(HOST) Veteran A-B-C News correspondent and commentator Bill Seamans regrets the lack of civility in the current contest between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. And he observes that he’s not the only one who feels this way.
(SEAMANS) As we grope through the fog of the campaign we can detect perhaps only two certainties. We can see that the pundits no longer have to focus their profound analytical talents on foretelling who will be the Republican presidential candidate. We now know with certainty – barring a medical intervention – that it will be John McCain.
The other certainty is the probability that the negative campaign waged by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will continue – this despite the pleas of top party strategists to cease fire and start seriously debating the major issues because they are harming the Democratic party more than their opponent. They are being urged to rise above the maelstrom of picayune innuendo and wage a debate worthy of the eminence of the office they seek.
It’s been argued that smear mongering has become an acceptable part of political campaigning – that even though the public complains it really enjoys the mudslinging as a hypocritical level of entertainment. Not so say others who protest that the voters are getting tired of it all and that it is cheapening the political process.
The New York Times has stepped in raising the civility controversy up to its exalted editorial page which published a major reversal of opinion unique in contemporary journalism. It was back in January that the New York Times gave Hillary Clinton perhaps the most important endorsement of the campaign. The Times said, "Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience." The Times added a significant caveat saying that "As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country."
Then, just last week, the New York Times criticized the campaign as meaner, more vacuous, desperate and pandering than the contests that preceded it. And for Hillary it had some shocking words, "It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election."
Some pundits quipped that that searing statement amounted to an un-endorsement of Hillary by the Times but officially it is sticking with her. And it said that Obama also was not blameless having gone negative to defend himself thus breaking his promise to wage a clean campaign.
The New York Times warned that it is time for the candidates to clean up their act because the public is fed up – that we want issues not insults. As the battle becomes even more intense – we wait to see – will they or won’t they?