Don’t call it a comeback because it ain’t one. Since Super Tuesday, everyone had predicted that Obama would win a bunch of states up until March 4th, and then Hillary would win Texas and Ohio. And guess what? She did exactly what everyone thought she would do all along. While there was obviously no “comeback” and Obama continues to maintain the same pre-March 4th delegate lead, why is the press talking about little else? The press needs a close race and controversy to keep people tuned in.
But the worse thing about it all is that the Hillary team has not only played to the lowest denominator again, but it probably even thinks that being sleazy is what helped her fictitious “comeback”. The Clinton camp continues to think that we’re stuck in the Kenneth Starr 1990s whereby anything goes (including Hillary’s more than tacit endorsement of John McCain as being a better commander-in-chief than Obama — who harms their party that way?) and even the slightest critique is met with the “hey, that’s from the Republican play book” defense.
The fact of the matter is that Hillary’s attacks on Obama are not only baseless — especially those about character — but that few people are asking her the hard follow-up questions. She may have cried that the press hasn’t been nice to her, but they let her get away with her phony “comeback” and sham experience.
On today’s Meet the Press, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle explained it best when he said
Look, Hillary Clinton was a great first lady. I worked with her. I know what a good first lady she was. But it would be hard for me to draw some degree of, of, of connection between being a first lady and having experience to be the commander in chief. She’s served in the Senate, she’s been on the Armed Services Committee, and I give her credit for that. But in terms of numbers of years of elected office, the number of years served, Barack Obama has more years served than Hillary Clinton. So it’s a, it’s a specious argument. The fact is, both of them are qualified. They’re good candidates. They both would make great leaders. I do believe that Barack offers a lot more in the capacity of leadership. But I don’t think anyone can look at her experience as first lady and say for some reason that qualifies her to run for president of the United States.
It seems to me, and this is particularly bothersome, that Hillary’s entire 3:00am phone call argument is based on the fact that she’ll have her husband (we assume) sleeping in the same house (for the first time as her in eight years). She can wake up Bill and his now aged cabinet team for immediate readiness.
Daschle also did a good job of highlighting the Clinton’s recent dose of arrogance in suggesting that Obama would be a good running mate for Hillary. Why would the person with the most delegates and the most popular votes make a good running mate for the person in second place?
Well, Tim, it’s really a rare occurrence, maybe the first time in history, that the person who’s running number two would offer the person who’s running number one the number two position. What Barack has said is that’s way premature. He doesn’t have any interest in being vice president. He’s going to be our presidential nominee.
In any event, I will leave it all at this: we are ready for change, real change. McCain’s entire claim to fame is war and talk about killing. Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives after we entered Iraq, we don’t need his expensive brand of solutions. Hillary’s argument is that if we vote for her, we can all move back into the White House, Bubba et al, and give FDR’s record a good go. But 16 years in the White House is not change, and it is not why we have a Constitution. Let’s move on, away from the low blows and references to the past. It’s time for change.