Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Obama, Edwards and Richardson criticize Clinton
Posted by: McQ on Monday, October 15, 2007

For any long-time observer of American politics this should come as absolutely no surprise, however it is contra to the mirage of unity the Dems have attempted to put forward over the months since the campaign began.
Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson said Saturday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is "acting as if she's won" the nomination.

"I think this is a time when voters start making up their minds and we draw contrasts," the New Mexico governor told reporters after addressing a union picnic in Las Vegas. "This race is not over. ... We've got three months to go."

Richardson spent his day on the stump in Las Vegas distinguishing his positions from Clinton's. He described his plan to withdraw all troops from Iraq as the "clearest."

Richardson criticized Clinton's decision not to remove her name from the primary ballot in Michigan, despite a promise not to campaign in the state because it broke party rules in scheduling the contest before Feb. 5. Clinton is the front-runner.

"She wants to have it both ways, you're either in or out," Richardson said. "We got to have leaders in this country that are clear, that take strong positions."
Drawing "contrasts", of course, is pol-speak for attacking your opponent and, naturally, the opponent to be attacked is the front-runner. When the poll numbers were relatively close, it was easier to maintain the veneer of civility and collegiality while maintaining their biggest political enemy was the Republicans and the man in the White House.

But with Hillary Clinton rolling up a formidable lead and beginning to act as the front runner, that veneer has crumbled.

And the criticism is coming from other than just the candidates:
On the eve of a campaign visit to Britain, the wife of Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential contender, has delivered a spirited warning to Hillary Clinton, his toughest rival.

“Nothing is inevitable,” said Michelle Obama, vowing that her husband was a “uniter” who could beat Clinton to the party nomination.

Asked if she thought Clinton was a polarising figure, she replied: “That is definitely one of the challenges she faces. You can see it in the surveys.”

In an interview with The Sunday Times, she said that her husband had the magic to defeat the Clintons’ machine even though he was behind in the polls.
Right now it appears it would take magic to see Obama catch up to much less surpass Clinton in the polls. John Edwards, too, has joined the bash Hillary club in earnest:
Former Sen. John Edwards chimed in with his own criticism of Clinton on the war.

[...]

Edwards, who voted for the measure but has since apologized for that decision, said in a statement from North Carolina:

"Unfortunately, political rhetoric aside, Sen. Clinton has no specific plan to end the war in Iraq. Instead, she refuses to commit to a specific timeline for withdrawal and has made it clear that she will continue 'combat missions' in Iraq."
Like I said, this was as inevitable as sunrise. When one pulls away from the pack, that one becomes the target of attacks from the pack. And despite the lofty rhetoric early in the campaign from Obama about avoiding such attacks and speaking exclusively of ideas and plans, political reality changes such idealism rather quickly.

To this point, on the Republicans side, no one enjoys a commanding enough lead to warrant the types of attacks Clinton is weathering. If that sort of lead were to build for one of them, the same sort of phenomenon would occur. That's politics American-style.

The question how nasty it will get. How low will desperate presidential candidates go to stop the Hillary Express. And, will what they do effectively cripple her (she has high enough negatives now) to the point that even if she wins the nomination, she can't win the general election?

Republicans can only hope so and should be feeding this fire on the left as much as they can. With the crop of candidates they presently have, they'll need all the help they can get.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
That’s the thing—she has significant negatives. But Obama and Edwards are in over their heads.

You would think the Dems would run an A ticket when the Repub brand was in the toilet. Guess not.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Don writes:
That’s the thing—she has significant negatives. But Obama and Edwards are in over their heads.

You would think the Dems would run an A ticket when the Repub brand was in the toilet. Guess not.
The Democrats haven’t had an A ticket since 1960, and in retrospect that was 95% flash and 5% substance.

But we’re not looking at a real strong Republican field either, though if I can keep myself from gagging, I’m beginning to think that McCain would be better than the rest. How I went from thinking I’d never vote for him to thinking he could be the least unpalatable of the field, I don’t know.

I guess if it comes down to Hillary or somebody, McCain, for all his massive faults, might be the somebody.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
The Democrats haven’t had an A ticket since 1960, and in retrospect that was 95% flash and 5% substance.
Well, JFK had no executive experience (except driving a PT boat, but he parked in in front of a Japanese destroyer), and he won in ’60 with a tiny margin. And if it wasn’t for Democratic corruption, he likely wouldn’t have won. And he had to die so a Democrat with bigger stones could push his agenda through congress.

I’d consider Clinton an A ticket in ’92 and ’96, although he only ran against weak Republicans, he probably won due to the guy with the big ears, and he only received a minority of the vote. But he did have real executive experience, he ran as a moderate, and he achieved re-election by co-opting Republican legislation.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider