13 Mar
Keith Olbermann on Hillary and Ferraro: Campaign is “Suicide Pact”
Excerpt: “Senator, as it has reached its apex in their tone-deaf, arrogant, and insensitive reaction to the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro… your own advisors are slowly killing your chances to become President. Senator, their words, and your own, are now slowly killing the chances for ANY Democrat to become President. In your tepid response to this Ferraro disaster… you are now campaigning, as if Barack Obama were the Democrat, and you… were the Republican. As Shakespeare wrote, Senator — that way… madness… lies. You have missed a critical opportunity to do… what was right."
"… Senator Clinton: This is not a campaign strategy. This is a suicide pact….”
Sphere: Related Content
I think it is funny that Olbermann paints politics as right or wrong. Its about power and perception. She knows she is going to win big in Pennsylvania, she is trying to get Barack to start talking about race again, because that tends to drive his support among white males down.
Obama should get his wife or someone else in his campaign to start attacking Hillary in the same manner, citing her gender.
March 13th, 2008 at 8:27 amKeith Olbermann is dead on. Primary politics is not to be run like general election politics. The code is “Party” before personal ambition. Every politician knows that — except Hillary Clinton …& perhaps her husband… who may be doubling up as her new campaign advisor. That is her biggest crime. The only act of political selfishness, shortsightedness, and egomania (I’m using the kindest words possible) that I have ever seen besides Hillary’s (or Bill’s) campaign is Ralph Nader taking 100,000 Florida votes and then having the audacity to rip Bush’s policies afterwards.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:07 amMODI - That has never been the code since Bill came on the scene and Olberman knows that. Its been this way since 92, 16 years now and its not changing, hell its the same way in my party so that way of thinking is out of date and its funny how Olberman is trying to perpetuate it, I guess its clear who he is pulling for.
As for Nader why shouldn’t he have taken the votes, they were given to him and he is not a Democrat. He isn’t on your side.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:15 amHillary is showing the same tone deafness that made her vote to authorize the action in Iraq. Every action seems to be in the interest of politacally calculated as opposed to policy. She seems untrustworthy. I don’t understand why someone who from all appearances seems very intelligent and savvy continues to make these sort of mistakes. It’s so funny, white folks invented the term “race card” to trivialize any instance of racial inequity but it seems they are the ones who use it the most.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:32 amI loved the video, MODI. I wondered at first why Obama fired Sam Power so quickly; now I see the genius of the move. It has carved out the higher ground for Obama and has forced the Clinton campaign to shed their shady advisors. I back neither candidate, but right now, from a pure strategy standpoint, I’d say Obama is kicking some Clinton tail.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:17 pmDMac, as far as “the code” goes, I will refer you to Gary Hart’s essay from last week which I reprinted below:
“It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party’s nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned.
By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party’s nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.
As a veteran of red telephone ads and “where’s the beef” cleverness, I am keenly aware that sharp elbows get thrown by those trailing in the fourth quarter (and sometimes even earlier). “Politics ain’t beanbag,” is the old slogan. But that does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters.
Senator Obama is right to say the issue is judgment not years in Washington. If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.”
March 14th, 2008 at 12:07 amDMac, Bush was clearly considerably further from Nader’s ideals than Bush than Gore. His actionas were inexcusable. But here is the in-depth take: http://killbigotry.blogspot.com/2007/07/ralph-nader-spanks-frankenstein.html
– awb, Hillary is personal ambition-gone-wild. That is the only explanation. She is too smart for this.
– MC, Obama has had the higher ground from Day 1. For the most part, Hillary was playing fair until the last month. Then she went out for blood. She has crossed so many lines that they no longer exist.
–
March 14th, 2008 at 12:16 amMODI - you mention Gary Hart like he is someone wth political power and influence, he can believe what he wants, but it has been a great deal of time since he has been a relevant force in his own party. In other words, he is hardly an authority. Most primaries are getting progressively competitive especially in the situation like this where there is a leadership vacuum.
Bush being further from Nader’s ideals means nothing. Nader was running for another party. His party happend to make the ballot and he was going to run, its not his job to make things easier for the democrats, just like it wasn’t buchanon’s job to make it easier for Republicans when he was running as the reform candidate.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:27 amMODI - you mention Gerry Ferraro like she is someone wth political power and influence, she can believe what she wants, but it has been a great deal of time since she has been a relevant force in her own party. In other words, she is hardly an authority. Most primaries are getting progressively competitive especially in the situation like this where there is a leadership vacuum.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:51 amWow temple, nice to see I’ve broken you down so much you can’t even reply in a sensible manner. I love it.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:02 amThat’s cute. Smiley faces - is that the equivalent of a concession speech now that we’ve conclusively proven the impact of fear advertising in campaigns? Give it up scrub. Your Sarcasm Detection Class has been a complete failure.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:15 amWow Temple3, fighting a losing fight. First you prove you can not competantly read a research paper, now this. What a sad man.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:27 amRegardless of his current influence, i think that Gary hart knows a thing or two about the unwritten codes.
“Bush being farther from Bushes ideals means nothing”. The lesser of two evils is still less evil. And less evil is more good. Al Gore was deeply opposed to the war on Iraq. Nader has been fierce anti-war critic. That is no small gap.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:01 pmTemple, I fear that Gerry Ferraro’s ridiculous victim message/whining will resonate with other delusional voters. She is doing the talk show circuit with a level of moral indignation that is disgusting and might be fracturing Dems along racial/gender lines. Old white women vote too you know…
Primaries may very well be competitive, but when Hillary started aligning with McCain as “the experienced candidates” she crossed the line… amongst many other times…
March 14th, 2008 at 11:04 pmThe answer to all that ails America is who will get our dollar back on top–not who will get money to the downtroden desparados. So far, with the words coming out of Obama beyond stimulus, shmulus, both Gerry and Hillary become irrelevant. McCain is running a stay the course campaign so if America wants $5 gas and trips on the Greyhound to zoos for summer vacations next year (because our $ will be weak abroad) then America can chose to stay the course. This time around, Nader becomes the McCain spoiler. All spoilers serve a purpose, they spoil and with their decay returns ashes to ashes and dust to dust. Nader is decay that just won’t go away.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:50 amSteady, good points about the dollar. Howver, I hope that people have learned their lesson on Nader. His votes from 2000 to 2004 also went down quite significantly. I am hoping that continues…
March 16th, 2008 at 11:35 amSteady - how do you propose to get the dollar back on top? And - is it actually on the bottom?
March 17th, 2008 at 11:40 am