Pouncer-in-Chief

Just when it looked like it was safe to go back in the water, along comes Hillary Clinton doing her instant remake of Jaws. Is this how she plans to close the now 6-point gap with Obama by pouncing on statements he made at a private gathering, last week, in Northern California? Or, better still, is this high octane hardball how she intends to gain leverage, and widen the three point lead a recent poll now gives her over John McCain if the election were to be held today?

It's hugely absurd to watch yesterday's unholy alliance between the senators from Arizona and New York, both of whom smell blood in the water, neither of whom thinks principles are anything more than something one finds in one's bank account.

But, what was it exactly that Barack Obama said that has Hillary agitated, and showing off her newly cleaned fangs? Clinton assailed Obama for having said that working class voters, out of bitterness, "cling to guns or religion." Obama later elaborated that his focus was on how guns and religion are often security blankets for those who have no other way to deal with their frustration, a frustration that is virtually guaranteed to continue if either Clinton or McCain occupy the Oval Office come January, 2009.

What fascinates most is how conveniently, and readily, both Clinton and McCain channel another senator, Joe McCarthy, when challenging whether or not Obama is "American" enough. It's not so much her insistence that the Illinois senator is "demeaning," but that he is arrogant and, more importantly, that his remarks "are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans." But, the question is, which American's values does Hillary reflect?

How convenient now for her to invoke what she calls her "Midwestern values and an unshakable faith in America and its policies." Are we to infer from this attack, as was the case with Reverend Wright, that she thinks Obama's faith in America is shakable? And, if so, how can we sit idly by and allow yet another politician to challenge the "patriotism" af another in order to accrue political advantage? It's terrifying to think that anyone running for office, in 2008, can be allowed to swoop down, and play the Joe McCarthy card against their opponent, without being called on it.

Again, specifically, which American values are the former First Lady endorsing, those, as she says, of "Americans who believe in the Second Amendment because it's a matter of constitutional right. Americans who believe in God because it's a matter of personal faith" and, if so, what about the First and Fifth Amendment separation of church and state? Does Mrs. Clinton support those, too, or just the amendment most likely to push her lead, in both Pennsylvania and Indiana, back to the double-digit range?

Her newfound love affair with the Second Amendment, and big thumbs-up to those folks who think they have a divine right to bear arms, is her way to reassure the gun guys that, if elected, she won't take their toys away at a time when the Supreme Court is, for the first time in 70 years, deciding whether or not to let the Washington, D.C. ban on handguns stand. Her support of the gun lobby puts her squarely in McCain's lap, and in his camp.

This latest Second Amendment posturing of hers is egregiously ironic in light of the fact that her husband, while president, attempted to get serious gun legislation through Congress a decade ago in response to the school shooting in Flint, Michigan of Kayla Rolland, by her six year old classmate.

Yes, indeed, it was Hillary's husband, Bill Clinton, who appeared on primetime TV, nine years ago, to say that "every single day there are 13 children who die from guns." Imagine how many more children die today from guns. Notably, Clinton 's gun control legislation stalled because he faced a Republican Congress. Now, nearly a decade later, were she to be elected president, gun control legislation would stall not because of a Republican Congress, but because of a Democratic president. What next? A campaign ad showing Hillary Clinton lighting up a Virginia Slim, and pledging her support of the tobacco lobby?

Just to be clear, Hillary Clinton is taking up what she calls "unshakable faith" in America, she's taking up the Almighty, defense of constitutional entitlement to possess weapons, and there are even some who contend that she might go so far as to neutralize her position on a woman's right to choose if that's what it takes to widen her margin of victory in Pennsylvania.

Moreover, the Clinton camp's argument that Obama is "elitist and out of touch," and that they are the ones whose values best reflect those of the working-class in this country, is especially ludicrous in light of recent revelations that Obama's net worth is a fraction of the Clintons. But, one's net worth shouldn't be used as a yardstick for one's values, one way or another, any more than the fact that one is a Harvard-trained attorney should be used to impugn him as one who has a superiority complex, as Hillary alleges.

How can one fail to notice that Obama is a gentleman. He is a gentleman to concede that his remarks were poorly chosen. Indeed, it's not his remarks, but his running mate that is poorly chosen. Is it now a prerequisite for one campaigning to know how to fend off a shark attack? Do we want jaws, and wars? Presidents who deprecate the notion of diplomacy as naivete? Ones who visualize military urgency , in the form of 3 A.M. phone calls, instead of foreign policy strategies?

After yesterday's unwarranted, and unsound, attack on Barack Obama, there can be little doubt that Hillary Clinton is every ounce a political opportunist whose posturing on so-called "Midwestern values" instantly morphed when she ran for senator of New York, and who will morph again should she run against John McCain when she may try to prove that she's a better Christian, bigger defender of the right to bear arms, has higher testosterone levels, hence would be a stronger commander-in-chief, and may even neutralize choice by pushing alternatives to legal abortion by increasing funding to programs like Aid to Dependent Families.

