Did the Obama campaign pick it up off of Drudge and simply regurgitate it? So much for the "new politics". Sounds like the same old "divisive ideological" crap Obama likes to deride. Oh well.

So much for a "new kind of politics".

I don't get it. What's wrong with working and making money on 9/11? Is it a religious holiday or something?

indeed. one wonders if there's a reporter out there giving stuff to the Hillary people

Good. Let's hope Obama's campaign against the Repubs is just as rough and tumble.

But seriously, how "false" is the story? Is the date in Hillary's financial disclosure statement recorded as 9/11 or 9/10? Who got it wrong, Hillary or Jen Psaki? Is "Bill's schedule" really the final, unimpeachable authority? To say that the Obama campaign was "speading a false report" is, so far, at best a stretch and at worst a falsehood.

So he worked on 9/11/2006. And.....? Sorry. Just not seeing the controversy.

What does the financial disclosure by Hillary Clinton say - 9/10 or 9/11? Did the Hillary Clinton camp disclose 9/10 and the Obama camp change it or did the Obama camp just repeat the information in the disclosure?

Is this speech listed in the email as a series of events?

8/25 - Speech to commmemorate...

8/30 - Speech to trade group x...

9/1 - Speech to blah blah

9/11 - Speech to commemorate...

10/15 - Speech to student union...

Context is key. You already printed the name of the Obama staffer that sent the email and an excerpt - print the entire email and the original publicly available Clinton disclosure form, the various reports on the story (NYT, Politico, Drudge) and make little timeline. If the Obama camp is just repeating something in HRC's disclosure form it's a lot different than repeating Drudge.

I will say the Obama circulating anything negative on a not for attribution basis is awful and wrong. If you have something critical to say stand behind your words on the record.

I think that's a fair question. But I will say that the Obama campaign is not disputing my contention that the Observer has shown it to be false...

...also, even putting aside the truth or falsehood of the story, I think it's questionable for a Democratic campaign to be spreading a story like this, with its wingnutty overtones. Indeed, it appealed to Drudge...

Makes it seem more nefarious than it is. More likely a reporter calling Hillary's people for comment: "What do you make of this?"

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

The Clinton people put 9/11/06 on the disclosure form for BC's speech.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/6/15/122255/840/64#c64

I don't see any evidence that the Sept 11 stuff came from Obama's campaign. What am I missing? The NYT link is about other financial stuff, as is Burton's response. If Drudge is the only source, that's the same as nothing.

I'm no fan of Hillary (or Bill, for that matter), but petty crap like this is unworthy of any candidate for president. If Obama is really doing this stuff, if that's as close as he can come to competing on real issues, he's right up there with the GOP for blatant hypocrisy. I hope this story is wrong -- it urgently needs verification or debunking.

the email I quoted from is the evidence. it was sent out by the obama campaign. his spokesman confirmed that they were pushing that story

Yeah, its hard to know how to respond here without actually seeing the e-mail.

This sort of conduct makes the Obama campaign look - well, inexperienced and petty. And, rather ridiculous. Aren't there any meaningful policy positions outlined by the Clinton campaign to take issue with?

One has to wonder what the underlying issue really is? Is it wrong to receive compensation for work performed on or about September 11, 2006? Here in the US, or elsewhere? By a former President, the spouse of a current candidate and competitor to Senator Obama, or by anyone? Is it just that date, or should one be able to deliver a speech on, say - September 4th, or 25th? If not that specific date, how long must one wait?

Who is the 'idiot' in charge of the opposition research unit in the Obama campaign? And just what does he hope is achieved by this sort of communication to potential voters. As others have pointed out, this sort of turns the whole 'new kind of politics' idea on its head. What hypocrites.

I am certainly no fan of Hillary Clinton, nor particularly of Barrack Obama. But I too worked on Monday, September 11, 2006, as others in this thread have likewise claimed. Maybe I should pay penance by contributing my wages that day to the Edwards campaign…

Did Barack Obama and his wife attend church (for instance) every anniversary of 9/11, or were they WORKING on any anniversary of 9/11?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Did anyone reading this work on any anniversary of 9/11?

~~

And, I think it is a safe guess that if the Obama people sent that message to various news people, they also sent it to Drudge OR had every reason to understand that Drudge would get it within minutes.

Well what I want to know is why is anything said about Bill Clinton, who is NOT running for President, perceived as playing political hardball.

The GOP has made Bill Clinton a fair target for the past 8 years, so what the hell is the problem?

Is Hillary going to go around defending Bill like she has these past 8 years of GWB's Presidency as part of her political campaign?

If so, to hell with her as a candidate. Bill is a big boy, he can defend himself. He sure didn't need Hillary's mouth when he stained that blue dress so why is her campaign on it's kness defending him now.?

Well, I started out as an Obama fan, but he's making it clear that he's not ready for a presidential campaign. Primaries are supposed to be about which candidate can best oppose the GOP, not who can furnish the GOP with the best personal smears against Democrats.

Off-the-record attacks on fellow Dems is as low as politics gets, and as stupid. He needs to fire staffers responsible for this, maybe including Burton -- again, if the report is true in its own context.

Your level of repugnancy never ceases to amaze me. You Obama apologists are bunch of hypocrites. The man is no different than any other politician, and yet you bash and bash against Hillary, the likely nominee, thus damaging her chances in the general election. You children really need to grow up.

this is the second negative story about the Obama campaign sending out info that is supposed to hurt Clinton on the same day. the Obama campaign's response so far is that the info is public so what's the big deal if they did highlight it for the media.

um, the big deal is that your candidate claimed he would be running a campaign of "new politics" to get away from the divisive old negative politics. so the info may be public but when a campaign is the one doing the highlighting for the media, the news can be about both the focused info AND the highlighting.

my two cents: stick with the issues folks. that's where the interest is during the primaries. save the smear campaigns (if you have to use them at all) for the general. sheesh, I thought we'd gone over this already!

Let's see the whole e-mail so we can decide for ourselves what is key and what is not.

d

President Clinton cannot have both ways. Either he is an attack dog for Hillary or a respected popular Former Democratic President. So far he does not earn the later.

Also, Clinton has been attacking Obama by falsifying his position on Iraq etc, so he is fair games.

This story is neither fair nor balanced. I first thought James Carvel wrote this story because it smears Obama unjustly for telling the truth.

It is uncontroverted because according to the Clinton's Disclosure the speech was given on September 11th, 2006 which they are yet to correct or retract.

---- 9/11 - Speech to commemorate

It is past time for blaming your staffers. Obama already put his people under the buss once when he missed the firefighters meeting.

okay....if bill did give a speech in hong kong on 9/11, and if said speech began at 10am local time, that would've been about 12 hours BEFORE the first plane hit the WTC.

mdiogu -- "What is false about that?"

I think a more pertinent question is, "what's wrong with that?" Don't you? If Obama's going to be sending out "controversies" that are tailor-made for the right-wing echo chamber, I'm glad someone is calling him on it.

People, please look at the original memo and decide for yourself exactly how bad this is. Do not rely on the NYT article. They are basically working for the Clinton crew. They are taking things completely out of context in order to make them look worse than they are.

Yes, the media is working for the Clintons. Just like they did throughout the 90s and the fact that writers for the Post and the Times published hit pieces on HC.

This makes you sound a little crazy, sorry.

Should I rely on Drudge?

"Trafficking?" Kind of a loaded term there, don'tcha think? Y'know, a campaign has a lot of participants. Obama wasn't out making speeches criticizing Clinton for making a buck on 9/11. Rather, some underling decided that a little dig at Bill was a good idea. BFD. You act like this is some major moral failing. Move on. Frankly, you're just as culpable, as your article implies quite distinctly that what's-her-name KNEW the date was false, when obviously you don't know that at all.

If you go to this link: , you will see that President Clinton gave the speech -- via satellite -- "from his home in Chappaqua on Sept. 10 at 8:00 pm, Eastern Standard Time."

It was Sept. 11 in Hong Kong, because Hong Kong is on the other side of the world and the date there was Sept. 11 -- even though the date WHERE the speech ORIGINATED was Sept. 10.

My, aren't we sensitive! Somehow I doubt ANY of the candidates are going to live up to your rarefied sense of fair play.

So some underling sends an e-mail criticizing Bill for giving a speech on 9/11. This makes Obama into Goebbels or something? Get over it.

when did Murdoch turn into a Clinton "ally?" As we have documented, it may have begun last year, when Fox News personalities such as Bill O'Reilly refused to interview Ed Klein about his controversial and critical book about the former First Lady. Keep your eye on Fox News and its Hillary connection. Murdoch wouldn't raise money for her, when she clearly has no need for additional cash, if he wasn't trying to cultivate another President Clinton.

a realization by both Clinton and Murdoch that their relationship can be mutually beneficial. Murdoch's history with Prime Minister Tony Blair offers the blueprint: After then-candidate Blair flew to Australia's Hayman Island to address executives of Murdoch's News Corporation, Murdoch's British papers abandoned the Tories to support him. Murdoch would go on to benefit from Blair's media deregulation. Murdoch's career has featured such episodes of putting business interests ahead of ideology, as when a publishing company under his control dropped a memoir critical of the Chinese government. "It's a lot about Rupert," says a former Post editor, Lou Colasuonno, about the changes at his old paper. "He's smart about where he thinks he needs

Clinton's hawkishness, her courtship of the paper, and her and her husband's courtship of its proprietor--the Post is no longer Clinton's enemy. The shift has reshaped New York politics and made it exponentially more difficult for a challenger to unseat Clinton later this year. "If a statewide Republican candidate doesn't have the New York Post beating the hell out of Hillary every day, it's going to be hard to find another outlet where you're going to see a wedge for really sharp-edged and vitriolic attacks pushing in," says Republican media consultant Rick Wilson, who is best known for producing a controversial ad attacking Vietnam veteran and Georgia Senator Max Cleland in 2002. 

Yes, heaven forbid that a writer be held accountable for the words he writes. That would be awful.

You have no problem embarassing Obama. Why the double standard?

Friend of yours?

The fact that you hold Obama responsible for Geffen's comments and the fact that you clearly exaggerate the ties the youtube video maker had to Obama's campaign suggests a lack of, say, neutrality.

IF this is as bad as Greg says it is, then I'd be pretty disappointed in Obama.

HOWEVER, I'd like to see the letter myself before trashing the candidate.

It just seems like a lot of people have been waiting for something, anything, to use as a springboard to trash Obama, and finally found it (not accusing Sarget of that, so much as some of those posting comments here).

still not getting this. you are seeing the email. the blockquote above is the part of the email that deals with this. the thing that makes the attack wingnutty isn't the language of the email. it's the fact that the obama people wanted reporters to write stories about the fact that bill clinton was making money off a speech on 9/11. this is a wingnutty narrative in and of itself. and the email I quoted above shows the obama campaign pushing this storyline.

again, the issue isn't that obama's people knew that this had taken place on 9/10 but were saying it took place on 9/11. it's that they were pushing this storyline at all. it's a bogus storyline. that's my issue here.

By the way, though your refusal to post the actual email is frustrating, I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to the comments. Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks for that.

Seems to me that this is part of the point. Just as I was unhappy with Clinton when she repeated fearmongering messaging in Manchester, I'm unhappy to see Obama's campaign feeding this idea that the everything changed on 9/11. It turns out that it didn't, and we need to get over it--and stopping using it as a pretext for imperialism and elimination of American liberties.

appreciate that. here's the line from the email quoted above:

"Bill Clinton Commemorated 5th Anniversary Of 9/11 With $100,000 Speech..."

that is as clear a framing of this as you could possibly want. this is an email sent out by an obama staffer to reporters saying, look, Bill Clinton "commemorated" 9/11 with a $100,000 speech. Not sure how that could be clearer, honestly. In fact, Drudge used almost this identical language to describe it (not that that's the Obama campaign's fault, it just shows that this language is very clearly a framing)

The fact is not revelant here. It is the intent.

WTF is Obama and his people doing pushing this stuff? Does Obam need to see a brain surgeon before his brain implode? WTF is Obama thinking ?

Greg, I agree with your general sentiment - the Obama campaign is apparently engaging in a disappointing (at least) smear campaign.

But why can't we see the email? It was provided to reporters - it's not exactly top secret, right?

We, the readers, cannot make a final judgment without proper context. Even if nothing else in the email colors or affects the excerpt above, we need to see that for ourselves.

Your comment that you didn't want to embarrass the writer doesn't help - it just adds to the mystery and therefore, the frustration.

C'mon! Why is anyone surprised?

When it all comes real, Barack Obama is a Chicago politician. Never forget that.

--

"There's no telling what new harm Bush might do
if he ever gets back up off the mat.
You have to keep your knee on his windpipe
until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

That is true, Bill did go after Barack first, and in a false way. That does not, however, make it a good idea to do the same in return. Its the implication that there is something wrong with speaking on September 11th which Obama's campaign is putting forth - that troubles me. Its not cool. And its just BS in the first place. Bad on Obama! I still like him, but why run a campaign based on the idea that you won't do shit like this, and then spoil it by doing it, and so ineffectively as well?

Given the fact that Hillary had to resort to relying on the "Big Dog" to stop her falling momentum a month or so ago, I think it's her showing signs of desperation.

Just because Clinton was better than Bush doesn't mean he was a particularly good president. He was more conservative on domestic policy than Nixon.

I, for one, will vote for whoever's challenging Hillary in the primaries. she won't get my vote until she's running against a Republican.

Its a negative story but its not false. When one event occurs in two distant locations, its customary to use a common time zone to avoid confusion.

"The "clock" at Greenwich, England is used as the standard clock for international reference of time in communications, military, aviation, maritime and other activities that cross time zones."
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/MAEL/ag/zulu.htm

By Greenwich Mean Time (Zulu Time as the US military calls it), the speech happened early on September 11. So the Clinton pushback is sillier than the Obama attack. Incidentally, if Obama really wants to throw an elbow, he should tie it back to Chinese fundraising in Clinton's 1996 presidential campaign.

Here's another tidbit. I wrote an email to Adam Nagourney, pointing out that he quoted one of the memos selectively in order to make Obama look bad. And guess what? A few hours later, the NYT piece no longer links to the original memos. Soon they'll probably be taken off the NYT site completely.

Although Clinton listed the speech on her financial disclosure as occurring on 9/11... even though it WAS 9/11 in Hong Kong when the speech was received... even though it stands to reason that Bill Clinton broadcast it on 9/10 so it would be received on 9/11...

you still have the words "(and ultimately false)" in your headline. This was misleading at first, but now it's downright nasty after you (finally) ascertained the facts. You are being quoted all over the net as saying Obama is spouting lies.

I know you are NOW "putting aside the truth or falsehood of the story", but your headline is not reflecting that and you've made no move to change it. As you should know, not everyone looks much beyond the headline, or investigates further, or reads the comments, or checks back for updates.

If your real concern is building solid majorities in both houses of Congress, Hillary Negative Coattails Clinton is not the way to do it.

Thank you for posting this. Whoever sent that email under the name of the campaign should be fired, like yesterday.

