Clinton on the Attack: Obama Said Gambling Hurts Poor
Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:37:21 PM PDT
An interesting turn of events. Clinton is now attacking Obama for past statements that gambling can have a devastating effect on poor communities, in an attempt to pet large casino owners and gambling industry executives allied with her campaign:
LAS VEGAS -- Barack Obama has warned about the dangers of gambling -- that it carries a "moral and social cost" that could "devastate" poor communities. As a state senator in Illinois, he at times opposed plans to expand gambling, worrying that it could be especially harmful to low-income people.
Today, those views are posing a problem for Obama in the gambling mecca of Nevada, which holds its presidential nominating caucuses Saturday. While his top rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, also talks often about aiding low-income Americans, she has embraced the gambling industry and its executives, and her campaign has used Obama's past statements in an effort to turn casino workers and other Nevada voters against him.
I find this beyond the pale.
To attack a rival for commitment to poor communities and skepticism of unregulated gambling, for short-term political gain, is cynical in the extreme.
First, Clinton surrogates, with Bill Clinton's vigorous defense and support, tried to disenfranchise workers on the Strip with a (rightfully rejected) lawsuit -- an action roundly condemned by the Democratic National Committee and many commentators -- and now the Clinton camp has allied with casino executives to argue that Obama is threatening their livelihoods.
The issue has come into focus primarily due to the Clinton campaign, which has distributed a document to local reporters, headlined, "Obama Blasted Gambling as Socially Destructive and Economically Irresponsible," listing several of his past quotes.
Among them are a 2003 comment in the Chicago Defender, a black newspaper, in which Obama argued that the "moral and social cost of gambling, particularly in low-income communities, could be devastating."
In 2001, the Clinton memo states, Obama described himself as "generally skeptical" of gambling as an economic development tool and likened the expansion of slot machines to the state lottery, in which, he said, "you'll have a whole bunch of people who can't afford gambling their money away, yet they're going to do it."
As part of its efforts to publicize those statements, the Clinton campaign has secured the help of top industry players -- several of whom participated in a campaign-sponsored conference call with the media last week designed to chastise Obama.
Now, Obama is hardly dogmatic about gambling. Rather he takes the pragmatic view that the industry needs strict regulation, and he voted to limit rapid expansion of the industry in Illinois, while remaining open to its established footholds elsewhere in the nation, like Nevada. In short, his outlook was cautious and skeptical, but not ideological. His criticisms were singularly focused on the impact of the industry on the rural poor -- rather progressive skepticism, I should think.
So is being "generally skeptical" of expanded gambling because of its impact on the poor now something that Democrats should be ashamed of?
According to gaming executives and lobbyists allied with Clinton, indeed:
Former Nevada Gov. Bob Miller, an official in Clinton's campaign and a board member of International Game Technology and Wynn Resorts, said Obama's stance was reason for Nevada voters to choose Clinton.
Obama, said Miller, has been "critical not just of gaming in Illinois, but gaming as an industry. Sen. Clinton, to the contrary, has always been supportive and understanding of our industry." He said he was not speaking for Wynn Resorts or International Game when talking about the presidential contest.
Satre, former chairman and chief executive of Harrah's Entertainment, said he too would help raise money for Clinton. Obama, he said in an interview, "doesn't think gambling should expand. He thinks gambling has a moral and social corruption attached to it."
For Clinton, it's just a "tradeoff" she's happy to make:
In a brief interview Thursday with The Times, Clinton described the gambling industry as an "economic development tool" and said that "for many places in the country, it seems to be an important part of what they are trying to do to revive and maintain an economic base."
Clinton likened the potential social costs of gambling to the costs of other industries that pollute or leave toxic dumps, saying that the impact "depends on how well-regulated it is."
"Any human activity has social costs, really," she said, adding later: "Life is filled with trade-offs, and you have to do the best you can to balance the pluses and the minuses."
So gambling, like any other "human activity" like pollution and toxic dumping, can be a positive, if looked at from the relative angle of a Harris penthouse suite.
Indeed. Relativism is chic. It's also expensive, and has a human cost.
Hillary Clinton accommodated the human cost when she voted to support the Iraq war, and to realign our force structure in Iraq to prepare for battle with Iran. She accommodates the human cost everyday as she stands with the Bush administration in supporting the indefensible Cuban embargo.
Now we're supposed to understand that gambling is first and foremost and "economic development tool" the "social costs" of which are easily swallowed...without skepticism, without the caution voiced by Obama.
Maybe this is the same logic of "personal responsibility" that drove her to vote for the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill, which punished the poor most disproportionately. This matters even more when we get to California, my home state:
Two of the leading Democratic Presidential candidates had an opportunity to vote on the federal bankruptcy bill. Consumer groups sought an ally in New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who as First Lady had urged her husband to veto the earlier bankruptcy bill. She was very familiar with the issue and knew exactly how devastating the changes would be for vulnerable people, especially single parents with children. But their hopes were dashed. While her Democratic colleagues spoke eloquently against its passage, and sought amendments to soften the blow, she caved in to Wall Street, and voted for it in various forms. That hurt immensely. In the end, on the final version, she waffled and failed to vote.
Senator Barack Obama stood his ground and voted against it.
Now California is suffering profoundly from the economic aftershocks. Both candidates are seeking to portray themselves as champions of Main Street, not Wall Street. But only one of them stood up to Wall Street when it counted the most.
With all the talk of Obama's statement that Reagan changed the political trajectory in 1980 by appealing to disaffected Democrats, it's instructive to note which of our candidates actually carry on Reaganite policies, rather than just the Reaganite electoral strategy of appealing to those seeking generational change.
But Team Clinton have nurtured a few Reaganite electoral strategies of their own, and these of the Lee Atwater variety: petting industry executives at the expense of the poor, attempting to disenfranchise voter constituencies like students in Iowa and minority workers in Nevada, lambasting rivals for wanting to "raise a trillion dollars in taxes" (ie, raising the social security cap so that those making >100k a year have to pay their fair share).
Maybe it was the "Atwater touch" she admired when she mused that George Bush Sr and Ronald Reagan were two of her favorite presidents. It's one thing to talk about Reagan as a historical change agent who appealed to disaffected voters looking for a simple, "clear" message. It's another thing altogether to call him your favorite fella, and then think you can lambaste him on the campaign trail. The two points don't jive.
At this point, it's going to take an awful lot to regain my trust in Clinton should she become the Democratic nominee in the general election. I don't think we can tolerate the "social costs" and "trade-offs" that come so naturally with her political ascension.
Permalink | 40 comments