Monday, December 31, 2007

Barack Obama for President


THE CONS OF PRESIDENTIAL NEPOTISM
by Pearl Jr.


Currently, there have been two families that have held either the position of President or Vice President of the USA for the past 27 years and that has resulted in this country moving further and further away from the basic truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness:

George Herbert Walker Bush - (Vice President) - 1981-1989 (under Ronald Reagan)
George Herbert Walker Bush - (President) - 1989 - 1993
Bill Clinton - (President) 1993 - 2001
George Walker Bush - (President) 2001-current

Once again, racism is on the rise, the racial economic gap has grown, the rich have gotten richer, the poor poorer, leading to too few controllin! g too much. Do you ever get the impression the rulers are now big corporations and not the American people?

Presidential nepotism simply promotes that those that have power will maintain control via family ties. The United States of America is a democracy to which the people rule the government; the government isn't supposed to rule the people. If this type of nepotism continues, we'll be contemplating that Jeb Bush is the most qualified because his father and brother were Presidents, meanwhile grooming the Bush twin daughters to run for a duet Presidency right after Chelsea Clinton finishes her first two terms.

Following that logic, then George W. Bush should have done a better job as President because his daddy was Vice President and President of the USA. To the contrary, many are saying George W. Bush is the worst President EVER due to the fast declining American economy, the housing fiasco, the humongous deficit, the state of foreign affairs, the war, the health care crisis, and a failing educational system. All of which are in the worst shape of the past 60 years.

Most people would agree that a Democrat will most likely win the race of being the ! 44th President of the USA, due to this Republican administration's complete failures to move the country forward.

The most profound similarity between the top two democratic candidates is they are both lifelong public servants. Both have law degrees. Mr. Obama earned his from Harvard and Mrs. Clinton from Yale. Barack has accomplished many "first" as a Black person and Hillary has many "first" for a woman. The major difference is Hillary governs from the top (corporations and leaders) down and Barack from the bottom (people) up.

The supposed Achilles heel of! Senator Barack Obama (Illinois) has been his reported lack of experie nce, which is for the direct benefit of Senator Hillary Clinton (New York) and raises her value to deserving the democratic nominee. When one looks deeper, that's not necessarily the truth, especially since Hillary is 14 years older than Barack, which has given her additional time to accomplish more.

Now, Barack Obama has been an elected official as a State Senator (Illinois) since 1997 (to 2004) and then elected to the US Senate in 2004. Hillary has been an elected official only since 2000, so judging by this, Barack Obama actually has more experience in elected life than Hillary Clinton.

Many people are including Hillary's ties to her husband, Bill Clinton, as her accolades: She was First Lady of Arkansas and the First Lady of the United States, only because her husband was Governor of Arkansas and President of the USA. O.K. so Hillary chose a very ambitious man to be her husband and from that she is supposed to be the most experienced--HOGWASH!

Furthermore, Hillary will not be a better President just because she slept in the White House for 8 years. Bill has way too many enemies inside and outside the USA to not consider him as a liability, instead of an asset. Can anyone say aspirin factor bombing, Whitewater, travelgate, and Monica Lewinsky? The Clintons bring the country backwards because of the fires that are smothering underneath the surface and it is estimated that the Clintons will have way too many antagonists who are set in place to under mind their Presidency-Oops, her Presidency!

As far as on the international front, Obama is African and Anglo-Saxon, who was born in the South Pacific US state of Hawaii, grew up in Indonesia and has a half Chinese sibling. He understands Muslims because he grew up in a Muslim country, his wife is African-American, and he is a devote Christian-now that's international and connecting internationally! Most importantly, Barack doesn't have international enemies, and THAT could be his best asset of all--representing a fresh new start in foreign affairs.

Nepotism is rarely fair. Bill Clinton is constitutionally disallowed to run the country again due to the 22nd Amendment that set Presidential limits to two terms (1947). The "Herbert Walker" and "Walker" Bush nepotism directly following a possible Bill and Hill loophole manipulation can lead to other c! onstitutional changes, which can spell Monarchy instead of Democracy-a potential danger to the American way of life, indeed!

