More Clinton Race Baiting

It is getting increasingly difficult to adequately express my disgust with the tactics of Hillary Clinton's campaign. I know that I am not alone in this and I must applaud the Obama campaign for not going after Hillary's biggest Achille's heel: Bill's sexcapades which I suspect have continued since he left the White House. Of course, the questionable post White House deals that have made the Clintons wealthy ($34,900,000 as of 2006) might also be appropriate fodder. Here's some of what John Aravois at America Blog has to say (http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/clinton-surrogate-says-obama-is-really.html):

This is the sixth time, at least, I believe, that the Clinton's and their surrogates have launched racist attacks on Obama. It's not just abominable on its face, it's absolutely astounding that the Clinton campaign is now using Republican hate-emails to create their talking points about Obama. The Clinton campaign simply doesn't care if they permanently damage Obama for the general election by feeding the GOP Swift Boat attacks on the man who is very likely going to be our nominee.

Race-baiting simply isn't the same thing as saying your opponent is divisive and lacks credibility. What would be the same thing is were Obama and company publicly talking about Bill Clinton's sex life past and present. That would be inappropriate, disgusting, and damaging to Hillary and her run for the presidency were she to get the nomination - it would be the same thing as talking about Obama's race and ethnic origins. And in spite of how negative both sides have gotten, you don't see Obama's people, or even their surrogates, touching Bill Clinton's sex life, even though, frankly, it would be one hell of a bombshell to drop on Hillary. There IS a difference in how negative each campaign has gotten.Moving away from racism for a moment, my problem with Hillary's attack below is that 3 months ago she swore off such attacks, and now she's using them the same week that she's complaining about Obama going negative. Both sides have gone negative, but there's a difference between negative and vicious.

For a look at the Clintons' astonishingly soaring financial net worth (from $2,076,000 in 2003 to $34,900,000 in 2006), some interesting stuff can be found here: http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html