Barack Obama Needs a Friend Like George Costanza

Posted by ikabod Crane on 01.25.2008

George Costanza “Mr. Thomassoulo likes to play dirty. Well, there’s nothing dirtier than a giant ball of oil.” Why Obama needs a Costanza

Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have attacked Barack Obama in overt ways that are clever and used surrogates to covertly raise the race card. A good example of the clever Bill Clinton can be seen in his conduct prior to the Nevada caucuses. Bill Clinton decried voter intimidation prior to the Nevada Caucuses when the post election reality states that if wide spread voter suppression was going on it was friends of Hillary doing the suppressing. Following the rule of possession is 9/10 of the law, Hillary has already won the popular vote (she lost the delegate count in Nevada) and gobbled up the positive media. Complaints after the fact can look like being a sore loser. Bill attacked Obama and Co. for doing what Hillary's team was doing: suppressing votes. If the Clintons get called on it, Bill's preemptive complaining can provide the explanation that "we had to suppress votes because they were." Dirty? Yes. Deplorable? Yes. Smart? Sadly, yes. Throw in push polling by third party groups that back Hillary that subtly play on prejudices by constantly repeating Obama's middle name of Hussein, and what we have is a dirty nasty campaign.

Obama does not like to Fight Dirty so He Needs a Costanza

Barack Obama has tried to run on the theme of moving past divisive politics, working with all parties involved and pursuing a positive future for the U.S. It is a great message that will work until someone starts slinging mud. Bill and Hillary have been slinging ever since Iowa ended, but Hillary has for the most part slung mud through surrogates. Obama has shown more fire in calling out false attacks and being aggressive in the South Carolina debate.

That is a good start, but it may not be enough. The Clintons want to play dirty, to quote George Costanza "Well, there's nothing dirtier than a giant ball of oil." George Costanza may have been a fictional character from Seinfeld, but he was the sort of guy that would poison his boss, run down Lloyd Braun for being in a mental hospital, encourage Jerry to have a revenge date, and to torment an employer by dropping a giant ball of oil all because this employer discovered he had faked a disability. A friend like this could do the same thing to Hillary that Bill is doing to Obama. The thing is a Costanza type might take each of Bill Clinton's smart barbs and media explosions as a challenge to drive the Clinton campaign to a fake house in the Hamptons with two solariums and horses named Snoopy and Prickly Pete. In short, Obama needs an attack dog that would relish a fight and not know when to quit.

How to Attack Hillary

Hillary Clinton has tried to attack Obama for eight billable hours he spent working for an owner of rental property in Chicago's slums. Eight billable hours somehow makes Obama into a life long defender of slum lords. Well, this offers a good place for Obama to start.

1. Hillary Clinton somehow magically made nearly $100,000 from a $1000 initial investment in the commodities market in 1978. A nearly 100 to 1 return on an investment means Hillary is either an investment genius or she is guilty of some form of insider trading. That is a good start, but there is much more. Throw in some questionable cell phone investments etc. and she looks like a crook.

2. The Travel Office firings and White Water could always be brought up as reminders of the Clinton's scandal a week first term as President and First Lady. Popular and trustworthy figures such as David Gergen contradict Mrs. Clinton's version of the Travel Office firings. The Washington media loves Gergen why not remind them of this.

3. Fire off about how Hillary Clinton stabbed "friend" Tipper Gore and Al Gore in the back at a fund raiser in 2000. Many Democrats are still fired up over the 2000 controversies. Maybe the money and attention Hillary siphoned away from Gore cost him 600 votes in Florida…. It is more plausible than 8 billable hours making Obama into a defender of slum lords and enemy of the poor.

4. Dredge up comments popular figures such as George Stephanopoulos made about Hillary's nasty disposition and Bill's temper. Maybe even remind them that Bill rewarded Stephanopoulos' loyalty by engaging in sexual activity with an intern in Stephanopoulos' office after George had gone home for the evening. You know because the Clintons are ethical folk who treat people loyal to them right, right? Throw in Dee Dee Meyers for good measure.

5. Attack the brand of elitist feminism some of Hillary's best friends promote, because this elitist feminism turns a blind eye to women such as Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky who were clearly not on equal footing with then Governor or then President Bill Clinton. Even worse they turn a blind eye to the attack machines lined up to undermine either a 20 something young woman or a poor woman from Arkansas in order to pursue their agenda of uplifting women? It makes no sense and is morally bankrupt.

6. Former Clinton U.N. Ambassador and Secretary of State Madeline Albright said there is a "special place in hell for women who do not support other women." This appeal as made in order to win women's votes to the Clintons. Well, where was Mrs. Albright when the women of Rwanda needed her? Where was Bill or Hillary Clinton? Sorry, many women and children were slaughtered while Albright did nothing. What part of hell is reserved for women who ignore genocide or for candidates who ask for such a person's help?

7. Attack Hillary's campaign contributions from military contractors. Not only did she vote for and support the Iraq War vociferously, not only has she never claimed these votes were mistakes, Hillary has also received more cash from the companies profiting from the Iraq War than any Presidential Candidate. Why is that? Do these companies expect business as usual in Iraq if Hillary wins? That is more plausible than the slum lord accusations.

8. Attack the Clintons support of NAFTA and GATT. How did these policies benefit the poor, the blue collar workers or the lower middle class? The policies primarily benefited corporations, but traditional Democratic constituencies should vote for Hillary?

9. To sum it up, Obama's attack dog should point out that Al Gore, Tipper Gore, George Stephanopoulos, Vernon Jordan, Betty Curry, Dee Dee Meyers, David Gergen etc. have all been used, betrayed and put in unflattering positions by the Clintons. Then conclude by saying, "This is how they treat their friends. How do the Clintons treat people they do not know such as voters? How would they treat someone they perceive to be an enemy? In short, the Clinton's use people and destroy people for their own benefit." If that is not dirty enough I am sure a Costanza type could find more to attack.

Why Such Attacks are Morally Justifiable

First, the Clinton's have attacked Obama's character by implying he is a friend to slum lords, he is not a friend of women's rights and he is unable to bring about change due to being too weak. Once a criticism is leveled by one candidate he or she better be ready to have those same areas scrutinized. Therefore, the Clinton's finances, ethics and campaign contributions are all fair game. Fact is they have betrayed a lot of people who were loyal to them, benefited from shady business dealings, accepted undesirable political money, and pursued policies that can be viewed as mistakes.

Second, Clinton fatigue is real. This past is real. If Obama or Edwards do not raise these issues, the Republicans will and voters will remember the scandal a week first term and the possible perjury in the second term. Clinton fatigue will drive down voter turnout and hurt Democrats all the way down the ballot. The Clinton scandals such as the highly improbable commodities gains are old news, but what do you do with really old stuff. Many people throw out old junk. Obama has to make the case that the Clintons represent an old and unethical politics that the U.S. is better off discarding. This might mean Obama has to get his hands dirty. However, unlike Hillary and Bill, his attacks would have a basis in a sad reality. If he does not want to get his hands dirty I suggest he find a friend like George Costanza. Maybe they could hire Larry David.