As primary voting is underway today in Wisconsin and Hawaii, I wanted to comment briefly on two campaign issues which received considerable media coverage yesterday.
1. Bill Clinton's heated lecture to a person at a Hillary Clinton rally waving a big anti-abortion sign has been cited - by Fox News and others - as a return to his self-centered aggressive campaigning, which may be hurting more than helping Hillary.
My take on this: Nonsense - it's good and helpful for a former President to take a strong stand on this issue, whenever possible, whether or not he's campaigning for his wife. More specifically, it was not Clinton's aggressive style, or his insertion of himself into Hillary Clinton's campaign, that caused problems for Hillary a few weeks ago, and received criticism from lots of people, including me. It was the nature of Bill Clinton's attacks on Obama.
And, clearly, a verbal exchange with an anti-abortion protester is not at all the same as an attack on Hillary Clinton's rival. This is an issue upon which most Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, agree. Bill Clinton deserves our praise not criticism for standing up on this.
2. The Clinton campaign accused Obama of "plagiarism" because Obama used a passage in a speech about the power of words first used, almost word for word, by Obama's friend and campaign ally Deval Patrick (from a speech Patrick made in 2006, in his successful run for Massachusetts governor).
My take on this: Pretty close to nonsense. The slim part that's legitimate is, ideally, Obama should have said in his speech, "as my friend Deval Patrick aptly says..." and then gone ahead with the passage. But calling this "plagiarism" is ridiculous. (The very word comes from the Latin: to kidnap.) You cannot steal something which is voluntarily given to you. Clinton's campaign must know this. They only make themselves look petty by grossly mislabeling this minor misstep.
And I'll be back tonight after the returns are in.
5 comments:
Prof I gotta take a different stand on this one.
Bill Clinton is the best thing that happened to Hillary's campaign, cause I think he'll run it into the ground.
I've said it before and I stand by it. Those two are obscenely anti-rights in their statements, and that sits off of center with me.
This is one of the first things bill has ever done that I can really support.
I wrote a few things at Communicative Action that might interest you, including a brief note on the Bill Clinton/temper issue.
My take, in short, is that a guy like Bill Clinton has to understand McLuhan better than he's shown. He's got an Ivy League education and was president for 8 years (not to mention all his years as governor of Arkansas). The medium is the message. If you go on TV and talk for 2-3 hours about policy and important issues facing the country and then spend 30 seconds pointing your finger in someone's face and shouting at them, what is going to play better in that medium?
It's no contest. The heated exchange wins every time over the policy speech. He's a political liability at this point. You can't trust him to be anywhere around cameras at this point.
Paul--the more i see of u and about u--the more impressed i am
...Reggie (inthistogether)
I agree with Mike. Bill's going to end up being one of the reasons Hillary doesn't get the party nomination...which is frankly doing us all a favor. Obama's got charisma, with little experience. Hillary has little charisma, with little experience. McCain's got no charisma (the worst forced smiles in the campaign) and lots of experience.
MikeSpot - well, I can't disagree about Bill Clinton not having much respect for the Bill of Rights. I hope that Hillary has a least a little more, whatever becomes of her candidacy.
Meanwhile, I agree with Mike P's and Larry's analyses.
And thanks, Reggie - truly appreciated.
Post a Comment