Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Bullied to Death: Chris Mackney's Kafkaesque Divorce and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the World's Last Custody Trial"

Monday, January 28, 2008

A Cynical View of the Clintons

If there are any cynics as far as the Clintons are concerned, all your perceptions of the two will either be proven right or wrong in the next couple of weeks. After a landslide victory in South Carolina, Barack Obama is set to receive the endorsement of Ted Kennedy. Between several early primary victories and his outstanding fundraising, Obama is no longer merely a formidable opponent. He is now a full out threat to the Clinton's plans on re taking the White House.

We, cynics, have a chance to see if our cynicism is warranted. We believe that the Clintons will do anything to get elected because we cynics believe the Clintons value power over anything else. That means, if we cynics are right, we will see a heavy dose of race baiting. We will see a heavy dose of hit jobs alluding to prior drug use, Tony Rezko, and they may even use Barack's name and faith against him.

Now, some reading this may in fact be saying that we have already seen that. Yes, we have seen a bit of it, however that is not the intensity that we cynics believe we will see. We cynics believe that Hillary will stop at nothing to get elected and the more that is in doubt the more desperate her tactics will become.

You want to see how heavy this will become. Let's see how Hillary cynic number one Dick Morris sees it...


Precisely because he is going to lose it. If Hillary loses South Carolina and the defeat serves to demonstrate Obama’s ability to attract a bloc vote among black Democrats, the message will go out loud and clear to white voters that this is a racial fight. It’s one thing for polls to show, as they now do, that Obama beats Hillary among African-Americans by better than 4-to-1 and Hillary carries whites by almost 2-to-1. But most people don’t read the fine print on the polls. But if blacks deliver South Carolina to Obama, everybody will know that they are bloc-voting. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton.

Obama has done everything he possibly could to keep race out of this election. And the Clintons attracted national scorn when they tried to bring it back in by attempting to minimize the role Martin Luther King Jr. played in the civil rights movement. But here they have a way of appearing to seek the black vote, losing it, and getting their white backlash, all without any fingerprints showing. The more President Clinton begs black voters to back his wife, and the more they spurn her, the more the election becomes about race — and Obama ultimately loses.

Race is of course only one issue which the Clinton's can subtly sling mud at Obama with. There is Tony Rezko. Here is what Hillary said at their last debate...


when you were practicing law and representing your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

Now, a harsh shot in one debate is not beyond the pale and it would be unfair to characterize Clinton as doing something any other candidate wouldn't do. We cynics don't believe this is the last we will hear of Tony Rezko in the debate. If we cynics are right, then soon Tony Rezko will become part of the political vernacular.

Then, there is Obama's church. The pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, has opened Obama up to plenty of guilt by association attacks to any cut throat politician the kind we cynics believe Hillary will be. Here is what he said about Louis Farrakhan...


Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience

...

His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation’s most powerful critics. His love for Africa and African American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose

Now, Obama has long distanced himself from these statements. The positions of the pastor are problematic, and that is putting it diplomatically, and Obama was even married by him. That said, this is like condemning Arnold Schwarzenneger for the positions of his father. Of course, if we cynics are right, that won't stop Hillary from using it to sling mud at Obama.

Obama has also admitted to prior drug use. If they raise the issue it won't be the first time. Their proxy Bill Shaheen raised the issue this way...


The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year. Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama's openness about his past drug use -- which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire -- with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was "young and irresponsible."

Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

The Clintons immediately distanced themselves from the comments and Shaheen was even fired from the campaign. It is of course unclear what role if any the played. The cynics would spin a large machiavellian yarn about this whole fiasco but much of it happened behind closed doors so who knows. If we cynics are right, this is not the last time this issue will be raised.

Beyond that, who knows what the Clintons might have up their perverbial sleeves? If we cynics are right, there is all sorts of dirt that the Clintons will dream up. They have already tried to attack an essay he wrote in kindergarten. We cynics believe they hire P.I's to dig up dirt on their enemies. If we cynics are right, they will trot out every skeleton in every closet that Barack Obama has ever had.

Dick Morris long ago pointed out that Hillary would look to get Obama in the mud with her. She needed to bring him down from the perch that he was on as the politician that would unite, that is above the fray, and the one that will bring about a new kind of politics. They have been able to accomplish that to a certain extent however not enough to put him away. I think they realize that on the issues there is little difference. I think they realize that he beats Hillary on personality and charm. I think they realize that to beat him they need to make his theme look hypocritical and fraudulent. In order to do that, they need to sling as much mud at him as possible hoping he will sling back. If we cynics are right, that is exactly what she will do and the blue print is what I have provided. If we cynics are right, the next few weeks of the Democratic race should be all about race, drugs, religion, as well as friends and associates. We shouldn't hear much about policy, and it will be ugly. We will wait and see if the cynics are right.

