Obama’s “Personal Attacks” On Hillary
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, Hillary, Partisan NonsenseGeoff Garin, Hillary’s latest chief campaign strategist, tries to set a new standard on what constitutes a personal attack and what doesn’t.
What’s wrong with this picture? Our campaign runs a TV ad Monday saying that the presidency is the toughest job in the world and giving examples of challenges presidents have faced and challenges the next president will face — including terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mounting economic dislocation, and soaring gas prices. The ad makes no reference — verbal, visual or otherwise — to our opponent; it simply asks voters to think about who they believe is best able to stand the heat. And we are accused, by some in the media, of running a fear-mongering, negative ad.The day before this ad went on the air, David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s chief strategist, appeared with me on “Meet the Press.” He was asked whether Hillary Clinton would bring “the changes necessary” to Washington, and his answer was “no.” This was in keeping with the direct, personal character attacks that the Obama campaign has leveled against Clinton from the beginning of this race — including mailings in Pennsylvania that describe her as “the master of a broken system.” [...]
The Obama campaign has chosen from its inception not to treat Clinton with the same respect. In fact, the Obama campaign has made an unprecedented assault on her character — not her positions, but her character — saying one thing about raising the tone of political discourse but acting quite differently in its treatment of Clinton.
Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, held a conference call with reporters and called Hillary “one of the most secretive politicians in America today” — a striking personal charge in the era of Dick Cheney.
Axelrod described Clinton as having “a special interest obsession.”
Obama himself has joined the character assault from time to time, saying, for example, that Clinton “doesn’t have the sense that things need to change in Washington” — a patently false and demeaning observation.
I’m sorry, but Geoff…have you been following this race?
First off, to answer the content of the Obama campaign’s comments, Clinton’s campaign has always been one of the Washington insider. In fact, it was revealed early on that Mark Penn had been running the campaign as if she was running for reelection. Add to that the fact that Clinton poo-pooed Obama’s calls for change in Washington with phrases like “the skies will open up, and the light will shine down upon us.”
But to address your own standard for what’s a personal attack and what’s not…
- …let’s not forget the cocaine charges…
- …let’s not forget the kindgergarten essays…
- …let’s not forget the fairy tale comment…
- …let’s not forget Robert Johnson, who the Clinton campaign backed up and who has subsequently said he lied about his comments not being about drugs…
- …let’s not forget that they still never answered for the Muslim pic on Drudge…and yes, I know that people don’t think Clinton was attached to this, but why did her campaign look into this situation, but not that one? Also, why did they agree with the content of the email’s message? And why did they use the occasion to bring up The Weathermen?
So Geoff, I know you’re new to the campaign, but that should get you up to speed. Better you know now before you write any more laughable op-eds like this.
This entry was posted on Friday, April 25th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, Hillary, Partisan Nonsense. 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.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Lets not. Lets not forget that Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign flat denied having anything to do with it, which if true, means there is nothing to look into. That does not stop Justin from demanding they look into it anyway. Lets not forget that there was never any evidence that the Clinton campaign was associated with this except a a very general,very oddly worded statement by Drudge about an e-mail that he has never produced. Lets not forget that there was considerable circumstantial evidence that the source of the e-mail was Republican operatives who spoofed the e-mail after finding it circulating on the Freeper site.
Lets not forget that that single most effective and damaging personal attack by either campaign, in terms of actual damage among the Democratic voting base, was the Obama campaign smear of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign accusing them of the being responsible for releasing that picture to Drudge, an accusation that had no supporting evidence (zero, none, nada), but continues to be believed and promoted by gullible Democrats like Justin to this day.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:04 am
First, Drudge said that Hillary pushed that story. Obama’s camp repeated it. If you think that’s a smear, that’s fine, but that’s just trusting the source.
Second, the Clinton campaign said that they had no knowledge if the email had come from their campaign or not. That was their answer, and they were very careful to say it exactly like that. Why? Because they couldn’t flat out deny it because they never looked into it.
And yet they looked into the other situation in Iowa and fired somebody.
And yet they agreed with the sentiment of the email.
And yet they used the occasion to bring up Obama’s supposed ties to a 70′s era TERRORIST GROUP.
Hmmm…
And I’m sorry, but your claim of zero evidence is false. Drudge is evidence. And the evidence you claim contradicts this does no such thing. The photo popped up on a website a few days before. That’s not evidence, that’s coincidence, and you should know the difference.
If Drudge is revealed to be a liar in this case, I’ll retract everything I’ve said. But I think it’s telling that the Clinton camp never called for Drudge to release the email. Again, I ask why? And considering the pattern of deception and spin that has come from the Clinton campaign, you’d think they would have come out with guns blazing on this, since they’ve done it with EVERYTHING ELSE.
You believe what you want to believe and I’ll believe what I want to believe. But I think we can both agree that Garin’s op-ed is pure spin and nothing else.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:48 am
It’s just a coincidence that 68% of the voters of Pennsylvania, where Clinton won easily, thought she attacked her opponent unfairly.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
This is a false statement. Here is the exact quote from Drudge, which is the ONLY SOURCE for any accusations:
This is a precisely worded statement by wordsmith Drudge, designed to create an impression without saying anything and is particularly notable for what it does not say. It does not say that Hillary pushed the story”. It does not say the clinton campaign pushed the story, nor does he say received it from the Clinton campaign. He said he “obtained it” but does not say from where, which is tantamount to saying he did not get it from the Clinton campaign. He does not mention names. He has never produced the e-mail. the header has never been made available to see if it was spoofed. The accusation that the Clinton campaign gave it to Drudge and promoted the picture was created out of whole cloth by the Obama campaign, specifically to smear the Clinton campaign, with no evidence – not from Drudge – not from anywhere. And you continue to repeat it.
Common sense says to consider who benefited from this. The primary beneficiary are Republicans, who in a single stroke were able to damage Obama with the race and religion baiting Neanderthal wing of their party, and also damage Clinton with the Democratic base. That is why the most likely scenario is that this was a spoofed e-mail sent to Drudge by Republican operatives or tricksters. It was in Drudges interest to not look to closely but just report the superficial and probably spoofed header. By opportunistically jumping all over this and smearing the Clinton campaign without evidence, the Obama campaign was also able to benefit greatly during the primary season by damaging the Clinton reputation among the Democratic base. Damage which continues to be reinforced by posts like this one. The only one who got no benefit from this at all, is the Clinton campaign. Not one vote was switched from Obama to Clinton among the Dem base because he wore a turban.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
That editorial was totally moronic.
When you renege on a commitment, how do you have any stature as an attorney? I personally won’t negotiate with someone that commits to a deal and then backs out. Why would you?
As for snipergate, she put that story out again AFTER being contradicted. You’d think that folks would be more concerned what comes out of Hillary’s mouth than what comes out of Obama’s pastor’s mouth. Right? The logical inference is that a habitual liar who wants to be President should be the core issue than a pastor who doesn’t even claim to speak for Obama.
That’s like indicting me for my racist Asian immigrant mom who won’t vote for Obama because he’s black. That’s a non-issue compared to the lies that comes out of Hillary’s own mouth.
Hillary’s negative ratings are based on her own lies and her failure to run a campaign. If you can’t operate campaign machinery, how are you suppose to run a Cabinet.?
April 25th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Yes, Drudge did say Hillary’s camp was pushing that story. I didn’t specify through which channels they were pushing it, but I guess I have to be incredibly specific in this conversation and say they were pushing it through email. Remember, this mirrors a similar story in pre-caucus Iowa where a person who was found doing this was fired.
Second, I am using your common sense standard about who benefitted. Hillary’s camp used the opportunity to: a) agree with the sentiment in the email and b) push the Weatherman story. So to suggest that the Clinton camp didn’t benefit from this isn’t even supported by the opportunities they took at the time this was happening.
Also, you don’t think a picture of Obama in Muslim gear has helped spread the notion that Obama is a “Secret Muslim” with lower income, white Dems…who just happen to be one of Hill’s support bases?
Sorry, but Occam’s razor is slicing your argument to shreds.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
No, he does not say that. Just read it. Unless you are referring to later in the story when Drudge says this:
The only time that Drudge says Cinton’s camp was pushing the story, he is quoting David Plouffe of the Obama campaign as his source.
No, Obama was not damaged by that picture. Any Democrat who would have been influenced by that picture would have already made up their mind, and probably would have believed the “Obama is a secret Muslim” e-mail smear. .Both of which are consistent with continuing smears propagated by Republicans and not Democrats. No Democratic votes for Obama were changed by that picture.
