Who’s tougher? Who’s more damaging?

Written by: Bob FunkApril 24th, 2008
Comments:5 Comments
Category:'08 Election, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton
Rating:
(No Ratings Yet)

Loading ...

After Pennsylvania (and before), a lot of people, including myself, have been angry with the Clinton campaign for going after Obama so viciously, causing so many bruises, and costing us the November ballot. But should we be mad or are we just being plain silly?

According to many Obama supporters, it’s all Hillary’s fault. If she hadn’t launched all those vile, negative attacks on their hero — if she had just gone away — his aura would be intact, and his mission of unifying America still on track…

… The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election? [read article]

This is what Hillary has been saying for quite a while now and… (shhh)… I might be starting to buy it.

Additionally, maybe a large demographic of voters isn’t voting for Obama not because of he’s black, but because he’s not offering what they want:

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics… would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.

Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign’s Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn’t the campaign’s central theme.

Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.

It’s the last part of that excerpt that really gets to me. By attacking Clinton’s universal health care plan (which is far more progressive than his own), Obama is damaging public perception of such a concept - is this forgivable?

During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can’t afford. It was as negative as any ad that Mrs. Clinton has run — but perhaps more important, it was fear-mongering aimed at people who don’t think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it.

No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton.

Maybe it’s not who Obama is that is hurting him, maybe it’s what Obama concretely stands for that is hurting him.

One last thing to role around in the ol’ noggin: Hillary has been attacked, without mercy, almost her entire political career, yet she’s still in the running to be our next president. Can the same be said for Obama?

I may not like a lot of what Hillary has done during this campaign season, but I know something else I would like even less: McCain in the Oval Office.

Related Posts:

Education Thought for the Day

Who’s To Blame for the Mess in Iraq? Jimmy Carter, Of Course

Karl Ohs and Ethics

Thu, Apr 24, 2008

'08 Election, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton

Election, Health Care, Hillary Clinton, McCain, News, Obama, Pennsylvania, Politics

This post was written by:

Bob Funk - who has written 64 posts on Intelligent Discontent.

Contact the author

5 Comments For This Post

yal Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 12:16 am

First of all, it’s good to see you on this website; it’s good to know that you have received some well-deserved recognition.
Secondly, you were right. This particular contribution of yours did not appeal to me very much - mostly because it was based on PK’s article and PK has been anti-Obama and pro-Clinton from the beginning. I respect your willingness to consider things from all angles, but I would prefer to see your own opinions or opinions based on something other than the Clintons’ own press.
Thirdly, let’s fight the Rovian mindset the ClintonS and co. (why don’t you do a piece about the company - the DAILY company - our candidates keep?) have been trying to impose upon us ever since they realized that not everybody feels they have dibs on the WH.
yal

bobfunk Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 1:31 am

Fair enough. But, Krugman’s analysis can’t be discarded just because he’s “pro-Clinton.” Is he wrong when he asserts that the McCain on Obama will be a firebombing compared to the attacks he’s had lobbed at him from the Clinton camp?
Clinton’s numbers have stayed level (in a fight with McCain), while Obama’s have steadily dropped as he’s been attacked in the primary. The obvious assumption to be made here is this: the more “dirt (if you can call it that; e.g. Wright) that is dug up about Obama the less voters “like” him. Clinton, on the other hand, has almost nothing left to dig up (her yard and closet have been metaphorically emptied) and yet her numbers have stayed relatively unchanged.
But really, take away all the analysis and just leave the facts: Obama’s unabashed attack on Hillary’s universal health care plan. As an American yearning for a good universal health care plan, how can I be okay with one of my candidate’s attacking the idea.
The point is this: Obama’s attack on the health care plan because it will be too expensive hurts the overall battle to win support in the US for a major change in how we deal with health coverage. He fought on the wrong side of this issue in Pennsylvania, which is just as disappointing as Hillary’s national security “scare tactic” ads.
On the electability test, I think I may be wrong and I think Krugman may be wrong, but it’s worth thinking about, isn’t it? The general is going to be no joke and I don’t want to lose. I’m not going to full heartedly support someone without reservations or as full of an understanding of the situation as possible.
We can’t just ignore Obama’s (possible) weaknesses and hope that they go away. You must explore weaknesses, evaluate them, and react.

yal Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 4:23 pm

and when YOU do it, I’m okay with it. I’m willing to listen to you/read you to think of things I don’t like thinking about or am not aware of because I know you try to stay objective. The main reason I objected to your use of PK is just that, i.e. you were using him and just him. In my opinion, one doesn’t use a spokesman like PK to prove a point the Clinton campaign has been trying to make since “Day One”. If one wants to use slanted articles but avoid becoming slanted oneself, one needs to use slants from both sides.
I know how important the health care issue is for you. I truly wish John Edwards would declare for the candidate he prefers. I do wonder why he hasn’t.
Howsomever, I also feel that it is highly unlikely that either candidate will get very far with a health program once elected. I accept the fact that we have no idea what any of the three candidates will actually be like, be able to do, decide to do once elected, whoever is elected - Obama, McCain or Clinton (and I have listed them in reverse alphabetical order, so don’t read anything more into this other than the fact that I preferred to start with Obama), and I have made my choice with that in mind. As you know, I feel very strongly that we don’t need any more of the same ol’, same ol’. And there are more probabilities, imho, that Clinton and/or McCain would be same ol’, same ol’. I firmly believe that the election of Barack Obama would give America and Americans a chance to gain back some respect around the world, to make the world take pause and think that there is something to the American dream (or way of life, or political process) after all.

Pogie Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

It’s disappointing, but a fair point, to be skeptical that either candidate will get very far with healthcare proposals. The entrenched interests are just too powerful.

Of course, it would help if Senator Baucus was closer to the right side of this issue.

Laurie Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

See? This is why Hillary is still in the race, and why it would be good for the Democratic party if Obama just made the deal and asked her to be on his ticket. She wants her place in history, and has worked hard to earn it. Obama, on the other hand, was urged to run for president now before the shine wore off, and the little “scandals” (Jeremiah Wright, Michelle’s ‘patriotism,’ etc.)are adding up. The two together make an amazing ticket. The idealist who can’t stay organized long enough to remember where he put down his latest sheet of notes but can inspire zealous devotion, and the policy wonk whose toughness is indisputable.

As time wears on, the shine is wearing off Obama’s pretty little campaign. It’s a tough call to decide whether he could be elected come November. But if the Superdelegates gave it to Hillary, that would be distrastrous for the party and for race relations - and deservedly so.

Enough is enough. Obama needs to cut the deal already. If he’s not a shrewd enough politician to recognize that, he is not capable of being president.

yal Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 12:16 am
First of all, it’s good to see you on this website; it’s good to know that you have received some well-deserved recognition.
Secondly, you were right. This particular contribution of yours did not appeal to me very much - mostly because it was based on PK’s article and PK has been anti-Obama and pro-Clinton from the beginning. I respect your willingness to consider things from all angles, but I would prefer to see your own opinions or opinions based on something other than the Clintons’ own press.
Thirdly, let’s fight the Rovian mindset the ClintonS and co. (why don’t you do a piece about the company - the DAILY company - our candidates keep?) have been trying to impose upon us ever since they realized that not everybody feels they have dibs on the WH.
yal
bobfunk Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Fair enough. But, Krugman’s analysis can’t be discarded just because he’s “pro-Clinton.” Is he wrong when he asserts that the McCain on Obama will be a firebombing compared to the attacks he’s had lobbed at him from the Clinton camp?
Clinton’s numbers have stayed level (in a fight with McCain), while Obama’s have steadily dropped as he’s been attacked in the primary. The obvious assumption to be made here is this: the more “dirt (if you can call it that; e.g. Wright) that is dug up about Obama the less voters “like” him. Clinton, on the other hand, has almost nothing left to dig up (her yard and closet have been metaphorically emptied) and yet her numbers have stayed relatively unchanged.
But really, take away all the analysis and just leave the facts: Obama’s unabashed attack on Hillary’s universal health care plan. As an American yearning for a good universal health care plan, how can I be okay with one of my candidate’s attacking the idea.
The point is this: Obama’s attack on the health care plan because it will be too expensive hurts the overall battle to win support in the US for a major change in how we deal with health coverage. He fought on the wrong side of this issue in Pennsylvania, which is just as disappointing as Hillary’s national security “scare tactic” ads.
On the electability test, I think I may be wrong and I think Krugman may be wrong, but it’s worth thinking about, isn’t it? The general is going to be no joke and I don’t want to lose. I’m not going to full heartedly support someone without reservations or as full of an understanding of the situation as possible.
We can’t just ignore Obama’s (possible) weaknesses and hope that they go away. You must explore weaknesses, evaluate them, and react.
yal Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
and when YOU do it, I’m okay with it. I’m willing to listen to you/read you to think of things I don’t like thinking about or am not aware of because I know you try to stay objective. The main reason I objected to your use of PK is just that, i.e. you were using him and just him. In my opinion, one doesn’t use a spokesman like PK to prove a point the Clinton campaign has been trying to make since “Day One”. If one wants to use slanted articles but avoid becoming slanted oneself, one needs to use slants from both sides.
I know how important the health care issue is for you. I truly wish John Edwards would declare for the candidate he prefers. I do wonder why he hasn’t.
Howsomever, I also feel that it is highly unlikely that either candidate will get very far with a health program once elected. I accept the fact that we have no idea what any of the three candidates will actually be like, be able to do, decide to do once elected, whoever is elected - Obama, McCain or Clinton (and I have listed them in reverse alphabetical order, so don’t read anything more into this other than the fact that I preferred to start with Obama), and I have made my choice with that in mind. As you know, I feel very strongly that we don’t need any more of the same ol’, same ol’. And there are more probabilities, imho, that Clinton and/or McCain would be same ol’, same ol’. I firmly believe that the election of Barack Obama would give America and Americans a chance to gain back some respect around the world, to make the world take pause and think that there is something to the American dream (or way of life, or political process) after all.
Pogie Says:
April 25th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
It’s disappointing, but a fair point, to be skeptical that either candidate will get very far with healthcare proposals. The entrenched interests are just too powerful.

Of course, it would help if Senator Baucus was closer to the right side of this issue.
Laurie Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
See? This is why Hillary is still in the race, and why it would be good for the Democratic party if Obama just made the deal and asked her to be on his ticket. She wants her place in history, and has worked hard to earn it. Obama, on the other hand, was urged to run for president now before the shine wore off, and the little “scandals” (Jeremiah Wright, Michelle’s ‘patriotism,’ etc.)are adding up. The two together make an amazing ticket. The idealist who can’t stay organized long enough to remember where he put down his latest sheet of notes but can inspire zealous devotion, and the policy wonk whose toughness is indisputable.

As time wears on, the shine is wearing off Obama’s pretty little campaign. It’s a tough call to decide whether he could be elected come November. But if the Superdelegates gave it to Hillary, that would be distrastrous for the party and for race relations - and deservedly so.

Enough is enough. Obama needs to cut the deal already. If he’s not a shrewd enough politician to recognize that, he is not capable of being president.

Intelligent Discontent