That, of course, is if we cynics are right. If we are wrong then the next couple weeks will be spent debating the finer points of the differences in their health care plans, their Iraq withdrawal plans, and their stimulus packages. If we cynics are wrong then the next two weeks will be spent campaigning on the issues. Either way, the next two weeks will tell if we cynics have a reason to be cynical or if we may just owe the Clintons a bit more slack than we have given them since the 1990's.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

re: "Obama has done everything he possibly could to keep race out of this election."

The very first racially-tinged comment that I heard was on Obama's "Oprah tour" when Chris Rock told the audience that they would be embarrassed if they voted for The White Lady.

That was last November.

What did you think of THAT comment?

In January, some white ladies in New Hampshire obviously didn't like it very much.

mike volpe said...

The comment that you are alluding to was made by and sourced to Dick Morris.

I don't know what Obama said that you are referring to however this piece isn't about Obama. I wrote a piece about Obama...
http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/01/deconstructing-barack-obama.html

This one is about Clinton. Like I said, if we cynics are right, this will turn into a race war and it won't be Obama doing it. If you believe that Obama isn't pure, that is a fair point, however if this turns into a race war it won't be because of him.

Anonymous said...

How come when the Obama camp throws barbs it is attributed to his supporters or not widely reported at all so Obama's media characticture is preserved as above it all? When the Clinton camp responds it is reported as her surrogates being commanded by an evil Hillary so her media characticture of cold and calculating is preserved? Sounds like the media has made up its mind for us. The problem I have with that is that the media also made up its mind for us in Bush vs. Gore. I've seen how the media paints the "likeable, intuitive, leader" vs. the "mechanical, to smart for his/her own good, doer" pictures, and I don't like the outcome of choosing style over substance. I am cynical too, but it is toward the media and the american people who do not seem to be able to look beyond the qualities they used to pick their prom queen in high school.

mike volpe said...

An interesting point. There is an NBC reporter, whose name slips my mind, who has the Obama beat, that flat out came out and said he is enthralled with Obama. Brian Williams called his comments courageous. The reporter flat out said he no longer has any objectivity toward the candidate he is covering and Williams called him courageous.

I don't know why the media has decided to paint Obama as fresh, likeable and transformative, but they certainly have. You are also correct in their perception of Clinton. Chris Mathews made the most incendiary comments when he said that Hillary is only a Senator because of Bill's indiscretions.

I agree that the media is not without fault to say the least and they have been totally corrupted. Obama hasn't been challenged much and Hillary has been demonized, however that media isn't the subject of this piece.

Anonymous said...

I never really understant the hatred of the Clintons. It seems like they can never do anything right. As far as I can see it is the Conservative Media that bring up all the negatives that they can. By mentioning race over and over, the Conservative Media makes it more and more of an issue. Hmmmmm maybe that is the goal. I do not know yet which candidate I am supporting, but I do know that they are both solid Americans that want to be President for the People, not BIG Business or Oil Companies or Haleburton...but for the PEOPLE. I hope they patch it up, make up and get to the bottom of defeating a Republican idealogue who throws himself at any and all Right Wing cash box that he can to get himself elected. Believe me....anyone with any credibility would not quote Dick Morris. Not quite a good source or news consultant considering that the Clintons fired him.....Hmmmmm.... White or Black...don't care....words don't count....action does. Obama and Clinton would be a great team for the PEOPLE.

mike volpe said...

It wasn't the so called conservative media but rather NBC, the New York Times, and the Post that brought this up. It is absurd to claim that the conservative media, what ever that is, has any influence in the democratic primary.

The kind of comments you are making are the sort of comments that a partisan makes. You immediately mention big oil and blame some sort of vague right wing media. None of those have anything to do with anything.

If you read my piece carefully, you would have seen that it is all hypothetical about the way that I expect Hillary to act. I didn't say she has acted that way though there is a bit of it.

The race war that was created in SC had nothing to do with the conservative media but rather statements that Bill Clinton made. Frankly, it was Al Sharpton more than anyone that was leading on this.

Folks like Jim Clyborn, Rahm Emanuel, and Ted Kennedy didn't interject on the Clintons because of the right wing media. They did it because they were concerned about the statements they were making.

mike volpe said...

As for Dick Morris, I quoted him as the head cynic because no one is more cynical about the Clintons then him. I quoted him exactly for the reasons you mentioned. That said, Morris has been more right than any other analyst about the trajectory of the race and of politics this year.