Obama Takes on the Queen of Hearts
At one heated point in Monday night's Democratic debate, a perturbed Barack Obama finally blurted out to Hillary Clinton what millions of others have been thinking these past weeks. After Clinton said that what her husband says might be different than what she says or what her campaign says, Obama disgustedly said "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."
Sorry it's come to this, but this Democratic primary nominating process has, indeed, become all about Bill Clinton. Thanks to Hillary Clinton.
The ex-president has been rolled out as campaign attack dog to bark, bite, snap and tear away at Obama in a way that Hillary -- as candidate -- cannot and will not.
Hillary can't have it both ways. You can't deploy the clout of your husband the ex-president in the middle of your campaign and then not take responsibility for every word he utters, every action he undertakes. Right down to his shameful direct intervention in a crucial polling place in last Saturday's Nevada caucuses.
But there's deeper point. Who exactly is Hillary Clinton anyway if not someone who has parasitically attached herself to the legacy and record of Bill Clinton? Without having been his First Lady, if not exactly his only lady, Ms. Clinton would be but a corporate lawyer turned junior senator from New York and with a less than sterling voting record -- including her authorization of the war in Iraq, approval of a war-mongering resolution on Iran and an inglorious bill to criminalize the national epidemic of flag-burning.
"Elections are about the future," Clinton said tonight, parroting the most moth-eaten of campaign clichés. But Hillary has made it strictly about the past as her only affirmative argument for the future is to resurrect the politics of the previous decade.
In Monday night's debate, all three candidates went at each other. But Obama finally opened up some cuts on the Clintons, calling out Hillary for lecturing him about supposedly being soft on Reagan. "While I was working in the streets watching those folks watch their jobs shift overseas," he said staring at Clinton and referring to those who suffered under Reagan's policies, "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart."
It might be too little too late on Obama's part. But it was absolutely the right thing to do. Hillary has made Bill, his record, his approach to politics, his policies, his style and her embodiment of all the above the central issue in the campaign. The only honorable position for any opponent of Clinton's is to take her -- and him -- on.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Wow. It sounds like, with the exception of clear-thinking Sarnold, PolNut, janmB and dcazal01, it's all of YOU who will destroy Dem chances in November when H.R.C. is her party's nominee. The media's blind date turned unconditional love affair with the flowery B.O. is appalling, yet you all act as if Hillary should sit still and be clobbered by the non-stop garbage thrown at her. If she weren't fighting back, I'd be worried. No doubt she will endure a bump in the road in SCarolina, where, as the African-American man on the lengthy ABC news story over the weekend said, no black men would ever vote for a woman to be president. Ouch. As for spouses, yes, they can certainly say some obnoxious things. My favorite was from Michelle Obama, who warned voters in Iowa: If you don't elect my husband NOW, we will not be available to you again. That certainly sounds like a couple who would do anything for their country, not at all like ambitious opportunists who feel they deserve immediate homage and the ultimate respect.
Obama knew from the beginning that he would ultimately by running against Bill Clinton and should have been directing his campaign along that line. I have felt that Bill wants another crack at the Presidency even though our laws prohibit a third term in office. If the American people allow this, they deserve what they get. I view Hillary as the dummy for a master ventriloquist. Being originally from the South, I know a snake oil salesperson when I see one. Good luck, America, we are going to need it.
Wow. The debate was heavy. Hillary needs to lighten up. She is starting to act like her husband who seems to be taking charge at mud slinging. Hillary brags about her 35 years. What, Whitewater, Bill with Monica in the White House, and who knows whatever else that could be hidden. It looks like her huband is running again. Obama unfortunately has his hands full, but I was pleased to see him finally dish it out the way he did. Hey if they want to be like the has beens they are, then expose them and stand up to them. Obama is trying to lead us in a better direction than we have gotten ourselves into, thanks to Bush and Cheney who have screwed it up pretty bad. We do not need the Clintons in the Whie House again. Hillary appears mean, rude, and full of prunes. Obama is what this country needs, something fresh and sincere.
My opinion of the Clintons continues to fall. Bill Clinton is a former president of USA for Christ sakes. He is acting like a little Rovian desciple with his "paraphrasing" kindly put, of Obama's remarks.
Hillary Clinton is a fatally flawed candidate for the same reason she is a viable candidate..because of Bill Clinton. Can you imagine 6-8 months of Republican strategists reminding all of us of what went wrong with his presidency.
If she is the nominated, we will lose. That is sad given what has happened to this country teh past 8 years.
Hillary is NOT qualified to be commander in chief...she hides behind Bill and weeps. End the Clinton Dynasty now (and, I do mean "nasty") And, what is with muzzling Chelsea?
Here's what Obama must do in his campaign if he wants to win and beat the Clinton machine: He must create mental pictures with words of what a Hillary Presidency would look like and what we could expect so voters can better understand what he means by a new political transformation. Here are a few samples of pictures I would paint for voters: 1. What would happen if Bill got caught again with his pants down while living in the White House? Can't we all imagine how the GOP spin machine would go full blast trying to destroy the Clintons? And what could Hillary accomplish as President having to fend off attacks like these? Yes, the Clintons would fight back from years of experience in doing this, but isn't that the dynamics we would all prefer to avoid at all costs? The reason the Clinton are so adept at fighting back is because they have become targets. Maybe not fairly so most of the time, but that doesn't seem important. We already know another Arkansas Project will start up the minute Hillary wins the Presidency if one already hasn't.
No. 2: What if we faced another terrorist attack or major catastrophe that could be blamed on the President ie Hillary? Do you think the GOP would rally around Hillary to confront the problem or would go on the attack? If you picked the latter choice, you would be correct.
No. 3. Who could best deal with problems in the Middle East and gain the trust of more leaders there? Someone who supported the war and thought getting rid of Saddam was a good idea even after it was proven he didn't have any WMDs or someone who thought the whole idea of invading Iraq was bad for all of the right reasons?
No 4. What if there was a scandal involving a cabinet member or someone else higher up in the White House? I bet the GOP would go on the attack to try and bring Hillary down before the next election?
RJ Crane, topplebush.com
This piece is exactly right. In fact I found it interesting that after I called the Obama campaign and suggested they cleverly mention that he has to run against two people instead of one, that's exactly what he did in that debate. So I am glad someone besides myself noted Obama's comment.
But what needs to be made clear is this. Hillary is using Bill as her attack dog while the other candidates have been using their spouses in a different way. Yes, some of these spouses like Elizabeth Edwards haven't always made the kindest remarks about their opponents, but I don't recall any of them attacking the other candidate's statements, record, or deliberately falsifying the other candidate's statements like Bill is doing. Bill is deliberately distorting Obama's statements knowing that he will need to respond to correct the record, as he should. Then when Obama does respond, they respond by claiming he is playing the same politics as everyone else. In other words their strategy is to bring Obama down to their level instead of raise the level of discourse up to a higher one.
If this is the type of politics Americans are disgusted with, they should reject the Clintons. If instead we want to see a war of "what the meaning of 'is' is" vote for Hillary and Bill because you do understand that with Hillary you will be getting two Presidents for the vote of one.
RJ Crane, topplebush.com
i think staunch hillary supporters are misinterpreting many of the posts in here. i am undecided as it appears many of the posters in here are. i know i will not vote for hillary. i like obama but i like edwards as well. it's also a shame that people like joe biden, richardson, and dodd are not still in the race. every one of them more electable than hillary.
this isn't about obama supporters bashing hillary.
its about the dishonest campaign they are running which targets obama. the clintons bash obama more than the current administration.
let us not forget that 6 months ago in all polls hillary had a huge lead in every state over all the other candidates. then bam, obama starts gaining and actually wins a bastion of whiteness like iowa.
that's when the clintons realized they better start doing what they do best....lying, smearing, and spinning. that is the cold harsh reality. this is not about america for bill & hillary it's about power and winning what they both feel is their entitlement. they clearly feel it is their turn - truth be damned. this is why they are becoming more despised by the day.
"Who exactly is Hillary Clinton anyway if not someone who has parasitically attached herself to the legacy and record of Bill Clinton? Without having been his First Lady, if not exactly his only lady, Ms. Clinton would be but a corporate lawyer turned junior senator from New York and with a less than sterling voting record -- including her authorization of the war in Iraq, approval of a war-mongering resolution on Iran and an inglorious bill to criminalize the national epidemic of flag-burning."
You are so right The Clintons are dirty politicians who will do anything, smear anyone to gain power.I admire Barack for taking them on as they are vicious, vitriolic and will take actions against their opponents that are despicable and at times skirting the law. God help us if she ever gets elected as the country will be polarized even worse than now. 1/2 of the people polled said they would NEVER VOTE FOR HER.
You have given journalists a bad name and you are not the only one. The media has given Obama a free pass for too long. If the media won't ask the tough questions, Bill will. Tell me any media outlet that doesn't like Obama.He has no ideas. It's all talk and fillibustering during debates.
All you Obama supporters should wait till Super Tuesday and tell us what you think. If he can't take this heat from Bill and Hill, how can he take the Repub. attack machine?.
Political candidates should be fined each and every time they intentionally distort an opponent's records and held accountable for this kind of unethical behavior and slander. Example, Hillary's recent statement she made on Meet the Press in which she said: "Sen. Obama's chief strategist accuses me of playing a role in Benazir Bhutto's assassination.'' When in actuality David Axelrod never made such an accusation. He said former Prime Minister Bhutto's death will ''call into issue the judgment'' of ''taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq.' The leaders we elect to office should be held to a higher standard and should be people of principal, high moral character, honest and forthright.
Unfortunately, Senator Obama had no choice other than to diplomatically confront the Clintons on their lies and misstatements. He cannot and could not allow them to paint a picture of him that is NOT TRUE. The Clintons' tactics are old time party politics and should be a thing of the past as we move towards cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner politics, towards a more holistic way of living. It is a greater duty and in the best interest of the country for Barack Obama to continue to stay positive and hopeful while attempting to clear his record from these misstatements -- and to continue to show the American people and the world there is another way to run for office other than smear and fear and tearing your opponent down with lies and slander -- Swiftboating! How can we as a country be blessed and be a beacon of light to others after all that ugly and dirty fighting (lies, distortions and slander. There is a positive way -- honorable way to fight with dignity, honesty and truth and a dirty way to fight that is unethical and slanderous and without dignity.
And too, we have to ask ourselves as a people, why do we allow this unethical and negative way of campaigning to be acceptable and then reward this kind of behavior, with one of the highest offices in the land?
It isn't unfair at all. With one Democrat governor after the other, one senator/representative after the other, throwing their support behind Obama, either on principle, because they hate the Clintons, and here is an opportunity for payback, or because all the White politicians who continue to carry a certain amount of guilt thanks to their forebears' adherence to slavery and segregation, have decided to give this "viable Black Presidential Candidate" a free pass, so that the race equality scales can be balanced, once and for all, and have unified and are uniformly dogging Sen. Clinton. Pathetic, truly pathetic!
What is Clinton supposed to do - sit back and take the beating because she is married to the most controversial politician in America? You have got to be kidding!
When all is said and done, America is still a haven for the chauvinist - a black man is preferable to a woman, because a woman who aspires to higher office is not uplifted in your eyes; no, the public chooses to besmirch her reputation and confirm that she is a female canine. In this aspect, even Pakistan is a more enlightened country - go figure!
Hillary has been goading at Obama's temper for months. She finally found the right button to push. Obama has said from the beginning of this campaign that he would not resort to mud-slinging. His come-back to Hillary was long overdue. She pissed him off ~ finally ~ and he threw a mudball back at her. 'bout time.
And isn't it interesting that while Obama responded honestly and forthrightly to the slumlord charge, Hillary let the Wal-Mart corporate board charge slide.
Why? While Obama worked five billable hours as an associate (AKA worker bee who had no say in the decision to take on the client - a church! - he had to work for) in a law firm, Hillary spent six YEARS on the board of Wal-Mart, making hundreds of thousands of dollars. Five billable hours at even a generous $300/hr doesn't come close. And for all of Hillary's pro-union talk, let's remember Wal-Mart is the biggest union-hater in the country, and their record with women and minorities, while it has improved as the result of numerous lawsuits, has historically been downright disgusting.
Even as the Clintons do their damnedest to drag him into the mud, to prove he's just a politician like they are, Obama continues to strive to speak with a forthrightness and integrity that Hillary - who was again in attack mode throwing mud the day after the SC debate - cannot or will not match. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I for one am sick of Clintonian politics.
I'm not registered with a political party, but since the Democratic primary in California is open, I get to vote. Obama was my third choice after Kucinich and Edwards, but for a variety of reasons, including incisive reasoning from a number of people whose opinions I have come to respect, I am voting for Obama next month.
A word about campaign contributions. People may not be aware that the most an individual can give to a candidate during a primary campaign is $2300. During an general election they can give another $2300. Check out their websites if you don't believe me. When you make a donation to a candidate you have to divulge the name of your employer, saying if "None" if there is in fact no employer. You also have to divulge your position title with that employer, again saying "None" if there is none. So, say a lot of people from a large employer each give individually to a certain candidate, in the public reporting requirements it can appear as if an employer has made a large contribution to a candidate, which in fact, those monies are the total of many individual donations from one employer. This happens a lot for probably all of the candidates.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
