RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Bloggers: Cover Obama’s Campaign Tactics Against Clinton

Taylor Marsh obtained a copy of an e-mail that Clinton campaign Internet director Peter Daou has sent out to bloggers. (Read Taylor’s post for more background.) Here is Daou’s letter:

I’m writing this to a group of bloggers. Some of you are Hillary supporters, some not, some neutral.

I want to address a pervasive misconception, namely, that Senator Obama hasn’t run a negative campaign against Hillary … it’s time to put that misconception to rest.

The truth is that for months, the Obama campaign has been attacking Hillary, impugning her character and calling into question her lifetime of public service. And now the Chicago Tribune reports that Senator Obama is preparing a “full assault” on her “over ethics and transparency.” To those who contend that Senator Obama is the clear frontrunner, I ask, to what end this “full assault” on Hillary?

On CNN last Tuesday, Senator Obama said, “Well, look, Wolf, I think if you watch how we have conducted our campaign, we’ve been very measured in terms of how we talk about Senator Clinton. …

[Obama continues] “I have been careful to say, that I think that Senator Clinton is a capable person and that should she win the nomination, obviously, I would support her. You know, I’m not sure that we have been getting that same approach from the Clinton campaign.”

The facts of this election stand in stark contrast to that statement. Senator Obama and his senior campaign officials have engaged in a systematic effort to question Hillary’s integrity, credibility, and character. They have portrayed her as someone who would put her personal gain ahead of the lives of our troops, someone who would say or do anything to win an election, someone who is dishonest, divisive and disingenuous. They have adopted shop-worn anti-Clinton talking points, dusted them off and unleashed a torrent of unfounded character attacks against her. Among other things, they have described Hillary – and her campaign – as:

“Disingenuous”

“Too
polarizing to win”

‘Divisive’

“Untruthful”

“Dishonest”

‘Calculating’

“Saying
and doing whatever it takes to win”

“Attempting
to deceive the American people”

“One
of the most secretive politicians in America”

“Literally
willing to do anything to win”

“Playing
politics with war”

To top it off, they have blanketed big states with false radio ads and negative mailers — ads and mailers that experts have debunked time and time again. They have distributed health care brochures using Republican framing. They have tried to draw a nexus between Hillary’s votes and the death of her friend Benazir Bhutto. And one of Senator Obama’s top advisers (who has since left the campaign) recently called Hillary “a monster.”

This “full assault” on Hillary comes from the very top of the Obama campaign, not surrogates and supporters.

This “full assault” is being directed at someone I personally know to be a thoughtful, brilliant, principled, compassionate person, someone the world knows as a good Democrat, a trailblazer, a lifelong champion for children and families, a respected former first lady, a senator, a presidential candidate.

This “full assault” is targeting a staff of hundreds of hard-working, dedicated Democrats, who I’ve had the privilege of working with for the past 14 months.

This is a hard-fought campaign – as it should be. Like any candidate for elected office, Hillary has made clear why she thinks she would do a better job than her opponent. She has laid out comprehensive policy proposals, put forth her 35-year record of accomplishment, and spent countless days introducing herself to voters across the country. She has said that she is far better prepared to take on John McCain on national security. She has contended that she is the candidate with the experience to confront the GOP attack machine. She has argued that she is more electable. She has said that Senator Obama’s words are not matched by actions. And she has challenged him to live up to core Democratic values and goals such as universal health care.

I recall indignation online at the suggestion that Senator Obama has not made the case that he is ready to be Commander in Chief — the concern being that this would be terribly detrimental to him in a general election. As I blogged recently, and as many of you know, I spent 2004 in the Kerry-Edwards war room, and I understand full well that national security will be front and center in the general election. It’s not a matter of choice. And the reality is that the public views Hillary as better prepared to take on Senator McCain when it comes to national security. Democrats must factor that in as they nominate a candidate to win in November.

If that suggestion is potentially harmful to Senator Obama in a general election, how exactly do the personal attacks against Hillary (which echo and reinforce rightwing talking points) help her in the event she wins the nomination? I recall no similar outrage at those harsh attacks on her character, many of which were directed at her when she was the clear frontrunner and seen as the likely nominee.

Both candidates are running a vigorous campaign. Both have had surrogates or supporters who have crossed the line … these offensive statements are an unfortunate part of a long and close campaign. Those who make a habit of automatically assuming and ascribing to only one candidate the worst motives, ignoring more reasonable and benign explanations, who substitute conjecture for fact and then use those assumed ‘facts’ as a foundation on which to pile more conjecture about only one candidate’s intentions, who express anger at negative campaigning and perceived dirty tricks but focus on only one candidate’s words and actions, risk losing credibility. And those who conclude from that one-sided reasoning that Hillary ought to stop seeking victory, should ask themselves if quitting in the middle of a hard-fought – and winnable – contest is a desirable attribute in a future president.

Hillary has rightfully stated that as Democrats we should be proud of our field of candidates. And it is truly inspiring to see the level of enthusiasm among voters this cycle. We should encourage as many people as possible to become part of this process and to forcefully advocate for their candidate of choice.

But there is a sharp line between supporting a candidate (and excusing their faults, which all supporters do to some degree) and conducting a “full assault” on an opponent’s integrity and character. The Obama campaign’s unabashed attacks on Hillary’s honesty and trustworthiness should give every Democrat pause.

We are all entitled to support and oppose whomever we choose, but I challenge my online friends to call this “full assault” on Hillary’s character for what it is.

  • http://papertigertail.blogspot.com otherlisa

    You wanna talk bamboozling, the myth that Hillary has run a dirty campaign and that Obama is above it all has got to be the biggest rabbit I’ve ever seen pulled out of a hat.

    • Susanclare

      Yes, and the pundits and the likes of John Kerry et al, get to spread this misinformation unchallenged in the MSM world. Shame on them all!!!

  • Patrick Henry

    Good Points Susan..

    We have seen what PARTISANSHIP LOYALTY did to the Republican Party ..Did to the Executive Office..did to Congress..and How far they went to get the American People to Bend Over..

    Thats Why larry started This Web Site…Thats why Susan is here..To Tell The Truth..To Question..The be Contrarians..To Start a venue of Information and Analysis so that people Have Information and sources and Choices..to Help them DECIDE..

    We Americans know what Happens when your Only source of Propaganda is the OSP..Office of Special Plans..

    No More Bush/Cheney/Rove type Goveernments..

    NO more..MY PARTY..Right or Wrong..No more Bullshit..

    Now…Its NO QUARTER..

    • Nellie

      Patrick,

      I had no idea the word “Contrarian” was complmentary.

      That’s what Tim Russet called NH voters, after we defied the polls and so called ‘wisdom’ of the National Media.

      From Tim’s tone, I did not think it was meant to be flattery when called ‘Contrarian”.

      Now that you used it in a different way, I’ll have to reconsider what I oercieved was Russet’s insult.

  • roseeriter

    Maybe it’s time we re-enlist the Grey panthers from back in the day for us Hillary supporters. Obama has the new Black panthers helping out. He is featured in their latest newspaper.

    Google new black panthers and click on news and download first magazine cover. There’s a full page Obama ad with Farakahn’s endorsement.

    It’s a zoo out here.

    • bert

      It took me a while to get to the Obama ad. Site would not load while on NO QUARTER. But finally got to see and read it. And if any one else wants to take a look, it is the last page.

      What I want to know is if this is paid for by the Obama campaign? Is there any way to check on that? Does he even know that this exists?

      I don’t want to circulate something that is not true. I will leave that to O’Reilly, FOX, and swift boaters. Did the new black panthers BUY an ad or just create their own ad w/o the campaign’s knowlwdge? I would imagine it would be hard to dicover if Obama knows and said OK or not.

      • Nellie

        bert,

        I can’t find them. Do you have a link?

  • AF catfish

    One way we can blog about this – subscribe to Obama’s emails and expose them to the world. Each fundraising email from Obama talks about Hillary’s campaign and their “attacks” and “desperation”.

    Obama’s email always includes this little trick: “she’s not just attacking me; she’s attacking you.” First of all no, she’s questioning just you Barack, so step up and stop hiding behind your “supporters”. Second of all, you can’t call these things “attacks”.

    Then expose Hillary’s emails. They are really, really positive.

    • AF catfish

      Even the subject lines of his emails are usually negative focused on Hillary. Her subject lines are positive and focused only on her.

      Wed, March 12. From: David Plouffe, BarackObama.com
      Subject: “Spun out”
      Message Summary: Clinton campaign spins our wins as losses.
      1st mention of Clinton: line 1.
      “Dear catfish, When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said …”
      Number of times Clinton Mentioned: 12

      Tue, March 11. From: Barack Obama
      Subject: “Victories and attacks”
      Message Summary: Even though we won Wyoming and Mississippi, Clinton campaign is “attacking” us as winning only boutique states.
      1st mention of Clinton: line 3.
      Number of times Clinton Mentioned: 6

      Wed, March 12. From: Bill Clinton
      Subject: “Pennsylvania”
      Message Summary: people counted out Hillary, but she won. Now let’s make it happen again in Pennsylvania. Obama outspent us in the Mar 4 races and we won anyway.
      1st mention of Obama: line #11 “Thanks to you, this race is neck-and-neck despite the Obama campaign outraising us by $20 million in February.”
      Number of times Obama Mentioned: 3

      Sat, March 8. From: Hillary Clinton
      Subject: “Take a look”
      Message Summary: Video Message of Hillary saying “for everyone who has been counted out but refused to be knocked out.” “Once again we’ve defied the odds.”
      1st mention of Obama: Obama never mentioned.

      • Andy

        Thanks for sharing AF catfish, it’s nice to see the stark contrast.

      • Nellie

        Thanks for showing these to us.

        Would you be willing to send these and others you have to Taylor Marsh?

    • norrismorris

      Have tried to find obama emails but when i go on site i can only get “contributions”. give me web address, plwase, would appreciate.

      will be happy to do this and get all i know to do so.

    • bert

      If you sign up for Obama they also email you talking points to use on blogs. That is why so many of them sound the same.

      • TeakWoodKite

        talking points to use on blogs

        What, like the A&P coupons from long ago? :)

  • Irish1139

    You need to get Obama on tape speaking his vile message against Hillary. You need to get him speaking hoodwinkese. He is a horrible person and as soon as you get him on tape and let the country see and hear with their own eyes and ears what a uniter he is not, I think they will get the message. All the rotten stuff he speaks will sound like his Reverend Wright friend (hateful and obscene) if you could just get him on tape.

    If Hillary isn’t the nominee, Obama will lose anyway and McCain will be the next president. I pray something happens before he becomes the nominee. Maybe the Rezko prosecutor will issue a warrant for his arrest. (sorry to sound so negative but I am pi**ed.) In my heart

    I know Hillary can beat him. It is going to take a lot of campaigning though. People need to see her and talk to her. Once they do, they usually come out fighting for her.

    • bert

      Best I can tell at this point and withh info read so far, Obama will not be indicted or arrested. But what may occur is that Rezko’s defense team may supoena him to testify on his behalf. That would be a wonderful spectacle for all Americans to see now, wouldn’t it?

      • simon

        Best I can tell at this point and withh info read so far, Obama will not be indicted or arrested

        Well, follow the governor Rod bouncing ball.

        Fitz works his way up, there is no way Obama walks, unless he works out a deal…

  • http://takeaction.wordpress.com/ A.Citizen

    Even BTD posed the question today….

    ‘If Obama is the front runner why is he going negative?’

    To which I replied,

    ‘You askin’ me! If you can find someone who know why Obama is running a ‘wrecker’ campaign be sure and email me stat, pal.’

    No email as of yet.

    • norrismorris

      Obama is going negative to increase his Pa. vote, and to stop any Fla or Mi votes from being permitted, and it increases his “power” with the elders of the party.

      He feels he has a lock on this and he’s probably right. I think this is all very corrupt.

      He and his surrogates and bloggers are doing “insurance”.

      • simon

        He feels he has a lock on this and he’s probably right

        I don’t know, you’re probably right, I never underestimate the stupidity of the democrats, and their republican counterparts, but something yet seems undecided.

        Perhaps more revelations concerning Obama, and Rezko.

        And the Wright thing hasn’t peaked, hasn’t even started. Didn’t Wright visit Gaddafi and one of those other kooks in the name of “ambassador for Islam?”

        Kind of like Joe Wilson, right…

        It would appear some tape is out there some where…

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2179479.stm

        For the youngsters, the good col admitted to blowing up an airliner, over Lockerbie Scotland, in 1988, killing 270, right before Christmas?

        Obama and his friends, what is it with that man and people who blow things up!!!.

      • bert

        “increases his “power” with the elders of the party.”

        I heard the Dem Party (Dean and Pelosi) sent out an e-mail today to some email list they have asking all Obama supporters to make phone calls and send emails to any media outlet that runs any of Wright’s inflammatory statements and charge that it is racist.

        Is this true? Can anyone find out?

        Of true this is terrible.

        • AF catfish

          If that’s true we should pass it onto the MSM, it’s a newsworthy story that they are doing this.

  • Patti

    I always get positive e mails from HIllary and the gang. The only campaign things I recieved prior to our 2/5 primary was from Hillary Clinton. Nothing from Obama’s campaign. I am a registered Democrat…

  • Sally

    The MSM is pushing this fairy tale as hard as BO and his supporters. Thank you, Peter Daou. Great summing up.

  • frankly0

    It’s of course ironic that the Obama campaign would dare to talk about “transparency”.

    The single issue most likely to damage Obama, in my view, is the vile statements of his own spiritual advisor and “sounding board”, Jeremiah Wright.

    By his own admission, Obama has known about these statements since the beginning of his campaign.

    Did he in any way reveal any part of his own knowledge of those statements until outside parties forced him to confront them? Absolutely not — indeed he has, if anything, only lied in saying that he was not present at any of the sermons in question.

    Transparency?

    It is to laugh.

    • norrismorris

      After hearing Dodd and Schumer defend Obama on Fox today I realized what is going on. Especially after getting a load of Nancy Pelosi and Dean on Networks.

      They [even Though Schumer says he's for Hillary] and including Bill Bradley’s hatchet job on Hillary, have all decided no matter what, Obama must be given the nomination. WHY????

      BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS TERRIFIED THAT THE BLACKS WILL BE LOST TO THE PARTY. THEY HAVE MADE IT KNOWN THEY WON’T BE DENIED. PARTY IS DETERMINED TO TRY TO STOP HILLARY AT ALL COSTS. THIS IS THE SUBTEXT I SEE EVEN WITH THE DISGUSTING WRIGHT TAPES WHICH LEFT WING SURROGATES AND OBAMA BLOGGERS ARE FORGIVING WITH, “He’s not responsible for his pastor’s ideas, and besides you whites don’t know that this goes on in all black churches”.

      The bottom line: Blacks are saying to Democrats, “Go sue me. Bite me.” “Without us, you’re toast”.

      • tiffany

        What would happen to the DNC if all the angry and pissed Hillary supporters would stay home in NOV? Think about it. Democrats lose! The DNC would improve their undemocratic primary process and they would never allow the Swiftboating of a fellow Democrat or perpetuate sexism ever again. We need to get tough, unite and send a message to the party. We have had enough and we will not take it anymore. Try and win without us!!! Stay home in NOV. Obama is just as risky as McCain.

      • mimi

        OK…. time for a math lesson. Blacks make up for 14% of the voting populace. Why would they allow the AA voting bloc to hold them hostage over what is only pure emotionalism coming out of the AA community for Barack Obama, which he has exploited shamelessly?

        But my real point is why can’t white women do the same? Why are they trivializing the female vote?

        This is why Obama’s candidacy stinks to me. He was supposed to be the GREAT UNITER. All he has done is divide and point the finger at Hillary. As an AA I know for a fact that he has the community in such a fever pitch and many don’t even care that he’s made no kind of commitment to us other than being black. I guess he feels that’s enough.

        But the result of his candidacy includes: lies, division, censorship, rhetorical violence, just to name a few. I used to visit another blog that I no longer go to. Out of curiosity I went there and NO COVERAGE of the Wright story, but there was an extensive blog on the Ferraro fury. Someone posted that they had never seen a commment by an Obama supporter on that blog declaring that they would not vote for Hillary. As irony would have it, the very next 2 posts were by a person who raged vehemently that under no circumstances would they vote for Hillary in Nov. And that person wasn’t even honest enough to admit that.

        That’s been the tone of Obama campaign, lies, intimidation, censorship, divisiveness, etc. If that’s what’s in store for us under an Obama administration, then why not simply declare George W. Bush dictator-for-life?

        Sorry this election is supposed to be about change. I don’t need more of the same even if he’s supposed to be my color.

        • bert

          I frequent another progressive blog and today there were a LOT of new first time posters several of whom were upset about Obama and his minister. One even admitted he was a Republican who WAS going to vote for Obama until the Wright story came out. He wanted to know if liberals were going to support Obama or not after this becasue he said he could not. He indicated he could vote for Hillary but if Obama was the nominee he would vote McCain.

          Yesterday’s NYT’s blog had over 600 posts (at 10:30 P.M. PT) to an article about Obama and Wright. As I read through them I tried to keep count of how many were anti Obama, but lost count. But there were a LOT of folks who were upset and said they could no longer vote for him and if the Dems nominated him they would defect.

          If the Dem leadership cannot see this then they are more stupid than I thought.

          “I don’t belong to any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” Will Rogers

          • simon

            If the Dem leadership cannot see this then they are more stupid than I thought.

            Sometimes, with politicians, you think it’s part of a greater strategy because no one, anywhere , could be THAT stupid.

            And you know, they can.

            They can really be THAT dumb, a head as simplistic as a shoe box…

        • BloggerBoyz

          They’re not afraid of losing African Americans, they believe that the magic man is somehow going to bring in all kind of magical new democrats to the process. Yes, it’s stupid, but they think that young people will finally actually vote (good luck, in 2004 they were afraid of being drafted, registered in huge numbers, still didn’t vote) and that Republicans and Indys really support Obama and weren’t just setting up McCain with a pathetically weak opponent.

          Also, they believe they are somehow guaranteed this election and can’t mess it up no matter what.

  • Mel

    Clinton’s campaign just realized this, Obama has being doing full pressed assaults against Clinton since NH, when Michelle turned the “fairy tale” statements of Bill Clinton’s into racial attacks!

    Desperation and doing the math finally concluded by the Obama camp that Florida and Michigan have to be included and sit delegates and their majical wand of stacking caucus’s didn’t provide them with the delegate count they expected due to the States holding Primaries and now Obama is reaching out for converts for a day by Independants and Republicans in PA!

    I hope the Clinton’s keep the pressure on for Obama to come clean on his religion links, his Rezko links, his Auchi links, his failures and lack of experience to name a few!

    Ohio lead the way in exposing Obama as a failed candidate when it was exposed of his NAFTA-gate, now PA needs to prove in large numbers that Obama isn’t welcome as the “New Messiah” and tell him so directly by swinging 85%+ of the vote to Clinton, giving her the delegate lead and the Super Delegates had better wake up and support the candidate who isn’t dividing the party, she is the majority of the Party as proven by Obama’s call out for “Democrats for a day” once again!

  • grlpatriot

    The ‘Obama hypocrisy’ is spectacular.

  • TeakWoodKite

    I was cleaning up the 2,500 pages I have scraped of the web in connection to NQ…

    Here are some political contributors to Obama that are currently having some money troubles…

    William Kennard
    DC Carlyle Group Bundler for Barack Obama, raised more than $200,000.00 2008

    William E. Kennard joined The Carlyle Group in May 2001 as a Managing Director in the Global Telecommunications and Media group. He is based in Washington, DC.

    http://www.carlyle.com/Team/item5739.html

    Louis Susman
    IL Citigroup Corporate and Investment Banking Bundler for Barack Obama, raised more than $200,000.00 2008

    In addition, he presently serves as a member of the Board of Directors of The Art Institute of Chicago Mr. Susman is also a member of the National Historical Trust, Vice Chairman of The Chicago Economic Club, the Northwestern University Associates, Governing Member of The Chicago Symphony Orchestra and a member of the Civic Committee of The Commercial Club of Chicago..

    http://www.echo.com/boardofdirectors.html

    It is ironic to be told by Obama he has not taken “special interest” money…and the press is to shallow to understand Obama is the one using the Rove play book to the letter. The only question is is when Rove will file for copyright infringement.

