Hillary Campaign Supplies Person Who Claims To Have Received "Dirty Tricks" Call From Obama

Comments (137)

Michael L. wrote on December 4, 2007 1:08 PM:

It shouldn't be that difficult to produce her phone records if she wanted to, would it?

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 1:08 PM:

Assuming all of that is exactly true:

What is "dirty" about it?

Keith wrote on December 4, 2007 1:08 PM:

The funny thing is, the Obama campaign uses phone lists that they collect after the calls have been made. All you need is to provide them with the number and they can figure who, if anyone, called her.

Luke wrote on December 4, 2007 1:09 PM:

I don't get it. Even if this were true, who is to say that this was actually from Obama's campaign, and not some hardline supporter taking matters into his own hands? This has happened many times before, after all, in electoral politics.

I know Greg is exploring it, but the article paints the picture as either Obama is lying or Clinton and the woman are lying.

AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on December 4, 2007 1:14 PM:

Maybe I am out of touch but this seems a stretch. I've volunteered for all sorts of political phone banks, and, if this is accurate, it sounds like an over zealous volunteer rather than a concerted effort. The first time I did it, I was a little overzealous (I rightly thought the world would end if Gore didn't win) and pulled back. Given the sometimes nasty tenor of exchanges on this blog when people get a little partisan, it's easy to understand this happening. I've heard the same tome from Hillary supporters, Edwardites, etc.

KJ wrote on December 4, 2007 1:15 PM:

The woman said that the call had come from a New Hampshire number, though she said she didn't make a record of it or remember it. Asked if she was certain that she'd heard the caller identify himself as from the Obama campaign, she said, "I couldn't say 100 percent," but added she recalled clearly that he had identified himself this way "immediately" during the call.

Did you read what you wrote? She claims that it was definitely from a New Hampshire number (so, she has caller id), but she didn't keep a record of it (strange, since most caller ids have memory (at least 10 or 15 calls)). She's not 100% sure if he identified himself as calling from the Obama campaign, but he "immediately" identified himself during the call. WTF?

Something doesn't pass the smell test. And none of this comports with any of the Obama scripts I've seen (all STRESS that one should not argue with anyone and that if they support another candidate, to thank them and end the call).

Also, if you are still trying to verify the claim, why are you posting it now? Why not wait until you have something more than these unsubstantiated accusations?

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 1:15 PM:

I'm with DTM, this looks really, really petty on the part of clinton II. She must be tanking, big time.

What exactly is dirty about this call???? Oh, I get it, its the same response as the clinton II lovers on this site. He must be a "hillary-hater" because he is telling the truth and they must be "republican talking points." But, what is so "dirty" about facts???

Me thinks that we may be looking at a general election without clinton II. Hallelujah.

hadenough wrote on December 4, 2007 1:16 PM:

Given obama's history of dirty tricks [if you don't know you are awfully late to the party] this sounds about right.

Greg wrote on December 4, 2007 1:19 PM:

the reason we posted this now is that f the Hillary campaign is going to make this accusation, it's news, so we'll report it -- just as we would if the Obama people did it.

And we're going to do our best to determine whether it's true or not. I'd say that if it turns out not to be true this isn't any good for the Hillary campaign, wouldn't you all? This could easily backfire on them.

Keith wrote on December 4, 2007 1:20 PM:

See how easy it is to pass along unsubstantiated accusations:

Given obama's history of dirty tricks

No articles, accusations from another party, no evidence. Just a smear presented as gospel fact. Not hard at all. Thanks hadenough.

Kefa wrote on December 4, 2007 1:20 PM:

It is silly and backward to think that any person we like, whomever he/she maybe doesn't play the game the same way. That he or she is so high and might that they are beyond dirt. This is hardball.

Lookingforhome wrote on December 4, 2007 1:21 PM:

Here come the denials and excuses...

It can't POSSIBLY be a concerted effort by the campaign...not the Saint of Chicago!

You guys need to get your stories straight though -- either admit it's a perfectly reasonable part of a tough campaign, or continue with the adamant denials. Saying 'there's no way the campaign would do this, but if they did there's really nothing wrong with it' seems a bit, well, like totally disingenuous BS!

Which is it?

Andrew wrote on December 4, 2007 1:24 PM:

Aside from the fact that this type of phone call is almost certainly not approved by the Obama camp, this whole story is silly.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think calling something a "dirty trick" would require it to, I don't know, actually involve some kind of "trick." Someone disagreeing or arguing with one of your supporters on the telephone isn't a dirty trick. It may be rude, but it sure as hell isn't a "dirty trick."

Hillary really needs to cool it with this nonsense this week. This type of pettiness and exaggeration simply reeks of desperation. Definitely not a pretty sight.

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 1:26 PM:

Just wait, penn will be issuing a press release soon that obama thought this one up in kindergarten when he was planning on running for president.

No, I don't see anything wrong with a call like this. Yes, it may be over the top, but is it "dirty," nope. Also, as pointed out with the postings on this site from clinton II lovers in particular. Who knows, this woman could have been calling out the caller as a hillary-hater, uninformed, commie, pinko, anti-american, imbecile, traitor, bozo, etc., and the conversation might have gotten heated. Who knows? But "dirty," give me a break.

Vermonter wrote on December 4, 2007 1:27 PM:

Greg,

I think the point that folks are making is that even if it were true, so what?

It still wouldn't be news.

Except to report on how petty the Clinton campaign has become in the face of what must be dismal internal polling numbers.

Regardless, keep up the good work.

Geek, Esq. wrote on December 4, 2007 1:28 PM:

Greg: How is that an example of a dirty trick? It sounds more like someone being a jerk. Even if the facts are as alleged, Clinton's claim of 'dirty tricks' is still false.

You gotta be more critical.

votenic wrote on December 4, 2007 1:31 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

Copperhead Road wrote on December 4, 2007 1:33 PM:

How is this a dirty trick? Even if this call came from the Obama campaign, it just sounds like an overzealous phone bank operator who got into a mildly heated political argument with the woman.

I really don't think it's fair to play this up as being even remotely newsworthy.

Jeremy wrote on December 4, 2007 1:33 PM:

It's certainly possible that a volunteer or two had a heated conversation with some one they called. I don't see how that's indicative of anything whatsoever. . .

Greg wrote on December 4, 2007 1:34 PM:

well, the "dirty tricks" allegation was actually applied to the whole range of calls that the hillary campaign is alleging.

meanwhile, check out our update. this could easily be just an overzealous volunteer...

Greg wrote on December 4, 2007 1:36 PM:

again, it's news that the Hillary campaign is alleging this and pushing this. In that regard this could just as easily backfire in the face of Camp Hillary. Right?

Tigol Bitties wrote on December 4, 2007 1:39 PM:

Looks like you forgot to clarify her (deliberate) use of the passive voice in her damning accusation:

"It was definitely prepared."

WHAT was definitely prepared? And BY WHOM?

Whether or not Obama has written talking points for his New Hapshire phone-bank volunteers can be clarified, as a matter of fact, by asking the Obama campaign to produce them to reporters. Either the written talking points instruct supporters to "attack" Clinton, or they don't.

If they don't, there is no "dirty trick" by the Obama campaign. The caller may have prepared his own spiel. He may have been talking extemporaneously and it sounded prepared.

Sounds like you need a follow-up call.

DemAC wrote on December 4, 2007 1:40 PM:

It sure sounds like camp Obama. The talking points basically are a concentrate of the Hillary haters’ usual posting on the web, minus the worst personal derogatory comments.

If it sounds like an Obama and talks like an Obama it most probably is an Obama.

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 1:41 PM:

Lookingforhome,

Actually those are two sides to the same coin.

On the one hand, there is nothing "dirty" about calling people up and trying to persuade them to support your candidate.

On the other, everyone knows that when you make calls like that, you have to be upbeat and not argumentative, because being argumentative just turns people off.

So to the extent the Clinton campaign is trying to claim this is a "dirty trick", that is wrong. And to the extent they are implying this argumentative approach was encouraged by the Obama campaign (even assuming this was a campaign call), that is almost surely wrong as well.

Keith wrote on December 4, 2007 1:42 PM:

Greg:

Please tell me you called the Obama campaign BEFORE you posted this.

Anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 1:43 PM:

Greg wrote on December 4, 2007 1:19 PM:

the reason we posted this now is that f the Hillary campaign is going to make this accusation, it's news, so we'll report it -- just as we would if the Obama people did it.

And we're going to do our best to determine whether it's true or not. I'd say that if it turns out not to be true this isn't any good for the Hillary campaign, wouldn't you all? This could easily backfire on them.

___________________________________________

The reason people are sensitive about the accusation being published before the veracity of the charge is established is because of the long experience of the accusations becoming the narrative. It is clear that Hillary hopes to drive the "Obama ain't pure as the driven snow meme" into the ground, and these accusations tend to play into that story. So by publishing the accusations before they have been fact checked. Instead of a headline that states "Hillary Makes Lies About Obama in Desperate Attempt to Smear Him," you have "Hillary Camp Accuses Obama of Dirty Tricks." The damage may be done even if its untrue.

Jeff wrote on December 4, 2007 1:45 PM:

Greg: it seems it would be appropriate to point out in your post thatVoter ID calls are thhe staple of EVERY campaign's field operations, and that they are carried out by thousands of volunteers. Every volunteer is given a script with specific instructions not to engage in any arguments , etc. What can a campaign do to control every single volunteer?

I would also point out that it wouldn't be that surprising if it turned out to be Hillary supporters MAKING the calls, just to generate some bad press about Obama.

KathyF wrote on December 4, 2007 1:46 PM:

Wow. I was expecting something big. This is so incredibly mild compared to the stuff going on in '03.

Back then, rival campaigns would call at midnight claiming to be from some other campaign. There were terribly vicious phonebank rumors. We used to call it the "Howard Dean eats babies" meme.

This is just ridiculous. Can we have better reporting please?

Geek, Esq. wrote on December 4, 2007 1:49 PM:

Greg wrote on December 4, 2007 1:36 PM:
again, it's news that the Hillary campaign is alleging this and pushing this. In that regard this could just as easily backfire in the face of Camp Hillary. Right?
**********************

Greg, the campaign's claim is false EVEN IF THAT WOMAN'S STORY TURNS OUT TO BE TRUE.

You're getting played for a sucker here. They're feeding you facts that, even if true, don't support their claim.

DRinOH wrote on December 4, 2007 1:51 PM:

So let me get this straight. A Clinton supporter and an Obama supporter got into a minor spat on the phone about the relative qualifications of their candidates.

Big deal. That happens every 2 minutes on this site. Next story please.

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 1:52 PM:

Greg,

It might be helpful for you to clarify that while true push-polling and deliberately giving people incorrect voting locations are considered "dirty tricks", calling people and trying to persuade them to vote for a candidate generally is not.

I know the Clinton campaign lumped all those things together as if they were all "dirty tricks", but I don't think it is a good idea to accept that framing without comment.

Greg wrote on December 4, 2007 1:55 PM:

absolutely -- I did get in touch with the Obama campaign before posting this. And I've gotten in touch with them again since. We will post whatever they give us.

DRinOH wrote on December 4, 2007 1:55 PM:

In general, I think Greg is right (as usual). If this is Hillary's big "Dirty Trick" then she's just going to get laughed out of the room. As an Obama supporter, I'm glad she insists on making a big deal out of this and I hope she continues.

Jessica L Caruso wrote on December 4, 2007 1:57 PM:

I can tell you that I have volunteered for the Obama campaign make phone calls and canvassing.

Be polite is the first thing they tell you.

On phone calls your basically told that if the person you call indicates they support another canidate you thank them for their time and end the call. Period.

In canvassing you may ask them why they support the other candidate but you in no way argue with them. Period.

I would be very surprised if this came out of the campaign because every interaction I have had with them has been professional and positive.

Rhoda wrote on December 4, 2007 1:57 PM:

This is nothing. At most a volenter made a mistake in his/her approach - but this is FAR from a dirty trick. Just another lame attempt at the Clintons to throw mud on Obama's name and reputation and taint his campaign.

That's why it's important not to frame the story incorrectly: this was if the facts are strictly true a campaign call that was poorly handled. Given the accolades the Obama people have been getting, his staffers and volenters know how to handle themseleves for the most part. The Clinton campaign is trying to creat a story that is not really there.

DaveT wrote on December 4, 2007 2:00 PM:

I myself had to get pretty ugly with the Obama campaign calling my cell phone in New Mexico. First, I couldn't get them to stop calling and they were extremely argumentative, I said my primary vote would be for Edwards and I will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination and these behaviors I read here are quite similar to what I got, it was insulting to be told more or less how stupid I was to vote for Edwards. I honestly didn't think the calls would stop as I had requested so many times "STOP CALLING" and I still received call after call, more than one on some days, some less aggressive than others, but as I said, some were very insulting.

Vena wrote on December 4, 2007 2:06 PM:

Well, this is her big comeback from her press release on "Barack's Kindy President Essay" and her advisor coming out earlier today and saying it was just a joke(*cough*cough*). This is her second attempt and it is weak. An overzealous supporter? Every candidate has them, including Hil. A question: They know the call was from New Hampshire, but they don't know the number? How is that possible? It seems she's digging a deeper hole for herself.

Jen wrote on December 4, 2007 2:06 PM:

RE: Hillary Tries to Commit Murder/Suicide in Iowa

The Clinton campaign is obviously reeling from the effects of their candidate's failed attempts to go after Obama over the weekend. Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton's Campaign Manager, is now resorting to falsly accusing the Obama campaign of playing "dirty tricks" in Iowa such as negative push-polling to test the effectiveness of anti-Hillary messages, and saying that Obama staffers are attacking Hillary's staffers - all of this to DRAG HIM DOWN into the mud. Here's the link from the Des Moines Register. You’ve got to read this for yourself.

Des Moines Register
Clinton e-mail warns more "dirty tricks" cropping up:
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071204/NEWS/71204006/-1/SPORTS09

We all know Obama isn’t behind any negative campaigning. This is getting bad. I’m starting to feel that Hillary doesn’t think she’s going to win Iowa, but she’s trying to prevent Obama from gaining too much momentum from an Iowa win, so she’s trying to take him down to prevent him from winning in Iowa. She doesn’t win, but at least he doesn’t win either. Classic "murder-suicide”. Who would have thought Hillary’s campaign would have come to this. Is she going to do this in every state where she thinks Obama might win?

They are accusing Obama of playing dirty tricks when in fact their planting of total MIS-information about push-polling and campaign attacks IS the dirty trick. Unbelievable.

stemper wrote on December 4, 2007 2:08 PM:

"Dirty trick"?? Perhaps not.

"Politics of hope"?? Er, not quite...

I read Obama's 2nd book and had hoped for more than "Well, the other side does it too" tactics.

roo_P wrote on December 4, 2007 2:08 PM:

Greg, I would be really careful here. You have a lot of responsibility.

First, I do not believe ANY of the Democratic candidates would be stupid enough to employ these kinds of tactics (yes, you can quote me later.) Presenting it without displaying a high degree of suspicion is a bit irresponsible, particularly with the amount of "proof" offered here*.

Yeah, it is great to be first out with the news but the problem is that these types of articles are just going end up as verbatim reciting of the two respective talking points (although I am sure you will clear it up later when all the facts are known.)

Applying phrases like "highly sceptical" to reports like this would be prompt. So perhaps a title like "Clinton campaign press release makes unverified claims of Obama phone volunteer's conduct" and then debunking the OTHER way if it turns out to be true would be preferrable.

* There is no proof. There is just a highly suspicious anecdote with some glaring inconsistencies and THAT is used as a basis for an even more suspicious broad generalisation.

savvy wrote on December 4, 2007 2:12 PM:

This whole story being reported by you Greg is analogous to the WAPO front page story on Muslim rumors. You are doint the exact same thing you criticized them for doing.

Why is that? Surely, you see how unethical this is right? It is slanderous gossipmongering at the most.

Why are you characterizing it as a 'dirty trick' even? Why accept how the Hillary camp is framing this.

What Hillary's campaign is doing is pileing on...launching smear, innueundo and false accusations repeatedly so that the repetition of them alone becomes the veracity for the narrative.

It is the oldest trick in the book...it is called rumormongering!!

Why are you being a willing participant in this?

It seems to me that Hillary has internal polls that are even worse and show her plummeting in the polls.

She knows she is going to lose. She has lost the woman's vote. What Hillary has decided to do is take Barack down with her. If she can't win she is going to do her damnest to ensure that Obama doesn't either.

Hillary does not care if Edwards wins IA as she knows he does not have the money to compete. Obama does.

Hillary is going for the jugular in trying to knock him out of the race.

That is real clear.

Her engaging in rumormongering like this with letters being put out from her campaign as well is just despicable.

I pray it all backfires and reverberates across the country as the pundits and newscasters report all these mudslinging tactics.

Hopefully, it will cement in the electorates mind that Hillary is nothing but a brawler and a fighter, she is not a leader.

Should she be the nominee we will be engaged in constant international and global conflicts as that is all Hillary knows how to do.

I sincerely beleive it is too late for her to knock off Obama. The people in IA have met him and they liked him, unlike her abrasive, dismissive presumptive march to be the nominee.

Obama is a national movement and with this video he is a global.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/video-barack-obollywood/

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 2:13 PM:

Greg,

Thank you for the updates--as previously noted, I think they help clarify the issue.

URK wrote on December 4, 2007 2:15 PM:

If this is a series of calls, and not just this one incident, then i think it's unlikely that it's from the Obama campaign. Not because i think he's pure as the driven snow, (& in fact he's not my first choice at all) but because it's a stupid, stupid way to run a phone operation. If you read the account of the call, it's not something that would persuade anyone to vote for Obama. On the other hand, having a bunch of rude, argumentative calls coming out from people claiming to be from the obama campaign certainly might discourage people, especially people who are already overloaded with campaign calls, from voting for Obama.

that would indeed be a "dirty trick." and, I think this is certainly more likely than an overzealous volunteer, given the account.

bbln wrote on December 4, 2007 2:17 PM:

Interesting that Dave T got this kind of call even as he supported Edwards...because Obama is no St. Obama:

In June, 2007, Obama apologized that his campaign wrongfully circulated a memo calling Clinton the Democrat from Punjab (D-Punjab) http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/06/whats_new_10.html

Des Moines Register -- Obama says he'll continue opposition research despite his campaign's "screw-up" on the "Punjab" memo: "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama described as 'sarcastic' and 'cheap' the tone of a memo his campaign put out last week implying that Hillary Clinton's personal investments in India made her fit to represent the South Asian country. But Obama said in a meeting Monday that his campaign would conduct opposition research, even if it's intended to criticize his rivals, despite his pledge to avoid 'backbiting and tactical' politics.

Here's another one of Obama's Dirty Tricks - but they got caught:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/11140.html

Greg Sargent explains.

We’ve just obtained an email that shows that the Obama campaign yesterday circulated a negative, and ultimately false, story about Bill Clinton — that he allegedly made money giving a speech on September 11, 2006.

Campaigns, of course, circulate negative stuff about each other all the time. This email is unusual in that it is flagging something potentially negative not about a primary rival but about the former President — one who obviously isn’t running in the Democratic primary and who remains popular with Dem primary voters. […]

The email, which was sent out by Jen Psaki of the Obama campaign and circulated to reporters (not us) on an off-the-record basis late yesterday, details some things that the Obama campaign found in Hillary’s financial disclosure documents, which were released yesterday…. One of the things the email points to was the fact that Bill Clinton allegedly gave a for-profit speech on Sept. 11 — something that presumably would be likely seen as controversial.

kj wrote on December 4, 2007 2:19 PM:

Good point URK.

Tigol Bitties wrote on December 4, 2007 2:20 PM:

You're still assuming that this is a negative "script," Greg. Have you seen the script? Did you ask the Obama NH campaign whether they prepared such a "negative" script? From the descriptions of Obama volunteers, the campaign seems to emphasize that callers be "polite" and "non-argumentative." Dollars to donuts there is a specific disclaimer in the calling script and specific language instructing callers to say thank you and end the call.

Double dollars to donuts that the Obama campaign "trains its trainers" with written manuals instructing politeness and civility.

Thus, any allegations of "abuse" are off-script and not "prepared" by the Obama campaign.

Earlier, you stated that you were simply reporting the facts, and if disproven, you said, "if it turns out not to be true this isn't any good for the Hillary campaign, wouldn't you all? This could easily backfire on them."

Call the Obama campaign. Get the scripts. Check them out - do some of your own investigation. IF FALSE, isn't it your duty to report the headline:

"Hillary Cries Wolf: Hillary Smears Obama with False Allegations of 'Dirty Tricks'"

wes2 wrote on December 4, 2007 2:21 PM:

Wow. Normally I think the "Hillary is shrill" line is nothing more than a threadbare attempt to pretty up sexism, but, frankly, the shoe fits here. Complaining about these "dirty" tricks IS shrill. Make it stop, please. My ears hurt.

Yes, I have no doubt there are overzealous volunteers out there, but how that is different from any other campaign is truly beyond me.

Anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 2:21 PM:

Geez Greg, how about instead of Late Late Updates, you actually issue a correction and an apology? Here we go again. I figure Josh must have given you and Kleefeld a good talking to after your Hillary-biased pseudo-journalism reached an intolerable level a few weeks back, since for a time there we actually had some semblance of neutral reportage from TPM-EC. But that didn't last long.

How do you sleep at night, guys?

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 2:25 PM:

bbln,

Doing oppo research and giving it to reporters is generally not consider a "dirty trick" either.

It is true, however, that due to a confusion over timezones, it turns out Clinton actually gave that speech on September 10 in the United States (it was September 11 in Hong Kong).

So, Jen Psaki (apparently of the Obama campaign) made a mistake and circulated something untrue to reporters. I personally think it is an understandable mistake, but nonetheless it was an error.

DonnaG wrote on December 4, 2007 2:30 PM:

Dave T from NM,

Your cell phone obviously has a list of phone numbers for persons calling you. Did you make a list of those numbers, so that we can have a tad of proof backing your claim about 'ugly' insults from Obama campaigners? How about any ugly voice mail messages?

Just asking....as I am a caller for the Obama campaign sitting in a room with many other callers, and have never heard ugliness or argumentativeness from anyone.

In fact, if you or Hillary's campaign has any actual proof of such claims, I absolutely believe that the Obama campaign would want to know so as to curb such potential behavior. The Obama campaign is actually interested in truthfulness, especially in the face of unfounded smearing.

Anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 2:34 PM:

What have we got here? A scripted persuasion campaign, aimed at HRC supporters. Bad script for purpose, offended the target audience with overreaching talking points.

Very probably regular campaign volunteers, with approved scripts.

Plausibly but improbably, regular campaign volunteers going off script -- not individually, but as a group building their own non-approved scripts.

Very improbably, "irregulars" -- wildcat supporters with their own phone bank, calling lists and scripts.

Repercussions? Obama campaign will eventually have to own up and produce the script -- exposing them to further criticism. They'll have to back off their "flat out falsehood" claim, and treat it as a case of differing interpretation.

On that case, Obama has a favorable case on the merits -- it's not a "dirty trick", it's just a disreputable persuasion attempts. That's "on the merits", which is not where the case is decided. On the impressions, Obama comes out with more or less net negatives depending how badly it's handled.

They may hang it on subordinates (like the D-Punjab jab), but there's no gain for Obama in defending an offensive execution of a bad script.

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 2:35 PM:

Folks,

Greg is being responsive to legitimate concerns by updating his original post. If we want to see that happen more often, we should thank him for doing so.

Andrew wrote on December 4, 2007 2:39 PM:

DTM is right.

Thanks for updating the initial post, Greg.

Keith wrote on December 4, 2007 2:42 PM:

Thanks Greg for the updates (although I still quibble with the suggestion that there is a negative script out there without more proof).

Tigol Bitties wrote on December 4, 2007 2:43 PM:

Anonymous:

The plural of "anecdotes" is not "data."

You're assuming the accusation about negative scripts is true, and in so doing, you're the dirty trickster.

Anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 2:43 PM:

Interesting read on what's driving HRC's attacks on Obama:

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2007/12/hillary-on-obama-fear-and-hatr.html

roo_P wrote on December 4, 2007 2:48 PM:

Anonymous, can you explain to me why you believe that any candidate would intentionally have people call for the purpose of verbally abusing other candidates' supporters on the phone?

I mean, how does that translate to votes (except for the other candidates)?

bbln wrote on December 4, 2007 2:48 PM:

Pray tell DTM, how do you define a dirty trick? giving oppo research and leaking to press is not underhanded especially when it's not well researched? whether it's a Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Clinton campaign doing so, runs counter to anyone

re: the Clinton Memo - Obama's campaign obviously jumped on it, let it linger instead of making a retraction and therefore it became a scandal - see below from http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/15/obama_campaign_circulating_negative_story_about_bill_clinton

Update: One quick clarification. The Obama people may well have thought the speech was given on 9/11, since it was identified that way in her disclosure documents. But The Observer debunked the story yesterday not long after it went up at Drudge, and to our knowledge the Obama people made no effort to retract what it had send out. Even so, the real material point here is the fact that the Obama campaign pushed a Drudge-friendly Clinton-gave-speech-on-9/11 storyline.

Keith wrote on December 4, 2007 2:49 PM:

Apparently Barb pointed the finger at Edwards. At least that's what Ben Smith is reporting.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1207/Obama_calls_in_Iowa_and_NH.html

cranberry wrote on December 4, 2007 2:54 PM:

Obama is like the pediatrician who has the nurses give the shots to little kids so they will love him! He lets others do the dirty work and acts like he is above all that nasty side of a political campaign. I am finding that I trust him less and less!

DaveT wrote on December 4, 2007 2:55 PM:

Obama campaign: I've been bothered enough by the campaign and was finally able to stop the harrassment, I don't think I'll be calling in to help with your problem. They should have records too, let them do the research, implying the burden lie on me is insane. If the campaign wants to contact me, it's elpinguinomalo@msn.com and I'll provide the number so you can look at your records and the number of times you called and maybe even you have record of how many times I asked to stop being called and hopefully you have record of who the different people were calling but don't ask me to manage the situation or their behavior, clearly that's not my responsibility.

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 2:56 PM:

Keith if that is true and it was edwards, then the "dirty trick" is from the clinton II campaign. This really is getting ridiculous and it may be by design from clinton II to divert attention or to try and manipulate a smear of obama. I really can't wait until this bs is over and a dem is running the country in 09, that would be anyone other than clinton II.

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 3:03 PM:

bbln,

I don't know if there is a single good definition of a "dirty trick". Giving oppo research to reporters is generally not considered dirty as far as I know, however. Generally, a dirty trick at least requires some sort of conscious misrepresentation (e.g., pretending to conduct a poll but actually spreading false information, or telling people false information about voting locations, registration requirements, or so on in an attempt to keep them from voting.

So, giving information you know is false to reporters--that might be considered dirty. In the case you are citing, however, it appears to be just a mistake.

may wrote on December 4, 2007 3:03 PM:

I've been getting all the campaign calls here in NH.

I have to say that Obama's people are the most aggressive when I say I am not supporting him. They have been mostly polite, but they really want to change my mind. Having done this sort of calling myself, I am surprised by how much they are willing to push. So I wouldn't call it a dirty trick, but I do have the sense that they have been told to push back hard including with talking points concerning the other candidates.

They don't have an answer for Obama's bringing up social security and helping out the republicans.

loki wrote on December 4, 2007 3:04 PM:

DTM (Irrational Obama Supporter) said,Greg is being responsive to legitimate concerns by updating his original post. If we want to see that happen more often, we should thank him for doing so.

Yes, yes, everybody! Bow down and thank god for the insanely irrational Obama supporters in here keeping Greg and Josh and all the others honest! Whew. The world is right again.

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 3:11 PM:

loki,

I've seen enough blogs to know that in general, a good comment section can be an invaluable feedback tool for bloggers. I think everyone benefits when bloggers are responsive to legitimate criticisms in their comment sections.

I also know that bloggers can get fed up with commentators who do not appreciate such efforts, which in turn can discourage them from even trying to respond to criticisms. And in those cases no one benefits.

And all that has nothing in particular to do with Greg or TPM--it is just basic to the whole blog-comment dynamic.

DRinOH wrote on December 4, 2007 3:15 PM:

Loki, I don't understand why you have to get so damn vitriolic and sensational with people who support Obama all the time. I think Hillary is a great candidate, and if she gets the nomination, she'll get my vote. I happen to like Obama even more. You, me, DTM, and every other Hillary and Obama supporter in here all have very similar affiliations, we're all bright people, and we're mostly all democrats, so why don't you just cool it.

loki wrote on December 4, 2007 3:15 PM:

So the Obama campaign pushes a false Drudge-like story all the while refusing to see if it's true or not and that's just a "mistake." Not a "dirty trick." (Nooo, that would be bad!) Just a "mistake." Sounds like brilliant political chess being played by the pure, ever hopeful Obama campaign. Dirty trick just a mistake, got it?

Johnny wrote on December 4, 2007 3:18 PM:

I agree with the update that indicated that this is probably just an overzealous volunteer. People who get involved with politics can be pretty strident at times, and the caller in question might have simply been someone who got carried away on the phones. Where I disagree with the source/expert is in regards to where the responses stemmed from. I doubt the Obama campaign would script stuff about South Dakota. It's too obscure. To me that just sounds like a volunteer who was eager to defend his position, and didn't know when to cut his losses and move on to the next call.

loki wrote on December 4, 2007 3:19 PM:

DTM,

B.S. You have been crying foul, screaming bias for weeks. Anything that even remotely can be construed as negative towards Obama (which can pretty much be done about anything if you look long and hard enough at it...and it's clear you do.) you have jumped all over it. Go back and look at some of your posts.

So, "legitimate criticism?" Heh, dont't flatter yourself.

DRinOH wrote on December 4, 2007 3:21 PM:

You want to know what a dirty trick is? Click the Election Central link at the top of the page and looks what's happening to Huckabee. That's maliciously spreading a known lie.

NCSteve wrote on December 4, 2007 3:26 PM:

Someone on a post about the Kindergarten memo asked whether we who oppose Hillary really thought the whole Clinton campaign had gone insane.

The evidence continues to mount that it really, really has.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2007/12/hillary-on-obama-fear-and-hatr.html#comments

Aaron M wrote on December 4, 2007 3:26 PM:

Greg,

I appreciate your explanation that you are posting this story because, as an accusation from the Clinton camp, it is news- and if found out to be inaccurate would reflect poorly on the Clinton campaign.

However.....

While I see how accusing the Obama campaign of engaging in "dirty tricks" might be news requiring further investigation (though, by simply making the accusation and getting people to report on it the Clinton campaign succeeds in smearing Obama by association) - how is it news at all that ONE woman comes forward to complain that ONE person claiming to be an Obama supporter called her and was rude?

Any ONE person can call anyone about anything at any time. The fact that the Clinton people brought this woman forward as evidence of something indicates a lack of seriousness of their part which, I believe, also reflects the disingenuous nature of the accusation.

Again, this ONE person made one phone call? An Obama supporter could have had a bad day, or got particularly angry over something he read and acted out. I mean, the possibilities are kind of endless.

And as a previous commenter already noted, volunteers for Obama (and I’m sure, all the campaigns) are ALWAYS told to be polite no matter what.

But again, that makes little difference because it was ONE person making one phone call.

And yet, by creating a headline (on the TPM front-page) stating: “Clinton Provides Obama ‘Dirty Tricks’ Call Victim” - TPM EC provides legitimacy to this silly story, and helps further promote the Clinton campaign’s “dirty tricks” narrative. In this way, whether it’s true or not, the Clinton campaign has achieved, at least to some degree, their objective.

Also, I really do understand that running an election blog is not easy, and that these types of stories (and whether or how to cover them) represent a real challenge. However, also I think that these types of stories (promoted by campaigns as a means of tarnishing another) tend to fuel the (more out-of-control) cynicism that so many have regarding our electoral processes, not to mention the candidates who choose to take part in them.

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 3:34 PM:

loki,

As usual, you are doing a poor job speaking for me.

What I have suggested about Greg in the past is that he has been too willing to accept and pass along the framing of stories being pushed by candidates. Now in this case, it is possible that something like that might have been on the verge of occurring, but in any event Greg responded to legitimate criticisms of the framing, and it did not.

By the way, I have no idea if my prior comments had any influence whatsoever on Greg's blogging. But as I noted, it simply makes sense to encourage this sort of response to legitimate criticisms by thanking bloggers for doing so.

loki wrote on December 4, 2007 3:44 PM:

DTM,

Nothing the Obama campagin does can be legitimately criticised by anyone at any time without you popping in to claim bias or that it was just a silly mistake and really no big deal. Even silly ass stories like the one that prompted this thread. It is a nothing story and may even turn out to be a negative for Clinton. But here you are just in case. Making sure that TPM is fair and balanced! However, the same cannot be said when it comes to Clinton. No story is negative enough when it comes to her.

This approach of yours is not dissimilar to that of something you'd see from well oiled campaigns.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating...if you don't already work for the Obama campaign you should! They are getting one hell of a bargain with you right now.

Charles wrote on December 4, 2007 3:45 PM:

I have money that says this call was made by one or another GOP campaign or organization.

EP wrote on December 4, 2007 3:51 PM:

I haven't made up my mind on the candidate to support in the democratic primary. I am just beginning to focus on this race and don't have anyone favorite candidate. All, i know is that any Democrat is better than the current incumbent. It appears to me that Clinton and Obama are the two candidates with the best chance of winning the nomination. I have been following some of the discussion here over the past few days. What I see is that there are a lot more obama supporters here than Clinton supporters and they all hate her. The few Clinton supporters in turn are hiting back at the Obama supporters.

It will be helpful to me and many others like me if there is a rational, dispassionate comparison of the two candidates, their record, experiences and why one may be better than the other.

Thanks!

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 4:01 PM:

EP, I think that is a mischaracterization of the discussion. No, I don't think anyone hates clinton II. The problem is that the clinton II lovers throw back the "hate" mantra every time someone wants to address issues or have a discussion. The immediate response of clinton II lovers begins with "hillary-hater" and then usually digresses to moron, idiot, incompetent, traitor, un-american, rethug talking points, ocd, hate, hate, hate. They never want to address issues. You are to accept the inevitable, which many of us have a problem with.

Good luck in your quest in engaging clinton II lovers.

RonK, Seattle wrote on December 4, 2007 4:04 PM:

It's conceivable that these are not scripted calls -- and it's conceivable that zebras are running wild in New Hampshire. It's just not among the most likely possibilities.

Call recipients can usually tell when callers are reading from script.

Nobody builds a script like that to call one person -- and such arcane debating points don't just pop into mind spontaneously.

If Barbara's caller really did identify himself as an Edwards supporter, and then proceed to pound her with pro-Obama debating points, that's definitely a dirty trick, and probably an illegal one.

Is it a big deal? People who attach themselves to campaigns lose perspective and rationalize things they wouldn't normally approve. Sooner or later, every campaign has to discipline immature volunteers. Most have to exile a toxic enthusiast or two. Obama's people have gone off the deep end faster than most. Edwards corps started out off the deep end, even before Election Day 2004, and never slackened the pace.

If Obama supporters are propagating incorrect caucus information in Iowa, that's a dirty trick (not a terribly original one).

Note: at last report, the Obama campaign has refused to disclose call lists and scripts. They're on defense, in a no-win position (on this point of contention).

BTW, that was my longish "Anonymous" post above.

EP wrote on December 4, 2007 4:07 PM:

Michael,

Can you tell me why Obama is the best candidate for the Democratic party and the nation? In what ways is he better than Hilary?

Thanks!

loki wrote on December 4, 2007 4:12 PM:

EP,

With all respect, I would strongly urge you to go to both candidates website and read them thoroughly. More than once! Also, find one of their supporters webpages and read their take on everything. In here it is mostly strongly biased and as you note tends toward Obama. Not to say there aren't Clinton supporters here as well. I mean just ask "DTM", he's quite sure TPM is all Clinton all the time! Heh-heh.

But seriously, do check them both out at the sources.

loki wrote on December 4, 2007 4:15 PM:

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 4:01 PM: EP, I think that is a mischaracterization of the discussion. No, I don't think anyone hates clinton II. The problem is that the clinton II lovers throw back the "hate" mantra every time someone wants to address issues or have a discussion. The immediate response of clinton II lovers begins with "hillary-hater" and then usually digresses to moron, idiot, incompetent, traitor, un-american, rethug talking points, ocd, hate, hate, hate. They never want to address issues. You are to accept the inevitable, which many of us have a problem with.

Good luck in your quest in engaging clinton II lovers.

Most ironic post ever.

Can't...stop...laughing!

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 4:18 PM:

loki,

Once again, you do a poor job of speaking for me.

If you are referring to the comment sections, obviously there are plenty of supporters of all the major candidates, along in fact with people who like several candidates regardless of their current top choice.

Which pretty much reflects the current state of the Democratic party, in fact.

colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 4:19 PM:

Michael A says: "The immediate response of clinton II lovers begins with "hillary-hater" and then usually digresses to moron, idiot, incompetent, traitor, un-american, rethug talking points, ocd, hate, hate, hate."

Go through the archives. If you can find one example that even nears this characterization of yours from a regular Clinton supporter on this board (you indicate it's a regular, kneejerk response to any criticism of Hillary) - but if you can produce just one, I'll take back all the things about you that I thought about calling you, but didn't write.

oleeb wrote on December 4, 2007 4:41 PM:

As for this tempest in a teapot: so what? Does anyone really care about this? I think not.

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 4:50 PM:

You're kidding right colonpowwow. You have got to be kidding. I can find hundreds, but you really must be kidding. Also, my points generally aren't "criticisms." Just look at loki's today. Incidentally, I'm glad you got a laugh loki. Or, dc, she has called me everything in the book as you used to until recently.

EP, your post sounded really canned and so does your question, I have posted in the past why he would be good for the country and I wouldn't want to be accused of not being "all inclusive."

Among other things, he is not nearly as divisive as clinton II and I believe he would unite the country as opposed to further divide it. Also, I think out of all the dems the most likely to lose would be clinton II. Up until this weekend, my candidate was anybody but clinton II, but I am inclined to be for obama.

W Action wrote on December 4, 2007 5:00 PM:

If the caller was factually accurate but aggressive, it was a dirty trick??? This much whining doesn't help Hillary come across as the macho-infused fighter her strategists insist she is. On the other hand, it plays perfectly into the sexist-pigs-picking-on-the-only-woman narrative, which I think is always the real hole card in HRC's campaign.

So, it was a "gentleman" making the rude call to a feisty woman. Who actually uses "gentleman" in normal conversation? It sounds over-rehearsed to my ear. Gotta get those older indie women to cross over.

colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 5:03 PM:

Michael:

Then it should be absolutely no problem for you to direct us to one that matches up in any way with your characterization:

"The immediate response of clinton II lovers begins with "hillary-hater" and then usually digresses to moron, idiot, incompetent, traitor, un-american, rethug talking points, ocd, hate, hate, hate."

Take a minute and show us. Should be a piece of cake.

anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 5:20 PM:

Wikipedia defines "dirty tricks" as: ". . . manufactured, irrelevant, cruel and incorrect rumors or outright falsehoods designed to damage or destroy an opponent."

The South Dakota issue, since a US Senator has no unilateral control over state laws regarding abortion, even assuming Congress could do something to thwart such a state law (doubtful), is irrelevant and cruel, especially for someone who has consistently been supportive of the right to choose, and this was also clearly intended to damage Clinton.

So, yes, this was a dirty trick.

Just as are the false representations and slanderous characterization of Clinton's votes on the AUMFs for Iraq and Iran.

anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 5:22 PM:

Michael A: "hillary-hater"

If the shoe fits . . .

bupalos wrote on December 4, 2007 5:27 PM:

Honestly ep, there isn't that much difference between them on the clear substantive issues they are running on. There are some. The major ones that make me an obama supporter are more character based and this is admittely more subjective. For instance:

--the positive message we send to the world with mixed-race, internationalist Obama and the negative one that we send by electing the blue-blood college republican Wellesley girl --the only other member of the only other family that has ruled the U.S. in the last 16 years. Make it 24 if she does the two term. Then what? Jeb?

--I think Obama is extremely smart and talented and will be less likely to compromise good intelligent judgements for political neccessity. I think the Clintons are both such political animals that their obvious intelligence and good intentions hardly matter. Witness Bill's '99 deregulation of the banking industry that has in large part led to the forclosure crisis. He knew that was a bad idea and good corporate politics.

--the more corporate and emmeshed nature of HRC, with a historically small 9% of donations from small donors as opposed to Obama's 40%.

--HRC won't speak clearly about torture and seems to believe that if you are going to err politically, it has to be on the side of hawkishness. Another way to put that is that I don't think she believes democrats can ever suffer for being too hawkish. Kyl-Liebermann was a terrible vote and she should pay for that ?#@!.

--Clinton has DLC roots, which is basically an attempt to move the Democratic party further right to make it electable. I almost lost my lunch when she called lifting the 100G ceiling on ss taxes a "trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class." That was pure Bush. I was gone for good after that one.

--Clinton for some reason drives the Republitards so far up the wall that they may actually unify over one of their worst terrible candidates if she is nominated.

O.K., now that I look at it, there are a lot of reasons I consider pretty important. But none of that means I wouldn't prefer her by a hundred miles to Bush or 9iu11iani. Huckabee, McCain, or multiple choice Mitt? Not a hundred miles. Maybe still by 1 or 2 though.

loki wrote on December 4, 2007 5:36 PM:

DTM,

It's much more than speaking for you. I am simply stating the facts. You only have to go back and read some of your comments in these pages.

From your posts it is not unreasonable to conclude that you think TPM is biased against Obama. That you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker the narrative that Obama is the pure liberal and Hillary is the unprincipled conservative.

Your every post buttresses these narratives. It is tired and unoriginal...and wrong. But you continue, unswayed by reality.

anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 5:39 PM:

"--the positive message we send to the world with mixed-race, internationalist Obama . . ."

The negative message we send by saying that the primary reason to choose Obama is because he's "ethnic."

"--I think Obama is extremely smart and talented and will be less likely to compromise good intelligent [judgments] for political neccessity."

You are entitled to your opinion.

"--I think the Clintons are both such political animals that their obvious intelligence and good intentions hardly matter."

Yes, being able to effectively more your intelligent and well-intentioned agenda in political Washington is a huge, huge defect.

LOL.

"--the more corporate and emmeshed nature of HRC, with a historically small 9% of donations from small donors as opposed to Obama's 40%."

Jealousy is so unbecoming. Please put it away.

"--HRC won't speak clearly about torture and seems to believe that if you are going to err politically, it has to be on the side of hawkishness."

Nationally, twice as many Democrats agree.

Obama wants to err on the side of "Deanishness."

A losing proposition, as reflected in Clinton's substantial national lead.

But Obama supporters don't really care if the Democratic Party as a whole has to settle for an overwhelmingly second choice, as long as they get to preen and dance about how righteous they and their candidate supposedly is.

"--Clinton has DLC roots, which is basically an attempt to move the Democratic party further right to make it electable."

