to come forward voluntarily and then name him if he doesn't.

this person does not exist....

Rep. Rob Andrews, who supported Clinton

No earthly reason for him to make this up.  He was supporting Clinton.

Should be interesting.

 This is silly season, only in the minor leagues. So it's a non-story, or maybe, just maybe it's an effort to keep the pot stirred up. Ignore him, and that way it doesn't matter if he Shuts TFU or not.

I read this article a few minutes ago. And I figured it would take 10 minutes for up to show up here. I was off by 2 minutes.

I have to agree though. At this point why even bring this crap up. He's not endearing himself to anybody in the party.

Sounds messy.

If it's true, I hope it's Mark Penn, just for the purposes of consolidating villainy.

It's possible that somebody at the Clinton campaign went off the reservation a bit.  I cannot, and will not believe that anybody at the top of the campaign was as retarded as something like this would require.

I will remain skeptical until Congressman Andrews coughs up a name and there is some kind of verification of his claims.  I don't expect either to happen.

Just because its hurtful doesn't mean its false.  But it for damned sure doesn't make it true.

I don't know... if I was Andrews and I got that call, I would QUIETLY insist to the Clinton campaign that they axe that person and anyone else responsible for that strategy, or else I go public.

For him to come out with this now sounds off.

I've heard similar things from friends who are high up in the NY Democratic party.  Clinton people were going to Jewish newspapers and to some Jewish organizations and rabbis and talking about tensions between blacks and Jews and raising questions about Obama's positions on Israel.

I understand that you don't want to believe this, but the folks involved will eventually be talking about it.  

I think it's no secret that Hillary had some pretty cut-throat advisers, with Penn at the top of the list.

Exploiting sexism (which the Obama campaign did not do, but likely benefited from), exploiting racial tensions, inflaming class war.. it's all old politics. It's what Democrats subjected to Atwater and Rove learned they had to do, or drown.

It's not personal. It's just a tactic whose time is hopefully on its way out. I don't think it sits well with Hillary to use these kinds of tactics--I think she ceded some of her better judgment to the attack dogs, sincerely believing it was for a higher purpose. Our nation is in serious freaking peril, and Hillary was not sure Obama could prevail, and if he did, whether he had the contacts or strategy to take the neocons out.

I confess to thinking this way often myself--the Boondock Saints way of taking out the trash, if you will (the "trash" being the neocons, in this case).

I don't think this is a scandal. I think it should be viewed in context. Also, I hope someday Hillary sits on the Supreme Court, where she can rely on her own judgment and not have to campaign or jockey in the trenches for the position she deserves.

but when I read stuff like this I try to figure out the motive of the accuser. A good article would have given me the "why" of that. This one didn't. I don't know why this guy would make this statement, or moreover, why he'd lie about it. More info needed.

What I took away from that article was that Hillary, as we all knew, was not surrounded by a particularly scrupulous bunch of folks.  That fact that this didn't end up going anywhere speaks more to me about the basic decency of Hillary and just reinforces the negative opinions I already had about her campaign.

I agree with the title of this diary.

Is one of my least favorite house Dems. Since he got here, he's been nothing an annoyance. He ran a nasty primary campaign for governor, a nasty primary challenge to Lautenberg, teamed up with Bill Zeliff from New Hampshire to try and hack away at social programs with their "A Through Z" attack on spending projects. Why can't they get a better Democrat in his district?

There is an election to get on with.  Why is this even under discussion, to give it legs?  

.... that his cousin told his mother-in-law that a good friend ....

I CAN'T KNOW Andrews' agenda, personal motive, BUT I can agree with one commenter who noted in so many words that "it's a little late".  One has to ask "why now?"

What does the "rumor" serve to "prove"?  that someone said that someone in the HRC campaign made racially divisive remarks.  Hmmmm, does this do ANY GOOD for the efforts for unity in the party?  Answer:  no.  Does this statement reflect poorly on a Democratic Party member?  no.

Hmmmm, is this person trying to help the party ticket?  No.

Why, in God's name, is Andrews bringing this up now?  It smacks as being very self serving.  

I'm not entirely sure that he is thinking clearly, or thinking about what's good for the Dem party.

Even if this is true, (sounds a little far fetched), it pointless to bring it out.

"pointless" may as well be Mr. Andrews' middle name. What was the point of the nasty campaign he ran againt Lautenberg? He's just a nasty little man and NJ deserves better.

and rarely ever true.  SevenStrings, you are absolutely right that Rep. Andrews statement is solely an unfounded accusation.  Unless Andrews is willing to name the staffer, then his assertion should be cast aside as a rumor.

I'm really glad that most Obama supporters have dismissed this joke of an accusation.  My major anger with the lies about the Texas Caucus was that they were unfounded accusations.  There is nothing different in that case and this one.  I would hope that any Obama supporter who is buying Andrews story did not rec my diary.  Accusations are just that.  And they are not believe unless supported with evidence.

What a jackass, Andrews is.....

And why did I support Frank Lautenberg again?

deserved to lose as he is almost a bush dog.  I just wish he wouldn't get his seat back.