The Clintons’ Patronizing Strategy

Since many people seem to think Obama has not been scrutinized as much as Hillary has (I disagree), I would like to see one example of Hillary's ever having been asked by a member of the media to describe this much-touted "experience" she's running on. Bill was president, not Hillary. Someone should ask her to specifically describe her policy role in her husband's administration. The answer could be very interesting, As for genuine experience, as it happens, Barack Obama has held elective office longer than she has -- 11 years to her 7.

Wow, this article comes up and the smear ad in S.C. comes down. Amazing. Looks like we can expect a tear from Hillary tomorrow. And also why Chelsea Clinton articles are starting to pop-up.

Someone seriously miscalculated when they thought it was a good thing to get Bill out there so much and negative campaigning was seriously going to take down a movement. It's official, the internet and the 24 hour news machine has taken down the Clinton's. Time of death - 11:29 a.m. ET Jan 24, 2008.

I think you only hear what you want to hear. I agree that some of the things that the Clintons are saying about Obama aren't exactly as he said them, but a lot of things that he said about the Republicians sounded like double talk to me . And the same thing can be said about the things Obama said about the Clintons. Aslo this race card thing is BULL-S***. This should not even be mentioned and buy the way most of the time is is Obama, or some of his people that keep it going. I haven't made up my mind about who I will vote for on Saturday yet, But I agree with Mr. Clinton when he says that most Americans are smart enoug to see through all the bull. Even yours.

Talk about "patronizing" with your reference to the "less educated" among the Democratic base. Maybe I'm one of those, but it seems to me that Bill Clinton was "transformative" in his approach to budget balancing and the deficit during his presidency. And it strikes me that, in the public mind at least, doing what he did in those areas defied the "conventional wisdom" about Democrats in the White House. So Barack Obama deserves to take his lumps for apparently forgetting--or worse, giving short shrift to--that in his interview with the Reno newspaper's editorial board. Invoking Reagan and the Republicans' "ideas" and cloaking them in what at best was an uncritical light in the midst of a Democratic primary campaign demonstrates just how politically un-savvy he is. And that's an attribute that deserves to be brought to light when voters, whatever their education, are considering who they want as a leader.

Mr. Alter references external characterizations of these attacks as "outrageous and dishonest" as well as "demonstrably false." He himself describes the attacks as "preposterous", "bogus", and "major distortions." How then does he get away with characterizing this as "patronizing?" These are outright lies and he should have the courage to call them that!

Thank you, thank you for this article. I'm so disgusted and feel so disillusioned by how the Clinton campaign has chosen to handle things these past two weeks and I've been feeling rather alone in my disgust. This article provided a bit of comfort and validation.

All of this only reminds us just how horrible the Clintons are.

Mr. Alter: Maybe you should look again at Obama's original quote and Hillary's response. Obama first mentions Reagan, and then refers to Republicans of the last 10-15 years. This mathematically excludes Reagan, and as far as I can tell (you don't actually quote Hillary) Hillray never mentions Reagan. Look at the debate transcript of this argument and see that she doesn't actually refer to him except to say she didn't mention him. If you can't criticize the Clintons with facts, its not right to use fictions.

Now don't you all go gettin yourselves in a tizzy. Mr. Bill and Miss Hillary will fix everything, just like they always did. Now, if you want to show your gratitude, don't you go listenin' to that Obama boy, he ain't nothin' but trouble. Remember, Mr. Bill and Ms. Hillary know what's best for you.

If I was Obama I would use Booker very selectively. His record at keeping people safe in Newark is not that amazing now is it?

Barack might want to use Booker in a very delicate manner. His record on keeping people safe in Newark has not been all that great.

I have never voted for a Republican in a presidential race (I am 64 years old), but I will vote for one if my choices are Hillary Clinton and John McCain. And the Alter article wonderfully explains why.

Obama reminds me too much of another smooth talking, charismatic Washington outsider--Jimmy Carter. Obama has great rhetoric, but will not have the ability to implement his ideas. There is not going to be a wholesale change in Congress or the Senate, which is going to leave Obama having to rely on his skills as an insider to get things done. He has not track record of accomplishments, so I doubt his abilities.

Like it or not--and we sometimes like to forget it--Bill and Hilary Clinton are politicans. First and foremost--again whether we like it or not--they view their jobs as getting elected, and amassing power. That is simply what politicans do. More often than not, those who win are those who do whatever is necessary, and it isn't always nice. One need only recall the sliming of John Kerry by the Bush II team, and the similar attempt at destroying John McCain earlier by questioning his patriotism in South Carolina. The barrage of mudslinging continues, and always will, since the politics of personal destruction seems to triumph in spite of our recognizing how unsavory it all is. The real test will come when we realize that we've elected the last man--or woman--standing, who just happens to be the least objectionable candidate, rather than the most capable and qualified to lead this country during one of the most dangerous times in its history. The sad commentary is about the voters who destroy and elect candidates, since we should all know by now that politicans, by their very nature, say whatever they need to do win the fight.

You call yourself a reporter? I've read and usually enjoyed your columns in Newsweek for years, but this partisan rant is really disturbing. When did you join the Obama campaign? Apparently you're no longer a journalist, you're just another muckraker stirring the pot for your candidate of choice. BTW, I'm neither poor nor stupid and I'm cancelling my subscription to Newsweek.