[COMMENT DELETED DUE TO CONTENT AND LACK OF RELEVANCE TO THIS POST]
Posted by btp at March 16, 2008 04:55 PMWell, another one of your 'kinder-gentler' advocacy pieces for Clinton; this time using overt propaganda from "former freelance progressive blogger and current Internet Director for Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign - Peter Daou ...who spent 2004 in the Kerr-Edwards war room".
With two sterling success stories like that, he better be consulting with a creative resume writer!
As for his assertion that "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": I'd like Daou to cite factual evidence for the first assertion; I think the second clause is self-evident.
Posted by tfitznc at March 16, 2008 05:04 PMHere is a great website that catalogs Obama's attacks on Hillary Clinton by date (make sure you scroll down)
http://www.attacktimeline.com/
Posted by OxyCon at March 16, 2008 05:22 PMOk, so a pro-Clinton booster says that the Obama campaign has been nasty at points during primary season. And you know what? He's right. But he's also willfully overlooking the Clinton campaign's engagement in the very same kind of tactics.
This isn't new and it bothers me that we're still arguing over which campaign has been worse about this stuff when there's a Republican candidate for president we should be concerned about.
Posted by Mike P at March 16, 2008 05:26 PMTfitzinc,
Um, there are URLs provided in the email linking to each type of attack.
"Overt propaganda" - you can call it what you want but bloggers (not to mention media outlets) routinely print comments or memos from campaigns while acknowledging that those are from the campaign. If you have a problem with that, you shouldn't be reading blogs.
If all you have to say are "propaganda" and trash Peter - then I know Peter's memo is correct. If, on the other hand, you are able to marshall evidence proving him wrong, then I know you're not just wasting my time.
Posted by eriposte at March 16, 2008 05:27 PMMike P,
The focus of the email is to dispel the myth that Obama has somehow never gone negative. The focus is not whether Clinton has run a negative campaign - in fact, Peter's memo explicitly acknowledges Clinton's comments re: McCain. There have been breathless attacks on Clinton and her campaign style for months - some of which I've written about at TLC.
Posted by eriposte at March 16, 2008 05:31 PMJust by looking through the website I posted earlier, I found this gem:
02/11/08 Obama says Hillary starts with 47% of the country against her.
[Source: Washington Post]
----------
According to Rasmussen's daily tracking poll, a whopping 49% of the country are against Obama.
So by Obama's own logic, he's unqualified himself!
There is an email circulating, which I received from a so-called Democrat. In the email is entitled 'Socialism - Is America Ready?' The message is that HRC will bring Socialism to America, and we need to be very afraid if she is elected. Personally, I don't know who is sending such propaganda emails, but it is a huge negative for me.
Posted by Judith at March 16, 2008 06:26 PMSo, Hillary's top Internet guru says Obama has run a negative campaign, and that makes it so? Hillary's top Internet guru cites some crap piece in the Chicago Tribune that claims -- an unsourced claim, by the way -- that Obama's preparing a "full assault on Sen. Hillary Clinton over ethics and transparency," and that makes it so?
Of course, I hope that last one is true, but a "full assault" isn't necessarily dirty campaigning.
I love the parts of the text, too, where Daou makes it seem like addressing the other candidate's flaws directly through your campaign is somehow dirty, while slander through intermediaries is a decent thing to do. That's going right through the Looking Glass there people -- up is down and black is white.
All I hear in this piece, both Daou's words and Eriposte's words, are the wailing and gnashing of teeth that could be expected from a losing campaign. I hear a lot of fear and concern in this piece over the ethical questions Obama's campaign could ask about Hillary and Bill. Just who has been donating to the Clinton Library anyway?
Anyway, Eriposte, you think you'll support the eventual nominee? You think you're going to have any credibility on the matter once Obama is the nominee? [UGLY PROFANITY DELETED]... start writing like an actual liberal blogger instead of like some candidate's personal hack.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 16, 2008 06:27 PMeriposte sez: For various reasons, I believe that Sen. Clinton is the better candidate of the two while others (including some thoughtful commenters here) believe that Sen. Obama is the better candidate of the two.
In the couple of weeks I have been regularly perusing this website, I have seen nothing positive posted about Sen. Obama. eriposte's fairly frequent posts about Obama have, indeed, been rather relentlessly, snarkily critical of Obama. The "balance" here is as out of whack as the reciprocal "balance" at, say, Daily Kos. There's not actually anything wrong with any particular blog favoring any particular candidate. What I have a great deal of trouble with, however, is the business of setting up straw men to be knocked down amid protestations of righteous indignation.
Posted by joeldanwalls@yahoo.com at March 16, 2008 06:38 PMEriposte:
Is it not possible for these threads to be moderated? I mean, is it really necessary that you should have to be subjected to the ignorant, foul-mouthed commenters like Brian Bell, or that any of us should have to read the screeds of that jerkoff or his ilk?
Just asking.
I admire your analyses, btw.
Posted by at March 16, 2008 06:54 PMAs an Obama supporter who has rarely posts here at the Left Coast, I would like to personally say that Brian Bell's last paragraph is ghastly.
Maybe it's high time that Clinton and Obama supporters alike stop it with the language. Please. It's really time to focus on the bigger picture.
As to Daou's email, I know that he's been a respected blogger for a while now. His sentiments that the Obama campaign has been negative are well taken.
It would be much more transparent if Mr. Daou were able to acknowledge that there are questions as to whether Sen. Clinton has been open about her tax returns, donations, earmarks, and records stemming from President Clinton's leadership. Instead we get an email complaining about the other side at a time when transparency from the Clinton campaign is asked for. Frankly, it does not compute.
However, I appreciate seeing the accusations and reading what the views of the Clinton campaign are in regards to its perceptions. Thank you.
Posted by Elderta at March 16, 2008 06:59 PMeRiposte, I feel you failed to highlight, simply, the most important part of Daou's email:
Both candidates are running a vigorous campaign.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 16, 2008 07:02 PMSo what was Chris Dodd saying today? Did Schumer help Dodd's lame excuses and diversions?
Chris Dodd was on Fox News Sunday and just completely bumbled the Reverend Wright issue, which is a sign of how the issue is tanking Obama’s chances. Dodd could not answer why Obama has stayed around Wright for years, and answer why the words of this minister were not denounced much early much stronger. Clearly Obama lied to America the other day when he said he was not aware of comments.
"Guilt by association is totally unwarranted. Barack is not responsible for Wright’s views. However, how he responds to those views - and whether he is being straight with us, the voters - is critical as to whether he should lead our country." an Obama supporter
He was trying to pass them off as harmless rantings of an old man a year ago or more. He tried to side step the issue then, and outright lied to the voters this weekend when he tried to claim he was unaware of the rhetoric from his church of 20 years - a laughable position.
Now we are faced with two versions of a repeat of the Clinton years: His wife and Obama who lies to America’s face as he tries to cover up missteps. Not sure America wants either choice right now.
Posted by peter at March 16, 2008 07:21 PMTo the two who have taken my comments too seriously, I was speaking only in the metaphorical sense. As far as I know, Hillary is not a transgendered member of society and I am not implying anything about Eriposte except that Eriposte needs to quit schilling so damn hard for Hillary.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 16, 2008 07:39 PMI think it's very interesting to see what the Clinton campaign is doing to reach out to bloggers, pro-hillary, pro-obama and neutral. The idea that the Obama campaign has stayed above negative campaigning and only responds when forced is simply not true. They have engaged in a "vigorous" camapaign, just like HRC's campaign, it's just he's continually allowed to wear a halo of the "change candidate" and the "differenct kind of politics" and the blogs and the msm keep echoing that while he is running a divisive and negative campaign. By the way, Brian Bell just shows us what kind of person he is and that all of his views are diminished and deemed worthless by his derrogatory comments to eriposte and HRC.
Posted by nycvoter at March 16, 2008 07:45 PMAnonymous and Elderta,
Usually, I just don't have the time to police the comment threads - we all have other lives that keep us busy. However, the profane garbage from Brian Bell was particularly ugly and I saw your comments as well - so I've deleted the most offensive portion of his comment. I also deleted the first comment in this thread given the junk in it and irrelevance to this thread.
Posted by eriposte at March 16, 2008 07:49 PMSeven of Six,
Am I allowed to highlight the portions that are salient to me since I'm the one writing the post? I'm not trying to be argumentative here but I did reproduce the entire email so everyone can evaluate every part of it on the merits. I'm sure you believe certain parts are more salient and I have no issue with that.
