The Ever-Shifting Clintons

A reader writes:

She just went there. Hillary said to Newsweek that "even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to." Funny, a couple of weeks ago when Politico reported that a senior Hillary campaign person said they might try to peel pledged delegates from Obama, there were furious denials and suggestions that the notion was simply outrageous. 

Could you perform a public service and collect a bullet point list of Clinton campaign contradictions and reversals?

Four more immediately leap to mind:

HIllary telling a New Hampshire reporter back in October '07 that New Hampshirites should not be upset that she chose to leave her name on Michigan ballot because "clearly" the Michigan votes won't count.  Hillary dissin' Mississippi in Iowa when she could not imagine Mississippi would matter. Hillary telling Stephanopoulos in December of 2007 that the race will be over on February 5 and telling Texans that she "always knew" Texas would be a big battle.  Penn saying that the race is about acquiring delegates until it became clear Obama was winning more delegates. 

There must be another dozen obvious statements made on one day that, within a short time, were "no longer operative." You should challenge your readers to send in more. Then we can ask the question: how can she get away with it?  Will the press vet her absolute lack of concern over consistency?

 

Alas, they won't. But the pattern is exactly the same as it was in the 1990s. They will say anything to anyone any time it suits their interests. When their interests change, so do their statements. Hitch's useful little monograph on the Clintons had a title that sums up their exhaustive and exhausting shamelessness: no one left to lie to. And yet, as the Clintons know, there always is.