Report: Hillary Aides Privately Furious With Bill Over Iraq Misstep
Is infighting and tension on the rise in the Clinton camp? Via the Page, Bloomberg's Al Hunt reports that there's some finger-pointing going on in the Clinton camp about Hillary's recent struggles, with senior Hillary advisers upset at Bill over his recent claim that he'd been against the Iraq invasion from the start:
Top Clinton campaign officials were privately furious at the former president, saying he had revived the complaint that the Clintons lack credibility, unfairly tarnishing his wife in the process.For his part, the former president, one close associate says, has been bouncing off the walls at the campaign's ineptitude in the past few weeks. (It is not known if the Clintons shared any of these sentiments with each other).
The former assertion, that Hillary aides were upset about Bill's comment, sounds credible to me; the latter one comes across a bit like Bill's people trying to wiggle out of blame for his screw-up. Of course, this is based on anonymous sources, so make of it what you will.
Comments (65)
CalD wrote on December 10, 2007 11:58 AM:Interesting timing, don't you think?
DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 12:07 PM:As I noted a while back, the standard playbook says that someone besides the candidate has to be made the goat when a campaign has such a rough stretch.
Interestingly, though, the standard playbook also says that person should be fired. I am not entirely sure how that would work with the former President. But I guess bringing in Podesta would be the rough equivalent.
DonnaG wrote on December 10, 2007 12:09 PM:Well, the link led to an article that was about a lot more than the campaign's discomfort with Bill Clinton.
The article describes the outcome of a focus group looking at Hillary and Barack in terms of relative strengths and weaknesses, including how each would be seen as 'the boss', or president. A good and fair reading of opinions that seems to pretty much reflect the concerns of all the rest of us.
Latest Ras poll Repub. based has HRC up 10pts nationwide. Thats a whopper nationwide. Obama better find somemore people to fill more places to speak for him. lol.
the bread and the lamb spread wrote on December 10, 2007 12:14 PM:This story is AWESOME for Obama. And a linked on Drudge too. He's firmly established himself as the anti-Hillary candidate, and Hillary has lost control.
That part about Bill being upset about the campaign's "ineptitude" makes him look like Billy Zane's character in Titanic getting on board the life boat with the women and children.
keith wrote on December 10, 2007 12:15 PM:The fact is HRC can't distance herself from President Clinton. A great deal of her support is directly tied to him and his presidency. A bit of a double-edge sword of you ask me.
My guess is the HRC is going to make her stand at the debate later this week. Obama better bring his A game, cause the Clinton campaign HAS to change the narrative and Edwards has to remind everyone he's very much in this race. Should be a very interesting night and set the narrative going into the caucus.
CalD wrote on December 10, 2007 12:21 PM:DTM: Oh, I hardly think that they would be wasting their single most potent surrogate as a sacrificial lamb. The timing is also curious as I said before, coming a full two weeks after the event in question and at a point when the Clinton campaign really seems to have regained their stride in any case.
keith wrote on December 10, 2007 12:22 PM:Kefa:
10 points nationally when she'd had been up by 20 points is not something to crow about. And almost everyone agrees the state polls in IA and NH give a better sense of where things stand at this moment.
modmom wrote on December 10, 2007 12:24 PM:Hillary's campaign continues to IMPLODE! This is great news for all of us against another corporatist in the WH!
DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 12:25 PM:Kefa,
Until about two weeks ago, Rasmussen usually had Clinton up around a 20 point lead, and back in late October she was approaching a 30 point lead.
That said, Rasmussen's tracking poll is an ongoing lesson in statistical noise.
Jeremy wrote on December 10, 2007 12:26 PM:Hillary should be more concerned with her own failures this campaign season. She has so far been utterly incapable of even acknowledging, let alone answering, the contention that experience is only valuable to the extent that it yields concrete accomplishments and informs good judgment. Obama has made this election about his superior track record as a legislator, delivering concrete ethics, health, and environmental reforms as well as working on critical foreign policy programs like Obama-Lugar and about his superior track record of good judgment. Hillary's contentions of "experience" are ringing hollow because she doesn't connect her experience to anything concrete.
DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 12:34 PM:CalD,
That is actually an interesting hypothetical question (if it was possible to fire Bill Clinton, would they?). It is true Bill can do a lot of good for them, but it is also true he can do a lot of damage. And at this point at least, the negatives (or just the uncertainty) might outweigh the positives. So I really don't know how they would view that trade-off right now if in fact they had the power to do something about it. Of course, we will never know.
In any event, I still see people in the press listing Bill's Iraq War comment as among the major factors leading to the current dynamic. So in that sense it doesn't seem to me this is all entirely old news.
CalD wrote on December 10, 2007 12:48 PM:I meant to mention that the whole characterization of what Bill Clinton remarks is really invalid. I know some people still have trouble with this concept, but one would think that "top Clinton campaign officials" of all people on earth would be capable of understanding the difference between a vote in favor of the AUMF Iraq and supporting Bush's subsequent invasion at this late date. The campaign may very well wish he said that in some less spin-able way but there was obviously nothing wrong or damaging in the substance of what Mr. Clinton said.
I'm also always suspicious in general of claims that "top campaign officials" go routinely around dishing on internal gossip to national reporters. I don't think that's really how one gets to be a top campaign official. I would be more inclined to believe however that President Clinton was bouncing off the walls though during the recent feeding frenzy over every sneeze and minor slip-up that Mrs. Clinton's campaign made. That had to be hard for him to watch.
But again, they do seem to be very much back on their game at this point so it's interesting that someone would be floating this story now. I also note that it would be beneficial to Mrs. Clinton's adversaries if Mr. Clinton could be neutralized somehow. So who knows.
NCSteve wrote on December 10, 2007 12:53 PM:As it happens, I have a spreadsheet of the Rasmussen daily data with some graphs, just because Excel makes it fun and easy.
I've run regression lines on the graph that tracks the numbers from the day Hillary peaked (10/22 when she had 49% and a 27 point lead over Obama). Her line is a flat line sloping downward and Obama's is a smooth upward hyperbolic curve (note cheap shot opportunity for Hillary supporters).
Edwards is flat, sloping slightly downward, for those who care.
Anyway, just for yucks, I projected them out today and they cross at the 33% mark on 12/25. Can I get equally meaningful predictions out of the I Ching? Sure, but still . . .
And yeah, I totally believe Bill is going nuts over the way her campaign is being run. Unfortunately for him, being right is always the worst case scenario in any marital argument.
DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 12:58 PM:CalD,
One alternative explanation is that the Clinton campaign recognized that Bill's comments were hurtful on this occasion (and not for the first time in the campaign).
So, the idea may be to create just a little distance between Hillary and Bill, in anticipation that Bill may well do this again. And that would neatly explain why a campaign official would seed this story.
Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on December 10, 2007 1:00 PM:The anti-Clinton bias in the Media is so evident
including at TPM, that I am sure the Clitons take
it for granted. What Clinton said about Iraq
about the Media coverage of the campaign were
all given ridiculous headlines and have idiot
Media no nothings spouting on what wasn't said.
The Clinton's bring out the absolute worst in
the Pres.
The anti-Clinton bias in the Media is so evident
including at TPM, that I am sure the Clitons take
it for granted. What Clinton said about Iraq
about the Media coverage of the campaign were
all given ridiculous headlines and have idiot
Media no nothings spouting on what wasn't said.
The Clinton's bring out the absolute worst in
the Pres.
CalD, ebough with the revisionism. This is what opposing the Iraq War sounds like.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php
Obama continues LYING to audiences about his health care plan, claiming it covers everyone. Where's the media?
chirp, chirp
John Edwards is the most trustworthy candidate.
While Dem activists were contacting Congress critters to vote against funding the war, Obama was voting with Republicans to fund a war he "opposed."
Obama is NOT opposed to dumb wars!
DTM: Good point I guess I couldn't rule that out either. We'll probably never know for sure as you said. But I guess we're both agreed that there's likely some underlying purpose here on someone's part.
ARCADIA wrote on December 10, 2007 1:17 PM:I don't believe there has been that much movement in the last few days/weeks. Basically, some of her support was always soft and it broke to Obama. But, she will still win the primaries, be the nominee and the next President.
I am not a Hillary supporter, just looking at it realistically instead of obsessing over every little thing that happens.
BernieO wrote on December 10, 2007 1:19 PM:I have to agree with the statement about the anti-Clinton bias in the media. They flat out lied about his supposed statement that Hillary was being "Swiftboated" by Edwards and Obama when he had said nothing even remotely like that. The media has also deliberately overlooked statements Bush made before we invaded Iraq that we should be letting the inspectors do their work, not invading.I think this is a concerted effort to damage him so he will not be an asset to Hillary.
That being said, the media is actually anti-Democrat (look how they treated Gore and Kerry) and will go along gleefully when the Republicans trash whoever the Democratic candidate is. All of us need to stand up whenever any Democrat is getting this kind of treatment instead of joining in if it benefits our favored candidate. The media needs to be pressured to drop their trashing of Democrats.
In case you haven't noticed, they have already been all over Edwards' haircut, the Obama is a Muslim story, Hillary's supposed dishonesty, etc. Have you seen equally tough treatment of Republicans? Where is the outrage over Guiliani supporting and hiring his pal Alan Placa, the molester priest? Why did I hear just this morning on MSNBC how honest and straightforward Huckabee is, when he has been blatanly lying about his role in the parole of a rapist? Would ANY Democratic candidate get such a pass? It's long past time for us to stand up and fight this kind of bias.
Perhaps I'm misreading something here, but doesn't it stand to reason that if she'd wanted to, HRC could have used Bill's "I thought the invasion was a mistake" to conflate his anti-Iraq war sentiments with her Iraq track record?
That she did NOT, in a time when being pro-war is demonstrably stupid, either confuses the hell out of me, or indicates that the Clinton campaign is unrepentant for Hillary's enabling of this occupation and general Bush mayhem-generating in the Middle East.
Which would mean that her hawkish position, which her campaign obviously sees as threatened by Bill's opposite tack, can be seen as either a sop to the 25 percenters (unbelievably stupid tactic, if true... like they'd EVER vote for anything named "Clinton"); an innoculation against Republican "hate the troops" smear tactics (which will probably get the nod as the official reason for this); or, more troublingly, a canary in the coal mine, that Hillary as president will continue the policies of empire-building, and warmonger as necessary.
I don't believe the media will be exploring this possibility too aggressively. But I warn everyone to look at this campaign's abhorrence of the pursuit of peace, and take it as a sign that THIS IS WHO THEY ARE.
dcshungu wrote on December 10, 2007 1:46 PM:Why would a "top Clinton campaign official" resurrect an old story that does them no good? This is strange...
jimijazz wrote on December 10, 2007 1:49 PM:Exactly. This is how pro-Bush and pro-war Hillary really is. She could've amended her statement to her advantage but she did not.
DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 2:13 PM:dcshungu,
To give the short version of what I noted to CalD, because:
(1) The press is still talking about it; and
(2) It is unlikely this is the last unhelpful thing Bill will say while ad-libbing on the campaign trail.
So, planting the idea with the press that there is a little distance between Hillary and Bill on some of Bill's comments, including this one, is not necessarily a bad idea.
anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 2:41 PM:It wouldn't have been a screw up if Obama supporters hadn't falsely claimed (at least on these comments) that it was Hillary that was claiming to have been against the war rather than Bill.
Maybe that's why most Democrats believe that the HRC campaign is the most positive and that Obama's campaign tactics are substantially more negative.
anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 2:44 PM:jimijazz: "This is how pro-Bush and pro-war Hillary really is."
And this statement shows how utterly dishonest and slimely the Hillary Haters are.
kjoe wrote on December 10, 2007 2:49 PM:Tennis star Maria Sharapova is auctioning off a white wedding-like dress for charity-----it remains to be seen which of the two highest bidders-----Bill Clinton and Rudy Giuliani will be wearing it in January of 2009.
It's inevitable that one or the other will. Isn't it?
jimijazz wrote on December 10, 2007 2:54 PM:To anonymous - You Hillary types always have problems with the facts - youre like Bush that way. But I can always spot a Hillary type a mile a way. Wipe the dirt out of your eyes - you might see things much better.
anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 2:55 PM:kjoe: "Tennis star Maria Sharapova is auctioning off a white wedding-like dress for charity-----it remains to be seen which of the two highest bidders-----Bill Clinton and Rudy Giuliani will be wearing it in January of 2009."
Yet another slimely, low-life attack on the Clintons from an Obama supporter trying to implicitly claim they are the same as deranged conservatives like Guiliani.
Obama's supporters appear to be every bit as rancid as Bush's supporters have been when it comes to attacking anyone who doesn't worship their hero.
jimijazz: "You Hillary types always have problems with the facts . . ."
What exactly is a "Hillary type," jackass?
It can't be because I support Clinton, because I don't.
It can't be because I am a woman, because I'm not.
You Hillary Haters always have problems with the truth - you just can't tell it when it comes to speaking about Clinton, but prefer to lie, lie, lie and then lie some more.
Wipe the bias out of your eyes and the dishonesty out of your heart - you might find the truth refreshing.
Obama's cult of the personality and his supporters self-righteous, unrepentent, and unremitting lying about his opponents makes Obama and his supporters more like Bush and his supporters than any other Democratic candidate or their supporters.
Barry Champlain wrote on December 10, 2007 3:06 PM:anonymous sez:
"And this statement shows how utterly dishonest and slimely the Hillary Haters are"
Two things; first, I myself am not comfortable with Hillary Clinton as our candidate. Does this make me a "Hillary HATER"? Listen, I've met the lady. Followed her career. VOTED for her. Decided NOT to vote for her again, at one point.
You know... INFORMED CITIZEN Which leads me to:
2. I do believe this is the same tactic used by the right... for the longest time, if you had any substantial criticism of George W. Bush, why, you were just a "BUSH HATER"!
Translated, that meant you were so blinded by your own (inappropriate!) disapproval of Our Preznit, that any dissatisfaction you had with his regime was meaningless and totally dismissable.
You only tend to prove the progressives' point about Hillary when, in addition to her supporting endless war, her so-called supporters like yourself adopt the smear tactics of the very Bush regime she is purporting to replace.
DTM: I did a news search and you were right about the press still talking about this. There's a CBS news article just today in fact where Bill Clinton was asked about it again in an interview to promote his book -- they remind me of puppies with a favorite shoe sometimes.
It's interesting too that the White House has apparently been out there lately, furiously spinning the tale that he was with them all along. From what I could see they don't quite seem to be able to move the ball past he supported the use of military force if war was necessary (he and about 70% of the rest of the country at the time), which of course begs the question, was it? I didn't see anyone asking them that though.
Anyway, I think that tends to lend weight to your assessment. Probably does make more sense than a rival campaign successfully spinning Al Hunt somehow, too. He didn't exactly just wake up yesterday morning and decide to go into this line of work.
jimijazz wrote on December 10, 2007 3:19 PM:To Barry Champlain - right on! It only shows how desperate the Hillary campaign is in the last weeks leading up to Iowa. Smear capaigns - their last resort.
Liam wrote on December 10, 2007 3:20 PM:Senator Clinton's campaign staff would be upset with President Clinton saying that he was always against the Iraq Invasion for the following reason:
Senator Clinton is touting her White House experience as a strong reason to elect her to the Presidency.
That claim breaks down, if the actual President, her husband, claims that he was against the Iraq War, when Hillary was for it. That destroys her claim of having a wealth of good White House experience to draw on.
If she differed from Bill, on a War and Peace issue, soon after they were out of the White House, then her Husband is revealing that she actually learned nothing from their years in the White House.
Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 3:23 PM:Geez. We're getting all riled up again. Let's calm it down people. We're lucky we have two good candidates and we won't go too far wrong with either of them. I'd rather not go DLC in a year that the Republicans are going to get slaughtered, that seems more like a survival approach for years like 96. But that's just me, and if we do go that route, let's at least make sure we win and we push Hillary to disavow her more hawkish tendencies.
Don't burn down the house, people.
anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 3:24 PM:Champlain: ". . . her so-called supporters like yourself . . ."
Since I've stated I do not support her, this simply proves my point that Hillary Haters like you insist on lying about those who refuse to buy into their "GOP-lite" dishonesty about the Clintons.
jimijazz: "Smear capaigns - their last resort."
Since Hillary by far is viewed by the vast majority of Democrats as running the most positive campaign, this is yet again more proof of how the Hillary Haters will simply lie, lie. lie about what she's done, what she's doing, and what she would do as president.
LOL.
jimijazz: " . . . It only shows how desperate the Hillary campaign . . ."
This only shows just how alike you are to Cheney.
anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 3:25 PM:Champlain: " . . . in addition to her supporting endless war . . ."
And the lies continue . . .
anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 3:28 PM:Liam: " . . . when Hillary was for it . . ."
And the lies continue apace . . .
This is why self-styled "progressives" can't be trusted: like the conservative ideologues that supported Bush, "progressive" ideologues will lie and smear anyone who doesn't sing their tune, repeatedly misrepresenting the actions and statements of those opponents.
moondancer wrote on December 10, 2007 3:32 PM:I too am not a hater, but a doubter. I never believed the "inevitable tour" was more than a papier mache tiger. As it deflates the obvious flaws of this candidate come into play. Many are out of her control, and that is unfortunate. But it is reality.
If she wins the nomination, I will hold my nose and vote for her, but I pray it does not come to that.
To anonymous - you're posts are becoming so laughable. The "GOP lite" atacks as you call them have nothing to do with criticisms of Hillary. There are legitimate questions about her record and as the primaries get closer, this record is exposed even more. As for comparing me to Cheney, nothing could be futher from the truth. Your responses are bordering on the idiotic.
anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 3:41 PM:The only people I've ever seen treat Clinton's nomination as inevitable are those who don't want her to get the nomination and who resented the fact that her lead looked insurmountable.
So they created this false characterization, pretended it came from the Clinton campaign, and then used it as criticism that her opponents themselves created for just that purpose.
Liam wrote on December 10, 2007 3:46 PM:Has Senator Clinton come up with any Iraq War comments from Senator Obama's Kindergarten years?
Ask Senator Clinton why she has been able to release Senator Obama's Kindergarten papers, but she has not been able to release her far more recent White House records.
anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 3:48 PM:jimijazz: "The "GOP lite" atacks as you call them have nothing to do with criticisms of Hillary."
Since the term is being used by "progressives" who attack Clinton when they attack her, it must have something to do with those criticisms or they would not use the term.
Thus, you are lying again.
Par for the course and proof of your own mendacity that you continue to deny the obvious as a means of rationalizing your dishonesty, much like Cheney and Bush simply ignored the obvious when rationalizing their failed policies.
Your responses, thus, don't border on the idiotic, but leap into idiocy by a league or more.
anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 3:50 PM:Liam: "Ask Senator Clinton why she has been able to release Senator Obama's Kindergarten papers, but she has not been able to release her far more recent White House records."
I'll ask you to cite the legal privilege that applies to kindergarten papers.
Talk about leaping over the line of idiocy - you rammed right through without any hesitation whatsoever.
Congratulations!
jimijazz wrote on December 10, 2007 3:52 PM:To anonymous - You're buying into the whole Hillary victimization thing.
Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 3:53 PM:anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 2:55 PM:
kjoe: "Tennis star Maria Sharapova is auctioning off a white wedding-like dress for charity-----it remains to be seen which of the two highest bidders-----Bill Clinton and Rudy Giuliani will be wearing it in January of 2009."
Yet another slimely, low-life attack on the Clintons from an Obama supporter trying to implicitly claim they are the same as deranged conservatives like Guiliani.
Obama's supporters appear to be every bit as rancid as Bush's supporters have been when it comes to attacking anyone who doesn't worship their hero.
I am sorry--the intent was a little bit subtler and gentler than that---there is plenty to rule out Giuliani from being our next president---nothing to do with wearing wedding dresses. I have pledged to vote for Hillary against him if this bizarre (maybe former)agenda of the msm comes true.
As for Bill in a wedding dress----I am poking fun at the Hillary campaign for wanting it both ways---Bill will be the adviser who not let anything go wrong, and Hillary is her own woman apart from Bill---he will be just the first spouse.
The wedding dress seemed an apt reminder of some of the background items which apply to both campaigns. Rudy has had a lot of history with wedding dresses.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but FUCK HILLARY'S AIDES. If Hillary has a beef will Bill, then let her speak to him herself. We're pretty certain she knows how to do that. They love it when he's out there revving up the true-believer Democrats who, like me, are trying to decide which way to vote in the primary. Let them suck it up gracefully when he says something they're uncomfortable with. What have any of Hillary's aides ever won? Most of them worked for Bill anyway. Or do they think he worked for them. Campaign aides might be the worst thing that's happened to the democratic process since the founding of the Republic.
jimijazz wrote on December 10, 2007 3:58 PM:I'm sorry anonymous, but you're wrong on this one. And hopefully the Iowa voters and the rest of the country will see thru this Hillary smokescreen and vote accordingly. I used to think you're posts were informative but lately they are just nonsense and don't make any sense. This country will be better off without Hillary as president.
kjoe wrote on December 10, 2007 4:02 PM:sorry---I was anonymous 353. the quote in italics should have ended with the word hero.
I will keep my day job.
Liam wrote on December 10, 2007 4:25 PM:Looks like "Anonymous" is really an Annoying Mouse who works for the Hillary campaign. I guess the little mouse is afraid that it might get detected, after two or more of it's fellow Swift Boating style kindred got fired after they got caught spreading scurrilous email spam about Senator Obama.
Poor Hillary. How dare anyone question her, even though she feels free to question Senator Obama.
Tell her campaign to either stop dishing it out, or stop whining about being occasionally on the receiving end.
Still waiting for her to let the voters see her offical White House correspondance.
If she wants to run on that experience, then the voters have every right to see those records. Shows us the proof of what that experience actually consisted off.
jimijazz: "To anonymous - You're buying into the whole Hillary victimization thing."
You're buying into the whole "Hillary is GOP-lite" thing.
Since the majority of Democrats think Hillary's is the most positive campaign and that the others are attacking her more than she is attacking them, you are in the minority and I am in the majority.
And since the majority of Democrats don't buy into the "Hillary is GOP-lite and is for war forever" meme, that means I'm closer to being right about Hillary's "victimization" than you are about Hillary being "GOP-lite."
" . . . Hillary smokescreen . . ."
The ones blowing smoke are Obama supporters and Hillary Haters.
But, LOL.
"This country will be better off without Hillary as president."
You state that as if it were a fact, when clearly your reality is based on dishonest appraisals of Clinton's record and just as dishonest misrepresentations of her, her supporters, and those non-supporters who nevertheless defend her from these unfair attacks because they simply provide more fodder for conservatives in the general election in which Clinton may be the Democratic nominee.
It is the same type of selfishness we saw from Nader supporters who insisted that Gore was just as evil as Bush and that because there was no difference, it didn't matter if he and his supporters ruined Gore's electoral chances.
It is this self-righteous, smug, arrogant, ideological purity and hatred for the allegedly ideological impure that has endangered this republic far more than anything Bush and Cheney have done because it directly led to their ascendency to the leadership of this country.
And you're right in that I'll have none of that again.
If Obama attackers and Hillary Haters damage Clinton like Naderites damaged Gore and the Democrats lose again because of it, you will be deserving of scorn and condemnation, particularly in light of the mendacity of your attacks.
Liam wrote on December 10, 2007 4:32 PM:Annoying Mouse: Pay attention. The Hillary Camp were the ones spreading that false Email about Senator Obama. Two of them have been fired, and now another one has been uncovered.
Tell us again about Hillary's positive campaign. It is always good to be treated to a good joke on a Monday.
anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 4:36 PM:Liam: "Looks like "Anonymous" is really an Annoying Mouse who works for the Hillary campaign."
Looks like Liam is really Lame who really works for the GOP and so wants to do anything possible to damage both Clinton and Obama by making false accusations in Obama's name.
"Tell her campaign to either stop dishing it out, or stop whining about being occasionally on the receiving end."
That's hilarious coming from Obama and his supporters after he's consistently whined about so-called "dirty tricks" when in fact the vast majority of Democrats believe Hillary has run a cleaner campaign.
LOL with that laugher!
You've already lost the argument according to the latest polls on negative campaigning, but that is just like the Hillary Haters and Obama supporters to try to pretend up is down and evil is good, so similar to Bushites.
"Still waiting for her to let the voters see her offical White House correspondance."
Still waiting for a citation to the law that grants a privilege to kindergarten papers.
You know that Obama supporters are drooling, starry-eyed, nincompoops when they capitalize "Kindergarten" when talking about Obama, as if he were some god whose every action is more worthy than that of others.
"I guess the little mouse is afraid that it might get detected, after two or more of it's fellow Swift Boating style kindred got fired after they got caught spreading scurrilous email spam about Senator Obama."
And yet Obama's swift-boaters are still on his campaign and posting on these threads, spreading scurrilous charges about Clinton!
Liam wrote on December 10, 2007 4:40 PM:I love Hillary. I will vote for her, if she is the nominee. I just want her to stop playing the victim card, especially when her staff are busy pushing smear spam.
Tell her to toughen up, or people will view her as too weak to lead the free world.
Leaders have to be able to take a punch without whining and playing the victim card.
We are engaged in an election process, not a coronation.
anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 4:41 PM:Liam: "The Hillary Camp were the ones spreading that false Email about Senator Obama."
Uh, no, it was individuals associated with the campaign who were immediately asked to resign once they were discovered - it was not the campaign.
Indeed, the individuals who forwarded the emails neither drafted them nor endorsed the substance of the emails.
See, you can't help but lie.
"Tell us again about Hillary's positive campaign."
You can read about it on TPM.
If you can read, that is!
Clearly you can't tell the truth.
anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 4:49 PM:=============
That prompted Obama campaign manger David Plouffe to charge Clinton's campaign with "evasion and deflection," and he demanded an answer to "two simple direct questions: Are 'agents' of their campaign spreading these rumors? And do they have 'scandalous' information that they are not releasing? Yes or no."
Carson's response: "No and no. ... You have to seriously question the experience of a candidate who would fall into this Republican trap."
The Obama campaign appeared to back off late Saturday, saying of the Clinton camp, "we take them at their word."
===============
Oops, looks like Obama has had to back off his whiny accusations after falling into a Novak trap.
Too bad his supporters keep falling into the same trap over and over without repentence.
Liam: "Leaders have to be able to take a punch without whining and playing the victim card."
You mean like Obama playing the victim after a report by Novak, a long-time Clinton hater who is hardly a trustworthy source?
Less whining by Obama and his supporters who have managed to publicize the scurrilous emails about Obama far more widely than those poor souls in the Clinton campaign who for the most part appeared to have forwarded the emails as part of an effort to either discredit them or point out how dirty the campaigns were becoming.
If you really believed the emails were scurrilous, then the complaints would have been done privately to the Clinton campaign and allowed time for that campaign to take action before going public, rather than widely publicizing them.
The impact of the emails must have been viewed as not that bad, then, by the Obama campaign and its supporters, eh, but just an opportunity to smear Hillary with the actions of people she didn't personally direct to do anything of the sort.
Funny also how those emails have been widespread for months now by conservatives such that they've lost all impact, at least among liberals who will vote in the primaries, but Obama and camp bring them back front and center after only a handful of addressees got these old-news forgotten-news emails from these Clinton campaign volunteers who didn't appear to be passing them on for any nefarious purpose or else they would have been sent to hundreds or thousands of recipients.
Michael A wrote on December 10, 2007 5:02 PM:Of course they're pissed with him. In one fell swoop he reminded everyone why we don't want anymore clintons in the whitehouse and that she voted in favor of this horrible war for political purposes in the face of evidence that said the king was lying in the run-up to the war.
It makes you wonder what Mr. Bill's agenda is. Maybe he wants her to lose so she doesn't destroy his rose-colored glasses legacy. At a minimum, the campaign has been imploding. Wouldn't it be funny if she wound up being third in iowa after all the inevitablility garbage?
anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 5:17 PM:Liam: "I just want her to stop playing the victim card . . ."
Then when will you demand for Obama supporters to stop playing the victim card?
And there is no bigger "victim card" than the canard that Clinton led us into war and that we are all a victim of her warmongering.
Puhleeeeeese.
Bush was going to invade AUMF or not, as has been repeatedly made clear by the release of DOJ and other administration legal opinions and even if the AUMF had been necessary in some bizarro scenario only Obama supporters can fantasize, if Clinton had voted against the AUMF it still would have passed and she would have lost a lost of centrist support for absolutely nothing.
This is something that Obama clearly doesn't understand and why he is utterly unsuitable for leadership - he will needlessly take stands that will cause he and his supporters (and the country) to lose more than they gain in the final analysis and make any admininstration he could command (and one seems unlikely in the first place) of short duration.
The public as a whole has repeatedly rejected politicians who are unpragmatic and as long as Obama supporters whine about how he's not getting enough credit for a stand that cost him nothing (opposing the war) in circumstances where his opinion and stance was less than meaningless and therefore incurred no risk and make this their nearly exclusive reason for supporting him and opposing Clinton, then there is no reason for the public to embrace him.
Obama's one claim to the presidency seems to be "I was against the war and was right and even though being against the war carried absolutely no political risk for me at the time it is defining of my suitability as commander in chief and leader of this nation."
anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 5:32 PM:Michael A: "At a minimum, the campaign has been imploding."
Well, the Hillary Haters are nothing if not delusional.
"Wouldn't it be funny if she wound up being third in iowa after all the inevitablility garbage?"
Not so funny, since she never promoted that, only her whiny opponents looking for any excuse to take a dig at her.
"Progressive" is going to become as synonymous with rancid lying about one's opponents as "Bush conservatism" has become.
Michael A wrote on December 10, 2007 5:39 PM:Anon, you are out to lunch.
(1) Her supporters have been promoting her inevitability on this site for months, not her "whiney opponents." What rock did you crawl out from under?
(2) Her war vote is critical and your excuse for it is pathetic and makes her look worse than what she is doing. Oh, the king was going to invade no matter what and she had to vote that way to appear "centrist." WTF. Hundreds of thousands of iraqis and americans have died. Schools, homes, industry, hospitals have been destroyed. Families have been decimated. Women and children have been killed and maimed. All for politics? She didn't even try? Is that exhibiting leadership? Sorry, I don't buy that one. If you do, you have no soul and I feel sorry for you.
(3) You are way off on obama and based on your posts, it would be a waste of time to engage.
Why don't you go play at redstate.com? I think you would be more at home there.
Billo needs to be careful here. Does he really want to give the impression of a Hillary presidency, with the two of them arguing over what to do, while the country burns?
