a nation. This is very personal for me."

No one person is as important to a free country as Ms. Clinton fancies herself to be. More fundamentally, her burning "personal" desire to subject all Americans to her "many ideas" is evidence of a frightening itch to be a social engineer. Anyone itching as badly as Ms. Clinton claims to itch to rule over others should never be trusted with power.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Now here's an interesting discovery: just now, as I went back to this WSJ report, I see that the quotation attributed to Ms. Clinton is changed somewhat from what was reported earlier. Now it is reported that she said "I have so many opportunities from this country, and I just don't want to see us fall backwards as a nation. This is very personal for me." That is, "opportunities from" has replaced "ideas for." I assume that the updated report is the correct one. Still, I don't see that this update in any way diminishes the narcissism infecting Ms. Clinton's comments. Indeed, "I have so many opportunities from this country" seems to me potentially even more revealing of the woman's power lust and grotesquely inflated sense of self-importance. (The Wall Street Journal was not the only publication to mis-quote Ms. Clinton. New York Magazine, for example, also did so.)

Posted by Don Boudreaux in Current Affairs, Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e54fc5fc458833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on Hillary Clinton's Tears:

Comments

So it sounds like you got all worked up over a *misquote* in the WSJ? Interesting.

Well, I'm glad that we got that cleared up. But I still have to disagree with your reading of "opportunities from this country" (what I always heard, having watched it myself on YouTube). That sounds very HUMBLE to me. It sounds to me that she has recieved so much from this country that she doesn't want to see it fall behind. Really, that's the only reading I can find that makes sense of all the comments made during the Q&A.

But, that's just me. Like I said in the last thread, none of this has to do with what actually happened (as this update clearly shows). Some people see Hillary as power hungry and selfish and I will just have to accept that. I'll take deep breath from now on before I post.

Posted by: Student | Jan 8, 2008 8:45:33 PM

Um, stupid, er, student, that is just your gullibility.

Far from divining Hillary’s intentions, Don is confirming the false investment, but true politician, axiom “Past performance is a direct indicator of future returns.” And the ability of the media to get it wrong, ex post (and ex ante in this case).

Would that this were true in the investment world.

Hillary is very predictable.

30.56% IN: CLINTON 39; OBAMA 36;

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Jan 8, 2008 9:14:26 PM

You're right about Clinton, but the received wisdom about Edmund Muskie has never appealed to me. I don't know Muskie's campaign lapsed after N.H., but I find it hard to believe the he lost support over reaction to the article about his wife. This sequence of events makes for nice drama, but that's all.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jan 8, 2008 9:34:16 PM

That’s right Martin, Ed Muskie cried, too (for you younger viewers).

What a pussy.

Oh, shit, sorry. This is a libertarian blog, right? Can I swear here?

Um, this is all entirely political theater, is it not, and was that not the point of Don’s original post?

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Jan 8, 2008 9:42:57 PM

Shocker: Hillary wins in stunning comeback!!!!!!!!

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won New Hampshire's Democratic primary Tuesday night in a startling upset, defeating Sen. Barack Obama and resurrecting her bid for the White House. Sen. John McCain powered past his Republican rivals and back into contention for the GOP nomination.
Clinton's victory capped a comeback from last week's third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses and raised the possibility of a long battle for the party nomination between the most viable black candidate in history and the former first lady, who is seeking to become the first woman to occupy the Oval Office.

Cue the Ohio State Marching Band!!!!! Or the Wellesley Mar…..er, Ouachita Baptist University marching band…? Central Arkansas State marching band….NIU Marching Band? Chicago Cubs Marching Band?

At least Vassar had a rugby team…

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Jan 8, 2008 11:09:08 PM

She lusts for power because she just wants to help others! This interview with John Roberts of CNN after the emotional incident shows that she only wants to give children health care and save American jobs! If only we would let her do it.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/08/clinton-i-actually-have-emotions/

"I'm so other-oriented. You know I'm not good about talking about myself. I don't get up and think about how I'm going to present myself. I think about, 'What am I going to do today to actually make a difference in someone's life?'"

Posted by: Student #2 | Jan 8, 2008 11:48:24 PM

I've heard the tape of her quote many times. It sounded to me like she said "opportunities for", not "opportunities from."

I remember it because it was a strange word construction, "I have so many opportunities for this country."

Posted by: Flash Gordon | Jan 9, 2008 12:07:11 AM

Thinking about the insufferable egos of (most of) today's presidential candidates, can one possibly imagine any of today's aspirants - upon election to the Presidency - doing the kind of fence mending that Abraham Lincoln did?

Lincoln persuaded his three top rivals for the 1860 Republican nomination to be his Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General.

In an interesting book, Team of Rivals, The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln , Doris Kearns Goodwin relates how William Seward of New York, Salmon Chase of Ohio, and Edward Bates of Missouri agreed to serve under Lincoln.

Lincoln also included a number of prominent (anti-slavery) Democrats in the Cabinet.

Unimaginable from today's politicians.

Lincoln actually asked Seward for suggestions on his speeches.

The Library of Congress website tells us about Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:

"Until the final draft, Lincoln's address had ended with a question for the South: "Shall it be peace or sword?" In the famous concluding paragraph, Lincoln, following the suggestion of Seward, moderated his tone dramatically and ended on a memorable note of conciliation:

[Lincoln:] 'I am loth to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stre[t]ching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.'"

Lincoln's "better angels of our nature" was an improved twist on Seward's suggestion of "Guardian angels", probably much better than the "sword"

Amazing in comparison to today.

Posted by: bill_lever | Jan 9, 2008 12:40:57 AM

The part that got me was "this is personal for me." What does that mean? Is it, "That'll teach those nasty Republicans to do those terrible Republican things?" Or as in, "I'm gonna show all those guys who thought they could diddle me in college because I wore those goofy glasses?" Or maybe as in, "This is the only thing I've ever wanted in my whole, entire life since even before I knew what 'issues' and 'polls' were."

Tell me true believers, what could it mean that "this is personal?"

Posted by: M. Hodak | Jan 9, 2008 12:42:41 AM

It doesn't mean anything. Its just theatrics.

Posted by: G | Jan 9, 2008 12:51:11 AM

G, you don't sound like much of a true believer!

Posted by: M. Hodak | Jan 9, 2008 12:55:03 AM

“A clearly agitated Obama threw drugs the crowd, daring them to prove that he injected Roger Clemens with ‘Stretch Armstrong’ –oids.

Now that would be progressive political theater…..

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Jan 9, 2008 1:09:53 AM

Hilary has won! ..... beaten the odd and the tipsters.

Posted by: Neil Duckett | Jan 9, 2008 1:37:12 AM

Indeed.

Hitlary has won, yet again.

We're all crying now...

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Jan 9, 2008 2:27:34 AM

I hear the quote the same way Flash Gordon hears it: "I have so many opportunities FOR this country..."

Bill Lever,
Interesting stuff on Lincoln. Thanks.

Posted by: brotio | Jan 9, 2008 3:02:11 AM

"What am I going to do today to actually make a difference in someone's life?" - Hillary Clinton

Remember this question, and if she ever serves a term as president, remember to answer it.

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Jan 9, 2008 4:34:21 AM

Student:
You completely miss the point. Her goal is to become president. To do so you have to win two games (primary and general elections). Once you win the latter everything you have said becomes meaningless. You don't have to follow anything you said. So your greatest chance to win is to say what people want to hear.
I really hope you never venture into a poker room in Vegas, Biloxi, AC, or even your hometown. You'd probably continue to believe that everything the people at your table say is true.
As I've said before, politicians make poker players look honest.

Posted by: Jay | Jan 9, 2008 6:58:42 AM

The heart of the question is not the politician himself, but the system. The poker metaphor is accurate, so the game must be changed. This is what Hayek has to say:

"WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO BLAME POLITICIANS FOR DOING WHAT THEY MUST DO IN THE POSITION IN WHICH WE HAVE PLACED THEM. We have created conditions in which it is known that the majority has power to give any particular section of the population whatever it demands. But a government that possesses such unlimited powers can stay in office only by satisfying a sufficiently large number of pressure groups to assure itself of the support of the majority. (Hayek, "Law, Legislation and Liberty", Vol. III, 15).

Posted by: Fabio Franco | Jan 9, 2008 8:04:22 AM

I have so many opportunities from this country is much worse than the original..

Posted by: Mathieu Bédard | Jan 9, 2008 8:14:12 AM

Fabio Franco,

In regard to the quote from Hayek. The incentives which a person faces when making a decision do not absolve them from moral responsibility. In fact, a man of high moral standards, is exemplifed, by one who makes a particular decision irrespective of the incentives, escepting his desire to do the right thing. The details of a particular political system might explain why politicians act the way that they do, and why few people of moral character go into politics, but they do not absolve anyone of responsibility or blame for their choices.

Hayek is here committing the same ethical fallacy so frequently committed by his opponents, and suposing that a casual explanation, once attained, absolves an actor from responsibility. If we applied such a standard consistently, nobody would ever be held responsible for any of their choices, which is not far from what many on the "left" already do.

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Jan 9, 2008 9:35:03 AM

I've now seen the video and it's a little hard to tell whether she said "for" or "from." I still think she said "for." And that makes more sense to me. She is saying that unless SHE is elected the country will miss out on the wonderful opportunity of having SHE WHO MUST BE APPRECIATED as its leader.

Posted by: Flash Gordon | Jan 9, 2008 9:36:32 AM

When I first heard the crying tape I thought that she was playing the sympathy card and that it would get her enough of a bump in the female vote to roll over Obama. Now it appears I was right. Many are calling the CRY as the turning point in NH.

The Clinton machine is a powerful force. SHE may have found her "I feel your pain" technique. Maybe Oprah will sue Hillary for trademark infringement.

Posted by: Flash Gordon | Jan 9, 2008 9:40:45 AM

I have a brother who has a libertarian mindset. After reading here I'm understanding the mindset better. The complaint is that Hillary is only in this for herself. Arguably everyone does everything for themselves ..... mother Teresa and Gandhi made themselves feel better by doing for others. I think that's a hard concept for one with a libertarian mindset. I think much of this is genetic and likely of evolutionary significance. The divisions of labor in society truly required a village to raise a child. Warriors, craftsmen, Shamans and caretakers all were needed.

So while I have little doubt that Hillary "is in it for herself" she, a high powered Yale Law student who took her first job with the Children's Defense fund is likely a great choice for the type of leader our country needs. She who's first scholarly paper, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review and became frequently cited in the field is far more likely to lead this country in a good direction that benefits the society as a hole even those who don't understand the purpose of society or some how feel they are independent of it.

Bottom line is that no one hear really understands the heart and mind and soul of Hillary Clinton or any other politician. Most analysis here are really some sort of psychological transference of ones own personal beliefs not being able to understand others who really do think differently from themselves.

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 9, 2008 10:01:47 AM

Yes, muirgeo, God knows we need more leaders who want to benefit "society as a hole."

Posted by: Nick | Jan 9, 2008 10:07:57 AM

More fundamentally, her burning "personal" desire to subject all Americans to her "many ideas" is evidence of a frightening itch to be a social engineer. Anyone itching as badly as Ms. Clinton claims to itch to rule over others should never be trusted with power.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Now of course if she was advocating a flat tax, complete deregulation of the health care industry, postal competition, and an end to social security then of course I assume she could be trusted with the power of her position even though such ideas would be fabulously undesirable by the overwhelming majority of citizens.

So I have to ask who really has the lust for power? Who is it that really wants to push their unpopular views onto the masses? Don Hillary's ideas are backed by the American people... yours are not. A leader who represents the will of the American people IS a good leader. A leader who represents yours or my views is NOT likely a good leader.

Here's the part of America I think a lot of libertarians just don't get, " ....he knows that it's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we are all connected as one people." Barak Obama

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 9, 2008 10:11:35 AM

What Clinton actually said was,
"I have so many opportunities FOR this country..."
Listen to that videotape again.
I also heard a sobby vocal delivery, but didn't see much in the way of actual tears.
It was more like a tearful little earful.
I'd also be surprised if it wasn't scripted and prompted-as-planned.
But how presidential is that, even if it had been genuine?

Posted by: Zalophustra | Jan 9, 2008 10:15:50 AM

I'm no expert on electoral dynamics. It's too complex for me to understand, but I think the "feminization" of Hillary through that crying act (sincere or not) is a very risky move for a would-be President. I frankly don't think the general electorate is ready for a feminine president. They might be willing to elect the tough, liberal-trying-to-look-centrist Senator Hillary, but not the Hillary who reminds them of the mom next door complaining "there's so much I want for my kids" with a quavering voice. Could you imagine Margaret Thatcher crying? This episode may have lure a few extra liberals from Obama, but all the voters are going to remember this image come November.

Posted by: M. Hodak | Jan 9, 2008 10:17:22 AM

Running for President IS hard. But, it's hard for Obama, Edwards, McCain, Romney et al too. Hillary is the only one whining about the burden.

Because she's the one--with the possible exception of Edwards--who's the narcissist among the candidates. She justifies her ambition by telling herself she's only in it for 'the country' or the 'people'. In the same way Evita Peron justified her jewelry; she wore it, 'for them'.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | Jan 9, 2008 10:42:13 AM

I still think that Pres. Hillary Clinton will be the one who launches a strike against Iran.

Posted by: The Dirty Mac | Jan 9, 2008 10:43:32 AM

Muirgeo

I hesitate to feed you but here I go.

Libertarians are as skeptical about candidates who promise the things we want to hear. I like Ron Paul, partly because his voting record is very very solid.

However I would NOT simply flip to suport Huckabee if he started talking a nice line about deregulation. You assume we're sheep. Stop assuming that and maybe you'll understand us better.

Posted by: Jon | Jan 9, 2008 10:47:37 AM

Now of course if she was advocating a flat tax, complete deregulation of the health care industry, postal competition, and an end to social security then of course I assume she could be trusted with the power of her position even though such ideas would be fabulously undesirable by the overwhelming majority of citizens.

The difference, muirgeo, is that these policies involve not subjecting others to ideas, but freeing them to make their own choices with their own ideas. The equivocation, which you have pulled numerous times, is mistaken.

Think about it. If we are to avoid imposing on others, then we seek to leave them free, in liberty, to chart their own course. However, according to you, such policies are imposing on others who would rather do otherwise, and the "otherwise" in question? Imposing on people.

Do you not see the paradox?

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Jan 9, 2008 11:21:49 AM

Everyone is getting the importance of this wrong. It was not a humanizing moment of emotion such as crying because the pound took away your puppy. No, this was the emotion of a woman with a deep love for our country and a broken heart over where it may head. Her passion for America is what touched so many people who saw her tears.

Posted by: Nick | Jan 9, 2008 11:56:50 AM

According to muirgeo:

"Here's the part of America I think a lot of libertarians just don't get, ' ....he knows that it's not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we are all connected as one people.' Barak Obama"

So typical for a liberal to use something so trite and substance-free to prove their supposed moral superiority. I don't know a single person, libertarian or otherwise, who would deny what Obama said.

However, it is completely irrelevant. There is no evidence that raising taxes, increasing regulation, and spending the country into bankruptcy will lead us to feel more "connected." It is just empty, demagogic rhetoric designed to inflame the passions of those who are incapable of thinking logically.

Posted by: Brad Petersen | Jan 9, 2008 11:57:03 AM

Well said, Lee Kelly.

Just a thought I had the other day, this seems like a good place to throw it in;

The success of the democratic form of government depends, not on the extent to which the will of the majority is carried out, but on the extent to which the rights of the minority are protected. The masses can always have their way. The question is whether or not they require the minority to participate against their will. The consequence of an oppressive majority will always be subversion, insurrection, and very often violence.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 9, 2008 12:00:37 PM

Put Hillary alone in a room with Putin and then she will really be crying! God help us if Hillary wins- I will be extremely embarassed to have this woman as my President as I would be to have Huckabee and his fat kids all over my TV for 4+ years. Strangely, although I strongly disagree with most of his (stated) policies, I would be proud to have Obama represent me. Obviously, the same goes for Giuliani and McCain.

Posted by: Hudson | Jan 9, 2008 2:09:41 PM

Ahh, Randy gives us his usual needle of truth in a haystack of fuzzy thinking. He's worried about the minority getting picked on by the majority, but in today's America our biggest problem is the tiny minority picking on the vast majority. Think of the small groups of do-gooder-totalitarian bureaucrats who dictate our toilets, our light bulbs, our bumper crash speeds. Think of the small group of people (lefty scientists) who think they can cram all sorts of radical changes down our (the majority's) throats because of the certain impending doom of global warming. Think of the protectionists who would be happy to have me pay $50,000 for an american car so I can pay for the 30-hour work week and endless health care needs of unionized auto workers.

No, it's the majority of us working slobs who have to fear the tiny (numerical) minority special interest groups competing for access to my time and money that we need to be afraid of. Instead of sobbing for the little guy, I think we should judge the success of a democracy on how well it can leave the majority alone!

Somebody pass Randy the smelling salts.

I love you, man.

Posted by: Mark | Jan 9, 2008 2:14:11 PM

You've got a point there, Mark, and I'm onehundred percent in favor of finding a way to get the political class to leave everyone alone. The biggest obstacle to achieving that is that the political class has convinced the demos that it is on their side - that the enemies of the political class are the enemies of the demos as well - and that government is the solution. Result; you think I need smelling salts and a tinfoil hat. And I think you need to stop taking the little red, white, and blue pills.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 9, 2008 2:40:23 PM

Morpheus just offered me the choice between red and blue.

Posted by: Mark | Jan 9, 2008 2:41:58 PM

Good one :)

Posted by: Randy | Jan 9, 2008 2:59:49 PM

Posted by: Brad Petersen

Bull crap!. What do you mean no evidence? We deregulated and shifted income to the wealthiest in the early 1900's and it was followed by a Great Depression. In the 1930's we increased taxes, increased government programs and were able to win WW2 in less time then we've been in Iraq. We then went on to have the most prosperous country ever and the most prosperous time for our country relative to all others. We had an enormously well off middle class.

Now again the Freidmanites have been running policy and the country, it's economy and it's middle class are teetering on another breakdown. And once again the people are rejecting these policies in an overwhelming tide of dissent. The wealthy make 400 times the average worker and want more of the status quo... but we have 400 people for everyone of them and they will lose because people reject plutocracy and elitist rulers.

3 separate occasions of our own country's history prove you wrong.

Posted by: muirgeo | Jan 9, 2008 5:50:03 PM

Nick,
Brother....i just got home from practicing my beloved capitalism and read muirducks stupidity above and you beat me to it. i can't believe that you're the only one that picked up on it.

When I read this:
"that benefits the society as a hole even those who don't"
My immediate thought was "yeah, does that mean the idiot thinks she is going to screw that hole in a pleasureable way?"

You gotta love muirduck, without the village idiot our little community would sorely lack for someone to poke fun at.

The "it takes a village to raise a child" thing is not understood by Hillary Clinton and it isn't understood by her sycophant muirduck.

They both think the philosophy is about the village dictating to and controlling the child, who incidentally happens to be parented by old somebody else, not worth mentioning.

The true meaning is correct, but it is the village supporting the parent in the parent's teaching and discipline. The villages I lived in as a youngster worked that way very well. My parents taught me, I went out into the village and if I misbehaved someone in the village reported it to my parents and I caught hell. If I went out into the village and acted honorably, someone in the village reported it to my parents and they praised me with pride.

Yes it takes a village, but leave it to the socialist to totally screw the meaning and method up.

But then connecting socialist and screwup in a sentence and continuing in any way is redundant.

Posted by: vidyohs | Jan 9, 2008 9:43:22 PM

Does muirgeo even read his/her own posts. You claimed that big government made us more "connected" -- whatever that means. Nothing in your ignorant rant about the Great Depression or the Friedmanites has any relevance to that discussion whatsoever.

muirgeo: "We deregulated and shifted income to the wealthiest in the early 1900's and it was followed by a Great Depression."

That has to be the most ignorant explanation of the Great Depression in quite possibly the history of the world. Ever heard of the contraction of the money supply that preceded the depression... or the Smoot Hawley tariff. Guess not.

muirgeo: "Now again the Freidmanites have been running policy and the country, it's economy and it's middle class are teetering on another breakdown."

This is just la-la land stuff. The idea that the Bush Administration is applying Friedman's teachings to the U.S. economy is just laughable and reveals an ignorance that is simply staggering.

Posted by: Brad Petersen | Jan 10, 2008 12:28:39 AM

Nothing expresses my reaction to Clinton's teary Q&A than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN4JeMMoGJI

Posted by: jackson | Jan 12, 2008 1:21:51 PM

"Now again the Freidmanites have been running policy and the country"

Where do massive ethanol subsidies, expanded entitlements, and Sarbanes Oxley fit into this?

"In the 1930's we increased taxes"

We = President Hoover primarily. Give "credit" where its due.

"were able to win WW2 in less time then we've been in Iraq"

The US has the means to destroy the opposition in Iraq in about 30 minutes if it really wanted to.

Posted by: The Dirty Mac | Jan 13, 2008 12:34:16 AM

"Now again the Freidmanites have been running policy and the country"

Where do massive ethanol subsidies, expanded entitlements, and Sarbanes Oxley fit into this?