Posted by eriposte at March 16, 2008 07:51 PMROTFLMAO! Really, and you folks claim to be liberal? I'm a nobody, a foul-mouthed geek is all, but censorship? LMAO! Eriposte, your true nature as much as mine is showing with the censorship. Hey, it's your blog, of course, don't think I'm protesting as much as laughing.
It's funny, I always associated liberal views with people like Lenny Bruce, HST, Ginsberg, Burroughs, Mailer, rock'n'roll, etc., people who weren't afraid of a little f-bomb or worse now and again. I guess Left Coaster and Eriposte are more Tipper Gore-"left" than something further left, which explains why they align themselves with a scold like Hillary.
At least I get a sig out of this, LOL!
"[UGLY PROFANITY DELETED]"
Posted by Brian Bell at March 16, 2008 08:02 PMThe Rise and Fall of Barack Obama
by markjay, Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:48:18 AM EST
The skinny kid with the funny name from Hawaii had a great run. h/t MyDD
Seems the deal is up...everyone is going to see who the delegate leader of the Democratic Party is. The honeymoon is over folks...you people in the remaining primaries better fix this mess and vote for Sen. Clinton in mass. This dog doesn't hunt. He's but a "blank screen"..."just a speech".
Talking about their opposition...he's in Iraq. He just yesterday celebrated his 35th anniversary of being a free man, freed from Vietnamese captivity. He's starting to open the gap with both of your fine candidates. Sure it's only March and November's a long, long way from here. Planting seeds in March does grow good crops in November. Our guy has been to Iraq now eight times. How many times has Sen. Obama been there? Sen. Clinton? He's going to meet with some world leaders, how many have Sen. Obama met with?
I remember reading how 'happy' Democrats are...were, where's the happiness now?
Then, NJ.com had this piece to add to the Spitzer mess. And the Ex has been so much in the news lately...
McGreevey aide says he had sexual trysts with ex-governor, wife
by Judith Lucas and John P. Martin/The Star-Ledger
Sunday March 16, 2008, 5:22 PM
I would have preferred that the Spitzer mess never had made it to the news. It's just awful about both sides of this story. Now add THIS to it...Gee. Is it raining outsides?
Posted by peter at March 16, 2008 08:20 PMAm I allowed to highlight the portions that are salient to me since I'm the one writing the post?
Yes, eRiposte.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here...
I'm not either.
I'm sure you believe certain parts are more salient...
Hence my proclamation, "I feel...".
Please, my point from here on out is the same as a lot of other Obama supporters here... it's to make sure we achieve a Democratic victory in November... while not tearing down either candidate.
Brian, you're a long time commentator here, no one should have to police your comments. If they did, then obviously you crossed the line.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 16, 2008 08:32 PMpeter, When we're deep into depression by summer everyone will know it's because of "the bu$h war economy!" Mcbu$h intends to carry this same policy over for the next 4 years. No one will be thinking of anyone's March trip to Iraq... unless it's a trip to make their government more self sufficient so we can get the hell out of there!!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 16, 2008 08:43 PMEriposte,
As you are no doubt aware, there is zero mathematical possibility that Hillary can win this race outright. She is now cornered, and can only try to put together a scheme to convince the superdelegates to vote for her. And there is only one way she can accomplish that; tear Obama down. Hillary is not going to overcome the big lead that Obama has run up by talking cheerfully to us about healthcare and education. She must make Obama appear to be unelectable. Mark my words-- there will be nothing but ugly coming out of the Clinton camp in the coming weeks. It may be disguised by filtering the crap through surrogates, but it will happen.
In case you might like to investigate the delegate math, here's a link:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/16/4538/35934/187/477813
For over a month I have been asking Clinton supporters to articulate a scenario where she walks away with the nomination without blowing the Democratic Party apart. To date, not a single response. Would you like to take a crack at it?
Thanks...
Cajun wants another McGovern, hey Eri? This guy supports the Bush over Gore argument coming out of Florida 2000. You're trusting the math at a blog over party? I can't wait to hear his explanation for losing California and NY in the GE. Democrats and their screwy system of delegate allocation. Nobody knows the true numbers...nobody.
Posted by peter at March 17, 2008 03:35 AMBrian Bell:
Yes, yes, of course - those who object to sexist rantings and hateful speech are just not liberal enough. Yes, yes, Lenny Bruce is God. Yes, yes, crying censorship when you are critiqued for your pathetic screeds shows your true colors. Yawn. What is this, the 60s?
