Clinton Damage
I'm getting so sick of the Clinton supporters running around saying "I hope you're happy, now that you've selected a candidate who is entirely unqualified. When he loses in November and we have to put up with four more years of Republican rule it'll be all your fault" completely ignoring the fact that running around calling him "unqualified" does a whole lot more to undermine his chances than any actual lack of qualification.
I saw a piece recently (I'll see if I can find it later and post it in the comments on this item) that showed how some of our greatest Presidents actually had the least amount of previous governmental or executive experience, which makes the argument spurious anyway.
But case in point for how the Republicans are going to use spin Clinton's actions against the Democratic nominee, it appears that the first narrative they're going with is to assert that Obama was not selected by the people but chosen by "Liberal Special Interests". Really, I got an e-mail today from the RNC chairman asserting just that.
What they're trying to do is winnow away the centrists and other independents who might feel that this makes Obama the leftist extremist, beholden to extreme liberal interests, when in fact it's pretty clear that Obama isn't really beholden to anyone, the vast majority of his money has come in $25 and $50 increments from individual donors, NOT in large checks from big money interests.
Now, I don't want to come across as knee-jerk against the Republicans, when they return to the conservative principles they pay lip service (and little else) to you will likely find me voting for them again. But for right now, they're still the party of corruption and "social conservatism", and I'm sick of the lies and deceit in pursuit of power.
Just remember, as you start hearing the "Obama wasn't picked by average Americans" meme that it isn't true. And that Hillary Clinton helped create this story line for the Republicans.
If (and I still doubt this is likely) Obama loses in November, don't believe the Clinton supporters who say "See? Should've gone with our candidate".
Liam.
posted by Liam at 6/04/2008 04:14:00 PM
1 Comments:
I can't find the specific article I had read previously, but here is another one that contains much of the same information.
A few points, for those who don't feel like clicking over and reading the whole thing.
Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President? If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln. Your pick disagrees with that of most historians, who see Lincoln as the greatest President ever and Buchanan as the second worst ever, better only than Warren "Teapot Dome" Harding.
Others among those with the least amount of experience coming into the Presidency:
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Lincoln, all had less than 10 years of governmental experience.
On the other end, Martin Van Buren, Gerald Ford, James Garfield and Buchanan all had more than 20 years of prior experience.
So just keep that in mind when McCain takes up the Clinton mantra about experience.
Liam.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008 8:23:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home