My ears are still ringing from the Democrat debate in S.C. Hillary attacking Obama because he made what appeared to be a simple statement praising President Reagan's ability to get democrats & republicans together for the good of the country. Which President Reagan did--by the way. Then Bill Clinton making a statement "stating that Obama had said that he thought President Reagan was a better President than he was." Well, that's a no brainer. President Reagan was a much better President than Bill Clinton.

Then Obama attacking Hillary because she was some type of co-chair to Walmart.


So here's the irony of both campaigns.

1. Hillary & Bill are attacking one of the most popular Presidents in U.S history.--Ronald Reagan who was loved by both democrats & republicans, & was elected handily by a massive overwhelming majority for both of his terms.

2. Then we have Obama attacking Walmart, in which a majority of Americans, (democrats & republicans) frequently shop at.

My question is:

Are their campaigns imploding in front of our eyes? Or are they simply seeking the minority approval of the left wing of their party, by attacking what the left wing of the democrat party hates?

Opinions

I think both are playing to the far left wing faction because neither has a reasonable agenda of their own.

Obama's comment would play very well in September to the general election voters, but it's poison durning primary season. Yes he has to hang left, just as republicans have to hang right. It's the move back to the middle for the general election that gets tricky. He was commenting in a sort of philosophical way about Reagan's influence and the Republican party as the party of ideas, not saying he loved their ideas or reagan's actions. he deserved better than he got for it.
As for the Wal mart shot, it was populism, which is real popular right now. A lot of people think Wal Mart's importing from China cost US jobs and destroyed US companys. It's true. I refuse to shop at Wal Mart. It's purchasing strategies and employee practices are reprehensible. Still, it was astretch to try to make Hillary out to be a stooge of Wal Mart.
Both got a little nutty trying to score points. Istarted out for Hillary, but am sliding to Obama now.

Obama wasn't attacking Walmart, he said, " I was in the streets while you were a corporate lawyer at Walmart." That has nothing to do with Walmart, it was about how he has been in the streets working for the people while she was on the "50th" floor.

Also, you're comment about there not being any doubt that Reagan was better is extremely debatable. As far as I'm concerned, Reagan is the most overrated President ever. Can you say Triple down economics made the bottom 5% the poorest they'd been since the Depression? You, though, are probably wealthy so of course you loved Reagan, he hooked you up

Bickering sure beats discussing the real issues confronting America. And it insures more than a quick sound-bite on the news.
Z

How about Obama's 'Truth Taskforce' that one can turn around and bite him in the rear!

You're kind of right and it sux because I really like Obama but I think he's starting to(and maybe has to) play the game. He seemed to be above this whole "attack your opponent" mess, but he seems to have lost his way. Very upsetting

This touches on the larger strategy of the Clintons. It is not so much to focus on black/white or male/female. Those are really side benefits. It is to force Obama to react in such a way as to become "just another politician". To take away his unique luster and transcendent appeal. If he is "just another politician", then voters have to ask themselves who is the most EFFECTIVE politician, and Hilary's stock soars. Everyone pretty much expects the Clintons to do what they do, at least the media does. The lose almost nothing. Obama, by the taint of their accusations and his percieved need to reply directly and in kind, loses everything that matters about him to the electorate, his once-in-a-generation, above all the pettiness, new kind of leader appeal.
The Clintons resort to the oldest of political tactics, say something loud enough and long enough and some people will begin to believe their has to be something there. In doing so, it becomes not about what they say specifically about Obama, but what they will get to say Obama is, just another one of the same old gang.
Whether or not that is true about Obama is yet to be seen, and whether or not he can successfully find a new way to play the old game is also yet to be seen. I hope he can.

This is how the Clintons have always operated. What astonishes me is that they have always been allowed to get away with this type of behavior. This has been going on for many years. I am even more shocked that they have supporters.

Oh come on, the Clinton years were great. The assault on Waco, the OKC bombing which killed no ATF agents, who wouldn't want more? Now we're all focused on killing people overseas, but with Clinton, we got our carnage at home. (Not that Dubya doesn't do his best)