If You Think Karl Rove is Evil, Make Phone Calls Today
I don't know when Hillary Clinton and her advisors started channeling Karl Rove, but it's happened and it's ugly. If you want to stop them from tearing the Democratic Party apart, then get on the phones today and volunteer to turn out the Obama vote in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Her campaign's been sleazy since Obama first emerged as a serious challenger. I've written about it here and here. But in the past week, it's escalated. She's just run a radio ad on NAFTA that pretends to be a news report. Meanwhile, Canadian television reported that Clinton's campaign offered the same disavowals she just accused an Obama advisor of making. Her 3:00 AM ad echoed the worst of Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani. When asked if she'd "take Senator Obama on his word that he's not a Muslim," she left the door open to the right wing lies by saying "there's nothing to base that on. As far as I know." She just handed McCain his campaign script by saying, "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
The longer Clinton stays in with these kinds of attacks, the more damage she will do, because she seems willing to destroy the Democratic chances in November to maintain her shot at the nomination. If you think this is a bad idea, please join me, get on the phones, and help increase the Obama vote in today's critical races. It just might make a key difference.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Posted by Paul Loeb on February 13, 2008:
Behind Obama's Wave of Victories:
"It seems the more voters know him, the more they like him."
I'll bet you're embarrassed.
From today's "Head of State"
http://hea
"Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Inside The Kitchen Sink
From the NYT:
After struggling for months to dent Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy, the campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now unleashing what one Clinton aide called a “kitchen sink” fusillade against Mr. Obama, pursuing five lines of attack since Saturday in hopes of stopping his political momentum.
Let's see what has been tossed inside the kitchen sink:
-A vicious email smear campaign, falsely portrays Obama as a Muslim. He has been a devout Christian for 20 years. The Clinton camp has the opportunity to firmly decry such tactics, or to sow the seeds of doubt. Clinton on 60 minutes: If he says that he is a Muslim "I'll take him at his word";
- A picture of Obama dressed in traditional Somali garb, mysteriously arises and is splashed across the front page of the Drudge Report, designed, like the above, to inflame the most base and simplistic prejudices. Again, the Clinton campaign has the opportunity to refuse to use prejudice and stereotype to political advantage. Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams responds: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed";
-Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is a Conservative. His Chief of Staff Ian Brodie leaks supposed minutes of statements by an Obama aide. The statement is not by the Obama aide, and the minutes were not taken by the Obama aide, they were taken by a Canadian official. Liberal Canadian parties decry the attempt by the Conservative Party to influence the U.S. election. The Clinton camp accepts this specious account as valid--and throws it in the kitchen sink as well;
-The Clinton camp, in Drudge-like fashion, insinuates dark misdoings regarding Antoin Rezko--despite the fact that there has been absolutely no allegations of wrongdoing by Obama--hoping perhaps that the mere association will stick--and despite the questions that have been raised about Clinton fundraising during the years of her own "experience";
-The Clinton campaign rolls out the hackneyed "red phone" advertisement, dating to Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign, to suggest that she, unlike Obama, has greater experience for such "3 A.M. moments". When asked to name one such crisis situation that she has actually had to deal with, she is unable to name one.
-Mark Penn, the Clinton campaign's chief strategist, in the weekend panic, emails the L.A. Times to state that he had "'no direct authority in the campaign,' describing himself as merely 'an outside message advisor with no campaign staff reporting to me.'"
This sink is filled with the type of fear-based politics that we have come to know so well over these past 8 years. It is fundamentally defensive, and is all-too-willing to use the familiar tools of dishonesty and distortion in pursuit of victory. It indicates how a Clinton Administration would respond to adversity--with a tactical fusillade of presentations, followed by distortion and attack.
It's time to clean the dishes. Don't allow yourself to be misled by misrepresentation, insinuation and division. Leave this kind of politics behind."
Cite:
Head of State
http://hea
"Hillary is experienced"
It absolutely drives me bat-shit that this goes unchallenged in the news media, among the pundit class and even, to some extent by the Obama campaign.
Look -- Hillary has held elective office for all of seven years. Obama has held elective office for 11 years.
Much of Hillary's claim to experience is based on her time as First Lady. But what exactly did she do in that ill-defined role that prepares her for the presidency? Her one formal position -- health care reform -- was a fiasco, one she's not entirely to blame for but neither did her performance give one confidence in her ability to be a president who can get things done. Clearly, she played a more prominent role than most previous First Ladies but we still don't know how. She wasn't on the National Security Council or the National Economic Council, so what's the basis for her claim of superior foreign policy and economic experience? If she released her White House papers, we might have a clearer idea of what she did but that ain't happening anytime soon. Indeed, the lack of transparency about her eight years in the White House makes it possible for her to claim credit for everything that went well and deny responsibility for everything that went wrong. That's bogus and it shouldn't be accepted by the voters or the news media without additional evidence.
What about the remainder of her "35 years of experience?" Her time as a corporate lawyer in the Rose Law Firm? Her time on the board of Wal-Mart? Her one year or so on the Board of the Children's Defense Fund? How does that give her a leg up on Obama's time as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, editor of the Harvard Law Review and teacher of constitutional law?
Given her obvious vulnerabilities, the more she talks about experience, the more she's playing into McCain's hands because compared to him, Hillary's just a piker.
Will someone somewhere please call her on this experience crap?
What about the remainder of her "35 years of experience?"
Her service for the House of Representatives Nixon Impeachment Committee?
You know, America loves bullies, that might explain some of the traction that HRC gets. It sure goes a long way toward explaining US foreign policy.
Al Franken's book, The Truth, is an awesome read. He goes through the science (quoting studies) behind fear-mongering and smearing, how it's effective, and how rove used it to "win" the last two elections.
After HRC officially accepts the end of her candidacy, I bet we'll see the apologists demand thank you notes from Obama supporters for the "seasoning" and "testing" that her rovian campaign has "given" Obama as preparation for the smear-machine that's revving up for him now.
Good point. Of course they shouldn't say thank you though, because it was clearly nothing more than malicious abuse. It is nothing anyone should try to adapt to, it is only outrageous and shameful. The fact that Obama can bear up only speaks to his good character. HRC remains a sleeze. And as you suggest, probably crass enough to expect thanks.
I'm deep into Legacy of Ashes The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner
Good news for us: the CIA is profoundly incompetent, so say what you want!
Bad news: a lot of the world has very good reasons to deeply resent us.
I can look the other way--a bit--if in a general election a Rep and a Dem use some dirty tricks--Wh
But there is no such logic supporting Clinton's here. There is no substantial difference between her and Obama--certainly not enough to justify negative campaigning and smearing a fellow democrat. The only answer that makes sense here is that she places her personal ambition ahead of the party and the people. It is really demoralizing.
Setting all this aside. I support Obama because there is an opportunity to redefine the democratic party to once again be the moral voice of the people.
How prescient you are. I just completed 20 calls in TX for Barack. You are so right about Hill. She's going to take this to the bitter end - her bitter end I hope. You would think people would be wise to the negative tactics, but there are so many people who will be persuaded by her monumental mudslinging. So thanks for the post and the reminder to make calls. I'll probably make more just to pay tribute to you and your writings.
Hey, thanks for making those calls. I would love to hear what kind of responses you got from the people you talked to.
Phew! Thanks! I was so busy listening to all of Clinton's supporters telling me why I don't support her (cause I'm a man and hate women or maybe I'm a silly romantic fool who believes in fairy tales and "hope", etc), that I forgot that it was her policies and tactics that have always been the very specific reasons why I'd never support her or her candidacy.
Surprising they don't offer us therapy (at a hefty fee, of course).
Great post, thank you, and I will be following your advice and getting on the phone myself.
The Clintons are poster children for narcissism, always putting their narrow self-interest ahead of the Democratic Party's broader needs. With the line of attack she has been following, she seems determined either to do McCain's dirty work for him, hurting Obama's prospects in the General Election if he's the nominee, or alienating 50 percent of the Democratic base, hurting her own prospects if she somehow manages to get the nomination. It's lose-lose.
America has just suffered through eight miserable years of a president with a sense of entitlement -- who thinks of the office as his birthright -- orchestrated by a hack (Rove) with no principles or scruples. Do we really want his replacement to be someone with the same sense of entitlement -- who thinks of the office as a marriage-right, for lack of a better term -- orchestrated by a hack (Penn) with no principles or scruples?
It's up to all of us to stop her before she takes all hopes for a better future down in flames with her!
This is a culture of narcissism, which is why HRC et al. do so well. The book by Christopher Lasch came out in the '70s, since then things have only declined further. One thing though, the younger ones seem to see through a lot of it, which is a hopeful sign.
Karl Rove has more class than Hillary Clinton but then again almost anyone has.
You have listed a few of the reasons I will not vote for her if she gets the nomination. It was clear to me some time ago that what she has learned from all her superior "experience" is how to channel Rove. But you left out my favorite among the despicable things she has said: SHE accused OBAMA of playing Rovian politics in pamphlets his campaign circulated that set out (accurately, in my view) some of the short-comings of her health care plan.
There you go again. Bashing Hillary and excusing Obama. So what if she voted to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans and Iraqis? The press and blogs are so MEAN to her. Poor, poor, poor Hillary.
We should be honest enough to admit that the democratic party like the republican party has its own share of bigots and warmongers all too ready to vote for such a retrograde candidate like Hillary Clinton. She has helped to expose the ugly side of the democratic party. The pro-war and pro-fear side which is the overwhelming basis of her support. There can be very few voters left who do not understand that voting for her is like voting for Bush and yet she has this large base of support within the party. The right wing talk radio crowd is now also solidly behind her so her vote will be larger going on.
Yes, this is true. But how do we purge the party (I sound like Stalin) of the bigots and warmongers? One thing is certain, they feel very comfortable there.
I have a sick feeling that she's going to take this down to the last super delegate
She is a trainwreck.
Democrats can do better than that. If we are not better than Demcrats, we might as well be real Republicans.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
