Obama comes out fighting for fair media scrutiny
If there was any doubt what the reaction of the Obama campaign would be to yesterday’s defeats in Texas and Ohio, today’s comments by Barack indicate that it will be a tougher line against his Democratic Party opponent. Seemingly signaling that his losses were in no small part due to the media over-reacting to Clinton’s claim that she was being unfairly treated by the press pack, Obama hit back today:
“She made the experience argument that she has been making repeatedly, particularly around foreign policy and her ability to handle a crisis. I think it’s important to examine that claim and not just allow her to assert it, which I think has been going on for quite some time,” Obama said.
Instead of using his usual message that he is better equipped to lead on foreign policy because he showed better judgment than Clinton by opposing the Iraq war early on, Barack bluntly derided Clinton’s assertion that her eight years as first lady counted as foreign policy experience:
“I hope people start asking, what exactly is this foreign experience that she’s claiming? I know she talks about visiting 80 countries, it’s not clear, was she negotiating treaties or agreements, or was she handling crises during this period of time?” Obama asked.
He fired back about suggestions by the Clinton campaign that they should examine Obama’s ties to a Chicago property developer, Tony Rezko, who is currently facing federal corruption charges. Obama suggested Clinton’s record on ethics should be fair game, too he said:
“She’s made the argument that she’s thoroughly vetted in contrast to me,” Obama said. “I think it’s important to examine that argument because, if the suggestion is somehow that on issues of ethics or disclosure or transparency, that somehow she’s going to have a better record than I have, and will be better able to withstand Republican attacks, I think that’s an issue that should be tested.”
Obama also attacked claims that Clinton’s wins in big states like California and Ohio were more significant than his sweep of 11 smaller states in a row:
“This notion that somehow the, all the states I win, are somehow are not bellwether states, but the states that Senator Clinton wins, those are the important ones, is a strange way of keeping score and I don’t think it makes much sense.”
Whilst all this is valid criticism of the media’s recent conversion to all things Clinton, there is a tremendous danger of damaging his credentials as the candidate who unites by such negative attacks. If it’s a short lived tactic to once again realign the media’s critical eye on his opponent, all well and good. If however it’s a sign of things to come, the only winner can surely be Clinton.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I don’t get this thing about ‘defeat in Texas’. If you look at the numbers, Obama is probably going to get more Texan pledged delegates than Clinton, and that’s what it’s about; he lost the popular vote but he may have won Texas nonetheless.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:59 am
The defeat was a reference to the known - the popular vote. Whilst it’s possible that the Texas caucuses indeed favour Obama, the results from the caucuses won’t be available until 29 March, when the delegates are certified.
It is certainly true that the Clinton victories have done little to improve her prospects in terms of delegate counts, and the situation for her actually got worse than before so-called Super Tuesday 2. To now beat Obama’s pledge delegate lead in the final 12 contests she will need to win them all by an an average of 23%, more than double what she received in Ohio. That isn’t going to happen, which is why Texas and Ohio were more of a disappointment than a disaster for Obama.