Going To The Matresses
It appears that Barack Obama is amending the politics of hope and is going after the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton. In an email to supporters, Barack (or more likely some staffer for Barack) took a swipe at Hillary and her fundraising lead:
The situation here is simple. We are $2.1 million behind. We must close that gap right now. I need you to make a donation of $100:
Hillary Clinton aggressively seeks money from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. She's even said that these lobbyists represent real Americans.
She's wrong.
I think it's time to turn the page on that kind of politics, and that's why I have not accepted a dime from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs in this race. We rely on a network of more than 350,000 ordinary people to make us competitive -- more supporters than all the other Democratic candidates combined.
You can probably expect a press release from the Clinton campaign to come out soon saying that Obama is getting desperate, and lambasting the change in his campaign tone.
Frankly, I don't think there is anything really wrong with going after Clinton. While I generally dislike "negative" campaigns, I think its important to make a distinction between a negative campaign that lies about an opponents record (or especially one that goes after a candidates family), and one that points out the negative aspects of an opponents record.
For instance, in the 2006 election I was rather annoyed at Democratic efforts to portray Bob Corker as some sort of tax evader...in reality, he just didn't owe taxes one year for various reasons, but they were legal. I also disliked attacks against Harold Ford Jr. for falsely claiming that he wanted to give the "abortion pill" to lil' girls.
But Obama going after Clinton for making up the fundraising difference by courting lobbyists and PACs is a valid criticism, and one which needs to be made public.
2 comments:
This is one of the first times I don't follow your logic. It's OK for Obama (or a staffer) to point out that they are behind and insinuate that the difference is Washington special interest money (without any proof) that Hillary has collected yet Obama has taken plenty of special interest money himself? Taking special interest money and pointing it out is legal but usually people who live in glass houses don't throw stones.
I think you also miss a key point about Corker's taxes. It is true that Corker was not a tax evader but it should be bothersome that he would not release his tax returns. It is true that anyone who paid taxes for the years in question paid more taxes than Corker who paid nothing but the big difference is that few of us actually grossed 2 million on our taxes. The other ugly reality that was never disclosed is that he made some of that money off the development of Chattanooga doing business with developers in which he had a say in the project. Not true you say? Well, let him show the tax returns and we'll know for sure.
You probably couldn't follow the logic because there wasn't much there...perhaps this massive headache I've got is effecting my ability to blog ;-)
I guess when he says that she is taking special interests money, that is referring to her taking PAC money, where he and Edwards will not. Granted, its only about 750K, about 1% of her total haul, but I guess its the principal of the matter.
I suppose nearly everyone who contributes large amounts of money can be considered a "special interest", but I think if she is taking money from registered lobbyists (which I could verify but it would take way to much time and I don't really feel like doing it), than it is fair to criticize that practice. Taking money from people whose job it is to convince you to support their programs/policies is slightly-unethical, while certainly 100% legal.
Post a Comment