After watching Hillary for the past year, it is fair to finally stop with the Hill is the brain behind Bill delusion. She's losing that perception with each and every debate. Furthermore, Bill is the man who earned every vote because no one played that saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show but Bill. Of course, this race is Hillary's to lose because as Bill has enemies, he does have devoted followers that will support his wife Hillary. Nonetheless, the Karl Rove, brain behind the power, perception can finally be laid to rest. After all, Hill just ain't Bill!

So taking all this into serious consideration, I'm not for Hill or Bill, but I do believe that Obama is the one to get Osama because Barack realized long ago Bush was looking under the wrong rock and going backwards finishing his Daddy's unresolved business, which was Saddam Hussein. Do we really want to go backwards again with Bill and Hill? Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden is bragging about killing 3000 Americans and putting on makeup for his many photo shoots telling us, you better watch out, I'm not finished yet.

Lastly, it's only fair to write a word or two about the nationally leading Republican candidate, Rudy Giuliani. Just because Mr. Giuliani was the Mayor of New York City during the biggest attack on American soil EVER, surely cannot make Rudy and Judy the best person(s) to handle the important job of protecting the country.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Barack's bir-racial challenge


December 29, 2007
The Long Run
A Biracial Candidate Walks His Own Fine Line
By JANNY SCOTT
The 2006 Democratic primary campaign for the presidency of the Cook County Board of Commissioners was vintage Chicago politics.

The incumbent was an aging party loyalist, mayoral confederate and institution in black Chicago. His opponent was younger and white, a reform-minded independent Democrat who had helped Barack Obama in his Senate race two years earlier.

Both sides wanted the support of Mr. Obama, a vote magnet in Chicago. The challenger, Forrest Claypool, 48, had the backing of the major newspapers and a couple of liberal members of Congress. The incumbent, John Stroger, 76, had the party organization, many of the city’s blacks and Mr. Obama’s political benefactor, the State Senate president, Emil Jones.

So Mr. Obama remained neutral. He was blasted in blogs and newspapers for hedging rather than risk alienating people he needed, though others said he had made the only shrewd choice.

“Those relationships are complex,” said Mr. Claypool, who lost the primary race to Mr. Stroger (who never served because of illness) and is now working on Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign. “No politician takes important relationships for granted.”

Much of Mr. Obama’s success as a politician has come from walking a fine line — as an independent Democrat and a progressive in a state dominated by the party organization and the political machine, and as a biracial American whose political ambitions require that he appeal to whites while still satisfying the hopes and expectations of blacks.

Like others of his generation, he is a member of a new class of black politicians. Too young to have experienced segregation, he has thrived in white institutions. His style is more conciliatory than confrontational, more technocrat than preacher. Compared with many older politicians, he tends to speak about race indirectly or implicitly, when he speaks about it at all.

After Hurricane Katrina, he did not attribute the lumbering federal response to the race of most of the storm’s victims. “The incompetence was color-blind,” he said, adding that the real stumbling block was indifference to the problems of the poor. After six black teenagers were charged with attempted murder in the beating of a white schoolmate in the “Jena Six” case in Louisiana, he said the criminal justice system needed fixing to ensure equal justice “regardless of race, wealth or circumstances.”

And when Mr. Obama announced his candidacy in February, he chose the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill., a place imbued with the spirit of Abraham Lincoln. He spoke of his work in “Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods” and of ending poverty; race came up only glancingly, as in, “Beneath all the differences of race and region, faith and station, we are one people.”

But the postracial style has its pitfalls.

‘Acting Like He’s White’

Earlier this fall, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, an Obama supporter who ran for president twice, was quoted by a reporter as saying Mr. Obama “needs to stop acting like he’s white” (words that Mr. Jackson has variously said that he would never say and that were taken out of context).

He added, “If I were a candidate, I’d be all over Jena.”

More recently, Mr. Jackson accused the Democratic candidates except for John Edwards of having “virtually ignored” the plight of blacks. (His son, Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign, fired back in an op-ed column in The Chicago Sun-Times under the headline, “You’re wrong on Obama, Dad.”)

“A black candidate doesn’t want to look like he’s only a black candidate,” the Rev. Al Sharpton, the civil rights activist, who ran for president in 2004, said in an interview about Mr. Obama. “If he overidentifies with Sharpton, he looks like he’s only a black candidate. A white candidate reaches out to a Sharpton and looks like they have the ability to reach out. It looks like they’re presidential. That’s the dichotomy.”

In a telephone interview, Mr. Obama denied that he had spoken less about race issues than other candidates. But he said he focused when possible on “the universal issues that all Americans care about.” His aim, he said, is “to build broader coalitions that can actually deliver health care for all people or jobs that pay a living wage or all the issues that face not only black Americans but Americans generally.”

He suggested that his critics were comparing him not with Mr. Edwards or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton but with Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton. “That comparison is one that isn’t appropriate,” he said. “Because neither Reverend Jackson nor Reverend Sharpton is running for president of the United States. They are serving an important role as activists and catalysts but they’re not trying to build a coalition to actually govern.”

Mr. Obama’s legislative record does not diverge sharply from that of other black legislators, some who have studied it say. For example, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which grades members of Congress on their support for its agenda, gave Mr. Obama a 100 percent score. The difference between him and some others lies more in life experience, approach to politics and style.

And while Mr. Obama’s advisers say he is entirely comfortable with his identity — as he has said, proud to be an African-American but not limited by that — he carries a peculiar burden as a presidential candidate: whether or not he calibrates his words, blacks as well as whites are likely to parse them for anything they might signal about racial issues.

“There is a special expectation and opportunity that we have to talk about the ways race works in America,” said Gov. Deval Patrick, a friend of Mr. Obama and the first black to lead Massachusetts.

But, Mr. Patrick said, “sometimes I think advocates want one note from us. I think our experience in our lives and in our politics has been that there’s much more than the one note — and sometimes a cacophony.”

There was a time when black politicians had little in common with white politicians. They had been educated in segregated schools and historically black colleges; many had entered politics through the civil rights movement, social activism or the black church. Their districts and constituents were overwhelmingly African-American. They were “race men” who had built their careers advocating for blacks.

Winning a Mixed District

They tended to be more liberal and militant than the Democratic Party as a whole, said Michael C. Dawson, a University of Chicago political scientist. They opposed rising military budgets and military intervention abroad, favored economic redistribution and were willing to consider such things as demands for reparation for slavery.

Hanes Walton Jr., a University of Michigan political scientist, said, “Once you got African-American elected officials in the 1960s and 1970s, there was huge demand from the black community about getting things done. Some of these elected officials came on with fairly rough edges because they were making consistent and hard demands. In many ways, that couldn’t be escaped. These elected officials knew that they were elected from the black community.”

Mr. Obama, by contrast, grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, far from any center of black life. He graduated from a private prep school in Honolulu, Columbia College and Harvard Law School. Though he has belonged to the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago since 1987, he was not raised in the traditions of the black church, which Ange-Marie Hancock, a Yale political scientist, says “nurtured generations of black politicians” and “that almost exclusive emphasis on race — and race in a black/white framework.”

Mr. Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 — not from an overwhelmingly black district like those that elected early black legislators but from a racially and economically mixed neighborhood, Hyde Park, home of the University of Chicago. In a state where Irish-American dynasties dominate Democratic Party politics, he sprang up as an outsider — a former community organizer without party or machine support.

Mr. Obama never fit any easily recognizable model of a black politician during his seven years in Springfield. He was a progressive Democrat who worked with Republicans; a black man whose weekly poker-game partners were white; an independent Democrat whose mentor, Mr. Jones, was one of the most powerful black politicians in the state and supported by the Chicago machine.

In his 2006 book, “The Audacity of Hope,” Mr. Obama recalls sitting with a white, liberal Democrat in the Senate and listening to a black, inner-city legislator, whom he identified only as John Doe, speechifying on how the elimination of a particular program was blatant racism. The white colleague turned to Mr. Obama and said, “You know what the problem is with John? Whenever I hear him, he makes me feel more white.”

