Bill Clinton -- Front and Center

In today's Washington Post, front page, above the fold, below a headline "The Battleground" -- this picture:











How can there be any doubt that we'd be electing not one Clinton but two, that a Clinton win would not only be a historic first but a restoration of what was.

One Missed Opportunity

When Obama was talking about, and praising, the Clinton accomplishments of the 1990s, he missed an opportunity to say, "But as good as it was, that's the past. I want to talk about the future."

But did you note all the substance? (from both candidates -- but we expect that of her. Some (Zac!!!) don't expect it of him).

By the way, I thought Anderson Cooper's questions in the GOP debate the other night were annoying and meaningless. Of the "gotcha" variety. For example, trying to get the candidates to trash Bush's economic policies ("are voters better off today than they were eight years ago?"). I don't see that as an instructive way to get the candidates to talk about what they think about the economy or their economic policies....and when they tried in response to that question, Cooper kept interrupting and pressing them to criticize Bush.

Anderson: Bush isn't running.

Strong Arm Tactics?

Since the Clintons accuse their opponents of engaging in strong arm tactics, it's worth taking a look at a first hand account of how the Clintonistas allegedly handled themselves.

Sliming Obama

Well, it worked for the Clinton campaign in New Hampshire, right? Distort the words Obama and attack him for what you said he said (or did) even though he really didn't say or do it.

Both Edwards and Hillary attacked him for saying good things about Reagan, twisting his words into an endorsement of Reagan's policies, which is not what he said.

And worse, attacking his 100% positive pro-choice record. The Obama campaign sent out an email today with this response to the distortions:

"From the beginning of this campaign, Barack has pledged to be open and
honest with the American people -- to tell us what we need to know, not just what we want to hear. That kind of honesty is at the core of our movement, because if we adopt Karl Rove campaign tactics of deception and fear, we're never going to change Washington and bring the country together to get things done.

Over the last few days, those same old tactics have come to Nevada.
Hillary Clinton has sent direct mail pieces to Nevadans distorting Barack's
position on Social Security.

She is on the radio deliberately confusing voters about his
long-standing opposition to Yucca Mountain.

She is on TV misleading people about his outspoken position against the
war in Iraq.

But perhaps most disturbing, Clinton has attacked Barack on his 100%
pro-choice record.

The tone of Senator Clinton's campaign has been so negative that even
her supporters are saying enough is enough. Lorna Brett, a former Clinton donor and president of Chicago National Organization for Women, had this to say about the tactics:

'I was disappointed that Hillary Clinton would launch misleading
attacks on Barack Obama and his unimpeachable record on a woman's right to choose. I have switched my support to Barack Obama because I know the truth. I cannot be a part of that kind of deceptive politics.'"

I have a feeling Hillary will win. It depresses me. Why? Because she will have won by deception and by playing to what divides us. Yes, I know that's how the game of politics is played...but in Obama I sense a politician who wants to change those rules.

I've posted on this blog before I became an Obama supporter that I longed for a leader who would, as Lincoln did, appeal to "the better angles of our nature." I think Obama is that leader. I just fear he will be destroyed by the clawing desperation of boundless ambtion.