It looks like the Clinton campaign is grasping at straws in their attempt to defend themselves after screwing up in Iowa a few days ago. Before a speech in the Iowa town of Newton, Clinton aides told a college student to ask a specific question about the environment. They wanted the question asked and thought it would look better coming from a college student.
Both the student and the campaign admitted the student had been given the question by the campaign. This was a very stupid thing to do. If Clinton had something specific she wanted to say about the environment, she should have just said it in her speech. This gives the perception that the campaign was trying to "rig" the question-and-answer period.
Of course, John Edwards jumped right on that. He said Clinton was doing "what George Bush does. George Bush goes to events that are staged, where people are screened, where they're only allowed to ask questions if the questions are favorable to George Bush and set up in his favor".
Of course, he was right. The blunder did make the campaign look like they were trying to pull a Bush stunt. They should have just admitted their error, apologized and moved on. But it looks like someone in the campaign is not too smart. They had to throw a very weak and stupid accusation back at Edwards.
The Clinton campaign answered saying, "What George Bush does is attack Democrats and divide the country. Senator Edwards' campaign resembles that more and more every day". What a juvenile statement! It sounds more like the comeback of a third-grader than that of a professional campaign staff.
Did they really think their opponents wouldn't try to capitalize on their blunder? This is a campaign and opponents will try to further their own ambitions when you pull a bone-headed stunt like the Clinton campaign did.
I used to respect Hillary Clinton back when she wasn't ashamed of having liberal beliefs. But that day is long gone. I'm not sure what she believes in anymore, and the more she campaigns, the less I seem to like her. Her campaign's reaction to Edwards did nothing to help that perception.
I am beginning to believe she would be the weakest candidate the Democrats could nominate.
Not only would she be the weakest candidate, because of all the baggage she brings to the table, she is by far the least progressive of the entire Democratic slate of candidates. I'm afraid a Clinton presidency wouldn't be too radically different from the one we're suffering through right now, given her penchant for secrecy, her fondness for corporations, and her willingness to resort to military action.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid you are right.
ReplyDeleteI still am on the Edwards bandwagon. The Obama and Clinton campaigns don't look very different, and above all they look like campaigns. When I see the Edwards message and Edwards speaking- I get a different perception.
ReplyDeleteI have recently gotten a lot of info about Gravel. I had shut him down because of electability issues= but now I am wondering what are his biggest flaws? Looking at his history, I can't seem to find anything that bad- Any thoughts?
I would have to agree with your assessment of Gravel. I admire him but I don't think he's been given a chance by the media, and because of that he's got electability problems.
ReplyDeletePanhandle expat makes a good point about the baggage that Hillary brings to the table. I think this is why she's the candidate of choice among Republicans for the Democratic nomination.
ReplyDeleteGetting enough GOP voters motivated about their own candidate may be a problem 2008, regardless of who gets the nomination. But a Hillary presidential bid would bring out the "broken glass" Republicans - the ones who would crawl over broken glass for the opportunity to finally defeat a Clinton.