As for health care reform, the only major change we may expect from a Hillary White House, in the health care arena, will be more Americans required to carry medical insurance at the expense of stocking their shelves, and refrigerators with much needed groceries.

When all is said and done, Clinton and McCain are not only united in challenging Barack Obama's American values, but they both ensure that George W. Bush's agenda will remain intact for at least another four years. Not that voting for Obama guarantees things will change radically, but it does assure one thing, that the iron hand can thrive in the velvet glove, and the possibility for dialogue and statesmanship still exists, as well as leadership that doesn't resort to the tired old practice of impugning patriotism in order to prosper.

If, as we suspect, Senator Clinton is setting herself up to run against Obama as McCain lite, in Pennsylvania and Indiana, in order to garner more working-class votes, then we should be hearing concession speeches from Hillary not from Obama.

Comments

[Countess]

I hope there is not a poll showing wife beating is popular because she would certainly support that if meant getting redneck votes.

[tangolopez]

So well written. I only wish the cable TV catch on to this. Just this morning Andrea Mitchell and the 'Today show seem to imply Obama is in a hole. Did you read the piece from CNN? Quite a lot of whites are voting for Hillary still because of health care and Bill. Sad...Sad....Sad

[StinkyPete]

Being of the demographic Sen Obama referred to - PA, gun owner, etc - I find his remarks incomprehensible. Bigoted in terms of the firearms issue, but we all are bigoted, seems to be part of being human. Best we can do is to try to eliminate it when discovered.
I could make some remarks about the difficulty some demographics have with firearms - but they might be interpreted as , well, bigoted. Better let Mayor Nutter (Phila) demonstrate his own issues with respect for the law when it comes to guns.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/city/20080411_Nutter_defiantly_signs_five_gun_laws.html

This whole gun thing the two Senators are in is nothing compared to the silliness we will witness when the SCOTUS decision comes in. There were two briefs submitted by members of congress. One for each side. Neither Sen Obama nor Sen Clinton signed either. McCain took a side.

Here is one side by members of congress

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacMembersUSSenate.pdf

Here is the other side by members of congress

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-0290acMembersofCongress.pdf

Neither of these candidates are fooling anyone here about their stand on firearms issues. They're just acting foolish.

[Zeusthunderbolt]

What Obama said , is true. And guess what , She gets it .They love their guns, and thir religion and they have no reason to belive that obama is any different from any other. Hillary is just putting his theory to test. The primary results will prove, wheather he is right or wrong.

[ljsfolly]

The one thing of which I have absolutely no doubt is that Hillary has remained a republican all of these years while hanging a Democrat sign in front of herself. She was once a loud and clearly republican before she met and married Bill. Her alignment with Bill one wonders was for what reason? Was it love I cannot say but the idea that they share a deep obvious hunger for power is so very clear that it has shown through the years. When they were in Ark there wasn't much heard but when they landed in the white house it seemed that after a "honeymoon" period the questions started. Hillary's healthcare plan was a bust and it wasn't even considered feasable and she was laughed at by many. The name Ken Starr will always be a part of their white house years. All of the scandals they brought with them so many and the bimbos with their stories seemed to pop up weekly. Now we know there was truth to many of these things but the clintons hid them well. Now Hillary and John McCain in lockstep and does anyone notice?

[dragn1]

Obama gun attitudes are clear. Stop production and sale of handguns, registration of all guns and a ban on assault weapons ( I am sure he has no clue what that is) . He is right down the line with Hilda. When the general election starts and he has to answer real questions on what he would vote for on guns you will see him falter.

[ddoston10]

The right to bare arms is a constitutional right. No president can change this right. Not even congress can. It takes a president, congress and 3/4ths of the states.

[shep1900]

Also, insofar as "bare arms" are concerned, I _do_ believe that all Americans are legally permitted to wear short-sleeves, or even tank tops.

[shep1900]

You are mistaken. The Constitution is referring expressly--and solely--to _militias_, not individuals. The Supreme Court is dealing with a serious case about this very issue right now, and while I assume they will parrot the tired old NRA talking points, if they were _actually_ "strict constructionists," they would expose this ridiculous twisting of the Founding Fathers' original intent for the tripe it is. However, if they rule based on intellect and legal analysis, and not partisanship, they can establish a very firm precedent which will correct this foolishness once and for all.

[dragn1]

Thanks Shep we needed the Bingo Group talking points. I am sure that is why Helmke has never read the federalist papers.

[crossoverwriter]

Hillary has nothing but the nonsense of "Bittergate" to prop her up. Oh, and her Annie Oakley plastic gun holster, and her clay duckies all in a line.
Plenty of good folks from Indiana and Ohio and PA are coming out and saying, heck yeah, we are bitter, so thanks for telling it like it is! So, her Bittergate BS will come back to bite her in her inflated A--.
Obama, yes we can.

[fairwitness]

It's inconceivable to imagine the voters could elect this megalomaniac liar without a conscience. The sooner this is realized, especially by the so-called "super delegates", the better.