Mr. Obama finds a lesson in that moment: White guilt has exhausted itself. Even fair-minded whites resist suggestions of racial victimization. Proposals that benefit minorities alone cannot be a basis for the broad coalitions needed to transform the country, he concluded. Only “universal appeals” for approaches that help all Americans, he wrote in his book, “schools that teach, jobs that pay, health care for everyone who needs it” can do that, “even if such strategies disproportionately help all Americans.”

Mr. Obama has never had difficulty appealing to whites. In his ill-fated 1999 campaign against Representative Bobby L. Rush, a four-term Democratic congressman and former Black Panther, Mr. Obama won the white vote but lost the black vote in a district that was overwhelmingly black. Abner J. Mikva, a former Illinois congressman and longtime supporter, said, “It took him a while to realize that it’s a vote that has to be courted.”

Hermene Hartman, the publisher of N’Digo, a weekly newspaper in Chicago, recalls advising Mr. Obama to talk less about his experience as the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review. “What I was saying early on was, ‘Harvard Review will play at the University of Chicago, it won’t play on 55th and King Drive,’” Ms. Hartman said.

Mr. Mikva says Mr. Obama learned to campaign in different ways without changing the substance of what he was saying. He learned to use rhythms, analogies, “quotes that resonate better.” Others say he simply worked hard at becoming better known, consolidating his support among black elected officials, black ministers, labor organizations and community groups, skating nimbly among factions.

Straddling Interests

Mr. Obama’s relationship with Mr. Jackson extends back at least to the early 1990s. Mr. Jackson’s daughter, Santita, was a friend of Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, and was a bridesmaid at their wedding. The Congressional district of Representative Jackson included Mr. Obama’s State Senate district; they have worked together on issues, endorsed some of the same reform-minded candidates against the party slate and sought each other’s advice.

At the same time, Mr. Obama has remained close to his longtime mentor, Mr. Jones — an old antagonist of Representative Jackson, who defeated him for Congress in 1995. Alan Gitelson, a political scientist at Loyola University in Chicago, said, “The skill of Obama is that he’s been able to straddle the two major factions among blacks in Illinois.”

Mr. Obama has also cultivated a working relationship with Mayor Richard M. Daley. Mr. Daley, who backed an opponent of Mr. Obama in the 2004 Senate primary, this year endorsed Mr. Obama for president — around the time that Mr. Obama endorsed Mr. Daley for re-election, annoying some supporters and passing over two black candidates considered unlikely to win.

“I can tell you, having worked for both of them, they are both pragmatists who want to get things done,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s chief strategist and a longtime consultant to Mr. Daley.

By the time Mr. Obama began running for the United States Senate, he “didn’t have to run as a black candidate,” said Don Rose, a longtime political consultant in Chicago. Illinois had already elected one black senator, Carol Moseley Braun, and Mr. Obama had nailed down overwhelming black support. According to Mr. Axelrod, he ended up with 92 percent of the black vote in a competitive field.

Yet race was a subtext of a television advertisement widely believed to have helped Mr. Obama win, Mr. Rose believes. The advertisement featured Sheila Simon, the daughter of former Senator Paul Simon, a Democrat who was a revered figure in Illinois politics, lionized by white progressives and admired by some conservatives. Mr. Simon, who had worked with Mr. Obama on ethics reform, had intended to endorse him but had died unexpectedly after heart surgery in 2003.

So Mr. Axelrod had asked Ms. Simon to make an advertisement about the similarities between her father and Mr. Obama. He said the commercial might help explain Mr. Obama’s unexpected success in white, working class neighborhoods on Chicago’s Northwest Side, which had been hostile to black candidates in the past. Mr. Rose believes that the advertisement’s subtext, intentionally or not, was gender and race: “It is saying, ‘People, I’m a white woman, and I’m not afraid of him.’”

Dining With Sharpton

In Washington, Mr. Obama made it clear almost immediately that his career would not be defined by his race. One of the first acts of the new Congress was to certify the results of the Electoral College. Some members of the Congressional Black Caucus moved to contest the certification of the Ohio votes. Mr. Obama did not join them. In a hastily arranged maiden speech, he said he was convinced that President Bush had won but he also urged Congress to address the need for voting reform.

