(cross-posted at Daily Kos)
In the past couple of days, there's been a verbal war of words between the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over the comments made by David Geffen, a media mogul in Los Angeles who held a fundraiser for Obama. What it essentially boils down to is this: the Clinton campaign has been waiting to take a shot at Obama, and they chose an idiotic issue to make their first move about. Clinton comes out looking quite thin-skinned, and Obama only gave one line to it the comment - one that makes sense to anyone who thinks about it:
"It's not clear to me why I'd be apologizing for someone else's remark"
As pontificator put it yesterday, Obama appears to have quite the rapid response team.
That being said, I was quite surprised to read what essentially amounted to grudge posts from both Markos and Jerome Armstrong that brought up Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs' past affiliation with a 527 called Americans for Health Care, Jobs, and Progressive Values. In truth, it was nothing more than a group that set up a vicious one-time hit job on Howard Dean with the infamous Osama bin Laden ad. Gibbs was the group's spokesperson during its short existence. While I can well understand why this would be offputting, the conclusions drawn from these posts are inexplicable. First, here's Markos:
Obama clearly dipped into the slimiest corners of DC to pluck out Gibbs.Politics is dirty business, indeed. And there's no doubt that Obama's rapid response has been stellar.
But one can't help but get a little cynical hearing Obama talk about "changing the tone" and all that bullshit, while hiring a well-known smear-meister best known for his work trashing other Democrats.
First, this is ridiculous. Gibbs is not a 'well-known smear-meister'. I don't remember hearing anything about Robert Gibbs during the 2004 primaries. And I think it's fairly obvious that Kos didn't, either. If so, why did he wait until the controversy between the Clinton and Obama campaigns erupted? Gibbs has been working with Obama since he won the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat in 2004. The fact of the matter is, there was plenty of time when Kos could have brought up Gibbs' past association between then and now. But it apparently was only opportune to do so now.
The next point is Kos' implication that Obama is a hypocrite for campaigning on 'changing the tone' while having a rapid response team that hits back. I can't honestly believe that such a claim can be supported in good faith. In politics, if a campaign doesn't hit back against ridiculous charges leveled at the candidate, it will only serve to embolden the opponent. We saw it happen with John Kerry's inability to adequately confront the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. More recently, we saw it happen with John Edwards' bungled response to 'Bloggergate'. Time is precious in politics, and hitting back aggressively at the kind of challenge that Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson was required. To refresh, let's see what Wolfson had to say:
"While Sen. Obama was denouncing slash and burn politics yesterday, his campaign's finance chair was viciously and personally attacking Sen. Clinton and her husband," Wolfson said in a written statement released by the Clinton campaign. "If Sen. Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money."While Democrats should engage in a vigorous debate on the issues, there is no place in our party or our politics for the kind of personal insults made by Sen. Obama's principal fundraiser," Wolfson added.
It's absurd to believe that Obama should return Geffen's money. If he were responsible for the negative things that people that have donated money to his campaign say about others, he'd be penniless. But not responding - or simply dismissing the claim - would be a disaster. By taking the heat that Wolfson directed and turning it back with even greater precision, Gibbs turned what could have been a protracted media battle and ended it right away - and decisively. It's hard to believe that we argue for Democrats to fight back against outrageous claims made by others - whether they be made by Democrats or Republicans - but then get all worked up when one of our candidates happens to do just that.
And lastly, I can't help but find it ironic when Kos finds this 'cynical', yet labels Obama's rhetoric '"changing the tone" and all that bullshit'. As far as I know, this isn't bullshit.
-----
I'd like to turn to Jerome's screed against Gibbs, which he concludes in this fashion:
Aside from the use of Republican talking points over the Lincoln bedroom, the real Gibblie here is that he's having Obama's campaign criticize Clinton for saying: "Senator Ford has apologized, and I appreciate him doing so".I don't really care about the back and forth here between the Clinton and Obama camps, but is Gibbs that lame, or does he think we are that stupid?
Tough choice.
What a joke.
If Gibbs is gonna be the voice of Obama, then what I want to know is whether Gibbs has renounced his past association with the anti-Dean ad that Joe Trippi called the "the kind of fearmongering attack we've come to expect from Republicans," one that "panders to the worst in voters." Mistake?
And does Gibbs still believe that a Presidential candidate with "no military or foreign policy experience" is "unqualified"? Then how Gibbs, is Barack Obama going compete with John McCain on foreign policy. Howard Dean was right on Iraq too, ya know.
Everytime I see Gibbs as Obama's campaign voice, I get further and further from seeing Obama as a candidate that is strategically smart, different, or an effective transformative leader. I really don't know what Obama is building. Sometimes I get the sense that he believes he can start the progressive online movement all over again, this time in his camp. I can tell though that whatever the Obama camp is building, his spokesman is not our partner.
Gibbs' remark about using GOP talking points about the Lincoln Bedroom is ridiculous. First of all, it's probably true that he did stay at the White House, but that's not the point of the remark. If it was, I would think Geffen would be offended that the campaign he was ostensibly supporting was insulting him. Bringing up the Lincoln Bedroom served to illustrate just how close he used to be with the Clintons. And given that Geffen had been one of the staunchest supporters of Bill Clinton during his presidency, I think it's a valid - albeit added with unnecessary emphasis - point to raise.
Armstrong's last paragraph is...well, it's very narrow-minded, I believe. Obama is acting in a strategically smart manner to date. He's drawing unprecedented crowds at a very early stage in the campaign. He's a different kind of candidate as well. He is an inspiration to millions around the country, particularly the youth vote of America that the Democratic Party has shamefully neglected throughout the years. When he speaks, people don't get a sense that he's a politician. And sure, Bush spoke about 'changing the tone' in Washington. But before he began the campaign, it was no secret that he was dumber than a bag of hammers and full of shit, as illustrated by his filthy 2000 primary campaign. And as for being an effective transformative leader (something Trippi has liked to speak about when he drops by MyDD) - is there really any other candidate who matches Obama's potential? Only John Edwards has a shot at coming close. The most transformative figure on the Democratic Party in this decade has been Howard Dean - and he lost the race that spurred that change.
I respect both Markos and Jerome greatly for the work they've done in the blogosphere to date. The fact of the matter is, though, they got this one dead wrong. Additionally, I think it's kind of ridiculous that they choose to highlight Gibbs' past association to an anti-Dean group when he's been working with Obama for almost 3 years. If this was such a burning issue, perhaps it should have been brought up in 2004, when Kos declared Barack Obama to be "The Patron Saint of Daily Kos".
Personally, it'd be wiser to go after Wolfson, who was 'lent out' during the 2006 elections. After all, if he had gone after Joe Lieberman with the kind of viciousness he took after David Geffen, maybe Ned Lamont would have had a better shot at winning.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 109 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
