Thursday, March 20, 2008

More "old politics" from Barack

The negative, "old politics", smear tactics machine is now in overdrive at the Barack campaign. Rather than focus on his own policies and how they would better work for America, he instead is focusing not just on trying to tear down his opponents, the kind of "old politics" that he had supposedly forsaken, but to do it with ugly smear tactics. To wit, here is the opening text from his campaign manager's latest email to his "supporters" (my highlighting):

Friend --

Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are reading from the same political playbook as they attack Barack on foreign policy.

They have both criticized Barack's commitment to act against top al Qaeda terrorists if others can't or won't act.

And they have both dismissed his call for renewed diplomacy as naïve while mistakenly standing behind George Bush's policy of non-engagement that just isn't working.

But most of all -- after five years of overwhelming evidence that we are less safe, less able to shape events abroad, and more divided at home -- Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are failing to address the consequences of a war they both supported that should have never been authorized and never been waged.

We need a leader who had the judgment to oppose this war before it began and who has a clear plan to end it.

...

Today, he laid out the economic costs of the war that Senator Clinton and Senator McCain supported.

Unbelievable. Almost every single paragraph and even sentence contains some misrepresentation and deliberate smear.

He starts will a clear and obviously deliberate smear, a classic "guilt by association" tactic so common in "old politics", by asserted that "Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are reading from the same political playbook", when nothing could be further from the truth. Hillary using McCain's "playbook? Obviously that is not the case, and Barack and his campaign and his supporters know that is not the case. As almost an aside he is asserting that anything than his opponents say or do is "political" and by implication anything that Barack and his supporters say or do is somehow not "political." Geez. Come on Barack, get real!

The simple underlying truth here is that Barack as a negative, "old politics" politician is not a very interesting campaigner. He is offering little new worth addressing in a meaningful manner, and ends up smearing his own reputation as somebody who at least claims to be above "old politics."

Hillary was never in favor of going to war. For her its was always only an option "of last resort." It is a bold and deliberate mischaracterization for Barack's campaign to assert that Hillary's vote for pursuing diplomacy, pursuing strengthened inspections, and military force as a last resort somehow "supported" the war or invasion of Iraq.

He asserts that "they have both dismissed his call for renewed diplomacy as naïve while mistakenly standing behind George Bush's policy", which is yet another clear "guilt by association" smear that improperly asserts that Hillary stands begin any Bush policy, when nothing could be further than the truth. And to assert or imply that Hillary is somehow opposed to diplomacy is of course complete nonsense and Barack and his campaign and his supporters know that. Notwithstanding the truth, they continue with the smear. The problem here is that Barack goofed in one of the debates and came off looking silly and in fact "naïve" about how to properly deal with Iran. Hillary is not opposed to working with Iran (as opposed to Bush who refuses to work with Iran in any substantial way), but understands the nuances required, in a way that Barack apparently does not. Sure, he can have a disagreement with Hillary and others about the proper way to pursue diplomacy, but his disagreement is no excuse for associating Hillary with Bush's policy. This smear by Barack is inexcusable.

It is also very misleading for Barack's campaign to assert that Barack was "a leader who had the judgment to oppose this war before it began" when in fact Barack was not even in a leadership position back in 2002 and in fact had absolutely no role in Congress or anywhere in Washington back in 2002. He was merely a member of the Illinois state senate, a position where his opinions carried no national weight and should be of little concern in the debate about what to do about Iraq today. Further the statement begs the point that Hillary was also opposed to war and viewed it only as "a last resort."

The refusal of Barack and his campaign and his supporters to simply acknowledge that Hillary was pushing for diplomacy and strengthened inspections back in 2002 is truly appalling. If all we knew about Hillary was what Barack and his campaign tell us, we would conclude that she was pushing for war and invasion in 2002, when the record clearly shows that she was not.

Now, lets see what "old politics" tactics Barack and crew come up with tomorrow.

My simple advice to Barack: If you want to be elected as a leader, stop playing the victim.

-- Jack Krupansky

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home