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?