As Obama continues to surge nationally the Clintons appear to have gone back into negative campaign mode, cynically re-hatching previous suggestions that the Obama campaign is some sort of "fairy tale" and charging that Obama's "words are cheap." Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton still refuses to disclose her income tax returns - even though Obama long ago disclosed his, and despite numerous calls for her to do likewise - insisting that she will do so only if and when she receives the Democratic nomination for president.
As the Feb. 19 caucus in Hawaii and primaries in Washington and Wisconsin approach, the good news keeps coming for Obama: This week Obama won the endorsements of two of America's largest labor unions, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The considerable likely impact of these endorsements is discussed at length in the Investor's Business Daily. Obama also picked up two important newspaper endorsements in upcoming primary states: one from the Houston Chronicle, largest in Texas; and one from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin's largest. News comes meanwhile of movement toward Obama among superdelegates, including some previously pledged to Clinton now switching to Obama; and this week even Bill Clinton's former campaign manager, David Wilhelm, endorsed Obama (Ouch!).
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have reacted to Obama's good fortune in typical fashion: by going negative. Both Clintons attempted this week to resurrect the old Clinton storyline that Obama is all style and no substance, despite the obvious fact that fewer and fewer people are believing it anymore. This week Hillary said that Obama's "words are cheap," a charge not likely to win favor among those turned on and still turning on to Obama's words for the way in which those words echo their own deepest aspirations; and likely indeed to be read in the context of earlier Clinton charges that Obama is spreading "false hopes" and running a "fairy tale" campaign. Hillary Clinton appears to be trying to discredit Obama based on the very fact that he does have style while she does not, as though his very ability to inspire and excite an audience must mean that he is weak on substance (i.e., "the medicine's only good for you if it tastes bad"). To me this tiresome narrative suggests that it is Clinton, not Obama, who has run short of ideas. Bill Clinton, meanwhile, apparently miffed that Obama has not sufficiently praised his presidency, complained Friday that he wasn't getting the credit he deserves and suggested that the Obama campaign is attempting to put the Clintons out to pasture before their time. Earlier this week, Pennsylvania governor and Clinton surrogate Ed Rendell once again injected race into the campaign, saying that white voters in his state "are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate."
Hillary Clinton continues also to ignore demands to disclose her and Bill's joint income tax returns, promising to do so if and when she receives the Democratic nomination. On Friday the New York Times demanded, "Show Us the Money," arguing that "release of the tax returns should not be made conditional on winning the nomination," and observing that while Obama long ago disclosed his tax returns both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have thus far refused. "The reluctance of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain to reveal more about their finances ill-serves voters and the nominating process of both parties...," the Times further argues, "...It also sets a terrible precedent for future campaigns for important posts at the national and state level" (see also Huffington Post). Since 1984, as ABC News observed last year, only one previous major presidential candidate has likewise refused to disclose personal tax information to the public: Bill Clinton in 1992.
As long as the Clintons refuse to disclose the truth about their personal finances, we can only assume that there is something in them they don't want us to see. At the very least it would likely reveal that the Clintons are far more filthy rich than any of us might have guessed, a little detail that makes it somewhat more difficult for Hillary to campaign as a working-class hero. Meanwhile, the negative tactics upon which the Clintons seem increasingly dependent for lack of anything positive to offer appear as unlikely to help them as ever.
Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com
