The Politics Of Politics Of Politics

From Obama spokesman Bill Burton:

"Having lived by the polls, Hillary Clinton is now panicked by them. It was just nine days ago that Hillary Clinton told 9,000 Iowa Democrats that she wasn't going to attack other Democrats."

Obviously that has changed as it has become clear we'll be holding a caucus, not a coronation, in Iowa. Barack Obama has been fighting for working families since he helped neighborhoods devastated by steel plant closings as a community organizer over two decades ago, and he'll be a President who delivers change working Americans can believe in by taking on the special interests and bringing this country together. America needs a president who will be candid about the challenges we face and honest about how we should address them."

Responds Phil Singer:

That's a curious comment from a campaign that traded the politics of hope in for the poltics of attack.

Comments

I swear to god singer's email signature must include the words "traded the politics of hope for the politics of ______"; at least something original? or maybe it just shows how confident clinton is that her war room is on autopilot.

Posted by JC | November 19, 2007 3:03 PM

Politics of ... AGAIN? Someone needs to take Singer and Co to a pub to get a drink. They are the most unoriginal bunch this campaign cycle.

Posted by Marvin Schwartz | November 19, 2007 4:03 PM

Honestly, Hillary's people are just total dumbasses. How in the world is anyone supposed to campaign in a primary if they can't contrast themselves with the other candidate? Its just so disingenuous for them to pretend that any criticism of her is "the politics of attack" or some such nonsense.

On a related note, I, as a Republican, still have not heard a Democrat answer the question of why anyone on their side would want to nominate Hillary. Here is a thought experiment - Think of everyone who could possibly vote for Hillary - Do you think any of these people would refuse to vote for Obama or Edwards if either man was the nominee? Now reverse it - isn't it obvious that there are at least some people (particularly men) who would go along with Obama or Edwards, but would never vote for Hillary? And by definition, doesn't that mean that she is the weakest candidate for the Dems in the general election?

Posted by Legitprop | November 20, 2007 12:56 PM