MISSISSIPPI WEB SITE
2007
STATE FLAG
STEVEN
A. McCALEB
103 ALVERADO DRIVE
LONG BEACH, MISSISSIPPI 39560
PHONE & FAX: (228)-868-8428
Awarded 19 June 1969
One of the most reliable indicators of a modern successful campaign is the ability of the campaign to communicate its message. The communication of the message should be consistent and repeated over and over and over again.
First the campaign must craft a message. That message should be short and to the point. A good rule of thumb for the length of a successful message is 4 words or less. A campaign that cannot explain why voters should consent to vote for its candidate in a four word concise message is bound to encounter difficulty.
For instance, probably the greatest or one of the greatest American presidents, was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. His most memorable campaign message (1932) was short and concise: “A New Deal”. Not only was this a very concise message that all Americans understood, it also was a clever contrast to what came before (Ripublicans) and the unfair deal Americans were being dealt. FDR ran for president in the shadow of the great depression. Unemployment had soared to 25%, jobs were lost as the manufacturing sector collapsed, agriculture collapsed, and the raw materials market also collapsed. The results of all this economic turmoil was an unhappy electorate. FDR with the 3 simple words of “A New Deal” summarized why he was running for president and why Americans should vote for him, as well as drawing a very pointed reminder of what the Ripublicans and their policies had wrought.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy in 1960 was equally sly. His message was concise and pointed as well. His inspirational message was “The New Frontier”. This 3 word message summarized the hopes that the young future president held for just about every facet of American life. Outer space, national security, civil rights, foreign policy, the economy - all were on the threshold of a new and exciting frontier. That this soon to be very young president was replacing Eisenhower, up to then the oldest American president, was slyly referenced by the 3 word message.
Richard Nixon was disliked and distrusted when he ran, yet again, for president in 1968. The unpopular “Tricky Dick” simply ran as a “New Nixon” and ran a contrast campaign against Hubert Humphrey with “Nixon’s The One”. Nixon manufactured popularity from unpopularity. Perhaps he was doing a variation of the slogan of the president he served under, Eisenhower. Eisenhower, who had led the great armies to victory over the axis powers had as his slogan the simple and effective “I Like Ike”.
Ronald Reagan was “Morning In America”, Truman “Give ‘em Hell, Harry!”, and long ago James K. Polk ran on the aggressive “54-40 Or Fight” (probably the only slogan ever to reference a latitude).
The John Kerry campaign, by contrast, at the 2004 convention distributed signs with the message “Hope Is On The Way”. However, oftentimes the candidates on the campaign trail would change it to “Help Is On The Way”. There was not much consistency in message. At least the message did convey the idea of the disaster that was the Bush II administration.
The amazing Bill Clinton campaign of 1992 employed the very effective “Putting People First” as its message. This message like all good messages provided the American people with a concise idea of what hope filled Bill Clinton wanted to do if elected. It also, slyly, referenced President George H. W. Bush’s policies which did not - put people first.
On June 20, 2007 Politico intelligently noted that the Hillary Clinton Campaign had unveiled a new sign. The message on that sign is simple. It is concise. It is contrastive. It is effective. And it is short: 1 word.
Like a character in a Mel Brooks spoof of Star Wars, wearing a helmet 10 sizes too large, Lord Nader is threatening a return to his role as Ripublican enabler.
It is rather retro, a waste of pixels, for us to even mention Lord Nader and his under the bridge efforts. There are however, some lessons for relevant, modern day campaigns from previous Fader Nader efforts.
In a tear inducing moment of supreme generosity we posted a while back Let’s Help Richardson, Edwards, Obama, Day. None of the campaigns we magnanimously provided guidance to in that post have sent appreciative notes to us. The Edwards campaign, to its credit, does appear to be adjusting his schemes to reflect our advice (alas, too late). Here are some paragraphs from our kind post:
“After making sure Americans know Obama is a lunkhead, the Obama campaign then switches gears to persuade Americans Obama is a great leader. The way to do this is by holding big rallies with thousands, if not tens of thousands of people cheering and shouting. It’s an interesting strategy, if it would work. The last person who tried this strategy was Ralph Nader.”
“In 2000, the Naderites who lionize Al Gore today called him Al Bore. The same nasty complaints heard about Al Gore then, are repeated by the Naderites about Hillary today. The same invective was used. The same strategies were used. The Naderites used low dollar “super rallies” to create excitement and to say their candidate was someone new with loads of experience as a community organizer.”
We then proceeded to list examples of Lord Nader’s “super rallies”. From D.C. to Seattle, from Wisconsin to Ann Arbor sprouted the super rallies. Adoration, inspiration, and high hopes followed:
”Familiar with the TV show West Wing? It’s popular because it’s a romance: a story of true love at first sight between voters and their candidate. Roy Bartlett (Martin Sheen’s character), not initially the favored Democratic candidate, comes on to the scene like a charismatic fireball: willing to take a stand on the tough issues. The voters are infatuated with him, and he doesn’t let them down. There’s very little compromising done by the Bartlett administration, and the differences between Democrats and Republican are as clear as night and day. Not realistic of course, but there’s still a certain charm to the moment where we see one of the staff watching him speak for the first time. You can almost see the chills going down his spine, and you can’t help but think: “Ah, there it is: true inspiration.” Believe it or not, that is what I experienced at the Nader rally: inspiration.
It wasn’t just Nader’s speech that moved me, it was everything. We arrived a half hour late, and were herded up to seats on the third balcony, overlooking the entirety of the Garden, filled to the brim with eager participants, swaying back and forth as Ani DiFranco strummed her guitar and sang. Ben Harper, Eddie Vedder, and Tim Robbins (as Republican Senator parody Bob Roberts) all performed as well, and each time a song ended, bright lights fell upon the cheering crowd giving each member a certain glow as they stood above their seats, leapt up and down with their fists held high, and waved signs above their heads. There was something in the air… a vibe, that everyone was breathing in and getting high off of at once.”
Something was in the air alright. We won’t speculate. Maybe Ben Harper, fresh from last night’s not sold out fundraiser, knows.
Ben Harper clearly learned nothing from his adventures with Lord Nader and the super rallies campaign. Has anyone at a certain campaign?
“Since opening his presidential campaign five months ago, Mr. Obama has drawn crowds far larger than most of his rivals. (Mr. Dean did, too.) But what good is a 20,000-person February rally in Austin, for example, when the campaign begins far from Texas?”
“If you’re a campaign with lots of enthusiasm, you have to make sure that you are capturing everyone’s information,” said David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager. “We are very mindful of that every time we do an event.”
“But Mr. Plouffe warns against dismissing the political significance of such crowds, particularly in this presidential cycle, where a frenzied day of coast-to-coast primaries on Feb. 5 will make candidates rely on a large base of supporters everywhere. “It has real meaningful application on Feb. 5,” he said, “beginning with the ability to chase absentee ballots.”
Whatever substance was in the air those many years ago when Ben Harper and Lord Nader appeared together is still being smoked.
Always looking for ways to assist those in need.
Unbought tickets galore. For tonight. From Craigslist:
“Greetings, Barack Obama and Ben Harper will be performing/speaking along with many other noted celebs at the Hammerstein Ballroom tonight! Contact me for ticket details, I have over 100 tickets. The event is from 8-10:30, all proceeds will go to Obama For America! This is the largest fundraiser in the ‘08 Election thus far– be a part of it! Tickets start at $100 for general seating, $250 for preferred seating and $500 for a VIP reception with Ben Harper and Senator Obama (preferred seating included) prior to the event!”
Is the Bloom off the Rose?
We will be posting and updating our side pages soon. We will pay particular attention to the page devoted to the wonderful and effective Hillary Team.
The revisions to the Hillary Team page should be done by this weekend. In the meantime we do not want to miss reporting the big story in yesterday’s Washington Post highlighting some of the women working to help elect Hillary Clinton president.
“Fifteen years after Clinton first brought these women together at the White House, the “board” has officially reconvened to help map her unprecedented effort to follow in her husband’s footsteps. They are acutely aware their work is making history. Once seen as a tight little sorority, today the group — happily self-described as “Hillaryland“– is at the center of a front-running presidential campaign. Never have so many women operated at such a high level in one campaign, working with a discipline and a loyalty and a legendary secrecy rarely seen at this level of American politics.”
We laughed last night while watching a cable show talker who did not like the Washington Post article. Too many women, he said. This respected Washington talker clearly did not read the Washington Post article before pontificating about it. If he would have read it he would have understood that the focus of the article was on the women working to get Hillary elected. There are many men working towards the same goal. One article comes out focusing on women in top positions and that is deemed one story too many. Sad.
We will revisit this story often as we write individual portraits of the Hillary Team members during the following 17 months.
Another story we do not want you to miss is from yesterday’s The Hill newspaper. Hillary Clinton Is Wearing Well is a great response to the haters, and to Democrats who fear the haters. These fearful Democrats who fret and whine would abdicate the choice of the Democratic Party nominee to Ripublicans. No way.
“The candidate keeping people interested is, surprisingly, the one who has been in the public eye the longest. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has shown an ability to run a nuanced, balanced and well-paced campaign. There was never any doubt of her obvious advantages in this race. She has the name, the money and the organization. But many questioned whether her “inevitability” would lead to voter fatigue — if her team had been at this so long they wouldn’t be able to maneuver in this new environment of the endless campaign and 24/7 exposure.”
Having raised the “Sally Field” question the article proceeds to answer it:
“She’s showing she can handle it. The most recent example is her campaign song video series. What initially looked like an awkward attempt at getting people involved in her campaign online has proven to be deftly executed. Hillary showed her sense of humor in the initial call for entries by promising not to sing her campaign song in public, with a clip of an out-of-tune rendition of the national anthem. Then she nicely defused criticism of her contest by sharing negative comments posted on blogs or e-mailed to her campaign. She closed the miniseries this week with a spoof of the “Sopranos” finale that was chockablock with “significant” messages. Her husband, the president, appears in a supporting role. Daughter Chelsea also makes a brief appearance (at least, the rear tire of her car does). Hillary, playing the head of the family, displays a disarming sense of humor. We are left with the message that she is strong enough and confident enough to play around a little. She’s not taking herself too seriously. She is very much in tune with what is going on in the world, if you will pardon the pun.” [N.B. Read our goofy take on Campaign Songs.]
We wrote on Wednesday Hillary Leashes Mudball’s Chris Matthews. We noted how this was the second time Hillary had matched Ronald Reagan in demonstrating her command of the stage in “I paid for this microphone” moments. The Hill tends to agree:
“In another example of relaxed confidence, candidate Clinton bested television’s toughest questioner since Sam Donaldson at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Democratic Candidates forum this week. Chris Matthews of “Hardball” asked Hillary if she thought Scooter Libby should be pardoned. The obviously partisan audience objected to what it thought was a loaded question; Hillary played deftly to those sentiments. She suggested that Matthews ask “a question that’s really about the people in this audience and not what goes on inside of Washington.” The crowd loved it. The normally unflappable Matthews was suddenly on the defensive. Score one for Hillary and every voter who thinks Washington, D.C., is far too obsessed with inside-the-Beltway gamesmanship.”
Hillary is sounding a lot of beautiful notes.
DCDemocrat commented on The Senator From Rezko, Part I. Here is what he wrote:
“I am on the road for business. While I was driving, I was flipping around the radio stations. I found a talk radio show and listened briefly. The commentator was talking about this problem Obama has with Rezko. He was quite agitated about it. I was puzzled and surprised that the host was sitting in for Rush Limbaugh. I am not quite sure what it means that they’re talking about this in Limbaugh World, but I am struck that the story has legs. I am fairly certain that Hillary will win the nomination, but this Rezko story would cause us a great deal of trouble were Obama to get the nod.”
DCDemocrat, imprisoned in his car, was subjected to what many Americans not living on the coasts are subjected to - Ripublican talk radio. You can be assured that Obama’s financial entanglements with his indicted slumlord friend, Antoin “Tony” Rezko, will soon be the only drumbeat heard in long stretches of Ohio, Pennsylvania and the many other states where Ripublican talk radio monopolizes the public airwaves. Obama after all, is the Democrats (see the Chicago Tribune editorial below) “point man” on ethics. Again, David Axelrod, Michelle Obama, Barack Obama - this story is not going away - come clean and explain the Obama financial entanglements with Rezko before next year’s February trial. Otherwise, the media circus Rezko trial, in Patrick Fitzgerald’s jurisdiction will explain this all for you, in a bad way, and tar all Democrats. [The Tribune editorial below also indicates the Rezko investigation is expanding.]
Understand, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times are not going to be satisfied with sweet talk and smooth words. They want facts. They want facts about how Obama and Rezko paid for Obama’s house. They want facts about the legal work Obama did for Rezko and his slum tenements. They want facts about why Obama cared more about Rezko and his multi-million dollar government subsidies than about his senate district constitutents freezing in the Rezko tenements.
The more they dig to find answers the Obama campaign is stonewalling on, the more they will write about regarding Obama’s unsavory Chicago history. The Chicago Tribune published Critics: Obama Endorsements Counter Calls For Clean Government. Here are some excerpts and note the Todd Stroger angle:
“There was little controversy earlier this year when Sen. Barack Obama endorsed Mayor Richard Daley over two black opponents for a sixth term, lending his star power to an inevitable rout.”
“But Obama’s record of local endorsements — one measure of how he has used his nascent political clout — has drawn criticism from those who say it reflects his deference to Chicago’s established political order and runs counter to his public calls for clean government.”
“In the 2006 Democratic primary, for example, Obama endorsed first-time candidate Alexi Giannoulias for state treasurer despite reports about loans Giannoulias’ family-owned Broadway Bank made to crime figures. Records show Giannoulias and his family had given more than $10,000 to Obama’s campaign, which banked at Broadway.”
“Obama endorsed former Ald. Dorothy Tillman (3rd), calling her “a very early supporter of my campaign.” Tillman was then under fire for her stewardship of the scandal-plagued Harold Washington Cultural Center, where contracts benefited members of her family.”
and
“Obama supported the re-election of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose administration is embroiled in corruption probes.”
“And during the race for Cook County Board president, Obama predictably endorsed Todd Stroger over a Republican. But he was criticized for calling Stroger “a good progressive” despite allegations of job-rigging to favor members of Stroger’s 8th Ward organization.”
[We digress for a moment to discuss Todd Stroger. Here is an editorial about Obama’s “good progressive” Todd Stroger from today’s Chicago Tribune:
Did Todd Stroger, candidate for president of the Cook County Board, have an obligation last summer to tell voters he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer? In our view the answer is no — unless, of course, he wanted the many citizens who had learned to doubt his word and his motives to begin trusting him.
The relevant history here reaches back farther, to March 2006. That’s when Todd Stroger helped weave the web of lies by which the Democratic machine deceived voters. The pols hid the fact that a stroke had devastated his father, John Stroger. That greased the skids for Todd to take his dad’s job. It was shabby exploitation of John Stroger by a party he helped build.
That serial dishonesty invited still more public distrust after Todd Stroger took office. Many citizens watched him cut health workers — but not enough of the patronage hacks in his administration — while larding the county payroll with even more of his friends and family members.
It’s too soon to say with certainty that Todd Stroger will go down as an amateurish one-termer. But his choice of secrecy over candor reminds voters that … it’s all about him, not them.
(snip)
Last summer, Stroger had a chance at a teaching moment. He could have spoken publicly about his encounter with a disease that strikes many men, African-Americans in particular. He could have talked about the treatment he would undergo. He could have explained his prognosis for a quick recovery and a long life. In sum, he could have frankly shared his predicament — not to chum up to his fellow citizens but to highlight the lifesaving importance of medical screening. His handlers say he will do that now. But the moment for candor has passed. He squandered it.
Todd Stroger’s health is in good hands. But he still suffers from anemic public trust. The treatment was obvious, the patient disinterested.
Lovely Chicago friends Obama has.]
Sadly, the above is not the only Obama related Chicago Tribune editorial of late. Here is another one from this past Sunday called The Drip, Drip, Drip on Obama:
Some practitioners in politics, law enforcement and journalism call it “scrubbing”: the process of examining someone’s past in search of illegalities, or serious embarrassments, or innocent but peculiar actions that will be difficult to explain. In high-profile campaigns, every candidate’s staff scrubs opponents’ background. A smart staff scrubs its own candidate first. That allows him or her to disclose — and, with luck, put to rest — potential problems early.
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama is being scrubbed as he never has before. His prior campaigns were for lower offices. And in his 2004 U.S. Senate race, attention focused less on him than on primary and general election opponents who had their own serious problems.
But this campaign cycle’s scrubbing of Obama leads to another water analogy: News stories that raise ethics questions about his relationship with indicted dealmaker Antoin “Tony” Rezko have become a steady drip, drip, drip.
Obama needs to divulge all there is to know about that relationship. Until he does, the scrubbing likely will intensify as more news organizations — and, you can bet, rival candidates — explore Obama’s Rezko connection.
Obama indirectly asked for this scrutiny in January 2006, when he let then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) exploit his pristine reputation. With Republicans ensnared in Capitol Hill scandals, Reid named Obama the Democrats’ point man on ethics proposals in Congress.
None of the press disclosures thus far about Obama implies any wrongdoing on his part. Taken together, though, they suggest that Obama, and his campaign, have been carelessly self-exculpatory in some of their responses to inquiries about decisions Obama previously has made. This early in a presidential cycle, some of that can be written off to first-time amateurism. But that excuse will evaporate if press coverage escalates — even as the U.S. Justice Department pursues its aggressive case against Rezko.
Back on Nov. 3, this page carried two sentences summing up the need for Obama to fully and quickly explain his connections to Rezko: “One fulcrum on which Obama’s future tips may well be the speed with which he acknowledges how susceptible he has been to people who want a piece of him – and how his skill at recognizing that covetousness needs to rise to the same stature as his popular appeal. At a time when others are fiercely tempted to judge him, Obama has courted unkind judgment.”
Those words are no less true today. Consider:
* That editorial appeared shortly after the Tribune reported Rezko’s involvement in Obama’s purchase of his Hyde Park home. That transaction occurred after it was common knowledge in Chicago that Rezko was the subject of a federal investigation. After that disclosure, Obama distanced himself from Rezko and said he had made a mistake in judgment.
* On June 8, the Tribune reported that Obama was giving charities some $16,500 in campaign donations from two Chicago businessmen who had financial ties to Rezko. A spokesman for Obama offered no details about Obama’s relationship with the contributors. The story said this marked the fourth time that Obama’s campaign has shed contributions made by Rezko and associates to Obama’s campaigns — contributions totaling more than $33,000.
* On June 13, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that as a state senator, Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting Rezko’s successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens. The Sun-Times said the deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama’s former boss, according to records from the project, which was four blocks outside Obama’s state Senate district. Obama’s campaign responded that Obama’s letters weren’t intended as a favor for Rezko or Davis, but rather in the interest of the people in the community who have benefited from the project. An attorney for Rezko, who has pleaded not guilty to federal charges of influence peddling and bank fraud, told the newspaper that Rezko never sought a letter from Obama in connection with the project.
* On June 14, The New York Times weighed in with a front-page story on the Obama-Rezko relationship. The story reported that Rezko “is known around Chicago as a collector of politicians” and added: “Mr. Obama has portrayed Mr. Rezko as a one-time fund-raiser whom he had occasionally seen socially. But interviews with more than a dozen political and business associates suggest that the two men were closer than the senator has indicated. …” The story didn’t break much new ground. But its appearance on the front page of the Times elevated the Obama-Rezko relationship to new and, for Obama’s campaign, uncomfortable heights.
* On Monday, the Sun-Times reported that during his 12 years in politics, Obama has received nearly three times as much campaign cash from Rezko and his associates as he has acknowledged. “Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle,” the newspaper reported. “Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s.” Seven months ago, Obama told the paper his best estimate was that Rezko had raised “between $50,000 and $60,000″ for him during his career.
Obama got where he is in part by avoiding the Illinois culture of political sleaze that devours so many promising careers. Our experience tells us that he has behaved with uncommon integrity. But our experience also tells us the drip, drip, drip of articles about his relationship with Rezko will continue until he frees his campaign from having to respond defensively to this level of scrutiny at so many turns.
