Hillary's Earned Opposition: "Obama is a Reaganite"

I believe the Clintons have, in many ways, been earning the negative opposition they are facing. As I noted here, this opposition, and the inseparable sentiments about her husband, are enough to bring into question: 1. her ability to win the election in Nov., if nominated over Obama; 2. her ability to build support for the Democratic party and not quickly lose the opportunity for the party to move forward a progressive agenda over some number of years; and 3. perhaps most importantly, her desirability as a President, given the nature of the negative and disingenuous statements by her and Bill of recent (and this does not even touch on the myriad incidents and sordid history of their past years).

The example I'll discuss here is again, just one of the reasons why the Clintons have earned this opposition, and centers on an attack about two weeks ago, leveled by the Clintons on Obama for his "Reagan statement." In the South Carolina debate, as well as in paid advertisements, the Clintons denigrated Obama for his comments about Ronald Reagan. The terrible irony is that Bill Clinton, as detailed in this Washington Post article, praised Reagan in numerous ways during his run for the White House in 1991-1992. He said things praising Reagan's work on the Cold War, esteeming his "rhetoric in defense of freedom," and his work in "advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back." The Post article notes that during that time, the Memphis Commercial Appeal said that Bill "set himself apart from the pack of contenders for the Democratic nomination by saying something nice about Ronald Reagan," revealing his "readiness to defy his party's prevailing Reaganphobia."

Now, turning to Obama. The part of Obama's statement in question, which can be found in video and text form here, was as follows:

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing...I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

In response to these statements, as noted in the link from above, Hillary stated: "My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years." Her husband said, "[My wife's] principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas....I'm not making this up, folks." Nowhere in Obama's statement does he say the Republicans had good ideas--nowhere. Rather, he says they had ideas that mobilized people, shook things up from the regular approach to things. As it says on this Chicago Tribune blog, "When the Clintons used "better" and "good" in alluding the Obama's remarks, they weren't paraphrasing, they weren't misremembering, they weren't distorting. They were simply lying."

Hillary went on to attempt to "call Obama out" on this in the SC debate two weeks ago; her statement and his reply can be found in the video below. In it, Obama points out that he has "spent a lifetime working against [Reagan's] policies," and that nowhere in his statement does he say Reagan's ideas were good or what was needed.



Hillary also paid for advertising, such as the radio ad below, that again seeks to paint Obama as one who accepts and endorses the ideas of Reagan (the ad was soon pulled from the air by the campaign):



I will not willingly accept these thin ethics again in a President, I just can't, it's not good for anyone involved. This is one reason, among others, that Obama has my vote. As noted in the wonderful thoughts of 90-year old NPR commentator Daniel Schorr, who won three Emmys in 1972 for his coverage of the Nixon Watergate lies, lying has become a shamefully acceptable practice. That short radio piece can be found here, with another short piece on lying in government here. Answer the poll below and/or write in a comment if you have any thoughts on this.

more at twiigs.com...

Update: Frank Rich of the New York Times noted another instance of what he calls not just a lie, but a "bigoted lie" by the Clintons: "Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by telling The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have 'not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.' Mrs. Clinton then seconded the motion by telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was 'making a historical statement.'It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists. As the columnist Gregory Rodriguez pointed out in The Los Angeles Times, all three black members of Congress in that city won in heavily Latino districts; black mayors as various as David Dinkins in New York in the 1980s and Ron Kirk in Dallas in the 1990s received more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote. The real point of the Clinton campaign’s decision to sow misinformation and racial division, Mr. Rodriguez concluded, was to 'undermine one of Obama’s central selling points, that he can build bridges and unite Americans of all types.' "

Update 2: Robert Reich, who I've mentioned previously was Bill Clinton's former Secretary of Labor, explains some of the unethical breeches he has noticed in the Clintons' campaign: "I write this more out of sadness than anger...While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair – indeed, it’s demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama’s anti-war position is a “fairy tale”) or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it. Meanwhile, the attack ads being run in South Carolina by the Clinton camp which quote Obama as saying Republicans had all the ideas under Reagan, is disingenuous. For years, Bill Clinton and many other leading Democrats have made precisely the same point..." Read more here...

Hillary: Democratic Devolutionist

Yes, the above is about what I think Sen. Hillary Clinton would do for the Democratic Party if she were to be elected President. But believe me, I have no interest in simply flashing inflammatory images across the screen; rather, I have found that this point is supported by some simple facts that I, and numerous others, have observed. In my following post I'll note some reasons why I find that this polarizing quality is earned, not simple a fabled story of the political right.

As for this post though, I would like to point out the consequences of Mrs. Clinton's polarization. It is such that she would be voted out of the White House as quickly as she was voted in, in my view. (A serious qualification has to be added here to say that her ascendency into the White House is far from a given. The seemingly venomous opposition to her from various corners of politics simply makes her too risky to be the Democratic candidate for President in my judgment). But, if somehow she was able to get into the White House, I believe her polarizing nature would do a significant disservice to the Democratic Party (albeit somewhat unintended). The risk is simply too great that this polarization would impassion the political right to mobilize their base and once again flip the White House back into Republican control, thus cutting short the Democratic Party's opportunity to make any solid headway with a progressive agenda.

I'll make a quick point here for those who are uncertain of the degree of her polarization, although I would be surprised if any readers have not witnessed (or expressed) such polarization themselves. Note exhibit A, to the left. I first saw such a doll, alongside a Bush voodoo doll, at the popular bookstore chain, Borders. Plainly speaking, I think it's tasteless. But it is, nevertheless, representative of some of the strong feelings against her; and, it is worth stating, that there is no such Obama doll (or for that matter, McCain or Romney doll). Feel free to look for yourself, but on the Borders website here, and another site here, there were only Bush and Hillary dolls. The latter site even has toilet paper that can come with the image of Hillary, Bush or Cheney. The fact that Hillary uniquely falls into a similar category of the now infamous Bush and Cheney-opposition highlights the extreme nature of her divisiveness. I don't think it's entirely merited, as noted in a recent Washington Post article: "the same irrational Clinton hatred is alive and well in certain parts of the media." However, I would insert the word "somewhat" before "irrational," because I believe Hillary and her husband have earned this opposition of recent. As I have mentioned, I'll note in the following post some of why I believe this is so.

Update: To further emphasize an above point I made, the general election in November will undoubtedly be decided by middle voters. There's a block to the left and to the right that we can safely predict will vote their party, thus the moderates and independents will determine the election. Hillary's divisiveness, and the earned and unearned opposition to her and her husband, would entirely weaken her ability to garner those middle voters; conversely, Obama has consistently shown himself as stronger with independents than Clinton.

Update 2: Two new polls, one from Gallup and one from AP, place Obama as the most likely to win the general election race against McCain. Details here.

Do Obama and Clinton's Calls to "Include ALL in Debate" Ring Hollow?

If Obama and Clinton truly felt that Kucinich's exclusion from tonight's debate was an encroachment on the people's ability to choose, as they stated here, then it seems to me they could have refused to participate in tonight's debate (nevermind that Edwards did not call for this at all).

As a larger point, however, the basis for the ABC-WMUR exclusion of Kucinich, and any other candidate for that matter, is baseless. I say this because in a WMUR/CNN poll, conducted four days ago on Jan. 2nd, it stated:

"However, only 42% of likely Democratic primary voters say they have definitely decided who they will vote for, 27% say they are leaning toward a candidate and 32% said they are still trying to decide."

That statement, from one of WMUR's OWN polls, discredits their basis for excluding any candidate. I readily admit that ABC's reasoning is understandable: they want to, ostensibly, include the candidates whom voters are, according to polling, most demonstrably interested in--yet therein lies the question, do the voters know who they are interested in yet? And that question exactly is what, four days ago, WMUR, together with CNN, answered:

"...only 42% of likely Democratic primary voters say they have definitely decided who they will vote for, 27% say they are leaning toward a candidate and 32% said they are still trying to decide." (emphasis added)

Therefore, the question becomes, if only 42% of these New Hampshire Democratic primary voters have "definitely decided," how will the other 58% make up their mind? Well, one might think it reasonable that they would watch the final Democratic debates, held a short three days before the New Hampshire primary. Not only is that reasonable, but is it not likely that many were waiting for this final debate to make up their mind? And what conclusion might they draw after tuning into this highly publicized media frenzy? Might it slightly (read: almost entirely) make them think that the only real options are the four candidates participating?

Yet the elephant in the room is the fact that the 58% of undecided Democratic New Hampshire voters could still choose Kucinich, or Mike Gravel, who was also excluded. Yes, they could also not choose them, but there's the rub: many will feel the all-knowing media has presented them with the only real choices. Yet, with 58% still not certain, are there not enough in New Hampshire, not even counting Independents, to give Kucinich a strong showing? I'll just end with part of a recent Kucinich endorsement by Sean Penn, in which he stated:

"I’ve been torn lately, I’ve been torn by the allure of electability…here’s how simple it is. If those of us who truly believe in the Constitution of the United States, all of us, vote for Dennis Kucinich, he’ll be elected. Could we call him electable then?"

Please consider going here and here to express your discontentment with ABC's decision (and vote in my poll below as well)--a protest in the streets would feel more refreshing, but a flood of their inbox may be a good option in the meantime. By the way, the numbers I quoted above from the WMUR/CNN poll are available at the bottom of page one in their survey, located here.

more at twiigs.com...

Update: Here's a few key links related to this, with a video of Kucinich's speech outside the ABC/WMUR debate below, a press release by the Kucinich campaign and a link to singer Melissa Etheridge speaking out to the New York Times about Kucinch's exclusion.

Update 2: Lots of comments on this issue here, on Bill Moyers' PBS blog.

Paul and Kucinich to Appear on Bill Moyers Journal Tomorrow Night, January 4th, on PBS

This is just a quick note to pass on the word and let readers know that Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Rep. Ron Paul will be on the Bill Moyers show tomorrow night on PBS (airs at 9pm in Virginia where I am, but the video with Kucinich is available here on Moyers' site, and Paul here; all shows are archived on his main site, so check out any of the past shows for some more great stuff). The below email was sent tonight by the Kucinich campaign. I have great respect for Paul, Kucinich and Moyers, so wanted to be sure to pass this on. It looks like the subject will be the mainstream media's role in candidate exposure and electability.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Kucinich for President
reply-to info@kucinich.us,
to Brendan <***@gmail.com>,
date Jan 3, 2008 10:07 PM
subject DENNIS GUESTS ON BILL MOYERS JOURNAL FRIDAY, JANUARY 4

TV WORTH WATCHING!
DENNIS GUESTS ON BILL MOYERS JOURNAL
FRIDAY, JANUARY 4

Dear Supporters,

Great News! Dennis will be the guest on Bill Moyers Journal Friday night, January 4.

Bill Moyers will look at the media's power to benefit some candidates and disadvantage others.

(Check the schedule of your local PBS station. Bill Moyers Journal is re-broadcast several times on most PBS affiliates.)

Thank you for your support,

The Kucinich campaign

---

877-41-DENNIS (877-413-3664)

Paid for by Kucinich for President 2008

Paid for and authorized by Kucinich for President 2008, Inc. P.O. Box 110180, Cleveland, OH 44111 | (877) 41-DENNIS.

---

Update: Here's the Kucinich clip, it's about 15 minutes, but quite worth it (the Paul one is available through the link above, I had already downloaded this one, so it was easy to place here):

Register your discontent with the Register (Des Moines that is)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich at the December 4th NPR debate.

I decided to do this blog because, as I indicate with the name I chose, I feel it is important to understand our options; however, I feel the ability to do so was muddied tonight. This evening, the final Democratic debate was held before the all-important Iowa caucus in January. The Des Moines Register held the debate, and made the decision on who could participate. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, in his sixth term in Congress and second run for the White House, was excluded, along with former Sen. Mike Gravel. The legitimacy (or not) of the exclusion is the question, and apart from your stance on one candidate or another, one party or another, I think it is a sobering reality check to consider that some of the most important exposure for voters (if not the only) , is via the various television debates. There are no one-on-one conversations and handshaking with the candidates for most Americans, and so, apart from the internet, the debates are the closest we will get to those one-on-one conversations, the best sense we may get of their character and commitment, integrity and so forth. Therefore, based on the facts I outline in the below letter I sent to the editors of the Des Moines Register, I find it an encroachment on my right, and the rights of US citizens, to hear and consider the full swath of candidates, for an exclusion to take place on the basis that it did tonight (check here to read an overview that hits some key points from the Kucinich campaign on the exclusion). I would urge, again, no matter your stance or perspective, any who feel the basis of this exclusion inequitable, to write (or call) the editors yourself at:

Carol Hunter - 515-284-8502
chunter@dmreg.com

Laura Hollingsworth - 515-284-8041
Lhollingsworth@dmreg.com

You may also want to consider visiting this site to sign a petition to send a quick (or more detailed if you prefer) note to Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee Chair, and Mike Duncan, Republican National Committee Chair; the petition includes Rep. Ron Paul and former Sen. Mike Gravel in the language. Here is the note I sent to Mr. Dean and Mr. Duncan, which includes the longer letter I sent to the Des Moines Register:

---

Greetings, Mr. Howard Dean and Mr. Mike Duncan:

I sent the following letter to the Des Moines Register editors, Ms. Carol Hunter and Ms. Laura Hollingsworth. I feel it expresses clearly the issues with Rep. Kucinich's exclusion from the Dec. 13th debate (along with the related issues with previous exclusions of him, along with Rep. Ron Paul and former Sen. Mike Gravel). I hope you both will work to remedy this situation, perhaps by holding another forum prior to the Iowa caucuses, as our democratic process depends on voters hearing the candidates, particularly at such a decisive time when more and more citizens realize the primaries are almost here, and are naturally beginning to pay attention to the process. Here is the aforementioned letter:

Greetings, Ms. Hunter and Ms. Hollingsworth:

I am deeply frustrated that Rep. Dennis Kucinich was excluded from tonight's debate--the last debate before the Iowa caucuses. It is disturbing enough that elections ride so much on money, I cannot believe that this was done. This is untenable at a time when, to name one example of note, on National Public Radio, the Senior White House correspondent for Newsweek pointed out that the Democratic candidates' positions are beginning to drift towards Rep. Kucinich (albeit not in substantive enough ways; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16912151 ). This is still the only candidate that is proposing a not-for-profit health care system, among other stances which truly require courage to take. The answer should not be to exclude viable stances such as this from the discussion, if at all possible to include.

Further, numerous online polls have shown that Rep. Kucinich has noteworthy support. The ruling suggests that the decision-makers at the Register have lost sight of the fact that this is a national debate, and at a time when over half of the voters in important primary states have still not made up their mind (not to mention the rest of the country). And although he himself admits he is a long shot candidate, the idea of electability is, as Sean Penn pointed out in a recent endorsement of Rep. Kucinich, changing, else the democratic right to choose whom one will vote for is stripped. The American people deserve to hear and consider the voice of this serious, six-term Congressman who has functioned as a clarion voice in an otherwise overly cautious campaign season. I simply feel more equitable rules could have been formed if those in charge had more carefully considered the possible scenarios that could develop. I am less familiar with former Sen. Mike Gravel, however I think he may also have deserved to participate.

I hope a more thorough explanation and engagement with the true concerns of myriad Americans is published and made available to the public via the Register, and in a more thorough fashion than the short explanation currently available on the site (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/NEWS09/71213050/1001/NEWS ). According to the site, "Campaign officials say Kucinich's Iowa office is in donated space at the home of a Dubuque organizer. Register Vice President of Marketing Susan Patterson Plank said the campaign's explanation did not suffice. 'The decision by the Des Moines Register was that they needed to have an office, not in someone's home,' she said." The premise of this rule that requires a definite office in the state of Iowa in order to participate in the debate, is questionable in and of itself, particularly when there are clear campaign strategies that could encourage a candidate to focus more on other states. Furthermore, this rule (number 3 of those posted on your site), says "Candidates must have had a campaign office inside the State of Iowa as of October 1, 2007," yet there is no stipulation of the details on what the office should be. Are there further details on this? If so, they should have been sited and posted on the site, along with the basic set of rules I am referencing. However, given Ms. Patterson Plank's above explanation, it does not appear that the rules did stipulate between offices and home-based offices, as she seems to be stating that "a decision" was made after the issue with Rep. Kucinich's home-based office surfaced. Without clear stipulations beforehand, how should Rep. Kucinich's campaign know what type of office is needed? I respectfully ask for greater explanation, and if this decision proves unjustifiable (as it appears to be), another debate with Rep. Kucinich and perhaps former Sen. Mike Gravel in attendance--prior to the January Iowa caucus.

Regards,

Brendan

---

By the way, as a note to those reading my blog, if you got this far, you should really check out the text at the NPR link above, as it gives a good sense of Rep. Kucinich's place amid the current campaign (along with this bit on the NPR site with a slew of public comments on Kucinich). As I mentioned in the letter to the Register, he is certainly, by his own admission, a long shot candidate, but really speaks of vision and conviction and integrity from where I sit.

Update: I posted this in a section on the Des Moines Register site, where they allow you to start a blog. Check it out here, as there may or may not be some interesting comments that come around; and check here and here for their two (unsatisfactorily short) pieces on Kucinich's exclusion, as there are myriad comments, many of which are just various people who come across as sincerely bothered by this.