Today, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton for the Pennsylvania primary election. The first eleven paragraphs note the similarity of both candidates on the issues and how they are both "uncommonly smart, thoughtful and very well-versed in the issues . . . care about people . . . care about the workings of government . . . are prepared."
So why do they endorse Obama over Clinton? This paragraph seems to be the primary reason given:
This editorial began by observing that one candidate is of the past and one of the future. The litany of criticisms heaped on Sen. Obama by the Clinton camp, simultaneously doing the work of the Republicans, is as illustrative as anything of which one is which. These are the cynical responses of the old politics to the new.So, I guess that means that if Sen. Obama had heaped "litany of criticisms" on Sen. Clinton -- simultaneously doing the work of the Republicans -- the P-G might have gone the other way, or called it a draw, right?
Say, if as far back as last year, if Obama and his top campaign people had called Hillary "disingenuous"; or had repeatedly labeled her untruthful in November of 2007 and January of 2008 (taking off time for Christmas); or if at the end of January in an interview Barack had called her "divisive" and "calculating", or maybe accusing her of "saying and doing anything to win", or, hell, saying that she was "too polarizing to win"; or maybe if in March the Obama Campaign had tried to throw out there that she was "one of the most secretive politicians in America"; or a day later they had said that Hillary was "attempting to deceive the American people" or, Jesus, what if they had claimed that she was "playing politics with war"; or if they had said, again, a week later that she was "literally willing to do anything to win" -- that would be a bad thing, no?
I guess if Barack had used these kinds of character attacks, the Post-Gazette Editorial Board would be peeved or something. They wouldn't buy into the Right's/Obama's meme and repeat it bysuggesting that she was "suspect and shifty," would they?
And, what if the Obama Camp had not stopped there, but had gone on to attack the last Democratic President?
I mean, that sounds kind of Republican, no?
What if they had put out a false story that President Bill Clinton was making money on a speech to Asia on the anniversary of 9/11? That would be a pretty crappy thing to do I'm thinking, especially if it had somehow ended up on The Drudge Report.
Or, say, if Obama had praised Ronnie Reagan at the expense of Bill Clinton or had talked about the loss of jobs over the past twenty-five years (mentioning Clinton and Bush, but never Reagan and leaving out how well the middle class did under Clinton). That would kind of suck, no?
It might be called the cynical responses of the old politics to the new -- that is if Obama would have done anything like that.
And, speaking of using the Right's own talking points, can you imagine how supremely cynical it would have been if the Obama Campaign had slammed Hillary's healthcare program by mimicking the old Harry and Louise lies and fearmongering? I mean, it was the Right's Harry and Louise ads that helped to deny Americans any kind of healthcare aid for DECADES so no Democrat would possibly go there.
And, I'm thinking it would have been oh-so-cynical and old school if Obama had used false quotes against Clinton on NAFTA in a mailer or if he had made completely misleading claims in a TV ad.
I mean, I'm sure if Obama had actually done any of that, the Post-Gazette would have sat up and taken notice.