Clinton had Obama investigated:Madrassa story?

Just go over and check the story. I have no opinion other than, how crazy is it gonna get?

http://mediamatters.org/items/2007061300 08?f=h_latest

Tags: Clinton/Obama (all tags)

Comments

60 Comments

Re: Clinton had Obama investigated:Madrassa story

This I hear is true-that she snatched Spielberg's endorsement from Sen.Obama in a statement released by her campaign.

by g1967 2007-06-13 04:41PM | 0 recs
to be fair

It's not like his endorsement was just sitting on a table. Spielberg changed his mind, I guess...

by bowiegeek 2007-06-13 09:26PM | 0 recs
This really bothers me...

But, contrary to their claims, CNN didn't debunk anything about our story. For the record, Insight never -- not once -- in its article claims that Obama went to a Madrassa. We didn't claim it; Hillary's people did. We reported -- and we fully stand by our story -- that the Hillary Clinton camp had conducted their own opposition research on Obama's Muslim past, and that the Clinton investigators had concluded Obama had attended a Madrassa. This is what Hillary's camp was saying and desperately trying to prove -- not Insight.

After reading this article, if she get the nomination, I may not vote for her.  This right here is low down and awful.  Is she that petrified?  I am an African American female, even though I am not for Hillary, if she is the nominee I stated that I would vote the party.  But this, here.  I don't like this and I don't like her, for this.  I thought she was better than this, but she is nothing but a cold, scheming, calculating woman.  And I did like her, even though I was not supporting her in the primaries.  I am passing this along to my family.  This is just horrible.

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: This really bothers me...
I don't understand. Isn't Insight a rightwing rag?
Did the info come straight to Insight from the Hillary camp?
by annefrank 2007-06-13 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: This really bothers me...

careful...this is John Gibson's BS story.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-13 08:37PM | 0 recs
lol

You just quoted what Media Matters quoted from Insight in order to debunk it. I can't believe you just skipped over everything just to accept that!

by bowiegeek 2007-06-13 09:29PM | 0 recs
Huh?

Okay?

So Insight tried to defend the story again.  But media matters says that the Clinton investigation is unsubstantiated.  Unless there is evidence proving otherwise, I blame no one but Insight.

If they truly want to blame Clinton then they should have checked all their facts and sources first before running the bogus story.

by lovingj 2007-06-13 04:51PM | 0 recs
Exactly

Lets deal in facts and reality here.

by dpANDREWS 2007-06-13 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton had Obama investigated:Madrassa story
I personally just wonder how dirty wit will get?
Will they really have to do shit like this?
Will the repugs plant stories leading back to to either of their campaigns?
by g1967 2007-06-13 05:03PM | 0 recs
Obamamaniacs marching over a cliff

Insight Mag?  Who the F would swallow word one of that crapolla?  Maybe I'll stop calling such loons Obamamaniacs and call them Obamatards.

Lets live in the real world here people.  Insight Mag hates Hillary, they hate Obama, they hate Democrats, they lie, they spin, they suck.  

by dpANDREWS 2007-06-13 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obamamaniacs marching over a cliff

FTW

by bowiegeek 2007-06-13 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton

Amazing.  Are you folks really this desperate?  

MEDIA MATTERS goes after Insight exactly for these wild claims, which appear cooked up and entirely bogus.    Yet, you buy into the INSIGHT version of this instead of how MEDIA MATTERS goes after Insight?  Then why even link to a MEDIA MATTERS article, which after all aims to rip apart made-up stories and lies?  

You know, icebergslim, because some of you Obama fans appear so very ridiculous, I might just change my ranking from 1. Clinton, 2. Obama, 3. Edwards to elevate Edwards to 2 and delegate Obama to #3.  

This diary is lame.  

by georgep 2007-06-13 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton

Ridiculous?  Because I am questioning this?  I don't like it, period.  I want all our candidates to fight fair, keep this shit for the General.  And though I am an Obama supporter, not a fan, not at 45, believe me, he is just a man like all the others.  And if he looses, I will hardly loose any sleep.  But, I do have a right to have a concern here.  I would "hope" that the Clintons are not doing this shit, I truly would hope.  And I did not know you had a ranking.  I had not even thought that far in advance.

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton

This diary is not cool. I am surprised you just bought into the crap hook, line and sinker.  Media Matters is a site whose sole purpose of existence is to point out laughable lies in the right-wing media.  They are BASHING the article and the comments, particularly their outlandish claims regarding Clinton.   So, is MEDIA MATTERS right, or the right-wing loony Insight Mag?  You have decided that MEDIA MATTERS is full of crap with their attack on Insightmag and that indeed Insight is telling the truth.  

Sad, really.  

by georgep 2007-06-13 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton

I don't think it is sad.  We need to question EVERYTHING, I will admit, I put the cart before the horse in not analyzing all angles.  Was late taking my "brain pills" today.  But, we must be persistant and get in training, because the avalanche will come next year!!   No doubt.

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 06:04PM | 0 recs
Friends

Friends don't let friends perpetuate republican memes on progressive blogs...

by Michael Bersin 2007-06-13 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton

Ok.  But don't let it happen again.  I started liking you a bit.   :-)

by georgep 2007-06-13 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton

again, I forgot my "brain pills"...me like u too, :)

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton

Wow. You must be desperate if you will believe Insight over Media Matters. Whose side are you on anyway? Insight's devious attempt to smear both camps is so transparent only a right-winger would believe their story. This story was on all right wing anti-Hillary (Stop Hillary Express) radio programs from 6am thru 6pm daily for several days in my town even after CNN debunked their claim about Obama.

by meliou2 2007-06-13 06:12PM | 0 recs
Shiiiiiiit!!, the Clintons will do anything to win

You are crazy if you think the Clintons will be playing nice...Bill has already stated that he wants to win this for Hillary because of all the pain he's made her go through....Please believe me, the Mark Penn, and all the other Clintonistas are going to get vicious if Obama gets close.

They are threatening people by telling folks not to donate to any other candidate but Hillary..this is code for "do not donate to Obama"...

I really think they(the Clintons) put this story out there and made sure that a right wing  source ran with it so that it would look like it's the GOP, not a democrat.

The Clintons also have strong links to FoxNews and other right wingers.

I dont trust the Clintons for a second.

by JaeHood 2007-06-13 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re:

That is insane.  You have no proof.  All you have is your "belief," based on.......nothing.   Nothing but irrational hate, that is.

I am not holding my breath, knowing what I know about you, but surprise me.  Show me a smidgen of proof of this statement:

"Bill has already stated that he wants to win this for Hillary because of all the pain he's made her go through."  

If he STATED that, we are talking actual quotes.  I would love to see those, but am sure that you will not be able to show anything.   True to form.  

by georgep 2007-06-13 10:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton

this was a fox talking point a few months ago. be careful with this story.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-13 08:39PM | 0 recs
Crap

Well you see, here is what's happening.  This past week has been nothing but good news for Hillary - great poll numbers; about 20 new important endorsements; thousands of people in her audiences; everything she said in the last debate that was "supposed" to hurt her, has actually helped her and hurt her opponents.  

Just look at the crap-all-over Hillary diaries being put up in the past few days.

Speaking as a Hillary supporter, and a strong and well-informed Hillary supporter at that, this feels really really good.   For years, I have lurked on this blog and read the most horrific lies and smears about my candidate.  

Now Hillary is leading and getting stronger every day.  And her haters are freaking out.

Enjoy your freak-out.  

I laugh at you.

by samueldem 2007-06-13 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap
Hillary has not been subjected to any "probing" interviews on Sunday shows. Not suggesting they'd actually be hard hitting - but that's just the facts. Obama has only been on one of them.
Corporate media calls her "presidential" - without mentioning News Corp is flooding her with corporate dollars and bending over backwards for her. And viola! the polls reflect she's ahead. Gee - how could that be???  How??
Some people who wonder are the same people who wonder why people are so obsessed with following Paris Hilton's every move.
The media rules!
by annefrank 2007-06-13 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

Seriously, if Edwards were a truly exciting or inspiring candidate, nothing could stop him from growing his support stronger and stronger and stronger.  

Sometimes it makes sense to look inwards and not look to blame everybody else.  Edwards and his campaign have made many mistakes.  He is paying the price for it right now.   There is still time left, but he needs to stop making mistakes.  In his situation he has no room for mistakes anymore.  

by georgep 2007-06-13 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

I agree.  One mistake is putting all resources into Iowa.  I know he has practically lived there, but look what Obama has done since he entered the race.  6 points behind Edwards, per Des Moines Register.  And Clinton has shaken up her camp, because she is third.  I think Iowa will be taken by Obama or Clinton, personally.  And putting monies, all into Iowa, makes one think, what do you have for the bump in cash, if you do win?  This analogy is risky, plus having Joe Trippi, the internet guru for Dean.  I never cared for him, he should have been more streamline with Dean in the money field, but that is another story.

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

because she is third... in one poll?

we all know you take stock in that ONE single poll, but lets try to be a little real. She did do a shake up, but i wouldnt say its because she's "in third"

by sepulvedaj3 2007-06-13 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

Look, I was answering the question, and yes, I trust the Des Moines Register than most of the other polls.  They have been polling Iowans for years.  They were the ones who called the Iowa Caucus when everyone thought, Dean was going to win and he did not.  And Clinton is shaking up her Iowa organization, nothing wrong with that.  Many may have gotten angry from that "leaked memo", I don't know if it is true, but that newspaper has been pretty on point.

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

Look, Tarheel showed in one of his diaries that the DesMoinesRegister had Edwards pulling in only 5% in AUGUST if 2003.    5%.   What does it mean when you say that you "trust" the Desmoines Register?  They got their findings completely wrong, even in AUGUST last time.   Why do you believe them now so explicitly?    

My advise would be to go with the average of ALL polls, because that ONE poll you so explicitly trust could just have had a "bad day."   But, if you do that you will get a result you won't like, so perhaps it is best for you to bank entirely on that one poll after all.  

by georgep 2007-06-13 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

George, I am referring to within two weeks of the caucus, when the paper reported that Kerry was ahead in the polls.  I remember, Cspan covered this and a woman came out stating that Kerry was going to win this.  I do trust their stats, because they know how to poll Iowans.  And I do believe this was a major reason Clinton shaked up her campaign, she does have Penn for internal polling, and I am sure they had the same numbers as the paper.  Yes, hypothetical, but very plausible.

by icebergslim 2007-06-14 01:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

Obama is not likely to win Iowa. He and Hillary will be after second place, Hillary hoping to win outright. The Deomgraphics are all wrong for Obama, don't expect much there. NH he could come in second and close in on Hillary, but she has her NY machine to bury everyone there.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-13 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

She did not "STEAL" anything from him.  Are you referring to the idiotic "Waah, Clinton stole the word CHANGE from Obama.  How can we go on.  The horror" - diary?  

And, today she stood up for Obama when a reporter tried to get a juicy "story" about Obama missing out on an important non-confidence vote against Gonzales.   Very nice form.

I think you are way off here once again.  

by georgep 2007-06-13 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

Look, in Hillary's eyes, Edwards is not her competition, Obama is.  And her camp is doing a good job in trying to put the "alarm" out with poll numbers, every hour.  Why?  Because when you have had over 10,000 canvassing the United States for one candidate, what do you think?  He has more support than is indicated, that is what.  And he does.  Why do you think that she stated if he raised more money than she, it means nothing?  Well, in reality it does.  It means he can continue to do what he is doing, gives him time to hone his message, open offices, etc.  And still be a pain in the ass to Clinton.  That's why.  Look who are these people giving to him?  And of course, she would like to know, but since she does not, it is poll number time.  Look, this shit happens in every campaign.  It happened in BC for president, part one.  Obama is her threat.  No one can dismiss him for his internet savvy, his grassroots savvy, and his appeal to the public, no one.  But, since he is still an anamoly to many, Clinton can fall back on the poll numbers.  And since we have many "uninformed voters" out here, not like us political freaks, then she is betting the message will resonate that she is in the lead, and they will forget the other guy.  That is something Obama must fix, and I think he will, especially if the money numbers are outta this world, as rumored.

So, why pick on Edwards?  He is not travelling, as Clinton and Obama, in the same fundraising group.

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

I was in a bad mood until I read your comment.  A bgreath of fresh air.  Thanks.

by noquacks 2007-06-13 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

Hillary is spliting the black vote with him and also the liberal vote. That is where the death match is really going on.  Edwards is entrenched in the moderate/con wing.

