From
Hotline:
February 22, 2007
Anybody else still scratching their head over the Clinton decision to go after Obama over the loss of Hollywood donor David Geffen? Forget what some reporters are reading in to the motivation behind Howard Wolfson's decision (that is baiting Obama over his "above it all" rhetoric). The bottom line: the media has the two leading Democrats fighting over who has more support in Hollywood. Could Karl Rove or any other major Republican strategist ask for a better outcome? But back to the Clinton decision for a minute. A few observations:
-- The Clintons seem hypersensitive about her past.
-- The reaction to the comment was way out of proportion to the comment itself.
-- Is it that hard to find a major Clinton donor who hasn't bashed Obama off the record?
-- This isn't how you avoid being Swiftboated. You can't respond to supposed "Swift Boat" attacks that you have no way of disproving factually.
-- Hollywood liberal and Mo Dowd. That's exactly the frame Clinton needs to be identified with?
-- Vilsack and Richardson must really believe that only Clinton will consider them for the VP slot since both took the opportunity to help her and use Clinton talking points to hit Obama.
As for whether Obama should have responded or not. It's debatable. Yesterday probably wasn't a good day for Clinton and after Obama responded and it became Clinton v. Obama, it turned into a bad day for the Democrats who some had thought were making progress at moving beyond the "Hollywood" stereotype.