This is ridiculous. When Obama doesn't play hardball, you people gripe about him not being able to win against the GOP in November, when he does play (admitedly stupid) hardball you roast him for being a hypocrite, how on Earth is he supposed to win with you people?

"I can somewhat understand the negative campaigning on both sides."

There isn't "negative campaigning on both sides." What is wrong with people? What is so hard to understand?

Obama put out a smear on another candidates spouse. Dirty tricks that would make karl proud. What is so hard to crasp about that?

Obama = Loser.

Given the fact that Hillary had to resort to relying on the "Big Dog" to stop her falling momentum a month or so ago, I think it's her showing signs of desperation.

OK but seriously, the fact that Bill Clinton supports his wife's campaign for president is somehow supposed to be a sign of desperation on her part? Is it also desperation when other candidates spouses give speeches or otherwise help out their campaigns, or does that only work in the one case?

That's not an answer. You're clueless. How is telling the truth aboutt someone a smear? Hillary stated that Bill gave a big paid speech on a 9/11 anniversary. One of Obama's hirelings offered some mild criticism of this. You may think the criticism is misplaced, but it's certainly not a smear. You're nuts.

If the Dems don't fight back when attacked, they'll lose--again. And complaining is NOT fighting back. But complaining is all they seem to know how to do. Obama is the one exception so far. He does not seem to be a whiner, but a fighter. Good!

Thanks.

This may be the most ridiculous comparison ever. HRC's campaign did list the date as 9/11 on the financial disclosures. Whether people care about that is up to them, and I've already stated that I think the underling who did this should be fired. Obama did NOT go to a madrasa. Way to profer the right's discredited 3 months ago meme.

I think Greg's story is actually far more "wingnutty"--in that it falsely implies that Obama's campaign was intentionally lying--than the story being "pushed" by the Obama-ite who wrote the e-mail. And his refusal to publish the e-mail, along with his mischaracterization of it (first he says it contains 5 other unrelated items, then he says it has one other one that IS related to Bill. What's with that?)

Frankly, I think it IS tacky for Clinton to collect 100k for a speech on 9/11. It is more tacky than offering up a criticism of him doing so. But neither one is a big deal. And of course it's by no means the tackiest thing Big Bill's ever done, as we all know. And are we now to think that ANY criticism of Bill is "wingnutty?" I mean, I love the guy, but he's far from a paragon--as we all know.

You're right that the Times is not working for the Clintons. It's a Republican organ and the Reps want to run against Hillary. They fear Obama. Hence, the article attempting to make Obama's campagn look bad.

'Gave a speech on 9/11' is wingnut code for 'is not a patriotic American'. Shame on the Obama staffer for using this code.

Bill Clinton gave a speech here on 9/10. BFD that it was 9/11 across the dateline where it was received. Obama's oppo research was either sloppy or thought the truth wouldn't catch up with them.
Shame on Obama if he doesn't put an adult in charge.

All the Hillary can't win stuff was trotted out for her Senate race. Once the voters got to know her, she was unbeatable.

Hating Hillary is socially acceptable but being racist isn't. So you will get more accurate polling on Hillary's negatives than on Obama's.
Arguing about which one of them is least unpopular among 'publican bigots who aren't going to vote for either of them is idiotic.

It is easy and self-indulgent to say that you will not vote for Hillary when you are not actually looking at the bozo the 'Publicans are going to put up.

I wonder if the purist "I won't vote for Hillary' crowd are the same types who voted for Nader in Florida and gave us Bush over Gore?

the issue isn't that obama's people knew that this had taken place on 9/10 but were saying it took place on 9/11. it's that they were pushing this storyline at all. it's a bogus storyline. that's my issue here.

Exactly.

I am not exactly a fan of the Clintons but Obama better clean up his act - quick.

Best, Terry

Bill did go after Barack first, and in a false way. That does not, however, make it a good idea to do the same in return.

