Obama Chicago Mud Politics On Veterans Day

It took Ben Smith of Politico years, and a promotional confession in a book from a Barack Obama Thug, to admit/disclose what we told our readers on Fathers Day 2007.

Back then, there were no Hillary support website blogs, other than Big Pink. The few Hillary supporters who dared identify as such on other websites were timid in their defenses of Hillary, if not apologetic. On Fathers Day 2007, we discussed the miserable Barack Obama and his Chicago mud attacks on Hillary. We also posted this gem which only now, more than two and a half years after the fact, the Obama campaign confirms:

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.

This matters because Big Media continues to aid and abet Obama and his thugs. This matters because the behind the scenes Obama thuggery continues unexposed by Big Media.

Ten days after that Fathers Day, we specifically declared the $400 haircut story “planted by Obama opposition research“. We did so because we were a target of a concerted campaign (yes, the disguised Obama thugs with a smiley Joker-style face) asking that we be “nice”. We were implored by these thinly disguised Obama supporters to only say nice things about Hillary but not say anything which could hurt other nominees.

At the time, before Democrats openly became Obama Dimocrats and before the unDemocratic Rules and Bylaws Committee looted Hillary delegates to gift to Obama, we agreed that it was not necessary to be too truthful about the other nominees. But Obama, we said, was an entirely different animal. We wrote, in the wonderfully titled “Varmints”:

Senator Barack Obama (D-Rezko) is another matter entirely.

Obama’s campaign from day 1 has been a negative machine operation posing as clean new politics. We pointed out how his campaign began by hiring “hired muscle” in the form of David Axelrod. The Obama campaign is run by Robert Gibbs who ran advertisments against Howard Dean in 2004 which morphed Dean’s face into the face of Osama bin Laden (ironic isn’t it that the Obama campaign yells “foul” when horrible people refer to Obama as “Osama” – it’s called KARMA, Robert Gibbs.) You hire people for the type of campaign you want to run.

Then the Obama campaign, and yes it was the Obama campaign, decided to defame a Democrat, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, as facist “Big Brother” from the novel 1984. We documented how the creator of the ad was a roomate of Ben LaBolt – a spokesman for the Obama campaign, even as Obama stated “we have no idea who this person was“.

The latest and ugliest smear was the attack Obama initiated, via right wing sludge machine The Drudge Report, against the last elected president of the United States Bill Clinton. It was an attack which employed the right wing smear machine. It was an attack which had been debunked previously by the New York Observer. It was an attack totally untrue in the substance. And – Obama has never apologized.

Obama also issued another anonymous attack against Hillary by calling her the representative from Punjab “(D-Punjab)” because of her work with the Southeast Asian community. Ergo, from now on we refer to Senator Obama as (D-Rezko) for his work representing his indicted slumlord friend and beneficiary Tony “Antoin” Rezko.

Most of the dummy “creative class” Big Blog Boys blamed the Hillary Clinton campaign for disclosing that very damaging $400 bit of news. But we knew better. We don’t expect the “creative class” Big Blog Boys even now to discuss this story let alone apologize and admit how stupid they were and continue to be.

It was the slimy thugs from the Obama campaign who, once again, accused the Hillary campaign of dirty tricks and “opposition research” when they well knew they themselves were the dirty ones. Big Media cooperated in the smearing of Hillary and the adulation and protection of slimy Obama. Big Blog Boys who protested at Big Media complicity in the outing of Valerie Plame kept quiet or blamed Hillary.

To be sure, the revelation of the $400.00 John Edwards haircut was entirely appropriate. It exposed the ineptness and hypocrisy of John Edwards the man, and the falseness of the John Edwards campaign. We wrote, in our first week of publication, on April 20, 2007:

Surely, “two Americas” Edwards must realize that $400 haircuts and huge compounds to live in are a dagger pointed at the throat of his campaign message. We do not begrudge Edwards having a massive house, nor having expensive haircuts. His hair is lovely enough that he should give it all the care and attention in the world and we would love a weekend or longer invitation to luxuriate in the “house”. Hell, didn’t Biden spend a fortune on follicle migrations from the back of his head to the front of his head and don’t most presidential candidates live in very comfortable circumstances? The complaint is not that Edwards has the right to live in the manner he chooses, but rather doesn’t Edwards realize the actual message his campaign is sending with $400 haircut headlines? Don’t they realize that this is simply a message disaster? Doesn’t Edwards remember Kerry windsurfing and skiiing (instead of humble everyday, everyman sports like basketball, or touch football), and the way that was exploited by Republicans? We know that the Republicans will create attacks out of nothing; they do that to Hillary every day. But it is not wise to supply them with so much ammunition.

What was offensive, and what Big Media “personalities” knew, was that the dirt was coming from the Obama campaign but Big Media kept quiet. Big Media kept quiet about the Obama mud-slinging and continued to report about how “clean” the Obama campaign operation was. Americans were deceived by Big Media and the Obama campaign (which were and are one and the same).

So now, two and one half years later Ben Smith writes a brief item about the souffle confession:

“We did much less of this [opposition research] than other campaigns did,” Plouffe writes a bit self-servingly, “but there were times we indulged — it was our researchers who found John Edwards’s infamous $400 hair cut expenditures.”

Big Media “personalities” (can’t call them “journalists”) knew the Obama campaign was busy attacking opposition candidates but only Hillary was held to any scrutiny. Ben Smith himself spent an inordinate amount of time examining pictures on this website and not looking at the evidence of Obama dirty work right in front of him. Now, Smith writes lamely:

It’s maddening when people assume political reporting is driven by opposition research when you’ve actually dug up something yourself, but in this case, I’m in no position to contradict Plouffe’s account.

Smith says “I’m in no position to contradict Plouffe’s account.” What does that mean? It means that all along Smith knew he received the dirt on Edwards from the Obama campaign but even today he protects Obama with weasel words. More Smith:

I was always interested in candidate Obama’s relationship with the dark(er) political arts and asked him at his first campaign press conference why he’d hired opposition researchers; he responded that they were to check out the candidate himself and to examine high-minded policy questions.

That was not, exactly, the whole truth. Indeed, Obama’s campaign had a particularly capable opposition research shop, a source of tips to many reporters, not all of them on policy. And Plouffe, in passing, outs the campaign as the source of a brief item I did in April 2007 off an Edwards campaign expenditure — probably driving as much traffic, chatter and grief as anything that short I’ve ever written.

Smith writes that what Obama said “was not, exactly, the whole truth.” How about the word lie? Smith like the Big Media “personalities” involved in the Scooter Libby outing of Valerie Plame knew all along where the dirt was coming from. Smith remained silent and even now passively writes that he is “in no position to contradict Plouffe” – meaning Smith knew all along but remained silent while smearing and focusing investigations on Hillary and her supporters.

This matters because Big Media continues to aid and abet Obama and his thugs. This matters because the behind the scenes Obama thuggery continues. When we first discussed the Obama campaign planting the $400.00 Edwards haircut story our focus was on other lies Obama and his campaign were engaged in (Hillary was busy addressing, along with Republican supporters, the issue of stem cell research).

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. [snip]

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.”

On June 17, 2007 we hit the Big Media bulls-eye:

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.

Obama should fire himself. Big Media “personalities” who protected Obama on his smears should fire themselves or be fired by their should-quit bosses.

As Americans discover the real Obama Big Media has helped closet, Americans grow more “bitter”. “America is in a funk.” The “wave of optimism” is back amidst the debris and floating bodies of Lake Michigan. “Malaise” has returned. Republicans grow stronger in public appreciation. Independents have shifted support by a 22% margin to Republicans.

Big Media failed to vet Obama and continues to protect and defend Obama – which hurts America. As Americans discover more about Obama, his inexperience and thuggery, more Americans will turn on Obama. Big Media failed Americans. We must not fail ourselves.

* * * * *

Two years ago Obama ruined Fathers Day. Today is Veterans Day and we will not have Obama ruin yet another of many already Obama ruined holidays. On Veterans Day Americans remember in order to preserve the best of the past and learn for the future. We remember.