An Attack on Clinton

There was another Democratic debate last night, and one theme seemed clear throughout it: pick on Hillary Clinton instead of defending your own political beliefs and views.

Both Barack Obama and John Edwards were given a chance to make an opening statement and both used it to take a shot at Clinton, with Obama saying, “I think what we need right now is honesty with the American people about where we would take the country” and Edwards saying, “I think it is crucial for Democratic voters and caucus-goers to determine who they can trust, who’s honest, who is sincere, who has integrity”. Sure, both statements can be considered as a general one regarding their own political standpoint, but it is fairly easy to jump to the conclusion that they were aimed towards Clinton’s character flaws. Statements of this nature are used throughout the debate, so much so that Bill Richardson declares, “You know what I’m hearing here? I’m hearing this holier-than-thou attitude toward Senator Clinton. That it’s bothering me because it’s pretty close to personal attacks that we don’t need.”

The gang up was even evident with the moderator Tim Russert. He asked the candidates to pledge that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons while on their watch. Clinton pledged to “do everything I can” to prevent Iran from doing so, causing Russert to point out that it wasn’t a real pledge. She just reiterated the fact that she would try her hardest. Obama and Edwards both made “pledges” of the same degree, never fully promising that Iran would not do so if they were president, but they were not called out for their lack of pledge. Moderators are supposed to be unbiased, aren’t they?

Televised debates are possibly the most mainstream way of a candidate getting their policies across to the nation. It is the easiest way for them to gain, as well as lose, supporters. It should be taken advantage of to further their prospects of winning their caucus and eventually the election next year. Barack Obama and John Edwards both chose to put down the leading candidate instead of trying to bring themselves up to the forefront. It seems like a good strategy, but in retrospect, it is the cowardly and easy way out, because it is much easier to put someone down than to praise yourself.

The Trivial Pursuit

This editorial by Bob Hebert is written in response to Al Gore’s recent Nobel Peace Prize win. He praises Gore for being “one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, talented men in America and remarkably well-equipped to lead the nation”, then goes on to criticize President Bush and former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

Hebert mentions that although President Bush showed many vulnerabilities in 2000, “it was not him but Mr. Gore who was mocked unmercifully by the national media”. Gore, indeed, was ridiculed for his lack of style and his sighing and alleged eye-rolling while on tv. Everyone believed that he didn’t have the “look” necessary to be leader of the free world. According to Hebert, “we’ve paid a heavy price”. He writes that although Bush “looks” like a model president, he “doesn’t seem to know up from down”. Hebert mentions some of Bush’s failures, such as “blithely [steering] the nation into a bottomless pit of debt”. The nation definitely should’ve chosen the president that would’ve helped the nation instead of choosing the one that looks like he would.

Hebert then swiftly moves on to criticizing Giuliani. Hebert believes that the basis for Giuliani’s presidential candidacy is due to “ his contention that he is some kind of expert, a veritable guru, on matters related to terrorism”, something that Hebert calls Giuliani out for by mentioning two instances:

"Mr. Giuliani foolishly insisted, against expert advice, on placing New York City’s state-of-the-art emergency command center on the 27th floor of a 47-story building that was known to be a terror target and that was destroyed in the World Trade Center attack.
And he pushed hard for the corrupt and grotesquely underqualified Bernard Kerik to be appointed to the top antiterror post in the Bush administration, secretary of homeland security."

It’s obvious that Giuliani is not adept enough to guide this country away from terrorist attacks. If this is his specialty, a specialty that he has shown to have failed at, then how can he be able to guide the country regarding other issues?

Hopefully, in the upcoming election, the nation disregards every insignificant details of a candidate and elects a president proficient enough to pull the country out of the slump that our very own President has pushed us into.

Source: NY Times

Congress Takes On MoveOn

An editorial from the LA Times put into light of how biased and hypocritical the two political parties are in regards to criticizing the other party. It starts out by mentioning the MoveOn.org’s full page ad in the New York Times in September, which stated in big, bold letters, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”. The author then compared it to the “far more egregious” Swift boat ads directed at Senator Kerry during the 2004 presidential election. Many politicians criticized the ads which made “unsubstantiated allegations that besmirched Kerry's Vietnam War record”, but nothing more was done about it. However, at the end of last month, “the House condemned MoveOn's Petraeus ad by a 341-79 vote, a week after the Senate did the same by a vote of 72 to 25”. This shows the double-standard and hypocritical world that politics live in. A commercial paid for by the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, a political group consisting of Vietnam War veterans, that accuses a fellow Vietnam war veteran and presidential candidate of numerous allegations shown throughout the country? Let’s just slap them on the wrist. A fairly harmless ad in the newspaper that suggests that we have been betrayed by the General that is overseeing the Iraq war? Let’s take it to Congress and have an official condemnation. The reactions are completely fair... right?

More proof is given in the editorial by showing the responses of each party. Liberals were quick to point out that the condemnation shows evidence of double standards, but the Democrats were the ones who created the 527 groups, which consists of both the MoveOn and Swift Vets and POWs for Truth groups, so as to not inhibit campaign donations. Senator Clinton criticized President Bush for not condemning the Swift boat ads, but she herself voted “no” to condemning the same ads. Lastly, President Bush, who didn’t even comment on the Swift boat ads until after they stopped airing, criticized the Democrats for not condemning the Petraeus ads. Criticism is spit out left and right by one party towards the other. Each party turns a blind eye towards their own hypocritical actions. All of this is as innate as breathing.

The last paragraph of this editorial eloquently sums up this problem: “The message here is that sleazy political ads are OK as long as they're on your side, but otherwise they're unacceptable. We've got a different message for Congress: Instead of wasting time on this kind of meaningless political theater, how about solving the nation's healthcare crisis or doing something to fight global warming?”

Source: LA Times