Obama Campaign Raising Money Off Hillary Official's Drug Use Comment
The Obama campaign clearly thinks its got a winner in the dust-up yesterday over Hillary New Hampshire co-chair Billy Shaheen's claim that Obama's past drug use could make him vulnerable to GOP attacks in a general election.
So much so, in fact, that Camp Obama has just sent out an email to supporters trying to raise money off the fight.
"The only way to stop these kinds of tired, desperate attacks is to
demonstrate very clearly that they have a real cost to Senator Clinton's
campaign," reads the email, from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.
"If 5,000 people donate in the next 24 hours, we can show their campaign
that we reject this kind of divisive politics. Make your donation of $25
now."
The Hillary campaign -- and Shaheen himself -- have emphatically declared that the comments were not authorized by the Hillary camp in any way. Plouffe's full email after the jump.
Friend --This race took a sharply negative turn yesterday.
With recent polls giving Barack the lead in Iowa, New Hampshire, and
South Carolina, and just three weeks left before the Iowa caucuses, the
attacks on Barack's character that Hillary Clinton has called "the fun
part" of this campaign have reached a new low.In an increasingly desperate effort to slow Senator Clinton's slide, the
focus of the Clinton campaign has moved from Barack Obama's kindergarten
years to his teenage years.On Wednesday, their top advisor in New Hampshire tried to recycle old
news by smearing Barack for experimenting with drugs as a young man --
something Barack candidly wrote about years ago in his memoir and has
since talked about with young people in an effort to teach them the
lessons he learned from his mistakes.The only way to stop these kinds of tired, desperate attacks is to
demonstrate very clearly that they have a real cost to Senator Clinton's
campaign.If 5,000 people donate in the next 24 hours, we can show their campaign
that we reject this kind of divisive politics. Make your donation of $25
now:https://donate.barackobama.com/costofnegativity
These remarks crossed a line that should never be crossed in a
Democratic primary. In fact, even Republicans think it's beyond the
pale. When asked about this very topic recently, one of the GOP
presidential frontrunners actually commended Barack's candor and
honesty.It's a sad day when a Democrat running for president takes up a line of
attack that even a potential Republican opponent refuses to dignify.Raise the cost of this kind of negativity for the Clinton campaign by
making your donation of $25 now:https://donate.barackobama.com/costofnegativity
Make no mistake -- this kind of attack is becoming a pattern as
Clinton's support declines.Since the last time I wrote to you about their attacks, the Clinton
campaign has mailed brochures in Iowa that distort Barack's health care
plan, produced negative television ads for New Hampshire, and actually
sent emails asking for information that could help them smear Barack's
efforts to fight poverty and joblessness as a community organizer in
Chicago.It's up to you to demonstrate to the Clinton campaign that these kinds
of attacks will backfire and make us stronger.Reject this negativity now:
https://donate.barackobama.com/costofnegativity
Growing outrage at this line of attack already has the Clinton campaign
backtracking in the media, but it's up to us to stop these tired, petty
tactics once and for all.Please respond and make your voice heard for a new kind of politics.
Let's bring real change to America.David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for AmericaDonate
Paid for by Obama for America
Comments (46)
Jeremy wrote on December 13, 2007 11:12 AM:Greg, how about including in your report some of the evidence that the statements most certainly were calculated by the campaign, notwithstanding their denials and apologies.
RaymondA wrote on December 13, 2007 11:13 AM:They have every right to raise money off of this, Greg. From the beginning you have written as if Shaheen were some free-lancer. He is the official vice chair of the campaign, a major NH powerbroker, and a proud "get" by the Hillary campaign.
Unless and until he's fired, Obama has every right to attribute Shaheen's remarks to the campaign itself. Shaheen is not David Geffen, some individual contributor shooting off his mouth. He is her selecetd chairperson and NH spokesperson. So drop the sarcasm about Obama and call for his firing.
The drug use thing, as I've said, was just ordinary brain fart idiocy. Where Shaheen crossed the line and deserves to be axed is the drug dealer innuendo -- totally beyond the pale.
No white candidate who's admitted youthful drug use has ever been questioned about drug dealing. None. African Americans are rightly up in arms about this.
Jeremy wrote on December 13, 2007 11:14 AM:Here's the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/11/as-iowa-nears-clinton-al_n_76235.html
I happen to think it is disgusting to raise money in this way. It is glorifying Obama's drug use. Especially today when the baseball report is coming out. Again, Obama shows that his sweet talk is just a cover for what is underneath. Shame on Obama.
Kefa wrote on December 13, 2007 11:18 AM:Beck is on the radio right now saying how terrible for HRC to be speaking about the possibility of the Repub. using BHO youthful drug use. As if the right wing would never ever stoop to such levels. Oh no, never, ever, do such a thing. He's upset, HRC just really took a bullet out of the VRWC's chamber.
Jeremy wrote on December 13, 2007 11:20 AM:James. Get over it. This strategy is here to say as a method of grassroots fund raising that also punishes specious attacks.
RaymondA wrote on December 13, 2007 11:24 AM:James at 11:17 -- are you serious? Or is your post a deadpan piece of humor.
It seems you are serious, so I will respond, with apologies if I did not get the joke.
How is Obama exploiting his own drug use, when (a) he has said that his drug use was a mistake, and (b) all he is doing is fighting back against innuendo that he will face questions for being a drug dealer?
The reality, Hillary supporters, is that Obama is running the exact "tough but fair" campaign that you all thought that only Clintons were capable of running. The Clintonistas are looking like amateurs who overreact to a couple of bad polls, while Obama now looks like someone with discipline, focus, and the long view. He had two or three awful months from mid-July to mid-October, and while some of his amateur supporters (like me) were calling on him to get nasty, he kept his eyes on the prize and stayed calm. Now, he's winning about 80% of the daily tactical skirmishes and she's losing about that percentage.
This guy can beat the Republicans, and he can fight back against vile campaign tactics!
James wrote on December 13, 2007 11:28 AM:If Obama gets the nomination the day after election day I want to see the comments on this site when we have another Republican in the white house. Obama will never win a general election....
Keith wrote on December 13, 2007 11:33 AM:Made my contribution first thing this morning.
And James, you really need to stop operating out of fear. That's the most sure fire way to give Republicans the White House--ceding control of your decision-making out of fear of how they will or will not react.
Keith wrote on December 13, 2007 11:35 AM:Greg:
If they don't condone his comments (or authorize them), why haven't they (1) condemned his comments and (2) dismissed him from the campaign? A county chair was dismissed for forwarding an email (as was another volunteer). Their Co-Chair of New Hampshire implies that Obama may have been a drug dealer in high school and they do nothing? Seems to me that actions, in this case, speak a helluva lot more than their words.
Daniel wrote on December 13, 2007 11:36 AM:I'm not sure why no one is posting about these polls, but two surveys of the Senate races in Colorado and in Idaho have things much more tight than expected (yes, even in Idaho, where a generic Dem leads a generic GOP). So still some hope in Idaho?
LJ wrote on December 13, 2007 11:37 AM:James wrote:
I happen to think it is disgusting to raise money in this way. It is glorifying Obama's drug use.
I'm with RaymondA on this one, James. You can't possibly be serious.
If you are, could you please highlight one line or even a phrase from the Obama e-mail that supports your contention that the campaign is glorifying drug use? I've read the e-mail a couple of times and I don't see anything that even remotely supports what you're saying.
Let's see --- it's perfectly okay to attack on the basis of past divisiveness but not on the basis of past drug usuage?
There can be a problem with running on fear --- but there is also the problem of having to make reality checks.
Anybody who thinks the reThugs will give Obama an easier time than they will give Hillary is nuts.
This is not about who the Democratic candidates are -- this is about the Rethug ability to demonize anybody without an R after their name.
M wrote on December 13, 2007 11:44 AM:RaymondA,
Very good points. This entire race has been quite illuminating to me, but seriously, how much of this is strategy and how much of it is just plain luck?
Clintonistas do have a point: Obama has gotten nothing but positive press. Of course, perhaps that's all they can get on him, which would be quite interesting. Could it be possible that BO doesn't have any skeletons in the closet? We shall see.
As for attacks of swift-boating, and the like, I sincerely think that Democrats overplay the impact that had on the campaign in 2004. The other major Kerry problem is that he didn't have a VISION. Give me one stand he took in 2004 on an issue.
Likewise, Clintonistas, give me one example where Hillary has done the same thing in this race that is SUBTANTIALLY different than her competitors.
bridoc wrote on December 13, 2007 11:45 AM:I completely agree with RaymondA. Obama is completely justified in pushing back because it was completely uncalled for. And yes, it strikes me as quite racist as well (and I’m not one to cry racism/sexism at a drop of a hat), given that previous white candidates and presidents (Bill and Dubya foremost come to mind) have past drug issues but have never been accused or questioned about being an ex-drug dealer, or about the last time they used drugs etc. I also agree that this is not some semi-affiliated freelancer here, this person is key to Clinton’s campaign, and until Hillary condemns the comments and censures or terminates this person, it ought to be seen as an official campaign position.
LJ wrote on December 13, 2007 11:53 AM:Jeremy: thanks for the link. Hadn't seen this.
From the Huffington Post article Jeremy linked to:
On Monday morning, Hillary Clinton's campaign included a cryptic, somewhat ominous, note in an email to journalists and supporters:
Something to Chew On: Respected columnist David Yepsen notes that "it's important for Democrats to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. Clinton's negatives are well-known, Obama's less so. Any shortcomings, inconsistencies or misstatements in Obama's past will be exploited by Republicans in the fall campaign if he's the nominee. It's best for Democrats to vet them now."
The Clinton campaign email did not spell out Obama's "shortcomings, inconsistencies or misstatements," but other Democratic activists have quietly received messages from Clinton allies pointing in the likely direction. Those messages provided a link to an Iowa Independent story by Douglas Burns headlined "The Politics Of Obama's Past Cocaine Use."
The comments were not authorized because this drug angle was supposed to be a whispering campaign.
Jeremy wrote on December 13, 2007 11:55 AM:Jane. Actually, the Rethug attacks don't always work. Look at Jim Webb for example. If you have credibility you can fire back. I'm afraid that Hillary lacks credibility compared to Obama.
Michael A wrote on December 13, 2007 12:09 PM:Excellent point on webb jeremy. Also, it was a stupid attack, like clinton II's attacks have been. If you don't lie, triangulate and try to divert, the attack probably will not be successful. Also, like obama did with this drug thing, you have to get out in front of the attack. It takes away from the impact.
On another note, I'm not really hot about these type of fundraising e-mails. I understand why its done, I just don't like them. People will donate or won't regardless of this issue. I just don't like them.
In your heart, you know she is THE one! wrote on December 13, 2007 12:14 PM:Is America ready for a Muslim president?
Mike Bakunin wrote on December 13, 2007 12:18 PM:Obama can't run and hide with this issue out there. If it hadn't come up from "whoever" now, it would indeed be used in the Fall by the Republicans, and most probably with great devastation. If Obama wants to do something about this, yes, he needs to get out front. Fundraising off of it is another stupid operation. Really stupid. Maybe he should just make a direct play to coke users for support and money. This is one issue that will break the Dem tsunami in next Fall.
Mike Bakunin wrote on December 13, 2007 12:20 PM:The stupidity doesn't stop.
"Is America ready for a Muslim president?"
Oh, please "In your heart, you know she is THE one!"
Take your Republican ass outa here!
Obama can't run and hide with this issue out there
Why would he need to run or hide from something he wrote about in his book? There is ZERO shock value here. He was in high school (something like 30 years ago). You and the other fear mongers on here need to go get a spine.
And you're a moron for suggesting that he's advocating drug use, or whatever the hell you mean by "make a direct play to coke users for support and money".
bupalos wrote on December 13, 2007 12:25 PM:You should have let Eric write the headline so it could have just been "Obama makes his money off drugs."
Jane>>"This is not about who the Democratic candidates are -- this is about the Rethug ability to demonize anybody without an R after their name."
Jesus. Even after we call you guys chickens to get your dander up, you cower all the more. Guess what! They still do it even if you nominate a Republican lite and lick their boots. You can authorize their wars, you can authorize their torture, you can even call raising the 100G individual ceiling on payroll tax a "trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class, and they'll still do it. You can attack your opponents for supporting gun registration, and they'll still do it. So what?
Grow a backbone. That's why we lose people, not because we don't grovel well enough.
Sheesh.
Ni Daye wrote on December 13, 2007 12:34 PM:This shows who is desperate. I understand one Barak Friday fund raising totally bombed since all Obama supporters were here trashing Hillary without any money to donate to his compaign. Now he is taking this disgusting step to raise money based on someone's innocent suggestion that Gop may raise Obamer's past drug use. Do you seriously think the GOpers will not? Call you naive and you don't accept. By the way, this comment by Bill Sheehan has already been diaowed by the Hillary compaign. What else you obamers want?
dajafi wrote on December 13, 2007 12:49 PM:I generally never give money to Democrats in primary fights, preferring to save my ammunition for the general. Time to make an exception.
Oh, and Hillary supporters, I hope you're proud of the troll who keeps making this demonstrably false Muslim smear on TPM-EC. Nope, no similarities to the Bush/Rove m.o. here...
savvy wrote on December 13, 2007 12:50 PM:Hey James,
Did you think it was disgusting when Hillary glorfied her cleavage by using it to fund raise?
Ever notice how, when Hillary Clinton has tried to raise money off being attacked, she ends up getting attacked and ridiculed for that too, by virtually the entire MSM and liberal blog-o-sphere? So what's good for Hillary Clinton is good for Barack Obama, right?
Kefa wrote on December 13, 2007 12:57 PM:Now Rush is on....crying how HRC has taken a bullet away from the VRWC using the same talking points Beck used this morning and Hannity will use this afternoon. It's about
the HRC giving the Dems a heads up about a ploy that the right was going to use, this is a plot. Do not believe Novak, or any other right wing writer, just because we are in a battle for the top spot does not mean the right means you or us any good, just remember that.
Please keep smearing Obama, because it's just pushing his numbers up.
"He's a Muslim and went to school in a madrassa", and his Iowa numbers go up.
"Bill Clinton is more black than Obama", and his SC numbers up.
Ask Obama is he's "ever sold drugs" (which OMG is SO racist), and his New Hampshire poll numbers go up.
So just keep the smears flowing you pathetic Clintonites and Republicans, because the Obama campaign really appreciates it.
The ironic thing is same thing happened for Bill Clinton in '92, but Hillary's team is too stupid to realize it. Remember these beauties:
"Draft dodger", then Clinton's numbers went up.
"Bimbo eruptions", numbers up.
"Did not inhale", numbers up.
Hillary is toast.
Keith wrote on December 13, 2007 1:09 PM:Kefa:
For the umpteenth time: Republicans are going to do what they do regardless of who is the Democratic nominee. Who gives a crap what Rush, Hannity or their fans think or say? And if this is their issue, it backfires, just like it backfired on HRC.
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." Sun Tzu, Art of War
The good: Obama gets inoculated about past drug use because in the skirmish he looks honest and forthright.
The bad: Hillary's negatives as someone who will do anything to get elected go higher.
The good: Obama proves that race-baiting will backfire, forcing Republicans to think twice about going this direction in the general election.
The ugly: Hillary channels Lee Atwater (Republican styled racial fear mongering), dragging what used to be the good Clinton name (at least in Democratic circles) through the mud. Voters who once idolized the Clintons (like myself) are seriously disturbed by new levels of soulless politics.
CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 1:34 PM:In it's brain it only has ONE cell! strikes me as an inept right-wing troll trying to score a two-fer. Try ignoring it. Maybe it will go away.
brewmn wrote on December 13, 2007 1:35 PM:"If Obama gets the nomination the day after election day I want to see the comments on this site when we have another Republican in the white house."
If Obama is our next president, will you Kefa, Jane, et al., finally come out from under your beds and stop fearing the big, bad Republicans?
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 13, 2007 1:36 PM:The e-mail finally showed up in my inbox. I was rather amused at the title, "when Hillary attacks." It sounds like those lurid nature programs composed entirely of scenes of predation. In any event, however, I sent my contribution to the Obama campaign by clicking on the link in the e-mail, so they can still count it as a success, corny as it might have been.
HolyRomanUmpire wrote on December 13, 2007 1:45 PM:This isn't the first time Obama has sent out an e-mail like this. One came out after the kindergarden incident (I think). I gave money then, and if I had any to spare I would give money now.
On the first go-round the goal was "10,000 donations in 48 hours." They got almost 15,000 donations. I bet they'll do just about as well this time too.
SarahWest wrote on December 13, 2007 1:57 PM:This is a great link with obama pictured as a youth drug dealer! Somehow I think Shaheen hath wrought more damage than was initially thought, at least as it relates to the African-American vote.
http://nh.craigslist.org/pol/508159928.html
loki wrote on December 13, 2007 1:58 PM:Shaheens ignorant remarks should have got him canned. Don't know why they didn't.
Obama's fundraising letter is seriously lacking in good taste and dignity. But you do what ya gotta do, I guess.
Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 2:15 PM:Apologize, indeed.
Cross-posted (and edited to correct grammatical mistakes) from a letter I wrote at Salon.com.
Let's review our chronology, shall we?
December 11: Huffpo post says Clinton campaign has been working below the radar trying to get someone in the press or the blogosphere to pick this story up and run with it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/11/as-iowa-nears-clinton-al_n_76235.html
The post discloses that her campaign has been sending out vaguely ominous emails with a link to a story in an Iowa paper that discusses the "junkie, pothead" passage in "Dreams From My Father." Underlining the fact that the campaign is clearly trying to push the story without being blamed for having pushed it, Howard Wolfson is quoted as piously proclaiming that the campaign would never, ever, ever, do exactly what it was doing. No one in the MSM or blogosphere covering the campagin runs with the story, even though many or most of them have gotten these emails.
December 12: Clinton New Hampshire campaign chair with rep for being a loose cannon, raises the story in the most crudest terms possible, concern trolling his way into an insinuation that Obama was a dealer by obstensibly worrying about Republican attacks. Having come from the mouth of someone with close ties to the Clinton campaign's upper echelon, the MSM and blogosphere run with it, Obama's campaign denounces it, Clinton disavows the remark, and Shaheen (eventually followed by Hillary herself) operative apologize.
Decmeber 13: MSM and blogsophere hasten to assure us that they are giving Hillary's campaign the benefit of the doubt when it says it wasn't behind Sheehan's comments and didn't approve them and all of us readers should too.
I'm sorry, but given this chronology, there are only two possible scenarios behind this sorry episode:
a) "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_II_of_England
or, b) "So somebody's just gonna have to go out there and take one for the team. And I think in all fairness it should be Butters."
http://www.tv.com/south-park/cartman-joins-nambla/episode/2469/summary.html
Either way, the campaign emails should have been part of the story because they bear directly on both the tactics of the Clinton campaign and the sincerity and credibility of its denials and apologies. At the very least, it is incumbent upon every reporter and blogger who covers this story who also received one of the Clinton campaign emails in question to explain why it is they believe there is no connection between the two events. Instead, they seem to be feigning mass amnesia rather than risk compromising what they fancy are their sources inside Hillaryland.
I'm not suggesting some grand conspiracy, but its all just a little kind of stinky.
CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 2:17 PM:loki,
You can't very well just go around firing the husband of a former governor and probable future senator of NH. Besides, all the man did was express his opinion about the possible impact of things Obama actually did say. And for that matter, he's almost certainly correct in believing that those statements would come back to haunt us in a general election campaign. You can pretty well bet the ranch on that one.
But that's just stuff that will have to be dealt with if Obama should succeed in becoming our nominee. Whoever the nominee is, there are going to be attacks on them from every angle that will just have to be dealt with -- they spent the whole campaign just talking about how great Republicans are, people would only laugh. It's nothing to be go all ga-ga over. It's just part of it.
CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 2:19 PM:I still wish I could type.
rg wrote on December 13, 2007 2:32 PM:I think CornBred has made a very good point. I think when you are the more likable candidate - like Bill Clinton was - and Barack Obama is - that attacks like these actually help you. Because people think they are unfair and rally around you more. So I think HRC and her camp just won't win with attacking him on his strength - his character. It will continue to backfire. We may just have to stick to issues. I hope we get Obama and the republicans get one of their many unlikable options!
Mike Meyer wrote on December 13, 2007 2:51 PM:My sister didn't know about Obama's cocaine use. She learned about it last night from CNN. First time she heard of it. This morning, googling, "Obama," brought up stories around the world that included the word, "drug use."
Ben wrote on December 13, 2007 3:22 PM:the Clinton campaign has... sent emails asking for information that could help them smear Barack's efforts to fight poverty and joblessness as a community organizer in Chicago.
Anyone know anything about this claim?
NCSteve wrote on December 13, 2007 4:39 PM:Oh, crap. That "Anonymous" post with the links to Huffpo, Wikipedia and Southpark was me.
I hate it when I do that!
votenic wrote on December 13, 2007 5:08 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
No wonder we live in such a corrupt world with such a severe drug problem!
Anyone who thinks its okay to elect a president with drug/alcohol problems - past or present - is part of the problem.
What happened? When did the world change so much that it condones and praises this behavior? That Hillary has to apologize for something that should she should be applauded for is beyond me.
The whole thing is sickening - next you morons will want to put a pedophile in the Whitehouse.