Pennsylvainia, please save us from this woman. It's in your power to end this now.

[missjabez]

I've gotten to the point where I don't want to see Hillary Clinton on TV or hear her latest rants against Obama. The more she rants against him and tries to portray him as the Anti-Christ, the more I support him. I'm not saying Obama is perfect, but he certainly has a lot more character and class than Hillary does.

[coolrepublica]

So stop watching TV.

[scire]

Another thing that bugs the hell out of me: Clinton repeatedly tries to paint Obama as unelectable in the fall because, she contends, the Republicans are gonna go after him for all his gaffes and other weaknesses. No kidding they are. But does she think the Republicans are NOT gonna go after her for her corruption, and lies, and for her husband's corruption and lies? And which is worse, being a liar or being human?G-d knows, McCain has a knack for making political gaffes that far outshines Obama's and I'm sure once the primary is out of the way, he'll give PLENTY of fodder to the democrats that will rival, if not surpass Obama's weaknesses. I'd rather stack up his weaknesses against McCain than hers any day. On top of which, she'll have to backtrack on all her pro-Republican attacks on Obama if she's the nominee. Can you imagine the glee with which Rush Limbaugh and Fox will go after her "duck" hunting, pro-gun remarks? How is she gonna backpedal on those? The woman is, as Jane Smiley so aptly put it, "a craven shill."

[ddoston10]

Clinton is doing the Republican dirty work for them. Yet, this could have the opposite effect of what she intends. By bringing up these attacks, by the time the election comes around and the GOP uses the same line of attacks, people might respond like ... "that is old news. Tells us something we don't know."

[scire]

Hillary Clinton has no moral compass. She really doesn't. She's moral idiot, and so is her husband. I'm sick of the two of them. How she possibly thinks what she is doing to Barack Obama will make her more electable escapes me. He's not perfect, nor is McCain, but at least the two of them have a sense of ethics. People couldn't stand her going into this election. They're gonna like her more after it? Even if she wants to win, how can she be so disingenuous just to get votes? The Republicans would never do this to each other, which is one reason they always win.

[ImBitterInPA]

"It's hugely absurd to watch yesterday's unholy alliance between the senators from Arizona and New York, both of whom smell blood in the water, neither of whom thinks principles are anything more than something one finds in one's bank account."

I felt the same way. I think John McCain found his running mate and her name is Hillary Clinton.

[trevor01]

Comments Obama made at a private gathering? You must be kidding. There is no such thing as a private gathering for these candidates. It cannot be said too often - the object is to win the general election. Events of the recent past have made it clear, Obama cannot do this. Time to come to your senses.

[FogCityJohn]

If you think Hillary will win, you're dreaming. She's spent the last two months trying to demonize African-Americans using the Jeremiah Wright controversy, and now she attacks liberal voters as somehow being out-of-touch and elitist. It's apparently escaped her notice that liberals and African-Americans are the Democratic base. Trust me, we won't forget Clinton's vicious and unprincipled attacks. If she slimes her way to the nomination, she will find that we have better things to do on the first Tuesday in November than turn out for an unscrupulous crypto-racist like her.

[Massconfusion]

"Obama cannot win the general election"

And you have determined this how exactly? Crystal Ball? Your extensive personal polling data so super secret that you can only share your conclusion? Obama will have won after the first debate with McCain. Hillary already knows she has no hope of being the nominee this time - she is only engaging in well poisioning! This is who you want for president!

[grendl]

Hillary's actually employing a tactic used in another summer blockbuster from the 70's, the Jedi mind trick used by Obi Wan Kenobi.

Remember the one, where the guards asked to see their papers, and Obi simply through the power of verbal suggestion and mind control convinces them they don't need to.

Well, that's what Hillary has almost pulled off in Pennsylvania, a state in economic turmoil, saying " You aren't bitter, or angry, people...you're OPTIMISTIC!"

Adding to that she insinuates Barack called them unresilient. He never ever suggested such a thing. He said people in times of economic hardship, and disillusionment with their government gravite towards guns and gods, and yes sometimes even xenophobia as they watch their jobs farmed across international lines and oceans.

How is she going to pull this off. Is she saying theres no bitterness in a Phildelphia slum? And what about Iraq, a place which is the poster child for Mr. Obama's screed, where people have gravitated to gods, and guns and violence, and succumbed to bitter feuding. Is she going to go over there as well and try the Jedi Mind trick. You don't the Sunnis, you loooooooove them. You're optimistic about your relationship. Please.

[chasgoose]

Obama is not a gentleman. He is a crafty politician who refuses to address his mistakes by deflecting attention from them. Instead of backing off his statements, Obama compounded the problem by reiterating them with subtle word changes and attacking those who would dare to question his integrity. I have never seen a candidate so skillfully turn legitimate criticism into an attack on the critics themselves. Obama has found a way so that he is never held accountable for his missteps. Despite your claims, this is largely because Clinton has let him get away with it. The Republicans won't be nearly as kind.