The Innocent

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 “toneused 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.”