Rushing to the defense of the Clinton waffle

Whenever the Clintons get in trouble some sage will step forward to make the case that it is OK and good to lie or in this case to waffle. Steven Stark does the job on the value of misleading voters.

Hillary Clinton is on the defensive, now that her opponents have honed in on her apparent flip-flops and "waffling" in this past week's debate. In truth, she's getting a bad rap -- or, at least, getting rapped for the wrong reasons. What she was trying to do was admirable: presidential candidates need to preserve their policy options and "waffle" as much as possible. What's worrisome -- both for Democrats and the nation at large -- is how badly she does it.

When you're running for president, you don't want to take a stand in the primaries that will come back to haunt you as a general-election candidate, especially in a long campaign, during which events can change. The ultimate goal isn't to win in February; it's to win next November. More important, if you want to be a good president, you don't want to take a stand that will tie your hands once in office.

...

All politicians change direction, of course, and they also waffle, because voters have two contradictory demands. On the one hand, they want leaders who will do the right thing, independent of public opinion. On the other, they want leaders who will listen to them and do their bidding.

The better politicians resolve the contradiction seamlessly, squaring the circle. Bob Kerrey didn't mean it as a compliment when he once said that Bill Clinton was an "unusually good liar," though Clinton's weakness was also his strength. The same thing, to differing degrees, might be said of FDR, Ronald Reagan, or even "Honest Abe." (Clinton's problem was that he chose to lie at the wrong time -- under oath.) Hillary, unfortunately, unlike her husband, is an inordinately bad liar. And that's why she's under fire.

...

Remember how surprised many Democrats were when George Bush set out to do exactly what he said he would do in his campaign for election. That they would be surprised tells you a lot about Democrat politicians.

What Stark is doing is trying to say it is alright to be a Democrat and say whatever it takes to get elected. I call it the politics of fraud. It involves the material failure to disclose. It is necessary because Democrats can't say what they really believe and get elected. His point appears to be that Hillary is just not as good as Bill when it comes to the politics of fraud.