Barack Obama and his campaign aides need to divulge the findings of their own scrubbing of the candidate. Better to disclose every dimension of Obama’s ties to the indicted, increasingly notorious businessman and be done with it.
Obama must come clean before he muddies all Democrats.
Part III of The Senator From Rezko - coming soon.
The good people at Crooks and Liars have the video tape of Hillary once again taking command of an unruly forum.
During the second Democratic Party debate Hillary took charge and the other candidates followed her lead. We noted how Hillary took charge in the same way that many years earlier Ronald Reagan had taken control of a forum when he objected with a forceful “I paid for this microphone.” We were so taken with Hillary’s take charge attitude we posted clips of our favorite moments.
Yesterday, appearing before the AFSCME union Chris Matthews wanted to have fun, as usual, at Hillary’s expense. She did not play along. The audience did not play along. Hillary took on Chris Matthews and beat him into submission even as he appeared to be frothing at the mouth. At the end of the forum, during her closing remarks, Hillary delivers the coup-de-grace.
Don’t miss the videotape for the full impact (HERE).
Here is Crooks and Liars’ transcript:
MATTHEWS: Oh, a real question. OK.
CLINTON: Like a question that’s really about the people in this audience…
MATTHEWS: OK.
CLINTON: … and not what goes on inside of Washington.
(Applause)
MATTHEWS: So we’ll leave that as a non-answer then. MATTHEWS: You want a fight?
CLINTON: This is good. This is good. Yes, let’s keep going.
MATTHEWS: OK, right here. Look, why — OK, let’s have a fight. I like to fight.
(Laughter)
OK, let’s talk…
(Laughter)
You want to fight? OK.
What about…
—-Second Part—
CLINTON: Well, I want to thank you all for doing something I never thought I would ever see, and that is to render Chris Matthews speechless.
MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Update #2 (June 20): We have been asked to comment on the potential impact on Hillary if Bloomberg enters the presidential race. A year ago we were worried about an adverse impact. Now though, having seen Hillary while campaigning and the quality of her organization and strategy there is little to worry about. However, anytime a billionaire gets in a race there is cause for concern and a Bloomberg candidacy is a big factor in how the campaign will allocate resources in all the states. We do suspect Bloomberg will spend a minimum of a billion dollars (he spent approximately 90 million in each race in New York City alone) and he does have an excellent political staff. The Hillary staff is up to the challenge. The Ripublicans are not up to the challenge.
Having written the above, we do believe Bloomberg has made a major tactical mistake (we are surprised because his pollitical team is first rate). Bloomberg’s strength is his massive wealth and his ability to self-finance with abandon. This meant he had the ability to enter the race in a super surprise move around May of next year. Bloomberg has said he will sell his business assets after he leaves New York City Hall and give away the money. The sale of those assets will mean Bloomberg will have tens of billions of dollars to give away. Therefore, he will not be shy about spending tons of money. Voters rarely, if ever, punish self-financing candidates for “buying” the election. Now, what is this tactical mistake we are referencing? It’s called New York cutthroat politics and the New York City Council. Bloomberg has stripped himself of political allies in New York. Expect stormy days ahead for Bloomberg as every political figure in New York State decides Bloomberg is not an ally. Ripublicans will no longer receive Bloomberg donations or fundraising assistance. Ripublicans will attempt to rip him to shreds. Independent Bloomberg will have many months of being lonely Bloomberg. A May surprise announcement will be met with mounds of research accumulated over the next 11 months.
Barack Obama must be unhappy with this news. Obama positioned himself as the shiny new. The problem for Obama is that Bloomberg is even shinier newer.
Update (June 20):
Big Media coverage:
ABC News
New York Times
Washington Post
Boston Globe
Los Angeles Times
Politico
New York
Sun
Newsweek
Time
New York Post (Haberman)
New York Post
——————–
We wrote on May 3, 2007 a Word Of Warning About Bloomberg. We wrote then
Ordinarily we do not comment on these matters. This website will examine the Democratic race for president until the primaries are over and Hillary is the nominee. After Hillary is the nominee we will then begin to examine the Republican opposition. But for those generally interested in the 2008 race a word of warning from us: keep your eyes on Bloomberg.
At approximately 6:15 p.m. today Bloomberg announced he is no longer a Ripublican. Bloomberg has changed his registration to independent.
Bloomberg is running for president. He will likely announce next May.
Today the New York Times reported that
In unusually stark terms, Mr. Bloomberg expressed his frustration with the state of the nation, touching on campaign-style issues like the war in Iraq, immigration, education, health care and crime before a crowd of more than 1,000 employees at the Google campus here.
“Whoever out of those 20 becomes president I think has to do something about a country that I think is really in trouble,” Mr. Bloomberg said, referring to the current crop of candidates. “There’s the war, there is our relationships around the world.”
“Our reputation has been hurt very badly in the last few years,” he continued, criticizing what he called a “go-it-alone mentality” in an increasingly interconnected world.
The trip west comes as speculation about Mr. Bloomberg’s presidential ambitions has intensified, with his increasing travels around the country to speak about national issues, and with aides promoting the idea behind the scenes.
Bloomberg is running guys. Forget the Ripublican threat. Rudy lost his Iowa campaign chair today (due to appointment by Bush) and his South Carolina Chair was indicted for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, possibly crack. It turns out Rudy was also thrown off the Iraq Study Group. We never thought Rudy had a chance to be the Ripublican nominee anyway. The rest of the Ripublican field has fatal flaws too. Watch out for Bloomberg.
The Hillary Clinton For President campaign has chosen the campaign song. Bill Clinton and Hillary introduce their selection in a cute and funny video twist of the Sopranos TV show finale.
Of course there are 2 famous men running for the Democratic nomination (as well as several not so famous other candidates). We thought we would help them out with their campaign selections.
John Edwards said “I was wrong” for being a co-sponsor, not merely a voter of, the Iraq resolution which George W. Bush employed to attack Iraq. John Edwards also said “I was wrong” for voting for the Bankruptcy bill which hurt the poor and the middle class.
We selected this song for him:
Senator Barack Obama (D-Rezko) is busy lately lying about President Bill Clinton (we will have more on that later) and attacking entire communities for supporting Hillary Clinton (we will have more on that later). Obama started with a lot of promise and hype. We have seen these past few days what he is really made of (we will have much more on that later).
We selected this song for him:
We thought you might be amused with us checking in on the EHS taking place on right wing websites. The Today Show this morning featured a Meredith Vieira interview with crackpot Dick Morris and the wonderful Lisa Caputo. The topic was Is Hillary Clinton Unbeatable?
Here’s the transcript of The Today Show that has Ripublicans screaming and heads exploding:
Vieira: “Lisa Caputo served as Hillary Clinton’s press secretary while she was First Lady and Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Clinton and author of the book Outrage. Good morning to you both.”
