Post by bingbong on Apr 17, 2008 0:57:41 GMT 12
Guns and Bitter
*
Published: April 16, 2008
We thought the Republican presidential primaries were over. So we are at a loss to explain why Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been wandering around Pennsylvania and Indiana and anywhere else they might find a vote or a dollar arguing about which one cares more about guns and religion.
Skip to next paragraph
The Board Blog
The BoardAdditional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board »
Readers' Comments
Whose brilliant idea was it to leave six weeks open before the Pennsylvania primary?
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton do raise important issues in their speeches. But the campaign, as seen on TV — the one that counts — has been consumed with the senators trading insults over Mr. Obama’s boneheaded remarks about working-class voters. They are not doing themselves or the country any good. A few more days of these Punch and Judy shows and even we will be tempted to tune out.
As has usually been the case in these spats, Mrs. Clinton is more the aggressor. After days of digging at Mr. Obama for saying that working-class voters turn xenophobic or “cling to guns and religion” because they’re bitter over lost jobs, Mrs. Clinton couldn’t resist a new nasty attack ad. What she has yet to figure out is that she ends up hurting herself — feeding her negative image — by attacking too long and with too much relish.
Mr. Obama is not a hapless victim. His comments made for just the sort of rookie error that the Illinois senator is prone to make, and they have reinforced a feeling that he can be too aloof, or, yes, elitist. His attempts to explain himself have fallen flat, as have his insulting Annie Oakley jokes and demands to see pictures of Mrs. Clinton in a duck blind. Sexist jabs are as offensive as racist jabs.
The fact is, on guns and religion, as on many other issues, there is no distance between the Democratic contenders. They each have their own religious faith, and they’re both, sensibly, in favor of registering guns and controlling weapons designed purely to kill people.
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have been hard at it pandering to voters’ antitrade sentiments in rust-belt states like Pennsylvania, but it’s not clear why they’d want to spar over guns and religion — not big issues for Democratic primary voters. For Mr. Obama, talk of religion is particularly perilous, reminding voters of the racist oratory of his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. If the candidates want to debate these issues, they should do so on the substance.
Indeed, there are many big problems to discuss and not enough discussion of them. Both candidates, for example, were too passive during last week’s Senate testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, the military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador in Baghdad.
It was shockingly clear that President Bush has no plan to end his disastrous war in Iraq except to hand the problem on to his successor. But neither senator made a mark questioning the general or the ambassador at the hearings. And they were silent afterward, while Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, talked of victory. The Democrats should have been explaining how they plan to bring American troops safely home and contain Iraq’s chaos. That will be the job on Day One for whoever wins in November.
The reason this campaign started out as the Democrats’ big chance to take back Washington is that Americans face huge challenges on which the Republicans have an abysmal record: Iraq and Afghanistan, the trashing of America’s global image, inequitable taxes, a flagging economy, epidemic home foreclosures, lost jobs, soaring health care costs and struggling schools.
These are the issues Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton should be addressing. We hope they get back to them, starting tonight at their debate in Pennsylvania.
*
Published: April 16, 2008
We thought the Republican presidential primaries were over. So we are at a loss to explain why Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been wandering around Pennsylvania and Indiana and anywhere else they might find a vote or a dollar arguing about which one cares more about guns and religion.
Skip to next paragraph
The Board Blog
The BoardAdditional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board »
Readers' Comments
Whose brilliant idea was it to leave six weeks open before the Pennsylvania primary?
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton do raise important issues in their speeches. But the campaign, as seen on TV — the one that counts — has been consumed with the senators trading insults over Mr. Obama’s boneheaded remarks about working-class voters. They are not doing themselves or the country any good. A few more days of these Punch and Judy shows and even we will be tempted to tune out.
As has usually been the case in these spats, Mrs. Clinton is more the aggressor. After days of digging at Mr. Obama for saying that working-class voters turn xenophobic or “cling to guns and religion” because they’re bitter over lost jobs, Mrs. Clinton couldn’t resist a new nasty attack ad. What she has yet to figure out is that she ends up hurting herself — feeding her negative image — by attacking too long and with too much relish.
Mr. Obama is not a hapless victim. His comments made for just the sort of rookie error that the Illinois senator is prone to make, and they have reinforced a feeling that he can be too aloof, or, yes, elitist. His attempts to explain himself have fallen flat, as have his insulting Annie Oakley jokes and demands to see pictures of Mrs. Clinton in a duck blind. Sexist jabs are as offensive as racist jabs.
The fact is, on guns and religion, as on many other issues, there is no distance between the Democratic contenders. They each have their own religious faith, and they’re both, sensibly, in favor of registering guns and controlling weapons designed purely to kill people.
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have been hard at it pandering to voters’ antitrade sentiments in rust-belt states like Pennsylvania, but it’s not clear why they’d want to spar over guns and religion — not big issues for Democratic primary voters. For Mr. Obama, talk of religion is particularly perilous, reminding voters of the racist oratory of his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. If the candidates want to debate these issues, they should do so on the substance.
Indeed, there are many big problems to discuss and not enough discussion of them. Both candidates, for example, were too passive during last week’s Senate testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, the military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador in Baghdad.
It was shockingly clear that President Bush has no plan to end his disastrous war in Iraq except to hand the problem on to his successor. But neither senator made a mark questioning the general or the ambassador at the hearings. And they were silent afterward, while Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, talked of victory. The Democrats should have been explaining how they plan to bring American troops safely home and contain Iraq’s chaos. That will be the job on Day One for whoever wins in November.
The reason this campaign started out as the Democrats’ big chance to take back Washington is that Americans face huge challenges on which the Republicans have an abysmal record: Iraq and Afghanistan, the trashing of America’s global image, inequitable taxes, a flagging economy, epidemic home foreclosures, lost jobs, soaring health care costs and struggling schools.
These are the issues Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton should be addressing. We hope they get back to them, starting tonight at their debate in Pennsylvania.