i really must hand it to novak for his use of the word 'agent' too, in all its sinister implication.

Swiftboat response handbook, by barack o'Bama.

1. respond immediately.

2. smoke out the real source.

3. story dies.

4. media is deterred from pulling similar garbage.

kjoe,
Only you forgot point 1b. “Throw wild and unsubstantiated accusations at fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton.”

But perhaps that was just a tiny unintentional slip in the rookie’s swift response operation?

OK, Greg. So how is that really so different from "... an agent of Clinton"?

Sounds right up Mary Matalin's alley to me.

Y'all are nuts if you don't think the Clintons wouldn't cozy right up to the likes of Novak if it would get her one step closer to the White House. With me, she really crossed the line at that awful debate in Nevada last week, accusing John Edwards of "slinging mud" and taking cues from the "Republican playbook" when he was merely pointing out serious and substantial policy differences.

I'm done with her. Some of you might think she's tough and calculating to behave this way, but it just repulses me.

The swtory is no longer about Obama.

You cannot spin it into inexperience when his quick response changed the storyline to "who is more disgusting---Novak, or the people around hillary?"

Go ahead and sorth that out for yourselves.

Let me guess ... Richard Armitage?

Of course Karl Rove writes a column filled with smarmy tripe for Newsweek. Spouting vitriolic lies DIRECTLY was never his style. So now we get the real stuff.

JenJen - Kjoe,

Novak takes a page out of Rove's playbook and just makes up some garbage and sits back to wait and see what happens. Obama swallows it hook line and sinker. Novak then all but admits that he made it up. The result is that this is all Clinton's fault?

Since I know what tone of the response will be, I'll get this out of the way now - I do not know who I will be voting for in the primary. I do know that I won't be giving any of the candidates money before the general election. And I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee.

Of course, lost in all this loud create-a-feud designed to compare tactics of campaigning are the original bottom-line reasons for democrats to line up for respective candidates, which original reasons are as big as the difference between the Bush tactic of surging to keep the war going and the original huge issue of Bush lying us into the war in the first place.

The big issues for the future are about who has demonstrated the best judgment regarding war and peace, and who has the best record and chance to clean up the increasingly smelly Beltway mess of unsavory influences.

Of course, the Bush supporters would rather argue tactics than deal with the lies that led to the war. I leave it to you to extrapolate this to the Hillary camp preferences.......

'I leave it to you to extrapolate this to the Hillary camp preferences...'

PFFFFFFFFFF!

You wrote all of that, just to drop Hillary's name right at the end?

Maybe Novak is in need of an intern?

Or maybe a research assistant?

LOL.

Bottom Line:

Obama released a statement giving credence to Novak's rumors, Novak gets exposed for shoddy reporting (again).

Simple as that.

It is sickening to see so many otherwise good Democrats would fall for anything to discredit Mrs. Clinton. You don't have to vote for her in the primaries. But your hatred of her is totally unhealthy!

What we need is a left wing columnist willing to sink to the level of garbage diving that Novak revels in. We could rationalize it as "we stoop to conquer." For once I'd like to see the Repubs at each other's throats as it seems the Dems are so wont to do.

I think this little flap of Novak stirring up trouble was designed so the media can carry on with its manufactured horse race between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama. Everyone is swallowing it, hook, line and sinker. The U.S. media is the biggest whore ever to stain the pages of history, and we're paying dearly for it.

Please don't use the word "second-hand" to describe Robert "Douchebag of Liberty" Novak's sourcing. Call it what it is:

GOSSIP

Thank you.

Well if there's one thing Novak seems to succeed at, it's turning Democrats against each other. Way to fall into the trap, people!

'The story remains----he has put the onus on Novak and Hillary to do the explaining.' Hillary already DID explain.

EH,

O-Bomb-A is a moniker meant to repeatedly recall O-Bomb-A's naive comments about invading Pakistan and about bombing Iran, as well as reminding everyone of how he repeatedly bombs in candidate forums and debates - e.g. as with his most recent appearance in Nevada (a reprise of his bombing in the first candidate forum, also held in Nevada many months ago) - and to also note that, using past as prologue, how he would bomb horribly on the national ticket. We Democrats want to win the White House in November '08. O-Bomb-A and his unending blunders would be a disaster in that effort.

DonnaG:

But, instead, that 'most tightly run campaign' in history, no surprise, uses the Novak whisper smear to attack Obama with a phoney 'gotcha again, you newcomer'.

That's precisely the way I read it, and the way I think Clinton's camp intended it. It rubs me the wrong way, and I'm surprised that Clinton fans can't see that this isn't necessarily a fine moment in the campaign.

Very cute, Anonymous. If you're not falling for the "Resistance is Futile" Clinton campaign, you're now "dumb as a fencepost," "stupid," "gullible," and (wait for it!!) a "dumbass."

Got it. Looking forward to seeing how that works out for you next November.

While I'd vote for a cherry red stapler if it were the Democratic nominee, if this is what the Clintonistas think of their fellow Democrats, it's going to be one nasty, uphill struggle.

Waterboard Novak...Get the truth out of him.

WillyJ,

LOL! Do Not Want!! Unfortunately, Willy, you don't know that item didn't come from a Clinton-connected whisperer, either. No matter how badly you want it to be a made-up story, you just don't know. And I was addressing the Clinton response, not the original charge in the Novak column.

But, here's what I find so irritating of late... if Edwards mentions Clinton's attachment to lobbyists, why, he's slinging mud right out of the Republican playbook!! If Obama gets out in front of a Novak column by defending himself, well, he's a silly, non-serious, inexperienced candidate! And me, well, I suppose to people like you, this lifelong Democratic activist is a member of the VWRC.

Can you even begin to fathom how old this is getting to many of us, what an enormous turn-off it is? Shouldn't you wait until after the caucus before you count your chickens? Any chance you guys could save the vitriol for, you know, the Republican nominee?

This place is crawling with GOP trolls. Novak played Obama for a fool, and now Obama's been caught over-reacting. Instead of apologizing for attacking Hillary (like the guy on Daily Kos was big enough to do), Obama's folks respond by attacking Hillary with the same narrative as the GOP: "calculating and untrustworthy." Thanks for that. That's so red, white and blue and transformatively post-partisan of you. Hope Giuliani is sending you cash payments for this fine work because his checks will bounce with Judith Regan is done with him.

'Willy, you don't know that item didn't come from a Clinton-connected whisperer, either.'

R U Serious?

Do you suggest the Clinton campaign must now dis-prove a negative?

'And me, well, I suppose to people like you, this lifelong Democratic activist is a member of the VWRC.'

...

'Any chance you guys could save the vitriol for, you know, the Republican nominee?'

**irony meter bursts into flames**

Obama basically said put up or shut up.

Looks like someone is lying.
Either Novak or the Clinton camp.

I hope's it Novak.

No reason to blame Obama.
He was smart enough to respond quickly.

Kerry let that Swift Boat crap go on for weeks before he addressed.

Trying to use this to knock Obama discredits the knocker more than it does Obama.

Reminds me of Romneygate. You heard about those questionnable calls to New Hampshire votees about Mormons. Guess who was making the calls.

Note: Novak on Hannity right now.

The Clinton "machine" has not done any of this- so far the only op research is from the other teams- Obama's communications director, Robert Gibbs, was one of those responsible for one of the most offensive anti-Dean ads in the last election- Osama bin Laden connected. Check it out before you spin negative on Hillary- Don't encourage negative campaigning-it's hurtful to our party and the country.

Today, Sen. Barack Obama echoed Republican talking points by repeating a totally false claim by Republican Bob Novak about the tactics of the Clinton campaign.

It might be a good time for Sen. Obama to take a look at the tactics of his own campaign.

