Clinton vs. Obama: An Oscar-worthy campaign drama
Published February 25, 2007
WASHINGTON -- How appropriate that the presidential campaign drama that some already are calling "Geffengate" and "Hilla-Bama," among other nicknames happened to break during Oscar week.
Nothing puts a smile on the lips or a lift in the footsteps of reporters and pundits like a story brimming with big names, powerful people, Hollywood glitter and major feuding.
One must call upon the drama critic in one's soul to do justice to the epic reception that Southern California's Democratic donors with deep pockets gave to Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. For most of us, it would be enough to have Halle Berry say, as she said exuberantly of Obama, that she would go out and pick up litter in the streets to ease his progress.
Nipping the heels of the big-money fundraisers came a titanic war of words between Obama's supporters and those of the presidential front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. Oh, pass the popcorn!
In this corner, we have movie mogul David Geffen, who you may recall was once a big booster and running buddy of President Bill Clinton. That was yesterday. Last week Geffen co-hosted a $1.3 million star-studded Beverly Hills fundraiser for Obama, followed by dinner for a few VIP donors with the senator and his wife, Michelle, at Geffen's palatial home.
Geffen also slung a few barbs at Sen. Clinton. In an interview with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, he called Clinton unelectable and raised questions about both Clintons' ethics and trustworthiness. "Everyone in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling," Geffen told Dowd.
Round two: Clinton's chief spokesman, Howard Wolfson, responded with a demand that Obama disavow attacks from Geffen, whom Wolfson incorrectly called Obama's "finance chair." Wolfson called for Obama to return Geffen's money if Obama is "indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics."
In fact, Geffen is only a fundraiser, not a member of Obama's campaign.
Obama's chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs, dismissed Wolfson's demands in the fashion of a city known for having once had a massacre on St. Valentine's Day. "We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters," Gibbs said. "It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom."
With that counterpunch, Gibbs reminded everyone of the mid-1990s Lincoln bedroom campaign-finance scandals that the Clintons would rather have us forget.
So, who wins this round? With misgivings about Sen. Clinton's viability already worrying many in her base, despite her front-runner status in the polls, I don't see how reminders of the grim side of the Clinton years hurt Obama in any way.
And Wolfson's reaction revealed a curious touchiness for a front-runner's spokesman. I imagine it must be quite painful for Team Clinton to watch what they see as another free pass for Obama in his mostly favorable media coverage. But if anyone should know better than to try holding candidates accountable for what each and every one of their supporters says, it is Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Obama himself was wise to lie low and emerge later at a Houston fundraiser with his halo intact as Sen. Peacemaker. He called for an end to the "tit-for-tat" that dominates politics. That was a good move to make before another "tat" could come flying his way from the Clinton camp.
Since the country is waiting with either hope or dread for Obama to stumble in his rapid ascendancy, it says a lot about his instincts and the reflexes of his campaign team that they responded rapidly and passionately to the Hillary aide's jabs. He and his people appear to have learned from the mistakes of earlier candidates who let accusations fester for too long in the media boilers until the charges took on an undeserved appearance of truth.
I often hear from people who complain about news coverage that "focuses on the candidates instead of the issues." But that ignores, in my view, how much the candidates themselves are the issue.
" It's not a big deal, but I wanted to put to rest any impression that I had a problem with what Snood said. He caught me not reading the link I was citing: And I didn't just have no problem with this, I thought it was funny.
