by Damozel | In The Times Online, Sarah Baxter reveals that 'leading Republicans' think they can trounce Obama in the general election "by tarring him as a shady Chicago socialist. They are increasingly
confident that his campaign could collapse by the time their attack machine
has finished with him." (Times Online) They feel that he is "open to being defined as a corrupt, left-wing Chicago politician." (Times Online)
If that's their plan, they should probably shut up, because right now this could only help Hillary. From their standpoint, it would be wiser to let the two candidates tear each other down and then go for the one left standing. At present, of course, many of them are going so far as to cross the aisle in open primaries and vote for Obama in order to prevent a Clinton candidacy. Now, apparently, Obama has started to scare them as much or more.
"Hillary Clinton...believes Obama has not been sufficiently “vetted” for the White House. She has been unable to attack him too vociferously without risking a backlash from Democratic primary voters, but Republicans may salvage her campaign by doing the job for her." (Times Online)
That's right: there are plenty of people in my party who have their
fingers stuck in their ears and are singing "LALALALALALALA" every time
someone tries to warn them about Obama's vulnerability. And the media pundits are equally deaf at the moment---either because they're equally besotted or because they're looking forward to the inevitable conflict.
Gingrich and Norquist are gearing up to position Obama as the “most leftwing candidate to run since George
McGovern." (Times Online) Oh, nonsense. I don't think anyone will fall for that line of crap. He's made a point of reaching out to Republicans. As for the 'tax and spend Democrat' argument, Republicans aren't exactly invulnerable on the issue of indiscriminate spending. The biggest expense is the war and they want to go on with that.
But, as expected, they are also delving into his connections with Rezko.
Obama is tainted by his long association with Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a Chicago property developer who is scheduled to go on trial for extorting kickbacks in return for political favours on March 3, the day before the Ohio and Texas primaries.
Obama bought his family home in Chicago for $1.65m, $300,000 less than the asking price, on the day that Rezko’s wife Rita bought an adjoining lot at the full price of $650,000. Obama later paid her $105,000 for a sixth of her yard in order to expand his garden.
The seller insisted on both plots being sold together, which suggests that Rezko did Obama an enormous favour even if the deal was not illegal. The seller has so far evaded press inquiries, but he is regarded as a potential “ticking timebomb” should he decide to go public (Times Online) .
This is the point on which Obama is most vulnerable. Hillary can't raise it because his fans don't want to know about it. But if she doesn't bring it up, the GOP most definitely will. Will they succeed in raking up enough dirt to tarnish Obama? That's what we don't know. Obama has refused to discuss his association with Rezko and the media so far have given him a pass. But he and his campaign and his twirling-eyed fans should prepare to see the whole bag of dirty tricks opened up and deployed against him if he takes the nomination.
Which might explain why right-wing pundits are so ready to rain down contumely on Hillary and praise Obama. (Times Online) .
MEMEORANDUM
RELATED POSTINGS
Media Fashions Bill Clinton's Words into Cork Screw
Note from a Disenfranchised Floridian to the Rule-Obsessed DNC
Barack Obama Loves You. Yes, You
A Clinton Supporter Asks: If Obama Wins it All, What Then?
Polls show Clinton Leading in Ohio & Texas: Will Pundits Spotlight this?
Hillary-Bashing: Fight Back Peggy Noonan Offers Hillary Some "Friendly" "Advice"
"...this could only help Hillary"? That precisely is what they are trying to do!
Posted by: Jamie Pitts | February 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM
I know it's your strong belief that the right is more afraid of Clinton than Obama, but it's possible that they attack Clinton more because (a) they're used to doing it, (b) they have lots of available, well-used ammo, and (c) they don't like her and want to make sure she isn't nominated. Not everybody is going to behave strategically, and in fact most people don't behave strategically during elections.
The polls suggest that Obama is the harder matchup for McCain. This may be why McCain (the person most likely to be behaving strategically) is spending a lot more time criticizing Obama than Clinton. Rather than speculate about a right-wing conspiracy to engage in strategic doubletalk about the democratic candidates, I'm going to take the polls at face value.
As I said before, it's a certainty that Obama will face attacks. Nobody should vote for Obama because they think he's attack-proof. Republicans have been trying to paint Democratic candidates as too liberal for at least the last forty years. Whatever slivers of scandal can be found will be blown up and repeated.
The idea that Obama hasn't been "vetted" only makes sense if you believe there are some major skeletons that nobody has heard about, which I don't. They will attack him with the stuff we've already heard. The nuclear thing, Rezko, inexperience, too liberal, lacking concrete ideas, et cetera. It's all in front of us. They will take these pieces and make nasty attack ads.
Clinton isn't avoiding bringing these things up because "[Obama's] fans don't want to know about it." That's absurd on the face of it, as Clinton is trying to capture the undecideds, not convert the Obama faithful. She's avoiding bringing these things up because mudslinging often backfires in primary campaigns.
Posted by: Adam | February 17, 2008 at 03:13 PM
I don't think they're trying to help Hillary. I think they are trying to keep the Dems divided. I think they are---or were---shit-scared of both candidates and they've decided to let them tear each other apart.
Posted by: Damozel | February 17, 2008 at 08:16 PM
They're mostly just putting the crosshairs on whoever they think is the likely nominee. If that prolongs the nomination process, then, hey, bonus.
Topical:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8564.html
Posted by: Adam | February 18, 2008 at 01:18 PM