Remember when I thought the Obama Campaign would be honorable?

Well, I was wrong on that one!

Bush’s NATO tour of Europe brings to mine those “good politicians” — Hillary Clinton and John McCain — who supported the Orange Revolution and did on-the-ground work in Eastern Europe to solidify democracy in that continent.

But as Hillaryshares continue to fall, it now looks like John will be met in the general election by a race-baiting, protectionist hypocrite.

Hillary still is the more purposefully divisive candidate, but there’s little doubt that she would be the better Commander-in-Chief.

7 thoughts on “Remember when I thought the Obama Campaign would be honorable?”

  1. Then: “He’s more divisive than Clinton.”

    Now: “Hillary still is the more divisive candidate”

    This is another example. Mud-slinging for the sake of mud-slinging; a.k.a. a 4GW effort to steal morale by establishing a “higher ground” moral argument for the only candidate you support in this election.

    If you sling enough mud, you won’t have to speak the truth.

  2. Curtis,

    Thank you for the comment.

    I’ll go ahead and add the word “purposefully” before “divisive candidate” in this post.

    As I previously wrote, in the section you quoted [1]:

    Obama isn’t interesting. He isn’t a uniter. He’s more divisive than Clinton, and more deceptive than Clinton.

    But being politically unready, Obama is so at least partially through incompetence, while Clinton’s failures are the result of deliberate and cold calculation.

    It’s true that Obama is more racially polarizing than Clinton is sexually polarizing. However, Obama was led into the identity politics muck by Clinton, because such a polarized electorate was her only way to win after Iowa.

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/03/22/already-divisive-and-wrong-now-obama-is-boring-as-well.html

  3. In a roundabout way, you have addressed something I’ve had in mind during this primary process.

    Considering Obama’s election strategy, I would offer this idea for his rhetoric:

    That Clinton’s election/political strategy is to “divide and conquer.” As you said, “such a polarized electorate was her only way to win” (but I would add, that would be her election strategy in the general election as well). Whereas Obama could use in his rhetoric this: that he seeks to unite, so America can conquer.

    Which is the 4GW, which the 5GW strategy? Not that the latter is perfected in such a contrast and comparison; but that the differences between them remind me of an Obama reference I once made at Dreaming 5GW. Similarly, the attempt to polarize on your blog seems far more 4GW than 5GW; but also similarly, I suppose any open attempt to conquer, even in blog form, must necessarily be pre-5GW in strategy — Obama’s open attempts to co-opt or your attempt to simplify and demonize either of the Dem. candidates.

  4. Curtis,

    Thanks for the comments.

    I don’t know what “uniting” Obama has done. His general election campaign strategy appears to be based on two identity groups asssembled by the magic of politically correct births: young adults and blacks. [1]

    Joining the Jesse Jackson 1988 and George McGovern 1972 coalitions is an interesting feat, but hardly evidence that Obama “seeks to unite, so America can conquer”

    [1] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9328.html (h/t to Eddie for the link)

  5. “evidence”? You have either misunderstood or have purposely twisted my comments.

    Rather, say that my proffered phrasing was offered for his rhetoric, to be added to his rhetoric. We can always discuss the importance of rhetoric to any future endeavors, to 4GW and 5GW and civil service & politics, at a future time.

    But as usual you are over-simplifying. My mother, who is neither black nor young, and who has not voted for a Democrat for a long time (if ever?), voted for Obama in our state primary. Why the facile thinking that you have isolated the entirety of the Obama fan base into those two groups?

  6. Curtis,

    Thank you for your comment.

    “evidence”? You have either misunderstood or have purposely twisted my comments.

    Clearly I have misunderstood. Could you rephrase to help me understand?

    Rather, say that my proffered phrasing was offered for his rhetoric, to be added to his rhetoric. We can always discuss the importance of rhetoric to any future endeavors, to 4GW and 5GW and civil service & politics, at a future time.

    Are you saying your earlier comment was rhetorical, and not substantive? (I really do not understand your meaning here.)

    But as usual you are over-simplifying. My mother, who is neither black nor young, and who has not voted for a Democrat for a long time (if ever?), voted for Obama in our state primary.

    I believe you. Likewise, Clinton has supporters outside her typical base. [1] What does that prove?

    Why the facile thinking that you have isolated the entirety of the Obama fan base into those two groups?

    I never said the “entirely of the Obama fan base” was composed of blacks and young adults. Rather, I believe Obama’s campaign manager when he says that Obama’s general election campaign’s strategy is to gin up turnout in those two groups.

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/03/20/i-dont-want-my-country-damaged-like-the-democratic-party-has-been-damaged.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *