by Teh Nutroots | The LA Times snipes: Is the Right Right On the Clintons? I doubt it. They've never been right about anything else.
Predictably, the piece continues the media's reality show-level coverage of the campaign. Boo hoo hoo: the Clintons are campaigning
aggressively. They've attacked Obama's record, his public statements,
and diverse other factors underlying the phenomenon that he
is because they would like to win the nomination. But apparently Obama is a sacred icon whom the grubby fingers of the rival campaign must never besmirch.
I'd like to say I think ordinary voters are stupid enough to be swayed by this whining, but a large percentage were stupid enough to vote twice for George W. Bush. My only comfort is that the voters are all Democrats. We're brighter than this, right?
Right?
Perhaps not. At The LA Times we again we have a supporter who is also a member of the media using a handy media platform as a political soapbox to cry foul against the Clintons.
First, the Reagan thing, whining that the Clintons wrongly and unfairly implied that it was some sort of tribute to Ronald Reagan as a president, when it was merely a statement of fact, yada yada yada. I've read his statement and I humbly beg to be permitted to argue that it was something quite a bit more than that. If that wasn't the intention, then perhaps Obama needs new writers because THAT IS HOW IT CAME ACROSS.
But it seems that no one must be permitted to criticize our new Democratic conquering hero.
All of which is making me---previously an Obama supporter myself---like Obama less, whereas I was previously planning to vote for him.
I don't want an untouchable idol running for president. So often they turn out to have feet of clay. I want the issues, and the criticisms, thoroughly threshed out in public forum so I have an idea what I'm dealing with here. I don't want any nasty surprises AFTER the nomination, when they will find out the meaning of dirty campaign tactics and "smears."
But the Obama's position just seems to be that the Clintons should just roll over and hand Obama the nomination now on the strength of the light corruscating from his glittering halo. What abject nonsense.
What a ludicrous and yet thoroughly forseeable development, given the mania of the increasingly strident advocates of Change for Change's sake. My only comfort is that if he gets the nomination---which appears less and less probable as his deranged supporters become more and more defensive---the Republicans will find them similarly accused of blasphemy and sacrilege and will have to abandon the Rovian tactics used to bludgeon Hillary.
"This might have been the most egregious case," says the author, who needs---like the whole Obama camp---to get a dictionary. "Egregious"? Egregious is splitting my beautiful party into two shrieking opposing camps because the Clintons dare question their candidate.
Frankly, I didn't need the Clintons to get me yelling "What the [italicized expletive deleted]?" when I saw the Reagan thing in the paper and I read it backwards, forwards, and inside out, because I could not believe my own shocked eyes.
But there are yet more moans about the Clintons going after Obama on his record.
Clinton supporters e-mailed pro-choice voters claiming that Obama was suspect on abortion rights because he had voted "present" instead of "no" on some votes. (In fact, the president of the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood said she had coordinated strategy with Obama and wanted him to vote "present.") (LA Times)
Knock, knock: HELLO? It was a fair inference, genius, whatever strategizing might have been at work. Still is, in my book. Not that I hold that against him---abortion rights are a tough issue for a Christian who claims that his whole political view is underpinned by his religious beliefs (which I also don't have a problem with).
"Recently, there have been waves of robocalls in South Carolina repeatedly attacking "Barack Hussein Obama."" (LA Times) Is that his name or isn't it? I know that there are morons in SC and elsewhere who will be put off by the Muslim moniker, but it's his name, and his campaign is going to have to deal with it a lot more directly if he gets the nomination. Were the "robocalls" implying that he was likely to be a secret Muslim plant, ready to sell us out to the terrorists. I've seen a letter like that circulating round the internet recently, but I can assure you it wasn't coming from the Clinton campaign.
"I crossed the Clinton Rubicon a couple of weeks ago when, in the course of introducing Hillary, Clinton supporter and Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson invoked Obama's youthful drug use." (LA Times) So....this was a lie, an "egregious" slander? I agree that it was over the top and Johnson should have just left people to draw their own conclusions about what young Obama was getting up to back in the days when the Clintons were campainging (AS THEY DID) for civil rights..
But the op ed writer deals with it by attacking Johnson. Yes, that's the tactic made so popular by Rove and the Bushies.
Don't like it when someone scores a point against your guy? Launch an even more vicious attack against him.
This was disgusting on its own terms, but worse still if you know anything about Johnson. I do -- I once wrote a long profile of him. He has a sleazy habit of appropriating the logic of civil rights for his own financial gain. He also has a habit of aiding conservative crusades to eliminate the estate tax and privatize Social Security by falsely claiming they redistribute wealth from African Americans to whites. The episode reminded me of the Clintons' habit of surrounding themselves with the most egregious characters: Dick Morris, Marc Rich and so onl .(LA Times)
I like Obama, but his supporters are starting to remind me of the unhinged worshippers of Ron Paul who did so much to make other voters loathe the sound of his name.
New motto of Obama supporters: "If you criticize Obama, you love corruption and the status quo and/or are secretly a racist!"
The Clintons---and Clinton supporters--- are supposed to go after him on the issues, his record, and his public statements, morons. They are trying to WIN THE NOMINATION.
But maybe these people aren't morons. Maybe whining and guilt-tripping Clinton supporters is another sort of tactic. Yep, that's going to create "change" all right, to get the Dems split into vicious opposing camps throwing stones at one another.
I think BOTH campaigns need to get hold of themselves before they blow it all as definitively as the muted, gentlemanly John Kerry who was afraid to fight at all. If the Clintons don't dial it back, they will lose the votes of many Obama supporters at the time when it really counts.
If the Obama supporters don't dial it back, they are going to anger a lot of previously well-disposed people against THEIR candidate. One of my colleagues, a Hillary supporter, has already threatened to throw her vote to McCain if he gets the nomination and Obama is the other. "At least he's been in Congress long enough to know how the system works," she says.
I know that both candidates think they can quit whenever they want to and mend their fences. I doubt it. They both need to acknowledge the need for a vigorous debate of the ISSUES (still missing in this race) and of the fairness of questioning their candidate's record and shut up crying like little wimps when one scores a political point against the other.
Memeorandum blogger reactions.
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS
The New York Times Endorses....(Can We Have the Envelope Please?)
Mitt Romney: Odd Republican Out?
Mike Duncan: A Man with a Plan to Beat Top Dems
Bill Clinton, Pit Bull: A Clinton Campaign Strategy
Fraught Moments from Along the Campaign Trail
Rove's Bold & Innovative Plan for Beating Top Dems
Mike Huckabee: The Constitution v. "the Word of the Living God"
Economy: Krugman says Obama Less Progressive Than Clinton & Edwards
Comments