HRC/RNC tag-team score with "soft" bigotry [POLL]

Watching the MSNBC Decision '08 crew unpack last night’s voting results, it was hard not to notice panelists Joe Scarborough and Patrick Buchannan rising up in their seats, fidgeting with glee, at the successes achieved by the Clinton campaign’s "fair use" of good ol' Atwater/Rove-style politics.  Showing their Republican colors, these two were obviously delighted by how big a dent all the "soft" bigotry recently aimed at Obama managed to make.  

HRC’s campaign, in tandem with the Republican right, has torpedoed Barack for the past couple of weeks with: "Hussein, Hussein, Hussein;" Farrakahn and Rezco; the "turban" photo; "NAFTA-gate;" the "3AM scare;" and, Croft: "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" --  Clinton: "No, there's nothing to base that on... as far as I know."  

"So, yeehaw!," Joe and Pat more-or-less exclaimed.  "It’s working! And just wait! Hillary’s negative tactics are nothin’ compared to how hard the RNC will hit him, if this guy survives the primary campaign."

Hillary’s ties to Monsanto, alone, had already soured my view of the NY Senator and her politics.  But this latest, "as-far-as-I-know"-business . . .

What's next?

It looks to me like Hillary is closing ranks with the corporatocracy to quash the real threat posed by Obama's candidacy.  An Obama presidency protends something so much more like actual, "we-the-people," participatory democracy.

In a recent interview on NOW, with David Brancaccio, Joe Trippi said this:

Barack Obama could be the first interactive president, the first network president, a president whose network of people out there, when he says, "We're gonna pass health care this week, and these are the congressmen I need you to talk to and convince that we need to pass this thing," and it's all—it's all this bottom up way to get his agenda passed. You're gonna see the move to an interactive, connected—politics where the people, in connection with their president are actually moving the agenda forward.  [link]

Wow!

Do we really want a democrat in the White House who is beholden to corporations like Monsanto, and gets there by exploiting all the latent bigotry and prejudice in this country?  Or do we want someone in the Oval Office who is poised to become "the first interactive president?"

•  Great Job

  by BlackBox on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:30:35 AM PDT

•  Ellison, my rep, weighs in ...

  Clinton Trying To Reap Benefit Of Obama-Muslim Smear

  He knows all about the issue.

  by nowness on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:33:11 AM PDT

•  Reflects my comment

  for the Supers on bringing back We the People.

  I have been so sick of the Republican spun meme of Government vs. Citizens for so long.

  WE the People.  WE the People.  WE the People.

  People voted for Bush, in large part, because they wanted a "Daddy" to take care of things so they wouldn't have to.  They wanted to be told when to be scared.  They wanted to be told when to shop.  They didn't want details of the ugly things that go on during a war.  They didn't want to be burdened by the minutiae of running a country (Into the Ground™), or the horrors of death, or what their American dollar was worth.

  They wanted to watch American Idol, eat fast food, and live their lives uninterrupted by the actual work of governing.

  But our nation was founded on WE the People doing the work of governing so that we would never be beholden to powers that would be greater than our collective will.

  THAT is the hope that people are feeling springing from a deep well founded on American ingenuity and individualism when they hear Obama's message.

  THAT is what America needs to get back to before it becomes a footnote of world history.

  THAT is why I am voting for Obama and it has nothing to do with visions of choreographed kumbaya concordance or Svengali induced zombie-ism.

  WE the People have to start, even if it is one step at a time, taking responsibility for the functions of our government.

  by arielle on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:38:19 AM PDT

•  Rec'd for the Trippi quote.

  His words are so true.  Thanks for posting.

  politics where the people, in connection with their president are actually moving the agenda forward.

  This is change.  To me, this is a million times better than poll-tested, technocrat driven, lobbyist influenced governing.

  by ManahManah on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:39:09 AM PDT

•  Unbelieveably low.

  This "as far as I know" shit is right out of Nixon's playbook. Buchannan couldn't help but cackle at the use of his old boss's tactics.

  I started out this primary season leaning Clinton. She has earned my disgust and disdain.

  I know all of the racist dog whistles. I have intimate knowledge of the racist mind. I grew up with a violent racist step-father and a passive racist mother. I was beaten constantly because I would not spout their racist filth. I have ZERO tolerance for this shit.

  Hillary Clinton will never get my vote. She can rot in Hell for all I care. I loathe her and her racist campaign.

  by Inventor on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:42:08 AM PDT

•  please don't

  Please stop using the term "NAFTA-gate".  Giving it a name just makes it easier for the MSM to shorthand and distort the story.

  peace.

  by Nellcote on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:16:50 PM PDT

  •  when i first wrote that in there . . .

    i was going to add, parenthetically, "pleeeze!" or "gimme a break!," airing my own frustration that Hillary's campaign could even bother to say this out loud.

    done!  won't cross my lips again.

    by manonfyre on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:16:17 PM PDT