Update: General Wesley Clark writes an editorial in the Union Leader, once again, supporting Hillary on Iran.
The Obama declared “next phase” strategy is to abandon anonymous slime memos and to openly sling mud and employ old RIPublican talking points to attack Hillary.
On August 17, Michelle Obama was quoted as saying “if you can’t run your own house – you certainly can’t run the white house”. The Obama campaign disavowed that as an attack on Hillary. The Obama campaign said “The only family Mrs. Obama was referring to was the Obama family.” Fair observers gave the Obama campaign the benefit of the doubt. Now, Michelle Obama, in London, is trotting out a “bare knuckles” argument based on what the Obama campaign earlier disavowed. This tactic is due to Obama “running out of time to prove himself against Ms Clinton…”
She will also talk about the Obamas’ life at home with their two young daughters, fleshing out her husband’s political resume and drawing a sharp contrast with Ms Clinton’s famously troubled marriage.
It appears that the Obama campaign has rehearsed its slime narratives previously and is now prepared to employ slime in their “next phase”. We’ll be watching.
* * *
The “policy” weapon that Obama will employ in his negative “next phase” is misrepresentation and lies.
Because Iraq as a weapon against Hillary has failed to get him votes, Iran is the new chosen battlefield for Obama. As we noted in Stinky B.O. Senator Joe Biden and Senator Dick Durbin have demolished the central argument and the central chicanery of Obama’s Iran based attack.
Senator Durbin, Obama’s most important ally and supporter, contradicts Obama’s central argument on Iran concerning the recent vote declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization: “I have the same concerns that Barack Obama does about this administration and what they might do with the power that they have. But I don’t think this resolution gives them a green light to do anything.”
Aside from the fact that Senator Durbin puts the lie to Obama’s claim on the Revolutionary Guard non-binding resolution vote, it is ludicrous that Obama has chosen Iran as his “next phase” attack on Hillary for two reasons.
First of all, Obama did not vote on the non-binding “Sense of the Senate” Revolutionary Guard resolution. Obama was AWOL on that vote. Obama’s excuse for missing the vote is that, like a surprised grade school student who fails an unannounced quiz, he did not know the vote was scheduled. However, the other presidential candidates were in the Senate to vote on the resolution and Senator Joe Biden wrecked Obama’s excuse by stating “I wonder why he wasn’t there to vote,” Biden said. “We all knew that this vote was coming up.”
The Clinton campaign further asks “If Senator Obama felt so strongly about this resolution, why didn’t he speak out against it or vote against it?”
Others, not just us, (Here, and Here) noted Obama’s love of being AWOL and call him “Senator No-Show” (actually Obama is Senator Put On Only A Show). The analyses also noted that Obama did not issue a statement on the Revolutionary Guard vote until 10:00 p.m., nine hours after the vote; and also note his curious and imperious absence during the Move-on vote weeks earlier.
The second reason why Obama is foolish to attack Hillary on Iran is his own record on Iran. We noted in The Offended that Obama had sponsored binding legislation declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.
Caught in the trap of his own meager voting history in the Senate, which contradicts his statements on the Revolutionary Guard resolution, Obama tried another misrepresentation (joined in this foolishness by the hapless John Edwards).
This time, the argument proposed is that Hillary flip-flopped on the idea of negotiations with Iran.
Hillary recently said her administration would negotiate with Iran. Obama/Edwards declared this to contradict an earlier position espoused during a debate on not promising to personally meet, in the first year of her administration, anywhere, without preconditions with leaders of various rogue nations. Taylor Marsh knocked down this argument effectively. Obama/Edwards went to Big Media to flog this slop.
So foolish was this Obama/Edwards argument that TPM condemned Associated Press, which carried news of the Hillary “flip-flop”, for being worse than Fox News.
It’s a very sad day for a reputable news organization when it finds itself badly outdone on accuracy by Fox News, but that’s exactly what happened to the Associated Press today.
The AP is running with a story right now that strains as hard as Sisyphus did with his bolder to paint Hillary as a flip-flopper. The story claims that she has now reversed herself from her earlier criticism of Barack Obama’s debate assertion that he’d meet with the leaders of Iran without precondition. The only problem is that the story completely butchers the facts to do so…
These clumsy Obama and Edwards campaigns are desperate and it shows every day. Earlier last week, having failed with their “policy” arguments they tried to help themselves in Iowa by playing “tactical” games in Michigan. They shot themselves in the foot. The Flint Journal editorialized:
Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden “apparently are all but conceding” the Dem nomination to HRC. Otherwise, “they wouldn’t have made such a shortsighted and cowardly decision” to remove their names from MI’s primary ballot. Only a “desperate longshot would deliberately offend residents of a state crucial to electing the next” POTUS. HRC “notably wasn’t too intimidated” by the DNC or “afraid of upsetting the voters” in NH, IA, SC or NV. Conversely, the decisions of Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden “suggests that they know it’s nearly over for them”.
The clumsy “campaigns” indulged themselves in silly games and shot themselves in the foot. Typical.
The Hillary Team is not fooled by these personal attacks, policy attacks, or tactical manovers. The Hillary Team knows what is going on:
There have been three major developments in the race this month: Senator Clinton has broken 50 percent in several primary polls, she outraised the other candidates in the third quarter and her opponents have entered a new season of the campaign that they call “clear contrast.” Most others call it negative campaigning.
Related? You bet.
Yesterday’s FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll puts Senator Clinton at the 50 percent mark, Senator Barack Obama at 18 and former Senator John Edwards at 11. This poll comes on the heels of last week’s Washington Post/ABC News poll which had Senator Clinton at 53 percent, Senator Obama at 20 percent and former Senator Edwards at 13 percent.
And it’s not just the national polls that show Hillary getting stronger. Recent polls in the early states of New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina show her with consistent, wide leads while the latest data in Iowa shows that her support is growing.
To put these numbers in context, six months ago Hillary held as little as a 5-point lead over Senator Obama – today, as all of the candidates have become better known, her lead has grown to as many as 33 points.
At the same time, Hillary — for the first time — outraised Senator Obama in both primary and overall contributions. She attracted 100,000 new donors in the third quarter — more than Senator Obama — and raised $8 million online.
These trends reflect the fact that Hillary’s message of experience and change is resonating with voters as the first primary contests grow closer. She spent the last week explaining her programs to rebuild the middle class after 7 years of neglect by President Bush (See: David Brooks ; New York Daily News), following on her well received healthcare plan. She is outlining her vision for change and talking with the voters about her ideas.
Other campaigns are reacting. Senator Obama said yesterday his campaign will be entering a time of “clear contrast” in an article headlined “Obama: Bye-Bye Mr. Nice Guy?”
Apparently Senator Obama’s fall in the polls has led him to abandon his pledge to change our politics and bring people together.
This week Senator Obama criticized Senator Clinton’s vote to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.
Senator Obama was silent on the measure when it was considered on the floor. Despite serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, he wasn’t involved in Senate negotiations or discussions over the bill’s language. (See: Huffington Post) He didn’t speak out against it before it was voted on – he didn’t even return from the campaign trail to vote. He didn’t speak out against it at a nationally televised debate that night or defend himself from an attack during the debate on his missed vote. In fact, he waited more than nine hours after the vote was over to issue a statement about it.
If Senator Obama believed the measure was as dangerous as he says, wouldn’t he have had some obligation to stand up, speak out, and fight against it?
So perhaps something else is at work: politics.
As Senator Obama’s closest ally in the Senate, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, said, “If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no.”
As Senator Obama abandons the politics of hope in favor of attack politics, Senator Clinton remains focused on her vision for America – the kind of vision that today is attracting the key endorsement of civil rights hero Congressman John Lewis.
Desperate campaigns do desperate things. Obama’s campaign is desperate – and it stinks.