David Brooks, I disagree...
Posted by Little Ms Purple at 3/8/2008 9:26 AM 
Categories: 2008 Election, Political strategies, All Posts
Categories: 2008 Election, Political strategies, All Posts
David Brooks, in his NYTimes op-ed , wrote an article in which he says that if Obama goes after Clinton for not releasing her tax returns, White House papers or a donation list to President Clinton's library that those attacks are some how cheap, dirty and the same old way politics is fought. Based on this position, Brooks believes that Obama's message of rising above the fray and changing the way politics is played is kaput. Done. Over. Finished. And that since Obama's asking these "vetting" questions of Senator Clinton, that his only reason for running (changing the way politics is played) is a mirage.
I completely disagree. I don't agree that asking for tax returns, White House papers or a donations list to President Clinton's library is anything close to being below the belt or a revision to the politics of old. These are the same questions McCain will be asking in the general... and he'll also be asking about Rezko should Obama become the nominee. None of those attacks are not below the belt. But might I remind Mr. Brooks that a push poll saying that a candidate fathered an illegitamit black child is below the belt. Questioning a soldier's service in Vietnam is below the belt. Spreading a false claim about a candidates religion via email is below the belt.
The Clinton's went below the belt with Obama when they kept bringing up his admitted drug use as a teen or that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice too or that the Obama campaign reassured Canada about his NAFTA rhetoric while her campaign did the reassuring first or comparing Obama to Ken Starr for asking in-bounds vetting questions of Senator Clinton... all of these attacks are the politics of old and none of us are surprised when the Clinton camp makes them. But when Obama asks pointed questions about issues that will matter in November should she be the nominee, he's going below the belt and reverting to the same politics of old? Not in my book, Mr. Brooks.
I completely disagree. I don't agree that asking for tax returns, White House papers or a donations list to President Clinton's library is anything close to being below the belt or a revision to the politics of old. These are the same questions McCain will be asking in the general... and he'll also be asking about Rezko should Obama become the nominee. None of those attacks are not below the belt. But might I remind Mr. Brooks that a push poll saying that a candidate fathered an illegitamit black child is below the belt. Questioning a soldier's service in Vietnam is below the belt. Spreading a false claim about a candidates religion via email is below the belt.
The Clinton's went below the belt with Obama when they kept bringing up his admitted drug use as a teen or that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice too or that the Obama campaign reassured Canada about his NAFTA rhetoric while her campaign did the reassuring first or comparing Obama to Ken Starr for asking in-bounds vetting questions of Senator Clinton... all of these attacks are the politics of old and none of us are surprised when the Clinton camp makes them. But when Obama asks pointed questions about issues that will matter in November should she be the nominee, he's going below the belt and reverting to the same politics of old? Not in my book, Mr. Brooks.
Comments