A Mudslinging Reality Check for Clinton

[cali]

The elections are right around the corner, but only the frontrunners are allowed on television. The other candidates are being arrested and thrown in jail. For all the moaning by Democratic candidates about how mean their rivals are, it takes only a quick look at what's happening in Russia or Pakistan these days to see genuinely hardball politics.

Parliamentary elections being held in Russia this coming Sunday, in fact, stand in sharp relief to what has actually been a remarkably genteel campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination here at home, despite all the caterwauling. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) complained during a debate in Las Vegas this month that her opponents were "throwing mud" at her, while Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) complained yesterday that it was Clinton who was making "personal attacks" against him.

Time for a little reality check here. The "mud" Clinton groused about was, in fact, a series of questions about her policy positions or her experience. Obama's criticism of her vote on an Iran resolution may be overblown or distorted, but is it mud to debate an important foreign policy question? Former North Carolina senator John Edwards's assertion that she is too tied into a calcified, corrupted Washington establishment to bring about meaningful change may be tough or exaggerated but is it illegitimate to ask whether someone who has been at the center of the system for the last 15 years can genuinely reform it?

Similarly, Clinton yesterday attacked Obama for using a Senate leadership political action committee to spread money around to supporters in key early primary states in a manner that "appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing election laws." Obama's campaign responded by branding it "the latest personal attack from Hillary Clinton." What's personal about asking if another candidate broke the law in his management of campaign funds? It may be desperate coming from a frontrunner, or even hypocritical for someone whose family has been in the middle of more than one campaign scandal, but there doesn't seem to be anything all that personal about it.

read the rest at:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/27/post_213.html

[cleveramerican]

1. what do you think?

what is your personal reaction to this story? do you agree?
Thats what I'm interested in.

[cali]

4. Why?

What's so interesting about my reaction to the story?

In any case, here you are: I agree with the story as it pertains to Obama more than as it pertains to Edwards. But then admittedly, I see Edwards primarily through the prism of his Senate career.

I think it's hypocritical of Clinton to go after Obama when her fundraising practices are so unappetizing. In fact, if she's the nominee, I think those practices will be a big problem.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. The last line: "And be glad they're not in Russia."

So true. At least Bush hasn't jailed any of them (like Putin's done to Kasparov)...


...yet.;)

[aquart]

3. Let me get this straight: we're petty whiners because we don't expect to be jailed?

That is the dimwitted essence here, isn't it?

So, we're adding this POS to the pile of negative Hillary coverage. Because the MSM really wants Hillary to be the candidate...so Giuliani can beat her...or because they want Hillary because she's a fascist...or because they want Hillary....except they don't. They want Obama. Ask Kos.

[Cooley Hurd]

5. Do you EVER have anything of substance to add to a thread?

:shrug: