home

Which Candidate Has Gone Negative? Not Hillary, Says Daou

Who is doing the negative campaigning? Peter Daou, Hillary's internet communications director, points out in an e-mail to bloggers, it's Obama, not Hillary:

Senator Obama and his senior campaign officials have engaged in a systematic effort to question Hillary's integrity, credibility, and character. They have portrayed her as someone who would put her personal gain ahead of the lives of our troops, someone who would say or do anything to win an election, someone who is dishonest, divisive and disingenuous. They have adopted shop-worn anti-Clinton talking points, dusted them off and unleashed a torrent of unfounded character attacks against her.

Peter provides these illustrative examples:

More...

More negative campaign tactics by Obama:

To top it off, they have blanketed big states with false radio ads and negative mailers -- ads and mailers that experts have debunked time and time again. They have distributed health care brochures using Republican framing. They have tried to draw a nexus between Hillary's votes and the death of her friend Benazir Bhutto. And one of Senator Obama's top advisers (who has since left the campaign) recently called Hillary "a monster."

Peter says the "full assault" on Hillary "comes from the very top of the Obama campaign, not surrogates and supporters."

In Peter's view:

This "full assault" is being directed at someone I personally know to be a thoughtful, brilliant, principled, compassionate person, someone the world knows as a good Democrat, a trailblazer, a lifelong champion for children and families, a respected former first lady, a senator, a presidential candidate.

This "full assault" is targeting a staff of hundreds of hard-working, dedicated Democrats, who I've had the privilege of working with for the past 14 months.

How has Hillary expressed her criticism of Obama? By explaining why she thinks she would be a better President. Peter notes:

  • She has laid out comprehensive policy proposals, put forth her 35-year record of accomplishment, and spent countless days introducing herself to voters across the country.
  • She has said that she is far better prepared to take on John McCain on national security.
  • She has contended that she is the candidate with the experience to confront the GOP attack machine.
  • She has argued that she is more electable.
  • She has said that Senator Obama's words are not matched by actions.
  • She has challenged him to live up to core Democratic values and goals such as universal health care.

About Hillary's suggestion that Barack Obama is not ready to be commander in chief:

I spent 2004 in the Kerry-Edwards war room, and I understand full well that national security will be front and center in the general election. It's not a matter of choice. And the reality is that the public views Hillary as better prepared to take on Senator McCain when it comes to national security. Democrats must factor that in as they nominate a candidate to win in November.

If that suggestion is potentially harmful to Senator Obama in a general election, how exactly do the personal attacks against Hillary (which echo and reinforce rightwing talking points) help her in the event she wins the nomination? I recall no similar outrage at those harsh attacks on her character, many of which were directed at her when she was the clear frontrunner and seen as the likely nominee.

As to where this leaves the supporters:

There is a sharp line between supporting a candidate (and excusing their faults, which all supporters do to some degree) and conducting a "full assault" on an opponent's integrity and character. The Obama campaign's unabashed attacks on Hillary's honesty and trustworthiness should give every Democrat pause.

Very well said Peter, and I agree.

Update: I didn't print all of Peter's email. Since someone in the comments below asked about surrogates, here's what Peter had to say about that:

Both candidates are running a vigorous campaign. Both have had surrogates or supporters who have crossed the line and made offensive statements that they rejected. And these offensive statements are an unfortunate part of a long and close campaign. Those who make a habit of automatically assuming and ascribing to only one candidate the worst motives, ignoring more reasonable and benign explanations, who substitute conjecture for fact and then use those assumed 'facts' as a foundation on which to pile more conjecture about only one candidate's intentions, who express anger at negative campaigning and perceived dirty tricks but focus on only one candidate's words and actions, risk losing credibility. And those who conclude from that one-sided reasoning that Hillary ought to stop seeking victory, should ask themselves if quitting in the middle of a hard-fought - and winnable - contest is a desirable attribute in a future president.
< This Is Funny | Mixing Religion and Politics Can Bring the IRS Knocking >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I think a distincition needs to be drawn: (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:52:43 PM EST
    There have been a lot of very negative things coming from people campaigning for Clinton, starting at least  with Shaheen's remarks.
    On the other hand, what Obama's campaign has done seems more top down to me.


    Peter mentioned that (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:55:44 PM EST
    Here's another part of his e-mail. I didn't print the whole thing, I probably should update it:

    Both candidates are running a vigorous campaign. Both have had surrogates or supporters who have crossed the line and made offensive statements that they rejected. And these offensive statements are an unfortunate part of a long and close campaign. Those who make a habit of automatically assuming and ascribing to only one candidate the worst motives, ignoring more reasonable and benign explanations, who substitute conjecture for fact and then use those assumed 'facts' as a foundation on which to pile more conjecture about only one candidate's intentions, who express anger at negative campaigning and perceived dirty tricks but focus on only one candidate's words and actions, risk losing credibility. And those who conclude from that one-sided reasoning that Hillary ought to stop seeking victory, should ask themselves if quitting in the middle of a hard-fought - and winnable - contest is a desirable attribute in a future president.



    Parent
    Thanks. Part of the negativity of the (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:57:24 PM EST
    Obama campaign has been how they have searched out and magnified any out of line remarks by Clinton supporters. Ferraro's remarks did not have to be a big deal, for example, because so few people heard them.

    Parent
    anyway (4.00 / 1) (#39)
    by tek on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:51:54 PM EST
    Ferraro was only peripherally attached to Clinton's campaign, not a senior advisor like Samantha Power, Ferraro didn't say anything directly negative--or vitrioloc--about Obama.  Very big difference.

    Parent
    let's not forget the power interview (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:41:35 PM EST
    explaining obama's foreign policy. he was against withdrawal after he was for it.


    Parent
    I personally was most offended by (none / 0) (#106)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:48:51 PM EST
    her suggestion that  Hillary Clinton would use nukes on terrorists if elected.

    Parent
    thanks for pointing that out. it must have (none / 0) (#188)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:55:48 PM EST
    slipped by me. i was working on the computer while listening.

    Parent
    Oh, that was from last August, in her (none / 0) (#199)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:36:08 AM EST
    op-ed about "conventional wisdom" in foreign policy ( which included Hillary).
    One of her bullet points was that CW proposes dropping  nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps.

    Parent
    i watched that interview making the (none / 0) (#201)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:38:38 AM EST
    rounds and found her unsatisfactory. she might well be good in some type of humanitarian work but not the wh.

    Parent
    She's not politically astute. (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:57:52 AM EST
    Yeah, a one-word off-the cuff insult (3.00 / 2) (#67)
    by JJE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:16:40 PM EST
    is so much worse than a dissertation on how Obama's an affirmative action candidate that is defended stridently for days.  give me a break.

    Parent
    Minimize much? (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:37:16 PM EST
    You know perfectly well (or you should) that it wasn't a "one-word off-the-cuff insult"...it was a whole paragraph.

    Beyond that, you really shouldn't make things up.  No one gave "a dissertation on how Obama's an affirmative action candidate."  Not Gerry Ferraro nor anyone else.  I gather you and too many other Obama supporters missed her point entirely...so, let me say it another way:

    In this campaign, at this particular time, it is an advantage to be African American.  It wasn't an advantage at the beginning, before South Carolina, when Hillary was getting a big share of the AA vote.  But now that the race card has been played successfully to Obama's benefit (in a Democratic primary which is not a closed race) he is getting 85-95% of the black vote.  If he were white, he wouldn't be, and so would not be advantaged in this race...at this time.  Whether that continues, we shall see.

    Parent

    there's no equivalence (1.00 / 1) (#105)
    by JJE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:48:38 PM EST
    between your attempt to draw an equivalence between two  sentences and repeated defenses and strident defenses of ignorant statements.  I don't actually fault Clinton for Ferraro's ridiculous grandstanding on various talk shows - it must be difficult to reign in someone with such a ridiculous sense of aggrieved entitlement.

    As for your assertion that race is such an advantage for Obama, pay attention to how much it helped him amongst white voters in Ohio.

    Parent

    A possible explanation for this (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by hitchhiker on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:26:38 PM EST
    As for your assertion that race is such an advantage for Obama, pay attention to how much it helped him amongst white voters in Ohio.

    might be that a many white voters are tired of being told they're racist if they don't vote for Barack -- which your comment implies.

    Ferraro did not say that he's an affirmative action candidate; she didn't even imply it.

    Parent

    I don't think you can assert (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:38:48 PM EST
    that with a straight face.

    Ferraro said:

    If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept," she said.

    If he were white, he wouldn't be in this position- Oh really. What is that supposed to mean? He is not accomplished, he has not run a successful campaign?  

    Later Ferraro tried to back track by saying, Obama is accomplished, he has run a good campaign, he is charismatic. If all of that is true, then shouldn't he be in this position? Given that premise, how do you square this  statement with the 1st.

    I submit you can't. They are mutually exclusive. Either he is all of these things and should be in the position he is in regardless of his race, or he isn't and is only there because of his race.

    Only one of these statements can be true. They cannot both be true.

    The 1st statement clearly focuses on race and denigrates his accomplishments.

    I just don't see how these facts are deniable.

    Ferraro blew it. She compounded her error by not walking it back better. She's been around long enough to know better. I don't understand her at all in this.

    Again, I don't fault Hillary at all in this.


    Parent

    Obama reportedly has said exactly the same thing: (none / 0) (#163)
    by BlueMerlin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:00:33 PM EST
    "If I were white, I would just be one of 9 junior senators."

    Parent
    Not quite the same (none / 0) (#173)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:18:51 PM EST
    Here's the Obama quote: (none / 0) (#182)
    by K Lynne on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:55:30 PM EST
    From a 2005 interview (admittedly, not related to his current campaign:

    Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race. If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?

    From the LA Times


    Parent

    While Ferraro (none / 0) (#183)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:58:35 PM EST
    mucked up everything terribly, I believe her point was more to the incredible interest in Obama as an African American candidate.  She attempted to make the point that there was a lot of attention and interest in her running for vice president.  I do think Obama and Hillary have both been the beneficiary of some very positive attention for the fact that they are two minorities who have had such a serious run at the top office of the nation.  It is also quite possible that either of them running on the same platform they have as the white male candidates we have had in the past, might not have struck such a chord with some of their supporters.  I don't think that takes anything away from them either.      

    Parent
    Ferraro provided fodder for Rush (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:36:27 PM EST
    last week.  Now he is saying the Dem. candidates for Pres. are the result of the Dem. party pushing affirmative action and it finally bit them in the butt.  

    Parent
    Objectively, Obama has used his race (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:28:49 PM EST
    to the hilt, to win black support by painting Clinton as racist. Sure, he has trouble with white racist voters, but he has used race to his advantage  where possible.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#196)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:23:25 AM EST
    But lets also remember that in a Democratic primary, white racists are fewer than in the general population...and proud liberals and progressives are more numerous than in the general population and so are African Americans and other minorities.

    Parent
    I note HRC apologized (none / 0) (#124)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:12:32 PM EST
    for Ferraro. Clearly she felt Ferraro stepped out of bounds (a judgment I concur with).  I feel Hillary was exemplary in her conduct regarding Ferraro's statements.

    Parent
    I think HRC was probably seriously (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:23:03 PM EST
    contemplating public use of duct tape to stop Ferraro from further damaging remarks -to Ferraro.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:26:52 PM EST
    thanks I needed that.

    I am going to have to stay away from here otherwise I can't get any of the paying clients' work done. Or at least get more disciplined.

    Parent

    I hear ya. (none / 0) (#144)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:32:51 PM EST
    I have to drive 1 and 1/2 hours to Riverside yet tonight to be ready for trial call tomorrow morning.  But will Talk Left survive if I leave now?  Another thought, like the Dems for a Day, who will be at Talk Left after the GE, criminal defense attorneys?

    Parent
    I don't do criminal law (none / 0) (#156)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:44:22 PM EST
    and I was here before and hope to be here afterwards.

    I still have an interest in learning about other areas I don't practice in. Besides, the regulars here are decent. The partisans probably are as well (or will be again after the election).  

    Parent

    I don't disagree... (none / 0) (#138)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:25:23 PM EST
    I was simply pointing out that in this case, Ferraro wasn't wrong about the advantage to Obama...how far behind would he be without the AA vote %ages he has received since SC?

    Parent
    Sometimes its better to think, not talk. (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:34:21 PM EST
    I'm wondering if Ferraro had a senior moment and is so stubborn she just couldn't let it go.  

    Parent
    Could be....and she was MAD, too! (none / 0) (#169)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:09:25 PM EST
    Can't say I blame her but there was no winning that one.

    Parent
    But don't Black voters count too? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:49:37 PM EST
    That almost sounds like a bad pundit talking point.  "Democrats couldn't get elected but for woman and blacks" is the egregious pundit talking point I refer to. I know you don't mean it that way (and I am not accusing you of making a racist statement), but you might want to rethink the ramifications of that. There is nothing wrong with identity politics when used in a positive way and its as old as elections.

     

    Parent

    Well, I suppose... (none / 0) (#174)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:19:47 PM EST
    if the Clinton campaign could just figure out how to use identity politics "in a positive way" and get all women to vote for Hillary, she'd be home free!

    Personally, I have a lot of problems with identity politics...too many bad experiences, too few good ones.  That doesn't mean I don't want to find ways to get the voters to 'identify' with my candidates.  I do.  It's tricky, tho.

    Parent

    speaking of ridiculous: (none / 0) (#200)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:28:02 AM EST
    between your attempt to draw an equivalence between two  sentences and repeated defenses and strident defenses of ignorant statements.  I don't actually fault Clinton for Ferraro's ridiculous grandstanding on various talk shows - it must be difficult to reign in someone with such a ridiculous sense of aggrieved entitlement.

    let's just be blunt: geraldine ferraro was spot on in her assessment. whether you like it or not, a white guy named joe smith, with the exact same resume' as sen. obama, wouldn't have been a candidate at all, his complete lack of bona fides would have precluded it.

    i have nothing against sen. obama, i've always thought he'd make a great presidential candidate, in 2016. the only reason, ONLY REASON, he's where he is now is because he's black. you think, were he the aforementioned joe smith, he'd be getting 80-90% of the AA vote, anywhere?

    if you seriously believe that, i have shares to sell you, below par, in the brooklyn bridge.

    get real, get a grip.

    and please, don't scare me by accusing me of racism, my pragmatic is far more virulent.

    Parent

    More than "one-word" (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:51:50 PM EST
    Let's revisit what Powers said:

    "She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anythings," Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.

    Ms Power said of the Clinton campaign: "Here, it looks like desperation. I hope it looks like desperation there, too.

    "You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."  

    (my emphasis added)

    Source - The Scotsman

    Parent

    I'll give you one Ferraro for one Power. (4.00 / 2) (#75)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:25:01 PM EST
    I swear I saw a quote from Obama (none / 0) (#178)
    by K Lynne on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:30:48 PM EST
    from a year or so ago that said basically exactly what Geraldine Ferraro said - that if he were white, he would not be where he is now.  Of course, now I can't find it.  So it is 'racist' if Ferraro says it, but not if Obama admits it himself??

     

    Parent

    Ferrarro was an obvious tit-for-tat (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by tbetz on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:19:04 PM EST
    The Clinton campaign made a big mistake demanding Samantha Power's resignation.  Ferraro then opened the door with her mouth, and the Obama campaign would have looked like fools not going through it.

    Parent
    Oh no, that's ridiciulous (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:22:15 PM EST
    First of all, Powers was one of Obama's key advisers. Second, her remarks were an international story, without Clinton's help.
    As I understand it, Ferraro's remarks were given in an interview in a local paper in CA.

    Parent
    Lots of stepping in it (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by ricosuave on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:22:22 PM EST
    in that Powers interview.  She made the candidate look bad on talks with Hamas, and made some potentially offensive "good for the jews" comments.   Knowing foreign policy issues and being able to discuss them diplomatically are two completely different skill sets.  If she hadn't said the "monster" comment, it would have been an embarassing interview that worked on the "he can't seem to control his foreign policy advisors" story.  She might not have gotten fired, but she wouldn't have been doing any more interviews.

    Parent
    Obama and his campaign team are (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:24:28 PM EST
    probably thankful its the HRC is a monster comment that got the most news coverage.  

    Parent
    Torrance newspaper little fish but (3.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:45:27 PM EST
    really big media pond, i.e., L.A. County.

    Parent
    Yes, it was tit for tat.. but (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:34:52 PM EST
    why go after Clinton when Powers scored an own goal?
    She was just stupid---and that wasn't the first time she had shot her mouth off either.

    Parent
    True (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:46:07 PM EST
    Powers remarks to the BBC that Obama's plans for Iraq might be different from what he has been saying on the campaign trail did not help her position either.  The combination of the remarks about Hillary and the Iraq war coming almost one right after the other had to present a big problem for Obama.  

    Parent
    Clinton campaign demanded Power's resignation? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:35:02 PM EST
    Can you please back up that statement with some evidence.

    And I don't mean some "Clinton supporter" ... I mean an official member of the campaign.

    And please don't tell me they're the same thing ... they're not.

    Please provide quotes and links so we can all see this.

    Parent

    Technically... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:45:40 PM EST
    ...the Clinton campaign did not ask for her resignation.  It was some of her backers in Congress.

    Clinton Backers Demand Power's Resignation

    On a conference call with reporters this morning, congressional supporters of Hillary Clinton demanded that Obama force adviser Samantha Power out of his camapign.

    "We're here today to ask Senator Obama to ask Samantha Power not to be part of his campaign," said Rep. Nita Lowey of New York, responding to the remark by Power -- a foreign policy adviser to Obama and expert on international human rights. "It's really a test for Obama, a test of character," she said.

    Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of Florida called the comment and other Power remarks "a torrent of negative personal attacks."

    And Rep. Greg Meeks of New York called Power's words "personal character assassination."

    "Senator Obama needs to stand up and to publicly say that this person will no longer participate in his campaign," Meeks said.

    Parent

    Exactly my point. (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:35:48 PM EST
    It seems to be a habit of Obama supporters to strangle the truth in support of BO.

    And never can they back up their supposed "factual" statements.

    You see, the facts don't matter to them ... only the spin that makes Hillary look bad and BO look (and smell) good.

    Parent

    How much is coming from the top (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by timber on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:23:39 PM EST
    M Stoller in Open Left once compared a e-mail from Plouffe and Bill Clinton to supporters.  The Obama email was about whining about what Clinton campaign are doing to them,  while Bill Clinton was about cheerleading the supporters.

    I also wonder how much of the Obama supporters really are supporters and not trolls---because their comments or diaries are so anti-Hillary instead of pro-Obama.  It is like there is a conspiracy to infiltrate blogs with anti-Hillary negative campaign and overwhelm the site with antiHillary negative campaign.

    Parent

    The truth speaks for itself. (none / 0) (#114)
    by tbetz on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:55:09 PM EST
    I'm sorry if you don't care to hear it.

    Parent
    A BO joke-- sweet (none / 0) (#157)
    by Melchizedek on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:47:58 PM EST
    Apparently today Lowrey confused "Iowa" (4.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:48:57 PM EST
    and "Ohio," or as a friend of mine who is native Californian says, those states starting with vowels--so confusing.

    Parent
    That was just embarassing. (none / 0) (#143)
    by tbetz on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:31:20 PM EST
    She's my rep, and I like her a lot, but she's had a lot of problems lately.  She was just in the hospital, having collapsed at a pre-Super-Duper Tuesday Clinton campaign rally, and her office's explanation when she came out in public again three weeks later was unfortunately vague.

    I think she's just getting older and frail.

    Parent

    Ben Smith left out an important detail (none / 0) (#112)
    by tbetz on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:53:58 PM EST
    .. that Greg Sargent included in his coverage of the same conference call:

    On a conference call just now, Hillary advisers and surrogates called on Obama to fire senior foreign policy adviser Samantha Power for  calling Hillary a "monster."

    "Personal attacks are not the way to convince voters that you're capable of being president of the United States," New York Rep. Nita Lowey, a key Hillary surrogate, said. "We're calling on Senator Obama to make it very clear that Samantha Power should not be part of this campaign."

    "It's really a very important test for Obama," Lowey said, adding that whether or not he fired Power was a "test of character."

    Rep. Gregory Meeks, an African American Hillary supporter, reiterated the call for Power's firing, saying that the only appropriate way for Obama to proceed is "Senator Obama saying that this person can no longer be associated with his campaign."

    Hillary spokesman Howard Wolfson added a few more twists of the knife, suggesting that Obama's handling of the Power affair would demonstrate the "kind of leadership" Obama was prepared to show. Power has already apologized for the comment.

    This was a Clinton Campaign Official Conference Call hosted by Howard Wolfson.

    This was the Clinton campaign calling for Power's dismissal.  Pretending otherwise is most dishonest.


    Parent

    Uh... (none / 0) (#175)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:20:28 PM EST
    ...point me to the part where Wolfson said she should resign?

    Parent
    "I'm Howard Wolfson... (none / 0) (#198)
    by tbetz on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:07:53 AM EST
    ... and I endorse this conference call."

    Like I said, pretending that this wasn't the Clinton campaign saying this is incredibly dishonest.

    Parent

    The Clinton camp demanded Power quit? (none / 0) (#212)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:10:34 PM EST
    Uh, no.  Not in anything I've seen.  Link?

    Parent
    Ed Schultz was on Hardball (4.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:10:12 PM EST
    The other day trying to explain how Clinton's surrogates were both:

    1.  Out of control and undisciplined.  That if you couldn't control your surrogates how're you gonna handle being President?

    Got that?  Ok.  At the same time he was trying to make this argument too!

    2.  Executing a top down strategy orchestrated by Clinton's advisors.

    Halfway through I think he actually realized the two talking points cancel each other out but he muddled through bravely enough.

    I agree with your comment, btw.

    Parent

    Ed is out of control on the subject of HRC (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:16:30 PM EST
    Schultz is another longtime Republican (none / 0) (#147)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:37:31 PM EST
    who recently became a Democrat and purports to  speak for all Democrats. He spends 50% of the airtime on his radio show blowing his own horn, yammering on about how he's the greatest talk show host with the best ratings. He's unlistenable.

    Parent
    Ed sounds like a Republican too (none / 0) (#185)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:47:13 PM EST
    most of the time, such that I'm not sure he's a democrat and have wondered the same thing.

    He piles on Hillary too,and then says he'll vote for the nominee.

    Parent

    Weasel words... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:35:11 PM EST
    ...the other disturbing aspect of the Obama atttacks is in how carefully orchestrated they are to clearly imply something without quite saying it.

    To my knowledge Obama has never called Clinton a liar.  But he has said she is "less than truthful" or "untruthful".  So what are you when you're not telling the truth?  Indeed, the Obama camp will whine that he never called her a liar.

    Likewise he has never called her a racist.  It's the dissembling that gets me.  The orchestrated campaigns to smear her followed by the 'who me?' shrug when called on it.

    When he was (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by tek on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:58:34 PM EST
    commenting about the Rev. Wright thing last week, he said "the comments coming from Republicans and opponents" or something like that.  The implication that he was accusing Clinton was quite obvious even though she had nothing to do with it.

    I think, flinging accusations at other people doesn't change facts like the fact that Obama has belonged to Rev. Wright's church for 20 years.  He's just deflecting, not explaining.  That's what I don't like about him.

    Parent

    As an Edwards supporter (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by facta non verba on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:38:13 PM EST
    I could have gone either way. There were both pull and push factors. The pull was that objectively and rationally on policy, Hillary Clinton is nearer to my positions. The push factors were I found Obama naive and polarizing. And some of his supporters are hard to handle. They're like Jehovah's Witnesses. I've told my story before but it began in Nevada and the attacks on Clinton using a sexual slur. At this point we are in a quandary, they have bloodied each other so.

    Politics Is Politics (4.80 / 5) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:18:08 PM EST
    OTOH labeling a candidate as racist is not acceptable to me. This is the area of Obama's campaign that I most strongly object to.

    Glad Peter addressed the issue of Obama's negative campaign. Not that I think it will do much good. Obama has had a free pass on this and it is likely to continue since there is no visable fall out. Unfortunately for Senator Obama, some of the possible fall out is going under the radar at the moment but might be much more evident in November.

    MO Blue (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by tek on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:54:32 PM EST
    Glad to see this.  I also think what kind of Democrat accuses another Democrat of racism?  That business about putting words in Bill and Hillary's mouths and calling them racist was just stupid on its face, IMO.  Gen Xers who don't remember the Clintons fell for that snow job.

    Parent
    Some Of Them IMO Didn't Fall For That (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:19:57 PM EST
    snow job. It was just extremely useful to obtain their objective. Distruction of Clinton(s) and a win for Obama. For the life of me, I'm not sure which objective had the highest priority.

    Parent
    I think you call a racist statement (none / 0) (#132)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:20:10 PM EST
    a racist statement regardless of who says it. I don't think Bill or Hill made racist comments before or after SC. I also think Ferraro's comments were out of line and again I note, Hillary (to her credit) thought so too.

    Parent
    Racist statements? (none / 0) (#189)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:06:51 AM EST
    In any case, it's a moot point, because if Obama weren't black, he would not be the Democratic front-runner.

    "The less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes," Ehrenstein writes. "If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.

    All of these criticisms, whether they acknowledge it or not, are based on the fact that Obama's blackness is his indispensable asset. Without it, he would not have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected president.

    Yet, if he was treated as black, it seems not the treatment that hurts. Instead, he went to Harvard, where he became the first black to edit the Harvard Law Review. He became a state senator in Illinois, and won a seat in the US Senate after being given the glamour spot of keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic convention. And now he's frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president. If that's what being treated black now means in America, make me black too.

    Indeed, that's probably the best motive Obama has for being black. Politically, the advantages are great.

    Being black means for him getting out the huge black vote. Being black (and not that black) has made him a candidate white liberals feel moral (and safe) voting for. Being black gives him attention that no other short-term senator could dream of.

    The truth is this. Obama would be getting a lot of attention whether he was white or black because he is young, refreshing, new, and charismatic. Not to mention an inspiring speaker. That draws people to him first. But the truth of the matter is that being black is icing on the cake.

    If Obama were White, he wouldn't be where he is today. There would be no magical story of a multi-racial background that we all applaud. That's OK. We all gotta use what we got. McCain is a war hero; Bush was the silver spoon son of a President.

    Being Black has made Obama bulletproof in the media, which bodes well for the Democrats in the fall.

    Barack Obama is able to compensate for his lack of experience by being black. And to me this is a shame, because I think there were a handful of highly qualified Democrats with betters ideas and a whole lot more experience who were out-dazzled by Obama's race.

    Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race. If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?

    Parent

    Sorry, that didn't come out right - (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:13:41 AM EST
    The above post is a collection of eight different sources saying the same thing Ferraro did. Trying again:

    In any case, it's a moot point, because if Obama weren't black, he would not be the Democratic front-runner. source

    "The less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes," Ehrenstein writes. "If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him. source

    All of these criticisms, whether they acknowledge it or not, are based on the fact that Obama's blackness is his indispensable asset. Without it, he would not have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected president. source

    Yet, if he was treated as black, it seems not the treatment that hurts. Instead, he went to Harvard, where he became the first black to edit the Harvard Law Review. He became a state senator in Illinois, and won a seat in the US Senate after being given the glamour spot of keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic convention. And now he's frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president. If that's what being treated black now means in America, make me black too.

    Indeed, that's probably the best motive Obama has for being black. Politically, the advantages are great.

    Being black means for him getting out the huge black vote. Being black (and not that black) has made him a candidate white liberals feel moral (and safe) voting for. Being black gives him attention that no other short-term senator could dream of. source

    The truth is this. Obama would be getting a lot of attention whether he was white or black because he is young, refreshing, new, and charismatic. Not to mention an inspiring speaker. That draws people to him first. But the truth of the matter is that being black is icing on the cake. source

    If Obama were White, he wouldn't be where he is today. There would be no magical story of a multi-racial background that we all applaud. That's OK. We all gotta use what we got. McCain is a war hero; Bush was the silver spoon son of a President.

    Being Black has made Obama bulletproof in the media, which bodes well for the Democrats in the fall. source

    Barack Obama is able to compensate for his lack of experience by being black. And to me this is a shame, because I think there were a handful of highly qualified Democrats with betters ideas and a whole lot more experience who were out-dazzled by Obama's race. source

    Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race. If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all? source

    Parent

    So he is not accomplished, (none / 0) (#202)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:54:32 AM EST
    not charismatic, hasn't run a solid campaign?

    I can't think of any white politicians in a similar position-

    Not Woodrow Wilson (in politics all of 2 years when nominated)
    Not JFK (young charismatic senator)
    Not FDR (a mere state senator with two years as governor. Certainly not charismatic!)
    Not RFK (beneficiary of nepotism, carpet bagger senator, 38 years old. Not a whiff of charisma either).

    Parent

    You missed the point by a mile (none / 0) (#206)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:32:47 AM EST
    The point is that many many others - including Obama himself - have said that he's lucky to be black.

    But they weren't called racist for it.

    Want to give it another try?

    Parent

    I've addressed the Obama himself point (none / 0) (#208)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:13:04 PM EST
    by another commenter. Its not quite the same thing. Do you have any AA friends? Perhaps they can explain why it isn't to you. I suspect what I say will not be heard, but perhaps a close friend would be heard.

    Those remaining other statements have naught to do Ferraro and her statements and the context that they were made in. Nor to my knowledge has she attempted to clarify her statements. She has gone for the "how dare you response".

    Well I dare. As I have said before, I grew up in the deep South, I was part of the first public  integrated classrooms and schools in the deep South.  I know racists (which I do NOT claim Ferraro to be) when I hear them, and racially insensitive remarks (which is what Ferraro's statement in context was) when I hear them.  

    Racially insensitive is a two bit phrase used to describe a five cent problem- a racist statement.  We are ALL a product of our heritage. Which, as every school child should know, includes the following sanitized version of our history: 3/5th compromise, the disputed election of 1800, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Kansas- Nebraska Act, the Civil War, Reconstruction, The era of Jim Crow (which most historians date through 1964), the civil rights era, and the white backlash. This history is also part of the context. I could add quite a lot to this, and I am sure  you can too. Perhaps if you were to sit down and write an essay which includes all of this history and a good discussion of the white back lash, you will then see how Ferraro's statement fits in.

    Ferraro' statements are not worth defending. Hillary, to her everlasting credit, did not defend them. Hillary did the right thing.

    You want to argue that those who cried racism on any of Bill's statements in this campaign are "crying wolf" I am right there with you (unless I missed something). But not here, not these statements. I've spent most of my life opposing such crap and I am not about to change now, no matter how much I respected Ferraro heretofore.


    Parent

    Nope, you're still missing the point (none / 0) (#210)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:59:26 PM EST
    And please, don't be rude and condescending. I don't need a lesson in history from you. You have no idea who I am or what my background is.

    The point, should you care to take a third shot at actually addressing it, is that Obama has been called "lucky" to be black (which is a poor paraphrase of Ferraro's words, but it's the one most people use for their manufactured outrage) many times, in many contexts, by many people. He has admitted himself that it has been advantageous to him.

    None of these other people were called racists. None of them were asked to defend their statemnets or to apologize.

    Now, if you can stop gnashing your teeth over Ferraro momentarily, and skip the racism sermon, would you like to examine why the statements I listed were NOT considered racist and offensive?

    Thanks. Last chance.

     

    Parent

    Those other statements are (none / 0) (#211)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:43:45 PM EST
    not germane to what Ferraro said. I like HRC. I find a lot of her positions to be superior.  I am not manufacturing outrage. I also found accusations of racism against Bill Clinton to be offensive, because they trivialized a serious thing.

    If you would stop looking at it through strictly a Hillary partisan lens, you might have noticed I am not looking at this from a partisan position.  

    I found what Ferraro said offensive. Apparently Hillary found the statements troubling herself. I think Hillary and I right.

    You haven't explained why it wasn't an offensive and racist thing to say other to say others may have been equally offensive.

    That is not much of a defense. Maybe you are right, maybe you don't need a history lesson, maybe you just are not able to explain why it wasn't offensive.

    Parent

    They are germane (none / 0) (#213)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:23:43 PM EST
    Because they are essentially the same thing - except that I would argue that Ferraro's was less objectionable than the flat-out "no way would he be able to run for president if he weren't black."

    I don't find any of these statements objectionable. But then I don't think talking about race makes you a racist either.

    I am not "making a defense." You don't know my mindset or that I am viewing through a partisan lens. You are reading (uncomplimentary) things into what I posted, with no basis in fact.

    I give up. You can keep talking to the straw man you've created if you like.

    Parent

    Funny I feel the same way (none / 0) (#214)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:51:05 PM EST
    I never said talking about race makes you a racist. In fact I went out of my way to pretty much state just the opposite. Did you even read what I wrote?

    Talk about straw men! Physician heal thyself!

    Here because you seem to have missed it.

    I know racists (which I do NOT claim Ferraro to be) when I hear them, and racially insensitive remarks (which is what Ferraro's statement in context was) when I hear them.

    My logic is NOT

    X made  a racist statement

    Therefore X is a racist.

    That does not necessarily follow. Good people do make insensitive statements. Sometimes those insensitive statements involve race and are based upon an irrational belief.

    If you accept the premise that Obama is accomplished and charismatic;

    and the premise that other young, accomplished, charismatic white males of similar experience have gotten as far as he has in a presidential nomination process

    Then it follows that Gerry's statement is irrational. What she has done is make a statement based upon an irrational belief regarding Obama's race and his accomplishments. It doesn't mean she is a racist. It does mean she made a race based statement (a racist statement).  In the context of the complicated racial history of America - it sounds a lot like the white backlash statements I am so used to hearing (though admittedly more so  10 years ago than today).

    Parent

    It is (4.75 / 4) (#8)
    by Coldblue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:16:01 PM EST
    a long and close campaign.

    ronkseattle makes a great point on ignoring the distactions

    So here's the task at hand for bloggers in the refuge. Maintain equilibrium. Avoid distraction. Pick your battles. Hew to the essential questions:

       1. Who is Barack Obama?
       2. What has he said?
       3. What has he done?
       4. What does he plan to do?

    The focus is Obama, not Clinton. We'll have occasion to walk back some of the slanderous nonsense that has taken hold in certain big orange circles, but we'll do this gradually, factually, and in only context of reviewing Barack Obama's velvet-glove-and-tire-iron campaign tactics.



    Answers (4.25 / 4) (#15)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:30:45 PM EST
    Turst me, when you got out to Obama, they already have the answers....

       1. Who is Barack Obama?
    He is the Magical Unity Pony

       2. What has he said?
    That he will bring us all peace, prosperity, and happiness by providing hope, and unifying the American people.

       3. What has he done?
    Clinton is evil, as is anyone who supports her.

      4. What does he plan to do?
    Bring us all peace, prosperity, and happiness by providing hope, and unifying the American people.

     

    Parent

    Thar is quite (3.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:24:41 PM EST
    a good post from RonK. I do not agree with it in some aspects but very well argued. Where the hell was that RonK back when I was butting heads with him?

    Parent
    We're all (4.50 / 2) (#17)
    by Coldblue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:33:04 PM EST
    a little older, and a little smarter then we were then.

    Parent
    And deeper in debt. (4.66 / 3) (#24)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:40:14 PM EST
    Heh. (none / 0) (#110)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:53:31 PM EST
    Two peas in a pod?  Don't know about you but, in person, Ron is a sweet non-combative fellow...albeit with strong opinions...born of experience at many Dem barricades.

    Ron is over at Riverdaughter's Confluence these days...a refugee like the rest of us...

    Parent

    RonK , Cujo 359 and I may be the only (none / 0) (#154)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:42:51 PM EST
    NW bloggers that haven't bought into the wondrous magic of Obama.

    Parent
    Nah....you saw the result of (none / 0) (#164)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:02:05 PM EST
    the statewide 'don't bother, it doesn't count' primary.....there are lots of us...

    Parent
    Finally (4.66 / 3) (#13)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:25:41 PM EST
    we hear the Clinton camp put out a comprehensive
    message pointing out what is going on.
    The double standards by which the Obama camp has been playing. This would be okay in politics as usual but, as I said before it had been Obama the one who claim an ethereal mantle of a "different kind of politics".

    What Peter Daou writes about is not new and it has been clear to many of us it has been happening since New Hampshire.

    It is very interesting to observe the different types of emails both camps send....You see a pattern there.

    So, well done Mr. Daou !! I couldn't agree more.

    Prediction: will be characterized (4.00 / 2) (#16)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:31:26 PM EST
    as whining.

    Parent
    will further be characterized... (3.00 / 1) (#21)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:37:33 PM EST
    ...as "not consistent with the truth" or whatever their euphemism du jour is for saying she's just lying about being attacked.

    Parent
    Whatever... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:42:00 PM EST
    Of course I expect that reaction from many in themedia and from teh Obama campaign.

    Truth hurts. Hence they'll react predictably.

    As I said... whatever.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#27)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:43:26 PM EST
    blogpotus (none / 0) (#38)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:51:49 PM EST
    that is brilliant !! Thanks for the link.

    Parent
    That's BlogToPus (none / 0) (#64)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:13:27 PM EST
    Unless you want to refer to me as the "Blog President of the United States" haha

    Parent
    Yeah! (none / 0) (#190)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:10:01 AM EST
    blogPotus sounds good, doesn't it?
    Sorry for the confusion...

     

    Parent

    I really think BTD should get credit (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:02:30 PM EST
    though.  

    Parent
    BTD should (none / 0) (#62)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:12:38 PM EST
    I agree. I grew used to him using the phrase 'Obama Rules'. To be sure, TheLeftCoaster got inspired by Vastleft at Corrente.

    Parent
    So what? (none / 0) (#46)
    by tek on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:55:49 PM EST
    She knows now they're going to twist everything she says, might as well come out swinging with the truth.

    Parent
    The first blows (4.50 / 2) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:58:11 PM EST
    Obama surrogate Geffen's comments.

    Then Camp Clinton asking Obama to denounce Geffen's comments.

    Obama responding using the Right Wing Talking Point "Lincoln Bedroom" almost verbatim and refusing to make a comment about Geffen.

    If there was anything that happened prior to that, I'd like to know what it was.

    Maybe Obama thinks McCain is more truthful, and is a less divisive figure in American politics.


    Last June, the obama campaign was (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:48:08 PM EST
    repeating a lie that Bill C. was making money off of 9/11.

    Parent
    They were also saying (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:56:44 PM EST
    that HRC failed NYers after 9-11.  Something about her not being there for them when it happened?

    And then, that made me think, do they really want to talk about what she has done for the 9-11 responders?  Because she's been extremely aggressive on their behalf.  But, then, like the Ireland thing, they choose to go with the one person making the crappy statement about Clinton exaggerating instead of going with the ten folks who say the exact opposite.  Likewise with all these silly "Sinbad" references.  Every time I hear that, I feel like I'm back in high school.  That's the best they can come up with?

    Parent

    This is (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:05:34 PM EST
    the Bill Bradley campaign all over again.  Hillary must be shown to be a liar and serial exaggerator in literally everything she has ever claimed.  And if you throw mud on everything, then no one focuses on the fact that the individual criticisms are extremely weak, because it's all part of a pattern, don't you see.

    As we learned in 2000, this sort of narrative in the primary can be extremely damaging in the GE.  And it's sad, with all Hillary has done for people, to watch that legacy trashed just for the sake of scoring a political point.

    Parent

    and Bill Bradley himself is taking part (4.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:08:19 PM EST
    in this effort.

    Parent
    Forcing me to choose (3.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:25:44 PM EST
    Between the Clinton Legacy and the future of the party.

    It's not a difficult choice.

    Point is.  Don't make people make those kinds of choices.

    Parent

    Is there a link to that? (2.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:52:02 PM EST
    I certainly missed that one.

    Parent
    Check out Left Coaster (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:57:08 PM EST
    Barack Obama's Campaign Against Bill Clinton

    The original story at TPM is (shocker) gone, but here's the relevant text:

       We've just obtained an email that shows that the Obama campaign yesterday circulated a negative, and ultimately false, story about Bill Clinton -- that he allegedly made money giving a speech on September 11, 2006.

        Campaigns, of course, circulate negative stuff about each other all the time. This email is unusual in that it is flagging something potentially negative not about a primary rival but about the former President -- one who obviously isn't running in the Democratic primary and who remains popular with Dem primary voters. [...]

        The email, which was sent out by Jen Psaki of the Obama campaign and circulated to reporters (not us) on an off-the-record basis late yesterday, details some things that the Obama campaign found in Hillary's financial disclosure documents, which were released yesterday.... One of the things the email points to was the fact that Bill Clinton allegedly gave a for-profit speech on Sept. 11 -- something that presumably would be likely seen as controversial.

    Parent

    The clinker? (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:00:31 PM EST
    Clinton Spokesman: Drudge Version Misses a Detail About Pay Day

    Keep in mind this is from JUNE, 2007.  This is how long ago the Obama campaign was smearing Bill Clinton with false accusations:

    "Clinton's press office now says that although it was Sept. 11 in Hong Kong, he gave the speech from his home in Chappaqua on Sept. 10 at 8:00 pm, Eastern Standard Time."


    Parent

    "Senator from Punjab" was June 2007 (none / 0) (#165)
    by BlueMerlin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:02:32 PM EST
    Cached version (none / 0) (#129)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:17:46 PM EST
    Sargeant piece is still at TPM (none / 0) (#160)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:51:44 PM EST
    Here is the link

    it looks to me like the first person who blogged about it had a bad (truncated) link, and that same link was copied and used at other blogs.


    Parent

    I got it from Eriposte at (3.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:54:39 PM EST
    Theleftcoaster. The search over there sucks, so I don't know how to find the particular post.

    Parent
    (D-Punjab) (3.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:46:14 PM EST
    came first, I believe, but may have my chronology mixed up.

    Parent
    I found a good website (4.50 / 2) (#7)
    by OxyCon on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:12:03 PM EST
    today while reading the comments over at another blog.
    It catalogs, by date, all of the many attacks Obama has launched against Hillary.
    There's alot.

    Here it is (make sure you scroll down):

    http://www.attacktimeline.com/

    Just looking at the website I posted (4.87 / 8) (#14)
    by OxyCon on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:30:04 PM EST
    I found this gem:

    02/11/08 Obama says Hillary 'starts with 47% of the country against her.
    [Source: Washington Post]

    ----------

    According to Rasmussen's daily tracking poll, a whopping 49% of the country are against Obama.

    So by Obama's own logic, he's unqualified himself!

    Parent

    OxyCon (4.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:46:07 PM EST
    That's great, that is... priceless !!

    Parent
    Additional smears from staff or Obama himself (4.50 / 2) (#66)
    by Davidson on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:15:35 PM EST
    - Obama staff (now removed) sent an e-mail that includes blatant lies about NAFTA and revives horrid right-wing slandering of the Clintons' private/sexual life.

    Here are some debunking links on stories already discussed on this board:

    Obama, not Clinton, contacted Canada.
    - After stating he didn't believe Clinton leaked that Somali garb photo to Drudge, Obama himself pushed the smear when not only is there no proof and Drudge is simply, uh, not credible, but also it's all but certain the Free Republic sent that photo to Drudge since they discussed  passing the photo to Drudge 2 days before it broke (Also, the photo had showed up on a national tabloid).  Mind you, his campaign had already smeared her.

    -Axelrod is pushing the smear that Clinton refused to answer the 60 Minute "Muslim question."  How can anyone prove what Obama's beliefs are?  Even Obama can't.

    The "Clintons are racist!" smears are the worst.  I wish either they were included in the e-mail and that the "Attack Timeline" or Fact Hub did more to show blatantly false they are.  Why haven't countered they countered these charges with, at least, Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s remarks?

    Parent

    And he is absolutely correct (4.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Salt on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:57:29 PM EST
    One of the most militant, ugly, nasty, vicious personal attack campaigns ever wage against a candidate and add racist for supposedly not crying for Katrina.

    Wow! (3.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:24:04 PM EST
    Peter Daou, Clinton's internet communications director, says that Obama has gone negative and not Hillary?

    Stop the presses!

    He backs them up (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Davidson on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:37:54 PM EST
    That's the key.  What are they supposed to do?  Stay quiet?

    Parent
    I know, it's ridiculous (none / 0) (#80)
    by JJE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:26:42 PM EST
    And yet campaign spin is accepted as Gospel truth.  If Clinton thinks this is going negative, she certainly isn't ready for what the GOP will throw.

    Parent
    SHE isn't ready for what the GOP will (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:28:47 PM EST
    throw? Do you at all understand that Obama is going to be burned to the ground by 527 ads?

    Parent
    Do you understand (none / 0) (#109)
    by JJE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:52:57 PM EST
    that your predictions aren't fact?

    Parent
    Ah, (none / 0) (#166)
    by sumac on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:03:50 PM EST
    but your prediction in post #80 is FACT, yes?

    Parent
    I'm not sure you're clear on the concept (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:46:07 PM EST
    The point isn't that Clinton can't handle the negativity. She has been doing quite well, given the level of attacks. The point is that Obama, who claims to be above negative campaigning, has been ... well, negative campaigning. He has been, to say the least, "disingenuous" in his claims about staying positive all the time while Clinton attacks him mercilessly.

    Clinton has been dealing with right wing attacks for longer than Obama has been in politics. It's actually a lot easier than dealing with left wing attacks - she can fight back more easily when the opponent's supporters are not people whose vote she will depend on in the general election.

    Parent

    If we define "negative campaigning" (none / 0) (#115)
    by JJE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:56:56 PM EST
    to include all criticisms of one's opponent, you might have a point.  Perhaps you are unclear on the concept.

    Parent
    Yes, because (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:21:07 PM EST
    calling her dishonest, divisive, calculating, etc. - those are just criticisms, not negative campaigning in the least. really, if you just say politics of hope and unity in the next sentence, it's all just OK.

    dianem - i'm not sure why you even bother trying here.

    Parent

    as KO said (none / 0) (#139)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:26:09 PM EST
    re: the monster comment: you can't argue with that because of course some people think it is true.

    Haha--read in Newsweek recently:  "If just half the people who have bashed [Chris] Matthews for anti-Clinton rhetoric had ever actually tuned into his program, he'd have ratings to reckon with."

    Parent

    She's ready from day one--been there, (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:27:59 PM EST
    done that.  

    Parent
    Ready to do what? (none / 0) (#98)
    by JJE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:39:11 PM EST
    Flail around and lose elections?  If she can't defeat the empty-suit Obama with a huge name recognition advantage, how can she defeat the straight-talking war hero?

    Parent
    Unlike Obama, (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:19:10 PM EST
    Hillary has not yet lost an election, flailing or otherwise.

    Parent
    Another explanation (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by hitchhiker on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:39:22 PM EST
    for his loss in Ohio?  Upthread it was because the white voters are racist.  Now it's because he lacked name recognition.

    He didn't close the deal in Ohio.  The race would be over today if he had, but he wasn't even close.  It wasn't name recognition, and it wasn't racism.

    It was voters deciding that Hillary Clinton would make a better president.

    Parent

    THIS (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:42:44 PM EST
    It was voters deciding that Hillary Clinton would make a better president.

    is what makes me think there is a total disconnect with Obama campers and the real world.  They just cannot grasp that someone would actually like Hillary Clinton.  It so goes against their Bible of Obama Beliefs that they just go into a fury when they are confronted with it.  The Powers statement is an example of this, and there was an article in the NY Times the next day stating clearly that the "monster" myth is one firmly held by many upper level staffers and that they routinely make such statements to the US press but get a pass because, of course, the press is in love with Obama.

    It's basic story-writing 101: in order for there to be a good guy, there has got to be a bad guy.  Black hat/white hat all over again.

    Parent

    That's laughable (none / 0) (#161)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:54:43 PM EST
    There is no one MORE prepared for the GOP onslaught than Hillary Clinton. She's been fending it off for nearly twenty years.

    Parent
    Breaking news: Hillary staffer (1.00 / 3) (#57)
    by wormdirt on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:05:50 PM EST
    Says Obama bad.

    Cites examples, at least 3 of which are from the same article, all  of which seem arguably  obvious and true and fair points to make.

    IOW, Hillary staffer executes negative attack on Obama - claiming Obama campaign is negative.

    OK, but why not issue positives about Hillary.  Issuing negative attacks on Obama and claiming Obama is tha attacker seems very weak.    

    Perhaps there is some confusion (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Davidson on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:25:54 PM EST
    Facts and evidence are not "negative attacks" but correcting the record and even when Clinton focuses on her strengths they get distorted as "attacks," because the implication is obviously that she's the better candidate.  Basically, she's not allowed to campaign on her own behalf without the media and fanboys screaming how "negative" and "ruthless" she is.

    Parent
    you forgot (none / 0) (#155)
    by hitchhiker on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:43:43 PM EST
    calculating.  She's also calculating, and she'll do anything to win.

    Sigh.  I think the Obama plan all along has been to make sure voters see her as so damaged and divisive that they're afraid to put her up against the R's next fall.

    His themes of new politics and post-partisanship sound more hollow by the hour. . . and yet I will still vote for him if that's what it comes to.  Just not happily.

    Parent

    Ah, yes (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:50:27 PM EST
    Calculating.  One of those things, like wingtips and trouser socks, that look better on a man.

    The thing that makes me most furious about all of this is: when Obama tears down Clinton, he's pointing out the hard truths.  When Clinton says something unflattering about Obama, she is irrevocably damaging him for the ge and tearing the democratic party apart with her needle-like claws.

    The reason this narrative worked so well is because misogyny is still alive and well in America, and Axelrod knew exactly how to tap into it.  The amount of testosterone swilling up bandwidth is staggering.

    Parent

    Kathy! (none / 0) (#187)
    by smott on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:52:51 PM EST
    "The amount of testosterone swilling up bandwidth is staggering. "

    Brilliant! May I quote you??


    Parent

    apparently you didn't read the full post. (none / 0) (#63)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:12:44 PM EST
    Also (none / 0) (#22)
    by magster on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:38:21 PM EST
    That "me and McCain are the only ones qualified to be commander in chief" was not only positive, but it really helped the party.

    She raised a legitimate issue. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:40:19 PM EST
    It's up to Obama to argue why he should be trusted with command of the military. Given his lack of experience, it is not a given at all.

    Parent
    It's almost a given he is not at this stage. (none / 0) (#28)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:44:01 PM EST
    IMcCain and I are o.k.; Obama will . (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:39:36 PM EST
    speak for himself.

    Parent
    As others here have said (none / 0) (#42)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:52:59 PM EST
    Clinton did not say Obama was qualified.  She said that the reporters should ask Obama himself if he was qualified.  Obama's answer?  "Wah!!!  She said McCain was better than me!!!  Wah!!!"

    But, the best "attack" was having his advisor say that neither Clinton nor Obama is qualified...by inference suggesting that McCain is, which, to me, is much more startling than anything Clinton has said.  Then again, I am not Obama's target audience.  Not to use the pun (or incite and argument I've stayed out of here) but at this point, he is preaching to the choir.  

    Parent

    I happened to... (none / 0) (#58)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:06:42 PM EST
    ...still be at HuffPo when Susan Rice wrote a blog there about how badly her words had been 'distorted' about both of them not having the experience for the 3am call...

    Even among that receptive audience she was still pretty roundly bashed for having the nerve to say something totally asinine and then blame everyone else for seizing on it.

    Parent

    I'll let you in on a little secret. Obama (none / 0) (#43)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:53:54 PM EST
    really doesn't seem to be. It doesn't matter though, he'll let Lugar and Hagel make the hard decisions.

    Parent
    Should Obama (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by tek on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:00:32 PM EST
     get elected, the career Dems will be running the country.  But hey, they've done a great job since '06, right?

    Parent
    My nightmare scenario (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:24:43 PM EST
    is Obama as president with Pelosi and Reid still in charge in the House and Senate.  Why?  Because there is nothing I have seem that assures me that Obama would not be just as prone to rolling over in the interest of comity, which means that you can say goodbye to most of the things that I thought we were in this race to accomplish.

    Parent
    I was expressing my concerns about (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:33:18 PM EST
    Obama's commitment to nominating and pushing hard for confirmation of justices to SCOTUS who will uphold Roe v. Wade.  The woman I was talking to, an AA physican educated at one of the Seven Sisters, sd. Michelle Obama won't let him waffle on that issue.  Hope she's right.  She also sd. she liked Michelle Obama better than she liked Barack Obama.

    Parent
    Except that Obama's the one (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:44:51 PM EST
    who was all gung-ho to vote "yes" on Roberts - who I do not believe could be relied on, in any way, shape or form, to uphold Roe - until someone suggested it might not be a good career move...I can't be the only one who wonders just how committed Obama is to keeping Roe in place.

    Parent
    Obama's admiration for Roberts is a (none / 0) (#96)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:38:17 PM EST
    concern here.

    Parent
    Obama's admiration for Roberts (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:39:47 PM EST
    Was it Rumsfeld whom Obama said was not outside the mainstream?

    And now we hear that Wright is not outside the mainstream.

    Who else?

    I am beginning to think that this Unity Train has a few squeaky wheels back near the caboose.

    Parent

    Career dems like (none / 0) (#76)
    by JJE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:25:38 PM EST
    Terry McCauliffe?

    Parent
    Like Howard Dean is any better. (none / 0) (#89)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:32:10 PM EST
    At least under Terry the DNC had some money, and Michigan wasn't falling into GOP hands.

    Parent
    umm... (none / 0) (#117)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:59:54 PM EST
    ... hasn't the DNC done better fund raising under Dean than ever before?

    Parent
    Actually, no. (none / 0) (#118)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:03:42 PM EST
    Source? (none / 0) (#121)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:05:09 PM EST
    Fed. Elections Commission (none / 0) (#162)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:58:43 PM EST
    First 6 months 2007 latest I saw:

    "The largest percentage growth in fundraising came from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, whose receipts increased 51% compared to the same period in 2005.  Fundraising for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee grew by 37%, while receipts of the Democratic National Committee declined by 8% compared to the first six months of 2005."  As I recall, tho, 2005 was up significantly for the party (yea Dean!)

    Also, local and state Dems fundraising was up some 44% over 2005 in first 6 months of '07.  

    Parent

    Yeah, but Howard Dean has the gall (none / 0) (#122)
    by tbetz on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:06:49 PM EST
    ... to actually spend the money on developing local party organizations and building the party infrastructure for the future, unimportant stuff like that.

    That's why he doesn't have as much money in the bank.  Until he asks for it, whereupon millions of Democrats donate it in small amounts.

    Parent

    I love Howard, but I need to see some action (none / 0) (#167)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:06:27 PM EST
    Talking to my brother the other day and he said the RNC had more money. I said no, that is not right. He said it was in the San Diego Union. In the meantime, I have told the DNC that no small or big donations coming until the Michigan/Florida debacle is resolved.

    Talked to friends in Florida tonight. They are all concerned about the Wright and his church thing. AND, they said enough people voted in Florida and they want those delegates seated as is. They are not interested in a Revote. So, Howard is will have to make a decision soon.

    Parent

    I Can Just See Him At Press Conferences (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:26:41 PM EST
    when asked about some policy saying "I Agree With Hillary."

    Seriously, what exactly did the Republicans do that was positive at State and Defense, that Obama feels he needs them to in his administration?

    Parent

    I know. He'd darn welll better ask her (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:30:24 PM EST
    to be his VP.  Who will answer the tough questions otherwise?  

    Parent
    You don't understand the Clinton Rules (none / 0) (#69)
    by JJE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:20:46 PM EST
    that prevail amongst many commenters.  All criticism of Clinton is vicious race-baiting or smears of her character.  All criticism of Obama, even when it suggests McCain is more qualified than he is, is raising legitimate questions.

    Parent
    Don't use pretend ones. Go to the catgalogued ones (none / 0) (#186)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:49:56 PM EST
    The Clinton Rules and the Obama Rules.

    Remember, you get to have your own personal opinion, but not your own facts.

    Claiming that McCain's more qualified than Obama to be CinC isn't a SMEAR on Obama given both HRC and McCain's records of service. (Yeesh.)

    Claiming that HRC is a Monster, however, is a smear. Claiming, without a scrap of objective evidence, that she was responsible for putting "damaging" pictures of Obama is a smear.

    Come back when you can link to something on par with the catalogue of Obama's negative attacks, or apply your energy to refuting them.

    Parent

    The incident is upstream but here's the quote (none / 0) (#197)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:38:13 AM EST
    "I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

    "I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said. (Pearson, The Swamp, 03/06/2008) via HuffiPost

    It's a stretch to take this as a smear of Obama even if one disagrees with HRC's take on her fellow Sens.


    Parent

    Was it a smart move on (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:47:06 PM EST
    Peter Daou's part to interrupt the news cycle, if he did, of Obama and The Rev. Wright?

    I don't think it will become news (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:31:01 PM EST
    I think now is a good time to release this. In the past, whenever Obama was criticized by Clinton his campaign turned around and criticized her for going on the attack, while claiming the high ground for himself. But right now, he is planning (publicly) to  attack Clinton, which will make it difficult for him to claim high ground on this issue. The letter highlights his hypocrisy, weakening the "I've been nice until now, but you've forced me to be mean" tone of his latest attacks.


    Parent
    Yeah I think so.. it adds synergy:) (none / 0) (#35)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:48:33 PM EST
    Is there a tie-in to evolution here? (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:50:41 PM EST
    It appears to be an attempt... (none / 0) (#41)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:52:29 PM EST
    ...to pre-empt the 'full assault' the Obama campaign is reportedly preparing...

    ...I really can't imagine what they're going to pull out of their behind which hasn't been warmed over twice already.  Meanwhile, the Obama baggage is largely new developments.

    Parent

    I think the Obama baggage is old information (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:57:28 PM EST
    well known to the print media in Chicago, but not picked up until recently by the national media.  

    Parent
    It's the... (none / 0) (#54)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:03:51 PM EST
    ...latter part of your comment that's relevant.  A lot of this stuff on Obama has been out there but was never picked up by the wire services or broader media.


    Parent
    Oculus, it pains me to say (none / 0) (#59)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:07:40 PM EST
    you may be right; however, I will also expand on your statement by saying that because Obama has not defined himself as anything other than a series of warm, fuzzy attributes ("hope!  change!  unity!  equality!  everybody gets a car!") it is very easy for anyone to come along now and define him.  He's had his magic bubble for a while now, and people are starting to look at him carefully, and as his past comes out, the bubble starts to pop.  

    What they are seeing is that he is a politician, and as has been said by better people than you or I (or at least you*): whenever Obama looks like a politician, he loses.  I think this email from Dau came at the exact right time, especially in view of the Kos writer's strike getting such play.  And Obama folks have framed it so that anything positive that is said about Clinton automatically is framed as negative about Obama.

    *come on, I couldn't keep complimenting you, could I?  It wouldn't be right!

    Parent

    Kathy, I think you and I and a few others (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:14:53 PM EST
    should probably be looking into insurance coverage for our inpatient rehab programs.  If HRC campaign is really thinking of saying ok to FL petition to seat 1/2 the delegates, seems to me she is signaling she will, in fact, "bow out gracefully."  Unfortunately BTD is apparently so pissed off at my criticism of his This Is Funny post he isn't posting on this startling news.  (If true--it is at Huff Post, after all.)

    Parent
    I don't think agreeing to seat (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:15:02 PM EST
    1/2 the delegates would be giving in.  And I realize that downthread even the notion that Clinton might agree to this has been in contention (and honestly, there's a reason Obama released his first statement to Wright on HuffPo: they are HuffBO and have been for ages).  Let's also keep in mind all the rumors that have swirled around about everything over the last few weeks, and all the stupid things surrogates of both campaigns have said..

    But, honestly, why would it be admitting defeat?  She's still got PA, she's still got other states, she's still go the big state narrative, and Obama still has Wright and Rezko.  Not to mention the Writer's Strike, which I think resonates more than some folks here realize.  

    All that is going to matter is appearances, and if she shows some give with FL, and has a wave of wins and the appearance is that she is the more viable candidate, then we are looking at a Clinton nomination with Obama taking the VP rather than going back to being the junior senator from IL who can't get anything done.

    Parent

    Apparently I was unnecessarily (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:18:52 PM EST
    worried, as this contingency hasn't happened.  Tomorrow I'm busy at trial call out of town, so I hope all the really important stuff waits until 5:00 p.m. PDT.    

    Parent
    Didn't you hear? (none / 0) (#148)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:38:28 PM EST
    I hope all the really important stuff waits until 5:00 p.m. PDT.
       

    Obama's going to be on Oprah at four to withdraw from the race.  

    Tivo?

    Parent

    Ha. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:41:58 PM EST
    Actually, he is in Scranton at 7 (none / 0) (#176)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:28:36 PM EST
    He is having a dinner with the Irish Society of Women or something like that. The tickets were all sold out at the Lackawanna Radison. It is the Train Station ala Vanderbilt style and really historic. Have eaten there. Have no clue to where they are putting people. Will let you know what the news says and if the press is as good as it was for Hillary and her two visits here this week.

    Parent
    and isn't that a shame? (none / 0) (#61)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:08:49 PM EST
    Why oh why wasn't this reported a year ago?  Now it's probably just gonna be a mess for the whole party.

    Parent
    nothing from 1999-present (none / 0) (#82)
    by JJE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:28:05 PM EST
    has been warmed over even once.  Clinton's claim to be "vetted" is utter nonsense.

    Parent
    You say this like... (none / 0) (#177)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:28:44 PM EST
    ...they've been living in seclusion for the last decade.

    Hillary has run not one but two high profile US Senate campaigns.  What are they waiting for?

    Parent

    they are the ones they've been waiting for :-) (none / 0) (#181)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:41:09 PM EST
    Does it really matter anymore? (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:04:28 PM EST
    Huff Post has an article up saying HRC may agree to FL request to credentials comm. to seat 1/2 the FL delegates.  Obama, of course, has not committed.

    you keep repeating (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:29:37 PM EST
    an absurd, unconfirmed article from an Obama supporting site. No one has said Hillary would agree to seating half the delegates. No Democratic party official has confirmed this is about to happen. Someone filed a lawsuit, that's it.

    Please stop commenting about it, you've done this three times at least today. At this point it's furthering misinformation.

    Parent

    Sorry. (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:42:24 PM EST
    P.S.  There is a link from your blog to Huffington Post.  

    Parent
    I read HuffPo every day (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:52:29 PM EST
    I also write there from time to time. That doesn't mean I agree with everything their reporters write.

    That said, the NY Times now has an article up on the topic -- a few people they interviewed like the idea, but there's still no word that it's got official party support or the support of either campaign. The DNC has repeatedly said any solution must have the ok of both campaigns.

    Parent

    Good. I am an unabashed HRC (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:54:39 PM EST
    supporter who would like to see her fight on.  

    Parent
    Definitely Part Of The Creative Class n/t (none / 0) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:28:44 PM EST


    I think that video is a setup (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:32:41 PM EST
    and it's by a total nobody. I certainly don't think it's representative of Obama supporters or our younger voters. I give them much more credit and it's unfair to pin this garbage on anyone but the idiot who made it. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be a fraud or a joke.

    Maybe this is the same guy (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:08:36 PM EST
    who was passing out those Dem. for a Day leaflets in NV just b/4 the caucuses.  Rogue.  

    Parent
    I think I saw him (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:16:17 PM EST
    in the audience on one of those preacher clips.

    Parent
    seriously? (none / 0) (#119)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:03:45 PM EST
    You are attacking Obama because of some random kid who made a youtube video?

    Wow.

    Parent

    The list was written (none / 0) (#101)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:44:06 PM EST
    Read Tom Brokow's new book, "Boom." The list was first used by Karl Rove against Democrats. Nothing new except more of the blame game. Even Bill has stated, "Chill Out."

    From AP Sunday afternoon: (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:14:47 PM EST
    When asked if the request for tax information is what they are calling personal attacks, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said: "When you accuse somebody of being disingenuous and question their integrity and their honesty, as they are doing, that constitutes a personal attack."


    BTD: Michigan video shaming Obama (none / 0) (#134)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:21:25 PM EST
    Very similar in tone and feel to Clinton ads, but not officially from the campaign. Is this running on television, I wonder?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QshvHUmSVc0

    Would be effective in FL as well, I should think.

    Big stretch (none / 0) (#171)
    by Melchizedek on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:15:50 PM EST
    It's one thing to say "Obama could have left his name on the ballot" and quite another to say that he "disenfranchised" voters. That does not follow in the least, given the DNC ruling on the state.

    Parent
    It is a strong ad (none / 0) (#172)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:18:10 PM EST
    Who did it? Is it just UTube or actually playing on TV because there is no name attached that I saw. It really make OHB look manipulative and thinking Michigan people won't catch the slight of hand.

    Parent
    Peter Daou (none / 0) (#136)
    by dem08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:23:30 PM EST
    What do we expect a person who handles Hillary's "internet communication" to say?

    I still think a Reasonable Person could question:

    "Hillary's 35 year record of achievement." By her admission, her pledge to bring 200,000 new jobs to my home area, Western New York, failed. We lost between 20 and 40 thousand jobs.

    "Hillary's passing the Commander-in-Chief 'Threshold'". I don't even know what that means. Does a candidate "Pass the 'threshold'" by ordering troops into battle? It seems to me like saying, "I have read my resume and I am the best person for the job" without saying why.

    As for New York jobs..... (none / 0) (#170)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:12:45 PM EST
    I believe she answered Russets question with the fact of first of all, she thought there was going to be a President Gore. When I lived in California, and the Enron was making a lot of money and cheating us, the state asked the White House for help. The WH refused and said for California should deal with the problem. On SNL, they had Chenney look a like saying, You didn't vote for us and now we are not helping you or something close to that. Maybe the same thing happened.

    Parent
    Hillary's answer (none / 0) (#184)
    by dem08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:41:05 PM EST
    makes my point for me. When one examines her record, much of her "35 years of achievement" vanishes. I am NOT saying Obama or McCain has some sterling record of achievement, either.

    We live in the Age of Tiny People. Newt Gingrich is supposedly a serious thinker, W is a serious leader. I am just objecting to accepting facts that are not facts.

    Hillary failed to deliver because her plan anticipated "Gore would be president." What happens to the second all of Hillary Clinton's well-thought out plans when the Senate requires either a 60 Vote Majority and she doesn't have one?

    Does she say, "Sorry I failed but I thought there would be 75 Democratic Senators"?

    Parent

    148 attacks in 9 months (none / 0) (#168)
    by Donna Darko on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:08:21 PM EST
    http://attacktimeline.com/

    There have been 148 attacks from the Obama campaign against Clinton in the last 9 months. 30% involve character assassination. Republican talking points are also common.

    Unity and hope indeed. The Obama campaign is more divisive. The fact it encourages and condones sexism is as divisive as it gets. Sexism against Clinton is not divisiveness/polarization on her part. It's divisiveness from Obama's campaign.


    sorry. Your link stinks (none / 0) (#194)
    by dem08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:15:40 AM EST
    Donna Darko has the link up. I urge readers of TL to go to it.

    Any time Obama or his campaign even answered a charge by Hillary and her campaign it is "an attack".

    I would not respect a McCain, Clinton, or Obama site that counted everything a candidate or his supporters said as an "attack". How silly can people get.

    Don't answer, please,(hence no question mark), it's going to be an absurd homestretch and election. I never liked Fox News or professional wrestling.

    I am a college teacher of composition. Does anyone know if The French Foreign Legion is hiring? I would really like to go someplace else until this election blows over.....

    Parent

    A Tsunami Of Whining (none / 0) (#179)
    by Tacitus Voltaire on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:36:10 PM EST
    The Obama campaign is going to whine its way into the White House, I guess. Considering that Barack played dirty by hiring a lawyer and getting all his opponents thrown off the ballot in order to win his state senate election, they have some nerve. Chutzpah would certainly describe it.

    In his one national senate campaign, first his major primary opponent developed serious bimbo problems and had to drop out, and then his republican opponent suffered about exactly the same fate. However, despite the fact that Barack has, therefore, never faced a real campaign before, he seems to be doing real well with the whining defense.

    I've just about had it. The democratic party leadership, or at least Nancy Pelosi, seem determined to pile on Hillary to force her out and send the rookie into the big game. My opinion is that the plaster saint has feet of clay.

    The people have spoken Clinton much more negative! (none / 0) (#192)
    by KQuark on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:12:02 AM EST
    In the elections since Clinton's "kitchen sink" campaign voters have said that Clinton has had far more negative a campaign than Obama.  You are completely delusional.

    56% say Clinton has been more unfairly negative while only 38% have said Obama has been unfairly negative in TX for example.

    First day posting on this sight. (none / 0) (#195)
    by KQuark on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:16:13 AM EST
    This sight is so in the tank for Hillary it is not even funny.  Saying Obama is more negative than Hillary in this campaign is just a delusional view of reality.  Hillary's campaign has even said they had a negative "kitchen sink" strategy to take down Obama.  Personal attacks on Obama is part of their plan to steal the nomination they cannot win fairly.

    And what a debut! (none / 0) (#207)
    by Camorrista on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:53:49 AM EST
    This sight is so in the tank for Hillary it is not even funny.
     
    Personal attacks on Obama is part of their plan to steal the nomination they cannot win fairly.

    Thank you for your insights.  Brilliant and poetic as they are, will you forgive us if we don't applaud you for them?

    It's not that they're as sour as year-old milk; or that they've obviously been schlepped unedited from HuffPo; or that telling us we're delusional isn't the most graceful way to introduce yourself; or that somebody who names himself for a physics particle can't spell 'site;' but that you are so patently (and proudly) a Clinton-hater that you you overlook that only other Clinton-haters will pay any attention to you.  

    Parent

    KQuark, i'll give you the (none / 0) (#204)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:01:17 AM EST
    benefit of the doubt, and assume you're young, dumb and drunk, and it's late at night. not a good way to go through life son.

    Hillary's campaign has even said they had a negative "kitchen sink" strategy to take down Obama.

    please provide actual sources, from the actual clinton campaign, not some unsubstantiated assertions (much like yours) by unrelated third parties.

    negativity, candor, and the race card (none / 0) (#209)
    by one2ohmygod on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:24:24 PM EST