Too bad Mom didn't serve any deep-fried "mudcat." I hear it's particularly tasty once it's been hung out to dry....

"all the nasty and vicious skirmishing that's been going on between the Hillary and Obama campaigns"

Obama sent out a smear against another candidates spouse. The only thing "nasty and vicious" is Obama.

And apparently Obama has decided to keep karl rove jr. on his staff. That about says it all.

Obama sent out a smear against another candidates spouse. The only thing "nasty and vicious" is Obama.

It appears that the only thing 'nasty and viscious is how this story is being covered as a smear on Obama. Obama's campaign released very pertinent and a detailed analysis of where the Clintons have gotten their money based on their financial disclosures. That is not a smear. It is publicizing the truth.

The disservice that has been done here is to attack the messenger because the message itself is solid, truthful and definitely an issue of concern to many in the electorate.

 

Mr. Obama’s aides circulated the memorandum to news organizations on the condition that news organizations not say where they obtained the information.

There is nothing unusual – and, most reporters and ethics experts will say, unethical – about this practice

This turned into a bit of a dust-up because by all appearances, the Obama campaign got a little sloppy in circulating what turned out to be two critical memos. They ended up in the hands of the Clinton campaign.

And the Clinton campaign promptly sought to circulate copies of what it found to news organizations, including The New York Times, which asked that it be allowed to say where it obtained the document.

Why would the Clinton campaign want to circulate documents attacking its candidate? Mrs. Clinton’s aides declined comment. But the Clintons have been seeking to undercut the effort by Mr. Obama to present himself as the face of a new-kind-of-politics that eschews these kind of attacks.

These documents – with their bold type and grabby headlines, including one that referred to Mrs. Clinton as (D-Punjab) – are text-book examples of old-school opposition research practices. Second, the documents include what could be construed as attacks on Mr. Clinton, who is probably the most popular person among Democrats these days.

So what we have here is actually that the Clinton campaign turned this into a smear to re-focus the issue away from their extensive and questionable fianancial holdings when considering a Presidential candidate into whether or not Obama was living up to a 'new politics'.

Not only did Drudge buy it, but so did TPMcafe and this is appalling. The substance of the issue here is the Clintons finacial holdings and Greg Sargent chose to focus on Obama just like the Clintons wanted.

The Clintons have simply proved again that they are more politically savvy when it comes to hardball politics and that when Obama tells the truth Drudge and TPMcafe now even called it a smear to support the opposition.

I would think that TPMcafe would not simply repeat the version that the Clinton campaign gives out and look for the backstory when it is about Obama. Several people repeatedly asked Greg Sargent for the memos and they were once provided on that thread. Had they been provided the substance of the issue would have been extremely apparent vs. the 'smear' verbiage being thrown around.

Unbelievable.