Clinton and Obama Continue to Go at Each Other’s Throat
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to go at each other’s throat. I’ve had it with the double standard.
First Obama criticizes Clinton for being overly ambitious and, especially, for planning her White House run for decades - working towards it and keeping it in the back of her mind constantly - whereas he, Obama, wasn’t thinking about running for president until fairly recently. Then we have Clinton striking back at Obama quoting, believe it or not, essays Obama wrote when he was in Kindergarten and in third grade. The titles of the essays: “I Want To Become President.”
Now, I’ve got to say, if that’s all Clinton has got, it’s quite sad. What child doesn’t want to be its country’s leader?
Of course, that’s not all - she’s got more:
Immediately after joining the Senate, Senator Obama started planning run for President. “‘The first order of business for Senator Obama’s team was charting a course for his first two years in the Senate. The game plan was to send Senator Obama into the 2007-2008 election cycle in the strongest form possible’…The final act of the plan was turning up the talk about a potential Presidential bid, which was greatly aided by his positive press and suggestions by pundits that he run for President.” [U.S. News and World Report, 6/19/07 ]
His law school classmates say that Senator Obama has been planning Presidential run for ‘more than a decade.’ [A]ccording to those who know him, he has been talking about the presidency for more than a decade. “It was clear to me from the day I met him that he was thinking about politics,” says Harvard Law School classmate Christine Spurell. [Washington Post, 8/12/07 ]
Not only that, no, 15 years ago he told his brother-in-law the following: “I think I’d like to teach at some point in time, and maybe run for public office… Possibly even run for President at some point.”
As Matthew Continetti points out Clinton is throwing rocks from a glass house here but it seems to me that this is exactly Clinton’s point, but then about Obama. Obama criticizes her for being a “calculating careerist” while he’s not any better. Of course, those who are somewhat realistic understand that every single person who runs for president - better, who has a shot at becoming president - is overly ambitious and a “calculating careerist.” Every single one of them. Romney is. Clinton is. Huckabee is. Giuliani is. Obama is.
As such, Clinton’s criticism is fair.
Having said that, one wonders in how far Clinton’s attacks on Obama will have the desired effect. Won’t they backfire? If you take a look at Memeorandum you get the impression that bloggers are falling all over themselves to attack Clinton. Suitably Flip summarizes what’s happening as follows: “If anything, it’s endearing to her opponent. The innocent but daring hopes of a bright young schoolboy vs. the calculations of a sitting First Lady who also dabbled in the politically pragmatic enabling of a powerful sexual predator. The ultimate underdog vs. the ultimate insider. Hope vs. due.
“Not all Presidential ambitions are created equal. Whether or not Obama was trying to hoodwink us with his claim, this is not a comparison Clinton wants to make.”
Don Surber argues that if this is everything Clinton has got, she’s got a problem: “What makes it entertaining is that she has so little on him. Millions for opposition research to deliver a few pennies’ worth of news.” He then goes on to write: “That’s the pot calling the kettle too ambitious. I think Hill began planning in the womb.”
Dan Riehl isn’t impressed either: “I guess Hillary’s message to school children as young as kindergarten age is, don’t dare dream of wanting to be President one day, let alone putting it in an essay, because one day it might be turned against you? How inspiring. I didn’t think it possible, but her campaign really has come off the track. Dumb. Just so freaking dumb.”
Those are the conservatives, then there are also liberals such as Kevin Drum who criticize not Obama but Clinton. Drum calls Clinton’s attack “laughable.” Lean Left joins the party: “It’s all in the grade school essay people! And what kindergartener can spell ‘Become.’ Such plagiarism at such a young age can only stand in mute condemnation of Obama’s lack of ethics and sickening desire to win at all costs. I mean, has anyone even seen Obama’s permament record? What does he have to hide by keepingthat secret, I wonder! Is it irresponsible to speculate that Obama’s grade school history shows a pattern of abusing small, furry animals and drug use? It would be irresponsible not to speculate!”
In short: Clinton’s campaign may have very well made a mistake by playing it dirty. Or at least aggressively. Well, by attacking Obama directly.
Or: does anyone notice who attacks Clinton? It aren’t the DLC Democrats, it aren’t moderate Democrats… it are conservatives - who wouldn’t vote for the Democratic candidate even if it would be Obama - and Obama supporters. These people strike back, yes, but they’ve got a vested interest. American conservatives simply hate Clinton - the more attacks I read, the more I realize that the hatred truly is unreasonable and that they’ve turned her into some kind of evil monster in their mind (just as liberals have done with Bush ironically) - Obama supporters want the Senator from Illinois to beat her (and quite some of them dislike Clinton because Clinton represents the DLC).
So here’s my take on it, the take of someone who pretty objective: the first and third grade examples were ludicrous, but the other ones were usable. Clinton isn’t trying to make herself look better, she’s rightfully pointing out that Obama likes to pretend he’s better than the rest, but he’s not. That’s what she’s doing and she’s right. Personally I get a bit sick of it: Clinton represents all that’s evil and overly ambitious, Obama is the second coming of Christ.
Well, I beg to disagree.
