Obama vs. Clinton, Round ... ?
THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter
Although a trifle slow on the uptake, the Obama campaign is finally striking back. "Finally" may seem like an unsuitable word to use in the context of only a few days, but a few days in presidential campaigning can be tantamount to a geologic epoch in which evolutionary changes, Hobbesian-like, are swift, nasty and brutish.
Whatever illusions Barack Obama once held about pursuit of the highest office permitting elevated debate should by now be tidily tucked away. Front-runner status carries with it several character-assassination attempts per day, and eventually the candidate sees that instead of just ducking, survival calls for some rather inelegant shooting back.
As the New York Times reported yesterday, "Flying from Texas back home to Chicago on Wednesday morning, Mr. Obama delivered the message that he intended to counterpunch forcefully." We soon heard more intent than punch, but that appeared to be but the set-up before the shattering blows.
Said Obama: "[Hillary Clinton has] made the argument that she’s thoroughly vetted, in contrast to me. I think it’s important to examine that argument." Old habits die hard. He meant "crush," not examine.
The first item on his to-do-in list is the matter of Clinton's still mysteriously absent tax returns, with Obama aides now calling for the release of at least those from 2006. But of course it's the returns from 2007 that are of even greater interest to the conscientious goo-goo types, given Hillary's whopping $5 million self-bailout last month.
The Clintons are saying wait till April 15 -- for the 2006 returns. Whether the Obama camp gives quarter on this to the Clinton camp -- something the latter would assuredly deny the former -- remains to be seen, but of the funny business in delaying year-old returns there is no doubt.
And speaking of mysterious hard cash and its provenance, Frank Rich not so long ago reminded us of this: "Asked by Tim Russert at a September debate" -- September, and still hanging -- "whether the Clinton presidential library and foundation would disclose the identities of its donors during the campaign, Mrs. Clinton said it wasn’t up to her. 'What’s your recommendation?' Mr. Russert countered. Mrs. Clinton replied: 'Well, I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I’m sure he’d be happy to consider that.' Not so happy, as it turns out. The names still have not been made public."
This is profitable territory to be mined by Obama, and hammered -- millions upon millions in possible backdoor influence buys from points around the globe, some of which might be calling at 3 A.M someday. Will they have greased the skids?
And still imprisoned in Hollinger boxes -- "secreted in the Clinton library," as Obama strategist David Axelrod put it -- are those thousands of cubic feet of Hillary's first lady records, screaming to come out and thereby inform us of her vast co-commander-in-chief activities. Among her "35 years of experience," these poignant eight are neatly and chronologically housed by the National Archives, and one would think Hillary would be beating those archivists over the head to facilitate our enlightenment.
"What exactly is this foreign experience that she’s claiming?" asked Obama with considered restraint -- considering. "I know she talks about visiting 80 countries. It is not clear. Was she negotiating treaties or agreements or was she handling crises during this period of time?"
Well, Mr. Obama, the answers are there -- right there in those snug, temperature- and humidity-controlled Hollinger boxes. Or, you can sit back and let Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson frame the issue for you: "Let me state it categorically: This party is not going to nominate somebody who hasn’t passed the commander-in-chief test."
Take that, Barack, right after you divine what "test" in God's name Mr. Wolfson is talking about. And, right after you question whether a such a tough, tested commander in chief in waiting shouldn't at least be capable of strong-arming her own papers in the possession of her own nation's archives.
The Clinton camp's recidivist secrecy is, for some, evidence enough of secrecy for sinister reasons. For nearly eight years progressives, above all others, have been adrift in fuming concern about the Bush administration's aggressive lack of transparency. That so many, now, are willing to give their own chosen candidate a pass -- as they have already done on Mrs. Clinton's utterly ignominious and treacherous war-authorization vote -- makes others wonder if progressives, in disheartening numbers, possess even an ounce more principle than those they have so emphatically berated for such good cause for so long.
It's true, as the New York Times cautioned through understatement in its coverage of Obama's new offense-defense stance, that he "retains significant advantages, including his lead among pledged delegates." The Times, without fear of overstatement, could have written, "virtually insurmountable lead."
But his nomination will go down much easier with all the party faithful if there's no question as to who dominated the primary schedule, and more important, that an allegiance to principle -- and the rejection of unprincipled betrayal -- was what actually prevailed.
To accomplish that, however, Obama will be forced to heed the old politically axiomatic warning about nice guys finishing last. It's a shame, but shameful or not, about that he must retain no illusions.
Please respond to the commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact P.M. at
fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.comTHE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter
buzzflash
delicious
digg
technorati
Technorati Tags: P.M. Carpenter obama clinton
