More Clinton Damage Control
“It all depends on what the definition of the word “is” is.”
We’ve been there before, and here it comes again. Damage control, ‘Clinton-style’
Last week, when Hillary tried to steal Barack (“I am not a Muslim!”) Obama’s “Martin Luther King” mystique by implying that King did not do the work of the Civil Rights movement, but rather President Johnson did, she really dug herself a big hole to crawl out of. Adding to the depth of the hole, at a campaign stop in the same week, former President “On your KNEES!” Clinton mouthed these words about Obama: “Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I have ever seen.”
It is not a secret that Obama’s campaign has taken on a Kennedy/King like aura, and Obama surely goes out of his way to act in an oratory manner “a la King”. And frankly, I think the Clinton’s were getting very uneasy about the nature of this swell of support for Obama. One cannot run an effective campaign against someone who is being likened to Kennedy and King. So the Clinton’s needed to diffuse the image, and distance Obama from making headway with that “mystique”, as it was obviously a political disaster if that Cindarella story gained traction.
But it is not so much the statements that the Clinton’s made that make me uneasy. It is how they are now handling it after the fact, now that people have come out and attacked them for their positions. I have no problem with people making mistakes. I have a problem with them trying to cover them with cleverness. “It all depends on what the definition of the word “is” is.”
Billary is trying to backpeddle a little on the issue, using a victims stance regarding the Obama camp’s alleged response. An Obama staffer memo surfaced in which said staffer had compiled a list of statements made by Senator Clinton and her surrogates that could be construed as racially insensitive. Hence, the Billary camp is trying to turn the tables on Obama by claiming that it is he, not her, that is making the issue of race surface. A little ‘wag the dog’, but slick. Real slick.
As for the former Presidents “fairy tale” comment, the spin on that is that he was talking about Obama’s stance on the war, NOT his Kennedy like star rising power. The former President complained that while Obama spoke out against the war while running for the Senate, he funded the troops consistently once in office (Senate).
Of course, I don’t believe this excuse from Bill, as the logic does not support it. But I find myself in a very difficult position. I agree with both Bill and Obama on two issues:
- Yes, Obama’s rise is more fairy tale than substance demands he deserves.
- Yes, you have to fund the troops even if you opposed the war.
Obama’s “experience” is one hell of a short list. The fact that he could even be considered a candidate, with such little experience, is creepy. While the left touts that they have a strong field, I would contend they have a previous loser (Edwards), and semi abused wife who is hated by about 50% of the US electorate and can change colors like a chameleon, and a articulate man with Doe eyes and a deep ministerial voice and oratory style that creates the aura of King’s power and Kennedy’s bright shining star youth.
Of all of those “qualities”, there really is only one candidate that speaks strongly enough to the general population to actually get elected, and that is Obama.
Yes, Obama is a rising star… hyperbole, flash, little experience, grand rhetoric, promises of hope. The perfect candidate for the left.
It is no wonder that the Clinton’s are trying so hard to derail the image, the mystique, the aura of magic. We all know that the kool-aid drinking far left will eat him up and give him a big feel-good hug, experienced or not.
The problem is, you can’t attack him with traditional political methods without damaging yourself. (See “I Have YOUR DREAM!”)
One thing is for sure. It is not hard to recognize the Clinton damage control machine. I almost started to miss it. But I am afraid it is back for a while…
