Tuesday, January 22, 2008

A South Carolina Slugfest



I didn't watch the debate, but have caught snippets of it in the news. The parts highlighted of course are the points of strong personal disagreement between Obama and Clinton. I'm sure that viewers came away thinking nicer things about John Edwards, who seems to have had both a difficult time getting a word in and when he did tried to play the more mature partner in the "conversation."

I'm sure that supporters of both Obama and Clinton (and I'm supporting the former) look at this differently. Hillary says that Obama is speaking out of frustration because he's losing (you can see that she's back as the "establishment" pick -- which is probably good for Obama). But the reason he's frustrated is that he has the former President constantly attacking him. Hillary's comments about Michelle and Elizabeth also participating in this misses the point. Neither of them are the former President of the United States. But the real issue here is the Clinton campaign's continued efforts to distort and sling mud at Obama. And you know if you throw enough of it some sticks -- even if you're the Teflon President.

From the looks of things -- Hillary was the aggressor and Obama parrying her blows (well enough I think). If the voters begin to connect the dots and realize that Obama is really truly fighting a "couple," which I think he is, they'll have to decide whether or not a dynasty is a good thing. Personally, I don't think it is. In another time and place Hillary might be an excellent candidate, but this is not that time. It's time to move on. Enough of the Bushes and the Clintons!

3 comments:

Drew said...

Bubba is an advantage because he is a master campaigner. But when he ran against Bush I he came out of the gates with the same kind of message as Obama has now - hope for the future, an entrepreneurial spirit of we can actually make the world a better place than it is now. HRC does not have that at all and gives a very crass impression of herself.

Relentless ad hominem mudsligning and other logical fallacies to divert voter attention from issues - that's what decision '08 should be called.

Michael Westmoreland-White, Ph.D. said...

Independents said that Edwards won the debate--but they were still more likely to vote for Obama because Edwards now has no way to win. I think Obama has to win SC in double digits to be ready for Tsunami Tuesday.

The mudslinging is a no win for Obama: If he ignores it, he risks looking weak like Kerry did in light of the Swiftboat attacks. If he answers, he looks like just another politician and his rhetoric of a new form of politics doesn't ring as true. Also, Bill Clinton has succeeded in getting in Obama's head.

Of course, the Clintons are not asking "at what cost" as some Dem party leaders are. Bill's tactics can keep winning for Hillary--but so divide the Party that the GOP nominee, especially if it is McCain, wins in a narrow election. That is my big fear.

Obama hurt himself not in the debate, but in refusing to denounce the UNITE HERE ad. Now some Latinos are so angry they will never vote for him--including many who were previously inclined to do so. Personally, I think the Clintons put UNITE HERE up to it because that's the kind of nasty campaigning they are doing.

I'm beginning to get very worried about Nov. Dems are expert at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!!

Pastor Bob Cornwall said...

I'm increasingly concerned about where things are going. Indeed, Obama must win SC handily. The problem is, Hillary will be able to argue that it was a Black thing. She'll take the White votes, he'll take the black ones.

The only GOP candidate I fear is McCain. People like his candor and his heroism. Independents especially like him and it's this swing vote group that could turn things.

Especially with the economy rather than Iraq coming to the forefront, McCain's statements on Iraq will be of little consequence.

You're right. Bill C. has gotten into Obama's head. And that's a problem.