« No More Larkin | Main | Putin Continues To Ramp Up Old Cold War Tensions Despite Booming Russian Economy »

Clintons Double Team Obama

Senator Clinton is employing an interesting strategy in South Carolina, effectively ceding the state to Obama's strength among black voters, but not letting him walk away with the win just yet.

As the race between Clinton and Obama has tightened and become increasingly heated, Bill Clinton has spent more and more time on the trail for his wife -- often to mixed reviews. But their South Carolina strategy carries a one-two punch. By not actively campaigning here for most of this week, Clinton is essentially ceding the state to Obama, who, on the strength of the black vote, is ahead here by 10.5 percentage points, according to an average of South Carolina polls by Real Clear Politics. Not making a real effort here allows her to discount an Obama win as uncontested, and hence less meaningful. But by leaving the state to her husband, who won two presidential contests here, she makes it impossible for Obama to relax or focus his energies elsewhere.

Hillary is free to concentrate on the important February 5th Super Tuesday primary states while husband Bill is boxing with Obama in South Carolina.

This week in South Carolina Obama is essentially running against the former President, and he knows it. "I think the South Carolina voters will have to make an assessment in terms of how seriously she's taking the state," Obama told CBN's David Brody yesterday. "She said [in the debate] last night that Bill Clinton wasn't the one running for President, but this is the next primary and he's the one who's staying behind."

It takes a world-class leader to lead our nation (wait a minute, GWB has proven that isn't the case) - well, we want a world-class leader to lead our nation. If Barack can't stand up to Bill Clinton, with all of his many flaws and known weaknesses, why should be we believe he'd hold his own on the world stage against Ahmadinejad or Putin.

Yes, poor Obama will whine that it just isn't fair. Sorry, toots, its time to get over it and show us what you're made of. Barack chose back in October (at a time Clinton was "inevitable") to run not on his own strengths but on Hillary Clinton's weaknesses, and to come out on the attack.

That "fighting" strategy has lifted his campaign from 20 points behind Clinton to even or better in many key states and demographics. As much as he 'd like, he's not going to be able to quit while he's ahead, and in South Carolina the Clinton in his face is named Bill.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3/5 (10 votes cast)


Comments (20)

Steve Crickmore:

I thought it was Hillary who was first complaining that Edwards and Obama were ganging up on her employing 'the buddy' system'

"This is the toughest job in the world. I was laughing because you know in that debate, obviously Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama were kind of in the buddy system on the stage. And I was thinking whoever's up against the Republican nominee in the election debates come the fall is not gonna have a buddy to fall back on. You know, you're all by yourself. When you're president, you're there all by yourself."

And I remember quite distinctly it was Hillary who complained about Edwards 'throwing mud' at her in the Las Vegas November debate when after Edwards questioned whether she could restore trust in the White House'..the cheek of him.

I'm wondering whether this campaign isn't about restoring Bill Clinton to the White House rather than having the first woman president.

"It's odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line."

It seems it's all about acquiring more power, for the Clintons, (thats what really animates them) was it ever about anything else? And they will say anything to get there and many Americans are buying it..

JLawson:

A lot of people haven't really figured out what the bill will be yet, Steve. It's kind of like the sticker on a car - sure, the car's only $14,995 - but by the time you get the dealer-added upgrades, the air conditioning, the improved sound system, the leather seats and such, not to mention loan costs, taxes, tag and title, you're looking at a considerable increase in the cost.

But the car dealerships know once they get you in the door that's more than half the battle on selling you a new car. You're gonna buy a car - but their job is to get every dollar out of you they can with the extras. And they know that just by jacking the payment up a bit they'll get more out of you in the long run. You won't kick much about paying $100 more a month for an upgraded whatsis - but if you were told the price of the car was going to be $19,995 instead of the $14,995, you'd be a lot less likely to buy.

Hillary's got a lot of folks 'in the door' so to speak with the idea of her being the first female President. But though they may be in the door, the sale isn't final. Right now we're seeing the options and add-ons, trying to judge if they make the package more or less attractive. Because what might seem vitally essential to you is a decided 'do not want' dealbreaker for others... even nominally of the same party.

And it's starting to be come apparent to a lot of the folks who'd otherwise buy it that Hillary's Presidency is going to come at a very high price indeed, and that price may in the end be more than the Democrats - or the country - can afford.

Steve Crickmore:

Yes JLawson, I agree the signs aren't good for keeping down the deficit whoever wins.. particularly Hillary. Her campaign literature in Nevada - "this is what Senator Clinton is calling (for) a 'trillion-dollar tax' cut on hard-working Americans.-

Hillary talked alot about Bill Clinton's (our) fiscal responsibility, but she was always at odds with deficit hawks such as Robert Rubin who cordinated Bill Clinton's economic strategy in the Clinton administration. An impending recession, an increased Pentagon budget, an expensive new Health plan, the ballooning National debt (I realize the outgoing adminstration is largely reponsible for this).

Geting back to the main point of the post..Clinton (Bill) who is doing the heavy lifting in South Carolina (do I catch a whine here) says, "They( Hillary and Barack) are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender -- that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here". (South Carolina).

