The lame Hillary Clinton blog
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/
Yes, I know campaign blogs are lame in general, but this one is ultra lame. It's just so transparently a politician blog it's painful. Let's start with Clinton's own post today:
It's now just over a month that I have been in to win.
Oh my. A slogan. That's so corporate chic. Reminds me of Pizza Hut.
The rest, if you care to read it, is pure pap. Not a substantive sentence in there.
Then we get down to Howard Wolfson's response to David Geffen's attacks on Clinton:
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd published a column (sub. required) today that quotes David Geffen, finance chairman of Senator Barack Obama's Presidential campaign, attacking Hillary and Bill Clinton and saying that "America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms."
I made the following statement today in response, and I wanted to share it with you:
"While Senator Obama was denouncing slash and burn politics yesterday, his campaign's finance chair was viciously and personally attacking Senator Clinton and her husband.
"If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money.
"While Democrats should engage in a vigorous debate on the issues, there is no place in our party or our politics for the kind of personal insults made by Senator Obama's principal fundraiser."
First, Wolfson lies by claiming that Geffen is Obama's principle fundraiser or his campaign finance chair. He is neither. He simply held a fundraiser for Obama. He is not formally tied to the campaign.
Second, and much funnier, is what follows:
Senator Obama's campaign responded, and I've just released the following statement: "By refusing to disavow the personal attacks from his biggest fundraiser against Senator Clinton and President Clinton, Senator Obama has called into serious question whether he really believes his own rhetoric.
How can Senator Obama denounce the politics of slash & burn yesterday while his own campaign is espousing the politics of trash today?
"When one of Senator Clinton's supporters made an inappropriate statement, her campaign disavowed it immediately and the supporter apologized for his words. Why won't Senator Obama do the same?"
Notice that Wolfson said the Obama campaign responded, but never linked to the actual response, which was this:
“It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom.”
I can see why Wolfson wouldn't want anyone to be reminded of that.
Clinton is re-running the 1992 race. Fighting the last war. She just doesn't get it. She's making a show of adopting modern campaign tactics, but it's only an inch deep. Her blog is meaningless, and her advisors are playing the same game they played in 1992. That was good enough to beat Bill Clinton's clumsy opponents then, but it won't be good enough to beat a strong Democratic field in 2008, much less McCain or Giuliani.
I do like Hillary Clinton, but she's got a credibility gap. She won't close it by doing a by the numbers fluff campaign. She has to campaign as if she's Dennis Kucinich. Every candidate does. We're in an age where blogs penetrate right through BS like a knife through butter and mercilessly attack meaningless fluff in campaign speeches or blog posts. These candidates need to say what they mean and mean what they say, or else they'll lose to someone who will. Somebody's going to figure that out among the high profile candidates, and whoever that is will win this race.
Yes, I know campaign blogs are lame in general, but this one is ultra lame. It's just so transparently a politician blog it's painful. Let's start with Clinton's own post today:
It's now just over a month that I have been in to win.
Oh my. A slogan. That's so corporate chic. Reminds me of Pizza Hut.
The rest, if you care to read it, is pure pap. Not a substantive sentence in there.
Then we get down to Howard Wolfson's response to David Geffen's attacks on Clinton:
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd published a column (sub. required) today that quotes David Geffen, finance chairman of Senator Barack Obama's Presidential campaign, attacking Hillary and Bill Clinton and saying that "America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms."
I made the following statement today in response, and I wanted to share it with you:
"While Senator Obama was denouncing slash and burn politics yesterday, his campaign's finance chair was viciously and personally attacking Senator Clinton and her husband.
"If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money.
"While Democrats should engage in a vigorous debate on the issues, there is no place in our party or our politics for the kind of personal insults made by Senator Obama's principal fundraiser."
First, Wolfson lies by claiming that Geffen is Obama's principle fundraiser or his campaign finance chair. He is neither. He simply held a fundraiser for Obama. He is not formally tied to the campaign.
Second, and much funnier, is what follows:
Senator Obama's campaign responded, and I've just released the following statement: "By refusing to disavow the personal attacks from his biggest fundraiser against Senator Clinton and President Clinton, Senator Obama has called into serious question whether he really believes his own rhetoric.
How can Senator Obama denounce the politics of slash & burn yesterday while his own campaign is espousing the politics of trash today?
"When one of Senator Clinton's supporters made an inappropriate statement, her campaign disavowed it immediately and the supporter apologized for his words. Why won't Senator Obama do the same?"
Notice that Wolfson said the Obama campaign responded, but never linked to the actual response, which was this:
“It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom.”
I can see why Wolfson wouldn't want anyone to be reminded of that.
Clinton is re-running the 1992 race. Fighting the last war. She just doesn't get it. She's making a show of adopting modern campaign tactics, but it's only an inch deep. Her blog is meaningless, and her advisors are playing the same game they played in 1992. That was good enough to beat Bill Clinton's clumsy opponents then, but it won't be good enough to beat a strong Democratic field in 2008, much less McCain or Giuliani.
I do like Hillary Clinton, but she's got a credibility gap. She won't close it by doing a by the numbers fluff campaign. She has to campaign as if she's Dennis Kucinich. Every candidate does. We're in an age where blogs penetrate right through BS like a knife through butter and mercilessly attack meaningless fluff in campaign speeches or blog posts. These candidates need to say what they mean and mean what they say, or else they'll lose to someone who will. Somebody's going to figure that out among the high profile candidates, and whoever that is will win this race.
posted by francois at 10:21 AM
<< Home