Lisa Caputo: “Good morning.”
Dick Morris: “Good morning.”
Vieira: “Well you just heard the poll results. Hillary Clinton is 14 points ahead of Barack Obama. Lisa why is she doing so well?”
Caputo: “Well you know, Meredith, I think it really is just a test of her experience, her discipline as a candidate. And she’s really emerged, I think, in so many ways over the past 15 years since being First Lady as a real retail politician. And she, she is disciplined, as I said. She is methodical. She understands what it takes. She’s been battle-tested and I-”
Vieira: “Well is it organization, experience and money, essentially, that’s doing it?”
Caputo: “I think a lot of it is organizational experiences and you can’t discount the money but it also goes down to the sheer discipline of the candidate and understanding what it takes and not to trip up and make a mistake.”
Vieira: “Dick what about the likeability factor? So many of the pundits said she could never get elected because people just don’t warm up to her. Has she closed that personality gap at all?”
Morris: “No she hasn’t. They still don’t like her but she’s gonna win. Because there are a 100 million peo-”
Vieira: “She’s gonna win what? The nomination or the pre-”
Morris: “And the presidency, both. I don’t like that. I’m against her, but she’ll win. There are 100 million people that don’t vote in America that didn’t vote in ‘04 but could vote. They are about 70 to 30, Democrat. They’re women, black, Hispanics. They’re gonna come, many of those will come into the electorate and vote for Hillary. The other reason she’s gonna win is what Lisa, just said, when she used the word, ‘experience.’ The Clinton campaign has worked hard at positioning her as experienced, as a way of throwing a negative at Obama for not being experienced. Now, in fact, she has eight years as senator and he has two-and-a-half years as senator. She was in the White House but so was the pastry chef. The only time that she actually ran things in the White House was ‘93 and ‘94, when they went south. And in ‘98, ‘99, and 100 when she saved her husband from impeachment. When I was in the White House ‘95, ‘96 and ‘97 she was no where to be seen.”
Vieira: “But what happened to the Obama buzz? Lisa let me ask you because everybody was talking about him but now when you look at all the subgroups, Clinton leads. Whether it’s whites, blacks, men, women, young, old. Why are people moving away from Barack Obama?”
Caputo: “I don’t know that they’re moving away. I think you have a hugely undecided electorate. I mean, let’s remember, this is so early Meredith. We’ve never seen a cycle like this and I think people are just taking their time to decide. And the more that they see of Hillary Clinton and they stack her up against the other candidates, in the Democratic field, I mean the choice becomes clear. Whether it’s her performance in the debates or if they are watching her through her town halls throughout the country, I think people are becoming very comfortable in the direction she’ll take the country.”
Vieira: “You know people talked about Ronald Reagan as the Teflon President. Could she possibly be the Teflon Candidate? I’m thinking of these two books that just came out. Highly critical of her and her husband and they don’t seem to have made any dent in her popularity.”
Morris: “Well within the context of my basic view that I think she’s gonna get elected there are major negatives she has to overcome. In my new book Outrage, we talk, for example, about the fact that she’s had $2.2 billion of earmarks, including $148 million of defense, in return for which she got $250,000 of contributions.”
Vieira: “But you say none of that is gonna matter, Dick. You’re saying she’s gonna get elected and so none of it’s gonna matter, in your book.”
Morris: “It won’t matter because there are about 15 to 20 million single women, black, Hispanic voters, poor voters, who are gonna come into the electorate drawn by Hillary.”
Vieira: “So women are gonna elect her, is what you’re saying, essentially.”
Morris: “Exactly.”
Vieira: “Do you agree Lisa?”
Caputo: “I think, I think it’ll be a combination of women and independents who will elect her to the presidency. And I also think, I mean I find it funny that Dick says she’s gonna win because back in ‘99 when she was gonna run for the Senate he said, ‘there’s no way she can win.’ I’m glad you found-”
Vieira: “But you both think that, just wait, wait-”
Morris: “I thought Rudy Giuliani was gonna run.”
Caputo: “Oh okay. Well-”
Morris: “She never, she never would have beaten Rudy but she-”
Vieira: “But the point is you both think it’s a done deal.”
Caputo: “I don’t, I think, you know, Meredith, I would never say it’s a done deal. I mean we’ve had a 100 polls already. Polls go up and down and I think what you have here is a situation where you have somebody who has been through the ringer and back. And you have two books out that took 10 years to write with no new information. I think you’re just gonna see her be consistent all through the end of this race.”
Vieira: “But there’s a long race.”
Caputo: “A long way to go. Long way to go.”
Vieira: “Alright.”
Morris: “Look if there’s one thing Hillary specializes in it’s damage control. If she were a reality TV show it would be survivor.”
Vieira: “Alright, Dick Morris thanks a lot. Lisa Caputo, thank you as well. We’ll check in and see how right you are in the months ahead.”
“Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s.”
Thus begins today’s entry in the continuing investigation by the Chicago Sun Times of Senator Barack Obama.
“But seven months ago, Obama told the Sun-Times his “best estimate” was that Rezko raised “between $50,000 and $60,000″ during Obama’s political career.”
We have written extensively on Obama and his indicted slumlord friend Antoin “Tony” Rezko. We have repeatedly warned David Axelrod, Michelle Obama and Barack Obama that this story is not going away. Not going away either is the story of the dirty politics anonymous memos the Obama campaign was peddling this past week. Again we say, Obama must answer all the questions about these issues in an honest and open way. So far Obama resists coming clean.
Chicago reporters, whose noses are as attuned to sniffing out corruption as French pig snouts are to locating truffles, must be twitching at this sentence: “Obama also has hung on to contributions from doctors whom Rezko helped appoint to a state-government panel involved in some of Rezko’s alleged fraud schemes.”
We previously noted the many connections between Obama and the medical community in these Obama - Rezko entanglements in posts such as Obama - Turning Pages, Part II. Not only was the Obama house purchase, which stinks like an unrefrigerated Chicago stockyard, a suspicious transaction - sold by a doctor and purchased by Obama and Rezko - but many doctors appear to be at least investors in the unsavory real estate deals for which Obama at least did legal work.
The Obama campaign is still posing as innocents incapable of doing anything unsavory even as evidence mounts that unsavory is their favorite dish. “We’ve made our best effort to run the most ethical campaign possible in all ways and release donations when appropriate,” Obama’s press secretary, Bill Burton, said Friday.” and “Burton said Friday the campaign was sticking by its original estimate that Rezko raised no more than $60,000.”
The Chicago Sun-Times however appears to have sources which dispute the Obama campaign. The sources confirm that Rezko was an integral part of the Obama fundraising machine. Rezko also assisted Obama at a “critical” time for the Obama Senate campaign when a good financial showing was needed. One source says “Tony was one of the biggest fund-raisers.”
“At the time of the party, the state was in the process of foreclosing on a low-income apartment building Rezko’s company rehabbed in Obama’s state Senate district — a rehab project on which Obama’s law firm worked. Rezko had also abandoned many other low-income apartments, leaving numerous vacant units in need of major repairs.”
The Obama campaign continues to stonewall the investigations and questions being raised by his entanglements with Rezko. We will say again, these questions are not going to go away. Even if Obama could make Rezko questions disappear in the primary season and even if the Rezko trial scheduled for February 2008 were to avoid a media frenzy or even to get zero news coverage - Ripublicans will not let this go in the general election. Questions must be answered now. The likelihood is that the drumbeat for disclosure will grow louder and the perception will turn to cement that Obama is a dirty Chicago pol.
If the Obama campaign is under the delusion that this is going away here is some evidence for them to consider that it is not going away, but indeed will grow. We are loathe to quote any right wing show or outlet, particularly when it comes to discussions of the Democratic Party primary. We will quote from last week’s Tucker Carlson (ugh) June 14th show. We will make an exception now because there was a good Democrat on at the time who participated in the conversation. The guests were Andrew Ferguson of the Weekly Standard (ugh) and former Maine Democratic Congressman Tom Andrews, National Director of Win Without War. Excerpts from the transcript:
FERGUSON: You know, and we are just getting to know him, that‘s the point of this time story and why it‘s so interesting. It shows why there has not been a serious presidential candidate from Illinois since 1956, Adlai Stevenson. Illinois politics is uniquely corrupt and anybody who succeeds in it is go going to, sooner or later, wind up in bed with a man like this Rezko fellow. Politics in Illinois keep guys like him around to help with a real estate deal here, or maybe to give their cousin a job, or you know, fill up a board seat there. You know, this is—you can‘t get away from this in Illinois politics and nobody has. And sure enough, Barack Obama is one of them.
CARLSON: I think his opponents are definitely banking on this. It actually doesn‘t look that great, Tom. This Rezko helped the Obamas‘ buy their house, a very expensive house. The “Times” reports, quote, “the land sale occurred after it had been reported that Mr. Rezko was under federal investigation.” Now this is odd behavior for anybody but particularly a politician who is running on his own personal ethics. What explains this?
ANDREWS: Well, we need to get a up-front explanation that is consistent. I think what Barak Obama has done is fallen in the track where you sort of try to dismiss the story before it takes hold. He says, well, he was a one time fundraiser, I really didn‘t know him very well. It turns out he has been involved in more than one campaign, in terms of fundraising.
CARLSON: Oh, yes, for years.
ANDREWS: He has had an on going relationship with him. So people will find out, obviously, it‘s going to get reported and the story is going to keep going and you are going to be backtracking and you are going to look like you‘ve got something to hide. That is the problem. I don‘t know if …
CARLSON: Well he is hiding! He is—already the campaign said, we never did—Barak Obama never did any favors for Mr. Rezko. According to the “New York Times,” the state legislature, Mr. Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting Mr. Rezko‘s business efforts from which he profited close to a million dollars. So he did do favors for the guy.
ANDREWS: Well, what Barak Obama has to do is address this particular story, that particular allegation. I mean, up to this point, if I—the story in today‘s “Times” says look, there was nothing improper here but the questions that it raises need to be addressed and it …
CARLSON: Right.
ANDREWS: Maybe there is, you know, an explanation which often times there is, that can straighten this out and clear things up. So just come out and lay it out.
CARLSON: But it fails the hypocrisy—Barack Obama gets up, I believe it was in New Hampshire recently, and gave a commencement speech at a University and he said I hope a lot of you don‘t do the obvious thing and chose money when you leave. Choose the highest paying job. Now here we find out that Barak Obama is living in this very expensive house that he got with the help of a sleazy campaign contributor. Basically, he‘s as greedy as anybody else. Maybe he shouldn‘t say things like that in public.
FERGUSON: But of course, I guess he means is he hasn‘t really made the killing that he might have been able to make as some Illinois politicians have been able to do.
His problem here now is now a second order problem, which is, how do you explain this sort of thing? And he hasn‘t explained it very well well. Partly there is a hypocrisy problem, but he also has come out and said my mistake was allowing this guy to help me with a real estate deal and do something that appeared to be a favor. Well, it didn‘t appear to be a favor, it was a favor. If this guy had hadn‘t interceded they wouldn‘t have been able to guy his $1.6 million house. And so now he finds himself, pretty soon he will have a third order problem which is to explain what he said in the second time—that the problem came around. So, you know, it is becomes a tar baby—
CARLSON: It is definitely bad judgment. I mean there‘s no doubt, it‘s like, buy your own house. You know what I mean? I think a normal person would have concluded that.
FERGUSON: Unavoidable, though, in Illinois.
CARLSON: In Illinois and you say that as someone from Chicago-land.
FERGUSON: Absolutely.
We did not want this article to be ignored so we put it here instead of our usual Top Hillary Headlines spot. “If you want to understand the woman who would be president, don’t bother to read the latest avalanche of recycled biographies - just ask her interns.”
Five seconds:
“I will begin with two Hillary Clinton scoops of my own. Early last summer, I went to a party she was giving at her house - hidden away off Massachusetts Avenue, a stone’s throw from the British embassy - and took the opportunity to introduce her to a teenage boy who I knew was going to intern for her later in the summer. She gave the kid about five seconds of her time, beaming at him before moving on to the next hand to shake.”
“Probably six weeks later, having not so much as set eyes on her since, the boy was walking down a Senate corridor when Hillary approached in the opposite direction. Meeting his eyes, she greeted him without hesitating: “Good to see you again, Pete.” Then, three weeks after that, the same kid and zillions of other Hillary interns gathered in a small, overheated office to have their photographs taken with the senator. Suddenly, overcome by the heat, the boy collapsed almost literally into her arms. He came round a couple of seconds later, lying on his back and seeing the face of (possibly) America’s 44th president peering anxiously down at him, proffering her bottle of water. “She was really kind, sort of motherly,” he told me later.”
The article rightly claims that this short anecdote reveals more about Hillary than all the 10 pound books written about her. Further, the article reveals how much of the so-called revelations in recent books have as their source Hillary’s own autobiography, but spiced with lurid embroidery from the cash hungry creative writers.
“So why all this unprecedented hysteria over an election that won’t even be held until 4 November next year? The answer, I am convinced, is that the leading candidate so far is a woman who is trying to break a 218-year male stranglehold on the most powerful job in the world. That, in turn, has unleashed vast tides of subconscious sexism from America’s political commentators, the vast majority of whom are male. A woman seeking the power and masculine majesty of the US presidency? How dare a petty little Machiavellian ogress like her have such audacity!”
