Hillary Clinton has said that she has been fully vetted and there will be no surprises if she emerges from her struggling campaign to win the nomination. However, whether through their own fault or not, the Clinton's do indeed have many potential surprises. Today's Washington Post carries an article showing what we might expect in the general election. I raise this only as a counter-argument to the claims being put forward by the Clinton campaign, not to endorse any criticisms of the Clintons. I feel this is an issue they brought up and that it is only right to provide a counter-argument.
Clinton Library Got Funds From Abroad
Saudis Said to Have Given $10 Million
By John Solomon and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 15, 2007; A03
. . . .
The royal family of Saudi Arabia gave the Clinton facility in Little Rock about $10 million, roughly the same amount it gave toward the presidential library of George H.W. Bush, according to people directly familiar with the contributions.
The presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has for months faced questions about the source of the money for her husband's presidential library. During a September debate, moderator Tim Russert asked the senator whether her husband would release a donor list. Clinton said she was sure her husband would "be happy to consider that," though the former president later declined to provide a list of donors.
The article goes on to detail some charges of questionable fund raising practices by Bill Clinton. The fact of the matter is that the Clintons have not been entirely open books and hence there is a potential for surprises. They have, perhaps justifiably, developed a bit of a bunker mentality, and do not exactly have a reputation for openness and the credibility that comes with it. Since certain donor lists and records remain secret, we cannot rule out surprises for a Clinton general election campaign. The fact is that not all of this material has been fully vetted. You're naive if you think that the vast right-wing conspiracy hasn't kept some of its powder dry. Moreover, the performance in recent weeks of Mark Penn and the rest of Hillary's campaign has not helped persuade anyone that she has the best, "most polished" campaign. Her own performance in debates has been equally unimpressive. In my opinion, she has not performed as well in debates and interviews as Obama, Edwards, Dodd, or Biden. As a candidate, she is a little better than Richardson.
As far as Obama and "surprises" we've seen what the Clintons can throw at him and how he handles it. I think he's been very effective. His campaign staff has performed far better than Mark Penn. He has that rare and valuable political skill of making his attackers look silly and petty. In the general election we can expect innuendo about his relationship to Rezko, but that issue has been investigated and Obama wasn't involved in anything shady. Rezko is to Obama as Fortress Investments is to Edwards. We can also expect more of the racist whispering. I think Obama is more than capable of handling that. Above all, I think that Obama is a candidate with one crucial thing that it takes to fight back: credibility. Hillary does not even have good judgment on her pro-war votes in hindsight. When Obama gets attacked on foreign policy he can point out that he was right when his detractors were wrong. That's exactly what happened when Obama smacked Romney in a recent exchange. Touting the surge, Romney said "thank heavens Obama wasn't president". Obama replied by pointing out that if he had been president we'd have stayed out of Iraq and on the hunt for bin Laden. That's a strong, credible, non-flipflopping response that other candidates can't make. Furthermore, Obama has made a legislative career of making government more open, ethical, democratic, and accountable. Obama has delivered concrete legislation at both the state and federal level. His commitment to fundamental reform is unquestionable. That is why he is considered more trustworthy than the Clintons. This is a credibility gap they simply cannot make up.
Hillary's closing argument is that we should vote for her and not Obama out of fear of the right-wing smear machine. I believe the best way to take on the right-wing smear machine is to nominate a real, credible agent of change with a track record of delivering it. I don't think that Hillary's closing argument holds any water.