We Are Talking About The Clinton Campaign, Right?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, HillaryIn response to the Obama picture today, some fellow bloggers are saying that Hillary and her surrogates couldn’t possibly be this stupid.
Well, I agree…I don’t think she’s that stupid, but she hasn’t said any of this stuff. However, she has surrounded herself with a bunch of politicos and surrogates who have demonstrated time and time again that they’re quite stupid. And as anybody knows who follow politics, the surrogates do the dirty work.
So here’s a sample of Obama smears perpetrated by Clinton’s surrogates during this primary season…
- The campaign puts out a press release about Obama’s kindergarten papers, which they say demonstrates he’s ambitious and has been planning a presidential run since, well, kindergarten. Obama still uses this one in his stump speech.
- Clinton’s co-chairman on her campaign in New Hampshire brings up Obama’s drug use as a reason to not vote for him because it’ll make him vulnerable in the general election. He is subsequently asked to step down.
- Mark Penn then goes on Hardball to apologize for the Obama drug mention, but then Penn says the word “cocaine” multiple times. This smear is so transparent that even Joe Trippi, John Edwards’ campaign manager, called Penn out on this.
- In Iowa, multiple high level volunteers spread “Obama is a muslim” emails. Noboby knows how widespread the emails have been distributed. The volunteers are asked to leave.
- Robert Johnson, billionaire founder of BET and BIG TIME Clinton donor, suggests that Obama was doing drugs while Bill and Hill were helping people. When confronted about this innuendo, he lies about it and says he was talking about Obama’s community organizing instead. The Clinton campaign accepts Johnson’s explanation and this is actually a case of where Hillary is ON RECORD herself saying she accepts his explanation when it is obviously false.
And yes, there are more, including all of Bill’s shenanigans in South Carolina, but let me instead focus on what her campaign was saying to reporters just TODAY after this latest Obama picture came out.
When Time’s Jay Newton-Small inquired about the Obama photo on Drudge, [campaign spokesperson Phil] Singer used the occasion to complain about the press’s failure to examine Obama ties to violent radicals who were part of the Weathermen of the 1960s. “As far as I can tell there was absolutely no follow-up on the part of the Obama traveling press corps,” he said.
Yes folks. In a room full of reporters, a Clinton SPOKESPERSON complains that the media isn’t asking questions about Obama’s ties to a radical 60s group that used terrorism to get their point across.
But by the way, the media has checked this out. There’s nothing to it.
In any event, if you’ve ever wondered why I’m so quick to defend Obama and call BS on the Clinton campaign, let this post serve as a small reminder. Because if you’ve paid attention you know that these are not just isolated incidents.
This entry was posted on Monday, February 25th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
I’ll stick with my earlier thesis. The Obama campaign stands to gain a great deal more from the completely unsubstantiated claim that the Clinton campaign is responsible for sending the picture to Drudge, than the Clinton campaign could possibly stand to gain by sending the picture to Drudge. For pete sakes, why would the Clinton campaign e-mail this to Drudge with an intact Clinton e-mail header? Why?
How about we walk down the path of slightly more paranoid scenario?
Interesting thread on this topic over at Liberal Avenger.
Commenter Dutch:
So a mysterious e-mail with what someone thinks is a damaging picture of Obama in a turban (which actually is not damaging with Democratic voters) shows up at Drudge with a header that says it came from the Clinton campaign. Thats all we got. As a result the two Dem campaigns attack each other. Who really gains when the two Democratic campaigns are engaged in a spitfight?
Certainly between the two Dem campaigns, Obama gains much more in this exchange (which BTW you are an accessory to Justin - which is fine if you want to carry their water - at the moment I’m carrying Clinton’s water and I don’t even know why). But a trickster outside of either campaign could not be happier with this result regardless.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Yes mw, but your thesis ignores all of the other attacks. You can’t selectively apply your thesis to just this one smear. Well, you can, but it’s not credible. Especially since one could say the same thing about any one of these because they’re all really dumb and Obama has gained from all of them, and yet there they are.
But you’re right. Email can be spoofed, etc. I just think the pattern of smear from the Clintons is clear so I’m simply done giving them the benefit of the doubt. And I think you know that if they pattern wasn’t there, I never would have written this post.
Fair enough?
February 26th, 2008 at 9:10 am
I’m not sure the kindergarten thing is an “attack”? It’s incredibly stupid and certainly self-defeating, and anyone with an ounce of political sense would have known it wasn’t gonna stick with voters, but it wasn’t a lie or “false”….it was simply irrelevant.
As for the drug use…Obama has admitted that, correct? So, once again, is that an “attack” as such? You may feel it is “beyond the pale” to bring up something like this, and you may feel the person was wrong to attach any political importance to the matter (I’m inclined to agree with you on that point), but it isn’t based upon a outright falsehood.
And I’m not sure what to think about “high level volunteers”. To my mind if you are a “volunteer” you are not “high level” by definition. That would be akin, to my mind, of blaming Obama personally for the Che Guevara flags flown by some Obama volunteers in Texas. Calling those folks “high level volunteers” wouldn’t change that fact either.
IN this case none of us have any information that could positively identify the source of the photo. Any categorical statement about it then becomes a statement about our own prejudices more than anything else.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Let us not forget the reason that Barak Obama is the front running Democratic hopeful. He is being propelled to the top of the Democratic ticket by disgruntled Republicans who seem more concerned with ensuring that Hillary Rodham Clinton is not the next president of the United States.
One only has to look at elections in which crossovers could occur and in states that vote Republican. Barak Obama has done exceptionally well and the data suggests that he does very well with these so called independent voters whom I suspect are actually Republicans content with ensuring a Hillary defeat and not an Obama victory.
This election season the Republican primary field was full of candidates who did not inspire and coupled with a sense of hopeless certainty that the GOP candidate would be defeated no matter the out come of the Democratic primary process was bound to ensure that the driving principal behind this years election is not who would be the next president but who would not be the next president.
Barak Obama is being driven to the nomination and most likely the White House by Republicans whose entire focus this primary season is to ensure that Clinton be defeated. I think the DNC might take a careful look at their primary process after this primary and decide if they do in fact want Republicans deciding who their candidate is in future elections.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Rich - Agreed.
I feel I need a lawyer by side here to jump up and say “OBJECTION! HEARSAY! Prior history is not relevant or admissible or prejudicial or ..something.”
But the Clinton campaign has been convicted in the court of public blogospheric opinion. A travesty of justice.
See you at the execution.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Rich and mw, I hear what you’re saying, but I’m not looking at these situations selectively anymore. There’s a pattern folks, and actually, in a court of law, evidence of past indiscretions are admissible to question somebody’s credibility.
Also, smears are usually true in some respect, but make the candidate look bad. Such is the case with all the smears the Clinton campaign has leveled against Barack. None of them are provably false, but all are petty, mean and dumb.
But let me put this another way Rich, since you think Obama’s drug use is okay to bring up…would it be okay for Obama’s campaign to bring up Bill’s pattern of infidelity? Personally, I don’t think so, and yet I’m sure that could have been argued it shows Hillary doesn’t necessarily have the best judgement. Going further, did they bring up White Water? Kathleen Wiley? Juanita Broaddrick? No, no and no. None of the “dirt” on Clinton has come up from the Obama campaign, and yet the Clinton campaign has continually brought up dirt on Obama. And folks, you can think this stuff isn’t orchestrated if you want, but I would offer that trusting a political machine that’s known for exactly this type of stuff is naive at best.
I rest my case. :-)
February 26th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
So, in effect, you are agreeing with my last paragraph. I can live with that. :-)
I’m not naive about the Clinton machine (as ricketty as it seems these days), but I’m hoping you are not being naive about the Illinois democratic political machine that birthed Obama. I’ve not seen a politician come out of there yet that has earned the title “clean.” Obama could be the first I suppose.
I’ll remain wary.