Obama news blitz
Well, he's been surging in the polls as of late.
Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton in Iowa, has rallied to take a lead in New Hampshire and has tied her in South Carolina ... and now he's showing stronger numbers than Clinton in hypothetical head-to-head contests with the GOP candidates.
With good news, rising prospects and a slight status as the new frontrunner, one can expect to face stepped-up criticism and attacks. And look no further than the Clinton campaign, headlined by her husband, to start firing away.
Former president Bill Clinton proceeded to unleash hell on Obama in a puzzling interview on The Charlie Rose Show. It was a curious - and obviously emotional - defense of his wife that, on the heels of the ridiculous drug comments from her campaign, has done little to actually bolster her argument to be president.
Examining her husband's argument, for his justifications to work he'd have to acknowledge that he wasn't qualified to run for president in 1992 and somehow magically transform his wife's experience from, well, his wife into that of actual executive or legislative leadership (it's worth noting that Obama, through his time in the state senate in Illinois and the U.S. Senate, actually has more years of service as an elected official than Clinton, but why quibble).
Then, in a truly weird plea for support, the former president said his wife is the ideal candidate because President George H.W. Bush would join their team in mending fences across the world ... something which boggles the mind in a Democratic primary since it's an appeal for votes via closeness with the Bush Family while serving as crazy on another level since it would require Bush I to literally say that his son had been a lousy leader of the free world (Bush I ultimately shot the idea down).
On top of all of this nonsense, Paul Krugman acts like a contrarian solely for the sake of acting like one. Now Krugman, who I like way more than not, says that Obama isn't the 'change' candidate - in fact, he argues he's actually the 'anti-change' candidate - because the latter has the audacity to actually want to interact with the existing players in the health care industry with regard to developing a health care plan. While I think this is actually the more sensible approach, particularly since the last time they were left out in the loop was in 1993 and their response was to parrot ridiculous falsehoods about a health care proposal from a Democratic administration, it's also worth noting that the less sensible approach toward addressing health care in this country is mandating coverage, as both Clinton and John Edwards ask for.
Again, just passing a law requiring that one buys health care does absolutely nothing to either ensure coverage or reduce costs. To accomplish the former you need to work with the existing players, while addressing the latter requires an effective balance of public- and private-sector efforts ... but I digress.
My larger point is that despite all of these negative attacks, Obama is still holding strong in the polls, winning over voters and proving naysayers wrong (as an aside, Jerome Armstrong advised Mark Warner ... listen, I like Warner, but it's ridiculous for a Warner guy to criticize someone who wants to bring folks, particularly big businesses, to the table). I'm an unabashed Obama man, so I'll concede that I'm quite biased in this discussion.
But it's interesting to observe that despite all of this talk about Obama not being 'battle-tested' or 'tough enough for the campaign' is kinda foolish seeing how he's staring down arguably the most vaunted political machine in our country ... and winning.
Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton in Iowa, has rallied to take a lead in New Hampshire and has tied her in South Carolina ... and now he's showing stronger numbers than Clinton in hypothetical head-to-head contests with the GOP candidates.
With good news, rising prospects and a slight status as the new frontrunner, one can expect to face stepped-up criticism and attacks. And look no further than the Clinton campaign, headlined by her husband, to start firing away.
Former president Bill Clinton proceeded to unleash hell on Obama in a puzzling interview on The Charlie Rose Show. It was a curious - and obviously emotional - defense of his wife that, on the heels of the ridiculous drug comments from her campaign, has done little to actually bolster her argument to be president.
Examining her husband's argument, for his justifications to work he'd have to acknowledge that he wasn't qualified to run for president in 1992 and somehow magically transform his wife's experience from, well, his wife into that of actual executive or legislative leadership (it's worth noting that Obama, through his time in the state senate in Illinois and the U.S. Senate, actually has more years of service as an elected official than Clinton, but why quibble).
Then, in a truly weird plea for support, the former president said his wife is the ideal candidate because President George H.W. Bush would join their team in mending fences across the world ... something which boggles the mind in a Democratic primary since it's an appeal for votes via closeness with the Bush Family while serving as crazy on another level since it would require Bush I to literally say that his son had been a lousy leader of the free world (Bush I ultimately shot the idea down).
On top of all of this nonsense, Paul Krugman acts like a contrarian solely for the sake of acting like one. Now Krugman, who I like way more than not, says that Obama isn't the 'change' candidate - in fact, he argues he's actually the 'anti-change' candidate - because the latter has the audacity to actually want to interact with the existing players in the health care industry with regard to developing a health care plan. While I think this is actually the more sensible approach, particularly since the last time they were left out in the loop was in 1993 and their response was to parrot ridiculous falsehoods about a health care proposal from a Democratic administration, it's also worth noting that the less sensible approach toward addressing health care in this country is mandating coverage, as both Clinton and John Edwards ask for.
Again, just passing a law requiring that one buys health care does absolutely nothing to either ensure coverage or reduce costs. To accomplish the former you need to work with the existing players, while addressing the latter requires an effective balance of public- and private-sector efforts ... but I digress.
My larger point is that despite all of these negative attacks, Obama is still holding strong in the polls, winning over voters and proving naysayers wrong (as an aside, Jerome Armstrong advised Mark Warner ... listen, I like Warner, but it's ridiculous for a Warner guy to criticize someone who wants to bring folks, particularly big businesses, to the table). I'm an unabashed Obama man, so I'll concede that I'm quite biased in this discussion.
But it's interesting to observe that despite all of this talk about Obama not being 'battle-tested' or 'tough enough for the campaign' is kinda foolish seeing how he's staring down arguably the most vaunted political machine in our country ... and winning.
posted by Jmac at 4:59 PM
2 Comments:
Although I think I'll be voting for Obama in the primary, I like the Clintons. I still regard them very highly.
That's why the latest turn saddens me. I think that HRC's campaign and the drug silliness, as well as WJC's comments of late, make the Clintons look like they are living up to the "Primary Colors," heretofore fictional, version of themselves.
Darren
Darren
Sorry for the double name.
Darren
Post a Comment
<< Home