Edwards comment about the supplimental Bill was an opportunity for Obama to attack Hillary for her hawkishness, but instead Obama gave Hillary an opportunity to blur differences by hitting out at Edwards.  HSe played them both.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-13 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

Did you read what Steven Spielberg had to say today?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4094922a1870.html

"I've taken the time to familiarize myself with the impressive field of Democratic candidates and am convinced that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to lead us from her first day in the White House," Spielberg said in a statement.
....

Many Hollywood donors are still giving money to all three Democratic front-runners, though some earlier would-be Obama backers seem to be leaning more toward Clinton amid concerns that Obama lacks experience needed for the White House, political analysts say.

by georgep 2007-06-13 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

George, I lived in Calfornia, back in my "navy lieutenant days", and this is standard.  The truth is most have maxed out to all of them.  Many have given to already.  And Speilberg has maxed to Clinton, too.  The next California trips will be more central cali and northern cali.

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

they might have maxed out, but that doesnt mean they still cant host fundraisers

by sepulvedaj3 2007-06-13 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

As you have noticed, at least I have, many are hosting more smaller dollar amount fundraisers, $500, $250, some $1000.  I do believe this when Ben Affleck said on Hardball, that Hollywood was divided down the middle betwen Obama and Clinton.  That is understandable, because it is a generational divide.  Go to opensecrets and look at who donated, if you know who they are.  That tells the story.  And you can have fundraisers from here to kingdom come, but when you are maxed out your are maxed out.  In fact, look at the link below.  Cliton has 74% at the maxed out level, $2300 for the primary, when Obama has 49%.  So, yes they both are raising monies, but having more low dollar fundraisers.  And then there is the internet, and Obama had 8,000 donars in 24 hours for his "Dinner with Barack Obama".  Can not disspell this.  And Clinton should do the same thing, targeting low dollar donars and to get them to keep donating.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donord ems.asp?cycle=2008

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

you're assuming she doesnt have any new donors.

And you are right that Obama has maxed out only 49% but a lot of people who are donating (poor college students like me) arent going to max out anytime during the primary.

You're banking on the fact that HRC will max out the rest of her support without getting new support, and on the fact that all of Obama's supporters CAN and WILL max out.

Second, my comment was directed at the fact that Spielberg can probably bring in some new money, even though he himself is maxed out.

p.s. when i said like me, i was commenting on myself being a poor college student, not that i was donating to Obama

by sepulvedaj3 2007-06-13 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

but a lot of people who are donating (poor college students like me) arent going to max out anytime during the primary.

Exactly, that is what put Obama over the top last quarter.  Over 100,000 donors in less than 3 months, remember he did not come out the gate until mid-February.  It is the small donor that has kept his strength, he had the most small donors than anyone.  Let's be real, Clinton was not going after that market in the beginning, but she wised up, as she should, and going after them now.


You're banking on the fact that HRC will max out the rest of her support without getting new support, and on the fact that all of Obama's supporters CAN and WILL max out.


I am not banking on Obama's donors will max out.  I just stated a fact, as you saw, that he is at 48%.  Which is a good place to be.  You can go back.  Yes, Speilberg have the potential to bring in more monies, but he already gave her a fundraiser.  Rich people, hang around, rich people.  But if you google, and look up where the candidates have been, mostly central and Northern California.  Some in southern, but mostly further north.  And I understood you are not donating to Obama.

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

As you have noticed, at least I have, many are hosting more smaller dollar amount fundraisers, $500, $250, some $1000.  I do believe this when Ben Affleck said on Hardball, that Hollywood was divided down the middle betwen Obama and Clinton.  That is understandable, because it is a generational divide.  Go to opensecrets and look at who donated, if you know who they are.  That tells the story.  And you can have fundraisers from here to kingdom come, but when you are maxed out your are maxed out.  In fact, look at the link below.  Cliton has 74% at the maxed out level, $2300 for the primary, when Obama has 49%.  So, yes they both are raising monies, but having more low dollar fundraisers.  And then there is the internet, and Obama had 8,000 donars in 24 hours for his "Dinner with Barack Obama".  Can not disspell this.  And Clinton should do the same thing, targeting low dollar donars and to get them to keep donating.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donord ems.asp?cycle=2008

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: yup

the good news is the majority are probably maxed out and already donated to both...Spielberg endorsement would be more devastating to Obama if it had come in Q1....We're pretty much done with Q2 and the big donors probably have all donated to Clintons.

Obama's Chicago big donors did not donate to Hillary the way her donors donated to Obama and this is where Obama has a slight edge among big donors.

Lets not forget that in Q3, all big donors will be pretty much maxed out of the fundraising game and the small donors will be key.

If im Obama, i want to crush her on that front...Trie to get at least 200k moe small donors then her..This could really kill her.

by JaeHood 2007-06-13 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

It is obvious that many are arriving at the realization that Clinton OF THE THREE is probably the best candidate.  Gore is not running, so all we have are the candidates that are there now.    

by georgep 2007-06-13 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

A Clinton nomination is a Republican win.

by noquacks 2007-06-13 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

No it will be a close race. But it always is. The best thing we could do is convince a rightie to go to it with an independent run.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-13 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

OK, reality check time.  I doubt, very seriously, that anybody can put the pressure on Speilberg for endorsing anyone.  What does he have to gain by doing it?  It is not like he is getting anything from the Clintons, except a night in the Lincoln Bedroom or a photo-op.  If anything, they need is support for the money train.  He made a decision and was a gracious guy to spread his monies around to both, Clinton and Obama.  And Steisand gave to Clinton, Obama and Edwards.  So, let's stop with the speculation.

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Crap

I think Spielberg would rather endorse Obama, but Bill Clinton must have put the hurt on him to endorse Hillary.

What? Do you have any evidence to support this allegation?

by domma 2007-06-13 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Definately.

The Clintons put the squeeze on him, just like they got John Lewis to not endorse Obama earlier on.

by JaeHood 2007-06-13 06:55PM | 0 recs
If you can't prove it

Don't say it.

Moron

by samueldem 2007-06-13 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: If you can't prove it

I will try.

The reliable sources you're looking for are little green snotballs, newsminimum, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, Drudge, and some blowhard drug addict from southeast Missouri who has a radio show (I forgot his name).

by Michael Bersin 2007-06-13 06:50PM | 0 recs
Amateurs

[Note: original comment edited to delete all obscenities]

by Michael Bersin 2007-06-13 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Amateurs

LMAO.  

by georgep 2007-06-13 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton had Obama investigated:Madrassa story
Let's see. A right-wing mag published by the Moonies puts out a two-fer slander in which they try to bring down both Obama and Clinton (by blaming Clinton for the smear they spread about Obama). When the facts of the smear are debunked, Insight shouts that "hey, it's just Clinton's fault," with zero evidence whatsover. Media Matters exposes that the whole thing is unsubstantiated and someone here links to the Media Matters site as evidence against Clinton???? And other people jump on the bandwagon??? Please tell me this is a joke, OK?
by markjay 2007-06-13 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton had Obama investigated:Madrassa story

i laughed!

by sepulvedaj3 2007-06-13 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton had Obama investigated:Madrassa story

No it's neophyte activism. Which is just as bad.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-13 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton had Obama

of course you do - which means they probably didnt

by sepulvedaj3 2007-06-13 06:36PM | 0 recs
It is so sad

... when someone uses a Media Matters piece to try to allege exactly what the article debunked.

by bowiegeek 2007-06-13 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton had Obama investigated:Madrassa story
Some of you missed the point entirely. This diary in no way endorses Insight's story. The question is how dirty are they going to get? I agree this is probably a two-fer. That's why the whole link is posted and not just anti Hillary excerpts.
Lastly,defend your candidate but be realistic.
She was the first Lady,not Mary Mother of Jesus.
Her main appeal is experience in the political arena ,having the "machine" to play the game on all levels.Does that mean they did this? No,but if there's mud on the field and you're in the game,tell me how you stay clean? That goes for all candidates who really wanna win. Every thing's on the table.
by g1967 2007-06-13 09:34PM | 0 recs
Another Clinton hit-job

Thank goodness there are intelligent people on here who can debunk and see through things like this and inform the rest of us who are not as informed- a big thanks to all who put this in the perspective.

by reasonwarrior 2007-06-13 10:03PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads