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.