Monday, December 3, 2007

Frank Rich: Who's Afraid of Obama?

Frank Rich in Sunday's New York Times makes a similar point about the trap of a Hillary nomination:

The unspoken truth is that the Clinton machine is not being battle-tested at all by the Democratic primary process. When Mrs. Clinton accused John Edwards of “throwing mud” and “personally” attacking her in a sharp policy exchange in one debate, the press didn’t challenge the absurd hyperbole of her claim. In reality, neither Mr. Edwards nor any other Democratic competitor will ever hit her with the real, personal mud being stockpiled by the right. But if she’s getting a bye now, she will not from the Republican standard-bearer, whoever he may be. Clinton-bashing is the last shared article of faith (and last area of indisputable G.O.P. competence) that could yet unite the fractured and dispirited conservative electorate.

The Republicans know this and are so psychologically invested in refighting the Clinton wars that they’re giddy. Karl Rove’s first column for Newsweek last week, “How to Beat Hillary (Next) November,” proceeded from the premise that her nomination was a done deal. In the G.O.P. debates through last Thursday, the candidates mentioned the Clintons some 65 times. Barack Obama’s name has not been said once.

But much like the Clinton campaign itself, the Republicans have fallen into a trap by continuing to cling to the Hillary-is-inevitable trope. They have not allowed themselves to think the unthinkable — that they might need a Plan B to go up against a candidate who is not she. It’s far from clear that they would remotely know how to construct a Plan B to counter Mr. Obama. The repeated attempts to fan “rumors” that he is a madrassa-indoctrinated Muslim — whether on Fox News or in The Washington Post, where they resurfaced scurrilously on the front page on Thursday — are too demonstrably false to survive endless reruns even in the Swift-boating era.


He does add something interesting in the thought that the GOP could be setting themselves up by betting all their money on the Clinton horse.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

So lemme get this straight as you seem to be all over the place here - are you basically saying that Hillary is not YOUR candidate and trying to rationalize this statement by saying she'll be a one term prez, blah blah?
Based on your 'The Case Against Hillary', it seems strange then that you would then take issue with the right wing's endless venom directed at Ms. Clinton and her former Prez hubby after you yourself attempted to make your case against her!

I can only assume you've drank the Obama Kool Aid? Sorry but I need more than speeches about hopes and dreams to get me to vote for someone.

Hillary has real solutions to real problems TODAY that she can present and the knowledge that she can implement them. Though I love Obama and his message of change and hope, I am unsure he can deliver on his strong words in a country that is so fundamentally broken right now and be a president who takes us from the wars, health crisis, poverty, etc to the next golden age in America.

I have to believe that right now Hillary Clinton is the person who can best set us on the right path and pave the way for Obama and other forward thinking dems to be Prez down the road and to help make this country great again so our sons & daughters can grow up and say they are once again proud to be Americans.

Lefty said...

I don't like HIllary because of her DLC positions, her awful votes on the Iraq war and the Iran resolution designating the Iranian military a terrorist group.

I would be perfectly happy with Edwards OR Obama, but I have significant issues with Hillary. That does not include her intellect, competence, professionalism, or preparedness. I simply don't want to have to vote for DLC 90's style centrism because I don't think it works at all. Plus the unhinged rightwing and media hatred of the Clintons amounts to baggage that I really feel will be a major distraction to the business of the nation as it was back then.

I do not feel that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is change. I can live with Hillary as president, I just would rather have either of the other two.

Lefty said...

I don't like HIllary because of her DLC positions, her awful votes on the Iraq war and the Iran resolution designating the Iranian military a terrorist group.

I would be perfectly happy with Edwards OR Obama, but I have significant issues with Hillary. That does not include her intellect, competence, professionalism, or preparedness. I simply don't want to have to vote for DLC 90's style centrism because I don't think it works at all. Plus the unhinged rightwing and media hatred of the Clintons amounts to baggage that I really feel will be a major distraction to the business of the nation as it was back then.

I do not feel that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is change. I can live with Hillary as president, I just would rather have either of the other two.

Anonymous said...

Re: Hillary's War Voting Record -
I would like to point out that Obama was a STATE senator when the war started so his supposed opposition to the war means very little. And speaking of his supposed adamant opposition to the war, didn’t he endorse his mentor Joe Leiberman for Senate in 2006 - Leiberman who just happens to be the biggest pro-war democrat!?

And Edwards backwater beliefs about homosexuals makes him just another hick running for president.

And for the record, a woman commander-in-chief is about the biggest change this country will ever see - Hillary is most certainly not Bill Clinton v2.0.

Lefty said...

Whether Obama was a state senator or a janitor means nothing. And to whatever level he opposed the invasion of Iraq is also besides the point. The simple fact is that in America at that time anything BUT complete and blind fascist cheerleading for the war was seen as a betrayal. As I can tell you from my own personal experience as a citizen, opposing the war was not easy at all. I had many arguments with people I knew which turned ugly. People didn't simply let you have that opinion and I am ONLY going to give my full out support for those who saw through the jingoism and warmongering bullshit of the time. Others I can approve of and be comfortable with running the country, but we who were against the war at the time faced enormous pressure, accusations and open hostility. I simply respect him more for that.

Edwards is not a hick. Please. I don't care if she is a woman or whatever. What matters to me with candidates is whether or not they have capitulated to the corporate fascists who have been systematically trying to disenfranchise ME and anyone else who would oppose them.

Hillary, more than any other Democratic candidate, is in bed with the corporations and Establishment. I will not vote for her more or less due to her gender. I am not opposed to her nomination outright, I am simply making the point that while she has excellent qualifications, due to these issues which I have laid out before you just now, added to the media baggage and life she would breathe into Rush and the others, makes her much less desirable than Edwards or Obama.