Mark Kleiman responds:

Is that racist? You tell me. The message is clear: Obama is going to win South Carolina, but that won't really count, because he'll be doing it with the votes of black folks. (Maybe those ballots ought to count only as 3/5ths of a vote each?)

AJ:

Funny, I'm asking a different question.... if Hillary can't even handle Obama on her own and has to have Bill do her fighting for her, how will SHE stand up against Ahmadinejad or Putin?? At least Obama has integrity (as much as any of the Democratic candidates can have integrity, anyway.)

Lee Ward:

Hillary is in this to win, AJ - she'd be a fool to not use Bill wherever he can be effective.

And she's not shying away from Obama; an upcoming post of mine shows that she hurt Barack in the debate a few days ago, according to the polls.

And Obama still has you fooled and you think he has integrity? Keep watching him stammer and lie his way through the Rezko scandal. I caught him in a national interview claiming he'd distanced himself from Rezko when Rezko's shadiness was revealed - and that's a bald-faced lie.

Much more to come, stay tuned.

Steve Crickmore:

A little off topic but maybe we can draft Senator Reid..He is a Mormon afterall. Mormons in my experience, especially the missionaries I've met all over the world are about the only ones clean enough in their personal and business relations to withstand the rigours of the close vetting of a political campaign. Of course most of them keep along way from politics. Romney may get this election by default in the end.. the way it is shaping up.

Lee, I think we have to remember that no one not even Martin Luther King was a saint This is America, after all..I'll be interested if there is new information about Rezko, other than Obama knew was having to go before a grand jury. Obama said he should have stayed away when he saw the red flags, but practically every ward -healer has them..Even ex-president Clinton was barred from practising law for lying to federal prosecutors in addition to being uncooperative in front of a D.C grand jury. and of course he is left, right and center in this campaign as you are pointing out.

mantis:

I caught him in a national interview claiming he'd distanced himself from Rezko when Rezko's shadiness was revealed - and that's a bald-faced lie.

What he claimed was, "Nobody had an inkling that he was involved in any problems. When those problems were discovered, we returned money from him that had been contributed."

And he did return the contributions. Where is the "bald-faced lie?"

Lee Ward:

"Nobody had an inkling that he was involved in any problems."

There's the lie.

mantis:

There's the lie.

Prove it. Rezko wasn't investigated by a grand jury until 2005, and indicted in 2006. His contributions were for Obama's House and Senate campaigns. He was elected to the Senate in 2004. If you're going to claim Obama knew about Rezko's legal trouble over a year before the grand jury, back it up.

Lee Ward:

The land deal occurred after it was reported that Rezko was under investigation. It's a widely known fact, and one which Obama has said he regrets.

Here's the quote from my comment above:

I caught him in a national interview claiming he'd distanced himself from Rezko when Rezko's shadiness was revealed - and that's a bald-faced lie.

The national interview I saw is not the one you linked, and you didn't include my comment regarding Obama's statement that he'd distanced himself from Rezko.

Rather disingenuous for Obama to suggest that he had distanced himself when here he was involved in the land deal, and you've provided proof of lying as well -- him saying "nobody had an inkling" when it had been widely reported in the Chicago newspapers. Obama lived in Chicago at the time -- and everybody in town knew it but him?

feh.

He lied.

mantis:

Ah, so your assertions keep moving around. If you didn't see him discussing it on CBS Early Show, what show was it? If Obama said he completely distanced himself from Rezko (as in, denied the land deal which occurred in 2005 and which he has extensively discussed, including in the interview that was detailed in the story I linked), as opposed to returning campaign donations, I would agree he was lying. Trouble is, I don't believe he said that, and all you have is "I saw it," with no link, no proof, no nothing.

Again, back it up, or shut up.

Lee Ward:

My assertion didn't change, that's why I quoted my comment. Here's my comment again:

I caught him in a national interview claiming he'd distanced himself from Rezko when Rezko's shadiness was revealed - and that's a bald-faced lie."

He's already admitted it, and it will be the subject of an upcoming post of mine. If you wish, I'll email you a link when its published so you can apologize.

mantis:

No, why don't you just tell us where and when you saw him claim he "distanced himself from Rezko when Rezko's shadiness was revealed." If he said that, and was not speaking only in the context of campaign donations, and thus was either ignoring or denying the land deal, which he has spoken about repeatedly, then tell us when and on what program, so I can dig up the transcript.

Lee Ward:

Sure, I'll send you a link when its published, no problem. Watch for it around Feb 1 or 2.

mantis:

So what, you saw him say this in a "national interview" that you can't name why, exactly? Are you thinking you've got an exclusive on an interview that's already aired?

Lee Ward:

I don't have a link with me and therefore can't quote it, and God knows you can't quote anything accurately, so this will have to wait, sorry.

mantis:

I don't have a link with me and therefore can't quote it,

How convenient.

and God knows you can't quote anything accurately,

What have I quoted inaccurately?

so this will have to wait, sorry.

Take your time.

Lee Ward:

Ok.

civil beahvior:

Me thinks Obama took SC by storm. Double down and moving ahead.

If we want change why would we vote for another Clinton?

Lee Ward:

So if Clinton is elected nothing will change? It'll be just like 4 more years of George Bush?

erhhhh, No.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.