Obama smears Hillary(Jerome: Obama into Rush Limbaugh land?)

The latest NYT articles reveals Obama's sleazy smear against Clinton...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/us/pol itics/15clintons.html?pagewanted=1&_ r=4&hp


Shortly after the Clinton campaign released the financial information, the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, circulated to news organizations -- on what it demanded be a not-for-attribution-basis -- a scathing analysis. It called Mrs. Clinton "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)" in its headline. The document referred to the investment in India and Mrs. Clinton's fund-raising efforts among Indian-Americans. The analysis also highlighted the acceptance by Mr. Clinton of $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company the Obama campaign said has moved American jobs to India.

A copy of the document was obtained by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, which provided it to The New York Times. The Clinton campaign has long been frustrated by the effort by Mr. Obama to present his campaign as above the kind of attack politics that Mr. Obama and his aides say has led to widespread disillusionment with politics by many Americans.

Asked about the document, Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said: "We did give reporters a series of comments she made on the record and other things that are publicly available to anyone who has access to the Internet. I don't see why anyone would take umbrage with that."

Asked why the Obama campaign had initially insisted that it not be connected to the document, Mr. Burton replied, "I'm going to leave my comment at that."


Look, Clintons have a blind trust, they did not even know what's in the trust. After learning the details of this trust based on new regulations, Clintons decided to liquidate all assets in order to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.


Concerned that their personal finances might become a political liability once again, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton in April sold the millions of dollars of stocks held by their blind trust after learning that those investments included oil and pharmaceutical companies, military contractors and Wal-Mart, their aides said Thursday.

The Clintons liquidated the trust -- valued at $5 million to $25 million -- and are leaving the proceeds for now in cash in an effort to eliminate any chance of ethical problems or political embarrassment from their holdings as Mrs. Clinton runs for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, their advisers said. By disposing of all their stocks, Mrs. Clinton was seeking to avoid potential conflicts of interest that might arise from legislation that she votes on in the Senate, as well as avoid holding financial stakes in companies and industries -- like Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, the owner of Fox News -- that could draw criticism from some Democratic voters.

Mrs. Clinton automatically became aware of her investments because of a government directive this spring that she, as a presidential candidate, had to dissolve her blind trust and disclose all of her assets to the public.

The decision by the Clintons to sell their stock carried a financial cost, according to their advisers and new personal financial documents made available Thursday. The couple will owe "substantial amounts" in capital gains taxes, an adviser said, and are giving up the potentially higher returns from stocks for the safety but generally lower returns of holding their money in various forms of savings accounts.


The Clintons discussed their options with a range of advisers, including one of their lawyers, Cheryl Mills, a former deputy White House counsel to Mr. Clinton and currently a top adviser to the couple.

They ultimately decided that they were better off, with Mrs. Clinton in office and running for the presidency, to liquidate the entire blind trust and not keep the stock or reinvest the money for the duration of her campaign, their advisers said. Senators are not required to have blind trusts.

"Senator Clinton and the president wanted to go above and beyond and avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, so they chose to liquidate the assets," said Howard Wolfson, communications director of Mrs. Clinton's campaign.

This just shows how fake Obama's personality is. To smear Clinton in an underhanded way, then go to every rally to advocate 'change'. This sort of 'movement', I'm afraid won't last long.

Update [2007-6-15 16:15:20 by lambiel]:
On Obama's memo: "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)" (Jerome Armstrong) I think it's reached the point where Obama can stop merely blaming his staff for their screw-ups. This is Rush Limbaugh land that Obama's campaign has wandered into: Shortly after the Clinton campaign released the financial information, the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, circulated to news organizations — on what it demanded be a not-for-attribution-basis — a scathing analysis. It called Mrs. Clinton “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)” in its headline. The document referred to the investment in India and Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising efforts among Indian-Americans.

Tags: Obama Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

153 Comments

Re: Obama smears Hillary, Clintons liquidate holdi

Daily Hit Diary

by parahammer 2007-06-15 07:22AM | 0 recs
Is this a sign that Obama

is open to Biden as his running mate?

They'd make one powerful anti-Indian ticket:

Biden:

"You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."

by david mizner 2007-06-15 10:27AM | 0 recs
Forget "Punjab." Read the memos.

The point is not "Punjab." The point is whether the pattern suggested by the facts
that the memos document and report -- the pattern being the possible connection
between the Clintons' very generous revenue streams from Indian sources and
Hillary Clinton's India-favoring record on outsourcing -- is true.

That should be our focus here.

by horizonr 2007-06-15 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Forget "Punjab." Read the memos.

Well, okay then, what's the answer? Ban all Indian-Americans from participating in elections? While we are at is shall we ban all Fortune 500 companies from participating in outsourcing? Close America off from global competition? Ah-Ha! I know the answer lets take Hillary out into the public sphere and stone her. That'll stop the outsourcing problem immediately. Fortune 500 companies will suddenly see the error of their ways! Hard working Indians will see the error of their ways and refuse to make a living when offered money by American corporations! Billionaires will stop and think about owning Indian companies. The world will stop spinning on its axis and hail Obama King of the World!  All because we found the one perpetrator--that evil Hillary who started the entire outsourcing thing! Hurrah, we have stopped the one woman who single handedly is responsible for American capitalism.

by superetendar 2007-06-15 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Forget "Punjab." Read the memos.

Obama just lost the Indian vote if this gets out, and if its true, then it will get out

by sepulvedaj3 2007-06-15 02:00PM | 0 recs
Pretty offensive, what the Obama campaign

said. It's a play on a joke Hillary made last year:

The "Punjab" reference is an apparent riff on a joke that Mrs. Clinton herself made last year at a fund-raiser hosted by a top Indian-American supporter. "I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily," she is quoted as saying.

Nonethless, there are better ways to criticize Clinton and speak to economic anxieties without playing to ethnic fear.

New kind of campaign? Yeah, right.

by david mizner 2007-06-15 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty offensive, what the Obama campaign

What really angers me is the hypocrical nature of Obama's personality. He knew Clintons had a blind trust, there's no way they did not even know what's in the trust.

They then sent out those attack stuff to press, but refused to admit the connection of those materials to his campaign. Only when they were caught by Clinton campaign, they tried to wiggle out.

It IS the SAME OLD politics. Yesterday the same old crap, yesterday's disclosure was the same pattern. He said he'd never done any favour to that maffia, I guess he never imagined the letter he wrote 9 years ago would be discovered.

So much for a 'new' kind of politician.

by lambiel 2007-06-15 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty offensive, what the Obama campaign

sorry, should be 'there's no way they'd know what's in the blind trust.'

by lambiel 2007-06-15 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty offensive, what the Obama campaign

I don't understand why Obama would be doing this except maybe to distract from the Rezko connection.  I would think his campaign would be smart enough to know this wouldn't go over well.  There has to be a strategic payoff in this.

I think he has a lot more to worry about from his Chicago days than we know yet.

by pioneer111 2007-06-15 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty offensive, what the Obama campaign

The Democratic machine in Illinois has  a pretty poor reputation in St Louis. Many Democratic businessmen there don't like to deal with their counterparts in Illinois because of the rampant corruption in the State Government.

All you have to do is look at the disaster that is East St Louis to know something is badly wrong in southern Illinois.

Not saying Missouri is a paragon of virtue but there is definitly more to this story.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-15 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty offensive, what the Obama campaign

My friend, East St. Louis has problems long before even Barack's mother had heard of him.  Also, what have the two Dem Congressionals (Lacy Clay & Russ Carnahan) from St. Louis endorsed Obama?

by howardpark 2007-06-15 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty offensive, what the Obama campaign

Hillary smeared herself.  Her investments proved it.  I suppose if you support out-sourcing of jobs, you might consider changing parties.

by noquacks 2007-06-15 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty offensive, what the Obama campaign

What about this?

"The analysis also highlighted the acceptance by Mr. Clinton of $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company the Obama campaign said has moved American jobs to India."

by annefrank 2007-06-15 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty offensive, what the Obama campaign

Oh come on Anne. Who the hell is shocked that Bill Clinton is a prized corporate speaker? He's an ex-president. Do you know how many hundreds of companies outsource? Does that have anything whatsoever to do with Hillary's policy stance or campaign? No.

by bowiegeek 2007-06-15 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty offensive, what the Obama campaign

spin spin spin!

Clinton was referring to the ACTUAL PLACE, where as Obama's was a slur

by sepulvedaj3 2007-06-15 02:01PM | 0 recs
The more I think about it

the worse it seems.

It reminds me of the anti-Japanese hysteria in the 80s. Now Indians are the targets?

What the hell is Obama's campaign thinking?

by david mizner 2007-06-15 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: The more I think about it

Is it native India? I thought it's just a province in India, the country.

by lambiel 2007-06-15 07:34AM | 0 recs
It is a province

You are correct sir (or madam).

by dpANDREWS 2007-06-15 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: The more I think about it

The Punjab line is incredibly tone def and insensitive.  It reminds me of the slurs the Republicans used to use against Asian Americans who donated to Democrats in the '90's.

And the backdoor peddling of this stuff is hypocrtical, there's a reason people are so cynical and it is exactly this kind of tactic.

by MassEyesandEars 2007-06-15 07:43AM | 0 recs
It's time for Clinton to crush Obama

Since Obama has officially launched his dirty political campaign, Clinton campaign now has the moral high ground to revenge at any cost.

Poor Obama, you'll soon be buried. Chicago politics won't save you on national stage.

by lambiel 2007-06-15 07:36AM | 0 recs
clinton abandoned the moral high ground...

with her vote on iraq.  she wasn't even willing to accompany her church reps to the white house to argue against the iraqi invasion on the basis that it was deemed unjust.

hillary clinton has had one opportunity to take the moral high ground since she's been in the senate, and she voted against the moral position.  you have to have a tin ear to put "clinton" and "moral" in the same sentence -- let alone claim hillary can assume some perceived moral high ground...

by bored now 2007-06-16 05:57AM | 0 recs
It why he is where he is.

Second and fading.

He needs to start running a real campaign based on something or his level of support is going to hit the teens soon.

Attacks are common in politics.  Politics is hardball not beanbag.  So I have no problem with attacks, just people who are too soft to make them up front and own them.  Things like this are why I expect Obama is a fraud.

by dpANDREWS 2007-06-15 07:39AM | 0 recs
he should attack on the issues

like the fact that Hillary has no real health care plan, the fact that she will leave thousands of US troops in Iraq, etc.

He needs to draw distinctions on the issues.

I don't think this kind of attack will win him any votes.

by desmoinesdem 2007-06-15 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: he should attack on the issues

obama is 13.6(rcp average) points behind hillary and getting desperate.  so much for the "new kind of politics" gimmick he's been running on. more like a new low of politics.  GO HILLARY!!!!

by terrondt 2007-06-15 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: hillary == loser...

she can't win any red state, and she actually loses blue states (pennsylvania, new hampshire, probably wisconsin and minnesota to boot).  we need to start preparing democratic candidates for the psychodrama associated with the clintons and the harsh backlash they can expect by sharing the ticket with them...

by bored now 2007-06-16 04:17AM | 0 recs
Re: hillary == loser...

funny u say hillary is a loser when obama is losing by double digits for the primaries. funny guy.lol. i guess he is winning by losing huh?

by terrondt 2007-06-16 03:45PM | 0 recs
Interesting that the NY Times

did not follow the request not to attribute the memo to the Obama campaign.  

by clarkent 2007-06-15 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting that the NY Times

Actually Clinton campaign intercepted the memo and presented it to NYT.

by lambiel 2007-06-15 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting that the NY Times

Right, but I assume that the Times probably got a copy from Obama first. Was the Times only allowed to attribute the memo to the Obama campaign because the Clinton campaign gave it to a reporter, or because the Times thought it was a low blow? Or both?

by clarkent 2007-06-15 07:53AM | 0 recs
I wondered about this too

If it's not for attribution, it's not for attribution--it shouldn't matter how you get it, right?

by david mizner 2007-06-15 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: I wondered about this too

But why would Obama (or his people) expect anyone to respect or follow "rules" of attribution in an election campaign?

by annefrank 2007-06-15 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: I wondered about this too

It would be really dumb to make a racial smear and then ask any media outlet not to attribute it the campaign making the smear.

by robliberal 2007-06-15 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: I wondered about this too

No, it's just like "off the record" if you can get somebody else to spill the beans and lend their name as the indentifier it's fair go.

They already knew it was from Obama unofficially but now the Clinton Campaign told them it was from Obama they know it officially and they can publish it.

Long live the media. hip! hip! <self-censored> them!

by Ernst 2007-06-15 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting that the NY Times

Right.  They'll grant anonymity to Administration officials talking about WMD in Iraq, but not on a political hit piece.  I really don't see the logic there.

Granted, anonymity shouldn't have been granted in either case.

by maddogg 2007-06-15 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting that the NY Times

I haven't forgotten the NYT kept Bush's spying a secret through Nov. 2004.

by annefrank 2007-06-15 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary, Clintons liquidate holdi

That actually came from the official Obama campaign?


"Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)"

That is very offensive and obviously racist.

by robliberal 2007-06-15 07:48AM | 0 recs
rob

Hello Rob,

Can you post a diary about this on dailykos? I don't have account there yet. Thanks.

Obama has gone wild.

by lambiel 2007-06-15 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: rob

Perhaps someone else will. I don't like to post negative diaries.

by robliberal 2007-06-15 08:02AM | 0 recs
It's a riff on what Clinton herself said

One of the Obama memos quoted directly from India Abroad's 17 March 2006 report
on a DC fund-raiser for Clinton's 2006 Senate re-election bid:

At the fundraiser hosted by Dr Rajwant Singh at his Potomac, Maryland, home, and
which raised nearly $50,000 for her re-election campaign, Clinton began by joking
that, "I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily," after
being introduced by Singh as the Senator not only from New York but also Punjab.

The point of the memo is to draw attention to potential influence peddling -- to suggest
that there may be a connection between the Clintons' generous revenue streams from
Indian sources and Hillary Clinton's pro-outsourcing record that favors India.

by horizonr 2007-06-15 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: It's a riff on what Clinton herself said

You and your master will be buried in his 'movement' campaign. This Obama guy is mentally unfit for president.

by lambiel 2007-06-15 08:27AM | 0 recs
It's not racist, and I am an Indian-American

It's a botched and poor attempt at humor, and it is very offensive, but it's not racist.

However, the paragraph in totality


Shortly after the Clinton campaign released the financial information, the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, circulated to news organizations -- on what it demanded be a not-for-attribution-basis -- a scathing analysis. It called Mrs. Clinton "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)" in its headline. The document referred to the investment in India and Mrs. Clinton's fund-raising efforts among Indian-Americans. The analysis also highlighted the acceptance by Mr. Clinton of $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company the Obama campaign said has moved American jobs to India

does amount to attempted vilification of India and Indian-Americans. If this document is confirmed to be from the Obama campaign, released with his knowlegde and consent, then it's quite damaging to Obama.

by Xman 2007-06-15 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary, Clintons liquidate holdi

It is a low blow. But it is certainly not racist. It could just as easily been a white country in that mix. It is about whether Hillary is selling out for donations. Now you can disagree with the points made, and I certainly have no opinion either way as I did not research the facts. But let's not make it a racial thing. I am Indian American and I was not offended by the references to India.

by Pravin 2007-06-15 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary, Clintons liquidate holdi

It is a low blow. But it is certainly not racist. It could just as easily been a white country in that mix.

Indeed, but no "white country" was mentioned.

by clarkent 2007-06-15 11:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary, Clintons liquidate holdi

If Hillary supports jobs in Punjab over jobs for Americans, I believe D-Punjab is correct.

by noquacks 2007-06-15 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary,

Robert Gibbs is likely the one behind this.  I could never figure out why Obama hired such a nasty guy as Gibbs.  I think we are now finding out why.

Mess with Hillary and pay the price - that's all I have to say.

by samueldem 2007-06-15 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary,

can u post this on dailykos. This is very significant. It marks the official declaration of a dirty campaign against Hillary.

Don't cry baby, Obama from this day.

by lambiel 2007-06-15 07:57AM | 0 recs
If Obama were smart

he would quickly disavow the memo

by david mizner 2007-06-15 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: If Obama were smart

But ,but , Senator Obama, it's not something you wrote 9 years ago if you have short memory.

cough, cough, movement Obama.

by lambiel 2007-06-15 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: If Obama were smart

I am shocked that his campaign would do this and think it is a good idea to use a racial smear. Coming on the heels of the Scooter Libby should be pardoned theme they are really making some bad moves.

by robliberal 2007-06-15 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: If Obama were smart

Maybe Obama people weren't thinking of the racist factor, but the money factor - Clinton accepted $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, "a company the Obama campaign said has moved American jobs to India."

by annefrank 2007-06-15 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: If Obama were smart

You are just as dumb as those Obamanics. Cisco??
You really need to get rid off your phone jack, internet connection since you're accidently touching the Cisco.

The stupidity of Obaoxymorans is staggering. Tell us how many reputated interantional companies do not have overseas operations?

You need to go to an Island. Who are the real low-information voters?

by lambiel 2007-06-15 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: If Obama were smart

careful there.  sometimes folks commenting may not be Obamites.

by edgery 2007-06-15 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: If Obama were smart

lambiel is a little too devoted to the loser...

by bored now 2007-06-16 04:19AM | 0 recs
Lighten up on the insults...

and stick to the issues.  They are good enough by themselves without the pejoratives.

I also say this because you jump to conclusions about the support of that poster.

by citizen53 2007-06-15 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: If Obama were smart

If this gets around in the High Tech/Software world  Obama gets shafted mightily.  India is America's long term Democratic ally in Asia.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-15 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: If Obama were smart

Cisco is one of the pioneer tech companies in the United States and employs around 55,000 people. At one time it was the highest value market cap company in the world. "Cisco" is an abbreviation of San Francisco.

This smear hurts Obama in several ways:

(a) In the donor rich tech oriented West where Obama has been trying to compete with Clinton for campaign contributions

(b) With minorites offended by a politician who resorts to racial smears

(c) With all Americans who have a sense of decency and what is right and wrong and are offended by racial smears.

by robliberal 2007-06-15 08:26AM | 0 recs
Not a &quot;racial smear&quot;

It's a riff on what Hillary Clinton herself said, which is blockquoted in my post above.

The point of the memo is to draw attention to potential influence peddling -- to suggest
that there may be a connection between the Clintons' generous revenue streams from
Indian sources and Hillary Clinton's pro-outsourcing record that favors India.

by horizonr 2007-06-15 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Not a &quot;racial smear&quot;

It is a racial smear. I would have thought after George Allen found out the hard way that no politician would be so dumb to try that again.

by robliberal 2007-06-15 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Not a &quot;racial smear&quot;

Of course it's a racial smear: it's race-baiting against South Asians (a double hit against immigrants and outsourcing).

Also, their investments were in a blind trust: the Clintons did not even know what their holdings were; there could be no "influence peddling."

by domma 2007-06-15 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Not a &quot;racial smear&quot;

India is not really outsourcing.  They are part of the first world in many aspects and areas. They are Anglophone, Democratic, consumerist, independent judiciary, they have a growing middle class, advanced science, good universities. They are only a jump or two away from being like Europe (Europe has pockets of deep poverty as well).  They have problems but the state has 1 billion citizens.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-15 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Not a &quot;racial smear&quot;

Oh come on. You're telling me that IT companies outsource to India because they want to pay their workers more than they're paid here? Because that's the only way this could not be outsourcing.

by adamterando 2007-06-16 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Not a &quot;racial smear&quot;

please be my guest. smear an allied state.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-16 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary,

I don't know why he hired him either. But you, as a fan of Hillary, don't hold the moral high ground on this. Mark Penn, Rahm Emanuel, Carville, and a bunch of other nasty people support your candidate.

by Pravin 2007-06-15 11:53AM | 0 recs
Gibbs

I think his hiring was a signal to the big $$$ people and DC insiders that, for all his talk of a grassroots movement, Obama is really on their side. Gibbs was, after all, the main man behind the infamous "Osama" ad used to smear Dean in Iowa.

We REALLY need Gore to enter this race!!!

by Jim in Chicago 2007-06-15 01:29PM | 0 recs
I think his campaign is getting...

pointers from a few of his online supporters.  They have this smear and personalization stuff down to an art form.

by citizen53 2007-06-15 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I think his campaign is getting...

What did Hillary mean by other attacks on her by Obama?

by annefrank 2007-06-15 08:18AM | 0 recs
Lame

This diary is just the same 5 people saying the same things.

I agree with parahammer; this is just the hit-piece du jour.

by mihan 2007-06-15 08:12AM | 0 recs
Mihan

So you think it's fine for the Obama campaign took call someone (D-Punjab)?

No problems with it whatsoever?

by david mizner 2007-06-15 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Lame

The rationalizations are just the same people saying the same things.

Double standard when it comes to one's candidate.  There's always an excuse.

by citizen53 2007-06-15 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary

I look forward to this backfiring on Obama.  Obama can't deny it now as Burton has come forward and admitted that he released the memos.
I guess Obama and his team realized how many thousands of Indian Americans have put their support behind Hillary.

 

by samueldem 2007-06-15 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary

This Indian American does not support Hillary. I will vote for Obama if I have to.

by Pravin 2007-06-15 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary, Clintons liquidate holdi

"New politics" indeed. I'd like to know have Edwards and Obama released their investments?

by domma 2007-06-15 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary, Clintons liquidate holdi

Movement Obama!!! Long live Obama movement!!

by lambiel 2007-06-15 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: welcome to the dark side...

it's power is seductive...

by bored now 2007-06-16 04:22AM | 0 recs
Clintons liquidate holdings

Another hit diary by lambdiel.  All his diaries so far (4 that I've seen) are ALL attempted hit diaries on Obama.  Figures.

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-06-15 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Clintons liquidate holdings

It is a legitimate topic to discuss. THough I find it funny how the Hillary supporters are acting so righteous.

by Pravin 2007-06-15 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Clintons liquidate holdings

If the Clinton campaign released memos mocking Obama with smears like Obama-blackface or something like that, you would have a point, but the Obama campaign has released TWO utterly stupid memos today, trying to smear Clinton.   How can this not backfire on the Obama campaign?    Due to your intense dislike you don't see it, but a good portion of the Indian-American community WILL be offended by this, no doubt about it.   Why even go there?  Why even take that chance?  

I think someone over there is getting very nervous, and I hope that Obama is oblivious to what his underlings are thinking up here.   Either way, it isn't good, because if he has no clue what they are releasing, he can't control his own frigging campaign.  If he knows what was released....oh boy.    

by georgep 2007-06-15 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Clintons liquidate holdings

Are you serious? This is not remotely in blackface territory. You could replace Indian with any other foreign interest. If you object to the tone and facts in the memo, fine. Let's criticize Obama based on that. BUt to make this a racial thing is ridiculous.

I dont get offended by trivial things. I didn't find Biden's comments on Indians offensive, just a little clumsy pandering. Hell, I wasn't even offended by Hillary's silly little Gandhi joke in St. Louis.

by Pravin 2007-06-17 04:58AM | 0 recs
Every Campaign Is Doing This

And if you believe otherwise, you've been smoking earlier than usual today.

As the New York Times noted:

Mr. Obama's aides circulated its memorandum to news organizations on the condition that
news organizations not say where they obtained the information.

There is nothing unusual -- and, most reporters and ethics experts will say, unethical -- about
this practice. Most of the major presidential campaigns this year have repeatedly sought
to circulate information -- typically, a record of past votes, public statements, campaign
contributions or biographical information on campaign contributors -- designed to
undercut opponents.
(In the vernacular, these are known as "quotes and votes.")

Campaign aides try to persuade news organization to accept the information on a not-for-attribution
basis. A news organization can refuse the condition or accept it. A reporter who gets such information
culled by a campaign's opposition research operations -- which in these days of newspaper cutbacks
dwarfs the internal research operations of most newspapers -- use it only as a starting point; they
confirm whatever they find and do reporting to expand upon it.

The point of the Obama memos is to draw attention to potential influence peddling --
to suggest that there may be a connection between the Clintons' very generous revenue
streams from Indian sources and Hillary Clinton's India-favoring record on outsourcing.

The memos do this by lining up a series of meticulously documented facts -- dots, if you
will -- which are intended to serve as a starting point for an investigation into whether
the dots demand to be connected to make a picture.

Is there a picture? Those of you who are obsessing over the Punjab reference -- a riff
on what Hillary Clinton herself said (blockquoted in my post above) -- might consider
actually reading the memos to judge for yourself.

But it is perverse to say that Obama is hypocritical or wrong simply to excavate and
report facts that are already on the record. This is what candidates do.

Obama's call for a new kind of politics was never intended as a promise to not go on
the offense or to be silent about an opponent's record. That's what Bill Bradley did
with Al Gore in 2000.

Obama's not going to make that mistake

by horizonr 2007-06-15 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Every Campaign Is Doing This

But it is perverse to say that Obama is hypocritical or wrong simply to excavate and
report facts that are already on the record.

Depends. Is Obama's position any different from her's on H1-Bs? Outsourcing? If not, I call him a hypocrite.

by dblhelix 2007-06-15 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Every Campaign Is Doing This

No I'm sorry I don't buy this logic.   The problem with "Every Campaign is Doing This" is that Obama is supposed to be a new, fresh, and different politician, and not practicing tactics like "Every Campaign".  If Obama wants to run on the idea that he's going to reform politics with the audacity of hope and optimism, he can't simultaneously be secretly disclosing the muck on his opposition to reporters.  That's just tried-and-true hardcore politics.  It's not the Kumbayah style he's been advertising that the country so desperately needs.  And this is the larger more damning point, much more so than what is being misperceived as a racial slur.

by cesar 2007-06-15 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Every Campaign Is Doing This

As I said:

Obama's call for a new kind of politics was never intended as a promise
to not go on the offense or to be silent about an opponent's record.

The memo is about Hillary -- and, where it's relevant, Bill -- Clinton's record. Fair game.

I do think that Obama's campaign should have floated this information "on the record,"
rather than trying to insist on anonymity. If the information is worth putting out there,
it's worth putting your name on it.

by horizonr 2007-06-15 10:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Every Campaign Is Doing This

you don't buy it because you've twisted it around.  that obama represents a fresh break from the past doesn't mean that he will ignore campaign tactics that are tried and true.  the media would never consider obama a credible candidate if he did.

obama's freshness comes from his willingness to stand against the intense polarization of the bush/clinton era and his eagerness to try to unite this country towards the common good.  this is a sharp contrast to hillary's incredible divisiveness, but if democrats don't claim this position, republicans will.  

HILLARY DOES NOT REPRESENT CHANGE.  she represents continuity with the past.  that's why she says she's "ready" to be president.  the obvious, the inevitable, message from the republican nominee (if hillary wins the nomination) is, 'if you want change, vote for me!'  hillary as change is not a credible, or even believable, message...

by bored now 2007-06-16 04:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Every Campaign Is Doing This

"doesn't mean that he will ignore campaign tactics that are tried and true."

Oh so it's OK for the campaign to use tactics that are meant to divide us?

by adamterando 2007-06-16 06:18AM | 0 recs
oppo isn't divisive, per se...

and i thought the whole purpose of a primary was to divide us into supporters of different candidates who offer differing views of the past, present and the future.  one way that they do that is by contrasting their positions with other candidates; another way is to point out inconsistencies in the messages of the other candidates.  to answer the inference, though: absolutely.  there should be nothing about clinton OR obama (or whoever is the nominee) that remains hidden from the electorate, because you can't count on republicans being so nice in the general.  i support obama despite this insensitivity on the part of his campaign.  we need to take our best shots, because this is just the minors; it'll get worse after the nominee is chosen...

by bored now 2007-06-16 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: oppo isn't divisive, per se...

Oppo isn't divisive if you come out plainly and transparently and say "Hillary is different from me because..."  "Edwards policies fall short of mine because...".  Oppo IS divisive when you try to sneak it through without attribution because it would soil your Kumbayah image.  I'm sorry, but this clearly smacks of "do as I say, not as I do".

We can argue at length about whether or not D-Punjab is a slur (which btw is being taken that way by the US-India PAC which is reneging its support of Obama) but what's more to the heart of the matter is that it's not the right way to draw distinctions between yourself and your opposition if your campaign is about hope and optimism.  If hope and optimism can't beat out negativity and cynicism, what exactly is Obama's ideological platform?  Surely there will be some that say, I don't care about that, all I care about is him winning.  And that RIGHT THERE, is what's wrong with politics in this country that needs to be fixed.  I was hoping Obama was going to be the one to do it.  I guess my hope in that was too audacious for even him.

by cesar 2007-06-16 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: oppo isn't divisive, per se...

sorry, i lost my naivete a long time ago.  this misstep by obama's campaign in no way denegates the usefulness or effectiveness of opposition research.  the question you really have to decide is whether you want republicans to have unique advantages going into the general.  i don't get the feeling that their supporters are arguing for kid glove treatment in the primary...

by bored now 2007-06-16 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: oppo isn't divisive, per se...

You know, I really don't care too much about this story. And I wouldn't begrudge Obama for what he's doing (even though it's a stupid hit piece that sounds very bad) if Obama's whole message wasn't built around hope and bringing the country together. If his message was about bringing the country together around a progressive ideology then I'd cut him some more slack. But there's no ideology to speak of with his campaign. It's just the bringing together people part. And that's why this whole thing seems a little hypocritical.

by adamterando 2007-06-17 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary, Clintons

Really? I've seen far more Obama attacks than Edwards. The only diary critical of Edwards I can even think of was on his not reading the NIE before voting for the Iraq war. But then I don't even come here every day and miss most diary's.

by Mystylplx 2007-06-15 09:37AM | 0 recs
Boy, I am glad that

real people do not read these blogs.  This is highly laughable and ridiculous.

by icebergslim 2007-06-15 09:40AM | 0 recs
LOL@Hillary and Edwards uspporters joining forces.

The Obama movement is scaring a lot of folks here..Obama just won the MYDD straw poll,we had thousands of folks walking nationwide for change,so i can see why the anti-Obama fractions have decided that the only we can stop this guy is by joining forces to defeat him .

Go ahead, have a field day, we're just brush our shoulder off..All i see are the same Hillary and edwards supporters posting here over and over trying to make a big deal out of nothing...Keep pounding away my friend..Edwards is on a freefall while Hillary cant raise enough money to beat Obama in Q2.

by JaeHood 2007-06-15 10:51AM | 0 recs
It's the experience stupid

It won't be Hillary's money that beats Obama.  It will be Hillary's experience and her professionalism in running a solid, clean campaign.

But mostly ... it's the experience card.  And Obama just doesn't have it.

by samueldem 2007-06-15 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL@SOLID CLEAN CAMPAIGN

Yeah,right...I'm sure that threatening donors to not donate to any other democratic candidate but Hillary, is a very clean solid campaign.

Placing a call to john lewis to get him to not endorse Obama,is also a clean solid camapaign.

Smearing Obama for Geffens negative comments aboput the Clintons, when Obama had nothing to do with it, sure seem like solid clean camapaign.

Clintonistaz going around warning folks that if you're late endorsing her, she will remember that for retribution, sure seems like solid campaigning.

Working hard behind the scene to try to shut off Obama's big donors fundraising, sure seem solid.

Og yeah, the Clintons runs cleans solid campaigning.

by JaeHood 2007-06-15 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: It's the experience stupid

Spot on samueldem. Obama's rookie campaign can't even scare up a decent smear without getting caught out. How on earth is he going to manage against the beastly Republican grinder machine. This is turning out to be the Inspector Closeau style of campaigning.

by superetendar 2007-06-15 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: FUCK HILLARY

as i said yesterday you white guys are not going to vote for hillary she is a joke obama is the real deal that's why everyone on this website have blog about him 113 times ask your self the question do you want to fuck with obama?

by edward 2007-06-15 07:02PM | 0 recs
you got to be kidding...

hillary has never run a clean campaign in an objective sense.

you're right, hillary has more experience.  she voted for the iraq war.  she has lots of experience at that.  she supports the bush doctrine, lots of experience there.  i don't see experience as a positive factor here.

what obama brings to the table is a fresh start, real change, to the conversation and to governance.  he brings hope and optimism about what america can be, and what we can do to build that america.  he puts a fresh face on america for the world, giving us a chance (just a chance) to regain some of the moral high ground that bush squandered.

hillary just continues the clinton psychodrama -- and perpetuates political dynasties.  i guess we get jeb after hillary (he's ready to be president, too)...

by bored now 2007-06-16 04:37AM | 0 recs
Re: you got to be kidding...

iObama and Obama Girl are clean campaigning?

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-16 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL@Hillary and

They tried to do a funny mock of Clinton.  It is disrespectful and juvenile, any way you want to slice it.  Even if the slur was not offensive to a portion of the population.  

by georgep 2007-06-15 07:00PM | 0 recs
Overblown much?

Some of you guys are being ridiculous, and I would particularly call out user "lambiel" for his trollish behavior in this regard.

I do think someone ought to be fired or at least reprimanded for the memos, not because the Obama campaign particularly did anything wrong but because it backfired on them unnecessarily. First, the title is horrible. Second, the "no attribution" deal is very lame. Third, the campaign needs to own up to its mistakes and should do so quickly.

Still, the substance of the matter is that the campaign circulates one memo with an ill-concieved title, and demands that the memo be anonymous. These two things show poor judgement, but no more than that. But what do you know, the Clinton and Edwards partisans come out of the woodwork to denounce the entire thrust and rationale of Obama's candidacy. It's a mini-scandal, to be sure, but please don't overblow it into something that it's not.  

by Korha 2007-06-15 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Overblown much?

Exactly...It's laughable to see Edwards and Hillary supporters joining forces to take shots at Obama...What a beautiful couple they make..LOL

by JaeHood 2007-06-15 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Overblown much?

Well you know those Freudian slips will get you every time. Ask Gore, Kerry and Dean. Its those little things that get you. I know its unfair but that's electioneering American style.

by superetendar 2007-06-15 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Overblown much?

Feruidian slips? That has nothing to do with anything, unless you somehow think Obama greenlit the memos himself.

by Korha 2007-06-15 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary, Clintons liquidate holdi

clearly this is just as bad as circulating a story that Obama attended a madrassa... yeah I can see why everyone feels so bad for the Clintons. They are just such a stand-up campaign, I just don't see at all why team Obama would need to attack them. It would be much more polite of team Obama to bend knee to our empress, and allow the Clinton team's far more qualified attack team to do its work.

Are you people serious?

by alipi 2007-06-15 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary, Clintons liquidate holdi

" It would be much more polite of team Obama to bend knee to our empress, and allow the Clinton team's far more qualified attack team to do its work."

Um, no alipi, but if Obama is going to try and wield the knife he should try not to cut himself in the process leaving blood all over the floor. Its rather, well, you know, rather amateurish. Assuming Obama is now no longer Jesus but merely a Chicago pol I would have expected a rather more professional hit job.

by superetendar 2007-06-15 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re:

yup,the Clintons expect Team Obama to not fight them off..they believe the nomination is theirs and Obama should just let them smear him and not fight back.

Obama should get ready because the Clintons are vicious, and he needs to stand up to this vicious machine.

by JaeHood 2007-06-15 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re:

Right.  What is this - Hillary can smiled sweetly while she sticks the knife in your back but gets all incensed when it happens to her.  At least in Obama's campaign's case, their smear is simply based on facts.  

by noquacks 2007-06-15 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re:

Uh, the viciousness came from the Obama campaign.   When Clinton's people write crap like that in memos, you have a beef as well.  

by georgep 2007-06-15 07:04PM | 0 recs
Why doesn't Obama hit Hillary harder on Iraq?

This memo doesn't bother me on a racial level. On SepiaMutiny, some Indians are overreaching when they accuse Obama of anti Indian stuff. http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archive s/004510.html

However, this is small potatoes compared to other Hillary mistakes, if one can even call this a mistake. But this is how politicians play dirty routinely. That is why I thought Obama blundered by doing that preach Postiive Campaigning shit. Obama SHOULD STRESS POSITIVE GOVERNING. NOT POSITIVE CAMPAIGNING.

Obama needs to focus.

by Pravin 2007-06-15 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Why doesn't Obama hit Hillary harder on Iraq?
Obama SHOULD STRESS POSITIVE GOVERNING. NOT POSITIVE CAMPAIGNING.

I never thought he meant otherwise.

by horizonr 2007-06-15 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Why doesn't Obama hit Hillary harder on Iraq?

The means justify the end?  Not for me thanks.

Also I have been looking at how Obama governs through his votes.  Not that inspiring on the Iraq war.  And his sponsorship of the Coal to Liquid bill just reeks of corporate opportunism.  

How can we know that there will be positive governing when the past actions don't show it?  His rhetoric is wonderful.  His followup actions, not so much.

by pioneer111 2007-06-15 02:07PM | 0 recs
Hillary's own 'Macaca Moment', lest we forget

Hillary Clinton 'truly regrets' Gandhi joke, Remarks called stereotypical, racially insensitive

Biden treaded the "Macaca" territory as well: Biden explains Indian-American remarks, as someone pointed out above.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-06-15 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary, Clintons liquidate holdi

Jerome was right in his post yesterday about the Obama campaign.

by robliberal 2007-06-15 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary, Clintons liquidate holdi

My take on this was summarized by this blogger on a different site.

"This is possibly the dumbest thing Obama could have done. Outsourcing and protecing American jobs is indeed an important, albeit volatile, issue, but for Obama to somehow lay the blame on Hillary's "India ties" is both disingenuous and incorrect. The 1.2 million strong Indian-American community currently thriving in the United States is not responsible for jobs being outsourced to India or anywhere else around the world. Nor is Hillary Clinton. What makes this attack even more bizarre is that Obama's candidacy is predicated upon his unique ethnic background, the power and value of immigrant communities within the U.S., and most importantly, the politics of inclusion. This is a cheap and xenophobic attempt by him to score points with labor as Hillary continues to widen the lead between them throughout the country. Obama should condemn this opposition reasearch paper and apologize."

by rakk12 2007-06-15 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary

The thing that continues to amuse me is that no matter who attacks Hillary, it always backfires on the attacker.  How fucking stupid are the people on Obama's campaign team?  

Answer:  Pretty fucking stupid.

by samueldem 2007-06-15 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary

I actually agree with this and I am an Obama supporter.

Hopefully if nothing else such a monumental failure will allow a head or two to roll.  Or at least keep them away from the press.

by sterra 2007-06-15 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary

At least ONE Obama supporter who understands how dumb this whole thing was.

by georgep 2007-06-15 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary

Two.

Though I'm more of a leaner at the moment.  Since my state votes late, I'll probably just look at who's standing and decide then.

by Go Vegetarian 2007-06-15 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary

I think most Obama supporters think it was dumb.  I know I think it was dumb.  Most of the Obama supporters here aren't arguing that it was well executed, they are arguing that the underlying criticisms weren't fabricated.  There was some there there.

by Obama08 2007-06-15 09:45PM | 0 recs
Right

In future, they should put their name on everything they circulate -- which,
in this case, would have made Obama look stronger and enabled the campaign
to control its own story.

It will be interesting to see whether, despite how poorly this was handled, any
news organization does any investigative work on the memo itself -- which, for
now at least, no one seems to be talking about.

by horizonr 2007-06-15 10:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary

Most people understand how dumb it was, but it is only natural to try to defend their candidate when they see attacks this mean spirited.  

Attacks like this clearly aren't about the substance of whatever attack and are more about hating Obama.  Its only natural to get ones back up in that type of situation.

by sterra 2007-06-16 01:58AM | 0 recs
What a shame

I thought he was above this type of thing.  I was beginning to really like him but this makes me have second thoughts about him.

by reasonwarrior 2007-06-15 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: What a shame

Are you really that naive there is somebody who's above the fray??

He is just as dirty as most politicians. The 'new politics' meme makes me puke.

by lambiel 2007-06-15 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: What a shame

He's not dirty. Just because you repeat something a lot doesn't make it true.

After months of opposition research the worst thing the other campaigns and the media has been able to dig up on Obama is the fact that his friend Tenzo Rezko got indicted for fraud. It's a total non-story. You people have got to face it: the man is clean.

by Korha 2007-06-15 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama frames Hillary

Obama is for campaign finance reform and has raised 26 million in Q1.  That doesn't make him a hypocrite and doesn't mean he's insincere about campaign finance reform.  It just means he's running for President in 2007.

There's a lot of smears going on and one of them is referring to this as a smear.   It's called framing your opponent in most circles and is done by every candidate.  I don't like it and I doubt Barack does either but he's running for President in 2007.

If you want to be honest, let's be honest what's going on here.  Hillary had to divulge holdings from a blind trust that involved major investments in Pharmaceuticals and Oil Companies.  Inevitably, these would have been twisted into nefarious by others so she hands over a not-so-top-secret framing memo from Obama and spins that into the story, not how she's gotten rich off various investments.  That's really what's up here, it's Hillary framing the news into something against Obama.  I don't like it but she's running for President, isn't she?

What Obama is really talking about when he talks about the new politics is how politicians speak to each, how debate is handled in this country.  It's about not attacking each other because we hold different views.  It's about realizing that listening to each other, trying to respect each other's point of view is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength.  

It is not about pretending political campaigns in 2007 is not a dirty business.  I've said it before and I'll repeat it, the guy is a great counter-puncher.  And as Edwards found out in the debate, he's not a pussy who's going to get pushed around.  He's not a bully, but if the Clinton camp thought they were going to pull the Madrassa stunt without getting a few lobbed their way, they are sorely mistaken.

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-15 01:12PM | 0 recs
Right
by horizonr 2007-06-15 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary(Jerome: Obama into Rush L

FINALLY!! I am so sick and tired of Obama and his "new" style of politics. As Jerome Armstrong said it's nothing more than a Republican Rush LImbaugh style attack. Obama can try but sooner or later more and more people will learn about his ties to Rezko. There is no way in hell I would vote for Obama! If you are going to atack another candidate attack them on the issues.

Obama Getting Desperate:

via TPM Cafe:

Obama Campaign Circulating Negative (And Ultimately False) Story About Bill Clinton

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/ electioncentral/2007/jun/15/obama_campai gn_circulating_negative_story_about_bill _clinton

by bsavage 2007-06-15 01:14PM | 0 recs
Indian-American PAC blasts Obama

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

I hope all the candidates learn that there are a lot of Indian Americans who are Democrats (and Republicans). Stereotyping them especially when they are contributing to democratic causes is not fair.

I really wished Mark Warner was running. He represents me very closely on issues and I personally like the manner in which he conducts himself. Without him, I have to pick Hillary. Hopefully, she will pick Mark as the V.P.

by rakk12 2007-06-15 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: indian?

if it wasn't for bill gates they would be still riding camels. america help them. they can't even answer the phones right so go and extend your visa bitch

by edward 2007-06-15 07:55PM | 0 recs
Political correctness run amok

Oh my. The sky is falling.

If this had been anything else, no one would even blink.

Clinton(D-Frankfurt), Clinton(D-Accra), Clinton(D-Cairo), Clinton(D-Vienna). The list goes on.

Those looking to score points on this look so desperate. Not surprising, Edwards usual suspects are on board. Quite a sad lot.

by rosebowl 2007-06-15 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Remember the MySpace mini bump?

this is kind of similar...The anti-obama haters wanted the Myspace incident to be bigger then it was, and was whipping it hard so it could blow up into something it just wasn't, but after a week, big media just tossed it aside to the displeasure of many anti-obama forces that wanted to sink Obama with it.

Ill give this latest rant a week and it will be tossed aside...No big deal.

by JaeHood 2007-06-15 02:17PM | 0 recs
Yup
by horizonr 2007-06-15 10:23PM | 0 recs
Obama

Obama might be "passed over" as Hillary's choice for V.P.

He needs to be careful.

by samueldem 2007-06-15 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

I hope Obama will be passed over. Who needs a diva constantly undermining the boss. Can you imagine how annoying his VP staff would be thinking they got Hillary the White House instead of the other way round?

Should Hillary get the nomination I hope she will choose Bill Richardson or Ken Salazar. The Hispanic vote is going to be awfully important to her now rather than have Obama hold the African-American vote over her head. Not that the entire black vote has decided to throw their lot in with Obama yet anyway.

by superetendar 2007-06-15 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

I agree with you. I don't want Obama as V.P. After a brutal primary, when all of superficial 'movement' candidacy is unveiled, he really has no value except being black. I don't think he'll attract many black voters, to be honest. Even Sharpton and other traditional black voters don't buy his 'holly' image.

I want Clinton to choose a person she's more comfortable with. No more 'Edwards-pushover' type of V.P.

by lambiel 2007-06-15 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama
Obama...really has no value except being black.

Thanks for showing your true colors.

by horizonr 2007-06-15 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: HE IS NOT WHITE

I SEE THAT WE HAVE WENT BACK TO THE BLACK & WHITE THING YOU WHITE GUYS ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE SUCKING ON HIS DICK IN EVERY RALLY HE GIVES SO DONT GIVE ME THAT BULLSHIT ABOUT HIS ONLY VALUE IS BEING BLACK, HORIZONR THAT NAME SOUNDS FUCK UP SUCKER

by edward 2007-06-15 07:41PM | 0 recs
You need to be banned

you add nothing to this site whatsoever.

by okamichan13 2007-06-15 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Boy.  I was on the "Obama for VP" bandwaggon, but these types of cheesy tactics make it harder to support.   I think he is generally a decent man, but does he not know what type of crap his own campaign is doing?   Even Jaehood, who is one of the least realistic Obama fans on here, "gives this story a week," which means it is actually quite the big story.   And, why?  Because some idiot in his campaign thought of a funny?  

by georgep 2007-06-15 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: stupid is hillary

she is losing in iowa and bill is running out of excuses to tell donors i think that you should be cheerleading like a bitch  on her website instead of beating up on obama on this wwebsite  

by edward 2007-06-15 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama wouldn't take it...

he's too smart to get sucked into the clinton psychodrama.  look what it did to al gore...

by bored now 2007-06-16 04:50AM | 0 recs
The Problem With Obama

The problem with the Obama campaign is that it is run by people who are largely ex-Clinton B-list professionals who were not invited into the Clinton A-list inner ring. PIssed off, these B-list professionals simply decided to jump on the Obama anyone-but-Clinton wagon. The problem is the Obama B-list campaign people  are more devoted to proving how good they are at attacking and bringing down the Clintons than they are dedicated to promoting Obama's own ideas and ideals. Say what you will about the menacingly brilliant Howard Wolfson and the equally deadly Mandy Grunwald, they radiate Hillary's message first, last and always no matter what is thrown at them. Obama's people are so instinctively anti Clinton like those dogs that love to chase cars, that they run the risk of losing Obama's message. And we all know what happens eventually to those car chasing dogs who don't kick the habit.

I'm beginning to have more respect for John Edwards. He is not into  tricky. He challenges Hillary face to face. Obama's frankly
cowardly and inept smear is just so underhanded. I would have more respect for him if he challenged Hillary about outsourcing and her investments during the debates.

by superetendar 2007-06-15 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The Problem With Obama

I guess you would call the Madrassa smear an A-list attack radiating Hillary's message of fear.

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-15 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The Problem With Obama

Well its my understanding that the  Madrassa smear was not a Clinton attack but originated with Fox TV who thought they had a twofer: smear Obama with the Madrassa and then blame the Clinton campaign in the process.

Its not the Clinton campaign MO anyway. Way too heavy handed. The Madrassa smear is more in keeping with the Republican sledge hammer approach. The Clinton's are not stupid, they know they cannot attack Obama in such an obvious way. No, I'm afraid if they have to attack Obama it will be death by a thousand cuts, mostly exposing the contradictions of his policies and politics bit by bit, rather like beautifully slicing smoked salmon. The Clinton's are far too policy wonkish to go in for frontal personal attacks, which are way too easy and intellectually low hanging fruit. They leave that kind of thing to Republicans and political neophytes like Obama's campaign crew.

by superetendar 2007-06-15 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The Problem With Obama

I am sorry, but that Insight Magazine piece has been thoroughly debunked by Media Matters.  It was nothing but a two-fer smear from a right-wing rag against both candidates.  

Therefore, you CAN'T use it here to make a point.  

by georgep 2007-06-15 07:12PM | 0 recs
Thats the rub of it

why not challenge her on some of this stuff (or anything really) during the debates? If you have legitimate concerns about her policies, then be open about them. This "not for attribution" stuff is amazing.

by okamichan13 2007-06-15 08:12PM | 0 recs
Edwards not into tricky

Here is Edwards being not tricky

At a Hollywood fundraiser Friday night, John Edwards told donors that he and wife Elizabeth heard personally from every candidate and their spouse after their press conference -- except the Clintons. "He said Hillary and Bill didn't call but all the others did with messages of support. He repeated the story to each table," an attendee told me.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/ed wards-tells-hollywood-fundraiser-all-can didates-and-wives-called-except-hill-and -bill/

Is it conceivable that Hillary Clinton could have called, as she did, the day after the (cancer) press conference and Edwards not have been told? I doubt it. This is the kind of smear Edwards does so well and somehow gets away with, because people keep on falling for it when he later explains the mud away.

Every campaign, though, does nasty stuff. The only trick is getting it to look like the campaign didn't do it; Obama's campaign lost on this count, because Clinton's campaign was smarter. Anyone who thinks it's not happening in their candidate's campaign is setting themselves up for a let down or a whole lot of explaining stuff away.

by zac 2007-06-16 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary

Hillary smeared Obama with the Madrassa crap she lied about.

Obama's campaign simply released personal information that happened to be true.

by noquacks 2007-06-15 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary

That is a shameless lie.  Please don't bring right-wing trash sources over here.    

by georgep 2007-06-15 07:13PM | 0 recs
Actually the Obama campaign email

cited at tpmcafe and linked above is false. Even Drudge took it off after it was finally fact-checked.

I'm not a Hillary supporter either, but using a fake 9/11 frame and slandering Bill Clinton over a speech is way way over the line.

You really want to defend that?

by okamichan13 2007-06-15 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary(Jerome: Obama into Rush L

This isn't a smart hit, but smearing Hillary makes sense.

by Bob Brigham 2007-06-15 09:01PM | 0 recs
Link and Lesson

How about that?  Never a dull day in the 2008 race!

For those interested in examining the original source material, the actual memo in question, rather than taking the New York Times word for it all (filters anyone?), I found this link.

I found the memo very interesting (and hard hitting) on the issue of outsourcing and Hillary Clinton...and...drum roll please...carelessly written such that it tactlessly and unnecessarily bordered upon racism.  Writing about your opponent's policies (or statements) favoring the outsourcing of jobs to a foreign country evidently requires some tact, finesse and sophistication.  For those political leaders who want to advocate slowing the outsourcing of American jobs overseas (Obama?), this memo can certainly provide a number of lessons on how NOT to do it.  Choose your words carefully.

As far as "secret" memos like this being sent to the media by all the campaigns, an interesting question might be asked of the New York Times...straight up.  Has the Clinton campaign sent secret "attack memos" against the other candidates to them in 2007?  Has the Edwards campaign?  Have all the campaigns?  How many from each campaign?

If these sorts of memos come in by the dozens every day, then this so called "scandal" could likely be repeated every single day from now until 2008.  Alternatively, the New York Times could pick and choose when to run the scandal I suppose:  Look what we got today! (And every other day as well?)

by Demo37 2007-06-15 10:19PM | 0 recs
Would someone

who is offended by the opp memo please answer whether they are in any way disturbed by Senator Clinton's uncaring attitude to those who are displaced by the outsourcing of jobs overseas.  Simply saying "well that is the way the world works" does not mean one can then say "so I really don't care about the consequences of that reality."  However, given the other recent NYT article about Senator Clinton not lifting a finger to stop Wal-Mart from engaging in intimidating anti-union activities while she served on the company's board of directors for six years it should come as no surprise.

by True Independent 2007-06-15 10:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama smears Hillary(Jerome: Obama into Rush L
Finally the fight for the soul of the democratic party that i've been waiting for has began.
We've all watched in horror as the democrats joined the republicans in representing the interests of corparatists. We now have enough historical data to honestly debate the merits of outsourcing, nafta etc
by joachim 2007-06-16 08:08AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads