Thudfactor is talking about the people who switched to Clinton from Obama in the latest primaries because of a question about Obama’s position on NAFTA.
The NAFTA question is a slim reason to switch, particularly since it isn’t about NAFTA at all but about Obama’s integrity. Certainly this is a serious question if the worst implications of the story are believed, but I think it is a stretch to believe them. I am still seeing Obama as the better campaign manager and the best candidate to face McCain.
In addition to attacking Obama’s integrity, Hillary has used three other non-issue personal attacks against Obama adroitly and sometimes subtly — the “all talk, no substance” attack, the gender bias, and the race card. , MSNBC reports, burried in the last paragraphs of a long story:
How much did race and gender factor in Ohio? The AP: “One-fifth of white Ohio voters said race was an important issue to their vote, and those who did voted three in four for Clinton. That compares with the one in five Democrats in Ohio who said gender was important to their vote, and they voted six in 10 for Clinton.”
The “all talk, no substance” attack is false, as any who know Obama’s record and have compared it to Hillary’s (not Bill’s) already knows. The charge of plagiarism (another attack on integrity) is purely stupid, because all campaigns use speech writers and supporters’ input and suggestions that are given to the candidate. The race and gender issues are not worthy of any Democrat, and I regret that a candidate would stoop to using them. I understand that there are voters who respond to them, but their use by a candidate to manipulate voters is divisive and troublesome.
Life in the Third Layer 