In his office, he hung paintings of Lincoln, Gandhi and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., all of whom he calls his heroes.

In recent weeks, Mr. Obama has turned some of his attention to courting black voters. Nine months into his campaign, he held his first fund-raiser in Harlem, at the Apollo Theater, where he said, among other things, he was in the race because he was “tired of reading about Jena.” Then he went on tour with Oprah Winfrey, whom he had gotten to know when she interviewed him after his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

Mr. Sharpton, who has yet to endorse anyone, says Mr. Obama began his campaign as “the alternative to guys like me.” But in recent months, Mr. Sharpton said, “he’s been calling us.”

Mr. Obama also arranged to dine with Mr. Sharpton, in the presence of a herd of reporters, before his appearance at the Apollo.

“A portion of black voters want Obama to give them some raw meat,” said Julian Bond, chairman of the board of the N.A.A.C.P. “Because they want so badly to have their concerns addressed and highlighted, and they expect it of him because he’s black.”

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Obama on Drug Use

Every presidential election year there is a news cycle about candidates' drug use. The "I did not inhale" statement by then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton was one of the most humorous and pitiful "admissions" that still makes the eyes roll. Another pathetic example of hypocrisy came from George W. Bush. "Mr. Straight Shooter" still refuses to answer questions about his "youthful indiscretions," and the record has been expunged. In this context, Sen. Barack Obama's honesty on this topic was so refreshing. In his book, Dreams from My Father, Obama openly admits to not only smoking marijuana but trying cocaine. We also have read about Obama's current struggles over giving up cigarettes.
Why should any of us be surprised that any politician, whether it be Sen. Obama, former Vice President Gore, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg or former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, has tried (and maybe even enjoyed) marijuana or other drugs. Remember, despite 40 years of attempting to make a "Drug-Free America," half of all high school students have tried marijuana before they graduate from high school.
Tens of millions of Americans still use drugs (alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, Viagra, cocaine, caffeine, prescription drugs) both for pleasure and to soothe pain. The fact that Obama used drugs in his youth only humanizes him. I believe that it will backfire for Hilary and her campaign to try to “Willy Horton” Obama on the drug question. Hillary is still facing anger from voters for her cynical support of Bush's devastating war in Iraq. Far from showing leadership, Hillary has constantly been behind the curve and public sentiment regarding the war in Iraq. And now Hillary is showing that she is behind the curve when it comes to the other war: the war on drugs.

Not only is her campaign trying to take down Obama with drug baiting, she is also backwards when it comes to our racist drug laws. Federal mandatory minimums enacted by Congress in the 1980s punished sellers of crack cocaine 100 times more severely than those convicted of powder-cocaine offenses. Five grams of crack means an automatic five years in jail. It takes up to 500 grams of powdered cocaine for the same punishment. This has not led to less drug use but, instead, a prison system that mass incarcerates African Americans and Latinos. While drug abuse doesn't discriminate, our drug policies do. Despite equal drug use among blacks and whites, blacks go to jail on drug charges at 13 times the rate of whites. Hillary Clinton is the only major Democratic presidential candidate who did not support the sentencing Commission’s unanimous vote this week to apply recent sentencing reductions for crack-cocaine offenses retroactively.

The war in Iraq and the war on drugs are two unwinnable wars that have caused unimaginable suffering and death. The country is looking for leadership and for exit strategies that will allow us to heal from these catastrophes. Hillary has decided to put her chips on the Bush Administration's fearmongoring. Hillary is tone deaf and living in the past. In upcoming elections it is going to be "drug baiting" and support of inhumane and racist laws that will cost more votes than having tried marijuana when you were young.

Saturday, December 8, 2007

Oprah Winfrey Hits Campaign Trail for Obama


December 9, 2007

By JEFF ZELENY
DES MOINES, Dec. 8 — When she begins a typical show, seldom does Oprah Winfrey question the power of her brand or wonder aloud about the influence that accompanies her golden seal of approval.

But when Ms. Winfrey strode onto a stage here Saturday, imploring Iowa voters to support the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama, she acknowledged not knowing whether her endorsement would matter. And as she waded into American politics like never before, she declared: “I feel like I’m out of my pew.”

Still, with three weeks before the presidential nominating contest begins here, Ms. Winfrey’s arrival on the campaign trail and her irrefutable appeal was threatening enough for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York to invite a famous guest of her own, Chelsea Clinton, who has waited in the wings for a moment like this.

It was, perhaps, the best way Mrs. Clinton could be assured attention on a political day devoted to Ms. Winfrey, who drew more than 15,000 people here and a second audience of about 7,000 in Cedar Rapids. In a state awash in presidential politics, with a competitive fight on both sides of the ticket, it was the largest spectacle of the campaign cycle.

“Oh my goodness,” Ms. Winfrey said. “At last, I’m here.”

The intersection of politics and celebrity began the moment that Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle Obama, declared, “It is my honor to introduce to you the first lady of television, Oprah Winfrey.” A wave of camera flashes illuminated a downtown convention center here as Ms. Winfrey entered to a thunderous roar.

Ms. Winfrey, of course, is hardly a stranger to speaking before large crowds. But as she explained her rationale for supporting Mr. Obama, of Illinois, she stood behind a lectern, reading from prepared remarks. She paused for a moment, saying: “Backstage, somebody said are you nervous? I said, damn right I’m nervous.”

But for 17 minutes, Ms. Winfrey delivered an emotional testimonial for Mr. Obama, arguing the nation was at a critical moment in its history that required a new direction, a new face, a new way. She did not mention Mrs. Clinton or any of their rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, but dismissed suggestions that voters should chose a candidate with the most Washington experience.

“If we continue to do the same things over and over again, I believe we get the same results,” Ms. Winfrey said. Later, she added: “When you listen to Barack Obama, when you really hear him, you witness a very rare thing, You witness a politician who has an ear for eloquence and a tongue dipped in the unvarnished truth.”

In his quest to win the party’s nomination, and become the first black president, Mr. Obama is working to expand his reach beyond the traditional set of Democratic primary voters. The campaign is hoping to use Ms. Winfrey’s visit to Iowa on Saturday, followed by New Hampshire and South Carolina on Sunday, to expose his candidacy to a new audience of prospective supporters.

“I am not here to tell you what to think. I am here to ask you to think — seriously,” Ms. Winfrey said. “I’m not here for partisan beliefs. Over the years, I’ve voted for as many Republicans as I have Democrats. So this isn’t about partisanship for me.”

She ticked through a list of Mr. Obama’s accomplishments, from his days as a community organizer to a state senator to a United States senator. When she hailed his opposition to the war, “long before it was the popular thing to do,” the crowd responded with a roar of approval.

The Obama campaign captured the names and addresses of thousands of those who attended the rallies. Those who agreed to volunteer for at least four hours over the past two weeks received premium tickets.

“I think Oprah is John the Baptist, leading the way for Obama to win,” said Dale Cobb, 40, of Des Moines, who has never participated in the caucuses before. Yet, she added: “I’m still kind of in between Hillary and Obama.”

Cate Doty contributed reporting.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Will Clinton's Obama Attacks Backfire? -- Printout -- TIME


Will Clinton's Obama Attacks Backfire? -- Printout -- TIME


Back to Article Click to Print Tuesday, Dec. 04, 2007
Will Clinton's Obama Attacks Backfire?
By Jay Newton-Small/Washington

It started in earnest a couple of weeks ago when Hillary Clinton questioned how much Barack Obama's time spent living in Indonesia as a child could actually help him make foreign policy decisions as a commander-in-chief. "Voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next President will face," Clinton said November 20 in Shenandoah, Iowa. "I think we need a President with more experience than that."

Then Clinton announced in an interview with CBS that she was sick of being a punching bag for Obama and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards and that she intended to fight back. "After you have been attacked as often as I have from several of my opponents, you cannot just absorb it. You have to respond," she said.

Since that declaration Clinton has done just that, attacking Obama's plans for health care, Social Security reform and diplomacy with Iran. She even went so far as to dig up a kindergarten essay of Obama's entitled "I Want to Be President" to accuse him of lying about not having a lifelong lust for the Oval Office. "So you decide which makes more sense: Entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one ... or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate," Clinton said in Iowa Monday. But at a time when two new Iowa polls show Obama actually pulling into the lead and Clinton losing support among women, some political observers are wondering if Clinton will come to regret her newly assertive strategy. She already has the highest negative ratings in the race, and the shift in tactics comes only a month before the Iowa caucus — where voters are famous for their distaste of negative campaigning. Launching the attacks herself, rather than with via surrogates, only makes the move even riskier.

"The attack will backfire in two ways: it will reinforce the negative stereotype of Mrs. Clinton as a cold and calculating person who will do whatever it takes to win," said Stephen J. Wayne, a government professor at Georgetown University and author of The Road to the White House. "And two, it will make Mr. Obama seem to be the less shrill and more emotionally mature candidate."

John Norris, who ran Senator John Kerry's Iowa campaign in 2004 and now serves as an adviser to Obama's campaign, said that's what they were banking on. "Barack positioned himself as drawing distinctions with Hillary," Norris said in an interview. "You don't want to get too negative — he's come close to the line but I don't think he's gone over it with Iowa voters." Clinton is "the one who made it personal by calling him naļ¶„ — that was the first personal attack in the campaign," Norris said. "It's not a good position to be in — being forced to go negative in the last month."

The Obama campaign has started a website which almost gleefully tracks all of Clinton's attacks. And in an e-mail sent to supporters Monday asking for donations, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe cited the Des Moines Register poll that also showed Clinton with the highest negatives of any candidate. "And sure enough, less than 12 hours after the poll results were released, the Clinton campaign launched multiple frantic, baseless attacks against Barack Obama," Plouffe wrote, calling for 10,000 people to donate over the next 48 hours in response. "The emerging pattern is disturbing: as Senator Clinton's poll numbers slide, the campaign of 'inevitability' becomes more desperate and negative by the day. Barack will always respond swiftly and forcefully with the truth when attacked."

Negative campaigning has not had a history of success in Iowa. In 2004 Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean committed what some described as "murder-suicide" with their attacks on each other, opening the door for Kerry. In 1988 John Glenn's attacks on Walter Mondale helped to hand Garry Hart a surprise victory in the caucuses. The person who could stand to gain the most this time from the negative attacks is John Edwards. His campaign, which hasn't been shy about attacking Clinton in recent months, remained remarkably silent in recent days. "Edwards has been a pretty harsh critic of the Clinton campaign himself, so one could argue that when everybody goes negative no one gains from it," said Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist who is remaining neutral this cycle.

Clinton has insisted that her attacks against Obama are substantive, not personal. "There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for," Clinton told reporters traveling this past weekend with her in Iowa aboard the first press plane of Clinton's campaign. That difference, she said, is "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk." Asked directly whether she intended to raise questions about Obama's character, she replied: "It's beginning to look a lot like that. You know, it really is." (When asked if former President Bill Clinton would also be stepping up the heat on Obama or Edwards, Clinton spokesman Mo Eilleithee would say only, "I think you'll see him out there talking about his knowledge of her, because no one knows her better.")

Clinton's harsh new rhetoric has not won much support, either from pundits or other Democrats. "I could see the desire to raise the salience of personal traits — because her strengths are experience and strength of character," said Stephen Ansolabehere, a political science professor at MIT and author of the book Going Negative. "But her choice surprised me — she might be emphasizing the wrong thing. Given how close this is in the polls, especially a month out, this might be a very risky strategy for her."

"This series of slurs doesn't serve HRC well," said Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton, in a blog post. "It will turn off voters in Iowa, as in the rest of the country. If she's worried her polls are dropping, this is not the way to build them back up."

Perhaps the biggest downside to Clinton's negative attacks is that the press seems to be focusing on nothing else, at least for the moment. "What's tough about the stories from this weekend is that they're telegraphing — they're more about going negative than the substance of the attacks," Simmons said. "It underlines the case that Edwards and Obama have been making that she's practicing politics as usual." And for Clinton, that kind of an association could be the costliest negative of all.

Click to Print Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1690519,00.html