Blood for Blood

[Crossposted from Sugar Land is Dreaming]

In case you missed the Obama/Hillary smackoff in last night's debate, here's the video (via Raw Story). This post won't make much sense unless you see the exchange.


So, who's right? Who's wrong? Are they both acting like children? Let's start off after the civil exchange by Obama and Edwards, where both candidates talked issues (I know, that's a shocker!). The focus turns to Susan Malveaux, who lobs this question at Obama:

It was just a few days ago that Senator Clinton asserted that she was strongest candidate when it comes to fiscal responsibility. She says that the new programs she proposes, she essentially can pay for. She says that you have failed in that regard, in the turn of some $50 billion dollars worth of new programs that you cannot account for. How do you respond to that charge?

I have a few, somewhat connected thoughts about what transpired afterwards.

One:I'm at a loss on where to start with the trouble this question poses. I know that journalists questioning candidates in the debate are supposed to ask them critical questions, but this one posed by Malveaux smells a Hillary talking point. In fact, the first thing I thought of is my day spent in the media circus at the RI state house last year, where one of the things I witnessed was the state Attorney General, a Democrat, asking a journalist to see the press release from the the RI Democrat Party to see if it came out as he had typed it. This press release hammered Rhode Island's Republican Governor on a scandal and was supposedly authored by the Attorney General's brother.

The journalists, of course, hammered away at the Governor about this scandal.

While the problem in this situation is not comparable to what transpired in this debate (the Governor was at fault in this case, leaving himself wide open for the crush of questions), I'm reminded of this situation because I have to wonder how much of Malveaux's question was inspired by a press release from the Hillary campaign. This is an example of lazy journalism because...

Two: As far as I can tell, Hillary's claim of Obama having "$50 billion dollars worth of new programs that [he] cannot account for" is complete crap. Over on Hillary's "Fact Hub" blog, they can't even get the facts straight. First they up the ante by claiming that Obama can't account for $80 billion, then they add another $50 billion, then another $50 million, and another $2 billion. Just for good measure, I guess. All the while, I doubt that Hillary has revealed how any health care plan is going to be paid for. But...

Three: Lest Obama go unmolested in this post, though. I can't find where he has accounted for adding new tax revenue to the budget to pay for any of his plans. So while Hillary may be pulling figures out of her ass, she could have a point. I looked to Obama's blog to point me in the right direction. I figured they would have a response to Hillary's attacks, and they did... But it's rather paltry: "Much of the debate has been focused on economic issues. Check out Obama's comprehensive economic policy." The link goes to the economy section of Obama's website, which lists the basics of his plan but nothing beyond that.

Four: In fact, the lack of content (or any palpable energy) on Obama's blog, to me, highlights one missing entity that's sorely needed in his campaign: Guns. Big fucking guns that are manned, trained on the Hillary campaign, and ready to fire at any time. The content of both candidate's blogs show the strengths and deficiencies: Hillary's "Fact Hub" has multiple detailed, link rich posts published last night with content specifically focused on what happened in the debate. Her blogger(s?) are boviously professional. Meanwhile, all Obama's team can muster are short, boring, basic posts and links to video of the debate. I don't know if this is a result of his "new politics" of trying to be kinder and gentler or what, but it's clear that it's a weakness Hillary aims to exploit. Then again...

Five: How can one successfully defend themselves against the attacks coming from Hillary and still try to raise themselves above the political fray? I'm not sure if Hillary's strategy is to lower Obama into an all out brawl, but if so, she certainly succeed tonight. What she's offering is shit from all sides. That's why Obama started mentioning her -- or was it her husband's? -- Reagan smears tonight, although he was completely off-topic regarding the original question. But the original question looked like it was ripped straight out of Hillary's talking points, and the honesty of the question talking point is dubious. Hillary is practicing blitzkrieg with these smears and is there a pacifistic way to respond to such assaults?

No, there isn't. Welcome to politics.

Six: Ultimately, the losers of this battle could be us. Being the owner of a centrist record filled with bouts of capitulation, Hillary knows that any political move by far that's farther to the left doesn't pass the laugh test. She can't run on her record, and the experience card might not be enough, so she and her ex-president husband are resorting to cheap shots. Claiming that Obama loves Reagan is one thing (a false and immature thing, at that), but whipping out the Rezko card against Obama (and embellishing it into a lie) enters the realm of arguments that the GOP nominee can use against the Democratic candidate this fall. Does Hillary really want this type of campaign? Does Hillary want to see herself destroy Obama, and Obama whip out a bunch of smears to destroy her, just to have another shot at the White House?

In effect, by whipping oppo-research smears at Obama which would make Karl Rove proud, Hillary has invited Obama to perform the same activities against her. In fact, Obama pretty much has no choice in the matter now -- either attack like Hillary does or get rolled over by her political machine.

Whatever gets aired at this point we can only hope that the Republicans don't use it against whoever the Democratic nominee is in the fall. But that hope is about as fragile as the light of a candle in a gale force wind. Hillary's hunger for power has lowered the bar of this campaign, and from now on it's going to be blood for blood. Maybe the wounds that the eventual nominee suffers will close up by November.