Hillary, Enough Already.
What a rough week for politics. For me the nervousness set in well before Tuesday. The polls still looked good for Obama, but the press coverage sucked. Clinton huffed and puffed that Obama hasn’t explained his relationship to Tony Rezko, that he lied about his advisor speaking to the Canadian embassy about NAFTA, and that he hasn’t convened his subcommittee to hold hearings on Afghanistan. She called him naive, she called him inexperienced, and she ran the ridiculous 3 a.m. red-phone commercial. The media relished the opportunity to attack Obama, an opportunity to prove they weren’t unfairly Obama-friendly, Clinton’s theme from the previous week. Plus, there were Clinton appearances on Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show. She gave the media something to talk about. Where was Obama in all this? Still making policy speeches? Reporters were bored of reporting “Obama momentum.”
Then she wins Ohio, and she “wins” Texas. Yes, for those being technical, Obama likely won Texas, assuming they ever finish counting the caucus results. (In the last 24 hours, I watched the percent counted go from 40 to 41.) Anyway, who cares. The media narrative is Clinton won Texas. Worse, she learned the lesson that being nasty works. No more talk of what she can do for the country–now the game is, how much can she tear down Obama. There are, it seems, many scandals to attack him with.
Unless you pay close attention.
Tony Rezko
Yes, like other politicians, Obama took money from Tony Rezko. And yes, it’s probably true that Tony Rezko is a bad guy who extorts businesses and defrauds banks. “Obama still hasn’t explained his relationship to Tony Rezko,” Hillary tells us daily. We are told we should be suspicious and distrustful of Obama for taking money from a man who could engage in such crimes. From my perspective, the most salient fact of the Rezko affair is that no one has accused Obama of any wrongdoing. And if you do your research on the Rezko trial, you learn this interesting tidbit:
Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama’s political opponents. None have donated to Obama.
NAFTA and the Canadian Embassy
And what about NAFTA-Gate (Clinton coined this)? Just twenty-four hours before the Ohio vote, Clinton tells reporters aboard her campaign plane:
“I don’t think people should come to Ohio and give speeches that are very critical of NAFTA and then … we find out that your chief economic adviser has gone to a foreign government and basically done the old wink-wink, don’t pay any attention, this is just political rhetoric.”
This was no small thing for Ohio. Exit-polls suggested it was the defining issue. Ohioans trusted Clinton on NAFTA more than they did Obama. Never mind her past endorsements of NAFTA.
This morning we learn it was Clinton’s campaign, not Obama’s that called the Canadian embassy and suggested all this NAFTA talk should be taken “with a grain of salt.” The Canadian embassy has since exonerated Obama’s campaign, stating they “may have misrepresented the Obama advisor.” Oops!
No Senate Hearings
And then there are those ads where Clinton accuses Obama of not holding any Senate hearings while running for president. You know the ads, they’re the ones where her campaign desaturated, darkened, and stretched Obama’s face horizontally to make him appear more black. (Very tasteful.)
This one happens to be true, but stupid. Yes, he hasn’t been around the Senate much since campaigning for president, but neither has Clinton. Or McCain. Or anyone running for president. Ever.
Since Tuesday, Obama supporters have been calling on him to go on the attack. He tried today, reiterating the demand that she produce her tax return, as she promised she would. In response, her campaign says he’s behaving like Kenneth Starr. Give me a break.
4 Responses to “Hillary, Enough Already.”
I blame the media. She’s clearly “over”, but with McCain feeling sleepy (he is like 514 years old; he’s earned a nap), they wouldn’t have anything to report on. Oh, yes, we still have two wars going on and something iffy is going on in South America, and Brittney’s dad retained conservatorship…none of which is as salacious as Hillary going down in flames after coming “so close”.
Oh, and the Texas caucus results won’t be official until June.
http://lots-o-thoughts.blogspot.com/
What’s most upsetting to me is that the news coverage has completely shifted away from policy questions and instead veered into who is “tougher” (read: more willing to mislead voters about their opponent).
With respect to the subcommittee hearings, you can compare the first session of the 109th Congress and the first session of the 110th Congress (when Obama chaired the European subcommittee on the Foreign Relations committee).
http://www.senate.gov/%7Eforeign/hearing2005.html
http://www.senate.gov/%7Eforeign/hearing2007.html
By my count, the 109th Congress held a total of two hearings related to Europe. That’s hardly a remarkable drop-off. Furthermore, the Foreign Relations Committee for the 110th Congress did hold hearings on Afghanistan (she criticized Obama specifically on this point), just not under the direction of the European subcommittee.
I have conflicted feelings about this, as I do in all aspects of this campaign to date. I was more than remotely, but not entirely, sympathetic to Hillary’s complaint that she had been the victim of unequal treatment by the press. Many stories that were packaged as news, and not opinion, had lost its “objectivity.”
That being the case, I would hardly say the remedy for that wrong is to take a hard 180 (or more) and treat Obama unfairly. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I am not sure what has possessed the media to reverse course - perhaps a bit of self-consciousness that indeed, objectivity had previously been misplaced, and they did not want to take the blame for sabotaging if and when Obama wins. I cannot think of a more flawed motivation, but it does seem to be the likeliest.
In any case, my personal feelings about the candidates aside, I remain dissappointed in the media. It is their job to vet our political candidates — but not like this. They should have kept it above-board from the beginning, and stayed that way throughout. This oscillation of abuse helps no one.
If any good comes of it, it will be to enhance our distrust of the mainstream media, which, lest we forget, is a business whose first motive is profit, and as such, depends on the workings of a free but inefficient market to hold it to its committment to accuracy.
Discussion