Frankly, I'd advocate way more than censorship in your case.
Shorter Daou: Obama's runnin' just as negative as we are!
While I see Obama's "negative" attacks as being (mostly) based in actual fact (e.g. Hillary's incontrovertible vote enabling Bush's War, which she remains sanguine about, is indeed actual proof of terrible judgment and inability to admit mistake) and Hillary's negative attacks as being based utterly in opinion (e.g. junior senator Obama hasn't crossed "the [gag me] Commander-in-Chief threshold" while junior senator and Professional First Lady Hillary somehow has), the point here is that by refusing to unite behind a candidate, we have condemned ourselves to months of massive, brutal negative attacks against both candidates, with McWinner chiming in against the putative leader Obama as he sees fit.
Both Dem candidates will be hopelessly bloodied and destroyed, and the battered "winner" will be wide open for final attack by the Repub MSM and Noise Machine.
Quite a spectacle, one the Repubs would NEVER engage in, and all to the enjoyment of little turds like our RNC-assigned troll, peter. He (and his team) literally could not be happier and they simply cannot imagine our idiocy and their good fortune. Heckuva job!
Posted by euzoius at March 17, 2008 04:31 AMEuzoius:
Sure, Obama's criticisms are based in facts while Hillary's are just opinions. Right. Because calling her things like 'calculating, divisive, polarizing, dishonest', etc. is actually factual.
Are you deliberately being dishonest or just incapable of being objective?
Posted by at March 17, 2008 05:24 AMWill somebody mail this site to MSNBC to the Show Countdown with Keith Olbermann please.
Posted by Connie L at March 17, 2008 05:31 AMMore name calling Euz...can't a guy just like you guys. Aren't y'all likable?
Posted by peter at March 17, 2008 06:16 AMHa ha. You are so right, Connie.
KO - another faux progressive guy more than willing to engage in hatemongering, sexism, lies and distortions.
It is the height of sacrilege for him to compare himself to Edward R. Murrow.
Posted by at March 17, 2008 06:16 AMso Peter Daou (current Internet Director for Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign) sent out an email attacking the Obama campaign
gee, dog bites man
next up in the news, the sky is still blue and water is still wet
and hey, pants pissing peter, how's the Bush-Iraq recession?
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 17, 2008 06:27 AMAbout this Obama Rules, Hillary Rules thing. I suggest the Democratic Party pick the Obama Rules.
For the GOP this would be a no-brainer. One candidate can't attack the other without it blowing up in her face. The other lands punch after punch without being accused of going negative. Gee, which one of those two would you rather have in the general election?
Posted by space at March 17, 2008 06:40 AMHey, my anonymous critic that accuses me of sexist ranting and hateful speech, I may have been potty-mouthed, but there was NOTHING sexist about what I said prior to it being censored.
I really can't compare my rantings to Lenny Bruce or any of the others I mentioned -- I'm not that talented, far, far from it -- but I know people I would regard as real lefties wouldn't be so uncomfortable with what I said. There was no sexism there.
As a matter of fact, I ask to those who scold me, what is so bad about a metaphor that implies Hillary is transgendered? Is there something wrong with transgendered people? I don't think so. Is there something inherently morally wrong with a particular sex act if it involved a transgendered person? Hey, it's not for me, but if the mere mention of those things causes you such anger, then maybe you ought to be looking at why you have such hang-ups.
Anyway, back on point about Eriposte's diary, I reiterate, this post from Eriposte is asinine. Just because Peter Daou says Obama's running a dirty campaign doesn't make it so. Peter basically defends using intermediaries to do a campaign's and a candidate's dirty work? How disgusting is that? A lot more disgusting than what I said. Using a person to "front" for a candidate positions that the candidate could never or would never take because it would cost them votes is dirty and disgusting. And that's what Peter defends while attacking Obama for having his campaign come out and say what it thinks of Hillary on some issues. Again, that's right through the Looking Glass, right is wrong in Hillary's campaign ethics, apparently.
