|
|
| Who is Michelle? | Politics | Social Issues | Random Observations | Daily Meditations | Beauty | Style | Thinking Out of the Box | Arts & Culture | Relationships | Luxury Coupons |
Daily Politics
August 14, 2008
What is the point of the Atlantic Monthly's need to re-visit Hillary Clinton's campaign advice from Mark Penn months after the fact? Why are they re-tracing her (mis) steps months later, right before the DNC?
This week the Atlantic Monthly is printing an article that highlights the overall dysfunction and political treachery of the now dispersed Clinton presidential campaign. And the villain is good old Mark Penn. Go figure? I thought she "fired" him? Evidently, during the latter months of her campaign, Penn is said to have suggested a smear strategy against Obama that sought to define him as an "outsider" and as "un-American." Specifically, Penn is said to have recommended a line of campaigning for Clinton that would question Obama's values, suggesting them to be somehow out of line with the American mainstream. or something like that. The tactic seemed to encompass playing to Obama's racial background and his Arab name. Shame on Penn. We all know Democrats are not supposed to do this kind of thing. Or even think like this for that matter.
Thankfully, for all involved, Hillary Clinton refused to pursue this tactic, and instead, maintained a populist focus, hoping to attract the white working class vote by default. Hindsight, of course, is 20/20 and Clinton's strategy brought her only to the brink, and the rest is for the history books. The question the Atlantic Monthly raises, among others, is whether Clinton should have gone for broke here and taken Penn's advice. Should she have pulled out the stops and pushed for a kind of showdown around who is the "Real American?"
Regardless, this is water under the bridge at this point. What I want to know is, why is this being brought up now, less than two weeks before the Democratic National Convention? Isn't the party supposed to be unifying right about now?
Last night, I heard Former Homeland Security Secretary and Republican VP hopeful Tom Ridge note that once again the Democrats were helping the Republicans out with their job by dredging up this old news from the campaign trail months after its relevancy. On Chris Matthews program on MSNBC, Ridge also said something in "code" that did not go unnoticed, however. When asked if he agreed with Penn's assessment of Obama, Ridge answered by saying that Obama's background meant he "answered to no one." Ridge seems to be suggesting that Republicans will not go so far as fellow Clinton Democrat Penn and smear him with the "outsider" "can't be trusted" brush. But, he did make it known that Republicans will pick up on this dastardly nuanced tactic by defining Obama as a cultural outlier.
Does Ridge's comment that old wounds seem to be refusing to heal for the Democrats and ultimately helping out the Republican case have traction? Also, by suggesting that Penn isn't incorrect and, in fact, that Obama "answers to no one" paint him as a "cultural bastard" of sorts, need to be shut down by a powerful Democratic surrogate? Do the Democrats need some help here? Can we get some help, please?
