Image Source: blogs.zdnet.com
"How you get elected defines who you will be once in power. Mrs. Clinton has shown us with this one simple, baseless accusation why it will be hard for her candidacy to represent a change. She appears too comfortable with the politics of personal destruction if she can gain a political advantage."
(Above quote is from
Hillary's Smear Campaign, by Michael Zeldin, in WSJ.com.
On the 'politically informed' continuum, I am probably a 4 or 5 out of 10. But I have been paying some attention during this election cycle. And one of the themes I have picked up on is that Clinton's tactics seem much more manipulative and cynical than Obama's, and that immediately repels me from her.
Despite the fact that Clinton and Obama have fairly similar positions on issues I personally prioritize (check out
glassbooth.org to explore candidates' positions by topic), I find Clinton's inclination to spin facts disingenuously for the immediate sound bite value so distasteful that I couldn't possibly support her. The 'by any means necessary', lowest common denominator tactics are really disappointing.
The first example of this that resonated with me was
her exaggeration and mis-characterization of Obama's Illinois voting record. Suggesting that ~3% of his voting record defines his body of work is silly on the face of it, but trying to misrepresent the motives behind those 129 votes is just sleazy.
Other links about this story:
* The Ever Present Obama WSJ.com
* It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo NYTimes.com
Honestly, that was enough for me. But then she went for a similarly sensational smear rather than making a substantive point with the Tony Rezko thing. WSJ.com has a nice piece illustrating just how appalling this particular volley was in Michael Zeldin's
Hillary's Smear Campaign. Zeldin draws a nice comparison between how Clinton handled accusations about her involvement in Whitewater and how she's essentially utilizing the same kind of cheap jab against Obama now with her Rezko one-liner.
From Zeldin's piece:
"As a junior associate, Mr. Obama was asked by his supervising attorney, William Miceli, to do about five hours of basic due diligence and document review. That began and ended his involvement in the case."
