The Clintons' war on Barack Obama intensified in Myrtle Beach, but they may have overplayed their hand this time.
Ever since Senator Barack Obama’s win in the Iowa caucuses, the Clinton political machine has swung into overdrive attack mode, with former President William Jefferson Clinton, “America’s first ‘black’ President” in the Genghis Khan role, leading the Mongol hordes of the Clinton faithful in an all-out charge against Hillary’s leading opponent and America’s first Black Presidential candidate with a real shot at actually winning the Presidency.…
Article comments
26 - handyguy
As someone who likes both candidates very much, I haven't enjoyed the bickering and sniping of the last month. But I also think non-Democrats, in particular those who strongly dislike the Clintons, are overreacting to what's going on, and allowing their own I-hate-Bill-and-Hillary prejudice to cloud their vision.
This is a tough primary battle. But it's not even close to the nastiness of Bush-McCain in 2000. I don't remember whether Republicans were wringing their hands over that at the time.
And I would still be surprised if the result is not a Clinton-Obama ticket in the fall. By then, all this January finger-pointing will seem a very distant memory.
27 - Baronius
Clavos, I was wrong. According to the news, Bill Clinton has said that S Carolina will be decided by race, just like Dick Morris predicted.
Walmart vs. slum lords? I think that the average Democrat hates Walmart more.
28 - The Obnoxious American
Nice article Clavos. Clearly they were trying to make Obama crack. Although I think people may hate Hillary so much so that seeing Obama crack under the relentless clinton attack machine might be a good thing for Obama.
The Washington Times had a very interesting article today that also tries to explain why the clintons are putting forth such a strong offense - WT says it is really a defensive measure, but I will let yall read that one:
A GOP Ace In the Hole
29 - Jet in Columbus
Please participate in a BC Forum presidential poll by clicking here
30 - handyguy
It's hard not to notice that the most conservative commentators [here and elsewhere] are the ones most likely to believe, or pretend, that this is really a big deal. It's more about Clinton bashing than defending Obama, whom few of these commentators [possibly excepting Clavos] would vote for in the fall anyway. Obama is at least as much a classic social/economic liberal as either of the Clintons, and probably more so.
31 - Clavos
Handy,
"Obama is at least as much a classic social/economic liberal as either of the Clintons, and probably more so."
Of course he is; I also would say a little more so, because he's less of the political establishment than they are, and that, obviously, is a large part of his attraction. It's all kind of tied together.
32 - The Obnoxious American
"It's hard not to notice that the most conservative commentators [here and elsewhere] are the ones most likely to believe, or pretend, that this is really a big deal. "
Handyguy,
I think in the context of a primary, it is a big deal. There is no question that there has been a backlash against both campaigns for engaging in what many would consider politics as usual. Especially damaging for a candidate who is running on the platform of change, but also adds fuel to the fire for those who hate hillary already.
Will this have a meaningful net effect? Who knows, might just galvanize supporters. Worse things have happened before a primary without negative impact. That said, I have to wonder how sincere a hillary/obama general election ticket can be at this point.
33 - REMF
"Obama is at least as much a classic social/economic liberal as either of the Clintons, and probably more so."
The difference being, of course, that Obama has morals and the Clintons don't.
34 - Dave Nalle
Clavos, I was wrong. According to the news, Bill Clinton has said that S Carolina will be decided by race, just like Dick Morris predicted.
I think Morris is one of the sharper analysts out there. He worked for Clinton and presumably knows how he thinks. I tend to find him bery believable.
Dave
35 - Baronius
My problem with Morris is that he's a betrayer. You can never tell what's motivating the analysis of that sort of person.
36 - Clavos
I'll grant you that Morris is obviously very much opposed to the Clintons, but that does beg the question of why?
What did they do to him to warrant that vindictiveness?
There's more to the story than meets the eye, and given how Machiavellian the Clintons (especially Bill) are, whatever it is has got to be a doozy.
Incidentally, following up on the article and Morris's analysis: there's no question that Bill, by attacking Obama so viciously, managed to manipulate the sentiments of the African American South Carolinians to rally behind Obama to such an extent that he (Bill) can now believably work to death the claim that Obama's win in SC was racial.
That's not a put down of the Black folks in SC; rather, it's a recognition of the deviousness of William Jefferson Clinton.
Watch for it; in not more than 24 hours the point will be made, if not by Bill or Hillary, by someone highly placed in their campaign. It will then be repeated incessantly until they can turn the white voters in other states who might have been considering him, against Obama, him in a political race war. They managed to transform Obama into a "Black" man running for President, just as Morris predicted.
I hope Obama is able to deal with it successfully.
Now I'm really starting to root for Senator Obama...
37 - Baronius
I've already seen the angle. Yesterday on the news, there were juxtaposed pictures of Obama at a southern black church and Hillary Clinton at a staid (probably New England) service.
38 - Clavos
The press doesn't want Obama to win, but they will be subtle about undermining him.
39 - handyguy
The press doesn't want Obama to win, but they will be subtle about undermining him.
Astonishing comment. Chris Matthews, to name one, seems shamelessly pro-Obama and anti-Clinton.
Some of us who voted for HRC are not anti-Obama and wouldn't object to his being nominated. I assume that applies to the NY Times editorial page as well.
But some of us also fear that the latent [and not so latent] racism in this country would lead to a loss in the general election. And Dems want to win this one, baby. Badly.
40 - Les Slater
handyguy,
"But some of us also fear that the latent [and not so latent] racism in this country would lead to a loss in the general election. And Dems want to win this one, baby. Badly."