Why not? Perhaps Bill is attacking Obama a lot more behind the scenes within the Democratic party. Perhaps it may be a smart tactic for Obama to make Bill Clinton a target in his campaign to emphasize that Hillary is nothing but a surrogate?

There are many Americans, both Dems and GOP, that would vote for anyone but Clinton.

"It is disturbing to me that you chose to focus on this being a 'smear tactic' and adhomineum attach rather than the very substantive issues these memos raise."

Shocking. Either the total ignorance or the lying. Take your pick.

obama's karl rove style dirty tricks shop attacks a candidates spouse with a dirty republican smear and you call it a "substantive" issue:

"Larry Sabato: With His Record On Personal Finances, the Only Thing “More Absurd” Than Bill Clinton Working for Yucaipa Would Be If He Were “Appointed As an Ethics Adviser.” “Bill Clinton’s finances were so snarled that they led to many Whitewater charges and was a great damage to his presidency, and now he’s advising a big company and investors on financing,” said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist. “The only thing more absurd is if he was appointed as an ethics adviser.” [Houston Chronicle, 4/14/02]"
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/memo2.pdf

That is from obama's karl rove style dirty tricks shop. Now if you picked ignorance above then really don't know whitewater was a fake scandle ginned up repubs and pushed by the "liberal media" in order to attack a dem president.

More from obama's karl rove style dirty tricks shop:
Hillary Clinton Accepted Almost $60,000 In Contributions From Employees Of Cisco Systems, Which Laid Off American Workers to Hire Indian “Techies.”
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/memo1.pdf

Is obama saying accepting money from cisco employees is a bad thing? Because obama apologists are saying obama's karl rove style ditry tricks shop has so much time on their hands they are just letting the media know on a "not for attribution" basis what Bill Clinton's work schedule is. Now if obama is saying accepting money from cisco employees [how many cisco employees do you think are happy about outsourcing?] is bad why is obama accepting money from cisco employees?

BIEN, WILLIAM
MOUNTAIN VIEW,CA 94040
CISCO/MANAGER
3/30/2007
$2,300
Obama, Barack

ELLETT, JAMES
MOUNTAIN VIEW,CA 94043
CISCO SYSTEMS/ENGINEER
3/29/2007
$500
Obama, Barack

HUSSAIN, IMTIAZ
PLANO,TX 75025
CISCO SYSTEMS
2/21/2003
$500
Obama, Barack

HUSSAIN, IMTIAZ
PLANO,TX 75025
CISCO SYSTEMS
3/16/2004
$500
Obama, Barack

KELLER, DAVID
ATHERTON,CA 94027
CISCO/CONSULTANT
3/15/2007
$2,300
Obama, Barack

MADDOCKS, MARGARET A MS
LOS GATOS,CA 95030
CISCO SYSTEMS INC./DIRECTOR OF EDUC
1/22/2007
$1,000
Obama, Barack

MOORE, GARY B
LOS ALTOS,CA 94022
CISCO/SR VICE PRESIDENT
3/31/2007
$2,300
Obama, Barack

MORGRIDGE, JOHN
PORTOLA VALLEY,CA 94028
CISCO SYSTEMS
8/16/2004
$2,000
Obama, Barack

NORDLINGER, CHRISTOPHER
PALO ALTO,CA 94301
CISCO SYSTEMS/EXECUTIVE
3/31/2007
$2,300
Obama, Barack

OWENS, WENDY M
CHICAGO,IL 60605
CISCO SYSTEMS
5/3/2004
$835
Obama, Barack

WRIGHT, PHILIP
CELEBRATION,FL 34747
CISCO/SALES
1/16/2007
$250
Obama, Barack
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=P4ESD&txtState=(all%20states)&txtCand=obama&txtEmploy=cisco&txt2008=Y&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&Order=N

So which is it? Is accpeting money from cisco employees bad or does obama's karl rove style ditry tricks shop have so much time on their hands they are just letting the media know on a "not for attribution" basis publicly available facts?

Since I have a lot of time on my hands let help ease your ignorance [I'll give the benefit of the doubt] cisco employees are losing their jobs to outsourcing. It would only make sense for them to donate to a candidate they think would change that.

 one wonders if there's a reporter out there giving stuff to the Hillary people

Others wonder too:

 

I suspect there is a backstory BEHIND the ‘backstory’ as outlined under the heading “The Backstory on Obama-Clinton Attack Memos”. After actually reading the NYT’s article on the Clintons cashing out their blind trust, and then reading the memos put together by the Obama camp, well, there are several missing pieces to this incomplete and perhaps phony story.

Here is a clue from the posting: ‘Why would the Clinton campaign want to circulate documents attacking its candidate?’ Did anyone else actually read all the materials linked and notice that, while the Obama camp claimed authorship of the memos, it was the Clinton camp which shopped them to the media, including to the NYT? Strange, huh? Also, did anyone else notice that those research memos do not directly tie into the cashing out of the blind trust, in fact they could stand alone without that blind trust information, and may have been put together some time ago. So, perhaps the Clinton campaign wanted to tie the two together to take focus away from some story behind the story, so to speak. If so, I wonder just what that deeper back story would tell.

Or Greg perhaps, it isnot just a reporter but the entire story is that the Clinton campaign is creating this smear tactic  story? After all, they are the ones who took it to the media and this blueprint sounds awful familiar to the Madrassa's story and how it came from the Clinton camp as well.

What the Clinton camp learned is they could not send out an attack story on Obama for him to attack back. The tactic now seems to be to make Obama the source of the 'smear tactic' against Hilliary...the only thing is that the smears against Hilliary are originating in the Hilliary came.

It just does not sound reasonable that the Obama camp is making so many blantantly obvious 'mistakes'.  Mistakes which reinforce the meme that Hilliary is the tired and true campaign warrior while Obama is a neophyte that will implode. Hmmmm, every one of Obama's 'so called/alleged' attacks on HRC, backfire?  C'mon...this is too pat.

They are really working overtime to destroy his creditibility on a 'new type of politics'.  Hilliary is a pro at slash and burn.  These memos and how they were released/distribute/attributed demostrate that expertise.

If Obama has a plan to stop the negative effects of globalization on American workers, let's hear it.

Is there a single soul here who really needs to be told what kind of actions are needed?

I found this on Obama in a comparison of Democratic candidates:

Sen. Obama (D-IL) generally supports free trade policies, though like many of his fellow Democratic candidates, he has expressed concern about the tendency of free trade agreements to negatively affect labor and environmental protections. Obama voted to approve the 2006 FTA with Oman. He opposed CAFTA, however, explaining in 2005, “It does less to protect labor than previous trade agreements, and does little to address enforcement of basic environmental standards in the Central American countries and the Dominican Republic.”

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13402/

Best, Terry

Sorry, I hadn't realized that he had figured out a way to bring the third world up to first world standard of living, using the free market and not hurting our working people. I apologize to all of you here who knew that.

:-)

Let us suppose you were put in charge of the world and you wanted to do just that.

You would have to consider that cheap labor from immigrants as well as child laborers in Indonesia and prison labor in China (hey, not to mention our own courntry for that) would not be available. There would be tough competition for scarce resources without a doubt.

You would start off in a hole for sure.

But how about you start with banishing war (on people as well as pleasure)? Devote R&D to investigating new forms of energy and materials, fighting disease and want. Make education universal to the fullest extent desired by anyone. After closing down so many prisons and disbanding armed forces, there would be need to find employment for prison guards and soldiers but they might be employed in useful work. Always lots of things that need doing.

Might not solve all problems but it would be a nice start.

What you think?

Best, Terry

You're being deliberately obtuse. None of the other candidates are where they are politically solely on account of their spouses, and I don't think they have to address legitimate concerns about their unelected spouses being the primary policy maker in the White House.