Clark: Obama Started Attacks In Dem Field

Comments (38)

Keith wrote on December 6, 2007 9:14 AM:

Now that's a funny joke!

Michael wrote on December 6, 2007 9:17 AM:

3 words: "naive and irresponsible"

Please Clark. That's a laughably false statement.

Michael wrote on December 6, 2007 9:22 AM:

I'll just add to that the fact that "he started it" is also one of the more infantile things one can say in defense of shameless mudslinging.

Throughout the primary season Obama's "attacks" have primarily and consistenly subtle, substantive, and done with class. He's not shooting 100% on that mark no doubt, but certainly not saying bluntly, "hillary has character issues" and "hillary is naive and irresponsible". Indeed, Obama was slammed by the press precisely for being "too subtle" and "too nice"

So aside from being demonstrably false, Clark's statement is also drawing some pretty poor moral equivalences here and is an asinine defense in the first place.

Its always said to see someone you respect lower themselves for partisan purposes.

DonnaG wrote on December 6, 2007 9:22 AM:

Wesley, do you take your audience to be 'naive' or 'inexperienced'? Try again, and remember that truthfulness is a virtue.

Geek, Esq. wrote on December 6, 2007 9:22 AM:

Remember: Hillary is the victim here. She always is.

Wesley Clark wrote on December 6, 2007 9:23 AM:

Eric, thanks for listening to me. Usually nobody does.

HolyRomanUmpire wrote on December 6, 2007 9:25 AM:

He started it! He started it!

Wow, this is getting funnier and funnier all the time.

NCSteve wrote on December 6, 2007 9:33 AM:

Shorter version of conference call comments: "Hi. I'm Wes Clark and I'm auditioning for the role of Hillary's VP. How you like me so far?"

bg wrote on December 6, 2007 9:34 AM:

Clark's in a sycophantic contest with Richardson for the VP spot. I think he has the inside line though given his military credentials, pale face and short stature.

loki wrote on December 6, 2007 9:54 AM:

Clark, of course, is correct.

Doc Rock wrote on December 6, 2007 9:58 AM:

It is unfortunate that it is going on, but, yes, I agree Clinton, did NOT start it. I wish, on the other hand, she'd remained above it.

Bupalos wrote on December 6, 2007 9:59 AM:

Great reporting again Eric. Now hit the beat and see who you can get to go on record saying "she started it, and besides she's a big poopiehead."

You started it! You started it. I'm going to tell the teacher and tell everyone that you're a big poopiehead who thinks he can be president.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 10:15 AM:

It is true that around that time, including in the debate, someone started going after Clinton more aggressively. Of course that person wasn't Obama--it was Edwards. That is what I find particularly amusing about all this. Edwards goes after Clinton, so Clinton cries foul and goes after . . . Obama.

I get the idea, of course: try to pretend Edwards doesn't exist (he is also closing on Clinton in Iowa and NH, by the way), and try to pretend going after Obama was forced on them, and not a sign of desperation.

I just doubt the people in Iowa and NH are going to buy that.

Jeremy wrote on December 6, 2007 10:21 AM:

I think everyone remembers Hillary calling Obama "naive and irresponsible" for wanting to break with the neocon preconditions based approach to diplomacy.

LJ wrote on December 6, 2007 10:22 AM:

Clark: Obama Started Attacks In Dem Field

Bullshit, General Clark. Hillary attacked Obama by calling him naive. To think I volunteered for your lying ass in 2004. Live and learn.

Kefa wrote on December 6, 2007 10:41 AM:

Obama and Edwards went along right with Matthews and Russert with the smears and attacks and right wings comments and are no better then Rush/Beck/Rove/Hannity they are sleeping with the dogs and now they have fleas. This cannot be denied. They have made the Dem.Party weaker. She will still be the water carrier for the party but now they have made it harder.

Michael A wrote on December 6, 2007 10:44 AM:

Now this is comedy. Next clark will be saying that obama wanted to be president when he was born. I wonder why clark is being clinton II's lapdog. Clinton I fired him as head of nato. Does he actually think that clinton II would make him vp? I sincerely doubt it.

By the way, I seem to recall clinton II attacking obama as naive. That wasn't a personal attack and republican mudslinging? Nah.

keith wrote on December 6, 2007 10:44 AM:

A new Rasmussen (SC) poll cometh at 11 AM (Eastern time)....so sayeth Drudge.

Michael A wrote on December 6, 2007 10:50 AM:

Ok kefa, what right wing comments did either obama or edwards say???? What smears???? That's news to me.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 11:13 AM:

Kefa,

I strongly suspect most Democrats are not going to appreciate being told they don't have a choice when it comes to who will be their nominee.

Kefa wrote on December 6, 2007 11:15 AM:

Personal/character attacks and not policy/issues.

Michael A wrote on December 6, 2007 11:20 AM:

And ...... What? Both your posts are unsupported conclusions that smear obama and edwards by making the unsupported conclusions. What basis do you have for your unsupported conclusions?

keith wrote on December 6, 2007 11:20 AM:

Kefa:

Can you go a little further and point out what the initial personal/character attack was?

LJ wrote on December 6, 2007 11:25 AM:

Obama and Edwards went along right with Matthews and Russert with the smears and attacks and right wings comments...

