Stinky B.O., Part II

Update: General Wesley Clark writes an editorial in the Union Leader, once again, supporting Hillary on Iran.
————————

The Obama declared “next phase” strategy is to abandon anonymous slime memos and to openly sling mud and employ old RIPublican talking points to attack Hillary.

On August 17, Michelle Obama was quoted as saying “if you can’t run your own house – you certainly can’t run the white house”. The Obama campaign disavowed that as an attack on Hillary. The Obama campaign said “The only family Mrs. Obama was referring to was the Obama family.” Fair observers gave the Obama campaign the benefit of the doubt. Now, Michelle Obama, in London, is trotting out a “bare knuckles” argument based on what the Obama campaign earlier disavowed. This tactic is due to Obama “running out of time to prove himself against Ms Clinton…”

She will also talk about the Obamas’ life at home with their two young daughters, fleshing out her husband’s political resume and drawing a sharp contrast with Ms Clinton’s famously troubled marriage.

It appears that the Obama campaign has rehearsed its slime narratives previously and is now prepared to employ slime in their “next phase”. We’ll be watching.

Jut Jaw
* * *

The “policy” weapon that Obama will employ in his negative “next phase” is misrepresentation and lies.

Because Iraq as a weapon against Hillary has failed to get him votes, Iran is the new chosen battlefield for Obama. As we noted in Stinky B.O. Senator Joe Biden and Senator Dick Durbin have demolished the central argument and the central chicanery of Obama’s Iran based attack.

Senator Durbin, Obama’s most important ally and supporter, contradicts Obama’s central argument on Iran concerning the recent vote declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization: “I have the same concerns that Barack Obama does about this administration and what they might do with the power that they have. But I don’t think this resolution gives them a green light to do anything.

Aside from the fact that Senator Durbin puts the lie to Obama’s claim on the Revolutionary Guard non-binding resolution vote, it is ludicrous that Obama has chosen Iran as his “next phase” attack on Hillary for two reasons.

First of all, Obama did not vote on the non-binding “Sense of the Senate” Revolutionary Guard resolution. Obama was AWOL on that vote. Obama’s excuse for missing the vote is that, like a surprised grade school student who fails an unannounced quiz, he did not know the vote was scheduled. However, the other presidential candidates were in the Senate to vote on the resolution and Senator Joe Biden wrecked Obama’s excuse by stating “I wonder why he wasn’t there to vote,” Biden said. “We all knew that this vote was coming up.”

The Clinton campaign further asks “If Senator Obama felt so strongly about this resolution, why didn’t he speak out against it or vote against it?”

Others, not just us, (Here, and Here) noted Obama’s love of being AWOL and call him “Senator No-Show” (actually Obama is Senator Put On Only A Show). The analyses also noted that Obama did not issue a statement on the Revolutionary Guard vote until 10:00 p.m., nine hours after the vote; and also note his curious and imperious absence during the Move-on vote weeks earlier.

The second reason why Obama is foolish to attack Hillary on Iran is his own record on Iran. We noted in The Offended that Obama had sponsored binding legislation declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

Caught in the trap of his own meager voting history in the Senate, which contradicts his statements on the Revolutionary Guard resolution, Obama tried another misrepresentation (joined in this foolishness by the hapless John Edwards).

This time, the argument proposed is that Hillary flip-flopped on the idea of negotiations with Iran.

Hillary recently said her administration would negotiate with Iran. Obama/Edwards declared this to contradict an earlier position espoused during a debate on not promising to personally meet, in the first year of her administration, anywhere, without preconditions with leaders of various rogue nations. Taylor Marsh knocked down this argument effectively. Obama/Edwards went to Big Media to flog this slop.

So foolish was this Obama/Edwards argument that TPM condemned Associated Press, which carried news of the Hillary “flip-flop”, for being worse than Fox News.

It’s a very sad day for a reputable news organization when it finds itself badly outdone on accuracy by Fox News, but that’s exactly what happened to the Associated Press today.

The AP is running with a story right now that strains as hard as Sisyphus did with his bolder to paint Hillary as a flip-flopper. The story claims that she has now reversed herself from her earlier criticism of Barack Obama’s debate assertion that he’d meet with the leaders of Iran without precondition. The only problem is that the story completely butchers the facts to do so…

These clumsy Obama and Edwards campaigns are desperate and it shows every day. Earlier last week, having failed with their “policy” arguments they tried to help themselves in Iowa by playing “tactical” games in Michigan. They shot themselves in the foot. The Flint Journal editorialized:

Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden “apparently are all but conceding” the Dem nomination to HRC. Otherwise, “they wouldn’t have made such a shortsighted and cowardly decision” to remove their names from MI’s primary ballot. Only a “desperate longshot would deliberately offend residents of a state crucial to electing the next” POTUS. HRC “notably wasn’t too intimidated” by the DNC or “afraid of upsetting the voters” in NH, IA, SC or NV. Conversely, the decisions of Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden “suggests that they know it’s nearly over for them”.

The clumsy “campaigns” indulged themselves in silly games and shot themselves in the foot. Typical.

The Hillary Team is not fooled by these personal attacks, policy attacks, or tactical manovers. The Hillary Team knows what is going on:

There have been three major developments in the race this month: Senator Clinton has broken 50 percent in several primary polls, she outraised the other candidates in the third quarter and her opponents have entered a new season of the campaign that they call “clear contrast.” Most others call it negative campaigning.

Related? You bet.

Yesterday’s FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll puts Senator Clinton at the 50 percent mark, Senator Barack Obama at 18 and former Senator John Edwards at 11. This poll comes on the heels of last week’s Washington Post/ABC News poll which had Senator Clinton at 53 percent, Senator Obama at 20 percent and former Senator Edwards at 13 percent.

And it’s not just the national polls that show Hillary getting stronger. Recent polls in the early states of New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina show her with consistent, wide leads while the latest data in Iowa shows that her support is growing.

To put these numbers in context, six months ago Hillary held as little as a 5-point lead over Senator Obama – today, as all of the candidates have become better known, her lead has grown to as many as 33 points.

At the same time, Hillary — for the first time — outraised Senator Obama in both primary and overall contributions. She attracted 100,000 new donors in the third quarter — more than Senator Obama — and raised $8 million online.

These trends reflect the fact that Hillary’s message of experience and change is resonating with voters as the first primary contests grow closer. She spent the last week explaining her programs to rebuild the middle class after 7 years of neglect by President Bush (See: David Brooks ; New York Daily News), following on her well received healthcare plan. She is outlining her vision for change and talking with the voters about her ideas.

Other campaigns are reacting. Senator Obama said yesterday his campaign will be entering a time of “clear contrast” in an article headlined “Obama: Bye-Bye Mr. Nice Guy?”

Apparently Senator Obama’s fall in the polls has led him to abandon his pledge to change our politics and bring people together.

This week Senator Obama criticized Senator Clinton’s vote to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

Senator Obama was silent on the measure when it was considered on the floor. Despite serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, he wasn’t involved in Senate negotiations or discussions over the bill’s language. (See: Huffington Post) He didn’t speak out against it before it was voted on – he didn’t even return from the campaign trail to vote. He didn’t speak out against it at a nationally televised debate that night or defend himself from an attack during the debate on his missed vote. In fact, he waited more than nine hours after the vote was over to issue a statement about it.

If Senator Obama believed the measure was as dangerous as he says, wouldn’t he have had some obligation to stand up, speak out, and fight against it?
So perhaps something else is at work: politics.

As Senator Obama’s closest ally in the Senate, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, said, “If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no.”

As Senator Obama abandons the politics of hope in favor of attack politics, Senator Clinton remains focused on her vision for America – the kind of vision that today is attracting the key endorsement of civil rights hero Congressman John Lewis.

Desperate campaigns do desperate things. Obama’s campaign is desperate – and it stinks.

Share

45 thoughts on “Stinky B.O., Part II

  1. Obama claims grassroots support was a major factor in his, “come from behind” victory in his senate campaign, to a group of supporters, but is that really true?

