« The Ghost of Thomas Dewey Lives | terryhallinan's Blog | Obama Just Won the 11th Primary in a Row »
Politics of Personal Destruction
Things weren't going so well for our high school football team. Matter of fact things very seldom did go well for our team.
"All right," said the coach disgustedly, "we will pick on the cripple." One of the opposing tackles was one-armed.
We quickly found out why it was a terrible idea to pick on the cripple. There was a reason the one-armed player had made it on the other football team. He quickly showed himself to be the best of the bunch. We went back to picking on the non-cripples with somewhat more success.
I can hardly deny considerable bias in judging the Clinton campaign has done itself in with negative campaigning but much smarter people see it the same way. I firmly believe that the current attacks on Michelle Obama are going to redound to the further benefit of the Obama campaign. It appears even Barack is loathe to tangle with one formidable lady. And who would know better.
There is a kind of Maxwell Smart aura about strictures against negative campaigning, a kind of air that it is nice be nice but if need be throw mudballs.
For some, like the Bushes, the last resort is the first resort. Hard to argue with their electoral success. Then again, besides being tall, the sine qua non for elective office seems to be a decided lack of morals and intelligence.
Obama is undoubtedly tall but seems badly handicapped by the two disqualifiers of high intelligence and good moral character.
Like Russ Feingold, it appears to me now that Obama may be turning conventional wisdom on its head by omitting most negative campaigning while his opponents self-destruct with the old reliable.
Will wonders never cease.
Best, Terry
"All right," said the coach disgustedly, "we will pick on the cripple." One of the opposing tackles was one-armed.
We quickly found out why it was a terrible idea to pick on the cripple. There was a reason the one-armed player had made it on the other football team. He quickly showed himself to be the best of the bunch. We went back to picking on the non-cripples with somewhat more success.
I can hardly deny considerable bias in judging the Clinton campaign has done itself in with negative campaigning but much smarter people see it the same way. I firmly believe that the current attacks on Michelle Obama are going to redound to the further benefit of the Obama campaign. It appears even Barack is loathe to tangle with one formidable lady. And who would know better.
There is a kind of Maxwell Smart aura about strictures against negative campaigning, a kind of air that it is nice be nice but if need be throw mudballs.
For some, like the Bushes, the last resort is the first resort. Hard to argue with their electoral success. Then again, besides being tall, the sine qua non for elective office seems to be a decided lack of morals and intelligence.
Obama is undoubtedly tall but seems badly handicapped by the two disqualifiers of high intelligence and good moral character.
Like Russ Feingold, it appears to me now that Obama may be turning conventional wisdom on its head by omitting most negative campaigning while his opponents self-destruct with the old reliable.
Will wonders never cease.
Best, Terry
Advertisement
It is a wonder really. A man who insists that a campaign must be about issues. Who has been absolutely sure footed. Makes decisions--the right decisions--and sticks with them. Who will not attack Mrs. Clinton on a background that is ripe for attack. I hope in a few years as she looks back on the campaigns that they have each run that she is deeply ashamed of her own and happy that he won.
I think the better we get to know him, his legislative record and his coming presidential record, the more ridiculous the Clintons will look.
February 21, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like your optimism, Terry.
Are you referring to what may occur in the general election, should Obama be the candidate? If so, I don't share your optimism. There's a double standard at work. One standard is for the behavior of Democratic candidates and their supporters, and the other is for Republican candidates and their supporters.
The standards to which Democrats are held to are significantly higher than the standards that Republicans are held to. It's ok, no, funnay, when McCain sings, well, you know what. When John Kerry makes a joke about the importance of staying in school?? You would have thought he was advocating the assassination of our dear leader.
It's ok for Bill O'Reilly to talk about gathering up a lynch mob to deal with Michelle Obama...but for John Kerry to mention that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian?
I admit: it's downright novel to have a candidate who hasn't been very negative. And I think, barring some sort of situation in which Obama is caught with, what was the phrase? A dead girl or a live boy, he's going to be the nominee for the Democrats. I'd like to hope that he is able to then go on to win the general election with the same reasonable approach.
But I wouldn't bet on it, because those rules for acceptable behavior are so very different between Republicans and Democrats.
February 21, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT Voter,
My impression of Michelle Obama is that she is quite different from the usual run of political wife.
She is not quite Eugene McCarthy's wife who was not loathe to tell reporters that it was Gene running for president and they could bother him with their questions. She had no time for them. They later divorced.
Michelle does have something of the independence of Teresa Heinz Kerry but is not as unappealing as Teresa could be.
I think Michelle is an asset. She is a good speaker and not just an echo with her own ideas. I take her as a straight shooter worth listening to. Not many like that I think. The combative Elizabeth Edwards or even Eleanor Roosevelt come closest to any I can think of offhand.
JMO. Only time will tell. Michelle hasn't before come into focus. The sharpshooters are missing their target seems to me.
Best, Terry
February 21, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you poeple kiddng me,
Obama can't run a negative campaign? He is handicapped by his good moral character? Seriously on what friggin' planet do you live on cause I want to go there with the chocolate waterfalls and butterflies that land on your finger as you're strumming your lute while you soak in a bubble bath.
Let me just tell you a little bit of what actually happened in this campaign while you we're listening to whale song recordings and making finger paint Obama=Hope signs.
He started off with the D-Punjab Memo, saying Hillary cares more about India than American workers.
then in South Carolina, they pushed the memo that the Clintons were racists,
Jesse Jackson Jr going on television, to look out for the "code words" the Clinton's use to marginalize Obama as the black candidate.
Michelle and Barack saying Hillary has no moral center and "will do and say anything to win."
Saying that her valiant attempt at health care was a failure because she held "secret meetings" and shut out Democrats when he knows that's not the case.
Calling Hillary corrupt for taking lobbyist money when he himself uses federal lobbyists as bundlers for his campaign and uses a federal lobbyist funded PAC to donate to superdelegates.
Running Harry and Louise ads to scare people into thinking Hillary's health care plan is going to punish poor people who can't afford health care when he himself has mandates in his own plan, and she offers more generous subsidies for people who can't afford it.
Blaming Bill Clinton for the Democratic losses in '94 and promising a return if we elect Hillary. Shitting on every accomplishment of the 90's and dismissing them as partisan food fights. Just a small sample.
Obama is a very talented politician who reads a teleprompter well, but to say that he stayed above the fray, and just talked issues and was able to manage to come up 20 points behind, is outrageously, stupendously, and spectacularly stupid. He only started to make inroads in the campaign AFTER he went negative.
I think if he is the nominee, as much as it pains him and he'll have to cry himself to sleep at night, he will be able to run a negative ad against McCain. Just my hunch.
And if you can tell me that none of the things I just listed didn't happen. I will get down on my knees and profusely apologize to you.
February 22, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to explain how he's going to pay for his promises. Otherwise he's an empty suit much like Bush. If he's a socialist (like Franklin Roosevelt) then he needs to stop messing around and tell me. Otherwise I'll vote for the guy who can explain where the cash is coming from.
February 22, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink