Hillary Clinton's communications director keeps sprouting nonsense and lies. According to CNN Wolfson lashed out at the media Monday during a conference call for what he described as a "double standard" in the way the press covers Clinton and Obama.
Furthermore a hypochritical Wolfson maintained it is Barack Obama who is running a negative campaign and that the press largely praises him for doing so. Wolfson accused Obama and his campaign of attacking Clinton in the worst kind of personal ways, attacking her veracity and credibility.
"When we have attempted to make contrasts with Sen. Obama, we have been criticized for it," he said. "That is a fact of life that we labor under. I reject the notion that Sen. Clinton has been engaged in this sort of seriatim attacks on Sen. Obama. I think Sen. Obama's entire campaign against Sen. Clinton is negative.
"I think he has run against her as the status quo, he has essentially called her divisive, he has called her untruthful, he has questioned her credibility, he has said she will do and say anything to get elected," Wolfson also said. " If that's not negative, I don't know what negative is."
Bullocks of course. And I'm not surprised in the hypochritical ways of the Clinton campaign. If there's one Democratic campaign that has gone negative then it's the Clinton campaign.
Wolfson denied the Clinton campaign was going negative, and faulted the press for not distinguishing between the contrasts Clinton is drawing and the personal attacks the Obama campaign is launching. Again bullocks, it's clear the Clinton campaign is trying a double standard: we may throw everything but the kitchen sink at Obama but don't dare to shoot back.
So when Clinton calls Obama pretty much an empty suit that's not going negative? When he is accused of plagiarism, when negative TV spots and character attacks are being run, that's not negativism? When he's pretty much accused of cowardice for not debating her and never leading on the issues, that's not negative?
And what has the Obama campaign done regarding to negativity? Mainly replying that it's the same old politics of destruction. Is this negativism? No, it's the simple truth... but apparently it stings...
Reminds me of a Harry Truman quote...
I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and they think it's hell.
An other Clinton attack that bothers me alot is that she has 35 years experience and is ready to lead from day one whereas Obama is inexperienced to lead.
She says it over and over so that people will think she actually has 35 years of experience in government. She doesn’t. Let’s clear that up once and for all.
Hillary Rodham Clinton was elected to the United States Senate by the people of New York on November 7, 2000. That means as of the writing of this blog post, she has exactly, 7 years, 3 months, and 26 days experience in government.
Other than that, she has been the wife of a Governor and a President. If your husband is plumber and has been for 20 years, then you decide you want to be an plumberand do so for 7 years, you can’t claim you have 27 years experience as a plumber. Experience is nontransferable. You don’t get experience through osmosis.
The rest of her experience is in the private sector as a lawyer. She sat on some boards of nonprofit organizations. Having the wife of the governor on the board lends creditbility and prestige to the charity. So it does not surprise me she got to sit on some boards. She also sat on the board of Wal-Mart. Having the wife of the governor on their board wasn’t a bad move for them since there was state legislation pending that could have stopped Wal-Mart from opening stores in places where it would put local small businesses out of business. None of that passed of course and Wal-Mart can open anywhere they want.
Compare this to Obama's actual experience of a little more than 3 years in the US Senate and eight years as a state senator, then you see their actual elective office experience isn't that much apart.
Besides, experience isn't everything... in 1856 the man who became president was probably one of the most experienced political men in the field. He had served ten years in the U.S. House of Representatives, eleven years as a U.S. Senator, he had been U.S. Minister to Russia and U.S. Minister to Great Britain and U.S. Secretary of State and yet James Buchanan was a disaster... Compare that to his succesor who had one term in the U.S. House of Representatives and four terms in the Illinois House of Representatives but is now revered as the greatest U.S. President ever...