    “Obama remains in third place with 22 percent of the support of likely Iowa caucusgoers, according to the latest poll released this month by The Des Moines Register. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton was first with 29 percent and former North Carolina senator John Edwards had 23 percent.

    One major part of winning the election is strong grassroots support, Obama said to a group of about 200 supporters at East High School before the door-to-door event began. He noted that he was well behind in the polls in his race in the U.S. Senate in 2004 until about the last month and credited his win largely to efforts such as the door-to-door events.

    “If you don’t have that spark from the grassroots, then change doesn’t happen,” Obama said.”

    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071013/NEWS/71013002

    What doesn’t this guy exaggerate about…

    Is he talking about the primary, where he trailed before his opponent was reported to be a WIFE-BEATER?

    “In early polls leading up to the March 16, 2004, primary election, candidate Blair Hull enjoyed a substantial lead and widespread name recognition resulting from a well-financed advertisement effort. He contributed over $28 million of his personal wealth to the campaign. However, Hull was soon embroiled by allegations of domestic abuse. Challenger Barack Obama, an Illinois state senator, won endorsements from four Illinois congressmen and former DNC chairman David Wilhelm, gradually increasing his name recognition among voters.

    In the final weeks of the campaign, Obama’s primary campaign gathered support from favorable media coverage and an effective advertising campaign designed by David Axelrod. The ads featured images of U.S. Senator Paul M. Simon and the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington; the support of Simon’s daughter; and the endorsement of most of the state’s major papers, including the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times.

    In the March primary, Obama won more support than the other six candidates combined, earning 52% of the vote, fueled by an overwhelming victory in Chicago and surrounding Cook County.”

    Behind in the polls? Grassroots support?

    “In early media polls leading up to the March 16, 2004 primary election, Hull enjoyed a substantial lead and widespread name recognition resulting from a well-financed advertisement effort. He contributed over $28 million of his personal wealth for the campaign.

    When allegations of abuse against his ex-wife were made by the media, Hull’s poll numbers dropped and he failed to win the nomination.[citation needed] Illinois State Senator Barack Obama later became the nominee.”

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blair_Hull

    So while he was behind in the polls to Hull, his rise was more Hull’s fall than anything Obama DID. Hull was a wife-beater. That impacted on his poll numbers somewhat. His grassroots support seems to have come primarily from political professionals and the major newspapers. So how truthful is Obama’s statement?

    Was he alluding to the general election, where he went from facing a sex-pervert, to facing an, out-of-state loon and sacrificial lamb?

    “Obama vs. Ryan
    Obama was then pitted against Jack Ryan, the winner of the Republican primary. Ryan campaigned in favor of across-the-board tax cuts, school choice, and tort reform, an effort to limit payout in medical malpractice lawsuits.

    Ryan trailed Obama in early polls, with Obama opening up a 20-point lead after the media reported that Ryan had assigned Justin Warfel, a Ryan campaign worker, to track Obama’s appearances. Warfel followed Obama’s movements 24 hours a day, recording everything Obama did in public on videotape. Warfel also heckled Obama by yelling questions at him in public. The tactic backfired when many people, including Ryan’s supporters, criticized this activity. Ryan eventually withdrew Warfel, but did not apologize.[1]

    As the campaign progressed, a lawsuit brought by the Chicago Tribune and ABC-owned station WLS-TV led to a California court’s opening of child custody files from Ryan’s divorce with actress Jeri Ryan. In those files, she alleged that he had taken her to sex clubs in several cities, intending for them to have sex in public.[2] Although the sensational nature made the revelations fodder for tabloid and television programs specializing in such stories, the files were also newsworthy because Ryan had insisted to Republican leaders that there was nothing damaging in them. As a result, many Republicans questioned Ryan’s integrity following the release, and he dropped out of the race on June 25, 2004, leaving Obama without an opponent.

    Obama ran the most successful Senate campaign for a non-incumbent in 2004, and was so far ahead in polls that he soon began to campaign outside of Illinois in support of other Democratic candidates. He gave large sums of campaign funds to other candidates and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and sent many of his volunteers to work on other races, including that of now-Congresswoman Melissa Bean who defeated then-Congressman Phil Crane in that year’s election. Obama and Keyes differed on many issues including school vouchers and tax cuts, both of which Keyes supported and Obama opposed.”
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_United_States_Senate_election,_2004

    He is just another politician, who has enjoyed a charmed life politically, but who will obviously says whatever seems likely to work in the moment.
    You seldom see any fact-checking, when it comes to senator Obama and his statements. This is just one example of how many stretch the truth past the breaking point

  2. TheRealist, what the article fails to point out is that it was Obama’s campaign that was pumping all the stories regarding his opponents’ wife beating and sex club activities. Slime is what the Obama campaign staffers are noted for.

    We’ve written about this several times and the New York Times wrote an big profile on Axelrod and how he pumped the negative stories on Obama’s behalf.

  3. Realist,

    The washingtonpost’s and NYTimes’s of the world seem to be giving a free pass on Obama. There is no fact check on his assertions. Infact, if you notice, the washingtonpost editorial seems to be finding a way to criticize Hillary, while either praising Obama or leaving him out, every other day. NYTimes meanwhile, seems to be unleashing Dowd, Frank Rich, and Healy to go after her. I am sure these two papers will be endorsing Obama in the primary.

  4. Hi y’all, I am sorry to see this “new phase” of oboma’s campaign. I had some ideas of the leadership that he might show in the future, when he might be more mature as a person and more seasoned as a statesmen. I know to “never say never in politics,” but I will say this: It would take an act of the almighty for me to ever support Oboma in a future election. If it is Ok to openly distort his opponents words — to downright lie — then I don’t think he’s the one who’s going to “bring us together” and magically transform the way we do business. In point of fact, I think Hillary Clinton, with her standing as the most admired woman in this country, with the admiration that people have for her around the world, is the real embodiment of hope for the future. I’ve said this before, I think this is the most important election in my lifetime–perhaps in anybody’s lifetime. Given the problems on the planet, we don’t have time to screw around with somebody who makes rookie mistakes. I’m gonna work harder than ever for Hillary, folks. As for the future….Barack, who? –mollyj

  5. ra1029 and MollyJrichards, from Boston Logan airport to D.C. is about an hour and a half, commercial jet. Obama has a private plane. Direct from NH to DC is not that long by private jet. No reporter has taken him to task for these basic facts. Reid announced there would be a vote in the morning and the Iran vote did not occur until midday. Obama had plenty of time to get back to D.C.

    This is not complicated math. Obama had hours to get from NH to DC. Yet not 1 interviewer brings up this contradiction.

  6. On the ‘Chris Matthews Show’, Elisabeth Bumiller is still trotting out the MSM’s Summer meme that Obama is “drawing huge crowds”. Matthews asked why Obama doesn’t just “challenge the Clintons” and “take on Bill and Hillary”.

    Good grief these folks are desperate.

  7. Admin,

    WaPo editorial took Hillary to task for saying nothing is on the table regarding SS as long as congress does not some responsibility to balance the budget. They did not bother to take him to task for saying:
    1. He will run politics of hope and not run a negative campaign.
    2. Misrepresenting/Distorting hillarys position on issue of negotiations with Iran.
    3. Not bothering to vote on the Iran resolution but writing opinion piece attacking Clinton.

    Also, it seems to be an Obama/Edwards unofficial alliance has formed to jointly attack Hillary. The media seems to have largely ignored reporting on this because they themselves are looking for a way to trip her and spice up the race.

  8. Admin: Why is Obama getting a pass on his distortions of the truth? I also think he’s been showing some very disturbing signs lately, and I’m not just talking about the problem with intentionally distorting other peoples statements. I am concerned about his visit to the megachurch last week and speaking of the Kingdom on earth. I’m concerned about the “do you believe”signs in south carolina and the Bible study groups, too. For a while i thought his foreign policy gaffes were inexperience and others were rookie mistakes or general immaturity, but I am beginning to wonder if he or his handlers haven’t lost perspective. These are big mistakes, in my opinion. On the other hand, maybe I’ve lost my perspective. -mollyj

  9. The Latest Obama spin is Gore will endorse him in 6 weeks… AND-

    That he is the candidate of choice based on his environmental record by The League of Conservation Voters.

    There are several threads worth reading at DU dealing with the “Iran” question and the Obama camp stating he will receive an endorsement from Gore within 6 weeks.

    The Gore rumor really needs to be nipped in the bud.

    Mrs. S.

  10. That would absolutely be a huge mistake for Gore. I have a hard time believing it. I certainly hope it isn’t true. mollyj

  11. Why would he wait six weeks? That’s as bad as the rumor he’s going to run.

    Sounds like someone (perhaps the netroots) is trying to put pressure on Gore to endorse Obama. Keep in mind, Hillary’s campaign probably thought of this possibility months ago and has reached out to Gore. Not to get his endorsement necessarily but to encourage him to stay neutral. And remember, Gore just appeared at Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative and they treated each other warmly.

  12. Keep in mind, if Gore were really planning to endorse Obama, the Obama people wouldn’t be talking about it; they’d let the endorsement speak for itself. This is spin, folks, pure and simple.

    Recall how they acted as if the Oprah endorsement would change everything. They’re relying on others to save Obama’s flagging campaign, since the candidate himself can’t do it.

  13. Ra1029,

    “WaPo editorial took Hillary to task for saying nothing is on the table regarding SS as long as congress does not some responsibility to balance the budget.”

    The MSM is merely regurgitating well-financed propaganda from the American RightWing that wants to scrap Social Security and give it to Wall Street so they can skim off huge commissions. Social Security is more financially sound today than it has been throughout most of its 71-year history. The MSM should be talking about the fact that thanks to the current administration, federal revenues only cover 68% of expenditures TODAY, instead of perpetuating the invention of a fake crisis 50 or 75 years from now.

  14. Consider where Howard Dean was on December 9th, 2003…

    Tuesday, December 9, 2003 Posted: 10:21 PM EST (0321 GMT)

    NEW YORK (CNN) — Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean’s bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination on Tuesday, substantially deepening Dean’s fast-developing drive for dominance in the nine-candidate field of would-be challengers to President Bush.

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/elec04.prez.gore.dean/

    And what happened a mere nine weeks later…
    Howard Dean Ends His Campaign for President
    Posted: 02.18.04

    “Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean ended his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination on Wednesday — one day after a disappointing third-place finish in the Wisconsin primary.”

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june04/dean_2-18.html

    Gore will not let himself get burned again, nor will he be saddled with backing another loser, especially considering his incredible run of recent successes. He will wait until the outcome is clear and his endorsement is almost irrelevant, meaning until after the New Year. He will not risk being called, “the kiss of death”, again!

  15. Here’s where the rumor comes from, and it isn’t much.

    by GeckoBlue
    Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 10:50:25 AM PDT
    I was watching The Chris Matthews show this morning, and in his “tell me something I don’t know” segment, John Heilemann of New York Magazine had this to say:

    Heilemann: A guy I spent a lot of time with last year, Al Gore, before his movie came out or right on the cusp of it, just won the Nobel prize. And there’s going to be a lot of people who are going to want to get him into this race, there always have been. Umm, it is not going to happen, it is NOT going to happen. And he’s going to endorse Barack Obama.

    Matthews: When?

    Heilemann: Six weeks.

    Matthews: Do you think there’s a chance that if the Democrats lose this round John that Al will be back in politics next time around?

    Heilemann: Yes.

    So there are actually several interesting nuggets of information I picked up from Heilemann’s comment.

    – Gore isn’t going to run for president this cycle. I added italics because Heilemann added heavy emphasis to those words.

    – Gore will endorse Barack Obama sometime in mid-November

    – Gore expects to “be back in politics” sometime in the future, which actually echoes what an unnamed source recently told CNN. But it also obviously contradicts said source’s statement that Gore thinks Hillary is “unstoppable.”

    Now, all the usual caveats apply. We don’t know that Heilemann is close to Gore now, and a whole heckuva lot has changed since An Inconvenient Truth was released. So it’s still speculation.

    Still, Heilemann isn’t some unnamed source — he’s a credible journalist who has actually spent time with Gore. And while that doesn’t mean we have to take his view as gospel, it does, in my mind, mean his view bears at least some consideration.