On the other hand, Clinton is still fighting the damage created by Plouffe and those who repeat this, his most effective smear, which has cost Clinton many votes and continues to erode her support. This is reinforced by the simple observation that any time this is mentioned, it is being promoted by Obama supporters with the intent of damaging Clinton. If this was so damaging to Obama, why do Obama supporters keep bringing it up? You never hear Clinton supporters bring this up.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
1) To say Obama wasn’t damaged by that picture is naive at best.
2) To say no democratic votes for Obama were changed because of that picture is complete speculation and not backed up by the rising % that believes he’s a muslim. Remember, these are tight contests. 2% or 3% matters.
3) I don’t know how to say this any more clearly, and please don’t take this as me shouting, but for emphasis….WHEN ASKED ABOUT IT, THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AGREED WITH THE SENTIMENT EXPRESSED IN THE EMAIL AND USED THE OCCASIONS TO PUSH THE WEATHERMAN STORY. You still haven’t addressed those two very key points, and I think you’re ignoring them because it completely undermines your “Clinton has nothing to gain” argument.
And by the way, how is Clinton still fighting the damage done from that? It’s Obama who has is consistently asked the Muslim question.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
It’s just a coincidence that 68% of the voters of Pennsylvania, where Clinton won easily, thought she attacked her opponent unfairly.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
It’s idiots like you crowning this idiot that can’t win women, Hispanics, and the working class that will result in the demise of the Democrats.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
The Hillary camp repeatedly attacks Obama with things that they have done themselves. The only way they can win is by dragging Obama and themselves through the mud. It’s a gruesome display of seeking power at any cost, civility be damned. The media is eating it up with no shortage of positive spin for her trying to create a race where one doesn’t really exist. It’s been an eye-opening experience and unfortunately sad one.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
mw, the only thing you’ve accomplished here is to demonstrate the degree to which Clinton’s supporters will twist reality and logic to defend her indefensible lies.
Nothing Geoff Garin identifies as a “personal attack” qualifies as one. And I don’t think it’s possible they don’t know what they’re doing when they tell the big lies in an effort to stand reality on its head. Calling Clinton “secretive” is a “striking personal attack in the era of Dick Cheney?” No, it is because we live in the era of Dick Cheney that questions about a politician’s secretiveness are important and relevant.
“…stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a “dressed†Barack Obama….â€Wouldn’t we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?†questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.†– You can make the tortured argument that this doesn’t mean the Clinton staffers were the origin of the photo, but it clearly claims they were “pushing” it – “circulating” it and complaining that it should be getting more attention.
Four months ago if you’d asked me whether I would be happy with Clinton getting the nomination, I would have said, “sure.” She wasn’t my first choice, but then neither was Obama. I remember Democrats discussing the Democratic slate and expressing contentment with almost all of the choices. Whoever won, we would be happy and confident going up against the Republicans in the fall.
Now I see Clinton as nothing different than McCain or Bush. She’s just like them, and shares their contempt for the people and their petulant sense of entitlement. Maybe it was always that way or maybe she became what she hated in the 90s, because her and her husband were determined to beat the Republicans at their own game.
Whatever. I’m glad she’s going down and I’m glad Obama and Howard Dean are ushering in a new era in Democratic politics. Good riddance to the Bushes and the Clintons and all the detritus of the Reagan Revolution. It’s time to move on.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Hillary’s just looking for another thing to cry about. What’s that smell? Oh yea, desperation.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Obama has run an extremely respectful campaign. When Hillary got desperate and started slinging anything she could dream up (around 3am), she put him in the difficult position of having to decide whether to respond or risk allowing the disinformation to gain traction with the media and others too lazy to check facts. Then, when he responded, she called him a whiner. Polls show most people believe that it’s been the Clinton campaign that has lowered the bar.
In the above article, they’ve outdone themselves in twisting the truth around exactly 180 degrees. Hillary has lied and flip-flopped time and time again, beginning with how the Florida/Michigan issue should be resolved. Answer: differently than agreed if it suddenly becomes important to ME WINNING. She does not have enough integrity to become our next president.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
It’s driving me crazy that people are acting like Hillary still has a chance at the nomination. SHE LOST. Get over it. There are much more important things to focus on: Helping Barack Obama beat John McCain.
April 26th, 2008 at 2:57 am
She’s already out of the race, just doesnt know it yet.