Efter att Hilary Clinton vunnit det demokratiska primärvalet i Pennsylvania väljer New York Times att på ledarsidan gå till frontalattack mot henne:
The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
Nu kritiserar visserligen NYT också Barack Obama, men i betydligt mildare ordalag än vad som gäller Clinton. Samtidigt trycker ledaren också på attd et är väldigt små skillnader mellan Hilary Clinton och Barack Obama i politiskt hänseende och menar att de borde ägna sig åt konstruktiva debatter istället för negativt och destruktivt kampanjande:
By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.
No matter what the high-priced political operatives (from both camps) may think, it is not a disadvantage that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share many of the same essential values and sensible policy prescriptions. It is their strength, and they are doing their best to make voters forget it.
Just likheterna mellan de demokratiska kandidaterna har jag tdigare nämnt i flera inlägg om det amerikanska valet och det är något som Socialist Worker också kommenterar när man frågar sig vilka Clinton och Obama egentligen representerar:
Then there’s Clinton–who, along with her husband, the former president, has also done quite well. Having made more than $109 million since leaving the White House in 2001, the Clintons certainly don’t travel in the same circles as the rural voters they claim to represent.
And like McCain claiming ”privacy” in refusing to release his wife’s tax returns, the Clintons use the same claim to shield the identities of the millionaires and billionaires who donated money to the Clinton presidential library, thinking that this would position them for easier access to what they expected to be the Clinton White House.
She promotes the nine months she spent as a lawyer for the Children’s Defense League, but this glosses over the fact that most of her 15-year legal career was spent as a corporate lawyer representing the likes of Wal-Mart, on whose board she served.
In comparison to McCain and Clinton, Obama seems a lot more ordinary. He uses his biography as the son ”of a single mom” who was ”on welfare” before being raised by his grandparents to illustrate his empathy with ordinary people whose life stories are similar.
What he doesn’t tell you, however, was that his grandmother was a bank vice president who paid for his schooling at an elite Honolulu prep school. Or that much of the time he spent as a ”civil rights attorney” at the Chicago law firm of Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland was spent putting together land deals for developers using public money.
Ingen av de US-amerikanska presidentkandidaterna kommer från arbetarklass eller kan på något sätt sägas representera arbetarklassen eller de fattiga i USA. I själva verket är de produkter av ett tvivelaktigt amerikanskt valsystem.
Bloggat: Jinge1, Jinge2, Progressiva USA, John Johansson,
Borgarmedia: PDK1, PDK2, SVD1, SVD2, SVD3, DB1, DB2, DN1, DN2,
Andra bloggar om: Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Primärval, Pennsylvania, Oabma, Clinton, New York Times, Socialist Worker, Klass, Demokrati, USA, Politik