ehBeth wrote:sozobe wrote: Main thing I'm saying is that Hillary attacking Obama and Obama parrying her blows doesn't help EITHER of them. Only helps McCain.
Interesting that you don't seem to see it as the Democratic candidates attacking each other. My read of the news would suggest they've both got a decent ability to attack - their techniques are different, but they're both in there flinging stuff around.
Neither of them deserves a pass in this category.
I purposely have been using that formulation because so often it's reported that the two of them are "fighting" which implies an equivalency that I don't think is there. This started to really bother me during the "race card" stretch in South Carolina. It was started by Bill Clinton making some remarks that publicly concerned Donna Brazile and James Clyburn -- both of those people are neutral, not associated with Obama's campaign at all. Then Hillary surrogates got in the act, with that BET guy saying lovely things about Obama selling drugs (and insisting, for nearly a week, that he meant something more innocent, honestly, before finally apologizing). Then Hillary herself spent an hour on "Meet the Press" attacking Obama for one thing or another and laying the whole "race row" at his feet. That was a Sunday, after things had been getting hotter for about a week. After her appearance, Obama said wait, I haven't even commented on this whole thing until now! Then by the next day -- Monday -- as things were escalating and escalating, he called a press conference to say that hey, let's calm down, the Clintons are good people.
Hillary followed it up with her own statement about an hour later, uh, yeah, let's calm down, totally agree.
Yet this was reported as a) Hillary and Obama were fighting about "the race card," and b) they mutually decided to bury the hatchet. This blamed Obama far more than he deserved for the initial flap, and gave Hillary far more credit than she deserved for bringing things to an end.
That's just an example. There are many, many things that Obama could be using against Hillary that he isn't. He just won't go there. He does policy-based stuff that is sometimes annoys me -- the health care things about "under Hillary's plan you will need to buy insurance even if you can't afford it," etc. But while Hillary brings up Ayers* and is happy to talk about how very bad that "bitter" comment was, Obama defends her Bosnia gaffe. He hasn't touched those boxes of oppo that the Republicans have -- Whitewater, Monica, etc., etc. He could use the same excuse as she has been; "Well, if she can't withstand my attack, how can she expect to defeat the Republicans?"
*
Quote:Bill Ayers' brother, Rick Ayers, is lashing out at Hillary Clinton, accusing her of "McCarthyism" for making an issue of rival Barack Obama's links to Chicago professor Bill Ayers during this week's Democratic presidential debate.
"The fact that she would drag up this pathetic red herring about Obama's alleged ties to so-called terrorist Bill Ayers (my brother!) brings her right down to the level of Fox News and the National Enquirer," blogged Rick Ayers, a California high school teacher and author.
"This is the most base version of McCarthyism," he wrote. "Obama should have taken a page from Joseph Welch when he confronted the red-baiting senator during the Army-McCarthy hearings. He should have said, 'Senator Clinton, are you really going to go there? Do you have no shame?'"
Clinton raised the relationship as a potential general election sore spot for Obama should he defeat her.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/904015,CST-NWS-ayers19.article