The Obama campaign pedaled an opposition research document titled "Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)," attacking Hillary for her ties to the Indian-American community:

Senator Barack Obama disavowed the document his campaign aimed at Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last week, saying today that it was "stupid and caustic." The headline of one of the documents, which referred to Mrs. Clinton as 'D-Punjab,' touched off a furor among Indian-American groups that called on Mr. Obama to apologize for the remarks.
The Obama campaign made a false attack on Bill Clinton:

More Obama oppo is online today, including a detailed document on Bill Clinton and Ron Burkle (.pdf) and a story, which turned out to be false, about Bill Clinton giving a paid speech on 9/11/06.
The Obama campaign took credit for placing stories attacking Hillary regarding Norman Hsu:

In August, Obama’s team scored a significant hit by helping to place a story in several newspapers revealing that Norman Hsu, a major Clinton donor, had skipped town after having pleaded no contest to a charge of grand theft 15 years earlier and still faced an outstanding warrant... (Hsu had also contributed to Obama.) [Atlantic Monthly, 12/2007]
The Obama campaign was 'digging for damaging facts' at the Clinton library:

How far is the money being spread? The Obama campaign spent $27 at the Arkansas state archives and $9.30 at the Clinton library, digging for damaging facts on Clinton. Asked what Team Obama found, spokeswoman Jen Psaki conceded, "Not much."
The Obama campaign's communications director compiled a list of opposition research stories on Hillary that he was pitching to reporters:

I couldn’t help but notice some of what he had scrawled on a whiteboard hanging on his wall:

HC is, of course, Hillary Clinton...These were obviously notes about stories the campaign was pushing or anticipating…

Obama Takes Lead In New Iowa Poll; ABC News/Washington Post

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105455&page=1

Obama 30, Clinton 26, Edwards 22 - MoE: +/- 4.5

"Also problematic for Clinton: 55 percent of likely Democratic voters in Iowa say they're more interested in a "new direction and new ideas" than in strength and experience, compared with 49 percent in July -- a help to Obama, who holds a substantial lead among "new direction" voters."

Good to see my fellow Dems doing exactly what Novack and the GOP want us to do, eat our own. Well done you morons (in both Obama and Clinton camps).

This man needs to be run out of town. What kind of reporting is this. It seems to me that Novak could be sued for such slandering. It's also a scandal that the company that allowed it to be printed should lose their creditability.

Coonsey's View
Political Blog
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

Wade

This is what I'm talking about when i say obama supporters are the stupidest fucking Dems I've ever know - Obama can reject the rumor without attacking Clinton. And then you know what he can do? He can RESPECTFULLY ask Clinton to deny it. But no, Obama and his supporters are such morons that they don't even know they don't have to buy into the premise of the rumor. You'd have to have graduated sixth grade to figue that out and apparently neither Obama or his supporters have done that.

But no, being the dumbest fucking presidential candidate in history, he has to smear Clinton with this rumor and demand that she "concede" there is no truth to it. How can one concede something one has never even alluded to?

It appears that there are many people who greatly fear Obama's strength. It is impossible to know if the really vile postings here are by Republicans or Democrats who support a different Democrat. It has been clear for a long time that the only thing that unites the Republicans is despising Clintons. Her nomination would be the most motivating factor for Republicans to vote. She seems to be the Republicans only hope.

AA,

I lived in Illinois from '95-06. I don't want to damn Obama with faint praise, but he is head and shoulders above any politician Illinois has produced since Paul Simon. Seriously, if you actually live in Illinois, please tell me who has impressed you more than Obama in the last 20 years of Illinois politics. I think Obama has been a fine Senator and would be an excellent President.

And speaking of great Senate races, Hillary Clinton's only electoral challenger ever is... Rick Lazlo? C'mon.

Obama and Edwards are only helping the GOP by attacking Hillary with GOP talking points and tactics. These comments are proof -- I'm sure at least half attacking Hillary are trolls -- but you can't tell the Obama/Edwards supporters from the trolls.

On this non-story, Obama should apologize for jumping on this story before he had the facts.

Novak smeared Clinton as well as Obama, unless the Hillary supporters think that Novak accusing the Clinton campaign of this crap was A-okay. Obama issued a personal statement--and not one issued by one of the campaign staff.

Hillary should have personally refuted Novak's column and decried the Republican smear tactic and stated that no one in her campaign is talking to Novak.

Obama was not naive about this one at all. It had to be sunk quickly.

Hillary should have responded to Novak's attack on her much more quickly. But her campaign seems to fail on the proper response on these kinds of smears emanating from the Republican side of things.