How long this story will stay up today depends upon whether or not there will be another sex scandal we can all pretend to be outraged about, when really we are titllated at most, and likely thoroughly indifferent except when in front of a camera or blogging.
But anyway, Obama needs to start swinging harder at these bastards who are smearing him. We all knew these things were coming if he got within striking distance of the nomination. And here he is, on the verge of carrying the mantle. And here they are, trying to destroy his credibility with a whole hell of a lot of nothing.
Obama cannot rely on his surrogates for this. To his credit, he came out pretty strong on Friday, as Harrogate's faithful Readers saw in a recent post. But it wasn't enough. He needs to hit back consistently, and hit back hard.
8 comments:
One of the issues behind this "scandal" is who is responsible for the mess in the first place. How did the news media "decide" to go with these stories this week?
I have not heard too much about who started this discussion. On one of the Sunday Talk Shows (the McLaughlin Group, the sleaziest of them all) Pat Buchanan suggested that the Clinton campaign may have directed the attacks. His reasoning would be this constituted political payback for Senator Clinton's apologies for the comments made by Bill Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro, and a few others.
Because of the timing, it makes sense but I am not sure if I buy it. I need more evidence.
Solon, Harrogate feels we ought to give the Clinton campaign the benefit of the doubt, not assume that this thing came from her, unless it is shown to be the case. As you well know, there are better trusted sources thatn Pat Buchanan.
But, regardless of who alerted media to Wright's videotaped comments, we knew this kind of thing was coming, didn't we? That Obama would be attacked somewhere along the way, on the bases of his name, his ethnicity, his religious affiliations.
Given everything. If he has not had contingency plans from "Day 1" for this angle of attack, somewhere along the line, then he is quite simply the most inept political thinker of our generation.
What specifically he can or should do to get past this, Harrogate has no idea. Thus Harrogate isn't a very ept politician either. Except that, as all Readers know, Harrogate, like many, did see this coming from the Way before Time.
And now it is here. It does not matter where it came from, really. Harrogate earnestly implores, that Obama had damned well better do Something about it.
During during, Megs & I discussed whether or not this could have been preemptive to take the issue away during the general election. This occurred during a very down town (5+ weeks to go); it is not as if he will win Penn.; it is not as if he will lose the black vote.
The focus of my last comment should be on who allowed this? and why now?
If the right were to use it, would it make more sense to do this now or wait to the general?
Okay, if you really think where it came from is the thing at this point, then Harrogate has three suggestions for ye, to add to your suggestion that it is preemptive:
1)Maybe it came from GOP operatives. This would feed the already existing Narrative that they think Obama would be the tougher opponent in the General and want to derail him now, through scaring the shit out of Superdelegates
2)Maybe it came from Hill's camp.
3)Maybe some enterprising reporter or wannabe reporter got ahold of the video and, viewing it newsworthy, started circulating it.
At this point any of the four we have cobbled together are "likeable enough."
Here are two other questions:
1)Are any Readers seriously--Really-- Surprised that such an issue has come about re Obama? That is, did anyone, including Obama himself, take it seriously when Obama said "In the coming weeks we will have a great debate with a man who has served his country and loves it dearly"????
What a gag-me-with-a-spoon line that was.
2)Do any readers think this is a legitimate concern that the public needed to be made aware of?
Harrogate, I'm totally not answering your questions and I apologize! But, before Sweet Baby J wakes up from her morning nap, I have a quick thing to add to this discussion, even if it is a bit varied from the thread of who leaked the tape and why now. (Okay, okay, no one is surprised and I, at least, think it's relatively irrelevant.)
I am very, very disappointed with Obama's claim that he wasn't at church when the inflammatory things were said. This, to me, is tantamount to Bill Clinton's claim that he didn't inhale. I thought it so refreshing that Obama, when asked about his own past drug use, said that he "did inhale. That was sort of the point." Whether he is telling the truth about being absent or not (and he'd better damn well have been, otherwise he's a fool), that line of reasoning is so, so weak. I much prefer his subsequent (in the same TV appearance) remark that you still love a family member, even if you have to stand out against what they have said. Much stronger line.
Can't wait to see what he comes up with in the big race speech today.
Megs:
Harrogate agrees with all ye write, although he would like to see your answers to the questions he posed.
Also, Harrogate has seen the text of Obama's speech. It's pretty awesome, much more like the "inhaled" line then the "I wasn;t there line," although he does take care to remind people once again, that he "wasn't there."
But, the refrain that you don't turn your back on someone you love because they hold some misguided views, even deeply misguided ones, is a worthy refrain that American needs very much at this moment. Indeed, much of Obama's appeal for Harrogate has always been that Obama, more than any other candidate from the beginning except maybe Biden, appears top instinctively grasp the truth that when you are engaging foreign nations, including those with whom you have strained relations, you are after all dealing with human beings.
I have to admit that I haven't been following this story all that closely, but I have seen the clip in which the pastor responds to the fact that there are many, many more black men in prison than white men. While I agree that his rhetoric is inflammatory and highly controversial, I don't disagree with him, and I think that Obama needs to address the very valid points his pastor raises. So the pastor is pointing out that things in this country, particularly the judicial system, are biased against people of color. Um, didn't we already know that? What I find appalling is not that he said these things, but that Obama now has to distance himself from a person who is trying to raise awareness about issues that are often overlooked in this country. That said, I'm now going to read a transcript of Obama's speech.
Post a Comment