CaptainCrunch wrote:

Yes, her reference to Obama as an elitist and her comments on
pulverizing Iraq are classic right wing tactics. Here is the complete
article.

Hillary's right turn

US elections 2008: Clinton's condoning the use of right-wing tactics and
talking points against her fellow Democrat is sickening
Michael Tomasky

May 2, 2008 7:00 PM | Printable version

Twice this week now, Hillary Clinton has stood there smiling like the
Cheshire Cat as the governor of North Carolina used the word "pansy" and
then as a union leader in the same state, who more famously referred to
her "testicular fortitude", went on to inveigh that Hillary was the only
thing that stood between the good and God-fearing people of North
Carolina and the "Gucci-wearing, latte-drinking, self-centred,
egotistical people that have damaged our lifestyle." Clinton, according
to the report linked to here, "smiled sheepishly before breaking into a
nervous laugh."

As campaign moments go, these may not be up there with the
Iraq-withdrawal debate or, Lord knows, truly important things like
Barack Obama's failure to wear a flag lapel pin. But they're worth
marking all the same.

These are explicitly right-wing tactics and talking points. Those of you
across the pond may be unfamiliar with a very famous soundbite from the
2004 presidential campaign, which featured in a commercial that ran
early that year in Iowa and was produced by the anti-tax group Club for
Growth.

In the ad, a husband and wife discuss Howard Dean's plan to repeal the
Bush tax cuts. The happy couple join forces to say the following:
''Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding,
latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading,
body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont,
where it belongs.''

It was garbage, but at least it stood to reason, under the logic of this
country's political climate, that a ferociously right-wing group (Club
for Growth is known for finding even many Republicans to be "soft" on
the tax question, backing right-wing anti-tax acolytes against a few
Republican congressional incumbents) would employ such rhetoric against
a liberal, Democratic candidate.

And now we are greeted by the spectacle of one Democratic campaign - no,
not directly using, but getting a nice little happy kick out of seeing
almost exactly the same rhetoric, right down to the choice of beverage,
used against a fellow Democrat.

For good measure, we get a bonus reference to pansies, who, if we take
the word to refer broadly (and derogatorily) to homosexuals, support
Clinton in far greater numbers than they support Obama, a fact that
somehow did not inspire the candidate to admonish her endorser in any way.

Cards on table: my regular readers know that I back Obama. I continue to
be amused by the commenters who think they're somehow outsmarting me by
"exposing" my Obama bias, even though I am paid to write opinion pieces
and I make no secret of it.

But what people may not know, because I haven't really gone into it, is
that up until about the Nevada caucus, I was perfectly happy with all
three leading Democratic candidates. I preferred Obama then, too, and I
never really had much use for Edwards, but my attitude was that
whichever of the three proved the most formidable would ultimately be
fine with me.

I'd always liked Hillary. Those who know my work going back a few years
know that I was based in New York when she first ran for the Senate, and
that I gave her largely positive coverage then and wrote a book about
her race that was certainly more sympathetic than not. (Here's the
Amazon page; I tried, so as to make life easier on my merry detractors,
to link to a mostly negative review from the New Republic, but their
archives are broken. You might be able to find it elsewhere; it's by
Michael Grunwald.)

But this latest episode frankly sickens me, and it really ought to
sicken you, too, no matter which Democrat you support. Republicans and
conservatives have for years used this kind of smear language against
Democrats. It has perverted our political discourse for 30 years. It is
not clever or tables-turning or ironic or anything of the sort for one
Democratic campaign to be involved in sending these kinds of smoke
signals about another. It is repulsive.

But it's been all too typical. Clinton had the opportunity to say,
during that ABC debate, something like: "You know, I don't think the
fact that Senator Obama served on a board will Bill Ayers some 25 years
after the Weather Underground ceased to exist is relevant. Right-wing
websites can traffic in that, and the mainstream media can if you want
to. We Democrats don't do that sort of thing." But she piled on, even
disingenuously implying that Ayers made comments "about" September 11
just because some remarks he'd made about his past happened to appear in
the New York Times on September 11, 2001.

So, let Clinton revel in her incarnation as the sworn enemy of latte
drinkers and Gucci wearers. If she somehow wins the nomination, it won't
last long. I expect the American people will be reminded of various
episodes from her past that I won't catalogue here because to do so
would be to engage in the very kind of mud-slinging I'm rebuking.

And when they come up, those Gucci wearers and latte sippers will start
looking better and better to Clinton and her backers. But don't come
crying to me.