A Note About The “Tensions” Between Obama And Clinton Supporters…
August 26, 2008 | Permalink
There’s an awful lot of discussion about the rift in the Democratic party, the anger among Clinton supporters and general Clinton “drama.” Dont buy it. Yes, there are a significant number of Clinton supporters that are very upset about Obama being the nominee. However, the reality of the tensions between the camps is not anywhere near the degree that it is being portrayed. The story is being completely overblown and it’s probably the result of two major factors: 1) A lack of historical knowledge (conventions in the past have been significantly more controversial, with much stronger tensions between internal camps) and 2) Clinton drama sells and the media has largely made it clear that profit and not information is their primary motivation.
Some examples of the silliness out there (the overwhelming majority of the aforementioned ridiculousnes can be found on cable news)…
- Justin Gardner criticizes HRC for knowing that her critiques would be used against Obama by McCain in the general election. Because, Obama didn’t run critical ads against HRC, right? I’m not sure why her critiques against Obama in the primary (which by historical counts weren’t that harsh) are still an issue.
- The Guardian’s Michael Tomasky is really upset by all the Clinton drama, especially after reading reports that some Clinton people won’t be staying in town for Obama’s speech. So, to demonstrate how ridiculous all the drama is, he throws a hissy fit. How dare those selfish Clinton advisors/staffers who spent countless hours fighting in a primary leave before watching Obama’s speech live and in person, I mean, my goodness, the room may not even be filled now. Let me get this straight, apparently, the Clintons are being bad because some supporters don’t want to stick around for Obama’s speech? This is the best the press can do to gin up the controversy even more? Sigh
- The National Review has a laughable list of the 20 ways that “Hillary is being snubbed.”
Angelo, you’re not elevating the full context of my post, and it’s important in this case. I never argued that Hillary shouldn’t have attacked, but it was in the way in which she attacked which was so poisonous.
The simple fact of the matter is, as the ad points out, Hillary elevated John McCain above Obama, and now it’s coming back to bite Obama. If you think that was an appropriate attack against Obama during the primary season, I can’t dispute that. But Obama didn’t make similar attacks about “crossing the Commander in Chief threshold” and other such nonsense. And yes, it does matter HOW a candidate attacks another.
I’d appreciate some additional clarification for your readers since what you’re writing above doesn’t reflect what my post is about.
I must have missed that completely unspoken part of your post where you spell out how the 3AM ad crossed some line. You just assume it did.