I really don't know what point I am supposed to take from this essay.
The Republican Smear Machine operates without conscience. It will unload all of its venom on the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. I know this. You know this. And Barack Obama knows this.
It seems that Mr. Conason is attempting a "warning" not unlike those issued by Clinton surrogates regarding Sen. Obama's admitted teenaged drug use ("The Republicans will call him a druggie!") or the fact that he is African-American (The Republicans will call him a black guy!"). The message: don't nominate Obama, or the Republicans will say ugly things about him and he might lose.
But this argument takes at face value Sen. Clinton's assertion that she is immune to such right-wing attacks due to her having endured them for most of the last twenty years. "I'm vetted," she says. For the sake of argument, let's say that's true.
Does anybody think that if the Republicans can't think of any fact-based smears to unleash on Hillary, that they won't simply start making stuff up? The swiftboat attacks against John Kerry were lies. So were the accusations that Bill Clinton was the kingpin of a cocaine ring in Arkansas. So were the accusations that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster. Does Mr. Conason believe the VWRC will operate with any greater restraint against Sen. Clinton this year than they have in years past? Can he be that naive?
If you think Hillary Clinton will be the better president, vote for her. If you think Barack Obama will be the better president, vote for him. It is pointless trying to divine which of the two the Republicans will attack with the greater degree of savagery. The answer is: whichever one gets the nomination.
I really don't know what point I am supposed to take from this essay.
The Republican Smear Machine operates without conscience. It will unload all of its venom on the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. I know this. You know this. And Barack Obama knows this.
It seems that Mr. Conason is attempting a "warning" not unlike those issued by Clinton surrogates regarding Sen. Obama's admitted teenaged drug use ("The Republicans will call him a druggie!") or the fact that he is African-American (The Republicans will call him a black guy!"). The message: don't nominate Obama, or the Republicans will say ugly things about him and he might lose.
But this argument takes at face value Sen. Clinton's assertion that she is immune to such right-wing attacks due to her having endured them for most of the last twenty years. "I'm vetted," she says. For the sake of argument, let's say that's true.
Does anybody think that if the Republicans can't think of any fact-based smears to unleash on Hillary, that they won't simply start making stuff up? The swiftboat attacks against John Kerry were lies. So were the accusations that Bill Clinton was the kingpin of a cocaine ring in Arkansas. So were the accusations that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster. Does Mr. Conason believe the VWRC will operate with any greater restraint against Sen. Clinton this year than they have in years past? Can he be that naive?
If you think Hillary Clinton will be the better president, vote for her. If you think Barack Obama will be the better president, vote for him. It is pointless trying to divine which of the two the Republicans will attack with the greater degree of savagery. The answer is: whichever one gets the nomination.