We wrote in Texas Tough that Hillary will not be swiftboated. Every day as she explains her policies, her worldview and her decision making process, more Americans decide to support her. Even in Texas Hillary is doing well. The more Texans and all Americans meet the real Hillary Clinton, the closer she gets to being 44.
There is a good list of some of the endorsements Hillary has garnered posted at the Hillary Clinton Supporters Group. The group is part of Democratic Underground. The long list is up to date as of June 13, 2007. Worth keeping an eye on this group and help it grow.
Another list of endorsements can be located at the official Hillary Clinton For President website endorsements page.
The Seacoast Online of New Hampshire also took note of a recent Hillary endorsement by a grassroots activist.
“Back now to the moral of this story. I did raise an eyebrow when one Roger Goun of Brentwood came out and publicly endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for president. While nationally this proclamation may equate to a thumbs-up from the owner of Bob’s Auto Shop, the Clinton campaign scored a minor public relations coup in Goun because he’s a new-breed activist with no shortage of connections in the state’s growing and increasingly influential progressive grassroots community.”
“Goun is a former software engineer turned full-time political actor these days. He’s chairman of the Brentwood Town Committee and is running for the state Senate. He’s also a newcomer who cut his teeth on the grassroots roller coaster of the Howard Dean campaign in 2003. He and other committed activists co-founded Democracy for New Hampshire, and decided to brawl in the dirt of state politics. By 2006, their activism matched in sync with a ripe political environment to help create a stunning electoral transformation — Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter defeated two well-entrenched incumbents for Congress and the Democrats won control of the state House and Senate for the first time in decades.”
Grassrooter Goun explained why he endorsed Hillary:
“We have to make progress,” Goun said about issues such as the Iraq war and health care. “I’m so ready for change. We have to win this election.”
“He also told me that meeting Clinton in person a few times in the past few months had changed his mind and he experienced the essence of grassroots campaigning.”
“She just blew me away,” Goun said of these encounters.”
Senator Barack Obama (D-Rezko) must be a very unhappy and miserable man today. As Fathers Day weekend was approaching he decided to unload buckets of his Chicago mud politics on Hillary. As with most things the clumsy and lurching Obama campaign attempts, the mud bucket missed its intended target. Instead the mud buckets disgorged at the point of origin. Workers at Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters must now wear hip-high swamp boots to navigate their way from floating desk to floating desk, all in danger of being carried away by the mud.
While the Obama campaign was busy filling their buckets with mud, Hillary was busy discussing a major policy proposal on stem cell research this week and winning over Republican voters with her intelligence and policy:
“A child with diabetes and a paralyzed 23-year-old joined Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday in urging President Bush to loosen restraints on money for embryonic stem cell research.”
“Clinton addressed the issue just days after the House voted to ease limits on the federally funded research despite President Bush’s veto threat. Joining her at Dartmouth College were Alex Walter, 10, of Londonderry, N.H., who has Type 1 diabetes, and Laura Clark of Antrim, N.H., who has been paralyzed since a car crash three years.”
“Walter’s father, Steve, said he is a registered Republican but supports Clinton because he is frustrated with the Bush administration’s stance on stem cell research. His son has endured 10 to 12 blood tests a day and about 100 insulin injections a month since being diagnosed at age 4.”
“This is not a religious issue,” he said. “It’s really about a little boy who’s 10 years old, and another 100 million Americans who could benefit from this research.”
“Clark’s mother, Kathleen, also a Republican, said her daughter’s experience has been life-shattering for the family. But she also made a practical appeal, noting the billions spent on people with chronic spinal cord injuries. Even modest advances through stem cell research allowing quadriplegics to regain the use of their hands would lead to a significant savings in health care costs, she said.”
“Clinton said the administration’s position was part of its general contempt for science and disregard of evidence in favor of ideology.”
Today though, is Fathers Day. Because of Obama’s dirty politics we cannot appropriately celebrate the great father that Bill Clinton has been, and is, to his daughter, Chelsea (we were able to celebrate Mother’s Day appropriately). That Obama chose Fathers Day weekend to attack the last elected President of the United States, a two-term Democrat, is especially disgusting but typical for Obama and his Chicago thugs.
We understand the calculation of why Obama sent the anonymous memo attacking President Clinton (the 42nd president). [N.B. We have heard from several John Edwards supporters that they suspect it was the Obama campaign that sent an anonymous whisper to the media alerting them to the infamous John Edwards $400 haircut.] An interview from February 17, 2007 with Obama’s campaign manager, David Axelrod , called The Politics of Going Negative foreshadowed what the mudboys were really thinking. Its The Audacity of Desperation.
“As anyone not living in a cave surely knows, Obama launched his campaign for president last weekend by deriding the “smallness of our politics” and promising to change the tone of political discourse in America. But with Hillary Clinton leading Obama by an average of nearly 20 points in the six major polls taken so far this year, will Obama be able to close the gap over the coming year without playing hardball? And how can he attack Clinton without looking small himself and undermining the core rationale for his candidacy?”
“I put that question to Obama’s senior strategist, David Axelrod, before Obama’s presidential announcement last Saturday in Springfield.”
“If you have a difference over an issue that’s something different than a gratuitous personal attack,” Axelrod said. “But the real point is the premise that if you can inspire people and if you can give them something real to believe in, you can advance your campaign without tearing everybody else down. And that is our premise and we’re going to try and see if it works. If it does work, then we truly have changed our politics for the better. If it doesn’t, then it doesn’t. But that’s the only kind of campaign that he [Obama] really can run.”
“So, I quickly followed up, Obama won’t go negative?”
“I . . . I . . . I don’t . . . I would not say that he won’t draw contrasts where contrasts should be drawn,” Axelrod hedged. “But if you’re asking me, do we have a strategy to tear people down? We don’t. And maybe that’s incredibly naive, and maybe that is not feasible in modern politics. But we believe it is, and we believe it’s important to run a campaign like that.”
Axelrod is the mud-meister who, according to the New York Times “is known for operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle.” Axelrod is also the one who flung anonymous mud against “the millionaire liberal, Hull, who was leading in the polls…”
In that race Obama’s Axelrod secretly garbage dived into the Hull divorce, a typically nasty legal proceeding. Obama’s mud-slinging worked back then, “In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory.” Of course the Tribune was printing Obama’s mud. “The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had “worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama’s TV ad campaign started at almost the same time.”
This time the Rookie misfired with his mudball. This story, like the financial entanglements and schemes between Obama and Rezko, is not going away. The Indian-American community is indignant as well they should be. Representatives from that community are demanding an apology from Obama. The crazy aunt at the New York Times a.k.a.Maureen Dowd has a column today which includes a discussion of the Obama mud-bucket. There will be debate questions about this.
Reporters should divulge what other stabs at anonymous stories the Obama campaign has made. Did the Obama campaign plant the very hurtful story of the John Edwards $400 haircut?
