|
||
Paging John Edwards and Barack Obama: Your Republican Talking Points Are Calling!
If you compare last night's Democratic presidential debate to one of the classic, Las Vegas-style prizefights--from the high-stakes betting on favorites to the carefully-scripted, boxing-style introductions of the candidates from separate corners--then it's fair to assume that on the day after their struggling performance, John Edwards and Barack Obama are channeling Marlon Brando and mumbling, "I could've been a contender."
Could have, but, not quite. Edwards and Obama walked into the Sin City Showdown with the cards stacked in their favor. Hillary Clinton took a serious beating in the last debate--with more than a little help from Tim Russert and Brian Williams, thanks to Taylor Marsh and her delicious deconstruction of that transparent hit job--and familiar questions were once again raised on the Clinton brand of centrism and parsing. Edwards and Obama have focused their messaging on immigration, health care, Social Security, energy and Iraq--and these were red meat for working class Democrats in Vegas.
But something funny happened to Senators Edwards and Obama on their way to Las Vegas. Maybe the high-roller suites have complimentary testosterone and egos on the pillows, or, possibly they bumped into Elvis, who told them, "A little less conversation and a little more action." They lost their mojos. Instead of throwing the hungry audience sound bites that were wrapped in juicy, red meat, the two candidates tossed stale, Republican talking points at frontrunner Hillary Clinton and the audience booed and hissed. Actually, it wasn't funny. The specter of a Democratic crowd of casino workers, students and SEIU members booing the populist John Edwards was quite painful.
Unfortunately, Obama and Edwards have often parroted right-wing talking points against Clinton--from Obama's ridiculous "Cheney-lite" platitudes to Edwards' grandiose pronouncements on "electability." Last night was no exception. Only minutes into the debate, Edwards set the tone and declared Clinton was part of a "corrupt" and "very small, very powerful, very well-financed group" that is entrenched in Washington. Who are these people? Perhaps John was referring to United States Senate, a "very small, powerful, very well-financed group" that, umm, counted him as a member.
Clinton smacked it down with a warning across the bow. "I don't mind taking hits on my record, on issues. But when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it's both accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook."
Barack Obama also had an opportunity to test drive another not-so-carefully-scripted sound bite on Social Security, which his campaign desperately hopes to engineer into a signature issue. (HuffPo blogger Jonathan Tasini and others have reminded Camp Obama there is no Social Security crisis. Seriously.) His idea is to lift the cap on payroll taxes to completely to pay for Social Security. Clinton reminds Obama that Social Security is the third rail of American politics and the proposal is akin to "a $1 trillion tax increase."
"This is the kind of thing that I would expect from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani," Obama declared with a flourish. "Where we start playing with numbers--we start playing with numbers in order to try to make a point." Obama was loudly booed by the audience. Hopefully the not-so-bright speechwriter has a virtual pink slip on their Blackberry.
The booing and hissing at the Democratic debate did not necessarily happen because Hillary Clinton was the sentimental favorite, or, even as Edwards suggested, some of the questions were planted. The crowd gets it--even though Edwards, Obama and their strategists have not yet had the realization. Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake says it best: "You never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever."
Do not mimic, repeat, parrot and tender the same messages inspired, created, and dittoed by the Rush Limbaughs and Karl Roves. That should be Democratic Politics 101, especially after the lessons of the previous 15 or 16 years. Despite the meta-messaging of the Barack Obama e-telligentisa, this will not change. It cannot change because the right wing has an incremental "wedge" strategy that continually redefines the culture wars--expanding hate crimes to cover sexual orientation was just declared unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, Bill O'Reilly contrives a "War on Christmas"--on an almost daily basis.
Hillary gets it because she has been the right-wing's favorite punching bag. That's why she is leading, at least for now. "I'm ahead," she said, a not-so-subtle reminder to the Nevada audience that she leads in that state by almost 30 points.
John Edwards should get this one, too. His campaign has been hijacked by right-wing harpy Ann Coulter and her gay-baiting. He should get it, but doesn't. Obama will understand this one day--perhaps after Mitt Romney continues to link his name to a certain terrorist mastermind and the "play on words" becomes a full-fledged campaign slogan. Or, maybe he won't.
Republican talking points are never a winning hand when they are played by Democrats. So here is a memo to the staff, speechwriters, and, the assorted amen chorus of the Edwards and Obama campaigns: What happens in Vegas should stay in Vegas.