Yes, it is bad, bad, bad to get elected. Better to lose to Guiliani than to soil ourselves with effective political scheming.

The Ghost of Nader still haunts us.

"--Clinton for some reason drives the Republitards so far up the wall that they may actually unify over one of their worst terrible candidates if she is nominated."

Yeah, that didn't happen at all with Kerry. He actually won! See, if you clap hard enough, you will perceive the reality you desire!

Ortrun wrote on December 4, 2007 5:40 PM:

This is ridiculous. Some lady calims she got a call from someone who she claims was rudely pro-Obama that she claims claimed he was from the campaign, and this is "evidence" of "dirty tricks?" What are you people smoking. What are the campaigns smoking that they are even discussing this? What is TPM smoking in going haywire over it?

I'd say wacky-weed, but that makes you pacifist. This is more like PCP. The Hill camp brought this garbage up, so to me they are the losers. If you want to point out some wrongdoing you need to have a scrap of evidence or at least some kind of wrongdoing or something.

I have to think their numbers look bad. Their stuff over the last couple days is just getting weird.

Tara wrote on December 4, 2007 5:43 PM:

Here is a bit of Reality:

Can you name the State that that was the most critical state for the democrats to win in 2004

YES! It was OHIO!
Please take a look at the latest polls out of Ohio at the top of this page.

Hillary has the best chance to win one of the most important states.

anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 5:45 PM:

Ortrun: ". . . who she claims was rudely pro-Obama . . ."

Why would someone claim they are "rudely pro-Obama?"

"Hi! I'm rudely pro-Obama. I'd really like to be courteously pro-Obama, but I just can't bring myself to do it."

BTW, I just love all that "smoking gun" evidence the Obama camp has produced for the claims of Clinton campaign dirty tricks - as ephemeral as WMDs in Iraq.

Aaron M wrote on December 4, 2007 5:45 PM:

EP,

I certainly DO NOT hate Sen. Clinton. In fact, I find a great deal to admire about her and will of course vote for her if she were to become the nominee.

However, I prefer Sen. Obama for a number of reasons- some clear, and some much more subtle (and therefore difficult to explain).

First, I support Sen. Obama because he demonstrated the best judgment (of the current top three candidates) in opposing the Iraq War in 2002 (and because his reasons for doing so were prescient).

In contrast, despite claiming to have the most experience of the current top three candidates, Sen. Clinton made the wrong decision in 2002- and it was the most important decision of her legislative career. Even when it became clear in late 2003 that the war was becoming a quagmire, she stayed silent- up through 2005.

She also has demonstrated more (unnecessarily, in my opinion) hawkish tendencies in her statements regarding Iran, than either Obama or Edwards (and in this vein, I believe that her vote for the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment was a mistake). But more importantly I think that vote, in addition to her 2002 vote, reflect a very common political instinct on her part (along with that of her husband) to turn Right when she believes she will be seen as soft- be it on national security, immigration, or crime.

In contrast, I feel that Sen. Obama has demonstrated a repeated willingness to stand up for positions even if they are unpopular (for example, sticking to his guns on licenses for undocumented workers in the interests of public safety, while at the same time calling it out for what it was: a divisive wedge issue that has nothing to do with much needed immigration reform). (I’d also point to his willingness to tell teachers unions of his support for some form of merit pay, despite their long history of opposition to those types of policies; his willingness to tell Detroit automakers that they need to make more fuel efficient cars; telling Wall Street investors that they are being too greedy; or explaining to an AIPAC conference in Chicago last Spring that while he strongly supports Israel and believes in the special relationship between our two countries, that we need to remember the current suffering of the Palestinian people and the need for the two sides to get back to the negotiating table with the goal of achieving a just agreement with two-States living side by side in peace.)

Finally (b/c this is WAY too long already), I have become very wary of Democrats running away from progressive values and turning to the Right (or folding to Bush Administration demands) when confronted with the prospect of being criticized by Right-wing talk radio or Fox News (or even CNN or MSNBC).

Obama has (in my mind) demonstrated a greater willingness in the past to stand up for what he believes to be right, and has displayed confidence in his ability to convince the American people that his positions are the right ones (i.e. whether on immigration, on Iraq, or on Iran etc).

I also do not think he's perfect- no candidate is or ever will be. However, I do believe that he has the greatest potential to re-define for Americans what it means to be an American and what our ideals can again mean for the world when we do not abandon them out of fear or anger.

bupalos wrote on December 4, 2007 5:47 PM:

I'm pretty happy with that response Anon. Some of it twists my words a bit, but then it's silly season. The heart of your message is that you want to elect HRC bc she's electable, regardless of her policies.

How'd you like the banking deregulation, BTW?

old_new_englander wrote on December 4, 2007 5:49 PM:

I've been working on Obama's campaign in New Hampshire. All of the instructions to volunteers that I am aware have been to present a positive side to Senator Obama and not to dis any of the other candidates. The idea that the Obama campaign would engage in such stupid tactics as we are accused of by Hillary's people is ludicrous.

bupalos wrote on December 4, 2007 5:49 PM:

"YES! It was OHIO!
Please take a look at the latest polls out of Ohio at the top of this page.

Hillary has the best chance to win one of the most important states."

HRC has the best chance to win every state before people start paying attention. As soon as they do, the numbers start to switch. Let's see what happens in Iowa, where she was a blowout winner going in and after campaigning, is now no higher than the other 2.

Larry Geater wrote on December 4, 2007 5:49 PM:

Tara

Some reality back at you. She has to win the nomination first. Then she must weather the campeign. Do you realy believe that this pole means anything at this stage? Do you think that the misstemps she has made in response to the mild criticism her Democratic rivals have voiced bodes well for her handling the GOP smear machine as well as she claims she will?

loki wrote on December 4, 2007 5:52 PM:

I have become very wary of Democrats running away from progressive values and turning to the Right (or folding to Bush Administration demands) when confronted with the prospect of being criticized by Right-wing talk radio or Fox News (or even CNN or MSNBC).

Clinton does not do this any more than Obama does. (I don't believe either of them do this!) And as has been pointed out numerous times in these forums Clinton has the more progressive record in the Senate.

opulent wrote on December 4, 2007 5:52 PM:

Loki

Can you please calm down. You are sounding as shrill and desperate as Hillary. DTM and Michael are making well reasoned commentary they are not being vituperative or verbally abusive to Hillary.

We are all Democrats and no one on these threads has expressed 'hate' for Hillary. What the majority of folks do is talk about the issues and contrast the differences in policies.

As I think about this entire 'dirty trick' scenario and that all of the folks called were Hillary supporters it occurred to me that perhaps the folks calling these Hillary supporters and being so aggressive and rude were actually on the Hill Team and claiming to the caller that they worked for the opponent.

After all, it would not benefit a volunteer to give their candidates name and then commence to badgering and arguing with the potential supporter.

The more I thought about it and noted the alacrity with which the Hill campaign was able to identify the complaining supporter the more it occurred to me that this was most likely a dirty trick being play by the Hill team on the Obama team.

Especially, when I reflected on how the Hill team is really focused on the sake of winning and how arrogant they are about believeing this is Hill's turn as if she was royalty in line for the throne or something. Folks working for the hill team seemed to be a lot like the go for the jugular and verbal food fight supporters we have seen from the GOP the last 8 years. Now that they are not leading in the polls they have become viscious and mean.

Hillary seems to have really bought into all the divisive partisan bickering and it seems she has instilled that in her team to win at all costs. The interests of the nation and citizens seems to be secondary or way down on the pole as reasons for her candidacy. Hillary is being vainglorious and that is also the tenor of her campaign team.

That is truly sad. America is tired of the fear mongering and anger that Rove whipped the nation into a frenzy over. All that type of chaotic and antagonistic fueled energy is just exhausting. Folks have fatigue from that. Call it GOP or Rove fatigue whatever you like but folks are done with all that. Even republicans are tired and happy to have an alternative to Hillary who is willing to work with and listen to their points of view without being condescending to them.

People honestly do want this nation to come together and address our problems. Democrates, independents and republicans want to work together and they tell Barack that all the time.

Hate is out and hope is in.

We desire to leave that 90s baggage behind us.

Americans want something to beleive in and work towards together we need leadership...endlessly fighting is just unproductive and sooo 90s.

bupalos wrote on December 4, 2007 5:53 PM:

>>>Ortrun: ". . . who she claims was rudely pro-Obama . . ."

Why would someone claim they are "rudely pro-Obama?"

>>>

Jesus Anon, read often? SHE claimed HE was rudely pro-Obama. Forget it. You don't even have a name...why do I bother?

bp wrote on December 4, 2007 5:54 PM:

Notice something Greg: the excuses and the rationalisations. Sounds like our wingnut friends have emulators. Someone calls and tries a dirty trick. Wow. That person is over enthusiastic, not anti-Clinton. This is the kind of rubbish that both sides play. And all followers whether they be HRC's Obama's and Edwards'are the same :Scumbags. I think Obama's supporters are also dirty and no amount of excuses will cancel that out. Either Obama accepts responsibility or he doesn't. If not then he is no better than the other candidates.

loki wrote on December 4, 2007 5:59 PM:

DTM and Michael are making well reasoned commentary they are not being vituperative or verbally abusive to Hillary.

Wow. Have you actually read any of "michael's" posts? I don't think you have.

We are all Democrats and no one on these threads has expressed 'hate' for Hillary.

And I have never used the word Hate to describe anyone or anybody's thinking or comments in these pages. Never. anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 6:00 PM:

"In contrast, despite claiming to have the most experience of the current top three candidates, Sen. Clinton made the wrong decision in 2002- and it was the most important decision of her legislative career."

What utter BS.

The AUMF had no substantive effect whatsoever, nor did it cause Bush to invade Iraq.

Therefore, it was meaningless other than politically, helping Democrats maintain a significant presence in Congress such that they could take over in 2006.

Get a life.

Obama supporters practically foam at the mouth about something 30 years old (when Clinton was briefly a Republican) and about a single ineffectual legislative act that was easy to criticize by someone who wouldn't suffer from opposition by virtue of being a local political figure only.

loki wrote on December 4, 2007 6:02 PM:

bp said: If not then he is no better than the other candidates.

This is exactly right. In fact he's no better and no worse than the other candidates.

Now, about his followers...yeesh!

opulent wrote on December 4, 2007 6:08 PM:

"about a single ineffectual legislative act that was easy to criticize by someone who wouldn't suffer from opposition by virtue of being a local political figure only."

That legislative act had a huge effect we are trillions of dollars in debt and thousands have lost their lives and over 50K are wounded and maimed. That is a significant effect to most Americans.

Individuals who are principled do not suffer as politicians only those who are poll driven suffer from errors of calculation that lack the courage of conviction to begin with.

In short, that is a character issue, independent of politics.

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 6:12 PM:

I don't think you have read any of my posts either loki. Is somebody monitoring your guys/gals posts or something? I cannot believe that you claim that you never used the word "hate." You claim that you haven't called people "hillary-haters"??? Same thing with colonpowwow. I have had lengthy exchanges with her/him and others about how I don't hate anyone in response to the hillary-hater garbage.

Actually, I have noticed in the last couple of weeks a change in tone of some of the clinton II people. What has the campaign tried to ratchet down the "hillary-hater" garbage and personal attacks on people who question clinton II? Is there a new strategy or something? It seems kind of odd.

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 6:18 PM:

loki,

I would note you didn't go so far as to claim that I had actually SAID any of those things. If you had made such a claim, of course then I would ask you to provide quotes from me to support that claim, which you would have been unable to provide.

Rather, apparently your claim is that it is not "unreasonable" for you to draw all sorts of conclusions about what I "think," but have not actually said. It turns out, however, that your mindreading skills are not very accurate, since I don't think any of those things.

So, once again, rather than trying to read my mind, I suggest you stick to just speaking your own.

CalD wrote on December 4, 2007 7:02 PM:

What the hell has Hillary Clinton got to do with South Dakota? And for that matter, didn't that SD law get struck down in court?

Andrew wrote on December 4, 2007 7:04 PM:

Greg, it's a shame that you will report such a story without good investigation.

That lady is a complete plan for the clinton's. What in heaven she reconize the number to be from NH, and later on cant find it in her phone.most phones stored up to 20 and above numbers in thier memories. Please let the lady find it. for God sake. Or else I will consider you a plan too.

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 7:05 PM:

She has nothing to do with sd and it was a referendum that didn't pass.

onceler wrote on December 4, 2007 7:25 PM:

now it sure would be a "dirty trick" if Hillary's camp made the call, pretending to be with Obama. which sounds like the most likely scenario to me - that's the kind of thing they do.

Anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 7:45 PM:

Turns out the issue in South Dakota, was that Emily's List was seeking pro-choice democrats and republicans to help raise money to defeat/overturn the South Dakota measure. Clinton declined to raise money on behalf of the effort--only Obama did.

Anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 7:46 PM:

Clinton's internal polls must be scary. Her campaign is falling apart. Do they really think this stuff against Obama is going to win her the nomination.

Hillary just looks meand that petty.

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 7:47 PM:

Oh, my bad, thanks for the clarification anon.

Anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 7:48 PM:

oops mean and petty

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 7:48 PM:

BTW, do you know why she refused to help raise money? Just curious.

Aaron M wrote on December 4, 2007 7:56 PM:

loki,

I agree that Sen. Clinton's overall voting record while in the Senate has been progressive- and that is part of the reason why I would vote for her in a general election (that and she is clearly better, by a mile or two, than any of the options on the Republican side).

However, here are a few examples where she demonstrated a willingness to turn Right on issues in order (I believe) to demonstrate to the electorate that she is not "soft" on national security or "anti-family values" or to avoid whatever other silly label has been slapped on Democrats (and more often than not adopted by the traditional media):

1. Her vote in 2002 to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq. This is the most glaring example and the one with the most devastating consequences.

2. Her vote earlier this year for the Kyle-Lieberman resolution. Yes, Senator Durbin also voted for this, and Obama missed the vote, but neither of those facts make her vote in favor of the resolution right; and I would argue that she once again voted this way out of concerns of appearing "soft" on Iran.

3. Her shift in support for drivers licenses for undocumented workers between the debates in Philadelphia and Las Vegas. After the Philly debate her advisors indicated to the Washington Post that she did support the plan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103103093.html

Then, the day that Gov. Spitzer dropped policy two weeks later, she came out against it. http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/_hillary_comes_out_against_giving_drivers_licenses_to_illegal_immegrants.php
This is a rather minor issue, but as Obama noted, it's simply one of public safety and has little to do with real immigration reform. It's nothing more than a wedge issue to make Democrats fear for electoral backlash for "appearing" to encourage undocumented workers to come to America. Obama made this point (and got hammered for not answering "yes" or "no" in the debate); Sen. Clinton simply said "no" - she did not support the policy, and got no follow question asking why she had changed her mind.

4. Her statement earlier this year declaring support for Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. http://www.floridajewishnews.com/site/a/clinton_calls_for_an_undivided_jerusalem/
I am an American Jew and strong supporter of Israel and I believe in a just peace (two-State solution) between the Israelis and Palestinians. The issue of Jerusalem is a VERY sensitive one (maybe the MOST sensitive after the refugees question); and to have arguably the most famous Democratic politician in America come out in favor of keeping the city undivided- two months before the first peace talks in 7 years, is extremely irresponsible. And I have a difficult time believing that this was not a pander to conservative Jewish groups, as her own husband included a division of the city in his own "Clinton Plan" in January of 2001.

5. In December of 2005, Clinton co-sponsored "a bill that would make it a crime to destroy a flag on federal property, intimidate anyone by burning a flag or burning someone else's flag." http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=55396
I love our flag and I absolutely hate to see anyone burn one. But this was not only a violation of the trust of progressives, but of ALL Americans who treasure our first Amendment right, even when that means allowing people the right to do something that most of us find reprehensible.

6. More recently, while Sen. Clinton stated that “she supports a federal recommendation for shorter sentences for some people caught with crack cocaine, SHE OPPOSED making those shorter sentences retroactive — which could eventually result in the early release of 20,000 people convicted on drug charges.” It is possible that Sen. Clinton and I just disagree on this issue (though both Sen. Obama and former Sen. Edwards both support retroactivity); however, her pollster Mark Penn, according to that same story, "pointed out that the Republican front-runner has already signaled that he will attack Democrats on releasing people convicted of drug crimes." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7127.html

In any case, once again I have gone on WAY too long; but those where the first six examples that popped into my head.

Now there very well may be Democrats (and Republicans and Independents) who agree with Sen. Clinton on each of the above positions. I do not which, partially at least, explains why I prefer Obama. But more importantly, I am not convinced that SHE believes that each of the above positions are (or were) truly the right ones to take. And for me that is more of a problem than any differences I may have with her over individual policies.

NH wrote on December 4, 2007 7:57 PM:

I have to laugh at this. Who has to be TOLD that Hillary is horrible?

rbrooks wrote on December 4, 2007 8:57 PM:

The first thing that occurs to me is that Mark Penn is channelling Karl Rove. Rove didn't invent his signature, the false flag attack, but he sure perfected it.

Why do you assume that it was the Obama campaign that made that call? It could just as easily have been one of the elves in Penn's dirty tricks workshop -

DonnaG wrote on December 4, 2007 9:16 PM:

What I have noticed is that the Hillary camp shouts a big smear about multiples of instances of 'dirty tricks'.......multiples being the operative word here because the hype of 'multiples' will connote a 'pattern'. Smear innuendo of Obama campaign accomplished simply by the original headlines across the net.

Then in the close examination aftermath, the Clinton campaign offers the public a singular woman's account to chew on for hours.

What happened to the multiple occurrences? Does this one account support the whole of what was insinuated by the headline at TPM?

loki wrote on December 4, 2007 11:09 PM:

Aaron M,

You seem to be looking for reasons not to vote for her. She is the progressive. Which you seem willing to accept. But it's still no dice for you. Fine. Obama is not a bad candidate. But your "reasoning" is right out of the Obama camp. I could have written what you were going to say in my sleep. It has been hashed and rehashed a million times in here and elswhere.

The truth remains...she is progressive, she is leading in the polls...she is like any other politician trying to win nationally. Purity? Obama? No. You want "purity?" Vote Nader.

See how that works for you.

loki wrote on December 4, 2007 11:11 PM:

DTM, you are too easy to read.

loki wrote on December 4, 2007 11:18 PM:

Michael A.

Go back and find it. Anywhere in these pages. You won't. I never used the phrase you attribute to me. It's infantile...and that's just more your style.

So, go ahead, I'll wait while you go find where I've used that phrase.

*tick-tick-tick...*

DemAC wrote on December 4, 2007 11:36 PM:

Michael A wrote at 4:01 PM: EP, I think that is a mischaracterization of the discussion. No, I don't think anyone hates clinton II. The problem is that the clinton II lovers throw back the "hate" mantra every time someone wants to address issues or have a discussion. The immediate response of clinton II lovers begins with "hillary-hater" and then usually digresses to moron, idiot, incompetent, traitor, un-american, rethug talking points, ocd, hate, hate, hate. They never want to address issues. You are to accept the inevitable, which many of us have a problem with.

Hilarious! Absolutely hilarious!!! :-D DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 12:31 AM:

loki,

I do try to express myself clearly.

Which is why it somewhat surprises me you have gotten it wrong every time you gave tried to speak for me. It is almost as if you are not even trying to get it right ...

Michael A wrote on December 5, 2007 8:07 AM:

You wait loki, I'll let you know when I find your use of the clinton II mantra. All you have to do is read one of your condescending posts and its obvious. I have a suggestion, I will let you know when I find the posts. Until then, why don't you play at redstate.com.

colonpowwow wrote on December 5, 2007 9:11 AM:

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 4:50 PM:
"You're kidding right colonpowwow. You have got to be kidding. I can find hundreds"

colonpowwow replied:

Then it should be absolutely no problem for you to direct us to one that matches up in any way with your characterization:

"The immediate response of clinton II lovers begins with "hillary-hater" and then usually digresses to moron, idiot, incompetent, traitor, un-american, rethug talking points, ocd, hate, hate, hate."

Take a minute and show us. Should be a piece of cake.

So, Michael A.:

That's were we left off yesterday.

Any luck with finding a post on here that lines up with your claim of regular namecalling by the regular Clinton supporters here? There are hundreds you say. I say there are none. One of us is right and one of us is spewing nonsense.

Please help me find out if that person is me ;-)

Michael A wrote on December 5, 2007 9:24 AM:

Morning colonpowwow,

Here's a post from yesterday, implying the hillary-hater mantra:

colonpowwow wrote on December 4, 2007 12:43 PM:
As a Clinton supporter, I just want to say that Penn is violating the "if you've dug yourself a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging" rule.

Not the biggest issue so far, but it does make her look petty and, worse, a bit ridiculous.

Now about Obama showing spinelessness and duplicity with his serial "Present" dodges on controversial issues, and his duplicity and lack of leadership on KL . . .

BTW - The Hillary haters have already exhausted the "Hillary is petty and ridiculous meme." - so I give it about another week of shelf life (that would have been about two days if Penn would have stopped digging already).

It's not on point, but its close enough. If you can't remember your posts or our exchanges on the hate issue, that's your problem. I'm not wasting my time. Incidentally, the tone in your posts has changed over the last couple of weeks and aren't as over the top as they were. For what its worth, that's one of the reasons I stopped shortening your name.

Karin wrote on December 5, 2007 10:17 AM:

MichaelA: You wrote

"Now about Obama showing spinelessness and duplicity with his serial "Present" dodges on controversial issues"

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but if it's about his State Senate votes on Abortion issues, you may find this statement relevant:

"The present votes Obama took at that time, along with many other pro-choice legislators, were 'no' votes to bad bills being used for political gain. We asked Senator Obama and other strong supporters of choice to vote present to encourage Senators facing tough re-elections to make the right choice by voting present, instead of caving to political pressure and voting for these bad bills. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama showed leadership, compassion and a true commitment to reproductive health care. The Republican Senate President at the time constantly used anti-abortion bills to pigeon-hole Democrats so that he could target them with misleading mailers during campaign season. It was a tactic that was about politics, not policy - and Obama didn't let them get away with it." Pam Sutherland, President & CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council

Michael A wrote on December 5, 2007 10:31 AM:

No I didn't I was quoting colonpowwow from yesterday. I'm not good at this internet thing. The intro, first sentence preceding the colon and the last paragraph were me. I was responding to her/his charge.

colonpowwow wrote on December 5, 2007 10:55 AM:

Michael A:

Laughable "example" of your characterization of "Clinton II lovers" which was:

"The immediate response of clinton II lovers begins with "hillary-hater" and then usually digresses to moron, idiot, incompetent, traitor, un-american, rethug talking points, ocd, hate, hate, hate."

Again, as I said about Mark Penn and the Clinton campaign in the post of mine you cited: "If you've dug yourself a hole, first thing to do is stop digging."

So where is the attack on a non-Clinton supporter like you? My harshest words are for Mark Penn and Clinton in this post - "makes her look petty and ridiculous."

You know what Hillary-hater means. If you call her Hill or HRC or Clinton II or say she's a triangulator, that's not Hillary-hate.

If you call her a sexist name like "Mrs. Bill" or "bitch" or "corrupt" or any of the things I see regularly from some of the Hillary-haters on this board . . . that's not tolerable to many of us on here and it's been recognized as a feature in these forums by many posters here. The one's I call "Hillary-haters" know who I'm referring to.

If racist terms were being so casually tossed around to describe Senator Obama, it would rightly not be acceptable or tolerated as being "hate speech." Why are sexist terms not in the same ballpark in your perview (since you've used them regularly yourself)? Now I will grant that when this was pointed out to you, you stopped using the sexist term. Good for you.

But where's the example of this post being aimed at anyone specifically and then degenerating into namecalling as you post in question suggests? If you want to call me an "Obama hater" because I've (mis)characterized and overstated his controversy-dodging tactics, that's fair enough based on my hyperbole - even though I'm not an Obama hater in any sense.

Bad example. Next.

Michael A wrote on December 5, 2007 12:12 PM:

colonpowwow, I don't know why I am wasting my time with this game. I may or may not go back and try to find the posts. I'd rather address current issues as opposed to reliving the past.

I do recall at one point I thought that you, dc and one other poster were one in the same, because you did the same things, such as I described in the original post. Also, as I said the postings have changed to a certain extent. Your posts are not as over the top. Dc is milder, but still goes over the top sometimes and I don't know what happened to the other person.

I do recall the exchange on the mrs. bill issue. You percieved it as sexist and I did not. I dropped the usage anyway based on your interpretation that she was somehow Mr. bill's chattel and that he owned her by refering to her as Mrs. Bill. I clearly don't believe that and I don't interpret it that way, but I respected your feelings on the issue.

On the hate speech issue, I don't believe that I have used the terms you described other than the Mrs. Bill moniker. I wouldn't in any event and I disapprove of sexists terms. I think "hate speech" associated with sexists terms is a little over the top, but again I appreciate your point.

Also, you know that I would never call you an obama hater. I don't believe that anyone posting here is a hillary hater either. I would be willing to bet that there are hillary haters at redstate.com, but probably not here.

Hate is a strong and disturbing word to me personally, like mrs. bill was a disturbing word to you. I don't hate anyone, even the king, and I sure don't hate clinton II. I am extremely disturbed by alot of things that she is doing and has done, but I don't hate her.

Also, as I have said, if she is the nominee, so be it and I will support her. Alot of times I am raising issues to get them discussed. We should be discussing issues, not just slinging arrows and barbs or having a party about poll numbers and how she is inevitable.

It actually would be a good idea for her to have the republican talking points or attacks vetted in the primary. Get them out now, make them old news and get people insulated concerning the attacks. It makes sense not to be surprised 30 days before november 08. Also, I really think that she should release the docs now. Make it old news. All this secrecy and double talk just reminds people in general of problems they had with clinton I and problems they have with the current administration. That can not possibly be a good thing for your candidate.

votenic wrote on December 11, 2007 5:12 PM:

2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

Post a comment

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