Rubbing noses in it
Say what you will about Barack Obama claiming to be a "uniter," he sure isn't walking the walk:
Obama is quickly losing an awful lot of respect of people who admire the Clintons... FOR WINNING THE WHITE HOUSE TWICE!“Keep in mind we had Bill Clinton as president when in '94 we lost the House, we lost the Senate, we lost governorships, we lost state houses," Obama said. "And so regardless of what policies they wanted to promote, they didn't have a working majority to bring change about.”
This argument dovetails with a harsh Obama campaign mailer (check it out HERE) that argues that "Democrats win when we unite America" and goes on to argue that the Clintons are divisive.
"8 years of the Clintons, major losses for Democrats across the nation," the flier says, enumerating that from November 1992 to November 2000, Democrats lost 12 governorships, 7 Senate seats, and 46 House seats.
So much for "Democrats only win when they unite the country."
Let's take a look at this:
JFK won, beating an incumbent vice president, in an era when the country was beginning to divide up. Racial issues were becoming a real concern and people were taking notice of the deep divisions the McCarthy era had created.
LBJ won in 1964, based a lot on JFK's legacy. OK, so maybe there's an election Obama was correct about.
Jimmy Carter won in 1976 almost exclusively based on two things: Ford's pardon of Nixon (in itself, a healing moment if you believe the eulogies) and Ford's gaffe regarding the Soviet Bloc. Again, not exactly the unifying moment one might ponder.
And then there's Bill Clinton, who took on the "haves" and beat them at their own game.
So you could say it was actually the Clintons who unified the country, rather than divided them the way this blindly ignorant statement appears to make history out.
Now, any Democrat worth his salt is going to vote for whomever is the candidate.
I'm just not sure pissing off the establishment is going to help you in the general election, Senator. These are people who can commit an awful lot of money and resources and more important, effort, to helping you win the election.
But the way you are running your campaign, all divisive and negative and thin-skinned, you're coming off as a Republican plant.
So stop it.
(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)
Labels: Barack Obama, U.S. history
posted by Carl at
11:34 AM
5 Comments:
So you're defending divisive politics? Really?
By
Unknown, at 2:08 PM
As you say (and I agree) Clinton "beat them at their own game." Now, I greatly appreciated that at the time. It was wonderful to watch. But I'm sick and tired of playing the game of slash and burn, attrition politics. Do you think if we keep playing that game there will eventually be a different result than we've had for the past 16 years? I don't blame the Clintons for defining the rules, just that they haven't, and seemingly can't, change them.
By
Anonymous, at 2:31 PM
In a normal world, taking a country to war predicated on a fabric of lies would be an impeachable offense. Where did our current state of moral relativism get its start? Did it start with Watergate, followed by Iran-Contra-Gate, followed by Whitewater-Gate, followed by Monica-Gate, followed by Plame-Gate?
This is not merely slash-n-burn, but tit-for-tat slash-n-burn politics. It is getting more than tedious. It is downright dangerous and disastrous in what it has devolved to the point where we can no longer remove a law-breaking rogue from office.
By
Swampcracker, at 2:53 PM
Seriously, this post is an embarrassment. Obama's definition of "Democrats win" is clearly not just "Democrats win the White House." He's talking about the party overall, and you can't point to a single factual misstatement he made. Way to stay classy, Carl.
By
Fargus..., at 6:31 AM
I couldnt agree more with this article, and Obama people continue to be seriously history challenged.
We have had divisive politics in this country ever since it was formed, and well before too. The idea that Obama will change all of that is absurd. I see no signs at all that Repubs are going to cave, so unless Obama means to cave himself, there we are: more divisiveness. Why? Because the two political sides that have dominated our politics for over 200 years see different problems and different solutions to them.
And Clinton didnt lose the Congress for other than courageous reasons. The Brady Bill banning assault weapons angered the NRA, and the Clinton budget, that brought us a decade of growth and prosperity, was passed with not a single Repub vote, and then the Repubs campaigned on it: it raised taxes they said. It would guarantee a depression, they said. The dumb public bought that and the Dems lost the Congress. Go back and do some research before opining on historical matters; Bill Clinton did not lose the Congress because he was divisive. He lost the congress because the Repubs campaigned against and eliminated many brave Dem reps and senators. So I guess the Obama style message to all of that is, forget the Brady Bill, and forget a good budget, its too divisive, too prone to generating argument.
My own feeling is that it is not a new politics that people yearn for, it is the end of partisan argument, which can mean only one thing as far as the Repubs are concerned: Dems give up and agree to Republican issues and solutions. It is not the courage to demand a new way of doing things, because that is little more than impotently braying at the moon; it is in fact the cowardice of wanting to give up, just so we dont argue anymore.
So yes I say Obama has made many factually erroneous statements in this mailer, and drawn a historically untenable conclusion to boot. The "Clintons" did not lose the Congress. They enacted several brave policies, and brave Dems who supported them paid a price when the Republicans did their thing. I call that a profile in courage.
By
Anonymous, at 5:32 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home