It seemed odd that the name of Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator himself, was the focal part of last week's campaign by the Democratic candidates.
While what was said by Sen. Barack Obama was nothing new - that Reagan was a man of ideas - the response from his two chief opponents, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards, shows how desperate and close the race for the nomination is.
Both candidates, Clinton (and her husband, the former president) and Edwards jumped on Obama for his praise-worthy comments. And that could be understandable, if they didn't play what has clearly become the MO of their campaigns (especially Clinton's) of taking comments out of context and/or parsing statements.
Clinton, who won the Nevada caucus against Obama (but looks to have gotten one less delegate overall under party rules) clearly distorted Obama's comments to energize her base - old line Democrats bitter at 12 years of Republican rule starting in 1981. Obama said, in a videotaped interview, that “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” Clearly a whack at his opponent's husband's years in the White House. Prior to that he said “I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.”
Yet Clinton retorted, “My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years. That's not the way I remember the last 10 to 15 years.” If you re-read Obama's quote - that is not what he said - not even close.
Misleading and parsing has become the Clinton strategy for some time. Take for example playing the race card earlier this month with comments on civil rights and the role of the late Dr. Martin Luther King. While she was trying to step back from the controversy the day after a “Meet the Press” appearance last week, it was not before her supporters ganged up on Obama, one insinuating that he was a drug user (something he admits to experimenting with in his autobiography as a youth). Part of these attacks are based on the fact that he is doing remarkably well in this caucus and primary season, a season that was thought to only be a side show event on the way to Clinton's coronation at the Democratic National Convention this summer.
The big question is whether the media will now focus in on such parsing and hold candidates accountable, including the new, not Greater Communicator, but Great Parser - Senator Clinton.
Cosentino is a former mayor of Auburn and can be contacted at cozguytho@aol.com
Both candidates, Clinton (and her husband, the former president) and Edwards jumped on Obama for his praise-worthy comments. And that could be understandable, if they didn't play what has clearly become the MO of their campaigns (especially Clinton's) of taking comments out of context and/or parsing statements.
Clinton, who won the Nevada caucus against Obama (but looks to have gotten one less delegate overall under party rules) clearly distorted Obama's comments to energize her base - old line Democrats bitter at 12 years of Republican rule starting in 1981. Obama said, in a videotaped interview, that “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” Clearly a whack at his opponent's husband's years in the White House. Prior to that he said “I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.”
Yet Clinton retorted, “My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years. That's not the way I remember the last 10 to 15 years.” If you re-read Obama's quote - that is not what he said - not even close.
Misleading and parsing has become the Clinton strategy for some time. Take for example playing the race card earlier this month with comments on civil rights and the role of the late Dr. Martin Luther King. While she was trying to step back from the controversy the day after a “Meet the Press” appearance last week, it was not before her supporters ganged up on Obama, one insinuating that he was a drug user (something he admits to experimenting with in his autobiography as a youth). Part of these attacks are based on the fact that he is doing remarkably well in this caucus and primary season, a season that was thought to only be a side show event on the way to Clinton's coronation at the Democratic National Convention this summer.
The big question is whether the media will now focus in on such parsing and hold candidates accountable, including the new, not Greater Communicator, but Great Parser - Senator Clinton.
Cosentino is a former mayor of Auburn and can be contacted at cozguytho@aol.com
The Citizens' Say
There are 3 comment(s)
Farmer's Gal wrote on Jan 30, 2008 10:03 AM:
But I'd vote for that corrupt Clinton woman over a war-mongering Republican. "
Dan W wrote on Jan 28, 2008 8:25 PM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on Jan 28, 2008 1:03 PM:
I still prefer Edwards for his stand against corporate control over our government and our lives, but the media acts as if he were out of it, and voila-presto, the masses, who let the media do the majority of their thinking for them, count him out and it becomes a fulfilled prophecy.
But I still prefer him, and I'll still vote for him and hope that if he doesn't make the final cut, that he gets picked up as a running mate. Someone who hasn't been bought and sold by special interests needs to be in the top slot for us to have any hope on 90% of the problems facing this country and our individual lives. "