And, of course, those dang old macacas shouldn't have been upset by the funny joke George Allen told.

Whatsa matter with them people?

It should have been obvious to anyone that was coming. You can hate it all you want that Obama's campaign was called on an odious reference but it would be wise for Obama to disavow such tactics as soon as possible - like yesterday for example.

Best, Terry

Are you saying that if someone said they could run for a Senate seat in Dublin and easily win , and someone else referred to them as D-Dublin that the Irish would be outraged?

Englishmen have been claiming for a long time to speak for us. You might have noticed that it hasn't always been with great fondness we speak of the English.

Would you please specify what odious reference you are referring to?

Outsourcing of jobs to India is a matter of concern to many of us but attacking Indians because of it has a very foul odor.

Why do you need anyone to tell you this?

No one in their right mind thinks Obama is remotely a racist and I am anything but a fan of the Clintons but the campaign tactic was atrocious and deserves more than a very tepid response when it was found out.

What the hell was with the secrecy in the first place?

"They all do it" isn't good enough an excuse in my book.

Best, Terry

If exposing business ties to India was merely a light-hearted joke, then what use would it have to the Obama campaign as oppo research and why would they bother to try to circulate it to the press along with another memo criticizing the Clintons' ties to Burkle? There's a difference between Hillary's (admittedly lame) fundraising joke -- my impression is that all fundraising speeches come equipped with some claim that the topic/people/area are particularly near and dear to the politician's heart -- and circulating a memo that is clearly designed to evoke criticism of the Clintons, based on "nefarious" ties to foreign business. Just because Hillary made a joke doesn't mean that the Obama staffer isn't trying to "frame" this as somehow discreditable. It's that clear intent to imply that connections with India and Indian-Americans are suspicious that's at issue. I grant that you can have a legitimate complaint with outsourcing, but this memo doesn't do that -- it conflates ALL economic ties with India or Indians with some businesses that might be involved with out-sourcing. And that's creepy and nativistic (at best) to my ears. Obama really should get rid of whoever was in charge of this week's badly-researched and tone-deaf memos. I can't believe that they are in keeping with the campaign's principles. God knows, I certainly don't *want* to think so.

I don't much like Hillary and don't expect to vote for her in the primary. I had started out thinking I'd probably vote for Obama. So it's some measure of the Obama campaign's competence that I keep feeling forced to defend Hillary from his idiot staff's petty, sneaky and pointless insinuations. He needs to do some massive cleaning of his staff and "advisors" while he still can.

If this stuff keeps up, it's going to become conventional wisdom that he was not ready to be campaigning for president.

Geffen made some pretty absurd remarks about Clinton earlier. Someone close to the campaign made that Clinton-1984 video. There's this current thing and the bogus "profitting from 9/11" thing as well. At some point its worth asking if Obama, his staff and others believe what he's saying and how he can really tolerate repeatedly nerfarious statements.

If exposing business ties to India was merely a light-hearted joke, then what use would it have to the Obama campaign as oppo research and why would they bother to try to circulate it to the press along with another memo criticizing the Clintons' ties to Burkle?

It is extremely common for political candidates to have their financial interests exposed:

 There is nothing unusual – and, most reporters and ethics experts will say, unethical – about this practice. Most of the major presidential campaigns this year have repeatedly sought to circulate information – typically, a record of past votes, public statements, campaign contributions or biographical information on campaign contributors – designed to undercut opponents. (In the vernacular, these are known as “quotes and votes.”)

 This is standard fare. How is it a criticism  to disclose it? Further, if Hilliary thinks it is a joke how heavily invested she is in India then it should not be viewed as criticism when those interests are distributed to the media. Even the story in the Times says that what Obama did is common and hardly unethical.

There's a difference between Hillary's (admittedly lame) fundraising joke -- my impression is that all fundraising speeches come equipped with some claim that the topic/people/area are particularly near and dear to the politician's heart -- and circulating a memo that is clearly designed to evoke criticism of the Clintons, based on "nefarious" ties to foreign business

I see no difference in her joking about her extensive financial interests being sufficient to capture an easy political win and any other individual pointing out how heavily invested she is. Obviously, if she jokes about it, she cannot claim she thinks there is something wrong with it.  Where are you coming from with this 'nefarious' conjecture?  The truth is that outsourcing of jobs is a serious issue for working class Americans. The Clintons have earned criticism for NAFTA and Hillary certainly thinks it is OK to outsource jobs. That is something American voters should know just like they know how she voted on the war.

Just because Hillary made a joke doesn't mean that the Obama staffer isn't trying to "frame" this as somehow discreditable.

Just because Hilliary is trying to frame this as criticism doesn't make it creditble either. The facts are that the Clintons are heavily invested in India at the expense of American jobs. The facts are that they owe the Teamsters a favor based on their financial investments. These are clearly of interest to anyone who might consider voting for Hilliary. Just as it was important to know about the Caryle Group when Bush ran for office as well as Halliburton when Cheney was his VP. 

 The only 'framing' here is the innuendo that somehow it is a smear on anyone, Clintons/IndianAmericas for the Obama campaign to clearly expose the Clintons financial interest.

It's that clear intent to imply that connections with India and Indian-Americans are suspicious that's at issue

Blue can you point out what statement inferred that the Clintons financial interest were nefarious or suspicious? I did not read anything that suggests the negativity you are saying was in the memo. I see no such clear intent. I do see a clear intent by the Clinton campaign to obscure the truth of their financial holdings in terms of whose interests are paramount to them, by suggesting that Obama did something critical of them, by distributing to the media PUBLIC INFORMATION.

it conflates ALL economic ties with India or Indians with some businesses that might be involved with out-sourcing.

Given that there are two separate memos. I do not see any such conflation. Instead the memos clearly show how Bill has numerous finacial interests and how snarled his finances are when it comes to the political hold others may have on them financial if Hillary were to become President.

The Obama campaign has engaged in no activity that can even remotely be viewed as nefarious or suspicious. What they did was provide a public service so that voters could see who the Clintons are financial beholden to.

Outsourcing of jobs to India is a matter of concern to many of us but attacking Indians because of it has a very foul odor.

Why do you need anyone to tell you this?

There is no statement that attacks Indians that's why. No one can point to any statement that attacked any Indians. You still can't. You also did not respond to the question. Your remark about English speaking does not address the query.

Whenever the oppo staff steps on it's own msg and it backfires on your own campaign because of a poorly worded statement it's ineffective and you take a hit.

If the Clintons were invested in businesses outsourcing American jobs that's a serious charge.

The Bush family for generations has been ammoral about how they make their money. From slave trading, to laundering money for the Nazis into October 1942, to using slave labor in Burma there isn't a disgusting practice they won't engage in or a filthy tyrant they won't do business with as long as the payoff is big. And in most cases the payoff is big because nobody with a conscience will get involved.

Now I'm not saying that the Clintons are in the same league with the Bushes but if Hillary is going to be president it's pretty late in the game for disinvesting in businesses no Dem candidate ought to be invested in in the first place.

It wouldn't take much for Thompson or Guiliani to blow up her or Edwards' populist msg with "they all do it" kind of crap, whether it was a blind trust or not.

You have to walk the walk too and I think that's the msg Obama's crew now has stuck to the bottom of their shoe.

Blue, there is nothing racist about these memos. Had Hillary not joked about being easily electable in India, I might agree with you. Bill jokes about being the first black President and no community is outraged about that either. The extensive holdings that the Clintons have in India should be of concern to all Americans. The outsourcing by the company the Clintons are invested in is a huge concern.

I choose to focus on the facts here. Not on how you nor the Clinton campaign are attempting to spin this issue. The truth is Obama provided a public service by distributing this information.

I was hoping that you would provide the suspcious statements that you inferred were in the memo.

One  other thing here is that I am unaware of Indians in this country suffering from racism. That is clearly a stretch as well. I do not know of any Indians being disenfranchised of their citizenship rights or suffering from housing or employment discrimination.  So this entire racist overtone sounds completely made up.

 Perhaps, you are more culturally aware of such discrimination. It is not on the news, nor in any history books on America that I have read.  I do not believe because people have immigrated to America that it makes them a minority in any sense of the word that we use the phrase 'racial overtone' in reference to Native Americans, Jews, Blacks, Japanese or Hispanics based on the discriminatory cultural history of America.

Being a long time Clinton supporter, I know what they’re capable of and this has their finger prints all over it. It is not the investments I’m concerned about- it’s their unwillingness to repent from the ‘old ways’. The fact that their trying to spin this instead of give us some explanations.
Geffen was right, afterall. The Clintons will always be ruthless liers.
Hillary just lost my vote.

— Posted by Former Clinton-backer

It's common knowledge that you can easily distract a toddler from a unwanted activity by dangling a bright red ball with the comment, "Watch the ball".

Is there any reason TPM has to react like a toddler when the Clinton campaign dangles a bright red ball. It's a distractive technique that seems to be working in this case.

What has come out from this oppo-research is the ties that both Clintons have to India and to organizations, like the PAC cited here, that push political agendas that benefit the members of their groups. It doesn't escape my notice that the head of this particular PAC is also the CEO of Optimos who relishes government contracts and makes full use of their India site to lower their costs. Being financially naive is not in the best interests of anyone who plans to vote for a Democratic candidate.

Money flows into politicians' coffers and it's in our best interests to determine what these folks want for their money that goes to support political campaigns. In this case, I would say that Senator Clinton supports outsourcing and is receiving money from a PAC that also wants, as only one of its agenda items, to provide outsourcing services in America. There is simply nothing that her campaign has put out that disputes this in any way.

If you agree with that, fine. If you don't, then this becomes an item in determining your primary vote.

I expect better from TPM, frankly. Going along with what a campaign (in this case both the Obama and the Clinton campaigns) wants you to do is simply naive and not of the highest journalistic standard. Start an investigative post and let's dissect the Obama research and then the reasons that the Clinton campaign would get huffy and call in a PAC to charge racism, which is quite a bit more ammo than we should have expected and, frankly, has made me very suspcious of what we are being distracted from.

Bush and Rove are excellent at this. Is there any reason any of us should fall so easily when the sources are Democrats and their financial supporters?

Is there any reason TPM has to react like a toddler when the Clinton campaign dangles a bright red ball.

Ironic you mention childishness when accusing TPM of lack of integrity for blowing the whistle on fouls by the Obama camapaign.

If TPM closed its eyes to nefarious activities by the white hats while damning the other guys, it would have little more credibility than Drudge.

Even Obama's campaign has halfheartedly acknowledged its transgression.

Best, Terry

hadenough,

How come you can manage to use capital letters properly, everywhere *except* when mentioning Obama and Karl Rove? Some sort of Freudian slip, or what? Sounds a tad petty to me.

But seriously the same stupid that is going on now is the same stupid that put bush in the white house. Twice.

Do you really think there is no difference between truth and lies?

I haven't the foggiest notion what the joke is supposed to be about Gore needing a girl to tell him how to be a man [blush] but I am still rather astounded that while Kerry was attacked most atrociously for being a Vietnam combat veteran Gore's service was hardly mentioned. One can only imagine how Bob Kerrey would have been crucified for his Medal of Honor.

Telling the truth still has a certain resonance. The most phenomenol model is Russ Feingold. Near as I can tell Obama has done rather well considering everything.

Best, Terry

"Do you really think there is no difference between truth and lies?"

I think there is all the difference. That's why when obama says "a new kind of politics" and then copies rove's dirty tricks shop I'm mighty disappointed.

"I haven't the foggiest notion what the joke is supposed to be about Gore needing a girl to tell him how to be a man [blush] but I am still rather astounded that while Kerry was attacked most atrociously for being a Vietnam combat veteran Gore's service was hardly mentioned. One can only imagine how Bob Kerrey would have been crucified for his Medal of Honor."

Some of the worst lies about Gore and Kerry came from liberals. Just like now when obama's camp pushes trash about Clinton and for all we know Edwards and the rest of the dem candidates. Why would obama stop at just smearing the Clintons? See the daily holwer archives for more:
http://www.google.com/custom?q=gore+liberals&sa=Google+Search&cof=AH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3Ac32a032061318778%3B&domains=dailyhowler.com&sitesearch=dailyhowler.com

or here and search for: "Gore liberals" without the quotes.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/

"Telling the truth still has a certain resonance. The most phenomenol model is Russ Feingold. Near as I can tell Obama has done rather well considering everything."

There was a time when I would have agreed with you about obama. That time has passed.

From obama's karl rove style dirty tricks shop:

MULTI-MILLION DONOR WON TRADE MISSION TRIPS, LINCOLN BEDROOM STAYS
2007: Ron Burkle Hosted A $2.6 Million Fundraiser For Hillary Clinton. The New York Post wrote, “Clinton raised a cool $1 million in the San Francisco Bay Area yesterday, according to the Clinton camp - just a day after hauling in a reported $2.6 million at grocery store billionaire Ron Burkle’s Beverly Hills mansion.” Burkle has donated over $11,000 to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaigns. [New York Post, 3/26/07, FEC filings]
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/memo2.pdf

The lincoln bedroom! Please. And remember Ron Brown? Clinton's trade guy that died in a plane crash. Well the ratwing [I'm including obama in that now] will tell you Clinton killed Brown because Brown was gonna spill the beans about the tricks for treats. The whole trade mission trips is nothing put years old ratwing talking points. The fact that obama is now using it is beyond digusting.

And is obama saying a dem candidates spouse traded tricks for treats? I think he is. Read the whole thing and you'll see that Burkle sounds like scum.

BURKLE, RON
LOS ANGELES,CA 90069
YUCAIPA COMPANIES LLC
10/20/2004
$2,000
Obama, Barack
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=GMVHV&txtName=BURKLE&txtState=(all%20states)&txtCand=obama&txt2008=Y&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&Order=N

Apparently not so scumy that obama wouldn't take his money.

Some of the worst lies about Gore and Kerry came from liberals.

Would you care to name just one and the danged liberal(s) guilty of this malfeasance?

I went to your links and got lost in the weeds. I have no idea who "Rich" is or what he said.

One might consider that Christopher Hitchens and Alexander Cockburn used to alternate weekly in The Nation with columns often devoted to trashing each other. The Progressive is a journal so far left that it frightened Berkleyites but was as isolationist as rightwing fringie when I read it. Characterizing liberal thinking is hardly the same as with the goose-stepping wingers because the lefties tend to [gasp] think.

It is hardly unnatural for liberals to attack conservatives like Gore and Kerry but unfair to misstate their views, of course.

The Howler credits Gore as some kind of prophet for seeing global warming as a problem. [Whoop te do.] Did they once mention that the spotted owl might need to be stuffed or canned as a consequences of Gore's favored policies under Clinton? Has Gore mentioned carbon-eating algae to clean up the atmosphere? Be kind of a nice touch. How about heating homes or fueling vehicles with methane rather than polluting the air with one of the most potent greenhouse gases of them all? What exactly is wrong with mining Mother Earth's heat that might produce thousands of time all the electricity produced today? Al Gore speak to that somewhere, anywhere?

At the very best, Gore is a lightweight besides being the weasel who voted for the most restrictive anti-choice law ever conceived and still defends the vote last I heard while being pro-choice at the same time.

Kerry has already been taken out and shot so there is no point in discussing him. (He was one of the few conservatives I voted for BTW. Probably the kiss of death.)

Best, Terry

It's clear very few people here know what a blind trust is.

you work for a company who provides a 401k to it's employees. are those employees responsible for where that money is invested?

Sometimes. I think I know what you're trying to say
stewieeeee but that's not really the right way to say it. Regardless I think the Clintons and Edwards could have set parameters like :don't invest in anything that will embarrass me in Democratic political circles". That they didn't shows a certain amount of cluelessness.

If you are really interested you'll take a look.

I wasted some time and some sight, both of which at my age are getting short, trying to dig the dirt on those dang liberals that were lying through their teeth to smear some upstanding conservatives you seem to like. You can't seem to name a single lie or a single liberal that done these dirty deeds. Why would you want me to continue?

Is obama a liberal?

Doesn't appear to be one. He is not exactly putting himself on the front lines to oppose the bad guys. I have some hope he will turn out to be one.

do you think it's OK for "liberals" to attack dem with the most vile and disgusting years old ratwing talking points?

It's unfair for anyone to attack with lies. It's not unfair to tell the truth. I am sure Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney and others think it's most unfair to tell the truth about them. Is that what you mean?

I ask because you going on about Al Gore not pushing your favorite hobby horse

I need to apologize for being an environmentalist as opposed to Al Gore? Why do you think so? Are environmental causes "vile and disgusting years old ratwing talking points" you think?

Maybe you don't know who Ron Brown was.

Yes I know who Ron Brown was. You don't want to know what purpose I think he served for Clinton.

That hit piece obama put out uses the same vile and disgusting talking points repubs used right after the plane crash.

Who did Obama accuse Hillary of killing?

Using whatever label you want to use for obama do you think he was thinking when he put out the "trade deal" hit piece on Bill Clinton?

I have no idea if Obama knew anything about the bigoted reference to Indians. I like to think he didn't but I really don't know.

I don't care anything at all about the trust issues. Should I?

Anyway it kinda sounds like you agree with me. Some of the worst attacks on dems come from liberals. And you seem to thinks that's OK.

Indeed I am one of Obey's "idiot liberals." Proud of it even.

I could see how obama repeatedly talking about "a new kind of politics" while he does the same thing repubs are famous for would not bother you.

It bothers me anytime Democrats act like Republicans. Why would it not? I am a Democrat and an "idiot liberal" to boot.

Best, Terry

Something we agree on:

"Indeed I am one of Obey's "idiot liberals." Proud of it even."

I wouldn't mind following the thread(s) of your argument(s). I might be of a similar age and time is short. Might I suggest you use the reply function at the bottom of the post you are replying to...instead of scrolling to the bottom of the whole thread and clicking on "Post a Comment"? That way we would be able to find the original post together with your reply more easily. Thanks.

My apologies, Vlaszlo.

It is a blunder I have tried to correct. I will endeavor to do better.

I am aware of the problem.

Best, Terry

The Obama campaign deserves the hit for editoralizing on the facts. But the Clinton campaign is allowed to let that controversy obscure the facts? That's simply not good journalism.

It hardly surprises me if the Clinton campaign did indeed solicit an outsourcing PAC to attack Obama for the remark.

I haven't been overly enthused by Hillary Clinton as some might have noted.

I don't particularly fault any journalist for not delving into all possible campaign skullduggery.

Best, Terry

Terry, with all due respect, you paint with a brush so broad that it fails to clearly cover all of your points. You seem to want us to take your views on faith rather than through clearly laid-out facts and logic.

When I was younger I was a rather dogmatic "progressive." As I've gotten older my basic values haven't changed, but my sense of political strategy has. It would be very nice to live in a world where you never disagreed with your party's political leaders. Alas, I don't see how that can realistically occur give the dysfunctions of our political system, particularly regarding the selection of presidents.

If I were Mr. Rove, I would hope that the Democrats' splinter in 2008 because various factions whip themselves into a frenzy denouncing each other for failing their competing litmus tests.

Sure, fight hard for your beliefs. But at some point someone is going to win the Democratic nomination. That person likely won't be a true-blue liberal (as least as you define the term).

I don't see the value in demonizing those you disagree with to such a degree that they will have trouble winning the general election.

You seem to have conveniently missed my point. You made a pretty strong and sweeping charge: That Gore is a "weasel." In case you are from the "Chicago school" of debating, here's an FYI: smearing the character of someone is a vast step farther than strongly disagreeing with their policy stances.

When I asked you to back up your charge with facts and logic, you dished out a list of muddled points that by and large suggest that Gore's greatest crime is not agreeing with your own personal litmus test.

I am not a Gore partisan. And for all I know, if I better understood your environmental agenda I might agree with most or even all of your points. But you seem to assume that vague snark can substitute for a clear argument. In the absence of the latter, all the reader is left with is to accept your view based on faith -- that you are a man of superior character and knowledge who knows The Way.

Responding to hadenough and hallinan is an exercise in futility. These minor campaign jibes are hardly worth mentioning. So some Hillary-supporting Indians are "offended" by Obama's press release? So what?

(D-Punjab) is anti-Indian? Give me a break! And as for the charge that Obama is engaging in "Rovian tactics"...if only it were true! He says it like it would be a bad thing to beat the sonofabitch at his own game!

These two are anti-Democratic nitwits.

"Al Gore is the pro-choice lad who voted for the most extreme right-to-life legislation ever proposed: a constitutional amendment that would make a fetus a full human being when conceived..."

I couldn't find the vote you are talking about? But I did find a site that documented his evolving attitude on a woman having the right to terminate her pregnancy.

He's not adamantly pro-choice as I would like, but I believe he would protect a woman's right to choose, which is good enough for me when looking at all the other candidates.

Also, my attitudes have changed over the years, for example, on the death penalty, so I accept that he may have geniunely changed his mind too. Hence, I'm not that concerned about his early voting record on this particular issue.

I couldn't find the vote you are talking about? But I did find a site that documented his evolving attitude on a woman having the right to terminate her pregnancy.

As I said he seamlessly moves from position to position without admitting error. It was extraordinary I thought that he did fess up on the Clinton Administration doing bad to workers but I have never seen him take any responsibility for his past endeavors regarding abortion while destroying Gephardt for shifting positions on choice. Wikipedia has a write-up on one version of the Human Life Amendment being narrowly defeated in the Senate but no roll call of the votes. I found this vote on the better known Hyde Amendment:

October 22, 2000: When Bush ran for Congress in 1978, he opposed a Human Life Amendment. In Congress in 1977, Gore voted for the Hyde Amendment which says abortion takes the life of an unborn child. Were these changes of heart sincere, or just political opportunism?

http://archive.hagelin.org/questions/

Well certainly Gore's position could have evolved like yourself but you admitted error. Gore never did. He still apparently damns "partial birth abortions" which is a concocted name for a procedure used by right-to-lifers for nefarious purposes.

So great, Al is now on the side of the angels (most of the time) without regret for past sins.
Does he still think spotted owls are best stuffed and mounted? Of course he will never admit to his part in destruction of the Protection of Species Act. Wouldn't look good on the resume of the World's Greatest Environmentalist.

When and if Al Gore actually decides again he wants to be president and is even nominated, I might possibly vote for him against the odious selection the Republicans are sure to make. But it will take a strong stomach and a bit of convincing.

Best, Terry

"...So great, Al is now on the side of the angels (most of the time) without regret for past sins..."

I don't think he's an angel (no way). He's an environmental politican. Big difference in my mind, which is way I don't set the bar so high.

You gotta give him some credit -- He did after all break ranks with the DLC -- that must have taken some guts, with some (hopefully) regret (staying with the organization as long as he did - and yes I know he helped set the thing up)? He was slaughtered after the election by those thugs running that corporate shill factory.

He appears to be a DLC outsider now -- I like that. However, I also realize that might cause him some problems if he did decide to run. Hillary through her DLC supported/advocated $$$ trough has probably paid off a fair number of DLC Senators and congress members by now. A President needs backing -- and the question is would those DLC'ers work with him or against him -- that's my worry.

But I would still vote for him. He's qualified, experienced, intelligent, and thinks for himself! -- Currently, I believe he's the best person for the job. Plus, we need someone who is not owned to the hilt.

i wasn't saying you couldn't setup parameters.

i was saying if you did set parameters, that if you took control over the trust in some way, then that would give one just as much exposure if not more.

the point is to have a trust. a set of investments that you don't know about. that you don't control in any way shape or form. so that you will never be incented to legislate anything that helps one set of companies over another.

one could say it would be a good thing to legislate against some companies more than others based on the ethical points you make above.

but that just means you started a blind trust and said "don't invest in company x," and then you showed up in congress and tried to implement legislation that punishes company x. think about that for a second.

a blind trust is setup to avoid that kind of thing.

i'm sure you can set up parameters, but to do so means it's no longer effectively blind, in my opinion.

So even though you knew the "Clintons will always be ruthless liers" you supported them but now their "unwillingness to repent from the ‘old ways’" [that would be the olds from back when you supported them] you don't support them.

Yes, it is called tipping point and other choices. Most Democrats supported the Clintons in the WH despite all the negative media stories. Today, when negative media stories appear and it is clear that the Clintons have cunningly attacked an opponent and failed to respond to a very serious charge there is no need to support them when there are other much better and viable candidates.