Has anyone else noticed that John McCain seems to be attacking Obama almost all the time, and Clinton almost not at all? Today, he's on Obama's case about Hamas, ex-radical Bill Ayers, and gasoline prices -- but nothing, really, about Clinton.
It could be tactical -- maybe he figures Hillary won't win. Maybe he wants her to win, because he thinks she'd be easier. Maybe he just wants to extend the Democratic fratricide by helping the underdog. But sometimes it seems personal -- like he likes Hillary more, or sees Hillary as a Washington insider with comparable stature, and Obama as an interloper. Whatever the reason, he sometimes seems to have become a better surrogate than Bill.
And, he's developing a complicated set of standards for his attacks. For two days this week, he has spoken out against the North Carolina Republican Party over an ad that features lots of video of Rev. Wright, and criticizes the two NC Democrats facing off in a gubernatorial primary for both supporting Obama, who is associated with Wright. Highly principled, that McCain -- who, unfortunately, seems helpless to stop an ad that seems primarily geared to help Hillary.
In contrast to his fastidiousness about the NC ad, today he's picking fights with Obama over the fact that a leader of Hamas said he thought Obama would be a president like JFK ("If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly") and over Ayers, the education professor and 1960s Weather radical who held a coffee for Obama twelve years ago, gave him $200 and served on a non-profit board with him ("Senator Obama’s long association with an unrepentant terrorist is an issue of judgment, and it will absolutely be an issue in this election.”).
Why is it OK for McCain to try to slime Obama with Ayers and Hamas, but not OK for the North Carolina Republican Party to slime him with Wright? The dividing line seems to be race. Using guilt by association to portray Obama as an unpatriotic commie leftist is OK, but using it to portray him as a black radical isn't because race might backfire.
And McCain, being a very principled guy, would never want to do that.
Update: In the course of today's back and forth, back and forth, the Obama campaign recalls this comment from top McCain aide Charles Black in March:
“What Senator McCain has said repeatedly is that these candidates cannot be held accountable for all the views of people who endorse them or people who befriend them.... But John McCain believes is that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton should be held accountable for their public policy views, the things we've described before, big government versus smaller government.”
Comments (2)
Hey, Spin Cycle - I hope you are still investigating Hillary's claims that she "knew nothing" about her husband working on pardons for Susan Rosenberg.
Did you ever hear back from Chuck Schumer or speak to Jerry Nadler ? He's the one who went to Bill Clinton in the first place and Jerry was working for Hillary's Senate campaign.
I have noticed that posters over at the New York Times caucus blogs have been talking about this and urging reporters to investigate. Ditto at TalkingPointsmemo.
Please keep at this issue. You're the only ones who are looking into this. I belieive this is a Bosnia-size whopper.
The dividing line is not race. The dividing line is Hagee. McCain has constantly avoided answering tough questions about him. And if he continues with Wright, it would be only fair to look more closely at Hagee. And of course Obama is already hurt by the Wright issue. By overdoing it now, the poplace would get desensitized to it. Instead he just wants it to linger in the back of their heads come this fall.