Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 Talk about ignoring history (or being abjectly ignorant of it at a minimum)the New York Times today took Hillary Clinton to task for her style of winning in PA. They are "shocked, shocked I tell you" that a Clinton is acting like a Clinton. Of course most of that comes from a selective memory which apparently only goes back to 2000. That's why you see absurd passages like this: On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.Karl Roves's playbook? My guess is Karl Rove learned all the tricks of the trade from a past master of such shenanigans - Bill Clinton. You do remember that this Bush followed Clinton? And it was Clinton who was always acknowledged as the best practitioner of the politics of personal destruction, hands down. This is just Clinton II for heaven sake. What is revealing and literally laughable is that it is only now that the NYT is discovering this 16 year old Clinton campaign tactic. Previously, apparently, it either missed it completely or studiously ignored it, because, you know, it was Republicans who were the target, not Democrats. Now, this "Rovian" behavior is causing NYT to have second thoughts about its endorsement of Ms. Clinton. By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.First, the "issues" have been "engaged" for 15 months. Even Republicans know the "differences" they have on the issues. And previous "engagements" have led to nothing more than restatements of their talking points or reversion to mini-versions of their stump speeches. There's nothing to be learned from any further "engagements" on the issues. They're as alike as two peas in a pod. What isn't settled though, is the question of the fitness of the candidates to be President (and that includes McCain as well). So it is quite legitimate to question associations, experience (or lack thereof) and other qualifications and intangibles. And what is becoming clear is that Obama is not faring well in that examination. Apparently when these sorts of questions are asked of a Democrat it smacks of 'dirty politics'. What's uncomfortable for the NYT is the questions are being asked by another Democrat. I certainly don't remember a time when the same level of concern was expressed by the NYT when the object of such questions was a member of the opposing party, do you? While the hypocrisy of the NYT is palpable in this editorial, near the bottom the real reason for the scolding of Clinton becomes evident: No matter what the high-priced political operatives (from both camps) may think, it is not a disadvantage that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share many of the same essential values and sensible policy prescriptions. It is their strength, and they are doing their best to make voters forget it. And if they think that only Democrats are paying attention to this spectacle, they’re wrong.Of course, they're correct. The bloom is definitely off the Obama rose. And while the NYT has finally admitted their endorsed candidate isn't going to get the nomination, they also understand the destruction that is taking place is becoming permanent. What they won't admit, however, is it has been done not by a Rovian playbook, but the older Clintonian playbook. In other words, this really isn't news. The fact that the NYT and other Democrats are suddenly waking up to what the other half of the country has known about the Clintons for years is, frankly, hilarious. But even so, they really can't quite make themselves admit it, can they? And that inability to admit the truth is what makes self-righteous and pompous editorials like this deserve only one reaction - a good old Bronx cheer. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TrackBacks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments For This Post | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Add Your Comment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
