View Story | 74 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Personally I think that, from what I've seen, the Clinton attacks have been as fair and accurate as most of the attacks that are heaved back and forth in political campaigns.
Most of them -- including ones made by us and the candidates we support -- are mostly true but are shaded a bit to help our side. That's part of politics. Realistically I think we're attacking Clinton for being a good politician, the type of politician we'd cheer on if the opponent was a Republican or even the right kind of Dem (Lieberman).
I get that Obama is a great guy, and I like him too. But we shouldn't be bashing Clinton for doing what we expect and want our candidates to do in every other race.
by Philosopher on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:06:24 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
I would add that it isn't really necessary for Obama to bring up any of the 1990's stuff because it's already out there and has been for quite a while. Moreover, the COM is more than happy to do it for him. Obama's complaints about having to fight both the Clinton's are well taken, but given the pure white hatred the COM holds for the Clinton's, perhaps it takes two of them to fight back.
Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse. ~ Lily Tomlin
by vigilant meerkat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:17:21 AM PDT
So lemme see if I'm clear about this.
Obama shouldn't bring up any of Clinton's 90s stuff because it's already out there?
Should Clinton bring up Rezko -- the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times exhausted the story to death last year and found nothing... isn't that also "already out there"?
The Planned Parenthood sponsored "Present" votes were more than 5 years ago... aren't they "already out there"?
Come on... you're asking for a ludicrous double standard.
I guess everyone's got their own blog now.
by zonk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:24:48 AM PDT
Obama can bring up anything he wants to bring up, of course. I was merely pointing out that he may not feel the need to do that given the extensive coverage all of the Clintons' many exploits have already received and continue to receive. I don't know what Clinton "should" have done re Rezko. I do not now, nor have I ever supported a double standard, much less "a ludicrous double standard." I really don't like what is going on from either side, but neither of these two is my candidate. I'm an Edwards supporter, so I don't have a position on this.
by vigilant meerkat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:50:12 AM PDT
I just don't want to see my candidate boxed into a position where the primary basically becomes nothing more than "How many and how big a punch can Obama take".
For example, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on his new SC ad... the "Say Anything, Change Nothing" ad.
I like it. I wish it wasn't necessary, but Obama's been getting both barrels from the Clintons for a few weeks now - and I don't see where or how he really has any choice but to return fire.
by zonk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:59:37 AM PDT
but I'll check it out. I agree that it must be frustratingly difficult to be taking fire from both of the Clinton's.
by vigilant meerkat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:20:01 AM PDT
How is taking fire from the entire GOP going to be in the fall?
by Pozzo on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:56:43 PM PDT
he can't bring it up. It's that its been brought up to death and is likely to be bad politics for him. If he wants to run on 90's Clinton era scandals, go for it.
by Pozzo on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:56:04 PM PDT
not to others. I agree with you.
by vigilant meerkat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:06:50 PM PDT
"The right kind of Dem" -- that's sorta the point.
You see - I've voted Democratic my entire adult life - starting with my very first election in 1990. I've always voted Democratic because I believe in Democratic policies.
I suppose I was what you'd call a yellow dog Dem voter... not because of blind party loyalty, but because I also understood that not everyone, everywhere is going to win by running as Teddy Kennedy (believe me... growing up in Indiana, I certainly knew that.)
But -- what shifted my from Democratic voter to Democratic activist wasn't that the issues had changed... it was that the way the GOP pursued those issues changed. Between 2000 and 2003 - the time I got behind the feisty little doctor from Vermont - I started to recognize that we weren't seeing Republican policies enacted, we were seeing them enacted because the GOP was running on pure vitriol It was doom, death, destruction. It was the nastiest of the nasty. The innuendo. The way they conducted themselves that ultimately moved me to get involved.
I got involved not just because I didn't like our national trajectory -- I really came to despise what vehicle was carrying us on that trajectory.
Now?
I'm seeing a Democrat trying to do that same thing to a fellow Democrat.
Let me be clear - I will NOT vote for John McCain... but John McCain was right in 2000 when he said to George Bush after the debate and the whole Rovian smear campaign "Not everything is politics, George."
I mean - seriously, Philosopher -- come on... We've now seen two incidents of Clinton campaign supporters at high levels disavow her campaign and its tactics.
Can we really say it's "just politics"?
Where is the line?
by zonk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:22:35 AM PDT
& say that you like the way karl rove campaigns. that disseminating lies & conducting slanderous push polling is the way politicians should be elected? that honesty & integrity have no place in american politics? that would only be "shading" what you've said here.
Anyone who advocates, supports, defends, rationalizes, or excuses torture has pus for brains and a case of scurvy for a conscience. - James Wolcott
by rasbobbo on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:26:56 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 74 comments