Obama and Clinton Face Off Over Guns

By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in Barack, Democrats, Guns and Ammo, Hillary

“She is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She’s talking like she’s Annie Oakley.”

That’s Barack Obama discussing Hillary Clinton’s gun rights support in the wake of the Illinois senator’s recent comments on bitterness and voters who cling to such things as guns. Obviously, Obama finds Clinton’s gun support and tales of hunting to be disingenuous.

Clinton’s sudden love affair with hunting deserves some mocking. But it’s telling that Obama is more interested in pointing out his opponents’ insincerities than he is in defending gun rights himself. That’s fine. I appreciate that he’s no lover of guns and that he’s not going to pander on the issue. But at the same time as he’s mocking Clinton, he still wants us to believe he was just talking about “traditions” when he said bitterness over poor economic times makes people cling to guns (among other things).

I really don’t think he can have it both ways. He can’t claim Clinton is being disingenuous on the issue of guns while he wants us to believe he finds guns as part of some worthwhile tradition. Even if Clinton is pandering on the issue, pro-gun Democrats will have a hard time believing that Obama understands them or will look after their interests.


This entry was posted on Monday, April 14th, 2008 and is filed under Barack, Democrats, Guns and Ammo, Hillary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

12 Responses to “Obama and Clinton Face Off Over Guns”

  1. Elyas Says:

    Have you seen this video from 2004 where he talks about the tradition of gun ownership and the value of traditions (like hunting) during hard economic times?

  2. Betty Says:

    So who does he think he is with his poor attempt at comedy-Sheriff Bart from Blazing Saddles?
    His arrogance has come through loud and clear
    he is as conceited as his wife Mo
    Clinton seemed far more comfortable in her faith than the stuttering Bo did

  3. CCS Says:

    The central message here keeps getting lost in the debate over elitism: Politicians of both parties, but especially the Rove-era Republicans, are experts at using single-issue controversies to distract and deflect from the REAL issues. Are we in a huge amount of debt that threatens to destabilize our entire economy? Can’t let gays get married! Are we in an open-ended military action that we appear to have no idea how to resolve and no intention of ending? Watch out for people who want to take your guns! I agree a thousand percent that the people with the most to lose, who SHOULD feel bitter about seeing their chances for safe, healthy, prosperous lives undercut again and again, wind up turning to single-issue subjects because no one is willing to say out loud (except Obama, who has spent more time in the inner city than either HRC or JM combined) that they’re getting the short end of a really crappy stick.

  4. Alan Stewart Carl Says:

    Interesting video. I think it’s unfortunate we have to pull up interviews from 4 years ago in order to guess at what he really believes. What I found odd about what he said to Charlie Rose is that he was simultaneously respecting the tradition of hunting while STILL linking the love of guns to economic hardships. I’m not going to try to diconstruct what he said but it would be easy to see his comments as more-or-less laying out a political strategy rather than earnestly supporting gun rights.

  5. Alan Stewart Carl Says:

    CCS — I agree that the use of wedge issues has been disastrous. If Obama just said “let’s stop being single-issue voters” then I’d be in support. But he made those single issues seem to be matters that are not particularly important, just things people cling to because they’ve been given nothing better.

    I’m seeing the matter is open to massive interpretation. It’s like the picture that’s either a woman’s face or a vase. You see it one way or the other and, once seeing it that way, you can’t see it the other without contorting your head and squinting.

  6. TerenceC Says:

    Alan

    I hope you’re not suggesting Obama is against the second amendment.

    “Even if Clinton is pandering on the issue, pro-gun Democrats will have a hard time believing that Obama understands them or will look after their interests.”

    By that logic then abortion should now be illegal since GWB was so against it. The second amendment isn’t going to be overthrown by Obama, or anyone else for that matter. You’re falling into that fear and distraction politics that only serves those people at the top. Don’t paly that game, you’re better than that.

    On another note, the age of the video indicates a consistency in policy you don’t find in the public figures currently running. By the way, Hillary and John Kerry are apparently Goose hunting buddies – so don’t make fun of her shooting and hunting (she’s off hunting Pander bears right now by the way).

  7. Alan Stewart Carl Says:

    Terence, I don’t think I implied Obama is against the second amendment, just that he may be less of a gun rights advocate than Clinton. That’s not fear mongering, just making a point about where he stands on the issue of guns. I’m not worried about Congress or the president taking away guns, it won’t happen. I support gun rights but not radically and it’s more of a secondary issue for me. This wasn’t a “ooo, Obama’s gonna take away our guns” post. Just a note on a current squabble in the Democratic race.

  8. Dr. Saturn Says:

    Honestly I think this whole thing is absolutely ridiculous and I can’t for the life of me figure out why everyone rushes to the trough over this stuff. It’s not like Obama doesn’t have a voting record on Gun Control – he supports gun control. (http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/)

    Really, that’s the end of the discussion right there. Whether he’s elitist or compassionate about it is beside the point, you either are willing to accept a president who supports gun control or you’re not.

    What’s the fuss? Why waste our energy dissecting the cult of personality when we know his policy?

  9. Avinash_Tyagi Says:

    Sorry Obama can attack Clinton for acting like a gun toting nut, and still be fine with people who are real gun owners

  10. Robert Campbell Says:

    Excuse those of us whose urban communities are plagued by weapons fire and dead children to be too busy grieving over their loss than to grieve over the gun rights of a minority of persons which might be lost through more efficient gun control.

    That is a truth which is, yes, bitter.

  11. Richard Moore Says:

    Obama is losing on the internet face faceoff!

    ClintonObamaFaceOff.com

  12. Gregory Perrone Says:

    The central message here keeps getting lost in the debate over elitism:
    Politicians of both parties, but especially the Rove-era Republicans, are experts at using single-issue controversies to distract and deflect from the REAL issues.

    Republicans tend to address one issue at a time. As opposed to spouting for hours about anything they can think of that they disagree with. Personally I believe we should correct our mistakes individually, as apposed to a combined bill that is hard to read or understand.

    Are we in a huge amount of debt that threatens to destabilize our entire economy?
    True, can we please stop spending money now?

    Can’t let gays get married!

    I really don’t think this is the time to be getting into frivilous discussions about semantics. Many of the states that don’t allow gay marriage do have some sort of social contract availible for gay lovers. But I believe we have more important issues at hand. I might be alone, but I only remember marriage being included in the constitution in one place. The fifth ammendment, it protects the accused, It seems they are getting more protection every day at the victims expense.
    Are we in an open-ended military action that we appear to have no idea how to resolve and no intention of ending?

    Lets try this; We pull out like an untapered turd. Let the Iraq slam shut, then go back in after the rapid demise of the region to clean up. It would be less work after 60+% of the population is dead. The downside to that is that it’s not the terrorists/insurgents that would be dead. Instead it would be women, children, etc.

    Watch out for people who want to take your guns!
    I agree whole heartedly!

    I agree a thousand percent that the people with the most to lose, who SHOULD feel bitter about seeing their chances for safe, healthy, prosperous lives undercut again and again, wind up turning to single-issue subjects because no one is willing to say out loud (except Obama, who has spent more time in the inner city than either HRC or JM combined) that they’re getting the short end of a really crappy stick.

    I would bet I have spent more time in an inner city than Obama, it’s part of my job. Does that make me qualified to be the president?

    I don’t whant someone taking my rights, my guns, my free speech or my money because someone else is in a crappy situation. I have clawed my way from poverty to the middle class. It’s hard enough to stay here, let alone continue to advance. I already have many laws against me, i am the anti-protected class; White, middle aged and male. I don’t need any help being set back to poverty.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: