Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

Maybe we misjudged the quality of Tim Russert’s questions.

At the time of the Halloween debate, we appropriately criticized Russert for leading the assault on Hillary, with wedge issue questions, while asking Obama little of substance.

Russert questioned Obama as to his choice of Halloween costume. We mocked Russert’s question. Now as we recall that Obama answered he would wear a Mitt Romney mask, perhaps we were wrong. It turns out Obama decided to adopt Romney not just as a mask but as a role model too.

Recently the Obama campaign was in full drama mode over a Ripublican Bob Novak column. Mitt Romney too was in full drama mode. There were similarities to both dramas:

Former Bay State Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign furiously denied rumors yesterday that his own supporters were involved in calls placed to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire that spread anti-Romney smears under the guise of conducting a poll.

Political strategists and bloggers slung accusations at Romney’s camp yesterday after a scathing article appeared in the National Review titled “Did Mitt Romney Push Poll Himself?” which identified several Romney supporters at Western Wats, a Utah-based firm believed to have made the calls. The practice of using phony polls to plant a negative message is commonly known as push-polling. [snip]

Among the questions asked during the 20-minute calls placed last week were whether the person polled knew Romney received Vietnam-era military deferments while serving in the Mormon missionary in France, that none of his sons served in the military and that the Mormon religion didn’t accept blacks as bishops until the 1970s. [snip]

The National Review article cited sources who speculated Romney’s camp put the hit out on itself “because his campaign wanted polling data regarding the negative perception of his Mormon faith for internal use.” But others speculated a motivation to pre-empt attacks on Romney’s faith.

As the Romney push polling story developed, it turned out the few people who received the alleged phone calls were Romney employees.

Deepening the mystery surrounding the anti-Mormon polling calls, the Romney campaign is confirming that it referred reporters to two recipients of the calls without disclosing that the two were also on the Romney campaign payroll, TPM Election Central has learned.

In response to questions from TPM Election Central, Romney spokesman Kevin Madden confirmed that the campaign had failed to disclose this info to reporters. Madden suggested that the campaign had identified them as “supporters,” which is a far cry from being directly paid by the campaign, as the two call recipients were.

The revelation could add grist to the theory — now spreading on conservative blogs and even getting coverage by news organizations — that the Romney campaign itself is behind the calls. Some have speculated that the calls — which attack Romney and refer to his Mormon faith while saying positive things about McCain — are an effort by the campaign to test negative messages about itself while getting McCain blamed for the calls.

The new revelation could give more ammo to those who question whether the firm making the calls — which is already reported to have on staff several people who have donated to the Romney campaign — knowingly called Romney supporters because they could be counted on to tell the press about the calls and to suggest to reporters that Romney rival John McCain was behind them.

It also raises the question of whether the Romney campaign referred reporters to the callers — without disclosing their relationship with the campaign — for the same purpose.

The Obama drama moment:

Over the weekend, Robert Novak printed what used to be called a “blind item” but now is called “daily journalism.”

Novak wrote: “Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party’s presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.”

The item probably would have died a quiet death — there have been a number of presidential candidate scandal rumors percolating on the Web that have not gotten much attention — when Obama assured that it would reach critical mass.

Obama issued a vigorous and lengthy statement saying the Novak item was “devoid of facts” and was “Swift Boat politics.”

But the guilty party, Obama made clear, was not Novak; it was Clinton.

“If the purpose of this shameless item was to daunt or discourage me or supporters of our campaign from challenging and changing the politics of Washington, it will fail,” Obama said in language that neatly fit into his campaign theme. “In fact, it will only serve to steel our resolve.”

And he issued a challenge: “In the interest of our party, and her own reputation, Sen. Clinton should make either public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none.”

Obama also whacked Clinton for hypocrisy, because she had stated during last Thursday’s debate in Las Vegas that she did not like the politics of “throwing mud” but was now engaging in it herself.

Politico listed several reasons for the Obama reaction, two of which we find interesting: “it served as inoculation so that if more stories surface, Obama can claim they are just more Clinton-inspired dirty tricks” and “it shifted press attention away from Obama’s poor debate performance in Las Vegas and onto Hillary’s allegedly poor behavior in leaking scurrilous information.”

Obama does not want to answer questions about Rezko or about his previous non-public life. Any question about Obama’s ethics and associations and finances is blasted as being “old”, “answered”, or “swiftboating”. But all the questions about Rezko are recent, open and relevant.

In the recent series of campaign statements Obama was imitating Romney but in bed with Karl Rove.

If Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Hillary Clinton’s campaign told him that they had some dirt on Obama, would Obama’s staff react as they did to the Robert Novak column of November 17? And yes, I am putting Novak in the same category as the crazy Iranian leader. Novak has damaged U.S. national security as much as Ahmadinejad with his exposure of Valerie Plame and the subsequent destruction of her clandestine intelligence network.

Why has Senator Barack Obama kept the Novak story alive through repeated statements for days? Is he just naïve or is he misinformed? Is he really so unfamiliar with the journalistic incest of Washington and Novak’s status as a Republican hit man? Why would Obama focus his campaign on unfounded “smears” circulated by Novak? Why would Obama, the candidate of “hope,” pump up the claims of Novak, “the prince of darkness”?

Larry Johnson, author of Why is Obama in Bed with Karl Rove? needs to read this site more often. For Obama smears is normal operating procedure:

The Republican smear masters had already tipped their hand for dealing with Hillary Clinton. Look at Karl Rove’s debut column in Newsweek, where he lays out the strategy that Obama appears to be parroting:

“And so the question to John McCain from a woman at a town hall in South Carolina last Monday was tasteless, but key: ‘How do we beat the [rhymes with witch]?’ Right now, Republicans are focusing much of their fire on Senator Clinton. Criticizing her unites the party, stirs up the unsettled feelings many swing voters have toward her and allows each candidate to say why he is best able to beat her.”

With Rove’s instructions to Republicans in mind, take a new look at Obama’s reaction to Novak. Is Obama wearing a wrist bracelet that says, “what would Karl Rove do”?

Robert Novak is a seasoned conservative columnist with a long history of publishing falsehoods, distortions and gossip. And he has been in bed with Karl Rove in running “information ops” against democrats. For decades he has been renowned for inflating shreds of tidbits of rumors into major stories to support various Republican efforts. In 1992, Karl Rove, one of Novak’s regular sources, was fired from the campaign of President George H.W. Bush for leaking derogatory information to Novak about Bush’s campaign manager and friend, Robert Mosbacher. In 2003, Rove again served as a source to Novak, leaking the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson. Even though the CIA warned Novak not to disclose her CIA identity in the interests of national security, he did so, insuring that Rove got a copy of the column before it was published. In 2004, Novak promoted the smear campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against Senator John Kerry’s heroic Vietnam War record. When it was revealed that Novak’s son was the marketing director for the right-wing publisher of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth tract defaming Kerry, Novak expressed disdain about the conflict-of-interest: “I don’t think it’s relevant.”

By his own admission Novak’s latest hyped controversy has no basis in fact. On November 17, he wrote, “Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party’s presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it.” His sourcing consisted of “word of mouth” and unnamed “experienced Democratic operatives.” Two days later, on Fox News, where Novak is a commentator, he confessed that he had heard a rumor from someone who had heard a rumor from someone. In short, he had no facts, perhaps explaining why Novak has been dubbed “No Facts” for years.

Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson’s categorical statement would seem to have put an end to this pseudo-event: “The Clinton campaign has nothing to do with this item.” But it did not end. Instead, it is being kept artificially alive.

As soon as Novak published his rumor, Obama elevated and dignified it as though it had credibility. “But in the interest of our party, and her own reputation, Senator Clinton should either make public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none,” he declared. Obama turned the alleged smear upside down. Rather than acknowledge that the predictable right-wing smear artist Novak was responsible for the innuendo, Obama accused Senator Clinton of being ultimately to blame. With this extraordinary statement, Obama lashed himself to Novak’s credibility as a reliable source on a story that transparently lacked any true source.

Larry, Larry, Larry — we deal with Obama’s smears every day – Obama knows exactly what he is doing.

Even when the Clinton campaign forthrightly again denied the item was false and that no one involved in the campaign had anything to do with it, Obama’s campaign refused to let the matter die. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe once again accused Senator Clinton and her campaign of doing what Novak claimed: “Are ‘agents’ of their campaign spreading these rumors? And do they have ‘scandalous’ information that they are not releasing?”

Once again, the Clinton campaign openly stated it had nothing to do with the story at all. Then, Plouffe made another statement that suggested Obama had somehow wrung a confession out of the Clinton campaign and still implied that it was behind Novak’s lie: “The Clinton campaign has admitted that they do not possess the ‘scandalous information’ in question and we take them at their word. But what we don’t accept is their assertion that this is somehow falling for Republican tricks.”

The following day, November 19, Obama began a new line of attack, picking up a discredited story circulated months ago. “I’m not in this race to fulfill some long-held plan or because it was owed to me,” Obama said. An Obama spokesperson reinforced the point: “Barack Obama has not been mapping out his run for president from Washington for the last 20 years like some of his opponents.”

Wow, Larry Johnson does get it.

But where did this new attack originate? Just as he had used Novak’s false story for the previous two days, now he tried to damage Senator Clinton’s reputation by using another patently false story. Months ago, Jeff Gerth, the reporter who spent years hyping the Whitewater fables as real, and his co-author Dale Van Natta, attempted to promote their anti-Hillary screed, “Her Way,” with the supposedly startling revelation that Hillary and planned to run for president 20 years ago. But Gerth and Van Natta had no actual source. And the one source to whom they did attribute the story, Pulitzer Prize winning historian Taylor Branch, was someone they never interviewed and who told the Washington Post, “The story is preposterous. I never heard either Clinton talk about a ‘plan’ for them both to become president.”

Despite this story’s exposure as false for months, Obama eagerly exploited it to try to portray Senator Clinton as Lady Macbeth. First using Novak and then Gerth for his materials, he painted her as a dirty trickster, dishonest and recklessly ambitious.

But why does Obama do this? Once Novak’s story was exposed as a smear itself, why didn’t he stop? Why did he keep it going? And why did he revive the Gerth falsehood to tarnish Senator Clinton’s character?

Obama’s tactics appear in sync with Rove’s script. His feigned victimhood is a negative attack on Senator Clinton’s character to drive the numbers, which in turn Obama hopes will determine the nomination. While posing above the fray, but executing Rove’s strategy and exploiting Novak’s innuendo, Obama has embraced the audacity of hype.

“Audacity of hype” is a weak description of what Obama is doing. A correspondent sent us this:

“all his moves and attacks are in this manner, being dirty, and stupid (i guess his stupidity and the willingness of the press to play along is really what bothers me) and then hiding behind high-minded rhetoric is the CLASSIC bush move – and it IS NOT that the deomcrats went along, as obama says and dirties the well for his own party. it’s the media that really fell for it, and created a political climate in which it was very hard to oppose bush, because doing so would get you hammered in the press. If the democrats were tougher from the begining, yes they might have been able to stop that, but you need massive organizational, coordinated strenght like the republicans have wielded in the past 20 years to push things in the other direction. And when Obama comes out and attacks the democrats it’s just a form of sabotage – shows that this guy cares nothing but for himself – ofcourse he actually believes progressive ideas, but when you are so self-obsessed with yourself, and dastardly as he is, the actual result is counterproductive to the overall progressive effort. He has gotten so caught up in his own abilities, that he is sacrificing everything he thinks he believes in. That’s the other reason Im pissed- it’s hubris in the most classical greek sense, his story really is the backbone of greek tragedy, because everything he does is self-inflicted. Anyway, just a real lowlife all around, not taking a shot at the media, because as we discussed he really craves these peoples respect, not realizing they deserve nothing but contempt”

Sounds about right to us. Obama’s models appear to be his cousin Cheney, Romney and Rove.

Share

50 thoughts on “Obama, Cheney, Romney, and Rove

  1. Personally I have concluded that the Obama campaign is in bed with the Republicans…….whether Obama himself is aware maybe another issue but he – rather his brain – has been taken over by the GOP talking machine.

    And his GOP support which he touts is to make him more visible in the primary….ad they will desert him in the GE if he were to be the nominee.

  2. I think rather than ‘fell’ for the Obama campaign’s Republican tactics, the media is ‘complicit’ in them. The media has wanted a complicated horse race on the Democratic side for months, and are at this juncture, using ever issue, incident, and opportunity to enhance that perspective of the race. It sells papers and advertising.

    It’s very hard to find a macro view of the race on the Internet or anywhere else. It’s not in the moneyed interest to have a substantive debate on the issues. The media is preoccupied with the modern day equivalent of the question ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’; and the nastier the tone the better.

    We have very pressing problems in this country: the war, the economy, and health care to name but a few. We need a president who has the strength and intelligence to grapple with them. I am very encouraged that Hillary Clinton has assiduously focused her campaign on telling us how she would deal with these problems.

  3. If Obama continues to be a Senator after the presidential election, he may turn out to be the second coming of Joe Lieberman.

  4. Has anyone read this bs from the new yorker?
    “Obama, who had sometimes seemed to eschew the details of campaigning which Clinton appears to revel in, has become more enmeshed in the state’s idiosyncratic politics. Consider the conquest of Gordon Fischer, a former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. Every campaign wanted Fischer’s endorsement, but the Obama campaign pursued him relentlessly. At a recent lunch at the Des Moines Embassy Club, a restaurant on the forty-first floor of the tallest building in the state, Fischer explained how Obama’s Iowa operatives used his closest friends to persuade him to back Obama. One, Lola Velázquez-Aguilú, managed to decorate part of Fischer’s house with photographs of Obama that featured thought bubbles asking for Fischer’s endorsement. (“Has anyone told you how great you look today?” an image of Obama taped to a mirror said. “So, are you ready to sign a supporter card?”) When Obama staffers learned that the late Illinois senator Paul Simon was a hero of Fischer’s, they asked Simon’s son-in-law, Perry Knop, to call Fischer and make the case for Obama. At one point, Obama himself invited Fischer onto his campaign bus and told him that he had to stay aboard until he agreed to an endorsement. When Fischer insisted that he had to make the decision with his wife, Monica, Obama demanded Monica’s cell-phone number, and he called her at once. “Monica, this is Barack Obama,” he said when her voice mail came on. “I’m with your husband here, and I’m trying to go ahead and close the deal for him to support my candidacy. . . . Discuss it over with your man. Hopefully we can have you on board.” The Fischers were sufficiently impressed to endorse him, two weeks later. “I think the Iowa campaign has been run better than the national campaign,” Fischer said.”
    I just find this sort of cult worship stuff creepy.

  5. Obama has been in bed with Republican operatives formerly with the Bush campaign since last March. This is no illusion. It is fact! To infer Obama is unaware of the Republicans running his campaign is just naive. Of course he knows. The unheard of setup in democratic Circles is a sellout from the getgo!

    Rove’s presence is palpable all the way. Rove’s MO is ridiculous, illogical. chaos. Seeing there isn’t anymore dirt they can sell as valid against the Clintons. They are stuck with selling fabrications along with their fabricated presidential candidate.

    Hopefully, Iowans aren’t about to be duped by the parasitic twins..Edwards & Obama. We can only hope their vision is clear and their hands steady when they caucus.

    Mrs. S.

  6. Hi Everyone,

    Off-topic – but read from some new source that Oprah is going live in Iowa with her show. Apparently she is going to talk about Obama and how to caucus for him!

    This may turn out to be nothing at the end. I try hard not to get worked up about this. But, somehow everytime I read another news it infuriates me to the core.

  7. Mrs Smith,
    As you said in your last post – if you support a candidate they never lose! That is very reassuring:)

  8. Well, look, who cares? We have to forget about Oprah. She supports Obama and plans to help his campaign. Best to just ignore it.

  9. Look, Iowa is probably Obama’s to lose at this point. So who cares if Oprah brings the show (lol, what a circus this is turning into)? I say we focus on a strong night in Iowa (even if not a win), and a win in the other early states. Hillary is on the winning track!

  10. mj,
    you are spot on. We must work to have a strong present in Iowa and then go to NH and win and SC and win and Nevada and so forth…
    Build on our strengths!

  11. After reading how many nominees from both parties have lost Iowa, I’m beginning to think winning Iowa isn’t that vital to Hillary. It would fine if she did, but I’m not worried about it.

  12. To see how quickly a President Obama would be cut to ribbons by the Republican attack machine, look at how Governor Eliott Spitzer has fizzled in New York. First Spitzer got caught in a clumsy, stupid dirty trick against the Repub State Senate Leader. Then he clumsily mishandled his initiative to track undocumented immigrants. Remember how Bush won support for his ‘domestic spying’ program just by renaming it ‘terrorist surveillance’. “Driver’s Licenses for Illegal Aliens” is so klutzy. With his political naivete, Spitzer torpedoed his own program, sent his approval ratings down the toilet, gave the Republicans a winning national issue and created a headache for the Democratic presidential candidates. Spitzer came into office with so much promise — it’s hard to believe it’s been less than a year and the guy is toast.

    The Novak fiasco shows Obama is naive and can’t compete at the highest levels of power. Like Obama, Spitzer has booksmarts coming out his butt — Obama was Law Review Editor at Harvard Law School, and Spitzer (also Harvard Law) scored a perfect 1600 on his LSAT. But ‘Mr. Intellect’ Spitzer has been gutted by NY Republicans in just 10 months – the same NY Republicans that haven’t made a dent in Senator Clinton’s statewide support in 7 years.

  13. Guys, let’s not worry about Obama. I sometimes have a moment of clarity where it just seems obvious Hillary will win this primary and indeed the presidency. I think we need to keep upbeat like our excellent candidate. Obama lacks the political seasoning to be president(or even win the primary), and I find his campaign more about platitudes than substance. Voters will see that(really, they mostly already have).

  14. this is a interesting blog post by a hillary supporter in nh-a state rep. he touches on something that i too worry about. hillary is selling herself on experiene-and her arguement i think is strong-it is the truth. no time for games. but i wonder if iowa and nh voters may think-gee we wanted a candidate with “experience” in 04-picked kerry- and we lost. “maybe we need someone percieved as likeable. ” that sticks in my craw. i find hillary likeable-but as the pols show as of late hillary has slipped on that one in the polls. the key i think is for her to raise her likeablity again. it seems america goes for this stuff-gore was constantly hit around for not being “likeable.” what really pisses me off is obama and edwards have gotten away with their bashing and some of what they are saying is sticking for the moment. and what is worse-dems should know better. americans-about half-picked a guy they liked-bush. and he ruined our nation. sick. sick. now here we go again! hillary has got to pull down obama’s and edward’s “likeability.” am I wrong here? Im just so attached to this cause.

    http://bluehampshire.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=D2C38C21058897C76394FB3E92F4A6DA?diaryId=2461

  15. Not that anyone cares – but I found it interesting….

    =================================================

    President Bush Supports Hillary Clinton?
    By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

    Just when every poll has Hillary slipping, she has gotten a shot in the arm from a very unlikely source: President George W. Bush.

    In an interview on Tuesday featuring the first couple and Charles Gibson, the president said of Mrs. Clinton “No question, there is no questio n that Sen. Clinton understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race because she lived in the White House and sees it first — could see it first-hand.”

    By saying that she “understands the klieg lights,” Bush lent credence to Hillary’s campaign assertion that she could “hit the ground running” if she were elected president.

    Would somebody please explain to us what Bush is doing, touting Hillary just as the rest of America is finally catching on to her artificial, evasive and contrived campaigning style?

    This is not the first time Bush has rescued the Clintons. After they left the White House, both the former president and the new senator had low ratings in the polls. Beset by scandal — the White House gifts, the pardons-for-sale, the payments to Hillary’s brothers for pardons, the Hasidic vote-for-pardon scandal, and Bill’s nolo contender plea to obstructing justice — Bill and Hillary were sucking wind.

    But, Bush swept in for the rescue, picking the former president off the ash heap of history and elevating him to parity with his father in a two-former-president effort t o raise funds for the tsunami victims. By giving him a respected place alongside a former president of unquestioned integrity, Bush gave Clinton a tremendous way to climb out of disgrace and into the limelight.

    Then, when the tsunami relief effort was winding down, he re-enlisted former president Clinton to work with his father again on helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

    Not only did Bush help the Clintons in positive ways, but he let his justice department drop the investigations of the pardons, the gifts, the payments to Hillary’s brothers and the Hasidic vote scandal with no prosecution or plea dealings

    Then Bush let Clinton off the hook another time when the former president’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught smuggling classified documents relating to 9/11 and the war on terror out of the National Archives in his pockets and socks. The Bush Justice Department accepted a plea deal with Berger which did not require him to say what documents he had taken and why he had swiped them. As a re sult, we never knew what aspect of the Clinton record on terrorism Berger was so anxious to cover up.

    All of this kid glove treatment of the former first couple led to jokes about how George W and Bill are the two children of President George H.W. Now the president is going easy on his putative sister-in-law, Hillary.

    The fact is that Hillary has no idea what it is like to be president. Unlike Bill, she did not have to face the media daily and could keep them at arms length as she toured the world, acting like a tourist, in carefully contrived photo opportunities. When she was really involved in public policy — during the health reform debate — her insistence on the secrecy of the proceedings led to a federal court order and judgment against her.

    Is President Bush deliberately helping Hillary to win the nomination because he feels she would be the easiest one of the Democrats to beat? If he is, he’s making a serious mistake. She is the only Democrat who can bring 10 million new single female voters out of the woodwork to sway the election.

