If I’m Barack Obama, I go negative. Real negative. Because even when he’s merely challenging her record, the whiny Clinton campaign accuses him of “abandoning the politics of hope,” as if only Hillbot is above the fray. Yeah, and Mitt Romney is authentic.
Pointing out the flaws in someone’s resume shouldn’t count as a “personal attack.” I’m with The Plank, which suggests Obama resurrect the issue of Clinton 42′s shady pardons, including one of Hillbot’s slimeball brother, Hugh Rodham. If Hillary insists on using her husband’s administration to help catapult her into the White House, then that administration — and her role in it — deserves scrutiny.
For instance, I’d like to know what she thought about pardoning Marc Rich? (Cue awkward laugh, followed by standard complaint about the politics of personal destruction.) Then I’d ask her again. (Cue awkward laugh, followed by an even more awkward plea to move on.) Repeat. (Cue tranquilizer dart.)
Despite what her surrogates say, it is relevant. Highly relevant.
Particularly when their candidate (and her husband) have a history of dodgy ethics. Obama can’t make that case as starkly as some unknown blogger (er, undercover functionary of the vast right-wing conspiracy), but he can argue that a vote for him is a vote against politics as usual. Hillary casting herself as the candiate for change is akin to George W. bragging about being a “reformer with results” (circa South Carolina, 2000).
But hey, if you like influence peddling, sanctimony and deceit, then by all means, vote Hillary.