PDA

View Full Version : Obama Joins Right-Wing Attack Machine



red states rule
11-16-2007, 06:24 AM
It is about time somebody tries to make Hillary answer questions and actually tell us what she wants, thinks, and believes in

To some, that is a dirty campaign tactic and is a vicious attack


Obama Joins Right-Wing Attack Machine

By Rich Lowry

In the early 1990s, few right-wing bugaboos loomed as large as Hillary Clinton's secret health-care task force. Conservatives who still routinely invoke the task force can seem obsessed with rehashing the greatest anti-Clinton hits of yore. But look who's talking about the task force now.

"They took all their people and all their experts into a room, and then they closed the door, and they tried to design the plan in isolation from the American people," said no, not Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich or Rudy Giuliani, but the nation's foremost liberal tribune of hopefulness, Barack Obama.

The latest turn in the Democratic primary race is the best thing to happen to Republicans since the 2006 elections. Two high-profile Democrats, Obama and John Edwards, are validating a core part of the anti-Hillary case that Republicans have made for years -- that she's a slippery cynic who cares only about power.

In the initial phase of the Democratic primary fight, her opponents attacked Hillary for voting for the Iraq War and refusing to apologize for it. This was an ideological attack that Hillary cleverly defused, while remaining more hawkish -- and therefore better positioned for a general election -- than her opponents. To the extent such attacks from the left make her seem more centrist, they help her. The latest round of criticisms is more insidious. They aren't so much ideological -- though they still come from the left -- as character-ological. Hillary is a calculating and poll-driven double-talker. This line of attack amounts to millions of dollars' worth of free advertising for the eventual Republican nominee and for conservative groups that will attack Hillary on these grounds next fall.

The character attacks box Hillary in. Her primary strategy so far has been to placate the left of her party while not saying anything that will hurt her in the general election. The strategy involves careful positioning that necessarily opens her to the charges that she's calculating and evasive. Hillary has a bitter choice: either to hew to her (otherwise sensible) primary strategy and get tagged as a shrewish triangulator, or to swing left and risk alienating general-election voters.

for the complete article

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/obama_joins_rightwing_attack_m.html

red states rule
11-16-2007, 09:24 AM
Here is a pop quiz for you


Who Branded Barack 'Fool' and 'Sucker'?
By Mark Finkelstein | November 16, 2007 - 08:35 ET
Which famous pundit has called Barack Obama a "sucker" and a "fool"?

A. Rush Limbaugh
B. Ann Coulter
C. Michelle Malkin
D. Mark Levin
E. Laura Ingraham

Jeopardy theme-music playing . . .

OK, your time is up. And if I know our perspicacious NB readers, many of you detected a trick question when you saw it, and answered "none of the above."

Ding, ding, ding! Correct. The answer is none other than . . Paul Krugman, leftist economics columnist of the New York Times. There was nothing nuanced about Krugman's attack in his column of today. The very headline screams it: Played for a Sucker, and Krugman later spells out his Obama-the-sucker theory

He is . . . someone who keeps insisting that he can transcend the partisanship of our times — and in this case, that turned him into a sucker.

Krugman closes with this roundhouse punch:

[I]f you try to find common ground where none exists — which is the case for many issues today — you end up being played for a fool. And that’s what has just happened to Mr. Obama.

Yikes. So what's made Krugman so kranky? What was Obama's heresy against liberal dogma? In sum, that he dared to suggest that Social Security might need some fixing. To Krugman, that is an affront to "the New Deal’s crown jewel."

Krugman fears that acknowledging any problems with Social Security is the first step down the slippery slope to privatization. And nothing engenders more "outrage" -- Krugman's term -- among elitist nanny-staters than the prospect of giving people control over their own destinies and wresting any measure of power away all-knowing government.

So if Obama is too credulous for Krugman's taste, who does he trust to keep to keep government firmly in charge of our fate? Hillary Clinton, apparently. It was Obama's criticism of Hillary's Social Security plan that lies at the heart of the Wrath of Paul.

Remember that the next time Hillary tries to paint herself as a centrist. She's a favored candidate of the columnist with New Deal nostalgia.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/11/16/who-branded-barack-fool-sucker

avatar4321
11-16-2007, 01:37 PM
is it really attacking someone to point out the truth about what they have done/doing?

red states rule
11-16-2007, 01:40 PM
is it really attacking someone to point out the truth about what they have done/doing?

to Dems it is

Pointing out their voting record, or unwillingness to give a straight answer is piling on, and considered "swift boating"

musicman
11-16-2007, 02:52 PM
Obama Joins Right-Wing Attack Machine

By Rich Lowry

In the early 1990s, few right-wing bugaboos loomed as large as Hillary Clinton's secret health-care task force. Conservatives who still routinely invoke the task force can seem obsessed with rehashing the greatest anti-Clinton hits of yore. But look who's talking about the task force now.

"They took all their people and all their experts into a room, and then they closed the door, and they tried to design the plan in isolation from the American people," said no, not Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich or Rudy Giuliani, but the nation's foremost liberal tribune of hopefulness, Barack Obama.

The latest turn in the Democratic primary race is the best thing to happen to Republicans since the 2006 elections. Two high-profile Democrats, Obama and John Edwards, are validating a core part of the anti-Hillary case that Republicans have made for years -- that she's a slippery cynic who cares only about power.

In the initial phase of the Democratic primary fight, her opponents attacked Hillary for voting for the Iraq War and refusing to apologize for it. This was an ideological attack that Hillary cleverly defused, while remaining more hawkish -- and therefore better positioned for a general election -- than her opponents. To the extent such attacks from the left make her seem more centrist, they help her. The latest round of criticisms is more insidious. They aren't so much ideological -- though they still come from the left -- as character-ological. Hillary is a calculating and poll-driven double-talker. This line of attack amounts to millions of dollars' worth of free advertising for the eventual Republican nominee and for conservative groups that will attack Hillary on these grounds next fall.

The character attacks box Hillary in. Her primary strategy so far has been to placate the left of her party while not saying anything that will hurt her in the general election. The strategy involves careful positioning that necessarily opens her to the charges that she's calculating and evasive. Hillary has a bitter choice: either to hew to her (otherwise sensible) primary strategy and get tagged as a shrewish triangulator, or to swing left and risk alienating general-election voters.

for the complete article

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/obama_joins_rightwing_attack_m.html

The problem with writing a piece about poor, beleaguered Hillary Clinton is that - if it goes into any detail at all - the ugly truth of the woman fairly jumps off the page.

It only gets worse for her in the rest of the article.

red states rule
11-16-2007, 02:54 PM
The problem with writing a piece about poor, beleaguered Hillary Clinton is that - if it goes into any detail at all - the ugly truth of the woman fairly jumps off the page.

It only gets worse for her in the rest of the article.


sorry, but the truth is not the only ugly thing about Hillary