Democratic Presidential candidates tactics and behavior
I love this line,
"Let's have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign." - Senator Hillary Clinton to Senator Barack Obama in a speech.
It’s only in politics where one candidate can complain about the actions of another while using racial attacks, smears, and religion (all indirectly) to attack their opponent. It’s only in politics where a candidate could possibly count on the public completely forgetting pervasive and continuous attacks and claim that they in fact are the victim.
To date the Clinton campaign has been directly linked to multiple dirty tactics against Senator Obama. No matter what you may feel politically you have to notice these facts:
- The Clinton campaign forwarded emails claiming that Senator Obama is a Muslim – which is false.
- The Clinton campaign alleged that Senator Obama was a drug dealer in his youth – which there is no proof of, nor ever alleged prior. Obama has long ago admitted that he used drugs in his youth, and that such action was a low point in his life and not something that youth should do.
- The Clinton campaign has focused on the full name of Senator Obama – his name is Barack Hussein Obama. And what does that mean? If his name was Buck Rogers would that imply he has knowledge of the future? Does a name his parents gave him mean anything about his life? Does yours?
- Former-President Bill Clinton directly injected the factor of race prior to the South Carolina Primary – Through various speeches and after the loss the dismissal to Senator Obama’s win, President Bill Clinton minimized not only Obama, but Jesse Jackson and Dr. Martin Luther King (along with Hillary – though in a much more quiet manner).
- The Clinton campaign highlighted the connection of Senator Obama to a slumlord – A past association to a client of the law firm Senator Obama worked at. His prior association (including receiving donations to his State Senate election) all occurred without Rezco ever being accused of violating any law. This is confirmed by all the Chicago newspapers looking for any wrongdoing over months of research. (By the way, Clinton did associate with and accept $1 million in stolen money from known fugitive from the law Norman Hsu).
- And the latest item (not that the above are the only examples, I just picked the most popular ones)? The Clinton campaign will neither confirm nor deny that it has published a photo of Senator Obama, dressed in the garb of a tribal elder while in Kenya. The implication is obvious. It’s an attempt to feed into the religious prejudice of this nation, specifically focused on Muslims since the 9/11 attacks.
It does not matter that Senator Clinton, and President George Bush have both worn similar garb as a matter of respect and honor when visiting nations in Africa and the world?. Does that mean that President George Bush is a Muslim? Obviously that is a laughable concept, but why does it change context when applied to Senator Obama? Because some small-minded, bigoted, racist, uneducated, potentially inbred, blights to humanity can’t get past color of skin and a faith they likely know nothing about. And Senator Clinton is counting on those votes to get her the nomination.
…..Plouffe said in a statement: “On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election. This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire, and it’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world,” said Plouffe.
Of course Senator Clinton has not directly made any of these statements. She has consultants that compare Senator Obama to Nazis, minor aides sending out the emails alleging a false connection to Islam, a senior aide implying drug dealing, and of course Bill in South Carolina and beyond.
Funny how none of these things are her fault. That for a candidate known for micromanaging every aspect of her campaign she is so out of control when they consistently (for over 6 months) smear, lie, and prejudicially and personally attack Senator Obama.
So when I hear Senator Clinton cry out that she wants to “debate about your tactics and your behavior” I have to ask, does her mirror somehow obscure her own actions when she looks at it? I wonder that if her moral compass shows these kinds of tactics as the high road, what is the low? And if there is no line to cross in just attempting to get the Democratic nomination, what line would she also cross if elected President?
I would suggest that those in Vermont, Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas all consider this before voting in their Primaries on March 4th. I hope everyone votes, but know what you are voting for.
Labels: Democratic nomination, Norman Hsu, Ohio, President Bill Clinton, President George Bush, Rhode Island, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont
1 Comments:
This post is reposted from Presidential race blog where this post can be found, and Michael Vass is a contributor.
DetroitK
Will Senator Clinton denounce/reject Bill?
May 16, 2005
For Immediate Release
For More Information, Contact: Bryan Rudnick 561-499-3201
CLINTON SUPPORTS FARRAKHAN MARCH - ADL DITHERS
Don Feder, president of Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation, charged that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has a double standard - one for conservatives and another for prominent liberals.
“When it comes to attacking conservatives - Pat Robertson, Mel Gibson - the ADL leaps to the fray,” Feder noted. Last year, ADL National Director Abraham Foxman suggested that Gibson’s film, “The Passion Of The Christ,” could unleash a wave of anti-Semitism.
But when ex-president Bill Clinton endorses an upcoming march by America’s most notorious anti-Semite, the ADL is circumspect to the point of timidity.
In an interview with the Amsterdam News (posted on its website on May 4th ), Clinton said Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s October 14-15 rally in Washington DC was “a very positive idea.” Moreover, the ex-president asserted that Farrakhan’s 1995 Million Man March was about “standing up for the dignity of the family and asking African American men and fathers to be more responsible.”
Said Feder, “Yes, and it was also about black racism, virulent anti-Americanism and unvarnished Jew hatred.” Farrakhan has called Jews “leeches,” and “wicked deceivers of the American people,” who exploit blacks and manipulate US foreign policy for their own sinister ends.
“The Clinton interview has been out for almost two weeks, and the ADL has yet to officially comment,” Feder added.
A call to the ADL press office disclosed that the organization has written a letter to Clinton (presumably for a clarification) and is awaiting a response before it takes an official position.
“The ADL is in a quandary,” Feder explained. “If it says nothing, its credibility will be destroyed. On the other hand, it doesn’t want to attack a liberal icon that many of its members adore. Its letter to Clinton is buying time while it decides what, if anything, to do.”
Increasingly, the Anti-Defamation League is seen by Middle America as a liberal organization pushing a liberal agenda, in the guise of fighting anti-Semitism.
Feder concluded, “I guess Foxman and company are too busy attacking Christianity and looking for anti-Semites under conservative beds to respond to a liberal ex-president’s endorsement of the most vile and dangerous hate-monger in America.”
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home