Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Mudslinging Reality Check for Clinton

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:09 AM
Original message
A Mudslinging Reality Check for Clinton

The elections are right around the corner, but only the frontrunners are allowed on television. The other candidates are being arrested and thrown in jail. For all the moaning by Democratic candidates about how mean their rivals are, it takes only a quick look at what's happening in Russia or Pakistan these days to see genuinely hardball politics.

Parliamentary elections being held in Russia this coming Sunday, in fact, stand in sharp relief to what has actually been a remarkably genteel campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination here at home, despite all the caterwauling. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) complained during a debate in Las Vegas this month that her opponents were "throwing mud" at her, while Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) complained yesterday that it was Clinton who was making "personal attacks" against him.

Time for a little reality check here. The "mud" Clinton groused about was, in fact, a series of questions about her policy positions or her experience. Obama's criticism of her vote on an Iran resolution may be overblown or distorted, but is it mud to debate an important foreign policy question? Former North Carolina senator John Edwards's assertion that she is too tied into a calcified, corrupted Washington establishment to bring about meaningful change may be tough or exaggerated but is it illegitimate to ask whether someone who has been at the center of the system for the last 15 years can genuinely reform it?

Similarly, Clinton yesterday attacked Obama for using a Senate leadership political action committee to spread money around to supporters in key early primary states in a manner that "appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing election laws." Obama's campaign responded by branding it "the latest personal attack from Hillary Clinton." What's personal about asking if another candidate broke the law in his management of campaign funds? It may be desperate coming from a frontrunner, or even hypocritical for someone whose family has been in the middle of more than one campaign scandal, but there doesn't seem to be anything all that personal about it.

read the rest at:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/27/pos...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cleveramerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. what do you think?
what is your personal reaction to this story? do you agree?
Thats what I'm interested in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Why?
What's so interesting about my reaction to the story?

In any case, here you are: I agree with the story as it pertains to Obama more than as it pertains to Edwards. But then admittedly, I see Edwards primarily through the prism of his Senate career.

I think it's hypocritical of Clinton to go after Obama when her fundraising practices are so unappetizing. In fact, if she's the nominee, I think those practices will be a big problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:18 AM
Response to Original message
2. The last line: "And be glad they're not in Russia."
So true. At least Bush hasn't jailed any of them (like Putin's done to Kasparov)...


...yet. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:18 AM
Response to Original message
3. Let me get this straight: we're petty whiners because we don't expect to be jailed?
That is the dimwitted essence here, isn't it?

So, we're adding this POS to the pile of negative Hillary coverage. Because the MSM really wants Hillary to be the candidate...so Giuliani can beat her...or because they want Hillary because she's a fascist...or because they want Hillary....except they don't. They want Obama. Ask Kos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Do you EVER have anything of substance to add to a thread?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 30th 2014, 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC