’)Sen. Clinton decided she would follow in the footsteps of the right-wing attack on Sen. Obama and came out in the last couple of days talking about how she shot guns (“varmint” hunting with Mitt Romney, perhaps?) and went to church. So, then somebody asked her about the details.
After a weekend spent making direct appeals to gun owners and church goers, Hillary Clinton said Sunday a query about the last time she fired a gun or attended church services “is not a relevant question in this debate” over Barack Obama’s recent comments on small town Americans.
“We can answer that some other time,” Clinton said at a press conference held in a working class neighborhood here. “This is about what people feel is being said about them. I went to church on Easter. I mean, so?”
This is exactly what happens when you flail without thinking. You make an attack that exposes your soft underbelly and you end up catching flak as well. In a strange way the Clintons are once again showing the folly of that ’60s mantra: If it feels good… do it. No matter the consequence. That strategy has been the hallmark of Sen. Clinton’s failed quest for the nomination and it would be the epitaph written on a failed general election campaign.
Thankfully the voters had a say in this and we aren’t subject to the whims of the mainstream media and Penn/Wolfson/Etc.
I fail to see what’s so bad here be a little less biased towards Obama please.
Um, speaking of right-wing talking points…ahem!
I’ve never been any sort of fan of the ’60s ethos. That’s not a right-wing position to have. You’ve read me for a long time and know that I am not down with a lot of what the ’60s aimed for or turned out to be.
I still fail to see blowback, but atleast you do I guess. If you’re going to be talking about what you just said please put an article that can prove your point. All that told me was “so what has Clinton done in terms of guns/religion lately?” and she chose to decline to answer those. Nothing in it about being tagged or anything at all.
Really what she said is right. The fact that she either is an atheist or a hardcore religious nut, rather she fights for gun rights or not it doesn’t matter. It isn’t about her, it’s about what Obama said.
Her words aren’t about her? She goes on this harangue about shooting, etc. then when asked, ok you say you’re so hot on this issue – when did you last do these things? And she tries to punt.
Yeah, but tagging the Clintons as 60s-era hippies has been a right-wing staple for a long, long time. Gingrich used that one.
So it’s all fine, as long as you don’t mind sounding like Gingrich.
[...] Here are some really good “see alsos”: Kevin Hayden at American Street; Ron Beasley at Middle Earth Journal; RJ Eskow at Huffington Post; Oliver Willis. [...]
“I still fail to see blowback…”
Yeah, neither does/did Clinton. Attacking Obama as an “out of touch, elitist” is not only the kind of groundless bullshit that conservatives like to manipulate the media with, it’s also the worst thing that Clinton could have done for her own campaign, should she become the nominee. As I said in another thread, Clinton and her supporters have now validated the reactionary premise of this classic conservative canard — “liberals are elitists!!!!” — and will have no grounds on which to rebuff it should it, once again, be leveled at Clinton during a general election campaign. It’s easy to see Oliver’s point.
Since Clinton has slammed Obama for being out of touch with religious and gun-owning small town residents, she’s opened herself up to questions from conservatives about her own religious, gun culture bona fides. In fact, she’s been so righteous in her attacks on Obama over this issue, conservatives will demand nothing less than verifiable proof that Clinton can assemble a rifle blinded-folded while reciting the lord’s prayer in a church pew. If Clinton, by some miracle, wins the nomination, conservatives will mercilessly hoist her on her own petard. That’s blowback, my friend. And Clinton will have no one to blame but her self.
And Clinton will have no one to blame but her self.
So? That hasn’t stopped her from never placing blame on her self in the past.
Yes, well, I think the record would indicate that, per Oliver’s recent “controversial” kamikaze metaphor, Clinton could give a fuck at this point if she tanks her own campaign trying to tear down Obama.