Lynne Cheney: Dick And Obama Are Distantly Related | Home | Dems Win Special Election In Massachusetts By Lackluster Margin »
Obama Camp Attacks Rudy For Law Firm's Citgo Lobbying
Rudy Giuliani attacked Barack Obama today for comparing discussions with foreign despots to the negotiations between the Reagan Administration and the Soviet Union. "I say this most respectfully, you're not Ronald Reagan," Rudy said.
So not Obama's campaign is hitting right back at Rudy — and bringing up the lobbying work that Rudy's law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, has done for the Venezuelan government and Citgo.
"While Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton do not think we should engage in the type of strong diplomacy practiced by Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy, Obama does," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "And given the hefty fee that Hugo Chavez's oil company paid Rudy Giuliani's firm, he apparently thinks we shouldn't talk to Chavez, but it's fine to take his money."
It’s unfortunate that Rudy Giuliani is abandoning the politics of hope and is launching false attacks on Democrats instead.
October 16, 2007 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since Giuliani doesn't think we should talk to foreign despots, then the obvious conclusion from his own logic is that he's no Ronald Reagan either, right?
October 16, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric:
Can you explain how Obama is "attacking" Guiliani if he is "responding" to Guiliani's initial attack? And to the extent this is an attack in your book, wouldn't every HRC response be deemed an attack? Just curious....
October 16, 2007 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keith:
"I didn't do it" in response to an attack is defense.
"I didn't do x but you did y is an attack."
So Obama response that I only did what Reagan did is defense and his retort that Giuliani is working for Citgo is attack.
Why does Obama equate talking to the enemy as being a lesser offense than working for Citgo?
October 16, 2007 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great question! (And nice catch.) Apparently the answer is "no." Here's an October 8th Election Central headline:
Obama Attacks Hillary Over Iran Vote; Camp Hillary Hits Back
Seems pretty straightforward. Mean ol' Camp Obama is attacking people again, but strong and experienced Camp Hillary "hits back."
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/obama_attacks_hillary_over_iran_vote_camp_hillary_hits_back.php
October 16, 2007 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
That’s good. obama's henchman got a tofer in there. julie anne and Hillary. I’m betting berry is gonna rocket right in to third place in no time at all.
Oh and do polls mean anything yet? Just asking.
October 16, 2007 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone should tell candidate Obama that he doesn't have to attack both frontrunners at the same time!
It must be his inexperience.
October 16, 2007 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. They just don't mean everything yet.
October 16, 2007 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hadenough:
Polls always matter. It's just a question of how relevant they are to the instant question. A national poll isn't as relevant as a state poll in an early state. And then there is the issue of consistency in methodology (or lack thereof) used by particular polls. Oh wait, that was a rhetorical question...
And if Obama's spokesman is a "henchman", I presume Wolfson is as well? Or does that not work when HRC is on the attack? Excuse me, I mean "when HRC/her administration is hitting back".
October 16, 2007 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep ... I believe that is called a twofer. Ouch! HRC and Rudy in one mighty stroke. Damn. That really had to hurt.
October 16, 2007 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calling Rudy the GOP frontrunner when Romney is leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire just shows how little some posters here understand about how the process works.
October 16, 2007 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any well-designed poll should mean something, but people often want to use them in ways they cannot be used. For example, a well-designed poll generally can tell you what certain groups of people are currently thinking about an issue, person, or so on. What they generally cannot do is tell you what those same people will be thinking about that issue or person in several months.
Which just means that polls are not magical crystal balls. And common sense should have told us that in the first place.
October 16, 2007 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's an unpleasant hint of Naderism in the way Obama lumps Giuliani and Clinton together. Obama will not win my support with that kind of dishonest attack.
October 16, 2007 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anonymous wrote on October 16, 2007 7:52 PM:
"Calling Rudy the GOP frontrunner when Romney is leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire just shows how little some posters here understand about how the process works."
Using a little throwaway joke and missing the point of my post (the set up of which is somewhat based in reality re recent national Rasmussen polls and today's CNN polls) in order to attack the understanding of "some posters" shows how little one poster knows about how snark works.
October 16, 2007 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
From a political point of view, Obama stepped on his own message by including Clinton. Otherwise, this would have been an absolute zinger, aimed straight at the GOP frontrunner.
Chances are Rudy can just ignore this now, because Clinton will undoubtably ignore it. We'll see.
I'd love to see Obama contrast himself with Republicans much more than he does now. He's not RR (thank Goodness), but he sure as hell reminds most of us old folks of JFK, the President who inspired most of us to even care about politics.
October 16, 2007 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go Obama GO!
Pointing out FACTS is the only way you can win. Letting others get away with not telling the whole truth about themselves is a sure way of losing.
We HOPE that Americans will SEE the TRUTH and AVOID making more mistakes by electing either another Republican or Hillary as our President. They are both BUSH LIKE.
We don't need any more KINGS or QUEENS - Or one of these days, an alies may decide to PRE-EMPTIVELY STRIKE our nation to REMOVE OUR regime.
October 16, 2007 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
My problem with this from Obama is that as it regards HRC it is false. HRC *does* think we should practice strong diplomacy - she just won't guarantee a sit-down with the POTUS to, e.g., some cross between Pol Pot and Bozo the Clown (c'mon - you know Kim Il Jong is some of both).
(For that matter, I don't think Obama meant that, but that's more or less what he said in that debate so long ago. An error on his part.)
October 17, 2007 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi!
Adult collection free hot movie mpeg porn!
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-anima-porn-movies.html]free anima porn movies[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-anima-porn-or-sex-games.html]free anima porn or sex games[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-anima-porn-wallpapers.html]free anima porn wallpapers[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-animal-farm-porn.html]free animal farm porn[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-animal-porn.html]free animal porn[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-animated-lebian-porn.html]free animated lebian porn[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-animated-porn.html]free animated porn[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-animated-porn-cartoon.html]free animated porn cartoon[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-animated-porn-clip.html]free animated porn clip[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-animated-porn-game.html]free animated porn game[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-animated-porn-gifs.html]free animated porn gifs[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-animated-porn-movie.html]free animated porn movie[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-animated-porn-pic.html]free animated porn pic[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-animated-porn-picture.html]free animated porn picture[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-animated-porn-video.html]free animated porn video[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-animation-porn.html]free animation porn[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-animation-porn-movie.html]free animation porn movie[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-animation-porn-video.html]free animation porn video[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-anime-cartoon-porn.html]free anime cartoon porn[/url]
[url=http://2007.porn-porn-online.info/free-anime-disney-porn.html]free anime disney porn[/url]
October 17, 2007 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Coonsey
Senator Obama has already had about 10 months, about 6-7 national debates, and a boatload of money to use to get your version of the so-called "FACTS" and "THE TRUTH" before informed Democratic voters. How's the "HOPE"ing thing going for you these days? Not too well, I suspect, since you're ranting with CAPS now.
And you know, of course, that when you make the absurd connection that the 12th most liberal Senator in Congress per her voting record, is "BUSH LIKE," you lose credibility with even the non-Hillary supporters.
You're not going to win over the coveted independent-thinking undecideds by shouting "MONARCHY" or "alies (sic) may decide to PRE-EMPTIVELY STRIKE our nation" - whatever TF that means. Just trying to help.
OBAMA IN 2016!
October 17, 2007 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great. Now we're getting porn spam. Though for a second, seeing how long it was, I thought it was another of Hadenough's big list of polls.
October 17, 2007 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink