Is Bill Clinton's attack-dog campaign strategy just the tip of the iceberg?
A number of articles and political commentaries take up this question today, in the aftermath of the South Carolina election. I am providing links to them with some excerpt. They are well worth reading in their entirety. The Democratic Party must repudiate the Clintons sinking so low that they are willing to court a racist vote in order to defeat Barack Obama.
As Democrats, we well remember how Karl Rove orchestrated a finely tuned series of vicious personal attacks against the Clinton’s during Bill Clinton’s two terms in office. It seems like Hillary and Bill learned all the wrong lessons from that experience. They are now trying to out-Rove Rove with their current racist smear campaign against Barack Obama, and they have hired a master dirty-ops PR heavy, Mark Penn, CEO of firm Burson-Marsteller to oversee the job.
I am still watching Blitz most nights. I have compromised with my stomach by remoting Dobbs. First thing to note is how the media is still fanning the flames of race by constantly rehashing the Clinton/Obama rhetoric on the subject. I have let it drift by while preparing the evening meal, but I was truly stunned when Obama weighed in on how Bill Clinton, when he was president, didn't match up to Reagan's accomplishments. What did we have here?
In his Dec. 31st entry Best Bet for Next President: Prediction Markets Justin Wolfers offers an interesting analysis on the political climate going into the primaries.
According to Wolfers, in the "general election, the markets are titling strongly pro-Democratic, ranking them a 61% chance of taking the White House." This would seem to indicate that Bush is not just a lame duck president, the GOP is a lame duck party.