Letters to the Editor
-
@doloresflower
doloresflower: "I also think that both Clintons will be advisors to Obama, regardless of what is going on now in the public eye. When I stop being mad at them for each new ridiculous attack I remember that their attacks do not always reflect their personal feelings. I sense, under the frustration that he is standing in Hillary's path, that under other circumstances they would love Barack as much as his supporters do."
I think you're right. The problem is that Obama stands in the way of plans the Clintons have been making for over a decade. I think they're very sophisticated people who have mapped out the dimensions of their lives in ways few people do (for example, it's unfathomable to me that Hillary didn't have a standing arrangement with Bill regarding his infidelities). If Obama weren't a direct threat to Hillary's lifelong plans then I bet she'd be his most ardent supporter.
DoloresFlower: "That's what's ironic. I don't even believe them anymore when they say that they don't think he's qualified ... they wouldn't have wanted to offer him the VP slot since it's next in line."
That is the most perfect response from Obama -- it's perfectly logical, and there is no way Hillary can respond. Which is why I think Bill was chosen to float the idea in hopes it would seed in voters' minds. Hillary has been much more muted about making the "Obama VP" statement. I think this is all very deliberate.
-
The New York Times article
I read it when it first came out (the New York Times publishes their paper online at midnight the night before). I read both pages and thought it was a pretty balanced article. It didn't smear Hillary at all, it just described some dynamics in the campaign. Obviously she is so busy she can't do everything, but it sounds like her delegation of power has caused a lot of conflict.
I agree, I would like to read a similar article about how the Obama campaign works from the inside. Hopefully the NYT is on that.
-
Clintons play the race card:
Clinton surrogate Geraldine Ferraro:
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Oh yeah, because history shows that being black is such a great advantage in winning a major party's endorsement.
And wait a second, isn't Hillary a woman? And isn't she "in this position"? I thought the point of the Clinton campaign was that the candidates were virtually tied!
You know, Carville once said something like, Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh in the West, Philadelphia in the East, and Alabama in the middle. And by Alabama he wasn't talking about winning the black vote.
I would link the Ferraro statement with the Vice President weirdness. So, the Clintons are going to lose big in Mississippi because of veiled race-baiting? They'll portray Obama's victory as a black victory and present themselves as woe-is-me whites in Pennsylvania.
-
NYT Corp Mouthpiece
This article is a collection of conclusory opinions. I was interested in learning the facts behind the headline, so I could come to my own conclusions about Hillary's "management style." But I learned nothing about the Clinton campaign from it. So like the NYT of the last decade. I did learn something about Salon, though. I learned that it is following the mainstream. Becoming part of the same ole same ole, one of the crowd. Sorry to see that Salon.