I wish you Hillary supporters would get your story straight. In the quote above Kefa is upset that "the boys" didn't come to Hillary's aid when poor defenseless Hillary faced tough questions during a debate. At other times all we hear about is how strong and tough she is and what a great fighter she is. So which is it? Is she so weak that she needs Obama and Edwards to campaign for her or can she actually fend for herself?

dajafi wrote on December 6, 2007 11:25 AM:

Clark was my guy in 2004. Sadly, it's becoming evident that I was as wrong in my assessment of his character as Her Highness was about AUMF, Kyl-Lieberman, and so much else.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 11:32 AM:

Of course attributes in general matter as much or more to voters as specific policy positions. Clinton, by the way, has been making many attribute arguments on her behalf while long attacking Obama on attribute issues. For example, proclaiming your own strength and experience and arguing the other candidate is "irresponsible and naive" is not a policy argument, but rather an attribute argument.

Incidentally, I personally think that it is perfectly rational of voters to weigh attributes as much as policy positions. When you are thinking about a four year term as President (potentially eight), you can only predict with so much accuracy what issues that President will be dealing with. Just as important, particularly with respect to domestic policy, a President cannot just make unilateral policy decisions, but has to work with Congress.

So, it would in fact be missing a lot of what will go into a successful Presidency to focus on just the candidate's positions on the known issues at the time of the election. In that sense, attribute arguments can be legitimate and substantive arguments, just not in the same way as policy arguments. Which is not to say policy arguments aren't important too--they just aren't everything.

Anonymous wrote on December 6, 2007 11:35 AM:

Kefa,

Being a water carrier is a bad thing.

Anonymous wrote on December 6, 2007 11:39 AM:

Didn't Clinton just baselessly say that Obama lacks courage and character? I mean, you can't sink any lower than that.

It's the pot calling the kettle black.

She still can't make up for her massive lack of backbone when it came time to vote on the Iraq War. She lacks any political courage whatsoever, and I think that IS a character issue. It suggests that she would be another massive sellout once elected to office, focusing on more GOP-lite policies.

loki wrote on December 6, 2007 12:51 PM:

Edwards goes after Clinton, so Clinton cries foul and goes after . . . Obama.

That is incorrect.

Redshift wrote on December 6, 2007 12:54 PM:

I was at the YearlyKos debate in August, and Edwards was on the attack then (it's where the "contributions from lobbyists" line began.) And after Obama chimed in agreeing, that was widely reported as a spat between Hillary and Obama, too. Sigh...

onceler wrote on December 6, 2007 1:01 PM:

sad that Clark has chosen to throw his credibility away in the fashion he has been doing. he's been dead wrong about pretty much everything I've heard him opine about since the '06 elections. wrong about withdrawing from Iraq, wrong about Iran - and this guy is supposed to be able to translate his military experience into foreign policy experience!! does not bode well for what a Clinton administration would look like. hawks as far as the eye can see.

as far as this "Obama started it" absurdity, well I don't think he's fooling anyone. everyone knows there would be a back and forth no matter what. but Hillary has been far more nasty and duplicitous in her approach - and it's demonstrably hurting her chances. so I guess she and Clark should keep doing it, because I would prefer that Hillary not be the nominee for nearly every reason there is to form an opinion about such a thing.

phidda wrote on December 6, 2007 1:13 PM:

Who is this Clark guy and why do I care what he has to say?

Next up, James Carville will detail exactly how Obama, the guy who smelt it, dealt it.

john mccutchen wrote on December 6, 2007 1:20 PM:

TPM ElectionHRCentral
All Hillary all the time

Thanks for the latest from Gen Hackley Clark..whoring for SecDef

But what no Hillary ads today????

Our Moment Is Now http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid1333277839

Enjoy

vena wrote on December 6, 2007 1:23 PM:

Clinton should try to get some good press this next week, b/c the past 10 days have definitely not been her best. Supposedly, Obama is closing in on her in both NH and NC.

As far as the attacks, I thought she began back in Aug. with a character attack calling Obama, "naive and inexperienced." I research, but I'm pretty sure that's when it all started. Obama who has fought back, no denying it, has made attacks on her policy, not directly on her as a person.

Coonsey wrote on December 6, 2007 1:34 PM:

General, with all due respect, telling Americans where Hillary is wrong with her policy thinking isn't what I call an attack. An attack is when you go after a person's kindergarden records, or brother-in-law records.

On this - you are wrong sir.

Anonymous wrote on December 6, 2007 2:05 PM:

I hope the campaign buys the General a new coat to replace the one he threw over ALL THAT MUD so that she-who-must-be-nominated won't dirty her pretty heels.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 3:12 PM:

Redshift,

If it is any consolation, I think this is working out well for Edwards: Clinton's numbers are down, but his are up, which is unusual for someone who has campaigned this aggressively against a frontrunner.

Of course some of that has to do with Edwards keeping his attacks largely within acceptable bounds. But I think a lot of it has to do with Clinton hitting back at Obama instead--not that her attacks on Obama have worked, but they would arguably have been considered more within bounds if Edwards had been the target instead of Obama.

Since Edwards could not count on Clinton doing that, I won't quite call his campaign strategy a stroke of genius. But at a minimum he was willing to take a risk, and by all indications so far it has paid off.

kjoe wrote on December 6, 2007 4:10 PM:

If this election was about who is willing to get tough with kindergarteners, Hillary's team would be 30 points ahead in the polls.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)