« Romney Facing Charges He Flip-Flopped On Stem-Cell Research — And His Own Campaign's To Blame! | Home | McCain Approval Plummets Dramatically To Below-50% Mark »

Obama Campaign Circulating Negative (And Ultimately False) Story About Bill Clinton

We've just obtained an email that shows that the Obama campaign yesterday circulated a negative, and ultimately false, story about Bill Clinton -- that he allegedly made money giving a speech on September 11, 2006.

Campaigns, of course, circulate negative stuff about each other all the time. This email is unusual in that it is flagging something potentially negative not about a primary rival but about the former President -- one who obviously isn't running in the Democratic primary and who remains popular with Dem primary voters.

Indeed, the email is particularly noteworthy in that it reflects one of the curiosities of this race -- that one of the candidates' spouses is a popular former President, and thus is playing a highly visible role in the campaign, making him a target for anonymous attacks from Hillary's rivals.

We obtained the email from the Hillary campaign, which declined to say how it got it.

The email, which was sent out by Jen Psaki of the Obama campaign and circulated to reporters (not us) on an off-the-record basis late yesterday, details some things that the Obama campaign found in Hillary's financial disclosure documents, which were released yesterday. More after the jump.

One of the things the email points to was the fact that Bill Clinton allegedly gave a for-profit speech on Sept. 11 -- something that presumably would be likely seen as controversial. Referring to the Hillary documents, the email flags this:

"9/11/06: Bill Clinton Commemorated 5th Anniversary Of 9/11 With $100,000 Speech To Asia-Pacific Private Equity Group in Hong Kong.

Hillary's financial disclosure report indicates that Bill Clinton gave a speech on 9/11/06 for CLSA, Ld. In Hong Kong and received $100,000. According to their website, "CLSA is a leading brokerage, investment banking and private equity group in the Asia-Pacific Markets."

The email is a different document than the one written about in today's New York Times. The paper today wrote that the Obama campaign yesterday circulated a document to news organizations on a not-for-attribution basis that contained a "scathing analysis" of Hillary's documents.

The Obama camp is taking criticism today over the Times article mainly because, as Taylor Marsh points out, Obama has made a frequent point of bemoaning the "smallness" of our politics. As Ben Smith asked today, does Obama's use of oppo research "compromise his promise of a new politics?"

The question seems even more pointed in light of the Obama campaign's spreading of bad stories about Bill.

Asked for comment on whether it was appropriate to spread negative stuff about Bill, given that he's not running in the primary and is popular with primary voters, Obama spokesman Bill Burton declined to directly address the question about Bill, instead saying: "I don't know why anyone would take umbrage with the circulation of publicly available information."

The story spread about Bill ultimately turned out to be false. It ended up on Drudge yesterday, where it was given heavy play for many hours, though there's no proof that it was given to Drudge by the Obama campaign. After Drudge posted it, The Observer's Politicker blog thoroughly debunked the story, pointing out that Bill's schedule proved that he'd actually given the speech the night before, on Sept. 10.

Update: One quick clarification. The Obama people may well have thought the speech was given on 9/11, since it was identified that way in her disclosure documents. But The Observer debunked the story yesterday not long after it went up at Drudge, and to our knowledge the Obama people made no effort to retract what it had send out. Even so, the real material point here is the fact that the Obama campaign pushed a Drudge-friendly Clinton-gave-speech-on-9/11 storyline.

Update II: Taylor Marsh has a sharp take on why this is problematic. And Steve Benen really lays into the Obama camp over it.


133 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

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.

user-pic

Et tu, Obama?

So much for running a different, clean campaign.

GORE '08

PEACE

user-pic

So much for a "new kind of politics".

user-pic

Isn't it weird that the one who told the press(TPM anyway) about it was the Hillary campaign? Hmmmm. I wonder how the HRC campaign got it.

user-pic

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

user-pic

I have to be missing something here, even if it were true that Bill gave a speech on 9-11... is the implication that nobody should give a paid speech on 9-11? Because, you know, I went to work on 9-11 and was paid for it. Was that somehow wrong of me?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

user-pic

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

user-pic

well, once something is posted on Drudge about a Democrat, everyone in the media presumes it's a scandal before even looking at the details of the story...

user-pic

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.

user-pic

I'm confused. On the one hand, nothing quoted so far looks "small", "scathing" or negative in the least, and as pointed out, its all publicly available information. And it is interesting that this gets traced back to Hillary and Drudge, apparently.

