« 
Obama Explains Missed MoveOn Vote: "I Registered My Protest" | Home | New Anti-War Ad Highlights Boehner's "Small Price" Remark »
Obama Explains Missed MoveOn Vote: "I Registered My Protest" | Home | New Anti-War Ad Highlights Boehner's "Small Price" Remark »
Hillary Surrogate Tom Vilsack Attacks Rudy's Family Life
In an interview New York 1, Tom Vilsack went to a place that has previously been a no go — attacking Rudy Giuliani's personal life:
"I can't even get into the number of marriages and the fact that his children — the relationship he has with his children — and what kind of circumstance New York was in before September the 11th and whether or not he could have even been re-elected as mayor prior to September the 11th. I mean, there are lots of issues involving Mayor Giuliani, and I'm sure if he becomes the nominee we'll be able to see those."
Somebody had to be first to do it, so it may as well be somebody who's not running for president anymore. But there is one lingering question: Is it a good idea for a Hillary surrogate to go into somebody's else's marital life?
Advertisement
There is so much in Giuliani's past that could make Giuliani stumble in the primaries. But that info needs to be spread by Republicans if they want to stop Giuliani... Vilsack's saying it won't change much in how a Republican primary unfolds.
September 20, 2007 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the above comment. The Republicans will pull this knife on Giuliani repeatedly once the primaries heat up. You can't have a problematic personal life if you're trying to run as a "family values conservative" to the fanatics in the Republican Party.
I think it's inartful of Vilsack to start bringing this stuff up, it makes us look like we're attacking Giuliani's private life in the same way the Republicans tried to assault Pres. Clinton in the 1990's.
September 20, 2007 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Inartful might be the understatement of the campaign to date...
It will take five seconds before Hillary is asked if she supports or will apologize for the "Vilsack Attack" on the '9/11 hero's family.' This is clumsy and dumb on Vilsack's part.
This is where the "robotic and triangulating" Clinton campaign would have been a good thing. A great example of why message control matters. However calculating it inevitably makes a campaign, it avoids days of wasted time dealing with the false crap that gets created out of this type of mistake. So much for focusing on her health care plan...!
September 20, 2007 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's campaign is hardly robotic. I've met some of her staff and many, many volunteers and they are energetic and optimistic. And frankly, they are much less prone to ad hominems toward the other candidates. (Ironic as heck, IMO.) No one who has witnessed her campaign or talked to enough of her volunteers is surprised that she's basically doubling her nearest competitor.
September 20, 2007 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
kleefeld is a hack. Less than zero.
Hey kleefeld tell us about Hillary's marriages her and relationship with her child. Go ahead I dare you. You creep.
I would say kleefeld is a disgrace but that would be to disgrace disgrace.
Because kleefeld is a hack I'll have to slama obama:
Jackson Disputes Report on Obama Remark
The Illinois senator, in a statement late Wednesday reacting to Jackson's comment, said ''outrage over an injustice'' such as in the Jena case ''isn't a matter of black and white. It's a matter of right and wrong.'' Obama cited earlier statements in which he ''demanded fairness'' and said they ''were carefully thought out with input and support'' from one of his national campaign chairmen -- Jesse Jackson Jr., a Chicago congressman and son of the elder Jackson.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Jesse-Jackson-Obama.html
No. No it's not about black and white. What a smuck.
September 20, 2007 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
hadenough this site can also go under the name "anybody but Hillary", "Democrats for Edwards and Obama" although how electing a hypocrite (Edwards) and a spineless "profile in courage" (Obama) will help Democrats get into the White House is questionable. Those uber-socialists who say that they can't vote for Hillary come what may are the ones who voted for Nader in the 2000 disaster. Anyway, notice how the story of Barack's vote (or the lack thereof) quickly got buried deep in Election Central and the push for making this non-story something that it is not. Do you think this would be the case if it was Hillary who sat out and gave some lame excuse like? Give it up, it ain't worth it.
September 20, 2007 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The intent of this comment was to send a message to the Political Transvestite. Here is the message: you keep attacking us and don't be suprised when we go after you and your screwed up family life. This is a shot across the bow. I love it.
September 21, 2007 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
hadenough/tarheel, the tinfoil hats aren't protecting you guys today? The vast TPM conspiracy is still out to get Hillary?
Calling other Dems names is hardly a good way to show your support for your candidate.
September 21, 2007 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob, I do not know about you but when the headline of Huffingtonpost is "Hillary says she is not a lesbian" and that of TPM says "Hillary Surrogate Tom Vilsack Attacks Rudy's Family Life" it just smells like a republican rag published by Malkin and co. But then again Huffington made her chops attacking Clinton for Gingrich so I guess old habits die hard. I would rather have posts criticizing Hillary's policies and debating them for their merits or the lack thereof instead of ad hominem attacks. Frankly I am yet to see the Hillary camp attacking anyway quite so vociferously and given that she is coming out a big winner on all fronts.
As far name calling candidates go: Edwards is a hypocrite, he is the Mitt Romney of the democratic party (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/21/0488/06212). And Obama needs to show his own profile in courage because this protest the vote by not voting is a naked political ploy and if calling it for what it is name-calling then I stand guilty of that.
September 21, 2007 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink