Obama’s Dirty Mud Politics

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 isn’t anything new in the political world, but for a candidate that prides himself on being above petty politics, or beyond the smallness of politics, this is just a tad bit disingenuous. So if you want to keep your squeaky clean image intact, this type of move only works if you cover your tracks. The Obama camp blew it and Clinton’s campaign found out. The coup de grace is that, according to Obama’s spokesman, this isn’t a problem at all. The next thing we’ll hear is that Candidate Obama didn’t know anything about it.

This is all typical Chicago Obama politics:

Axelrod is known for operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. It is difficult to discuss Axelrod in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. As the 2004 Senate primary neared, it was clear that it was a contest between two people: the millionaire liberal, Hull, who was leading in the polls, and Obama, who had built an impressive grass-roots campaign. About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. 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. 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. Axelrod swears up and down that “we had nothing to do with it” and that the campaign’s television ad schedule was long planned. “An aura grows up around you, and people assume everything emanates from you,” he told me.

Of course there are plenty of examples of Obama portraying himself as an innocent but the record is that Obama bathes in mud and runs a dirty campaign. Lynn Sweet has documented Obama’s bull regarding the 1984 ad. She wrote “Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times on Thursday that his campaign was not damaged by the revelation that the ad maker, Phillip de Vellis, worked for Blue State Digital, the Washington D.C. firm whose co-founder, Joe Rospars is on leave—to work for the Obama campaign handling new media and the Obama web operation. Blue State holds a contract with the Obama campaign to provide technical internet support and oversee its server.”

Asked for his reaction to the links between his campaign and de Vellis, Obama said, “Yeah, very attenuated ties. … Obviously, as I said before, we have no idea who this person was, we have no way of knowing who this person was. He doesn’t work for us and my understanding is that the vendor had a policy of not doing this kind of stuff and as a consequence he has left.”

But that was just another Obama lie, his campaign staff knew De Vellis quite well:

Last year, Obama’s Senate press secretary, Ben LaBolt, was the spokesman for the Brown campaign and roomed with de Vellis in an Ohio apartment. LaBolt only would echo the statement released by the Obama team: “The Obama campaign and its employees had no knowledge and had nothing to do with the creation of the ad.”

We noted in Obama’s Curse some of Obama’s dirty history not related to Rezko. Obama, “whose recollections and achievements have been repeatedly and substantively questioned cannot be serious about his claim to be on the forefront of anything, and has accomplished less. Is he referring to how he used his legal firepower to off-road black candidates running against him from the ballot? As the Chicago Tribune reported “The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.”

“But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.”

“A close examination of Obama’s first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.”

“One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama’s petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.”

“Why say you’re for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?” Askia said. “He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?”

In a recent interview, Obama granted that “there’s a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn’t create barriers to people getting on the ballot.”

Isn’t that just cute? Typical Obama – do something dirty and then publically ruminate about the dirty deed while expressing innocence. It’s another of Obama’s great introspections.

Joe Biden was wrong about Obama. Obama is not clean — he’s dirty.

Share