Ouch, he hits on her on he foreswing and the backswing. 1) Yes, I am tough, and 2) the Clinton campaign is slimy.

Give me a break; what a fairytale. The Clinton’s have not been allowed to even begin to use any op-research against Jesus Obama. Heck….even the slightest criticism is characterized by the Obama’s camp and his extended campaign without the elite liberal media establishment characterizing it as playing the race card. I have to give it to the Obama camp as doing a superb job as playing on white America’s guilt about their racists past. Well, the republicans won’t have any such restraints and will tear him to threads as he’s less vetted them most candidates running for local school board. Gofigure!!!!!

Honestly, if you're going to throw around false charges of "bias," you're gonna have to do a lot better than this.

Hillary's point is that she's >as tough

Obama's suggestion here is that if you can handle the tactics the Clintons throw at you, then you can handle the tactics of the GOP.

They just aren't parallel in any way. Come on, now. This is silly.

Ah, Fred App, you stole my thunder. Gregg, how about some facts on the clintons' oppo research:

1. They interviewed his KINDERGARTEN teacher for an attack. Holy cow, I don't think that the republicans would go that far, because it was really silly. Also, it shows how far they have dug into his background to find something and they found nada.

2. They combed through his 4000 votes in the Illinois senate and fed the non-results to the times. I'm sure the republicans would do the same thing, but the clintons already did it for them and there was nothing there.

3. They keep claiming that they are going to drop some sort of bomb and fizz the bomb doesn't go off, because there is nothing there.

Talk about vetted and tested, I feel much more confident about obama's backround then I do about the clintons. What we know about the clintons already is bad and God only knows what we don't know, like what are they trying to hide in their white house papers or the "donors" to mr. bill. I really like the kazakstan dictator story. How many more like that are out there? Oh, I'm sure the republican oppo team won't look into that stuff. Nah.

Give me a break. He has weathered the storm and attacks and has come out like a champ. Mccain will be like second string compared to the clintons' garbage.

Unfortunately, the GOP will have months to prepare their attacks while Democrats slowly tear each other apart. The longer this division lasts, the stronger McCain will be. :-(

Greg:

Follow up. Were you on the call when Wolfson was asked about the Clintons' self-financing?

Greg-

You're right. It's an implausible comparison. But it gets a dig in to HRC while he is still in the race against her.

I think the attacks the GOP would use against him in the GE would be a wonder of mud to behold. Slimy, mischaracterizations, out and out lies, more race baiting, and outright racist goading. Perhaps a good chance for the USA to show the mirror to its collective self?

They tried to suppress votes in Nevada, they brought up the cocaine use to anyone who'd listen, they brought up the phony Muslim issue to anyone who'd listen, they're lying about his record on abortion rights, they're trying to cheat to get the delegates from FL and MI seated, and they used race-baiting in South Carolina. At this point, is some Republican clown telling Chris Matthews, "ZOMG! HE WINDSURFS!1!!" really going to be that big of a deal to Obama?

Greg writes

Hillary's point is that she's as tough at the GOP attack machine, not that she'll stoop to its level. Obama's suggestion here is that if you can handle the tactics the Clintons throw at you, then you can handle the tactics of the GOP. But they aren't comparable.

Yet it's a fine line. Clinton portrays herself as a fighter. Being a political fighter implies that you're willing to get dirty. OK, so she's not as dirty as the Republicans, but if she wants to be the fighter, then she can't be the nice guy. And the more she says that she's a fighter, the more credible Obama's response that the Clintons fight dirty and that he's demonstrated that he has the cojones to stand up to it.

He is right about the vetting, the Clintons have obviously done everything they could to attack him, from distorting his record, making up complete lies, trying to dig up dirt from his past, race-baiting, I don't see what more the Republicans can do. I guarantee that if there was a weakness, the Clintons would have ran with it by now because they have proven that they will say anything and do anything to win. The swiftboating of Kerry wasn't any worse than this, Obama faced circulated lies about his religion, crap about his name, and none of it has slowed his momentum. So give me a break, there is no indication that the Republicans are going to have any more success against him than the Clinton machine has. The only thing they can run with is dirt, and compared to the Clintons, Obama is squeaky clean, so that isn't a real argument. The Republicans have decades of practice attacking Hillary, and they have been very successful (look at her 50% unfavorable rating, look at how she energizes their base), when asked about going up against Obama, none of the candidates knew how to approach it, he is unknown to them. Hillary would be going into the general as a wounded deer, and the Republicans are salivating at the opportunity to finish her off, and they know they can (hell, just look at the polls, or use common sense here, she isn't electable against John McCain).

iceman278 writes

The GOP will obviously have an easier time swift-boating Hillary.

I've often wondered why everyone assumes that Clinton can handle the right wing attacks. I don't recall her senate campaigns being particularly vicious, so I don't think that she's been really tested since she was the first lady, and at that time, she did a terrible job of standing up to the GOP attack machine. She was so effectively smeared by the right wing that she was became the least popular member of the Clinton administration. After the health care fiasco, they sent her off to visit Africa and bake cookies.

