Look Who's "Divisive" Now: The Anti-Obama Attacks Similar to Republican Smearing of the Clintons

One of the things that perplexed me the most during the Democratic primaries was the portrayal of the Clintons as "divisive," a charge that made Hillary Clinton unfit for the presidency. Many of Obama's younger supporters, following his lead, said that Clinton represented "failed politics" of the past, that she would just bring "more of the same" and that all she knew how to do was fight. Obama, they said, offered a "fresh face" and practiced a new form of politics that would unify the country and the world. Recently, Obama himself said he would, in fact, change the world.

I absolutely agree that the Clintons incite rage among Republicans and that this probably means they are "divisive." But the notion that Obama could somehow escape Republican attacks and bring unity to the two parties seemed like a dubious claim. Some of my closest friends labeled me "too cynical" for making that argument, but in political analysis, I take the cynicism charge as a compliment rather than a slur. People who believed Obama would be immune from divisive partisan politics lacked an understanding of American politics or knowledge of American political history. I use the past tense because I cannot imagine rational people still holding the view that Obama can can seduce Republicans into nonpartisan bliss.

As the reality of a possible Obama victory sets in, conservatives are morphing into Paul Revere and warning all who will listen that the "Democrats are coming" to Washington with their leftist, socialist, and communist agenda (I devoted a previous blog entry to this issue). Furthermore, McCain, Palin, other GOP members, and conservative bloggers and commentators have turned up the heat and are making accusations about Obama that remind me of the almost psychotic conservative portrayals the Clintons during the 1990s. According to the lore, Barack Hussein Obama hangs with terrorists. Both Obamas are products of '60s radicalism. Obama is in bed with ACORN, which is a fraudulent, extremist and felonious entity. He has racist, American-hating friends and ministers. He is a socialist. He wants to take your money. He wants the government to run health care. He believes in infanticide. He tried to prevent troop reductions in Iraq. He is Muslim. He is not a U.S. citizen. He had an affair with a campaign staffer. He is a chronic smoker, who might have cancer. He hates the United States. He has engaged in campaign finance violations. He engaged in a shady land transaction with Rezko. Michelle hates the United States and is a black nationalist. Obama has ties to Kenya, Nigeria, and Indonesia (which presumably is wrong "just because"). Some of this stuff makes the whole flap over the flagpin look really tame.

Compare the growing list of charges against the Obamas with the Clinton-era smears, and you will find some interesting parallels. Here are some of the anti-Clinton zingers. Bill and/or Hillary murdered Vince Foster. Bill and/or Hillary murdered Ron Brown. Bill raped several women. Bill was a drug dealer. The Clintons were party to the shady Whitewater land transaction. Hillary Clinton wants socialized medicine. Hillary Clinton does not fit the image of a "First Lady" because she does not want to bake cookies. Hillary Rodam should be Hillary Clinton. Hillary Rodam Clinton will change her name to get her husband elected. Hillary Clinton committed a crime during "travelgate." Bill and Hillary are felons. Hillary Clinton does not deserve to be president because her husband cheated on her and she did not divorce him. Hillary Clinton is ambitious (I always want my presidents to aim low). The Clintons only lie. The Clintons represent all that is evil of the '60s.

Add to this of old dirt "the Clinton's are racist" and "Hillary wanted Obama assassinated" and you end up having the most despised political couple in American history. Well, a funny thing happened in Denver. "More of the Same" conceded to "Fresh Face." The Democratic Party offered political redemption to Bill and Hillary and possibly a bailout of Clinton's campaign debt (details forthcoming?). In exchange, the Clintons promised to campaign for Obama, deliver disgruntled Clinton supporters to party, and make unity speeches at the convention. Media now proudly report that the Clintons are campaigning for and with Biden and Obama and that they are headlining fundraisers for the ticket as well. Not too long ago, these same media compared Hillary with Tonya Harding and claimed that she she was a deranged pathological liar.

Many of Obama's supporters are voting and paying attention to politics for the very first time. This is a great advancement for the Democrats. But I wonder whether these young and excited O-voters are making the type of connections that this essay attempts to do. I wonder if they know that division is natural part of our two-party system? Have they come to grips with the reality that if Obama wins, the smearing will only get louder and the digging deeper? Do they now realize that political work is often messy -- even dirty -- and that meaningful, large scale change only comes through contestation and battle? If not, consider this a free introductory course.

Polls Show Tightening Race, From as Low as a Two-Point Spread

Several polls have shown the presidential race tightening since the last debate between the candidates. Gallup, Rasmussen, GWU, ARG, and even the Daily Kos poll shows McCain closing in on Obama's lead that emerged and expanded during the financial meltdown on Wall Street.

Gallup Poll. Gallup has three different poll results. The three polls track "registered voters," "likely voters" under traditional data," and "likely voters" using expanded data. The poll of traditional likely voters patterns the demographics of voters in recent elections. The expanded data likely voters poll tries to predict how Obama's candidacy might alter the landscape, with more persons of color and younger people voting. Obama would naturally have a stronger showing in this last category. Gallup shows: Registered voters, Obama 50, McCain 42; Likely Voters (Traditional), Obama 49, McCain 47; Likely Voters (Expanded) Obama 50, McCain 46. This is the first time I have seen Obama's lead in the expanded category differ much from the registered voter statistic.

Rasmussen: Rasmussen Reports keeps it simpler by just reporting one result: likely voters. That poll has Obama 50, McCain 46.

Daily Kos: Daily Kos, the liberal blog that created the Palin's daughter-baby mama drama, sponsors a poll conducted by Research 2000. In the Daily Kos poll, Obama leads McCain 50 to 43 among likely voters. Just one week ago, the same poll showed Obama leading by 12 points.

ARG: The ARG poll has Obama up by 5 over McCain, 50 to 45 among likely voters. The previous ARG poll had the race even closer (a 4-point spread), but it was considered a definite outlier at the time.

GWU: GWU's presidential poll has tightened substantially. Now, Obama leads McCain 49 to 45 among likely voters.

If you consider traditional likely voters (Gallup), the poll race is as close as two points. Even assuming the accuracy of the 5-point spread that appears consistently at many pollsters, a mere shift of 2.5 percent makes the national race a tie. Perhaps this caused Obama earlier this week to caution his supporters not to "get cocky."

Message from the Professor: If you enjoy the commentary on this site, please subscribe to Dissenting Justice. You have the option of receiving daily email digests of blog essays or to access blog material in your favorite feed reader (or both!).

"Don't Mess With Texas!": Dancing Coach Jailed for Teaching the Cha Cha

A Texas judge sentenced a dance instructor to a 30-day sentence for violating a court order that enjoined him from teaching dance classes within 25 miles of his former place of employment -- the Arthur Murray Dance Studios in Plano, Texas (a Dallas suburb). This case involved a very standard contract dispute. The former employer argued that the instructor, Eric Rush, violated the terms of a "non-compete" clause in his employment contract, by competing for the dance company's client-base. According to an article in the Dallas Morning News, the court held that Rush violated the agreement by "creating a Web site advertising his work, posting Craigslist notices offering his services and contacting Arthur Murray students." The court ruled for the employer and ordered Rush to "to discontinue any Web sites, quit soliciting Arthur Murray customers and refrain from working with area dance studios until the end of 2009." Rush apparently violated the injunction by teaching the "cha cha" to a client at another local dance company.



My take: Non-compete clauses are standard fair, but many courts and employee advocates believe they can go too far in restraining the liberty of workers. Several states will refuse to enforce the clauses if they are unreasonable as to scope or duration. I have not seen the particular contract, so it is impossible for me to analyze it thoroughly, but based on the news articles, it seemed reasonable enough -- at least on the apparent requirement that Rush not solicit clients of his former employer. That's the essence of non-competition.



But even if the contract itself were reasonable, the court's injunction and its contempt ruling might go too far. Restraining internet usage raises First Amendment issues and basic concerns with practicality. Even if the 25-mile restriction is a fair reading of the contract (or even an explicit term in the contract), preventing Rush from advertising on the web probably makes it nearly impossible for Rush to establish an independent client base, not to mention a client base that does not live within the geographic scope of the injunction.



The 30-day jail sentence for contempt seems a bit over-the-top as well. Many judges would have simply fined Rush. Perhaps the court could have required him to turn over the proceeds he earned while violating the injunction. The stakes just do not seem high enough to warrant such a harsh penalty. I am inclined to agree with Rush's lawyer who analogizes the sentence to "killing a fly with a bazooka." But as a former Texas resident, I remember seeing sentences that seemed excessive to me quite frequently -- thus proving the old saying: "Don't Mess With Texas" (which actually originated as a slogan for an anti-littering campaign, not a statement of raw Texas toughness).



[Hutchinson: Sorry, I am now guilty of using the slightly misleading headline technique, but I hope you enjoyed reading the essay.]

Wall Street Journal Has Acute Democrat-Phobia: Opinion Piece Warns of Possible "Liberal Supermajority"

The possibility of a Democratic sweep, including a filibuster-proof Senate, makes the Wall Street Journal's editorial board afraid -- very afraid. In a recent opinion piece, the newspaper examines changes that it believes a Democratic "supermajority" would implement. I have listed some of the policies below, mixing in my own snide editorial comments!



(1) Before getting detailed, the essay warns that a Democratic sweep "would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s."

Reaction: Which part of the 1960s should we fear? The enactment of the Voting

Rights Act, legislation banning race, sex, and national origin discrimination in

employment, or laws prohibiting racial discrimination in places of public

accommodation?

(2) Medicare for all. The article points out that sneaky Democrats responded to the political defeat of "Hillarycare" by breaking it down into component parts, like Schip (State Children's Health Insurance Program). A liberal supermajority would "lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave."

Reaction: "Government-run" health insurance? This is a mischaracterization of

Obama's health plan. Also, what chutzpah -- criticizing health care for indigent

kids!

(3) Green Revolution

Reaction: Personally, I do not fear having a healthy environment or stronger

efforts to make that a reality. What about you?

(4) "Free Speech and Voting Rights" (yes -- a quote!). Democrats would legislate "same-day" voter registration. "Acorn and the 'community organizer' left" support this. Also, DC residents would have representation in Congress. Plus felons would have the opportunity to vote.

Reaction: I am not sure pure conservatives would oppose enlarging "free speech

and voting rights." These rights strike at the heart of egalitarian democratic

participation. But the WSJ fears political participation by certain classes (felons, DC Democrats, who are largely black), not all. Also, several states -- red, blue, and purple -- now have same-day registration.

(5) "Special-interest potpourri" (my favorite heading in the essay). This section includes a laundry-list of feared policies, such as "intrusive regulation" of the Internet, the trial of "terrorists" in federal courts, watering down of "No Child Left Behind" standards, and the burdensome formation of new rights of action "sprinkled throughout legislation."

Reaction: Isn't No Child Left Behind watered-down by definition because it is

an unfunded mandate? Also, the lack of explicit "rights of actions" in some

federal legislation backfired on Republicans when the Supreme Court struck down

the injunction in the Ohio voter case. I really appreciate irony. Finally, the purpose of a criminal trial is to prosecute "suspected" terrorists (or other types of accused criminals). The assumption of guilt is probably the most loathsome and dangerous aspect of Bush's military tribunals. With all of the talk about "patriotism" we usually hear from conservatives, their willingness to abandon core American principles stated in the Bill of Rights sends a terribly mixed message. Conservative libertarians, however, value those rights. Ron Paul, for example, opposes the Patriot Act.

Supreme Court Sides With State in Ohio Voter Case -- But Is This Really a "Victory"?

The tight election contest in Ohio took another turn today, when the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a temporary restraining order that required the state to produce a list of new voter registrants whose registration materials contain personal information that conflicts with data maintained in other state databases. The now-vacated order compelled the state to produce the data today.



The litigation centers around the "Help America Vote Act," which provides, in part, that state voting officials match information in voter registration files with information in motor vehicle databases in order to ensure the accuracy of voter lists. The Court's ruling, however, does not decide whether or not Ohio has in fact violated the federal statute. Instead, the Court concluded that regardless of the legality of the state's policy, it was unlikely that the Republican Party could prevail on its argument that the statute authorizes lawsuits by private individuals to enforce its terms. Technically, this is a procedural ruling that simply removes the temporary restraining order. So, the case could resume in the lower court, and the parties could submit more legal arguments on the question of a private right of action, but none of the news articles on this matter indicates what the parties will choose to do.



"Victory" for Democrats Based on Conservative Case Law

Ironically, the Court's ruling relies upon highly criticized conservative case law in which the Court curbed access to the courts by civil rights plaintiffs. One of the cases involved a challenge to an Alabama law establishing an "English-Only" policy for driver's license testing. The Court held that even if the policy has a negative impact on Latinos, only the federal government could bring a suit challenging the law as national origin or racial discrimination due to its detrimental effect. The case -- Alexander v. Sandoval -- was authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, whom liberals despise. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the other opinion (Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe).



Consequently, I have mixed feelings about the ruling. On the one hand, Republicans can now taste the impact of their efforts to curb "excessive" litigation (translation: any civil rights litigation or personal injury suits). But I really do not want to validate those precedents, especially in the area of voting rights. Although the Democrats won this round, they do so by legitimating conservative Court doctrine.



Message from the Professor: If you enjoy the commentary on this site, please subscribe to Dissenting Justice. You have the option of receiving daily email digests of blog essays or to access blog material in your favorite feed reader (or both!).

Poll: 55% of Voters Believe Media More Biased Than in Past Elections

Rasmussen Reports has released a survey which shows that 55% of voters believe that media coverage of the election is more biased this year than in the last presidential election. Here are some highlights.

* Although 55% of voters believe election coverage is more biased, this depends upon party affiliation. 79% of Republicans perceive greater bias, but only 36% of Democrats do. 54% of independent voters view the coverage as more biased.

* With respect to individual networks, the pollster presents data for MSNBC, CNN, and Fox. Here are those statistics:

MSNBC -- 51% biased towards Obama; 28% unbiased; 5% biased towards McCain

CNN -- 46% biased towards Obama; 33% unbiased; 6% biased towards
McCain

Fox -- 39% biased towards McCain; 42% unbiased; 8% biased towards
Obama.

My thoughts: First, the people who view Fox as favoring Obama and MSNBC as rooting for McCain need to turn in their voter registration cards! All kidding aside, I believe that, overall, media reporting of the election has indeed leaned in favor of Obama, but this depends upon the network, individual journalist or reporter, etc. Media bias, however, has gone against many Democrats in the past. Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Michael Dukakis, for example, were skewered by unthoughtful reporting. And Hillary Clinton was brutalized during the Democratic primaries. So Republicans need to let go of the leftwing conspiracy language.

In addition to unfairly portraying Democrats in the past, the media have also helped Republicans -- including President Bush! Remember that the media were literally "in the tank" during and leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post, two constant sources of Republican ire, later admitted that they refused to publish some antiwar material, relegated articles critical of the war to less popular sections (i.e., something other than the front page), or published pro-war stories without seriously scrutinizing their factual claims. If the media can exhibit bias covering a matter so extraordinarily important as this country's decision to invade and slaughter people in another country, then it is not irrational to believe that they can also show bias in a presidential election. Accordingly, when Democrats and members of the media deny the existence of pro-Obama bias in this stage of the election and during the Democratic primaries, they come across as disingenuous.

Perhaps the media are trying to compensate for their shamefully uncritical treatment of Bush leading up to the war, by bashing the war, Bush, McCain and any other Republican. Guilt is a powerful instrument. I cannot accept the narrative that, collectively, the media are suddenly leftist. Regardless of the cause, my fellow Democrats had better enjoy our positive stature in the media while it lasts. History has shown that media bias does not remain on one side of the coin.

Message from the Professor: If you enjoy the commentary on this site, please subscribe to Dissenting Justice. You have the option of receiving daily email digests of blog essays or to access blog material in your favorite feed reader (or both!).

As Details of His Personal Life "Leak" Out, Plumber Joe Gets a Lesson in National Media Scrutiny

Plumber Joe has discovered what national media scrutiny means. Just hours after both candidates catapulted him to 5-minutes of fame status during the final debate, the media have uncovered details of his personal life and placed them into public discourse. So what have we learned about Joe? Well, first, it turns out that Joe is not even "Joe." His name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. I assume, however, that the "J" is short for some version of "Joe." Also, we now know that he owes $1,200 in back local taxes -- which perhaps explains some of his sensitivity on the issue of tax increases. Finally (the clincher) Wurzelbacher does not have a plumbing license. Joe the Plumber is not even a plumber. Will he now face a fine for practicing the plumbing trade without a license? We shall see.

Stay tuned for more developments in this unfolding story. Knowing more about Joe will certainly help you make the right choice on November 4, just as having information about Obama Girl informed so many voters' decisions during the Democratic primaries. I am happy to see that the media continue to probe the most compelling issues of our time.

Source: FoxNews.Com