This morning, morning host Carl Wolfson on KPOJ said that his support for Hillary Clinton over Obama and Edwards was largely because he couldn’t stand the way she “continues to be attacked.”
First of all, I don’t believe she’s been treated any better or worse during this campaign than any other candidate in a crowded primary field in the last twenty years. Yes, she has been the focus of right wing attacks since at least 1992, but Wolfson was speaking mainly about her treatment by the other Dems on the campaign trail and the media.
Second, her campaign has been at least as good as it gets, with Bob Kerrey out there talking about madrassas and Mark Penn bringing up cocaine. Nothing that has been said about Hillary from the left has been nearly as inflammatory as her team’s rhetoric against Obama.
Finally, to what I don’t understand: why do people even consider voting for someone based on what was done to them, instead of what was said or done by them? That is insane; by that logic, Hillary should be begging to be attacked, baiting opponents with tears and cleavage.
I congratulate Clinton on her win in NH, but if it was won because of a backlash against perceived piling on, she should be very careful. That kind of support doesn’t bode well for the general election; no one is looking to elect a whipping boy (or gal), and perceived victimhood can turn very quickly into perceived weakness of character.
Last 2 posts in 2008 Election
- evidentally we haven't learned from history - November 10th, 2008
- how will we keep him down on the farm, now that he's seen d.c.? - November 6th, 2008
If you liked this post, feel free to subscribe to our rss feeds
One Comment
(listed oldest to newest)