Crying and Chenyin’
We all know that Hillary got a little teary today, and in response, John Edwards decided to be a total dick about it. But while it’s refreshing to see some real emotion and signs of the physical and mental exhaustion that constant campaigning undoubtedly bring about, we should probably be focusing on the desperate implosion going on in New Hampshire. First the Clinton campaign went after Obama’s Planned Parenthood approved abortion voting record and now they’re out-Chenyeing Cheney by claiming that if we elect Obama, terrorists will eat our children. An annoymous Economist blogger compares Cheney in 2004 and Clinton in 2008:
If we make the wrong [election] choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again—that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States. And then we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we’re not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.
I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister [of Britain with a bombing attempt]. They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.
This dynamic: false, petty shots at Obama, subsequent complaining that Obama’s response calls are too long, and now this type of base fear mongering, are just another illustration of why so many are looking forward to Clinton free political life. For example, if you look at the Obama choice smear, surely the Clinton campaign knew that Obama was going with a strategy planned by pro-choice advocates when he voted “present” on all those bills in the Illinois legislature, and yet they still went with this attack. The same is true with their Cheneyesque attack on Obama’s experience, they weren’t attacking his abillity to pass health care or a cap-and-trade bill, but instead that he would somehow be weak in the face of a terrorist attack. And not only would Obama be weak, she suggests that Al Qaeda would be more likely to attack if Obama were president. These are the types of baseless smears used to appeal to voters worst instincts that have so characterized the Bush administration and much of the conservative movement. While Clinton has spent the last week or so frantically trying to portray herself as an agent of change, her chosen tactics have actually made the contrasts between her and Obama greater. If I wanted this type of BS fearmongering, I’d vote for Rudy.