    Or, is it an ex-president thing? A kind of exclusive club of former chiefs who treat one another with kindness, civility and bend over backwards to show respect? Whether it is through political miscalculation or elitism that Bush caters to Hillary Clinton, he should stop it. Every day, she bashes him full time on the campaign trail. His kind words for her are so out of place, they are jarring.

    President George W. Bush has done quite enough to aid the election of Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States already, thank you. Without his generosity to Bill and his refusal to prosecute matters that could embarrass the Clintons, he bears a great deal of responsibility already for Hillary’s rise to front runner status in the Democratic primary.

  16. Please don’t publish this Morris’s stuff here. He is a total traitor to the Clinton’s. President Bush’s “support” hurts Hillary in a Democratic primary. It doesn’t help her. Further, Bill Clinton left office with sky-high approval ratings. He never has needed an ounce of help from GWB. I take absolutely no comfort in this article.

  17. I’m sorry, but this is 100% a lie:
    “President George W. Bush has done quite enough to aid the election of Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States already, thank you. Without his generosity to Bill and his refusal to prosecute matters that could embarrass the Clintons, he bears a great deal of responsibility already for Hillary’s rise to front runner status in the Democratic primary.”

  18. Another lie:”The fact is that Hillary has no idea what it is like to be president. Unlike Bill, she did not have to face the media daily and could keep them at arms length as she toured the world, acting like a tourist, in carefully contrived photo opportunities. When she was really involved in public policy — during the health reform debate — her insistence on the secrecy of the proceedings led to a federal court order and judgment against her.”

    This is a terrible article. Morris hates Hillary Clinton and will do whatever he can to diminish her chances.

  19. i totally agree, please dont print anything from morris here…

    his name should be banned from all hillary fans vocabulary,
    the guy is revolting…
    i no longer watch msnbc, and i dont ever, not ever listen to or read anything. from this sick f—…

  20. mj,

    The only reason why I published this here is to highlight a truth stuffed amongst obvious lies

    The statement is “She is the only Democrat who can bring 10 million new single female voters out of the woodwork to sway the election. ”

    Sorry to have upset you guys. I understand! I hate his guts too!! I will not read nor publish Moris’s article anymore!!!

  21. this upcomming week may prove hillary right on experience and -if done right-cause primary voters to worry about obama. lebanon is in turmoil-in fact seems headed for war. israeli-palestinian talks are to begin with many key nations. and tonight another suicide attack in pakistan shows what kind of worl we are in-not one for rookies. with potential renewed mideast violence-as it usually flares up whenever talks begin-it would be a perfect time to reassert this arguement of experience. the world is in serious disorder-very serious as we know. new intl headlines i think may cause obama headaches.

  22. Secret, I understand, but for every truth Morris spits out, he dishes out a dozen smears. I actually missed that sentence, I was so upset about the other things he said. But, I do understand your point.

  23. I have a different take on this. There are too many factors in play to make any prediction on what will happen in January. Much depends on what our own team in Iowa does between now and then. And morale is key.

    When I listen to the mindless pronouncements of big media, and the coodinated efforts of Obama, Cheney, Romney and Rove (aka Dewey Cheetam and Howe, LLP), I am reminded of something the president of my old company used to say in similar circumstances: “Its all bullshit”.

    Here’s an idea: lets stop the enemy at the beaches if we can so we dont have to fight them inland.

  24. Dick Morris and Eileen McGann:

    “This is not the first time Bush has rescued the Clintons.”

    These two are truly DELUSIONAL.

    “After they left the White House, both the former president and the new senator had low ratings in the polls.”

    President Clinton left office with the highest poll ratings of any President since FDR. I’d have to check what Hillary’s numbers were, but they most certainly were NOT “low”.

    “Beset by scandal”

    Yes, FAKE RightWing scandal.

    “the White House gifts”

    Which were not only perfectly legal, only amounted to a mere $190,000, which was smaller after adjusting for inflation, than the $144,000 that Poppy & Barbara Bush received, not to mention that theirs were over only a four year term, as opposed to the Clintons receiving them over an eight year term.

    Then there’s the OBSCENE example of the Reagan’s wealthy friends buying them a 7,192-square-foot house for $2.5 million on 1.25 acres of land in fashionable Bel Air, California.

    But, IOKIYAR.

    “the pardons-for-sale, the payments to Hillary’s brothers for pardons, the Hasidic vote-for-pardon scandal”

    None of which ever happened.

    The last one is particularly stupid, given that the four Hasidic men in question were NOT PARDONED.

    “and Bill’s nolo contender plea to obstructing justice”

    President Clinton did not plead to ANYTHING, let alone “obstructing justice”.

    “But, Bush swept in for the rescue, picking the former president off the ash heap of history and elevating him to parity with his father in a two-former-president effort to raise funds for the tsunami victims.”

    Where can I vomit ?

    Chimpy asked President Clinton to help because he is treated like a ROCK STAR all over the planet, and his FAILED father couldn’t raise enough money to help anybody.

    “By giving him a respected place alongside a former president of unquestioned integrity”

    Oh, the one that pardoned his Secretary of Defense, his National Security Advisor, his Assistant Secretary of State, his Chief of the CIA’s Central American Task Force, his Chief of the CIA’s Covert Operations Division, and his Chief of the CIA’s European Division, who had all been indicted on multiple counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to Congress, BEFORE THEY WENT TO TRIAL, to prevent himself from being named an unindicted co-conspirator ? THAT “unquestioned integrity” ?

    “Then Bush let Clinton off the hook another time when the former president’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught smuggling classified documents relating to 9/11 and the war on terror out of the National Archives in his pockets and socks.”

    Which not only did NOT happen, it would have been a neat trick as he never had access to any of the documents, only COPIES. The National Archives issued a statement that they were NOT missing any documents.

    “The Bush Justice Department accepted a plea deal with Berger which did not require him to say what documents he had taken and why he had swiped them.”

    Because NONE were taken, as there were NONE to take.

    “As a result, we never knew what aspect of the Clinton record on terrorism Berger was so anxious to cover up.”

    Which would have been impossible, as he only viewed COPIES.
    .

    I’m with mj, posting RightWing propaganda diatribes here is a waste of space, and it kills brain cells. Posting a quote or two as an example of ridiculousness is another matter.

  25. If this is foreign policy week in Iowa, then it is time to remember Obama’s pledge to invade Pakistan if its government refused to pursue al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

    This statement drew rave reviews from the Pakistiani government and opposition forces alike. They showed their appreciation through flag burning, anti-American protests, and diplomatic condemnations.

    The episode itself is relevant because it shows the depth of Obama’s foreign policy experience and showcases his ability to unite a country- even if it is not his own.

  26. hey hillfans, i remember a month ago when allan colms in one of the very few times he gave morris the buisness about being wrong numerous times on hillary’s political career. and as for bush, the idiot is a kiss of death for republicans let alone of helping a dem.

  27. “Blue-collar women see hope in Clinton. Many cite a focus on health, children,” Boston Globe, 11/24/07:

    Hillary Clinton’s campaign is capitalizing on an overlooked strain of feminism in blue-collar women – nurse’s aides, factory workers, farmers, and single mothers – to help fuel her strength among the Democratic candidates for president.

    more stories like this
    Vignettes from the Democratic debate
    Rivals target Clinton years in White House
    The kitchen strategy won’t cut it
    Bill Clinton draws criticism as Democratic campaign grows caustic
    Clinton: Rivals complaining because she’s winning
    Even many working-class women who have spent their lives in traditional roles at home and work have been animated by Clinton’s effort to shatter what she has called “the highest, hardest glass ceiling.”

    In recent interviews, some of these Clinton supporters say that they have been impressed enough by her advocacy for healthcare and children to jettison their previous views of her as a brash, ambitious lawyer and politician. Some said a female president would do things not just differently, but better.

    [snip]

    Clinton is viewed more favorably in general by women than men. Increased support among college-educated and professional women – her peers – helped fuel a late summer surge that nearly doubled her lead in the national polls.

    But the backbone of her support, going back to her first US Senate race seven years ago, remains among those who resemble her the least – blue-collar and working-class women, as well as black women. Analysts say she connects with working-class women emotionally by presenting an image as a fighter who has overcome obstacles in her life, and appeals to them politically by offering proposals that would help their pocketbooks. As the most recent polls show her neck-and-neck with Barack Obama in Iowa and the gap closing in New Hampshire, one constituency she consistently wins hands-down is working-class women. A Boston Globe poll this month of likely primary voters in New Hampshire suggested that Clinton has higher support among Democratic women without a college degree than among better-educated women. Several national polls have shown the same trend.

    Clinton’s campaign has tried to exploit this advantage with several events geared toward working-class women, including a series of evening telephone calls called “The Dishes are Done,” when Clinton gets on the line to speak with groups of undecided New Hampshire women.

    She has also tried to strike a balance, emphasizing the historic nature of her candidacy and her Washington experience and skills, while also softening the edges of her longtime public persona as a driven, professional woman who elevated career above all else.

    [snip]

    The Globe poll found that New Hampshire Democrats of both genders consider healthcare the biggest issue facing the country, ahead of the war in Iraq. Clinton has campaigned proudly on her bid to enact universal healthcare in the early 1990s, despite the fact that she failed. She also speaks often of how her first job out of law school was at the Children’s Defense Fund.

    boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/24/blue_collar_women_see_hope_in_clinton/

  28. Terrondt, Dick Morris spent the first half of his career working for the Clintons and the second half of his career trashing them, for no good reason other than money. Mercenary.

    Yet there was a time when he was the best in the business. If you read the book The Power of the Vote, by Douglas Schoen (Penn, Shoen and Berland), you see a young Dick Morris, a master strategist who could analyze political trends down to the individual apartment, in the Upper West Side, circa 1969 etc.

    Unfortunately, that is not what we see today.

  29. wbboei, u are correct. i don’t take anything what he says seriously for the last 11 years since bill dumped him during the 1996 dem convention. he is a bitter hack chasing hookers.

  30. Christmas Gift Wish List:

    Mark Halperin thinks Hillary “should wish for a ‘suit of armor.’

    “‘She’s the most likely next president of the United States, but she needs a hard shell for the next few weeks,’ said Halperin in an interview with CNN’s John Roberts.”

    Haperin “went on to say that Sen. Barack Obama needs ‘magic fairy dust’ for a victory in one of the next Democratic debates in order to show voters that he is a better candidate than Sen. Clinton. As for John Edwards, he needs to hope that Sens. Clinton and Obama ‘knock each other out’ in order for him to sneak up and win the nomination.”

  31. Here’s a “feel good” comment from the same writeup:

    Obama is going to need alot more help other than fairy dust for the next debate. I have watched every debate. I have observed how he looks at Clinton. You know who he reminds me of??? Steve Urkel! my nephew said “I watched the last debate – Clinton has more balls then all those guys put together – I wouldn’t want to get into words with that woman.” He then went on the add that his father said she was the smartest candidate the democrats have.

  32. Updated HRC NH schedule for 11/26:

    Monday, November 26

    12:00 p.m. EST
    Clinton Attends Campaign Event
    Kimball-Jenkins Estate
    Concord, NH

    7:45 p.m. EST
    Clinton Visits with Volunteers at IUPAT Hall
    IUPAT Council #35
    Brentwood, NH

  33. BMeryfield, I went back and checked.

    There was some discussion of the Zogby poll on November 21 at 10:31 (mj), 10:34 (dt), and 11:05 (dt). The defects in that poll are highlighted in the 11:05 entry.

    I remember this because I was planning to say something about Zogby. Something like they are less reliable today than they were 10 years ago.

  34. Texan4Hillary, I was thinking about the question you raised about likeability vs. experience.

    As Newsweek writer Ann Quindlan said in 2000 and 2004 we hired a drinking buddy as President, and have suffered the consequences of that improvident choice ever since.

    In 2008, experience and competence will be more important, for two reasons.

    First, we are in a period of crisis much as we were in 1968. In that year we elected someone who was many things, but likeable was not one of them. There was an article posted on this just the other day, i.e 1968 vs. 2008.

    Second, there are 62 counties in New York State and Hillary carried 58 of them. The upstate counties are Republican, but still voted for her. And the people in those counties do not talk about how much they like her, but they do talk about how much she has done for their county. There is a Concord Monitor article on this posted at Hillary Hub.

    Finally, it is my impression that most people who have met Hillary like her, most people who do not like Hillary have never met her, and therefore the more campaigning she does, and the more listening tours, the more people will see her as experienced, competent and likeable.

    Perhaps you saw the article entitled 1968 vs 2008 which was posted the other day. It reaches the same conclusion. Nixon won.

    Most people who have met Hillary find her likeable. Most people who find her unlikeable have not met her. It therefore follows her decision to meet the

  35. That Dick Morris piece had me LMAO. He’s so over the top I don’t know how anyone can take him seriously. I especially loved the part about Bush rescuing Bill from the ash heap of history.

Comments are closed.