    UPDATE: Should’ve watched the rest of the show on TiVo before hitting the Publish button. Matthews did a roundtable at the end of the show, and asked, if Gore does not run, who will he endorse?

    Elisabeth Bumiller (NY Times Correspondent): I wouldn’t be surprised if he endorsed Obama, and don’t forget he endorsed Howard Dean, and don’t forget that Dean said afterward that he thought it hurt him.

    Heilemann: I’ll just add to my comment about Obama that the one person he is not going to endorse is Hillary Clinton. They were incredibly intense competitors in the White House for Clinton’s affection, his attention, his time, when they were both there. It was a co-vice presidency and that annoyed the heck out of Al Gore. And then, in 2000, one of the big complaints they had was that she sucked a lot of attention and energy and money away from him in the 2000 campaign. The problem wasn’t just Bill Clinton’s infidelity distracted from Al Gore’s campaign in their view, but Hillary Clinton continuing the picture of the Clintons in American politics — this is their view, by the way. It annoys him to no end, and I just could never see it happening.

    Anne Kornblut (Wash. Post): I’m going to set myself up to be wrong here, but I think there’s a good chance he wouldn’t endorse at all. Having just won the Nobel, he’s kind of risen above it, he’s become an elder statesman all this time. He saw what happened in 2004 where it didn’t matter in the end.

    David Yepsen (Des Moines Register): I agree with Ann. I don’t think Al Gore will endorse. He understands he can’t deliver anything to anybody, particularly in my state of Iowa, and I think it could only hurt him, just simply raises expectations for somebody. And finally, if he endorses, he makes somebody mad, he wants to keep his own options open for someday in the future.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/14/131850/18

  16. Thanks, TheRealist..

    here are my sources..

    2 msnbc pundits announce Gore will endorse Obama within 6 wks..

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3608266

    Obama, “I am the man” on the environment..

    http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=9F9001C7-091B-A61A-1844E44289775B42

    Obama Links Faith and Enviro Protection

    Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama said Sunday that his religious beliefs influence his plans for how to protect the environment.

    Speaking before religious leaders and others at what he called an “interfaith forum on climate change,” the Illinois senator said God has entrusted humans with the responsibility of caring for the earth, and “we are not acting as good stewards of God’s earth when our bottom line puts the size of our profits before the future of our planet.”

    “It is our responsibility to ensure that this planet remains clean and safe and livable for our children and for all of God’s children,” he told about 200 people gathered at the downtown public library. “But in recent years, science has made it undeniably clear that our generation is not living up to this responsibility. Global warming is not a someday problem, it is now.”

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD8S962700

  17. Thanks, TheRealist..

    My post is in the “link” oven and should be out soon. I’ve posted several new twists from the Obama camp linking The Environment to…Religion.

    Obama is getting many people creeped out with his building a “Kingdom on Earth”
    pronouncements. I’ll post a link to that later..

    Mrs. S.

  18. The Kingdom on Earth speech and the Gore rumors are related – Obama hasn’t a prayer and his supporters are praying for salvation in the form of a Gore endorsement.

    Maybe they all figured out that the meaning in the wish for Gore to get in the race is a “No” vote on Obama and Edwards. We Hillary people respect Gore but we’re not going anywhere.

  19. The Obama camp HAS TO keep floating a balloon of HOPE from credible sources to keep those campaign contributions rolling in.

    If Obama’s $$$ sources dry up, which I’m predicting they are at this very moment. Obama will join Edwards in the Public Financing rowboat down the river of advertising backouts.

    The desperation of Obama’s campaign is palpable. His going door to door in Iowa today was a bust attracting hardly any crowds. Showing more Secret Service people and staffers than supporters in the news pics.

    Things are looking pretty grim for his campaign. I have no idea how he can endure this daily decline for 3 more months.

    Mrs. S.