Obama isn’t any more virtuous,as far as I can tell, then Clinton. If I were an American Democrat I would be greatly annoyed by his constant attacks on Clinton. He is basically using the same attacks the partisan Republicans use against her.
The politics of hope are, as I see one big joke. Obama surely plays politics, but there isn’t much ‘hope’ about it now that the we’re coming closer to the primaries.
Does that mean that Obama is worse than Clinton? Of course not. It’s just that the double standard is frustrating. Whenever Clinton says something bad about Obama she’s attacked, but when Obama attacks Clinton he’s celebrated. This while one is not more virtuous than the other and this while both are overly ambitious. Both are politicians and both are willing to do what’s ever necessary to win the nomination. There’s nothing wrong with that, it only means that “the politics of hope” should not be taken seriously.
UPDATE: O, what’s that? Obama may not be leading in Iowa after all… Having said that, one thing is very clear: it’s a very close race.
I don’t know, Michael, you seem to be using the existence of CDS to dismiss even the legitimate criticism of Hillary Clinton. For one thing, I’d dispute that it’s only conservatives who ‘hate’ HC- there is plenty of opposition to her from the left as well (because she’s more of a mainstream, corporate Dem and there are many liberals who rail against that). There’s also plenty of real criticism of ethical lapses on her part which support the idea that her extreme ambition creates an ‘ends justifies the means’ mentality. Showing that Obama has had his eye on the presidency doesn’t prove that he’s got that kind of ruthless ambition, which is what is being criticized with Hillary (not the desire for the presidency, but a blinding desire for it).
Frankly I’m a bit surprised that her fundraising misdeeds haven’t been criticized more by her opponents- but I can only assume that may be due to the opponents also having skeletons in their closets.
When you paint an equivalency between Obama and Clinton though, I think the fact that Hillary had to reach back to a kindergarten essay to make her point seems to show that in fact there is no equivalency- Obama really does come across as much ‘purer’ if it is that hard to dig up dirt on him. He may not be as virtuous as his supporters would like to portray him, but compared to Hillary I don’t think there’s any parity of ‘dirt’.
Plus you didn’t touch on two things that she recently said which I think shouldn’t be defended. First, she said that now that the gloves will come off, the ‘fun’ will begin. Excuse me? She’s announcing that she’s going to enjoy the mudslinging?
And then when asked if her criticism of Obama’s healthcare proposal meant that she was criticizing his character, she answered in the affirmative. I have no problem with one candidate pointing out the differences in their proposals, and showing why they believe their approach is better- but to make it a personal attack like that is a huge turnoff for me (and should be for anyone who is tired of personal attack politics- which ironically is what Hillary has complained about for years, starting when she coined the term “the politics of personal destruction”).
This is weird coming from Clinton. I don’t know how many are old enough to remember, but Bill Clinton’s presidential ambitions extending back into his undergraduate college days were cited by the Clinton campaign in 1992 as a positive because it showed his interest and dedication to public issues.
Really, do we want people as Presidents who just woke up one day in their mid-40s and say, “hey, I’ve got an idea, I’ll run for President”??? The notion that personal ambition is a bad thing is bizarre to me. In business, academia, and most of life’s other endeavors, wanting to excel and advance is considered not only acceptable, but mandatory. Those who languish, satisfied with their current station in life, are uninteresting as potential recipients of promotions or accolades. Why do we see politicians as different in that area?
Also, Hillary Clinton of all people should not put “ambition” on the table as a negative. The stereotype of the “ambitious woman” has for too long been used to restrain women from high position in a variety of fields, especially including politics. She should not be legitimizing a type of charge that has been and inevitably continue to be deployed against her.
Criticizing Obama for his slippery-eel indecisiveness, selective reporting of his own record, and avoidance of tough votes is completely fair ground. Criticizing him for being ambitious in seeking the Presidency is not, especially for Hillary Clinton.
No I don’t. Read the article again.
Jason: that’s not the point. The point is that Obama accuses Clinton of being something he is as well. That’s my point.
Michael: I was specifically referring to statements like this:
“the more attacks I read, the more I realize that the hatred truly is unreasonable and that they’ve turned her into some kind of evil monster in their mind”
What specific ‘attacks’ are you referring to? That makes a big difference. Obviously there are ‘haters’ who publish all kinds of ridiculous innuendo which is akin to BDS conspiracy theories- but then there is legitimate criticisms which do apply to both Hillary and to Bush which shouldn’t be ignored. I’ve yet to see you really address those criticisms of HC (as I pointed out in my previous comment- you skipped over the part where she said that the ‘fun’ will now begin and how she turned criticism of Obama’s healthcare proposal into an attack on his character.)
And if I recall, after that debate where she was on the receiving end of tough questioning, you referred to that as ‘attacks’. I think you need to define what is a true ‘attack’ and what is other candidates trying to boost their own status by differentiating their positions from hers.
Oh, and on this current nonsense about Obama’s ambitions, I think Jason’s point is that if the Clintons have previously said that such ambitions should be seen in a positive light (which they have) then how can she now try to use it as a negative against Obama? Particularly since the case for him having the blinding ambition that she’s accused of is a weak one. She’d have been far better off staying away from this completely or just pointing out (as you did here) that all candidates for president have to want it.