Clintons' fear-mongering, and negative campaigns

Never before in the history of US elections, have so many people in America and the rest of the world, shown so much interest in the candidates fighting for the nominations for their respective parties (Dem and Rep). The question is why? The answer is simple really: the main attraction is Sen. Barack Obama.

Before the beginning of the primaries and caucuses, Sen. Obama was the little known black candidate, the underdog and as such, was not thought of likely to cause the Clintons a sleepless night. As far as the Clintons are concerned, the nomination exercise was going to be a stroll in the park so that Bill Clinton can come back to the White House where ..., yes, guess what!

So it wasn't long before the Clintons realized that they had a fight in their hands. Sen. Obama proved to be more than a handful for the Clintons; he is a naturally gifted speaker, has personal touch with the voters, is young and charismatic. Hillary Clinton, having planned her campaign on the connections of her husband, including Monica Lewinsky, is realizing that a new formula is required to disable Obama.

Unfortunately, the Clintons don't have any charismatic ingredients to inject in their elections campaign formula. One of Bill Clinton's legacies, was his notorious lie about his affair with Monica Lewinsky: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

So it is with no shame, that the Clintons tried everything they could think of to belittle Obama. After claiming the victory in New Hampshire, Hillary made a speech in which she said that Dr. King was an excellent orator but it took a white president to achieve the changes that the civil rights leader preached. By doing so, the Clintons have alienated a lot of African Americans who quickly understood that Bill Clinton was never a black president as most of them used to think.

Not only Bill Clinton was no black president, he was no president for the American people either. He was a president for selected few and does not care about what happens to ordinary American people. If the Clintons care about the ordinary American people, why are they reluctant to declare their tax returns?

The comment referring to Dr. King civil right struggles, was just the beginning of things to come. Then Hillary Clinton came with the case of plagiarism against Obama while she herself has not resisted using other people words, phrases when it suits her. If that was not enough, she published a photo showing Obama in a traditional African dress with a turban. She denied having anything to do with the photo and her ignorant new campaign manager, who obviously forgot her root, defended her boss using some ludicrous arguments.

Obama in a traditional African dress sent the fear message to a lot of American people who saw him as a Muslim, which was the message the Clintons were trying to send. Of course people who were already asking questions about Obama's religious orientation because of his middle name, have now found the missing link, even though the dress has no religious meaning.

Then came the red phone ad. Hillary thought people forgot about her support for the Iraq war. And it is true. People did forget because they voted in Ohio and Texas for someone who voted for thousands of young Americans to be sent to Iraq so that they can be brought back in body bags.

The human cost is not the only problem of the war in Iraq, it is also the billions of American dollars that have been spent to keep the war going. That money could be better spent to make the life of ordinary Americans better. The war also dented the image of America in the rest of the world. If Hillary is to answer the red phone, she is likely to make the same wrong judgment again and this must no be allowed to happen.

A fear-mongering campaign can only alienate people further, in America like in the rest of the world. The Clintons must be reminded that the rest of the world is watching what is going on in America because America has a lot of influence on the rest of the world. If Hillary becomes the nominee of her party, regardless of whether she eventually becomes the next American president or not, it will not go down very well in the rest of the world if her victory was based on smears, fear-mongering and negative campaign.

The lies, the smears, the fear-mongering ads, the innuendos, you name it, have become the pattern of the political campaign of Hillary Clinton. The questions are:

(1) Should the American people be buying in this kind of politics?
(2) Should someone who uses negative campaigning be allowed to win her party's nomination going to the elections in November? What kind of president will she be, a president that divides?
(3) How can Hillary Clinton unite her party with a negative campaigning, should she eventually become her party's nominee?
(4) How will Hillary Clinton's credibility be dented by the countless lies and inconsistencies?
(5) How much damage is this negative campaign doing to the Dem party going into the elections in November?
(6) Should super-delegates arm-twisting tactics be used as the Clintons advocate or should maths be the deciding factor?