  20. Maybe I just don’t know enough about politics, y’all. I do understand that it’s important to keep up appearances of hope so that the contributions will keep coming in, but why would it be ok with Gore for the Obama camp to leak the idea of Gore endorsing him if he wasn’t going to. Six weeks is thanksgiving week. I don’t necessarily buy that there is bad blood still between Hillary and Al and would’ve expected them to have talked or communicated in some way. Just doesn’t make much sense. mollyj

  21. mollyj:

    Essentially, the leaking came from punditry on msnbc as TheRealist pointed out by posting a transcript of the conversation up thread. I doubt Gore has anything to do with it. Pundits love talking in hypothetical to keep the juices flowing.

    This whole thing could backfire on the Obama camp if Gore becomes upset at the use of his name to promote Obama’s candidacy. Or, he may just single out the responsible party and ask for a retraction of the comments tying him to Obama.

    We’ll see what this week brings in the way of news.

    Mrs. S.

  22. MollyjRichards, remember, a while back they tried the same thing with Al Sharpton. We had an article at the time about it (May 2). Sharpton reacted badly and Obama had to apologize. Al Gore is not Al Sharpton, for good and ill.

    link to what we wrote:
    http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=36

    excerpt:
    Recently, Reverend Al Sharpton stuck a big pin in that campaign balloon when he stated about Obama “Are we now being told, ‘You all just shut up?’” Sharpton added “We keep hearing sizzle from the media, we’re not hearing substance.” Sharpton also said “I want to know from Senator Obama where the meat is.”

    Sharpton also delighted in pointing out a certain hypocrisy and sales job coming from the Obama campaign and Obama himself “Senator Obama and I agree that the war is wrong, but then I want to know why he went to Connecticut and helped Lieberman, the biggest supporter of the war.”

  23. Thanks for the reassurances, folks. I just re-read the article about his “40 days of faith and family” or somethin’ like that, gospel choirs and the whole nine yards. Holy moly –mollyj

  24. No kidding, Molly. I like to say we don’t want to trade their theocrats for our theocrats. 😉

    It’s a political pander, IMO.

  25. Ya just we need another whack job theocrat in the White House! Don’t think so! I too was thinking maybe BO could come back later when he’s not so wet behind the ears and run for POTUS. But now, i never even want to see this jerk again. God this guy is such all dressed up with no place to go!

  26. “If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools”. This quotation sums up my reaction to the artifical controversy generated by opponents and main stream media darlings over Hillary’s position on Iraq. Her position is both sound and consistent for the reasons discussed above, and in the separate article written by General Clark.

    Does the spate of attack articles in the New York Times foreshadow their enventual endorsement of Obama? The premise seems logical. It would explain why they have ignored his faults and misrepresented her positions. On the other hand, she is a New York Senator. And some of the other writers with that newspaper have presented a more accurate picture of her accomplishments, specifically Brooks.

  27. Sorry, I meant Iran. That is their misrepresentation de jour.

    I see that Michelle is back to her old tricks. It reflects very poorly on Senator Obama. Compare her approach to that of Bill Clinton who says he likes all the candidates. The Clinton campaign has a positive approach, whereas Obama and Edwards are taking the low road–one that is divisive and plays into Ripublican hands.

  28. wbboei,
    Michelle, is apparently not beneath these kinds of attacks, if she would attack her on the issues, that’s fine, that’s within reason.
    But saying she will go after the Clinton marriage and display the ‘differences’ as a ‘happy’ couple and ‘decent’ couple as opposed to the Clintons, is just low! As neither she, nor most of us, know much about that. Except they do seem rather happy these days.(The Clintons that is)

    But not having to attack anyone, as Hill. doesn’t have to, is the comfort of leading in the polls, if we are to be honest. If she was behind, I bet she would attack, and perhaps be accused of not running a positive campaign. But we can argue that she would go after substance, or shall we say: The lack thereof! And the inexperience and naiveté. She can afford to stay positive because she has a comfortable lead and is not threatened.

    However, Michelle seems to have other ideas. It just goes to show there isn’t really anything of substance of Hillary to argue about, which we can all take as a form of compliment 
    And the Clinton camp, and others, knew this from the very beginning.
    If Obama would ever struggle in the polls, he would have to attack in order to get any traction, it’s just the way politics work. And they knew this would backfire much more on him then any of the others, as HE was the one who gave the promise he would change politics and run a positive and clean campaign.

