Are We Sure the GOP Race Is Settled?

Because Obama seems to be facing two Republican campaigns...

I want to follow up on something Rickey mentioned in a previous comment, "...the Clinton smear tactics are a warm up for the vicious attack ads the beleagured GOP party will unleash on Obama."

Well...I'm not so sure the GOP can be any more insidious than this.



Can the GOP be more obvious and clumsy? Yes. But how much more disgusting can it get?

This example has flown around the blogosphere as "the Clinton ad that makes Obama more black" (ala the TIME magazine OJ cover). But I think kos nails it when he says "more Muslim." They didn't just make Obama's skin darker they changed tone, hue and contrast to make him look more like an Arab. I'm surprised the copy doesn't just refer to him as "B. Hussein Obama."

I've been biting my tongue on this example for a day or two, because this blog has been a goddamn "Groundhog Day" of Anti-Hillary, and I was hoping for a rejection of Clinton by the voters, but instead her Rovian tactics have brought her back from the grave—and continuing, even increasing them seems her only possible strategy.

This shit cannot stand.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign fucking disgusts me. It is now at the point that I won't be in the same party as her. She is running a Republican slash and burn campaign through her own party's future—and I mean beyond Obama.

If the craven Democratic Party establishment or the stupid fucking sheep of an electorate validates this, I won't be a part of it.

What he said...

Publius over at Obsidian Wings captures perfectly many of my own objections to Hillary, and why they are not, in most cases, about her...but what surrounds her. [my emphasis added to the passages that particularly strike a chord]:

When the primary fumes pass, we’ll all come around to Clinton, especially compared to the GOP monstrosities. But with Clinton, my perception is that none of this inspired future is possible. Hers will be a competent, moderate, K Street-friendly administration. But I want more – and I think the nation could get more. Thus, my frustration with Clinton’s victory probably has less to do with her personally, than with the fact that I see a very different sort of future slipping away if she wins...

First, and most fundamentally, I think her actions on the national security front disqualify her. The Dems should not reward radio silence on Iraq, torture, etc. during the years it mattered with a presidential nomination. Period. [...] If you make an insincere political gamble, you have to pay that bill if you lose.

Second, and relatedly, I have fears about her national security judgment going forward. Specifically, I fear that she’s so afraid of looking liberal that she either won’t attempt bold change (e.g., Cuba, Israel/Palestine), or will be bullied into doing something foolish (Iran). Her past positions are strong evidence of what she’ll do in the future – see, e.g., Kyl-Lieberman – and it’s not good.

Third, on domestic policy, I think she’s got all the right stuff – she’s brilliant and has great policy proposals. But the fear is that those proposals will just collect dust in the White House policy shop. I’ve seen nothing since 1994 that indicates the slightest willingness to take political risk for something she believes in. She’s too cautious and scared (just like Kerry). Turning back to Obama briefly, I’m more convinced that he’ll at least try to aim high. I also believe that an Obama victory would create more favorable underlying social and political conditions for real progressive change.

Fourth, I detest her administration-in-waiting. [...] I’m not really talking about the Secretary of State, but the next tier down – i.e., the players who will run the executive branch on the micro-DC level. [...] DC is full of exiled Clintonites. They’ve been biding their time in DC law firms and consulting shops getting wealthy. If Clinton wins, they’ll simply move their offices across town and re-assume control of the government’s purse. They’ve had a full decade to become more entwined with K Street interests...

I couldn't say it better myself, so I'm happy to just lift it. I'll add that I do NOT think she will be freed from the cautiousness she's exhibited as a Senator once she reaches the White House. I think everything she's done for the last ten years has been in preparation for becoming President, and the Clintons are surrounded by legions of people equally invested. None of that will change in Janary 2009 because she finally is President. They/she will still need to win a second term.

Yes, to a degree that is true of all the candidates, but she embodies it and embraces it. Seeing Terry Mcaulliffe's face again this weekend for the first time since Howard Dean replaced him as DNC chair was like stepping in dog shit. That guy should have been tied to a tree and left for the wolves, but he'd be appointed Chief of Staff in a Clinton Administration. It's the scum that will float back in in Hillary's wake that has long been one of the biggest reasons I thought she must be stopped (aside from her electability challenges). My excitement for the possibility of Obama is more recent, but Hillary's key flaws have been around for years, and she shows NO sign of recognizing them, never mind correcting them.