I'm surprised that many commentators (particularly in the blogosphere) are suddenly writing of a "desperate" Clinton camp resorting to daily sleazy attacks to bring down Obama. I still think it's totally possible for a Clinton revival (possibly with a win in Wisconsin tonight) but Clintons' recent bizarre tactics should be no surprise to anyone who's followed this race over the past year. Ever since Obama's Iowa win, Bill, Hillary, her campaign apparatus, her surrogates, etc. have launched every swift boat style attack I imagine Obama will experience in the general election. The most unfortunate result of this has been the failure of much of the Democratic establishment and the Democratic electorate to reject Clintons' dirty politics.
Why wasn't the Democratic Party repulsed immediately when Bill Clinton went on the attack, accusing of Obama's war opposition as nothing more than a
"fairy tale." Here's the thrust of Bill Clinton's argument: Yes, Obama initially opposed the war but he has no right to tout his leadership skills on this issue because his position has been the same as Hillary's over the past few years. Obviously, Bill Clinton himself knows this logic is dubious. The primary weakness of the Democratic Party in years past has been the inability to provide convincing and consistent leadership on controversial issues, particularly foreign policy matters. When it comes down to it, the only truly meaningful time to alter America's foreign policy since 9-11 was when the Congress voted to authorize the Iraq War. Ever since, Congress has only been able to vote on funding, withdrawal timetables, benchmarks, etc. Any chance that the latter two could impact Bush's policy have been torpedoed by Republican filibusters and voting against funding the troops would understandably be political suicide. In short, Congress has had its hands tied. Despite the election of the Democratic majority in 2006, it has been very clear that our Iraq policy will not change until we have a new president in 2009. So what is Bill Clinton suggesting -- that Obama should have voted against funding? That because the 2002 authorization vote is behind us, it's no longer relevant? It's easy to imagine how the Clinton camp would have responded had Obama actually consistenly voted against funding. Just take a look at the Karl Rove "support the troops" playbook if you need any ideas. It's clear that regardless of
any position Obama took on Iraq after his initial opposition, the Clinton campaign would have attacked.
For the Clintons, running for president has nothing to do with principle or giving credit where credit is due. It's a game to them. So instead of reasonably applauding Obama, they attempt to use one of his greatest strengths (his Iraq war opposition) to attack him. This has also been evident with Clintons' recent accusations that Obama has
plagiarized, which has been laughed off by every reputable media outlet I've read over the last day. This attack is coming right after the public financing thing, in which the Clintons apparently want Obama to "keep his word" and use public financing in the general election. Again, this nomination process is
not about what's right for the Democratic party or about beating the Republica in the general. It's about doing everything and anything to ensure the
Clintons win. If I'm not mistaken, Obama has raised more money from small donors than any candidate in American history. If Obama beats Clinton, do they really want this massive fundraising advantage over the Republican Party to disappear? I honestly don't think they really care.
Then we have the Clinton campaign's assertion that Obama hasn't won any states that matter. As many bloggers have pointed out, apparently the states that
"don't matter" are: southern states with too many black people, caucus states, traditionally red states and swing states (Virginia, South Carolina, Colorado, Washington, Idaho just to name a few). The states that matter are the states that
any Democratic candidate is guaranteed to win in the general election (Mass., New York, California, New Jersey). I'm a little baffled as to how the Clintons expect the Democrats to build a new majority by insulting voters in states that aren't already blue... They seem to prefer a divisive bunker mentality pitting "us" against "them." I really don't see a distinction here between the Clintons and the Republicans.
What else shows us that the Clintons think they're entitled to the nomination? How about the fact that they will fight for every delegate (pledged delegates and superdelegates) including the ones in Michigan and Florida. They say they're just playing by the rules, but what about the fact that the DNC stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates because they refused to move their primaries back to Super Tuesday? The first strategy -- doing whatever it takes to win delegates -- shows the Clintons don't care about what the people want. But hey, the Democratic Party made the rules so I suppose it's fair game. According to the Clinton campaign, however, when the Democratic Party does not make rules that are advantageous to a Clinton victory, the rules are bullshit (ie: seating Michigan and Florida's delegates).
I'm very excited to see how this race plays out. The Clintons have shown their true colors and it's up to the voters of Wisconsin, Hawaii, Texas, Ohio, Vermont, Rhode Island, and possibly other states to reject dirty politics. I, myself, have already made up my mind. I will not support Hillary in this election, nor in the general election. As a matter of principle (something the Clintons have repeatedly shown they lack), I will not support conniving, power hungry politicians who will likely only perpetuate the same bullshit I've seen with the Bush administration.
