The real competition: Barack v. Bill:
Obama's greatest hurdle in garnering the African-American vote this primary season is not Hillary, but Bill Clinton. Many pundits have compared Obama's current presidential campaign to Clinton's 1992 victory. He is young, idealistic, and trumpets a message of change. In fact, author Maya Angelou called Clinton "the first black president," citing his southern roots and inherent connection with black voters. Many African-Americans, afraid that a black candidate is "unelectable," have stayed loyal to the Clintons, converting their affinity for Bill into vote for Hillary.
But voters have spurned Clinton's negative campaign message. In New Hampshire he mocked Obama's record on the Iraq War, calling it a "fairy tale." He recently compared Obama's success in the South Carolina primary to Jesse Jackson's 1988 South Carolina victory (the suggestion being -- Obama's candidacy is just as illegitimate and unrealistic as Jackson's). To most, Clinton's negativity seems unpresidential; it is certainly unprecedented. Although ex-presidents have campaigned before, they have always stayed positive and behind the scenes.
The Clinton campaign, led by scheming pollster Mark Penn, has been accused of being calculating, so I have to wonder, are Bill's attacks preconcieved or spontaneous moments of frustration? Is the Clinton strategy for Hillary to stay positive while Bill goes negative? If that is the case, I don't think it has been very successful!
Obama's greatest hurdle in garnering the African-American vote this primary season is not Hillary, but Bill Clinton. Many pundits have compared Obama's current presidential campaign to Clinton's 1992 victory. He is young, idealistic, and trumpets a message of change. In fact, author Maya Angelou called Clinton "the first black president," citing his southern roots and inherent connection with black voters. Many African-Americans, afraid that a black candidate is "unelectable," have stayed loyal to the Clintons, converting their affinity for Bill into vote for Hillary.But voters have spurned Clinton's negative campaign message. In New Hampshire he mocked Obama's record on the Iraq War, calling it a "fairy tale." He recently compared Obama's success in the South Carolina primary to Jesse Jackson's 1988 South Carolina victory (the suggestion being -- Obama's candidacy is just as illegitimate and unrealistic as Jackson's). To most, Clinton's negativity seems unpresidential; it is certainly unprecedented. Although ex-presidents have campaigned before, they have always stayed positive and behind the scenes.
The Clinton campaign, led by scheming pollster Mark Penn, has been accused of being calculating, so I have to wonder, are Bill's attacks preconcieved or spontaneous moments of frustration? Is the Clinton strategy for Hillary to stay positive while Bill goes negative? If that is the case, I don't think it has been very successful!
1 comment:
For a while now I have been very stuck between Hilary and Barack. One truly inspires me and the other impresses me with her experience and intelligence. For me the tie breaker on the issue has sorta been this odd campaign waged by Clinton. I don't think he is being as negative as most people have said he is, yet at the same time it does frustrate me that he is taking such a large role in the campaign. I like Hilary for being Hilary, and not Ms.Clinton. I believe in her policies and I think that she is the most qualified candidate int he race. Yet there is something about Barack, his charisma, his oratory skills, and the way he has directed his campaign towards young voters, making us a priority in a way that no other candidate has. Call it cheesy, but I am stuck between my gut feeling for Barack, and my head telling me that Hilary is the best choice. Anyone care to persuade me one way or the other?
Post a Comment