I don't think racism is that much of an issue here. It does exist and is significant, but not decisive, as to whether Obama is allowed at the top of the ticket.
Obama is very popular to many people, especially those who want 'change'. The problem is he can't deliver. If he is either housebroken, or just fails, there will be plenty of frustration and a further decline of credibility of the two-party shell game. Nobody has ANY expectations for Clinton.
I could see Clinton coming out and saying, 'I think Obama SHOULD be president, but... not this time. Eight years experience as Vice President will give him the preparation that he, and our country, needs.'
In face of powerful opposition it would be hard for Obama to refuse if he wants to be on the ticket at all.
This would neutralize some of the anti-Clinton hatred. Obama would give Clinton a 'progressive' cover. Many would swallow their pride and vote for that ticket.
Les
41 - Clavos
"But some of us also fear that the latent [and not so latent] racism in this country would lead to a loss in the general election. And Dems want to win this one, baby. Badly."
You mean racism on the part of Dems? Coz any Republicans that might vote for Obama are certainly not going to be racists, and the Reps who are racists certainly won't vote for a black man, much less one who's a Democrat.
So you're saying that you Dems will put party first and nominate Hillary so that your own racists don't lose you the election...
42 - Les Slater
Clavos,
"So you're saying that you Dems will put party first and nominate Hillary so that your own racists don't lose you the election..."
Of course that's what he's saying. And they would if they thought that was the best solution.
Les
43 - troll
for those of you who still have faith that the US government can be anything more than a rubber stamp for the owner class I offer the following:
class war is a real phenomenon with practical manifestations...and in this election party actually might make a difference in the war
since Taft-Hartley tore the heart out of the Wagner Act labor's power to engage in collective action has been held in check - over the years lame attempts to push back in statute have been forwarded (by Democrats) without success
Ted Kennedy introduced Senate Bill s.1041 last year and it has been sent to Committees - the House has already passed the similar HR 800
while this legislation does not repeal Taft-Hartley it is a small step in the left direction - it re-empowers labor by protecting workers trying to unionize and offers the beginnings of a solution to the right-to-work 'free rider' problem which has caused the decline in worker participation in unions over the years
the only way that this legislation has a chance of becoming law is with a dem in the White House and a dem Congress
so if you are worker looking for union representation you probably should vote democratic
44 - Clavos
I love it when you talk worker to me, troll...
If I ever have to start working I'll certainly start voting dem.
45 - Les Slater
troll,
“so if you are worker looking for union representation you probably should vote democratic”
As bad as Taft-Hartley is, it is not THE problem. The problem IS that most of the union ‘leadership’ has had their heads up the asses of the two major parties, mostly Democrat, at least since the beginning of the Roosevelt era.
The building of the CIO was primarily a battle between workers, with some, at times of the highest caliber, class-conscious leadership, and industry, which used both parties to its advantage. One big handicap was a sector, usually at the top, of the union ‘leadership’, collaborated, in one form or another, with the bosses and their political stooges.
We need to fight to rebuild our unions and begin to organize all working people. Along the way we will need to build our own political party, completely independent of the capitalist class and their political stooges.
Anyone believing that voting for Democrats is a step forward for workers is deluding themselves, and unfortunately, any they influence. It is just a continuation of politically tying the hands of workers to the interests of their class enemy. This needs to be rejected.
Les
46 - troll
(...oh yeah - to keep myself 'on-topic' - both Clinton and Obama are cosponsors of the bill)
47 - troll
Les - I agree that revolutionary change will occur outside of the existing political avenues and question whether or not partial measures like s.1041 are counter productive
I offered my comment to those - *who still have faith that the US government can be anything more than a rubber stamp for the owner class*
48 - Les Slater
troll,
“… both Clinton and Obama are cosponsors of the bill”
The bill ain’t goin’ to do shit. To the extent we tie ourselves to the enemy, it only weakens us.
Les
49 - troll
...I'm sick of 'corruption'
why hasn't unionism led to equity - ?...corruption
why hasn't capitalism fed the poor - ?...corruption
why hasn't politics led to just governance - ?...corruption
why hasn't religion led to enlightenment - ?...corruption
if ever there was a concept in need of deconstruction this is it
50 - Dave Nalle
You want corruption? Keep an eye out for an upcoming ABC expose on Hillary Clinton in her role as a board member at WalMart sitting in enthusiastically on discussions of how to bar unions from getting a foothold in their stores. Another example of her bottomless well of hypocrisy.
Dave
51 - Dr Dreadful
Gotta love that liberal media that desperately wants Hillary to be President...
52 - delban
if americans want a democracy, rather than the plutocracy they have, the solution is simple ... abolish the presidency, and fold its powers into the house, plus severely trim the powers of the senate
this'd reverse the bizarre diffusion of power between the three legislative bodies [ the presidency, house and senate], which simply creates a power vacuum filled with bribes, and obliterate the independent uncontrollable powers of typically deranged characters who become presidents, and who additonally quickly commence a couple of large scale wasteful imperial wars, in an effort to steal from other nations and cut down on the backlog of enemies the nation's paranoids, including relgious nuts see as needing to be attacked
such a new arrangement'd be a novelty in one surprising area ... with a greater concentration of power would come political accountability of the politicians to the citizens, who for the first time would experience the joys of inflicting massive electoral retribution on the crooks and scoundrels currently in congress
i suspect the taft-hartley act would be repealed in 6 months, and the nation would enjoy universal single payer health care within a year
the latter change would simply rip one trillion away from the current annual two trillion dollar health care bill, and give it to the citizens, from the current annual us gdp of fourteen trillion
politicians would become flunkeys for the citizens, not the large corporations