Another thing, again, Eriposte talks about how he will support the Democratic candidate in the fall. How exactly is he going to do that if it's Obama? (Which it will be.) By my count, on the Left Coaster index page alone there's seven diaries by Eriposte, all of which are tearing Obama a new asshole. Four of those seven diaries by Eriposte use a lot of his own words to attack Obama, and three use a lot of links to other people attacking Obama. And Eriposte is going to campaign for Obama how exactly, when he spent months throwing crap at him? Eriposte is Exhibit A-1 as to how the Left Coaster became the Clinton Coaster, unrelenting in its slander of Obama. [sarcasm]But don't worry, there's no contradiction in Eriposte's position when he will support Obama come the general election[/sarcasm]. Where is your credibility, Eriposte, when Obama garners the Democratic nomination?
Posted by Brian "[UGLY PROFANITY DELETED]" Bell at March 17, 2008 07:23 AMI'm not sure what the point of this is. Sure, Daou would say that Obama's running a dirty campaign and Clinton isn't. Republicans I've talked with say Clinton is dirtier. So what?
It's not amazing that a week after Ferraro we get this, but it is rather depressing.
Right about now it would be good for the candidates start talking about the Republican economy that is crashing over our heads. Or maybe that's one reason why we haven't seen those tax returns yet.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 17, 2008 07:31 AMAs a matter of fact, I ask to those who scold me, what is so bad about a metaphor that implies Hillary is transgendered?
Well, seeing as you offered it as a smear on Senator Clinton the answer seems pretty clear Brian.
You're on a roll. Throwing out some racist pap about African-Americans last week. Using allusions to being transgender as a smear against Hillary Clinton this week.
Seems your Clinton hatred has fried your brain, Brian.
I'm sure Senator Obama would be awfully proud of your efforts on his behalf.
Posted by snark at March 17, 2008 07:33 AMMSNBC has been negative on the Clinton's since Janet Reno brought Bill Gates to Washington for anti-trust hearings (Microsoft is the "MS" in MSNBC, in case somebody didn't know)
They are as bad as Fox, that way.
Posted by Moon at March 17, 2008 07:35 AMBob In Pacifica, what are you hinting at? That the Clinton campaign is racist? That there are some evil doings that will be revealed in the Clinton's tax return?
Rather than hinting around at it, spell it out clearly, if that's what you think.
Posted by Moon at March 17, 2008 07:38 AM
Yes, and we all hold "real lefties" as the standard-bearers for what is and is not sexist or hateful. Please.
Gee, your attempts to disguise your hatefulness and sexist rantings by scolding those who object as having "hang-ups" or advocating censorship is so so novel. Like we haven't been down that road before. Why don't you try some more modern argumentation to defend your frequent misogynist rants and stop being so lazy?
Posted by at March 17, 2008 07:40 AMGeez, Brian, I'm sure there's some people you haven't offended yet, if you just try. Maybe you need another dose of "Obama camp," since you've clearly ridden the unity pony into the ground. Wait, there you go! PETA's gonna be mighty pissed at your animal cruelty...
Posted by iamcoyote at March 17, 2008 08:05 AMSnark and anonymous who doesn't even have the metaphorical cajones to use a pseudonym, NO, I am not sexist, and nothing I said was sexist. Seriously, only your own bourgeois, patriarchal thinking would find my censored remarks sexist. If you have a problem with transgendered people or the use of sexual metaphors to describe relations of power and service, then you really need to examine your own hang-ups. As I concede, what I said may have been potty-mouthed, but there was nothing sexist about it. I don't even recall you being on the thread earlier, Snark, so I doubt you even know what was said.
As for the racist charge, Snark, that's b.s. Geraldine's the one making the racist remarks, not me. Clinton's campaign is a race-baiting machine, and the proof is in the primary and caucus results. A nobody like me does not have the influence to move 90 percent of the African-American vote against Hillary; however, Hillary's race-baiting campaign has had that effect on the African-American vote.
Back to point a bit more, this race-baiting is exactly why Peter Daou is so full of it. Hillary's campaign sends Ferraro out to conduct racist character assassination, which Hillary's campaign cannot directly engage in, and Daou defends this practice. But if a candidate's campaign says what it means, that's dirty? WTF? What kind of garbage is that? That's Peter Daou spouting crap on behalf of the Clinton Campaign. And Eriposte regurgitates it without question. That's not analysis, or even opinion. It's propagandizing.
Coyote, offend? I'm not too worried about that. Offending PETA or animal cruelty? I'm not cruel to animals, you sick bastard. Besides, I'm not the one who let Clinton's Buddy the Dog run free unleashed, unfenced, unwatched and most likely unloved, only to get hit by a car. I'm also not the one who was apparently so un-attached to the family pet cat Socks as to toss the poor kitty aside to the secretary like a hand-me-down. You want some folks who apparently give a crap less about animals, Coyote? They don't appear to be outright cruel, but you'd have to look pretty hard to find politicians who are apparently as uncaring about their pets as the Clintons. That says a lot about their character.
Posted by Brian "[UGLY PROFANITY DELETED]" Bell at March 17, 2008 08:27 AMSeek help, Brian, you've officially lost it.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 17, 2008 08:55 AMBrian,
I didn't use the sexual identies of a group of my fellow citizens as a smear to attack a politician I don't like. You did. And I'm not the one who thinks I should have some fear of being physically assualted if I seek to engage an African-American in a conversation about racial issues. You are.
Get some help.
Posted by snark at March 17, 2008 08:56 AM
This is the voice of reason, and it's sad and a bit frightening that Obama supporters ignore it. We will wind up with McCain unless this extreme Hillary bashing stops, while Obama supporters continue to paint anything and everything she says as negative towards Obama, which is simply not the case. And Victimhood? Just look at the Wright sermons to get a load of victimhood. Obama supporters have become as nasty as the nastiest conservatives are. Do we really want a leader who inspires this?
Posted by rj percy at March 17, 2008 09:25 AMCoyote, I lost nothing, unlike Buddy the Dog and Socks the Cat who were lost by the Clintons, in one way or another.
Snark, you are a LIAR. I did neither of those things. You, on the other hand, are a race-baiting transgender-phobe. Aside from which, I don't even think you know what was I said in this thread, you're so off base.
By the way, Peter Daou is still full of it. His "analysis" is the ranting of a Clinton employee.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 17, 2008 10:00 AMWell, these are your words are they not Brian?;
Get it through your thick skulls, people. There isn't an African-American in this country who is not offended by what Geraldine said. Go tell an African-American person what she said about Obama and ask them if it's racist. Go ahead, chickens, do it. Of course, be prepared to get ostracized, berated and maybe even physically hurt for being so ignorant. The staff on this site seem to finally get it in regards to Geraldine and her racist claptrap, why aren't you all? -Brian Bell
From this thread about the Ferraro comments.
Posted by snark at March 17, 2008 10:08 AMSo, not only did the Clintons murder Vince Foster, they now stand accused of murdering their pets. Considering the garbage you've been spewing, (click snark's link, anyone who's interested in watching the Brian meltdown into a racist nutjob), I can see why you want to change the subject.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 17, 2008 10:21 AMFinally read Dau's e-mail and am pretty sure his case is very weak. First, of the 10 or so comments from Obama's camp. against Clinton, about half track back to her own web site. I wouldn't call that very good sourcing. Second, several "attacks" refer to the same subject.
Let's take a few of his points and see how nasty the Obama camp is to poor Sen. Clinton.
Disingenious...
This refers to his comments that Sen. Clinton says they are releasing their papers as fast as they can. I think the disingenious comment is quite true and if this is all you have its pretty lightweight stuff. The fact is several govt. employees say they are waiting on the Clintons to sign off on release and have heard nothing. Disingenious seems appropriate and not neg.
Too polarizing to win...
you really think that is an example of a negative attack. Come on people, the repugs just hate her and thats not news. Again, polarizing (forgive my spelling) is fairly spot on for her even if its not fair that the right hates her so much.
Calculating....
Again is this all he has? Dau must have worked on this e-mail for at least a few hours and if these examples are the best he can come up I think it makes Obama look quite constrained.
Again compare it to what Clinton has said (She and Mccain are ready to be president but Obama is not) and there is really no contest.
Again to all the Clinton supporters, it looks like your candidate is not going to win this so please be careful with our democratic party. We need to crush the republicans in Nov. and Clinton needs to keep this in mind.
Eric in Austin
Posted by ericl at March 17, 2008 11:39 AMI have to wonder how many anti-Clinton attacks have been propagated by GOP operatives. Rush is sending the minions to vote. There is nothing they wont do.
Regardless. For the good of the party and the country, Senator Clinton definitely should drop out of the race now and throw her support to Obama.
That would be by far the best-case scenario.
Please, Senator Clinton, drop out of the race now.
Posted by Shredder at March 17, 2008 11:50 AM'For the good of the party and the country, Senator Clinton definitely should drop out of the race now and throw her support to Obama.'
Said without the slightest hint of irony...
Posted by willyjsimmons at March 17, 2008 12:47 PMIt's amazing that Obama can go around insinuating that there is something wrong with the Clinton's tax return and that's OK, just good politics. But, if Hillary says she's more capable of answering the 3 a.m. phone call, that's dirty politics and racist.
TOBRs.
Posted by Moon at March 17, 2008 02:17 PMAnd if Obama's the nominee, and falls behind McOld in the GE, will you say "Barack, please drop out now for the good of the country."?
Posted by Blue Jean at March 17, 2008 03:35 PMHaving switched to Obama from the Edwards contingent, I don't have the deep emotional investment that both camps seem to have in their candidates. I think we have two impressive candidates, and I've found the rhetoric from bloggers and other low-level supporters on both sides mighty painful to listen to.
Although Dauou speaks, as I would have expected him to, in a voice of sweet reason, I don't think he makes his case. I have no doubt at all that the top level tone of Clinton's campaign has been harsher than Obama's. I don't ascribe that, certainly not primarily, to any flaw in her character. It's mandated on her side by her second place position in the race, which pretty much forces her to go somewhat negative; and on Obama's side by his nice-guy branding.
No "vetting" of Obama is needed in the classic sense. There are no skeletons in his closet. But we are finally seeing the level of testing of his candidacy that had been missing: how does he bear up under baseless slurs, recycled long-since-disproved innuendo, and character assassination by guilt by association? That is to say, can he beat GOP style campaigning? We get to learn if and how Obama will prevent Republican attempts to turn his post-racial candidacy into the candidacy of an "angry" radical black man.
The media have begun to turn on Barack. It isn't Hillary's kitchen sink strategy that is the cause of it, The right wing's decided to prolong the Dem primary season, and the media are following their marching orders, as they reliably do.
If Obama recovers from this season of attack, especially the Wright nonsense, and holds or betters his numbers in Pennsylvania, he will have given the final necessary proof of his viability. And that will be the point at which Mrs. Clinton should step back. IMHO not only is she very much within her rights to keep trying right now, she is (pace Rush and the CW) doing the party a favor. She's forcing the issue of how Obama will be defined for the voters. If he can't succeed in seizing that definition from the Wurlitzer, he is likely not our strongest candidate after all. If he can, this painful period is forcing him to become a better campaigner, and depriving McCain of a lot of free camera time.
Posted by nicteis at March 17, 2008 04:01 PMIt's always interesting that when something negative is said about Obama, Obama supporters make excuses and somehow find a way to blame Hillary Clinton, thereby PROVING the point of many who observe Obama supporters. Honest Obama supporters can say "yeah that may have been a bit of a low blow but this is politics and we know it works". People seem to forget that Obama is a Chicago politician. Politics is Chicago has always been dirty. You don't "grow up" in that system without knowing how to play the game.
Does that mean that Clinton hasn't hit hard on Obama? Ofc she has, this is POLITICS. But this blog ISN'T ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON. Therefore, peope should be answering the question, is Obama's campaign being run as "cleanly" as he continues to say it is?
Posted by kacey at March 17, 2008 04:04 PMI just don't buy that posters such as Brian Bell, Bob in Pacifica, et al, are real democrats. Their diatribes (Clinton Derangement Syndrome) are too similar to denizens of the Free Republic at the height of the Clinton Wars. On the other hand, perhaps the dementia of the Far left and Far Right have come full circle and it is impossible to tell the difference between the two. Fortunately, the zealots will remain at the fringes where they belong. No sense trying to argue with them--they are from the Rush Limblah school of discourse.
Posted by KathyVT at March 18, 2008 02:59 AMHillary has some of the most reprehensible elements of the Reich Wing supporting her. This reveals their perception (correct in my opinion) that Hillary will be easier to beat in the general (or at least provide a plausible cover story when they engineer yet another election theft).
I was not a HRC supporter from the beginning but she has become less and less impressive with each passing day. I still feel she should drop out for the good of the party and the nation, and at the same time feel that her loyalty to none but herself precludes that.
Posted by LanceThruster at March 18, 2008 01:10 PM