This is a great article that talks about why we as democrats should look at Hillary Clinton's campaign with considerable contempt. The emphasis below is mine, but I think in that one bold line the author captures the essence of the difference between the two candidates and the campaigns. Read on.
I have always been a supporter of Barack's, but not always a detractor of Hillary's. There was a time when I said, "she would be a very good candidate, and I would be happy to support her in her campaign for the Presidency". As the primary season began, that soon changed, from a general dislike to, yes, a pure bitterness about her candidacy in general.
I've spent months trying to figure out exactly why she has made me so bitter about her campaign. Yes, I could so easily point to her sense of entitlement, or to her outright lying concerning NAFTA and Bosnia. Yes, I could so easily argue the fact that she is clearly losing, and has been for a long time, but seems unwilling to back down for the good of the party. Yes, I could so easily talk about how she's a generally divisive figure, or about how she constantly moves the goal posts, or even about her praising her Republican rival over her Democratic one, saying McCain, unlike Obama, has passed the "Commander-in-Chief threshold", whatever that may be, and whatever that may truly signify. But none of that gets to, what I believe, is the heart of why I have become such a true detractor of hers. It does not pinpoint why I have absolutely become disenchanted with her campaign, though every thing I mentioned (and more) is a piece of it.
Truly, what I have seen, is that Hillary's campaign has been run, almost completely, on the basis of "Barack Obama is worse than I am, thus, I should be President", rather than "I am better than Barack, thus, I should be President". Please take a moment to think about this distinction, because I think it is a crucial one. I have realized that, instead of playing into her own merits, and why they are better than her rival, she has played into his shortcomings, and why they make him worse. This is a fatal issue, I believe, because Barack Obama has done the exact opposite. He has almost entirely, and very consistently, focused on what makes him better than her.
This entire issue over the word "bitter" has, for me, brought this into the open. Whereas Hillary could have left his statement for what it is, and left it after Barack explained what he meant, she instead decided to focus on why such a word is detrimental to him. Why, I ask, is it not possible for Hillary to win on her own merits? Why is it that she must clutch at straws in order to win? Why doesn't her own personality, her own policies and abilities, speak for themselves?
There have been numerous times in which Barack could have jumped on Clinton for mistakes she made. He did not. Not nearly to the extent to which she has against him. He did not draw out Hillary's lying concerning the sniper fire. He did not immediately, and has not continued to rail on her for not only ever having Mark Penn in her campaign, but for keeping him there despite his obvious issues. He could have. He could have easily played into her game and turned the focus from why he's better than she, to why she's worse than he. But he didn't.
The integrity involved in such a thing speaks worlds to me about why Obama is the right choice. I have read and heard myriad explanations as to why people support him. I am by no means saying my explanation is perfect, but it is something I have noticed, and I can only hope I'm not the only one who has.
The link to the article is here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/hillary-clinton-bitterness-tow.php
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
