Speeches don’t put food on the table, part II

I still have a problem with this stuff, it’s still her big point:

In recent days, Clinton has challenged Obama’s ability to deliver on his rhetoric. “There’s a big difference between us — speeches versus solutions, talk versus action,” she said. “Speeches don’t put food on the table. Speeches don’t fill up your tank or fill your prescription or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night.”

I can believe a lawyer is saying these things because I see the transcript, but the words still refuse to make sense. Clinton is doing Plato’s old trick, giving a speech that criticizes speeches. Plato, at least, seemed to be aware of the contradiction; sometimes I’m not so sure that she does. It’s fascinating to watch her, though, using her own considerable skill at speaking to bash the ability to give speeches. Her TV ads are filled with the same strange line of reasoning, with the “perhaps Senator Obama would rather give a speech than answer questions” line. If you buy a simple talk vs. action dichotomy, where talk=inaction and action=silence, I guess that’s persuasive enough for many people. But good laws getting passed (I assumed that’s the action she is referring to) need passionate advocates with backers speaking for them. Action and talk in politics are inseperable, just as they are in any other human situation.

Now if she defined “talk” and “action” in more fluid ways, I might agree with her, if she could show that Obama’s speech leads to ineffective or unconstructive action and is thus not as useful as her speech, which leads to effective and constructive action. But she would have to stop demonizing speech to do that.

Oh, and here’s a slightly better poll on Ohio from Rasmussen. Compared to the one I posted easier, Obama picked up 7 points in a day. Still 14 behind, but he has weeks to prepare, and he doesn’t have to win; he only has to make it close to keep the delegate lead.

One thought on “Speeches don’t put food on the table, part II

  1. I find it very ironic that she said it may take a Clinton to clean up after a Bush……..evidently she forgot that her husband is the one that signed Nafta and she has admitted that is is a mistake and is one of the causes of all our manufacturing jobs going overseas. If that is her idea of action, then I would prefer speeches because at least they would not damage us as bad as her husband policies, in which she supported.

You can leave a comment!