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
This is a really weak article. Just because Clinton generally attacks Obama and Edwards by proxy rather than directly does not make her tactics any less Rovian. If anything, it makes the Clinton strategy MORE like something out of the GOP's "swift-boat" and "crowd-stacking" playbook.
As for Clinton's lead, it should be noted that nowhere does she have a majority of Democratic votes. Most people who are not voting for Clinton in the primary now would not vote for her in future primaries either, some not even in a general election. let's see what happens to that lead when the weaker candidates begin to drop out. in either case, mr. mccollum's attack on obama and edwards does not bolster clinton's status in my eyes.
Looks like your Hillary talking points are a no sale around here, Rod. Better peddle them somewhere else.
Just because a pro-Hillary crowd boos one candidate and laughs at another, means their legitimate criticisms are Republican talking points?! Give me a break! The Republicans have far worse talking points and could very well use them to prevent a Democrat from taking over the White House in 2008. The points Edwards and Obama are making about Hillary are nothing new. But they are relevant to Democrats in making the decision of which nominee is best suited to win in 2008 and make the necessary political changes that can positively affect the lives of everyday Americans.
Since it seems it is off limits to question the "media" frontrunner we have made the complete circle to the repugs. Clinton has learned to say one thing and mean the opposite--along with the many other traits she shares with the Pres.All the back room deals and the closeness with Bush have taught her well.
As for me it would be nice if we could get a straight answer out of her but no dice., She is not anything at all what I want ---but between you the media and the pathological Marsh this is the one that will be lauded as best which is a joke of the highest order.
What this blogger fails to grasp is the fact that we are in serious trouble in this country because the Republicans have done exactly what he proposes Democrats do...walk the line...speak no evil....stay away from the facts and perpetuate the perception. I'm sorry that Hillary can't take the heat. Wait until the Republicans just bust her chops if she makes it to the general as the Democratic nominee. This is just a small, and rather gentile, challenge by Edwards and Obama.
The Clinton campaign has learned valuable lessons from the NEOCONS....turn the table on criticisms with deflection points that don't address the criticism....load the audience...obfuscate answers to questions...manipulate the press...and on and on. I am more and more disheartened by the Clintons. Hillary will not be President, at least I hope not. I don't want her as my candidate.
Rod McCullom,
You wrote your blog for the readers of HuffPost. Readers like myself. Clinton, Obama nor Edwards arent' reading this and neither are any of their team members. Why would they? Right?
So, since you are sharing with us HuffPost readers your tough challenges for Obama and Edwards, maybe you can answer a challenging comment about your blog.
For the record: My two picks for pres are Biden and Dodd, so, don't dismiss me as someone just argueing for Obama or Edwards.
1. Hillary accuses Obama of planning to dump a Trillion Dollar tax on the Middle Class.
2. Obama counters that the tax would not affect the Middle Class, because it only affects taxpayers who earn at least $97k a year. The top 6% of the country. Who are Upper Class.
3. Hillary answers that in the big picture there are some people who hold jobs that are traditionally Middle Class... while earning Upper Class pay who would be affected by this tax.
Her answer to accusing Obama of planning to dump a Trillion dollar tax on the Middle Class is that there exist a few people, less than 6%, in this country, who are working Middle Class jobs making Upper Class pay.
The truth is that the people who are just making $97k will hardly be affected by the tax. Less than a $1k more tax. It is the very very wealthy who are going to feel the tax. People making millions who have to pay enourmous ammounts of money.
She knows this. Obviously. She knows that she is deceiving the Middle Class when she says she is protecting them when she is really protecting the Upper Class. And she KNOWS that she is deceiving the public when she points a finger at Obama and accuses him of trying to tax the Middle Class.
My challenge to you is: explain how Obama was wrong when he accuses Hillary of being just like the Republicans? She took a LIE she was telling to protect the Upper Class and used it to accuse Obama of betraying the Middle Class!
I am sick of the meme that we and the other candidates are not allowed to question the positions and statements of another candidate. Welcome to George Bush's Amerika.
What an out of touch posting, speaking to Republican talking points.
Clear and truthful fact is that, it was *No* Republican talking point that Hillary is not electable, it was and has been a Democratic issue from the start of this Democratic Party campaign, raised by the Democratic electorate, because Hillary Clinton electability is very questionable.
Hillary Clinton is like rolling the dice on the future of our Nation, with loaded dice set to come up "Craps"! Handing the election to the Republicans once again.
Why take the risk? Just because Senator Clinton is our sweetheart, and is qualified to become President, the first "Woman" President, does not mean she can be elected to the highest office in the land, especially in time of war. Fact is, like it or not Senator Clinton comes with lead baggage around her neck, can she swim with it? I don't know, but I don't think it is worth the risk to find out by trial and error.
This is a must win for Democratic Party, Hillary is a "Maybe?" at best, even with the electorate screaming for change.
Were we all watching the same debate? Edwards and Obama were not using Republican talkin points but going after the Clinton 'triangulation" strategy devised by Morris. That is a legitimate question to ask - we don't want another fake Democrat in office who will bring us more NAFTA's. That aside, Kuchinich and Biden were both more effective than the three leaders but the media chooses to ignore them so they don't have a chance in hell of moving up in the polls. Kuchinich's voting record is far superior to Clinton's and Edwards. He voted correctly the first time around. No "if I had only known lines". And he actually reads the legislation coming before him - what a novelty. The attention paid to Clinton by the media is getting to be nauseating.
Rod, did you really fall for Hillary's 'Republican GOP play book' line, ... hook line and sinker ???
And as the old saying goes, 'Ya better check yourself before you wreck-yourself':
"Not only is Hillary more reliant on large donations and corporate money than her Democratic rivals, but advisers in her inner circle are closely affiliated with unionbusters, GOP operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists."
- The Nation
Source: The Nation(Hillary Inc.: The Corporate Ties That Bind, Ari Berman, June 04, 2007 issue)
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman
Leave it to the dems to eat there own . Hillary has shown herself to be the best candidate in the bunch , by a wide margin . No one else is even close ( fact ) . Congrat's Mrs. Clinton on another stellar debate performance . And to anyone keeping score she is 10 - 0 with one draw . And it took a gang of 8 - 10 men (girlie men) just to earn a tie .
This is WHY I will not vote for Hillary or any member of the DLC ever, period. NAFTA. NAFTA brought not only my state but many others to it's knees in a very short period of time. Companies couldn't leave the country fast enough and left whole towns in ruin. When the jobs and money dried up people lost their homes in droves, shop windows sat empty with for sale/lease signs in the windows everywhere, crime skyrocketed and the stress took a major toll on families and marriages. Those towns still sit empty and crumbling.
My husband is in radio. Once the Telecommunications Act was passed in 1996 a handful of Corporations went around the country and bought up everything. Again people lost their jobs in droves as these companies decided to syndicate half their programming and narrowed down the programmers and management to just a handful of corporate hacks. That same bill allowing all the consolidation of media is why are news channels have become a joke. My husband lost his last job at a Clear Channel owned station after making a George W Bush joke on the air.
Now I see my nephew shipped off to Iraq. A war based on lies that she supported. I will not go into the hatred I have for the cowards that voted for that and The Patroit Act and now the Iran Resolution but I will say the most deplorable action so far has been the torture. In case your unaware Extraordinary Rendition was also started during the Clinton years.
Hillary didn't fight against the Bankrupty Bill or the war. She openly defends corporate lobbyists and the top 6%. Bill now refers to the Bushes as his adopted family and calls HW "DAD", HOW SWEET.
Can anyone tell me why she would be good for America? What she really believes in? I KNOW Kucinich and Paul would NEVER take a bribe. I know McCain would NEVER condone torture. I know Barack really believes he can change the world. I know Edwards would really fight for the poor. Hillary????????????
What bull!
I can't believe the ignorance of Hillary supporters claiming Obama and Edwards were parroting righ-wing talking points.
They did nothing of the sort.
The GOP attacks Hillary for being too liberal... for wanting to cut and run... for wanting to raise taxes.
Obama and Edwards attacked her for being a corporatist insider... for wanting to stay in Iraq... too right wing, which the GOP never does.
Whoever is selling this distortion sounds desperate in their blatant lying.
The manipulation of the crowd in LV seemed rather obvious too.
Hillary used Reid's son to plant her supportes to boo anyone who challenged her, she plnted questions and then, had the likes of Carville and Gergen who are beholden to her husband and the bogus CNN reporters spinning. They even tried to stop Obama from delivering this Zinger but he did anyway.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CxSh
HILLARY IS A GUARANTEED WIN FOR REPUBLICANS!!!
THEY WILL RALLY AMERICANS LIKE NEVER BEFORE TO MAKE SURE A CLINTON NEVER GETS NEAR THE WHITEHOUSE!!
Hillary CANNOT deliver in the general election. PERIOD!! Stubborn dems NEED to FACE THIS FACT!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
