Maureen Dowd's column in The New York Times today, in which she quoted former Bill Clinton supporter David Geffen offering a few caustic comments, has incited a strong Hillary Clinton campaign attack on Geffen -- and the candidate he now favors, Sen. Barack Obama.Then Obama's team fired back.
"Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it's troubling," Geffen had said.
OK, so here's the deal. This is pointless. This is pitiful. This is the Democratic "circular firing squad" in action once again. This is NOT what the American people care about. This is NOT about the issues. This is stupid.
Over at MyDD, Matt Stoller nails this one:
Look, it's obvious that this is a fight between rich elites and pundits who think the public doesn't matter and isn't paying attention. That's not where the country is anymore. Just stop it.
Exactly right, Matt. I don't give a flying you-know-what if David Geffen has had a falling out with the Clintons, and is now subjecting us to his Hollywood hissy fit. I don't give a flying you-know-what if Maureen Dowd wants to waste her considerable talent on constant cattiness ("Can Obambi stand up to Clinton Inc.?" - barf!) through November 2008. And I don't give a flying you-know-what which candidate's spokesman can fire back the best, most cutting retort (touche!) at the other one.
What I DO give a flying you-know-what about is:
*The Iraq disaster and our FUBAR foreign policy in general
*Global warming
*The assault on our civil liberties, habeas corpus, etc. by the Bush Administration
*More than 45 million uninsured Americans without health insurance
*U.S. dependence on Saudi oil
*The budget and trade deficits
*How we treat our soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan (see the Walter Reed story)
*Much more.
What I do NOT give a flying you-know-what about is David Geffen's opinion on pretty much ANYTHING, whether Bill Clinton still likes sex or not, or whether Maureen Dowd has come up with yet another cute and oh-so-clever nickname for Barack Obama (or any other Democratic 2008 candidate). Ugh, is it November 2008 yet?
Careerist Politicians are not the voters first choice, nor lobbyist, nor trial lawyers .... people are looking for leadership that isn't tainted.
Hillary may be smart. She may even be deserving .... but she's made plenty of compromises in her life .... and one suspects ambition overrides all else.
For sure ... she is POLARIZING ... even within the Democratic Party. That's not a good thing.
Geffen...was financial supporter of President Bill Clinton, but had a falling out with the former President over the decision to pardon Marc Rich and not Leonard Peltier, on whose behalf he had lobbied the President.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
In 1977 he was convicted and sentenced to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment for the murders of two FBI Agents who died during a 1975 shoot-out on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. There has been considerable debate over Peltier's guilt and the fairness of his trial. Some supporters and organizations, including Amnesty International, consider him to be a political prisoner.[1] Numerous appeals have been filed on his behalf; however, none have been ruled in his favor. Peltier is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.
What is even more worrisome is the campaign strategy of the Clinton camp to outraise the other democratic candidates in campaign funds, drive them out of the competition thus prevent any serious debates on the voters' issues and win the democratic nomination by default but then winding up losing to the Republican candidate in the general election.
The reason the Swiftboat attacks worked so well was because it was a new charge, the media and Republicans had somewhere to go...kept it in the news day after day...
Combined with Kerry's ineffectual response, it sank him...
What do you think will happen if the media brings up Whitewater, or Vince Foster again?...a big fat yawn...
It also helps inoculate her against any new scurrilous charges from Republicans...the public will assume it is just another unwarranted attack on the Clintons...
So it wasn't just Hillary bashing Obama, but Obama's response was included in every article.
Think swiftboats 2004, the Dem nominee could use this type of rapid response.
There are so many things that keep me awake at night. David Geffen's opinions concerning the Clinton's is not one of them.
I will say that this one DOES worry me about the Clinton campaign.
Either Hilary is getting some terrible advice, or, if Geffen really DID get under Clinton's skin, then she needs to seriously reconsider her run. I will not sleep easier knowing that my president can be completely unnerved by some harsh words from some schmuck in the entertainment biz.
I suspect this may simply be a way of changing the subject away from the 2002 AUMF, which Clinton has been hammered on recently; or it could be her team's first attempt to show Obama that she and her team "mean business". If these are the types of attacks that we can expect from her in the future, I cannot in good conscience support her candidacy.
Attacks based on real issues are OK. I don't mind a vigorous debate. I just can't stand this unbelievable level of pettiness.
Look up a man named James Callender for a good example...
And it does serve a useful purpose...do you suppose the Republicans are going to run a campaign on the issues...of course they won't. They will run a campaign that will require the kind of responses we are seeing from Obama and Clinton...
So...
If you are a political junkie, pop a beer and enjoy the show..
If you are not, ignore it until next year....
The net effect of an attack should be to increase your numbers relative to the other contenders. In this case, Hilary and her team come across as a not-ready-for-prime time campaign with an absolutely bizarre, out-of-touch set of concerns.
Who outside of NYC, Hollywood, and federal DC understands who David Geffen is? And, unless a person was soliciting campaign donations, why would he or she care about Geffen's political opinions?
This type of attack inflicts more damage on Clinton than it does on her target. That's not how these things are supposed to work. It is the wrong choice on several levels.
Hillary Clinton and Co. should stop with knuckle ball garbage pitches and mount a campaign. She can't have it both ways, saying she wants a positive campaign while her hacks are attacking opponents.
This kind of stuff pushes me away from the campaign that engages in it.
It is ridiculously petty. It is an insult to all of us trying to decide who we want to support.
I say read Obama's book, read Richardson's book, read Clinton's books, compare the websites and lets get this over with so we can end the long nightmare. Whoever screws this one up, we should in the words of Pat Buchanan (only time I will ever cite Pat), get our pitchforks and run the petty, selfish politicians out of town. Pitchforks belongs to Pat, the rest of it is mine.
My take on it is that Obama was not supposed to happen, and Hillary is having a complete fit about all the notoriety he is getting. Not to mention the money.
Lynn
That is why I am leaning John Edwards. He isn't afraid to talk straight. Hopefully we will see more straight talk and SOON!