E.J. Dionne: Clinton's Depressing Assault on Obama (Washington Post)

[Colobo]

Obama's not particularly original insight was a central premise of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. Clinton argued over and over that Democrats could not win without new ideas of their own. To reread Clinton's "New Covenant" speeches from back then is to be reminded of how electrifying it was to hear a politician who was willing to break new ground.

That's why the Clintons' assault on Obama is so depressing. In many ways, Obama is running the 2008 version of the 1992 Clinton campaign. You have the feeling that if Bill Clinton did not have another candidate in this contest, he'd be advising Obama and cheering him on.

Let's grant the Clintons their claims: The press is tougher on Hillary Clinton than it is on Barack Obama; the old, irrational Clinton hatred is alive and well in certain parts of the media; Hillary Clinton gets hit harder when she criticizes Obama than Obama does when he goes after her.

Let's further stipulate that Obama's formulation -- he said Reagan "changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not" -- was guaranteed to enrage the former president. In Democratic circles, associating someone with Nixon is akin to a Roman comparing an emperor with Caligula.

None of it justifies the counterproductive behavior. Does anyone doubt that if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, she will need the votes of the young people and African-Americans who have rallied to Obama -- and that what she's doing now will make it harder to energize them? Doesn't calling in Bill Clinton as the lead attacker merely underscore Obama's central theme, that it's time to "turn the page" on our Bush-Clinton-Bush political past?

And with both Clintons on record saying kind things about Reagan, why go after Obama on the point? Honestly: If Obama is a Reaganite, then I am a salamander.

Yet there was Hillary Clinton's campaign, unveiling a radio ad on Wednesday implying that Obama bought into such ideas as "refusing to raise the minimum wage." Come on, guys.

The worst thing about all this is what both Clintons are doing to their own legacy as pioneers of an approach that rejected, as Bill Clinton said in a 1991 speech, "the stale orthodoxies of left and right." The great asset shared by both Clintons is their willingness to bring fresh thinking to old problems.

More at:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/bill_clinton_credited_reagan_i.html

[Barack_America]

1. Couldn't agree more. Great post. Thanks....n/t

[Colobo]

2. Glad you enjoyed it.

[Samantha]

3. Thank you for posting this; I find it very depressing as well

I am not a Clinton supporter, but I am certainly not a Clinton hater either. I have found the Clinton approach to winning extremely base. They do not serve themselves or this party well by showing shades of Rove in their political demeanor. It just gives their opponents one more weapon to use against them -- not only has she been supportive of George W. Bush, now she campaigns like him. Can't you hear it already?

[CoffeeCat]

4. The Clintons are running their campaign...

...as if they are running in the General Election against a Republican.

They are slashing and burning, and only thinking about themselves and their win.

They are not only degrading a worthy opponent with baseless attacks and manipulations,
they are disenfranchising a huge faction of their own party.

WTF are they doing? Seriously? Are they so blinded by their own obsession to WIN,
that they can't see that they've offended so many Dems who they will rely on for votes?

I'm no wimp. I'm not for let's-all-hold-hands-and-have-a-primary. I want a vigorous
debate and I want the candidates to be vetted and I want their records examined and
their ideas debated. In Iowa, the campaign was about ideas. Now, it's about who can
twist one sentence into a piece of shit.

It's sickening. I've voted Democrat all of my life. I will not vote for Hillary and
Bill Clinton. In a recent poll, 19 percent of Democrats said that they would vote
against Hillary.

From a strategic viewpoint, they're very short-sighted. They will galvanize the base of the
Republican party and they'll come out in droves to vote against the Clintons. She's not
getting the Independent vote and one in five Dems want to vote against her.

I'm depressed too, because my guy will lose--not on his ideas, but on his inability
to counter being politically eviscerated by a couple of power-mongering, selfish
brats who don't give a shit about anything but enriching themselves.

This nation is so traumatized after Bush. Haven't the Democrats been through enough? We
finally get our election, and we have hope for the first time in a long time. You would think
that Hillary and Bill would have been a bit more diplomatic and professional.

They're self-centered assholes who appear to have more in common with Karl Rove than the
ideals of the Democratic party.

[Blue_Roses]

12. sad to say after all these

years of my support for the Clintons, I agree. I was so turned-off by Hillary Monday night. I've always rallied for them and taken the heat by my right-wing in-laws, but now...what's there to say:shrug: I am now officially an Obama supporter. I finally registered on his site last night. I had not made up my mind, but after Monday, that did it.

[greyghost]

5. WAAAAAAAAAA!

Poor Obama is actually being made to answer questions about his votes, of lack of votes!

It's a shame when one is actually held accountable for their actions.:sarcasm:

Get used to it kiddies, this is how the big boys play.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. True, the big boys play like fucking assholes. If they win the primary they will have to win

the general without my vote though.

I don't put up for that shit.

[Thrill]

9. You're not alone

I will not vote for Hillary after this campaign.

[Laurab]

7. I always appreciate E.J.Dionne's insightful articles, too.

I'm guessing you didn't read it before you posted.

The "big boys" play like this against the opposing party, not their own. There's a very good post by TwoSparkles above - you may want to read that, too.

Obama has explained those "Present" votes over and over, for the people who care to understand.

Personally I'm glad the Clintons are being held accountable for their actions, as they are dividing the Democratic party with them, due to their need to win at any cost. As Stephen Colbert said tonight - "the winner of the Democratic debate was..........the REPUBLICANS".


"WAAAAAAAAAAAA!" is your subject line, and you call US "kiddies"? :eyes:

[cali]

11. You don't read for comprehension, eh?

Dionne, as usual, is shrewd and knowledgable. And your post has zip to do with his observations

[Thrill]

8. They're going to do whatever it takes to win..The thing is none of us

knew they would go so far. And this is probably just the beginning. If Barack doesn't win the nomination ,I don't think he'll endorse her. I think this is one of those things where the wounds will be too big.

[johnnydrama]

10. the point is

The Clinton's are attacking Obama on Reagan when they've said much nicer things
They're attacking him on Iraq when her record is worse
They're attacking him on Rezko and fundraising when hers are worse
They're attacking him on speaking to independents and Republicans when Clinton did as well.

Both Clinton's have said great things about Reagan, and not just at his funeral, and it's extremely disengenous
to talk about what Obama said, even if you look at what he said in the worst possible light.

[underpants]

13. No the point is that they should have been smarter than getting goaded into this

the press wanted drama and conflict and instead of ignoring that,and giving them and us some really policy discussion (sadly abandoned a long time ago), they fell for it and as Dionne points out are scorching bridges the will later need.