    He just set himself up for a fall from the get go, he already laid the groundwork’s for his own undoing, he tripped before the gong went off, he…….fill in the blank at free will 

  29. crap, I wrote this in word, and just posted it, and in the two places where it showed up ‘?’, it was meant as a 🙂 just didn’t show up.

  30. I got this piece of information from Rasmussen web site today..Three Trends Shaping Race for Democratic Presidential Nomination

    First, in both the daily Presidential Tracking Poll and the weekly Rasmussen Reports numbers, Hillary Clinton reached her highest level of support thus far. In the daily numbers, Clinton reached 49% on Sunday morning and she is at 46% for the full week ending October 14. That’s up four points from the week before and two points higher than her previous peak reached in the first week of August.

    Second, core opposition for all Presidential candidates has grown since summer. For much of the year, Clinton was the only candidate with core opposition approaching the 50% mark but now the rest of the field has caught up. Five of the seven leading candidates (four Republican, three Democrat) now have more than 40% of all voters committed to voting against them. The other two (McCain and Thompson) face core opposition of 39%. In addition to its impact on Election 2008, a commentary by Douglas Schoen says that the “cynicism of the American people is only hardening and deepening.”

    Third, and finally, as voters tune it they are detecting more differences between the candidates. For most of the year, Democratic voters saw little ideological difference between the leading Presidential hopefuls in their own party. Now, however, 40% of Democrats see Barack Obama as politically liberal while just 29% see Hillary Clinton in that way.

  31. According to Ballot Access News, the Michigan state legislature, in response to a mass exodus from the primary of four prominent Democratic presidential contenders after the state violated national party rules by moving it’s primary, is considering a bill that would mandate the presence of all candidates on the primary ballot who have been in the media discussing their candidacy. The only way to be removed from the ballot would be for a candidate to sign a statement saying they are not running for President. Several other states already have laws such as this one in place.

  32. Hillary is on the View right now and kicking butt. She looks amazing. just answered a question from Whoopi on what are the first three things she’d do upon election- Iraq, end cowboy diplomacy and send out ambassadors/Bill, and work on rebuilding our economy for the middle class. The third includes strong stances on China.

  33. kostner,

    I think Michigan should now move their primary to a later date that complies with DNC. DNC will then be forced to recognize Michigan delegates. How will these four show their faces to Michigan voters then?

  34. It looks like another good news day. ra1029 thanks for the Rasmussen news. This makes Rasmussen the 3rd polling firm showing Hillary so high up. If Rasmussen gets her 1% higher they will also be the 3rd polling firm showing Hillary at 50% or more. The numbers on opposition to Obama and Edwards will make the electability argument another fun dart we can now throw.

    As for Michigan, you are right that Hillary is in a win/win. If the status quo is unchanged, Hillary wins. If things change, the other candidates will be scorned by Michigan voters and Hillary wins.

    OkieAtty, we missed the View (sob, weep), but at least we can look forward to YouTube excerpts soon.

    Kostner, we can’t wait for those FEC reports, yum!

  35. The rest of the interview included a question on torture, will Bill do 1st lady duties in addition (she cracked a joke about adding a 2nd job to her already busy schedule). She was awesome and the audience was very attentive. She made some big points with the women with her relating campaign trail stories about 96 yo women coming to her rallies to see her and them saying they remember when women didn’t have the right to vote and how they want to live long enough to see a woman president and about little girls whose folks tell them they can be anything they won’t. She played the demographic well. She also sidestepped a question on Michelle Obama and how she can’t really respond.

    Another A+++ performance from our girl.

  36. Michelle Obama and the quote about not being able to run the White House if you can’t run your own house. Seems clear that Michelle is attacking.

  37. Gorto, I agree. When Michelle Obama attacks Hillary on family matters, it makes Michelle look desparate, Obama look weak, and Hillary look strong by refusing to dignify those comments with a response. As Hillary said today on The View, she does not worry about attacks of this nature, because she is focused on her own campaign.

Comments are closed.