Very interesting diary found on Daily Kos, makes some good points about Obama's false "uniter" campaign theme.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/15/21102/7703Olbermann: Is Obama a Uniter, or Divider...of Democrats?
don't have video yet of tonight's Keith Olbermann, but he questioned whether the following passage from Washington Post bolsters Obama's claim of being a uniter or, in fact a divider...of his own party:
"I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running."
I myself have had problems with this quote.
Obama concedes that Hillary's reputation for being polarizing results from the unending, well-financed attacks from the Right Wing Noise Machine. Before he crossed over from the dark side, David Brock in Blinded by the Right confessed that he was paid well to lie and distort about non-conservatives, including Hillary Clinton. Despite well documented evidence of such lies and distortions by the Right that has led to the meme that Hillary Clinton is supposedly "polarizing," Obama perpetuates this label. I believe the reasons people here at DailyKos dislike Hillary Clinton - her vote for Iraq War, her refusal to outright apologize for it, her cautiousness, etc - are not the same reasons she has such high negative approval ratings.
Most Democrats outside the diaries of DailyKos give Hillary high approval ratings. In New York state, where the public knows her well after eight years, SurveyUSA polled her approval at 74%. Even among New York Republicans, she has an approval rating of 42%. These are people who know her and her work. Such numbers indicate to me that those who know the real Hillary don't see her as polarizing.
Most of her national negative approval ratings are based on vestiges of Right Wing attacks from the 1990s. Now, Obama himself concedes that Hillary's reputation is "not entirely a problem of her making." This raises two important questions I hope Obama would address:
1. What else has Sen. Clinton done that merits her being labeled divisive and polarizing?
2. If he thinks she is less qualified to unite the country because of a reputation that for the most part is not of her making, isn't he, in this case, claiming that the subject of years of false distortions and attacks - a victim, for lack of a better word - is damaged goods, even the one to blame for such attacks? Is he blaming the victim?
In another Obama vs. Hillary diary, some here suggested that Hillary should be considered polarizing because of the manner in which she conducted healthcare reform in 1993-1994. While I concede she could have been more skilled at passing such a massive overhaul, does anyone truly believe that this episode alone would account of this label of her being divisive?
Others have pointed to Clinton campaign response to the above quote from Obama as evidence of her divisiveness:
"It sounds like Karl Rove is writing Senator Obama's talking points," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. "The reality is that as the campaign now gets under way, Senator Clinton's ratings are improving because Americans are seeing that she has the strength and experience to deliver change."
Why would Hillary's campaign say such a thing? Well here is what Rove had to say about Hillary on Rush Limbaugh today:
"There is no candidate on record, a front-runner for a party's nomination, who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has...
"She's not like a fresh and new character. She's someone who has been essentially known to the American people for 16 years. It's going to be hard to change the perceptions that people have had,"
How is the essence of these remarks different from Obama's line - "Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do."
I would add that, for those who claim Hillary was being divisive and polarizing by comparing Obama's words to Rove, how would these same people characterize Obama's assertion that Sen. Hillary Clinton's national security approach is "Bush-Cheney Lite"? Isn't that just as strident? And why is Obama somehow excluded from criticism despite using such strong rhetoric?
Finally, Keith Olbermann played a clip of how Hillary was reacting to the skirmish she opened with the White House after releasing her "Invisible" ad:
Dana Perino responded to the ad in part: "As to the merits of it, I think it's outrageous."
Hillary hit back: "Apparently I've struck a nerve. The White House just attacked me a few minutes ago," Clinton said. "Not only have I said it and am saying it, I will keep saying it because I happen to believe it."
My first reaction to this back and forth was to cheer Hillary. My second reaction was: I bet the Hillary-haters will twist this into more evidence Hillary is polarizing. Yet if Edwards or Obama had engaged in such a way, they'd applaud them. Which would be typical, considering the double-standards she held to around here.