    • simon

      Why is William Kennard experiencing money problems?

      Everytime I go to that site (Carlyle), I feel dirty.

  • anna shane

    I think I understand his strategy. He has a slim record and some positions that mainstream Democrats don’t agree with, like social security needs a quick fix, and like we can’t enroll everyone in health care, so let’s enroll just those who know they need it. what he does is ‘interpret’ her, not repeat what she’s actually said or done but when he says she really means. that’ on NAFTA, but the one he repeats most often is that she voted for war. She voted for an authorization that forced Saddam to let inspectors into his palaces and to look wherever they liked. Had Bush not pulled out the inspectors and bombed anyway her vote would have been seen for what she voted for, to stop bush from claiming lack of intelligence was enough proof to bomb. Then, after he’s said what he claims she really meant, he expresses his outrage and he invited his supporters to share his outrage. This is consistent, first spin her into something unattractive and then act outraged. in only this way can he ‘play’ her victim and get others to ‘hate’ her on his behalf. It’s purely negative, but the media believes what he says when he claims he’s above it but ‘must’ defend himself. But he needs to wrap it up, it’s getting old, so his strategy is to try to get some popular support to force her out by claiming he’s already won and she’s trying to ‘steal’ his win. Such a victim, but how would he run against McCain since so many of those who voted for him would also be comfortable with McCain and may be turned off to ‘attacks’ that McCain is trying to steal the presidency from him.

    • bert

      “Such a victim, but how would he run against McCain since so many of those who voted for him would also be comfortable with McCain and may be turned off to ‘attacks’ that McCain is trying to steal the presidency from him.”

      If he tries that crap with McCain he will get slapped down and made mincemeat of. (Bad grammaer, I know.) The Rs will not give one hoot about being called racist. Plus they will have FOX and the right wing smear nachine not to mention swift boat 527′s who will make extra fine mincemeat of the mincemeat McCain hands them.

      I can see it now……God Bless America softly playing in the background with the picture of Obama with the huge smile on his face, his arm around Rev. Wright…fade to video of Michelle Obama saying “for the first time in my life I am proud to be an American,”…… fade to Wright ranting about “bringing the chickens home to roost”…and America deserved 9/11 and “God d*mn America”….as the sound of God Bless America sung by the Marine Corp crescendos into a picture of John McCain as POW……. then fast forward to today proudly and crisply saluting the American flag and singing God Bless America.

  • Fran

    Thank you Peter, but you are preachin’ to the choir here. How and when are other bloggers and media outlets going to be honest about this?? We’ve seen it since New Hampshire. The hypocrisy has been the dealbreaker for me. The “uniter,” the “healer,” has been deceptive and negative, all the while attacking her for the same. Hillary soldiers on, talking health care and the economy, but his speeches are laced with inaccuracies about her policies and words. Most people do not know he is lying to them, so how does the majority know the truth? The MSM is certainly not going to tell them, and that’s where most people form their impressions. Very frustrating, but I appreciate the effort.

    • simon

      How and when are other bloggers and media outlets going to be honest about this??

      When I think of Cheney, and Iraq, I get the feeling he sees it as this sort of far off abstract, like a dissociated problem, acceptable only when he can see it within a frame he can handle, like he was watching it at an ANC theatre, minimizing “it’s not that bad, it’s not that complex.”

      I would suppose he makes decisions from this POV, too.

      (This is a what if)

      I often wonder if facing the truth about the war, and it’s complications, would be too overwhelmingly frightening for Cheney, and such, something he simply cannot do, without breaking, psychologically. It is my contention they started the war not understanding the reality of knocking out Iraq. And since they still can’t, they never will resolve it.

      I see the same behavior in Pelosi, and the Obama supporters. The reality of what Obama represents ( and it’s heavy duty stuff, like the connections to Auchi, and Rezko, and possibly Syria) is too frightening to acknowledge, so they pretend, and delete, in order to cope.

      And I really don’t know how you break it, with Cheney, say, or the Obamas, it’s a scary world out there, and you have to take responsibilty.

      Just a what if, a little OT, sorry.

      • bert

        “I see the same behavior in Pelosi, and the Obama supporters. The reality of what Obama represents ( and it’s heavy duty stuff, like the connections to Auchi, and Rezko, and possibly Syria) is too frightening to acknowledge, so they pretend, and delete, in order to cope.”

        Plus they and the ultra-left wing highly educated elite wing of the Democratic Party and many other Obama supporters are so into thinking and believing that by nominating a black man, any black man no matter how incompetent and deceitful or divisive that they will somehow exorcise the stain of slavery and racism from American history.

        The last time the ultra-left wing highly educated elite wing of the Democratic Party they nominated Geoyge McGovern. Remember how well that turned out?

        If they manage to get Obama the nomination and he loses, as he will, they will have set back the possibility of a black person being President for several generations, and may do the same thing to a woman’s chance.

        • simon

          Plus they and the ultra-left wing highly educated elite wing of the Democratic Party and many other Obama supporters are so into thinking and believing that by nominating a black man, any black man no matter how incompetent and deceitful or divisive that they will somehow exorcise the stain of slavery and racism from American history.

          Kos? Pelosi?

          Do you think they give a shit about slavery?

          If they did, they’d be real democrats, instead of what they are, garbage.

          OTOH, we can thank Kos for divesting the democratic party of the posers.

          If they manage to get Obama the nomination and he loses, as he will, they will have set back the possibility of a black person being President for several generations, and may do the same thing to a woman’s chance.

          Obama, yes, my fear is Obama will set AA politics back a century.

          OTOH, Clinton has acquitted herself very well, in fact, I’d say she has improved tremendously since the beginning of her campaign, a learning curve, which means she gets it.

  • http://thehorizontalworld.blogspot.com/ Mary Jo Kopechne

    Change maker my ass. He’s an old fashioned jerk, has been from the beginning and I’d like to say that liars don’t prosper, but sometimes they do.

  • Andy

    Good for the Clinton camp !! Glad to see them
    fighting to put the brakes on this and expose the clearly ugly tactics used by the Obama camp while trumpeting sainthood.

    Well done Mr. Peter Daou !!

    Would be interesting to know; who did they send this and of all the bloggers they did who took action and post it….

    Susan: I haven’t seen it in one I check often yet…interesting.

  • Tricia Spiegel

    I preface by saying I have run into some pleasnat Obama supporters, but the rude and hostile ones are unbelieveable! With no provocation beyond Hillary supporters tabling or walking in small groups with signs, there has been the screaming of profanities, flipping the bird, and even knocking a young man down.

    Talk about negative campaiging!

  • Fleaflicker

    Message received. Loud and Clear.

  • Patti

    Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is funded entirely by grassroots supporters like you. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Senator Obama does not accept money from special interest groups and Washington lobbyists. As a result:

    Barack Obama owes nothing to the Health Insurance Industry
    Barack Obama owes nothing to the Oil Industry
    Barack Obama owes nothing to the Weapons Industry
    Instead, Senator Obama truly represents the change we can believe in because his only obligation is to the best interests of the American people, made possible by individual supporters like you.
    ____________________________________________________

    NO negatives there, and thats ON his website…

    • John

      I bet you can bleat that, word for word, in your sleep. Like the soldiers who are brainwashed in “the Manchurian Candidate.” Just bleat it, repetition makes it true.

    • http://cujo359.blogspot.com Cujo359

      Like so much of what Obama and his supporters say, this is disingenuous.

      According to Opensecrets.org, the money given to Hillary Clinton by PACs amounts to about one percent of her total receipts. Obama isn’t giving up much, it would seem. He also has managed to fill the upper ranks of his campaign with as many lobbyists as Clinton has.

      As for the “individual contributions”, a substantial portion of the contributors to both campaigns seem to hail from the telecomm, legal, and finance industries. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?

      • http://cujo359.blogspot.com Cujo359

        Here’s the Opensecrets link to Obama’s contributers. For some reason, the second link wouldn’t show up in the preview.

        • http://penitent-thief.blogspot.com/ PMS

          I think Patti meant “Astroturf” instead of “Grassroots”.

          Sheep may safely graze on Astroturf, it just won’t provide any nutrition.

    • Gregoryp

      You know Patti there are 2 sides to the lobbying coin and it isn’t all bad. In fact, many of the causes that we liberals love dearly have lobbied extensively for many years. Lobbying is how groups of people band together and work to get legislation passed that benefits them. It is an essential part of democracy. Now, taking PAC money isn’t illegal, unethical or really frowned upon. It is part of the system. If we don’t like the system then we need to band together, form a PAC and lobby to get all candidates to be funded only by public funds. Of course, Mr. Obama, is in fact taking special interest money as he should. He just isn’t taking it from national organizations. And from what I understand Obama has very limited controls over who he accepts funds from. But we do know that he accepts campaign funds from Exelon and Maytag and his actions in correlation to accepting those funds was counter to his stated public positions. The guy is a phony. You’ve got 8 months to figure it out.

  • Boo Radly

    This was all preventable – now it is a mess. I want to ask the party ‘elders’ who endorsed BO how this is working out for them. How they came to conclude he was ‘ready on day one’ and why they keep defending him. I have been trashed so many times for so long for asking for vetting of this candidate. So much is coming out and my gut feeling is he is not even a Democrat. He does not speak to the issues I feel are our partys’. They cannot force this person down my throat – I would never vote for this person – under any circumstances.

    Obama is not making the calls for this campaign – he is just a speech giver – cannot answer questions, at least not crediabily. I think we really need to take the initative and get the truth out regarding Hillary Clinton who is not a racist, Bill Clinton, who gave us the best years this country has had in many moons and is not a racist. We know the MSM is not going to be truthful – we know of blog sites that are nothing but snake pits of hate and lies against an honorable candidate.

    When I think of the nasty Special comments by the blow hard KO calling honorable party members racist and less than 24 hours later we get to hear Rev. Wright – does that comparison hit you like it did me? No mention from the blow hard about the hate and race baiting by Wright, but he scrambled to get BO on to “explain” – he really did not explain it – if Wright was his crazy uncle for 20 years – why didn’t he get him some help? Of course BO knew what Wright was saying. Speaking for myself, I would have hit door before he got to attack the Jews and the rich white people in two seconds. God bless America, land of the free. I do not know anyone who has not suffered inequities in life.

    Bout time we boycott the biggest offenders – MSM and bloggers – makes your day cleaner and almost hopeful not viewing or hearing them. MHO

    • simon

      When I think of the nasty Special comments by the blow hard KO calling honorable party members racist and less than 24 hours later we get to hear Rev. Wright

      It would almost appear they were set up, too bad they don’t get it, how the republicans play.

      I guess they know everything.

  • Ciardha

    Obama’s been using political dirty tricks from the start of his career.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,0,1843097.story

    Obama took out the African American woman that had been his political mentor, and who called him “her sucessor”- Alice Palmer, a long time progressive activist in the Civil Rights movement who became a state senator in Illnois. This turns what he has done to HRC into a pattern. He finds a progressive female senator to mentor him, then the next time she seeks political office he decides he wants the same position and fights an ugly campaign against her. Before I read this article I thought Obama’s negative change started relatively recently (when his ambition trumped friendship and ideals at the start of this campaign), but now I see it goes all the way back to the start of his political career. I am even more firmly convinced Obama definitely shouldn’t be President. This needs to get out everywhere, this is the kind of politicing Obama has done since day one. Remember Alice Palmer is an African American woman and a long time Civil Rights activist and Obama smacked her down hard because she got in the way of his political ambitions.