As in the Rezko scandals Obama must start answering questions honestly and stop hiding behind a wall of well-crafted words which say very little. Obama must also take personal and public responsibility for what he has done. Obama also needs to fire those responsible for all the mudslinging — Even if that means firing himself.
When Obama does something dirty he tries to disguise the dirt with flowery language. Flowery language is his stock in trade.
“Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign expressed regret Friday for the “tone” used in recently disclosed campaign documents that raised questions about rival Democrat Sen. Hillary Clinton’s ties to India and Indian-Americans.”
Notice, the Obama campaign, not Obama himself, regrets only the “tone” of the dirty anonymous memos distributed in his name. Obama was forced to ooze out this regret over “tone” because the Indian-American community is up in arms. The shamelessness of the Obama campaign is stark as it is “currently engaged in floating chapters of ‘South Asians for Obama’”.
As of yet there has been no whiff of an apology for the other patently false memo attacking President Clinton. Presumably the rank hypocrites at the Obama campaign also leaked the ugly memo to right wing sludge machine the Drudge Report.
“At issue are documents distributed to some news organizations by Obama aides on a not-for-attribution basis that offered a harsh analysis of the Clintons. One appeared under the headline “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)’s personal financial and political ties to India.”
Big Media is using the sliming of the Clintons to, you guessed it, slime the Clintons. As one astute observer at TPM pointed out in a related story “This was Obama smearing inappropriately and has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign doing anything. Mentioning Clinton as if she were equal in this crap is unfair.”
We posted yesterday some examples of Obama’s long history of dirty tricks against opponents all the while striking a pose of “regret” and “new politics”. The Obama campaign is feigning innocence again by claiming that they did nothing wrong. However the very fact that the memo was not issued in an above board way, but rather anonymously speaks to their guilt.
Taylor Marsh on her blog is once again right on target:
“Twice in one day? Team Obama needs to tuck it in, because their hypocrisy is showing. But what they have to gain by taking on former President Clinton is beyond me. Do Obama’s people really believe that by going after one of the most popular politicians on the planet they’re going to, what, help Obama win the nomination? Smear Hillary by taking of the Big Dog? Hey, good luck with that one.”
“So here’s the deal. Earlier this morning I was tipped to these anonymous emails that were supposedly being distributed by camp Obama that targeted Bill Clinton. Greg Sargent has now posted on it and it’s a must read. Evidently, Jen Psaki of the Obama campaign hasn’t heard that Candidate Obama doesn’t believe in “small politics” and that America wants a different kind of politics blah-blah-blah. Either that or Psaki thinks that this philosophy only applies in the light of day and that what camp Obama does in the dark doesn’t matter. Oh, and if the candidate doesn’t know about it he’s clean. Handy. How ’bout Obama take on Clinton directly? It takes spine to do that, however. It’s much easier to do it in the dark.”
Taylor Marsh continues:
“Mind you, I like down and dirty politics. What I don’t like is the hypocrisy of a candidate proclaiming to be above it all while his staff circulates one on the sly hit job after another on Candidate Clinton, her finances, while also taking aim at the only Democratic two-term president since F.D.R., who also happened to have done a fairly good job running this country.”
“Now I return you your regularly scheduled fantasy and to the pristine, above the fray, beyond “small politics” campaign of Barack Obama.”
Ben Smith at Politico gets the last word on this dirty Obama smear.
“It just occured to me that I actually asked Obama, on February 11th in Iowa, why he had hired opposition researchers — a question that grows more interesting today, with the Clinton campaign releasing a set of the Obama campaign’s not-for-attribution shots at Hillary and Bill to the press.”
“He responded (in the video above, which demostrates the hazards of typing while filming) that their first job would be to study his own record, and their second would be “to make sure that we know the records of all the candidates well enough that we can compare and contrast where we stand on issues and where others stand on issues, and that I think is essential to democracy – I don thtink there’s anything wrong with that at all.”
“Hard to see how attacking Bill Clinton’s finances fits framework.”
Ben Smith quotes Obama himself here in full hypocrisy flowery language he does not live by:
“Obama continued, “What I think you will be able to measure though during the course of the campaign is how well I stick to my guns in not making ad hominem attacks toward other candidates, acknowledging where they’ve done good work, if i disagree with them, disagree with them on the basis of issues, and not suggest they’ve got untoward motives,” and continues with some policy-based examples of what’s “legitimate.”
The Barack Obama campaign has been caught peddling dirt against Hillary and Bill Clinton. Obama is desperate to rescue his failing incompetent campaign so he is slinging mud.
No surprise, that is how Chicago Obama has always operated. Obama talks about running a clean campaign but he is a dirt peddler.
According to the New York Times and amplified in a Talking Points Memo post, Obama got caught in his usual anonymous mud-slinging:
“We’ve just obtained an email that shows that the Obama campaign yesterday circulated a negative, and ultimately false, story about Bill Clinton – that he allegedly made money giving a speech on September 11, 2006.”
Here are the relevant TPM excerpts:
“The email, which was sent out by Jen Psaki of the Obama campaign and circulated to reporters (not us) on an off-the-record basis late yesterday, details some things that the Obama campaign found in Hillary’s financial disclosure documents, which were released yesterday.”
“One of the things the email points to was the fact that Bill Clinton allegedly gave a for-profit speech on Sept. 11 — something that presumably would be likely seen as controversial.”
“The email is a different document than the one written about in today’s New York Times. The paper today wrote that the Obama campaign yesterday circulated a document to news organizations on a not-for-attribution basis that contained a “scathing analysis” of Hillary’s documents.”
“The Obama camp is taking criticism today over the Times article mainly because, as Taylor Marsh points out, Obama has made a frequent point of bemoaning the “smallness” of our politics. As Ben Smith asked today, does Obama’s use of oppo research “compromise his promise of a new politics?”
“The question seems even more pointed in light of the Obama campaign’s spreading of bad stories about Bill.”
“Asked for comment on whether it was appropriate to spread negative stuff about Bill, given that he’s not running in the primary and is popular with primary voters, Obama spokesman Bill Burton declined to directly address the question about Bill, instead saying: “I don’t know why anyone would take umbrage with the circulation of publicly available information.”
“The story spread about Bill ultimately turned out to be false. It ended up on Drudge yesterday, where it was given heavy play for many hours, though there’s no proof that it was given to Drudge by the Obama campaign. After Drudge posted it, The Observer’s Politicker blog thoroughly debunked the story, pointing out that Bill’s schedule proved that he’d actually given the speech the night before, on Sept. 10.”
We will ignore for now the other anonymous memo being circulated by Obama referring to Hillary as the representative of Punjab. That’s just a slur against East-Asians.
Taylor Marsh jabs Obama for his usual “I don’t know anything about this” attitude::
“When the Obama campaign found out about Clinton’s investments, they decided to do a hit on her regarding one in particular. The thing is, they did it anonymously. Charming, isn’t it. Now this type of hit job is
