Fair Is Fair
By Geoff Garin
Friday, April 25, 2008; Page A23
What's wrong with this picture? Our campaign runs a TV ad Monday saying that the presidency is the toughest job in the world and giving examples of challenges presidents have faced and challenges the next president will face -- including terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mounting economic dislocation, and soaring gas prices. The ad makes no reference -- verbal, visual or otherwise -- to our opponent; it simply asks voters to think about who they believe is best able to stand the heat. And we are accused, by some in the media, of running a fear-mongering, negative ad.
The day before this ad went on the air, David Axelrod, Barack Obama's chief strategist, appeared with me on "Meet the Press." He was asked whether Hillary Clinton would bring "the changes necessary" to Washington, and his answer was "no." This was in keeping with the direct, personal character attacks that the Obama campaign has leveled against Clinton from the beginning of this race -- including mailings in Pennsylvania that describe her as "the master of a broken system."
So let me get this straight.
On the one hand, it's perfectly decent for Obama to argue that only he has the virtue to bring change to Washington and that Clinton lacks the character and the commitment to do so. On the other hand, we are somehow hitting below the belt when we say that Clinton is the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what's right for the American people, while leaving the decisions about Obama's preparedness to the voters.
I keep saying that at some point we are going to make sense of the hostility the Hillary Clinton receives from the media and theorize as to its root cause. In the meantime, voters are going to have to come to terms that Barack Obama is a politician, just like Hillary. That's not a bad thing, folks. The 'game' being played (and it is a 'game' with serious real world consequences) is POLITICS. It is best conducted by those who understand how it works. And, so, the 'game' continues.
1 comment:
Hey Joe,
I think there's plenty of media bias to go around. And most of it slants McSame's way, along with the mythical Straight Talk Express.
I thought the Clinton campaign's ad looked Republican, to be blunt. Bringing up 9-11 is something Bush or Cheney or Giuliani would do. It's not really in the Democratic playbook. I think that's why so many liberal activists are so irritated by the ad. It looks like it came from the McCain campaign.
A larger question, which I'm increasingly curious about: at what point should Clinton supporters acknowledge the sheer mathematics of the situation? She can't win the nomination, so what is the purpose of this prolonged struggle? She doesn't want to be VP, so that's not in play (I assume she doesn't want it - and she shouldn't).
The one *serious* issue (and this really ticks me off) I have with the Clinton campaign is this insistence on including Michigan and Florida. Both states knew going into the primary that their votes wouldn't count. More to the point, Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. How can we take the Clintons seriously when they claim that the Florida and Michigan votes should count? That's not even a remotely difficult question - it's a no-brainer. A re-vote would have been barely worthy of discussion, since it would have allowed voters in those states to participate after all, but would have consumed an unreasonable amount of money and effort for two states that have no right to complain. Ignoring the reality in order to pretend that those votes were legitimate all along? Not even remotely acceptable, and nobody with an IQ over 40 can take those claims seriously.
In the grand old Clark 2 days of that presidential election game, somebody would have pulled the plug on this campaign weeks ago. You know way too much about politics to be oblivious to that reality, so why continue to beat the proverbial dead horse? What's the point? What am I missing?
Post a Comment