Hillary Clinton joins John McCain in attacking Barack Obama from the right. As Steve Benen points out, ” Clinton is sounding an awful lot like a Republican candidate.” With regards to Obama’s statement, Steve writes:
Clinton and McCain pounced simultaneously, with identical messages, in large part because this is all they’ve got. Jeremiah Wright simply wasn’t enough. Obama gave them an opportunity with a couple of awkward sentences, but at the same time, he also captured some real, genuine disaffection that exists in plenty of communities nationwide.
If Obama had been reading from a prepared text, or sticking to carefully-crafted talking points, he certainly wouldn’t have phrased this point the same way. But he was making an observation about why voters have been willing to give up on voting on economic issues, and here’s the kicker: I think he was probably right.
If I were advising the Obama campaign, I’d actually embrace the controversial quote. Of course folks in small towns are clinging to their guns; they’ve been led to believe the state is coming to take away their 2nd Amendment rights. Of course they cling to their faith; given the economic turmoil in their communities, they have to cling to institutions that give them strength and hope. Of course they’re bitter; while millionaires and wealthy corporations have been well represented in corridors of power for as long as they can remember, they’ve been working harder, making less, and feeling like they’ve been left behind.
That’s not an un-American sentiment. That’s not reflective of poor values. That’s not elitism. That’s reality.
As Steve said, “Clinton and McCain pounced simultaneously, with identical messages, in large part because this is all they’ve got.” And in large part because Clinton and McCain represent the same governing philosophy, and would deliver more of the same if either were elected.
Those who want politicians who sanitize every word they say to avoid the risk of offending anyone (and avoid the risk of saying anything of substance) will continue to prefer the Bush/Clinton/McCain Party. Those of us who prefer a leader who is willing to actually say something (and actually change things if elected) will continue to support Obama.
Norm Scheiber also notes the similarities between Clinton’s attack on Obama and attacks fron the right, as she has lowered herself to the level of Michelle Malkin:
Strange how the Clinton approach to strengthening the Democratic Party is remarkably similar to the GOP’s approach to strengthening the Democratic Party.
Related Stories:
More Attacks on Obama From the McCain/Clinton Party
Obama Responds to Clinton/McCain Attacks
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…it should probably be filled with birdshot and cooked for dinner.
Bob Barr, Libertarian for President, is also attacking Obama for his anti-White rural America comments. Barr was just quoted at the North Carolina Libertarian Party convention saying Obama’s comments were deeply offensive to gun owners and rural Americans.
Full text at http://www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com
I can take normal pandering from politicians but when it’s dished out at Clinton’s level I have a strong reaction. So Clinton not only is willing to dash through a hail of sniper bullets to comfort US soldiers she also gets her kicks from dispatching animals for the fun of it. She’s not only truth-challenged but she really is a conservative in Dem’s clothing.
Eric,
In other words, by resorting to such distortions of what Obama has said, Bob Barr is revealing that he is just another dishonest sleezy politician like McCain and Clinton.
This pretty much shoots any credibility for him.
Well, the other top contender for the Libertarian nomination slammed Obama last week too. In fact, virtually the entire libertarian movement is up in arms over his offensive remarks.
Looks like Obama has managed to turn libertarians against him too. I think the gun issue was the final straw.
Obama still has considerable support among libertarians. Many of the libertarians who have been anti-Obama are really conservative Republicans such as yourself who have taken the libertarian label. Unfortunately such conservatives often dominate the Libertarian Party.
I believe it is much ado about nothing. The criticism stings only because the words Sen. Obama used tend to reflect the attitude of leadership of the Democratic Party and their financial backers in regards to the great unwashed in “fly over country” and he has now been stained by that association, even though I believe he was trying to express a solidarity with this same group.
I genuinely don’t believe Sen. Obama has that same elitist attitude so easily identifiable with the left. Further, I find it somewhat amusing in that Hillary’s supporters are some of the most notorious for at least appearing to have that attitude, while she has been steadfastly trying to attract that voting block by moving her politics to the center over the last 8 years in the Senate. At least now she has a story (i.e. my daddy taught me to shoot and took me hunting when I was a kid) that nobody can prove to be false.
It might be true that nobody can prove Hillary’s story to be false, but I also don’t think that many voters will be convinced by it.
Agreed. I find myself amazed at how clumsy Sen. Clinton’s campaign has been. Her timid assertion of having shot a gun a few times as a child will in no way convince supporters of Second Amendment rights that she is one of them and will only antagonize those who believe any one who has ever touched a gun to be apostate.
I believe that Sen. Clinton was completely caught of guard by the emergence of Sen. Obama’s candidacy and can not regain her footing. Sen. Obama on the other hand has been able to handle each and every one of his difficulties with grace and composure. McCain also seems to be unflappable to this point. Hopefully, this portends to a much more civil general election than we have seen in the past, attempts by the “Move on . org” crowd to stir it up already not withstanding.
I think it is pretty clear that Clinton’s campaign never expected any meaningful opposition, and had no real plan to handle a contested campaign.
Hopefully a campaign between Obama and McCain will stick more to issues and both will stay away from Bush/Rove/Clinton styles of campaigning.
Yea, I’m just a “conservative Republican” alright: Pro-Choice, Pro-Drug Legalization, Anti-Political Correctness, Pro-Gambling, Pro-Prostitution, Eliminating the Draft/Selective Service, End Foreign Aid, Anti-Smoking Bans.
You pegged me Ron. Just a “typical conservative Republican.”
Eric,
I didn’t say you were a “typical conservative Republican.” Once again you argue by misquoting the opposition as opposed to responding to the actual argument.
There are conservative Republicans who do vary from other conservative Republicans on a handful of issues such as you list. This does not change the fact that you are essentially a far right Republican, regardless if you differ on a handful of issues.
In your previous posts you’ve defended the war and the Patriot Act. You’ve opposed freedom of expression in opposing the war and have supported what is essentially a military dictatorship. You parrot most of the typical right wing talking points which differ from reality (and frequently return repeating the same claims regardless of how many times they have been disproved by the facts.) Your mind set is certainly one of a far right Republican, not a libertarian.
You are hardly alone on the issues you cite. For example, Bill Bennett is quite a supporter of gambling. Many conservatives oppose the draft. Lots of Republicans (as well as Democrats) patronize prostitutes.