On the other hand, why bother with this crap? Makes Obama look hypocritical.

I'm a little disappointed, I must say.

user-pic

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

user-pic

Yeah but Hillary lies are sweet lies
[/moron]

This is the type of thing that will allow brownback to be crowned king.

user-pic

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.

user-pic

Looks like the Obama campaign got played by Drudge. So you know, never trust Drudge Report.

On another note, the context of the email is important since 9/11 is just one date among many others that were listed in the email.

user-pic

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...

user-pic

I still think that the real problem here is the trafficking in this wingnutty type of storyline about a popular Democratic President. the email shows Obama's people to be doing that, wherever they got the date...

user-pic

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

user-pic

I agree.

I'm just trying to determine if the Obama campaign was specifically pushing this date or pushing the fact that the Clintons are wealthy from the speech circuit - an issue currently being discussed on in the Republican field with regards to Giuliani.

If the email was solely about the 9/11 date then it's about 9/11. If it was one date in a series of dates that matchs the public disclosure form it's about the money, not the date - no matter what Drudge chooses to write.

user-pic

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

user-pic

A reasonable explanation would be that he made the speech on 9/10 and got paid on 9/11.

These reports typically mandate that they record the date the money was received, not the date that the work was performed.

user-pic

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.

user-pic

Yeah but if they were going by Hong Kong time it would have been 9/11.

See how dumb that is?

Obama's camp thinks it's OK to go after a candidates spouse with a smear that would make karl proud. Period. If the clown that came up with that isn't fired then Obama should pay the price.

user-pic

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

user-pic

what's the big deal about 9/11 anyway. nothing noteworthy according to these folks:


http://www.buzznet.com/web/popculture/pages/popculture-video/680861/

user-pic

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

user-pic

Can you post the entire email? Not that I don't trust ya, Sargent, but I just want the context.

user-pic

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…

user-pic

Barack,

If your campaign is highlighting this supposed 9/11 speech as backhanded way of smearing Hillary, fire these people immediately.

If not, clear it up.

I support you but this sounds sucky.

user-pic

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.

user-pic

the key here is not whether the Obama people knew or didn't know whether the speech had actually been delivered on 9/11. It's that the Obama people were *framing* this story as "Bill profits off speech on 9/11." The email I quoted shows that they did this...

user-pic

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.?

user-pic

I'd rather hear from Bill on 9/11 than Bush, and he's not prex, so if he gets paid, so what?

even if the story was true, trying to make it out as a bad thing is stupid.

user-pic

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.

user-pic

It looks like the spokesman confirmed the stuff the NYT talked about. Was what you quoted one paragraph of the long list of objections to the Clinton disclosure, or was it specifically aimed at stirring up ignorant "patriotic" resentment that Bill made money on the Sept 11 anniversary? Greg, I think you're making trouble for yourself by refusing to supply the context.

user-pic

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.

user-pic

I'm not sure what the problem is here. There were about four or five things in the email. This was the only one that dealt with Bill, as opposed to Hillary. To me, that's the only interesting thing here: The fact that the campaign is attacking Bill. The idea that the campaign is attacking Hillary is a no-brainer. That's why I highlighted this one attack.

And again, this attack is noteworthy because of its wingnutty cast. It's not the same as pointing out past quotes or highlighting a campaign's donors. That's why I singled this one out...

user-pic

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!

user-pic

He ain't listening to you. I predicted this kind of things since day 1. Obama is seeing that his numbers are not moving in the right direction so he must attack now or his campaign will fizzle by Sep.

It is sad really b/c I like Obama.

user-pic

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

user-pic

I'm not sure what the problem is either. Post the entire e-mail.

user-pic

d

user-pic

Going after The Big Dog? Obama must be desperate.

user-pic

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

user-pic

For the record, I worked last September 11th, too. I didn't quite make $100k, but I'll be damned if I let my guilty conscience force me to give the money back.

user-pic

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

user-pic

I'm not going to post the entire email, because it has a few asides that would be more embarrassing than I would like to the writer of it.

But I can tell you this: I went and checked it. I was wrong: There were only two items in it. The other item in it was also about Bill, and it alluded to research the Obama campaign did into his profits from work for yucaipa and from info USA. I believe that research was written about in today's New York Times.

This email alluded to two items: The one I wrote about, and the Yucaipa stuff. So the email was entirely focused on Bill, and I highlighted the thing that hadn't been written about yet, the one that interested me because of its wingnutty cast.

user-pic

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.

user-pic

Don't forget about the Geffen smear. Or the fact that the "Clinton-1984" was made by someone with close ties to the Obama campaign (despite the fact Obama said he didn't have the capability--a deliberate lie or embarassing ignorance). This is all classic dirty politics. There is enough evidence already that Obama is tolerant of this stuff amongst people close to the campaign (being the third instance).

I'm with Greg on this. This is disgusting coming from a Democrat. Especially one who claims to want a "new politics".

user-pic

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.

user-pic

Your level of obtuseness never ceases to amaze me. You Hillary sycophants are a bunch of morons. Hillary is no different from any other woman married to a successful spouse. Yet you fail to hold her accountable for all of her gaffes and votes in the US Senate and when you hear vaild criticisms of her actions, lack of actions and arrogant disdain for the electorates you fail to understand that she is the worst possible nominee for the Democrats.

 ASK ONLY OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAY THEY ARE A DEMOCRAT IN Q.10a OR THAT THEY WOULD VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY IN Q.10b.)
Thinking of these same candidates again, are there any candidates for whom you would definitely NOT vote for the Democratic nomination for president?

16% Hillary Clinton
11% Dennis Kucinich
9% Joe Biden
7% John Edwards
7% Chris Dodd
7% Barack Obama
5% Wesley Clark
5% Bill Richardson
1% Other (VOL)
29% None (VOL)
17% Not sure

 

  She can't win the general election! Don't you get it? 

You need to grow up and face facts, The Clintons time has come and gone. Monica blew it for THEM even if only Bill felt good about it Americans do not have to suffer because Hilliary did. Understand this:

 While there are more pro-Hillary democratic women than there are pro-Obama democratic women, and that contingent might be enough to swing the primary, there are more white male misogynist Republican voters who have a knee-jerk anti-Hillary position than there are white male racist Republican voters who have a knee-jerk anti-Obama position, and that everything else comes out to a wash in the general. If this is true, then Obama would have a better chance of beating whoever emerges as the Republican nominee.

The polls are telling the story of her unelectability and that is why stories like this thread keep coming up. The NYT's keeps doing her dirty work right along with Murdoch while giving her a free pass so she can win the primary and they can put Fred Thompson in the WH.

It's the internal polls that drive these stories.

user-pic

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.

user-pic

I went to work on September 11 2006, and in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. My office is less than a mile from "ground zero". I billed my clients for my work on those days. I guess that would leave me open for ridicule by Drudge and the Obama people if I ever were to run for elected office.

user-pic

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.

user-pic

If it's not key, why are you pushing the words "false" and "negative" in your headline?

Why isn't the headline:

OBAMA PEOPLE FRAME STORY AS 'BILL PROFITS OFF SPEECH ON 9/11'

user-pic

Should I rely on Drudge?

user-pic

I know, I'm cookoo for cocoa puffs. All I'm saying is to read the original memo and not rely on the NYT story.

user-pic

"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.

user-pic

Oh, bullshit. If it's true, how is it a smear? Get a life.

user-pic

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.

user-pic

OK, whoever designated this week "Democratic campaign staffers lose their collective minds" - week, please, please call it off! Deriding New York elites, arguing for a Scooter pardon, and now this...it's simply embarrassing.

user-pic

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.

user-pic

Gore-Clark.

Obama for AG.

user-pic

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. 

user-pic

Heeeellloooo! Tap Tap Tap... Is this thing on?

How is that a smear? Good Gravy! Get a brain.

user-pic

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?