I was a strong Edwards supporter. I viewed H. Clinton and Obama as equally acceptable second choices. Then I saw how crooked and Rovian a campaign Clinton is running, and realized that I can never support her with a vote. She's only "tough" in the way a gangster is. She fights dirtier than McCain or Huckabee - even if far cleaner than Romney. But Romney won't be her opponent if it comes to that. And I know there are millions of us out here who will vote for the cleaner player. Because it takes more strength, not less, to play a clean game and win. Since Obama's playing at least even with Clinton so far, while playing cleaner, it's obvious he's the stronger player. Being strong and clean has always been the ideal of American leadership, even if we have had a few Nixons and Clintons along the way. Obama's best strength is that he connects to that ideal, strongly.

The Clinton camp has stated that they have now stopped Senator Obama's momentum.

How does the Hillary camp know that they have stopped Senator Obama's momentum? What will they say if he wins the majority of the next six contests?. Aren't they being premature in making such a claim. They now have put themselves in the position of having to win the next two or three states, or they will look like they are collapsing, based on their own claims of having stopped Senator Obama.

AJM.....you hit the nail right on the head.......Patrick Fitzgerald is on the case as we speak.

I have been monitoring it..as others...
http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/

I don't care what people say...we as a party need to be kept informed. The right will use anything.

I'm sure Hillary can handle whatever the Republicans throw at her. She'll just ... cry. That seems to have worked for her as a campaign technique.

As for the people who says Obama is a wimp because he complains about negative attacks: Don't you realize that that IS a campaign strategy? He has managed to paint the Clintons as sufficiently nasty as to negate the attacks they've just tried to wage. Just look at how the Clinton campaign tried to insinuate that he's a drug dealer, and how he turned that to his advantage. He's created a dynamic where he can relatively freely criticize the Clintons, but they can't criticize him without blowback. I'd say that's the mark of a pretty successful campaign.

Besides, I've never understood this argument about her being "already vetted." I'm sure her husband could have argued the same thing before his 1996 campaign, but -- lo and behold -- turns out there was still plenty of dirt to be had. And, as shown by the Times' story on Kazakhstan, there's apparently still stuff out there. (Never mind that "vote for me, you already know all the skeletons in my closet" is hardly an inspiring slogan).

As of this very day George W. Bush still agrees fully with Hillary Rodham Clinton, that her vote in support of the Iraq Invasion and Occupation was not a reckless and colossal mistake on Hillary's part.

I think the more important point in Barack's speech is his exploding of the myth that Hillary Clinton has been fully vetted. It's just not true. He hasn't run a oppo-research based negative ad or made any such attack -- the closest thing he's done is respond aggressively when she has (according to objective observers) distorted his record, and engage in legitimate debate about the merits of health care mandates.

To begin, the GOP will have 20 years of old dirt from Arkansas and the first Clinton presidency to recycle. Most of the public will have long forgotten it, which makes it news. And she was merely a side-figure during Bill's era -- now she will be the target, making HER conduct central. Obama hasn't breathed a word on any of it -- and rightly so. What about those millions of pages of White House documents yet to be released? Are those fully vetted? Hardly.

Plus, we have all of the recent era stuff which is entirely un-mined. How vetted are Bill's shenanigans with his billionaire boys club? His foundation fund raising? The recent NY Times piece on his central Asian adventure in Uranium mining is only the tip of the iceberg. How about Hillary's time in the Senate? It ain't like she was up against a real candidate either time. She is undeniably hated on the right, but that is not the equivalent of saying that all her dirt has been exposed.

It's true that Barack has been less subject to attack then her in the past, and I'm sure that the GOP will find more than Clinton to hit Barack with, but it's simply absurd to assume that they'll have nothing to use against her. The truth is, there's more dirt on her to find given her past, and she is a magnet for their attacks.

As a former key member of the Clinton White House, I can assure you that the Clinton's would never stoop to use aggressive opposition research. It is folly to compare the Clinton style of campaigning to the GOP in any way, shape or form.

Sincerely,
Dick Morris.

Greg, you are right that Obama's comparison doesn't hold much water. But a slight refocusing of that comparison would make it a genuine criticism of Hillary.

Let's focus the analogy not on Obama's ability to take a punch, but Hillary's ability to throw one. One of her stated strengths is her ability to stand up to the GOP attack machine, to go toe-to-toe with the muck-slingers and trade punches. But if she's such a tough electoral cookie, why can't she beat up Obama? Just as Hillary's organization pales in comparison to the GOP attack machine, so does Obama's. So if Hillary can't beat up wimpy hope-filled Obama, how can she beat up the right-wing attack machine?

In other words, if Hillary is supposedly the best person to take on the champ, why can't she even knock down her sparring partner?

The Clinton dirty tricks filtered down to the lowest level. In my Upstate county, one Clinon supporter started on email rumor that Dick Morris was one of the Obama advisors!! Talk about hubris. It was easily countered and Obama carried my county by 2,000 votes. Still, it was a chilling remider of how, whe you deal with Clintons, never, ever, ever let your guard down. Keep up the sharp elbows, big guy.

I have to agree with Greg, this is silly; and it just keeps getting sillier.

I find the TPM sites to be the most informative relative to the campaign and I think the TPM crew presents the information very even handedly.

Folks need to relax. There is still much campaign ahead. Can't we all be thrilled that we have a real nomination campaign for the first time in a long time and that we have two candidates whom either of which we would be happy to have as president.

Remember the objective of this process is to remove the neo-fascists from the White House and Congress.

I think what gets lost in the "giving and taking" of punches talk is that really a candidates propensitity to get smeared or slimed by their opponent is a symptom of the candidate's problems, not the disease. Kerry didn't lose because of the Swift Boat attacks, Kerry lost because he had deeply flawed likability problems and therefore could be blown down by the softest breeze. It's not so much who has the brute power to take the Republicans strongest punch on the chin, it's who has the grace to sidestep the punch and cause the Republicans to trip and fall facedown in the mud from their own inertia.

Instead of worrying about who delivers and takes the mightiest wallop in a slugfest, we should worry about the Teflon factor of a candidate. No one ever gave the opponent more ammunition to personally smear and slime than Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy, but because of their ability to connect to people on an emotional, gut level and get them on "their side" they often made their accusers look the worse for wear.

Barama's ridiculous recent assertions that Hillary is just as vulnerable to the Republican attack machine as his is, and that he has been fully vetted in this primary battle by surviving Hillary's so-called "research operation" are nuts!

He still hasn't responded to the challenge Craig Crawford issued in his December 14th (2007) Huffington Post article:

"Barack Obama ought to personally assure Democratic voters that he has told all there is to tell about his youthful drug use, and that there is nothing else along these lines that might undermine him as a party nominee. Obama adviser David Axelrod told reporters on Thursday that Obama only used drugs up until age 20, and that he had not sold drugs or shared them with friends. Still, Democrats should insist on firm assurances that there are no surprises that Republicans might surface on election-eve in November if Obama is the party nominee."

Craig is the only mainstream political analyst I trust anymore, since virtually all of the Beltway Babblers have become certified Baramaniacs! Let's see more one-on-one debates so Barama can defend his inadequate so-called "universal" health care plan and explain again how his shady real estate deal with Tony Rezko (who goes to trial in late February) was a "bone-headed mistake" that conveniently netted Barama a mansion any corrupt Chicago politician would be proud to call home!

As an Obama supporter, let me say - WHAT. A. JOKE.

If he really believes that he's nuts. More importantly, I want to take my vote back and give it to Clinton. Didn't realize I voted for a moron.

Yes, by all means, Obama should go ahead and prove that he has neve sold drugs. And then Hillary should prove that she's not a lesbian. I mean, that rumor's been kicking around for at least as long -- and has little evidence behind it. And, while we're at it, we should ask Craig Crawford to disprove the rumors that he killed Jimmy Hoffa and has sex with barnyard fowl.

Come on, this is getting ridiculous. It's like the GOP saying that Kerry should answer the "questions" about his Purple Hearts, when in fact there were never any questions about them at all.

So when Clinton says Obama hasn't been vetted, isn't she really implying that he's got skeletons in his closet that we don't know about? And isn't that implication alone kinda slimy? And the kind of the thing we'd expect -- and have already seen -- from Karl Rove and his henchmen?

John McCain couldn't run his own campaign, remember? How will he build a majority when his own party's base gag at the thought of hi? He is a rage-aholic and unliked by the majority of his colleagues in the Senate. And, like Bill and Hillary, he has no legs to stand for attacking Obama's character or history. Other than to do what "experienced" politicians often do - make stuff up. In that case folks will recognize him (or, them) for what he (they) is... more of the same old Washington BS. McCain fatigue and Clinton fatigue. I recommend get beyond your politics by finding out what the attraction is all about. Read his books.

I'm not sure how Obama has no substance. I have checked into both candidates web sites and seriously allot of there plans for the nation could be virtually cut and past. He just doesn't get into the "details" as much in his campaigning. Maybe he should I guess. Hillary's are no more detailed then Obama's.

As far as his experience I am sure he realizes they will tear into that and make sure to pick a running mate with some serious chops. Personally I think if we really want any of the changes being promised we need someone who isn't so ingrained in the ways of Washington, and someone who is an inspiring enough speaker to inspire the masses to stand up for what they want. I think Obama has proven that ability.

The reality is no president will ever be able to make these changes. If you want to know who can make the changes, look in the mirror, and then look around at the people who surround you on a daily basis. The government has a far lower chance of standing in the way of the masses then one person in a funny shaped office. Obama seems to have a very firm understanding of this.

Now I like HRC and will support her fully if she gains the nomination, just as 99% of democrats will support Obama, even if he wasn't there first choice. however I strongly believe that Obama has shown the ability to ignite the masses. We'll see in the coming months as his states become more one on one.

I Just wish these arguments were truly about the candidate and not what the republicans will do,.. I don't feel like running scared from nasty republican habits.. I would like to think Democrats are stronger then that.

PS: The difference is the Republicans will do better against Hillary. It's not going to be hard at all for them to rally the entire Republican base against her.