Have you noticed that the more Hillary Clinton scrabbles to win the Democratic nomination, the more her campaign resembles that of George Bush?
From what we’ve seen lately, she’ll do anything to win. The end justifies the means.
Is that really the kind of attitude we are looking for again? Do we want to end up with a female George Bush--can’t admit mistakes, lies when convenient, overestimates self-worth, underestimates and undervalues the citizenry, so wise that they can decide what is right for the American people, whether the people agree or not?
All is not fair in love, war and politics; that is just a thing that people say to justify being nasty.
It’s laughable that Hillary paints herself as the victim of attacks and smears when she employs the tactics herself. She must have taken some notes from her nemesis, Karl Rove, because some of the goings-on in this campaign lately have seemed sickeningly familiar.
Paint your opponent as effete, out-of-touch. If he is black, paint him as not black enough, or too black. Paint him as out of touch with the black voter. Attack his “morals,” even in an unprincipled way. If he is a hero, paint him as a coward. Paint him as “weak on terror.” And if he is reasonable and intelligent, paint him as a liberal. The American public has bought into this in the past, but will it work again? Kick ‘em when they’re up, kick ‘em when they’re down—attack, attack, attack.
Who dug up the clips of Reverend Wright that have so repulsed the white folks in Indiana that they now feel that they must vote for Hillary? To those that would fly to Hillary’s side over this flap, I would ask: Is it really a coincidence that this came out when Hillary looked like she was down for the count? Question the source, question the motivation, recognize the smear.
Even if the campaign wasn't behind it, they have certainly reveled in it and used it to their political advantage. What Geraldine Ferraro said wasn't racist or ridiculous (though she quickly disappeared from the staff), but what Jeremiah Wright said was? So Hillary repudiated the woman, but not the words.
Hillary equates herself to the fictional Rocky Balboa, fighting the good fight. Rocky, indeed. Rocky never threw a punch below the belt, even when he was down. Rocky didn’t employ a win-at-all costs, kitchen-sink attack. Rocky didn’t fire his manager when things looked grim, he fought harder, not dirtier. Rocky would have stood by his corner man no matter what. That's what made him a hero. Ma'am, you are no Rocky.
How many of the folks in the Clinton campaign have stepped down due to some flap or another? Do we really want to elect someone with no allegiance to those that helped her to get where she is? Nope, just "Buh-bye." The end is what's important.
Does the American public expect and demand that Obama completely repudiate the man that he has considered his friend and spiritual advisor? That’s the kind of “character” we are looking for in a President? That’s what the media and the Clinton Campaign would have you believe.
Apparently Hillary would have no second-thoughts about it. Is that a good thing? Rush to judgement; Off with his head! And she’s damn proud of it.
The Clinton Campaign’s desperate, win-at-all-costs mentality is not going to bring people together when the nomination comes down. Call me a hand-wringer if you want; the truth remains.
The sad thing is that she knows it, but doesn’t care. Kind of like George Bush, who, in Orwellian style, called himself the “Uniter” and then proceeded to divide this country and the entire world, truth be damned.
Long before she announced, conservatives labeled Hillary as “divisive.” She appears to be living up to that label and playing right into their hands.
I never dreamed I would ever agree with a conservative.
And that makes me feel dirty.
Sphere: Related Content