Hillary Spokesperson Describes Obama Campaign As "Amateur Hour"
This is interesting: On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer characterized the Obama campaign as "amateur hour."
Singer claimed that a discussion this morning on MSNBC suggested that the Obama campaign was trying to tie Camp Hillary to the breach of Obama's passport files.
"We will not tolerate being tied to this," Singer said, going on to describe the assertion as "reckless and frankly desperate." He added that it was a sign that the Obama campaign was "nervous" about their "political situation," concluding that it's "amateur hour over there."
One imagines that the Obama campaign will respond by pointing to the current popular vote and pledged delegate totals that Obama has amassed.
That aside, it seems like a valid question to ask whether the Obama campaign is really accusing the Hillary camp of being behind the passport files caper. We're going back to check the original MSNBC report and we'll keep you posted.















I don't think Hillary's campaign had anything to do with it, but seriously, calling them amateurs when they are kicking your ass from coast to coast? You can't take a serious look at how their campaigns have been run and say Obama is an amateur while Hillary knows what she is doing.
Laughable.
March 21, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think they did either, and I don't think Obama's campaign ever suggested they did. It is clear that the Clinton campaign is claiming the Obama campaign is claiming the Clinton campaign is behind it. Without any evidence to back up that assertion, well, draw your own conclusions.
March 21, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amateur hour is knowing that Wright is out there and not dealing with it until forced by the media.
March 21, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not necessarily. If he had dealt with it earlier (i.e., before being "forced"), there would have been even more accusations that he was using the issue to play a race card of some sort.
March 21, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Responding to it earlier would be borrowing trouble. It was bad going in, but do you seriously think it would have been a smart idea for the Obama campaign to raise the issue of Reverend Wright themselves?
Better to let somebody else come out with it, rather than make it all the harder to distance yourself from it by revealing it yourself.
March 21, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean? He didn't mention it until after he had the primary locked up. Seems pretty 'professional' to me. Imagine if this stuff had broke Feb 2nd?
The only amateurs here are Hillary "Ready to campaign on day 436" Clinton and her millionaire consultants.
March 21, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to note that the CEO of the firm that snooped in BO's files made his first ever Dem contribution for $1000.00 to HRC within 24 hours of the "break-in". He had always been a GOP backer but suddenly found religion when his firm accessed the passport files. And then miracuously HRC's campaign divulges that BO had only ever visited one NATO country. Kind of the type of thing you might find in a passport file, huh?
March 21, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do think that Hillary is involved and that this is just ..deja vu 1992 Passportgate and what happened to Bill..Billary is using another GOP tactic...her talkign about her breach was just a cover story from git go.
Hmmmm ..despite three separate breaches the news only reaches Condi Rice, now?
NOTE: This tactic was used against Bill Clinton in 1992. In 1992 the initial reports were also portrayed as innocuous (Hillary and McCain also had breaches they are telling us):
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0D8143EF936A25753C1A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
But there were hints that partisan politics were behind the intial report:
Officials of two of the news organizations involved, The Associated Press and Hearst Newspapers, said they had asked for Mr. Clinton's visa, passport, draft and citizenship records because of claims made to them by Republicans that Mr. Clinton, the Democratic Presidential nominee, had tried to renounce his citizenship in the 1960's...
The [State] department also confirmed that Elizabeth Tamposi, the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, a political appointee of Mr. Bush's former chief of staff, John H. Sununu, took personal charge of the records search, an extremely unusual move for someone in her position.
Upon further investigation we learned initial reports were highly misleading:
Here's what they did to Bill in 92.
Passportgate
In 1992, for instance, George H.W. Bush’s White House pulled strings at the State Department and at U.S. embassies in Europe to uncover and to disseminate derogatory information about Bill Clinton in the final weeks of the campaign.
The Bush assault on Clinton’s patriotism moved into high gear on the night of Sept. 30, 1992, when assistant secretary of state Elizabeth Tamposi – under pressure from the White House – ordered three aides to pore through Clinton’s passport files in search of a purported letter in which Clinton supposedly sought to renounce his citizenship.
Though no letter was found, Tamposi still injected the suspicions into the campaign by citing a small tear in the corner of Clinton’s passport application as evidence that someone might have tampered with the file, presumably to remove the supposed letter. She fashioned that speculation into a criminal referral to the FBI.
Within hours, someone from the Bush camp leaked word about the confidential FBI investigation to reporters at Newsweek magazine. The Newsweek story about the tampering investigation hit the newsstands on Oct. 4. The article suggested that a Clinton backer might have removed incriminating material from Clinton’s passport file, precisely the spin that the Bush people wanted.
Immediately, President George H.W. Bush took the offensive, using the press frenzy over the tampering story to attack Clinton’s patriotism on a variety of fronts, including his student trip to Moscow in 1970. With his patriotism challenged, Clinton saw his once-formidable lead shrink. Panic spread through the Clinton campaign.
The Bush camp put out another suspicion, that Clinton might have been a KGB “agent of influence.” Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times headlined that allegation on Oct. 5, 1992, a story that attracted President Bush’s personal interest. “Now there are stories that Clinton … may have gone to Moscow as [a] guest of the KGB,” Bush wrote in his diary that day.
The suspicions about Clinton’s patriotism might have doomed Clinton’s election, except that Spencer Oliver, then chief counsel on the Democratic-controlled House International Affairs Committee, suspected a dirty trick.
“I said you can’t go into someone’s passport file,” Oliver told me in an interview. “That’s a violation of the law, only in pursuit of a criminal indictment or something. But without his permission, you can’t examine his passport file. It’s a violation of the Privacy Act.”
After consulting with House committee chairman Dante Fascell and a colleague on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Oliver dispatched a couple of investigators to the National Archives warehouse in Suitland. The brief congressional check discovered that State Department political appointees had gone out to Suitland at night to search through Clinton’s records and those of his mother.
Oliver’s assistants also found that the administration’s tampering allegation rested on a very weak premise, the slight tear in the passport application. The circumstances of the late-night search soon found their way into an article in the Washington Post, causing embarrassment to the Bush campaign.
Not Letting Go
Yet still sensing that the loyalty theme could hurt Clinton, President Bush kept stoking the fire. On CNN’s “Larry King Live” on Oct. 7, 1992, Bush suggested anew that there was something sinister about a possible Clinton friend allegedly tampering with Clinton’s passport file.
“Why in the world would anybody want to tamper with his files, you know, to support the man?” Bush wondered before a national TV audience. “I mean, I don’t understand that. What would exonerate him – put it that way – in the files?”
The next day, in his diary, Bush ruminated suspiciously about Clinton’s Moscow trip: “All kinds of rumors as to who his hosts were in Russia, something he can’t remember anything about.”
But the GOP attack on Clinton’s loyalty prompted some Democrats to liken Bush to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who built a political career in the early days of the Cold War challenging people’s loyalties without offering proof. On Oct. 9, the FBI complicated Bush’s strategy further by rejecting the criminal referral. The FBI concluded that there was no evidence that anyone had removed anything from Clinton’s passport file.
At that point, Bush began backpedaling: “If he’s told all there is to tell on Moscow, fine,” Bush said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I’m not suggesting that there’s anything unpatriotic about that. A lot of people went to Moscow, and so that’s the end of that one.”
But the documents I obtained years later at the National Archives revealed that privately Bush was not so ready to surrender the disloyalty theme. The day before the first presidential debate on Oct. 11, Bush prepped himself with one-liners designed to spotlight doubts about Clinton’s loyalty if the right opening presented itself.
“It’s hard to visit foreign countries with a torn-up passport,” read one of the scripted lines. Another zinger read: “Contrary to what the Governor’s been saying, most young men his age did not try to duck the draft. … A few did go to Canada. A couple went to England. Only one I know went to Russia.” If Clinton had criticized Bush’s use of a Houston hotel room as a legal residence, Bush was ready to hit back with another Russian reference: “Where is your legal residence, Little Rock or Leningrad?”
PuhLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE!!!
This is NO coincidence...Obama has been a world citizen since childhood...stay tuned folks. We already know about his highly ambitious kindergarten essay, lol...it is about to get far worse..manufactured dirt is hardest to disprove. We may need the FBI to stop this one.
March 21, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny, the Amateur Hour is winning in delegates, states, and popular votes.
What does that say about the experienced campaign?
March 21, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
This bitterness of the Clintonistas is telling. We're just lucky Obama came along out of nowhere when he did.
March 22, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes that a "valid question," because the Clinton campaign threw that out in a call?
The Obama call this morning and the memo they sent out was extremely damning - much more than anything that has been put out before, and the Clinton campaign's response was noticeably light on substantive rebuttals.
Perhaps that is something you could report on too?
March 21, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The first mention of any connection to the Clinton's was made by Keith Olbermann (responding to something from David Shuster) which mentioned the fact that almost immediately after the 2nd breach, an officer from the state department who had served as the ambassador to Paraguay--I cant remember her name---and was appointed by Bill Clinton, had resigned.
This was brought up by the media. Though if you don't want people to think the worst of you, perhaps you should not do everything possible to affirm their suspicions.
March 21, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her name is Maura Harty.
March 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amateur Hour = not preparing for any states after February 5.
Here's what Obama's camp should say:
It is our understanding that the Clinton camp does not appear to have been involved with the passport security breach, AS FAR AS WE KNOW.
March 21, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. Enough of this bullsh*t.
What the Obama camp should really say is: "if the 'professionals' over at the Clinton campaign have any evidence that our Campaign has implicated them in this then either produce it or STFU.
March 21, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good one!
March 21, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is more interesting is that the HRC campaign is apparently now taking talking points from Joe Scarborough...
March 21, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
can anyone tell me or point to an email, a memo, or a statement from the obama campaign accusing the clinton camp of being behind this?
I haven't heard them say anything like that.
So is Howard Wolfson just flat out lying? Or did i miss a memo?
March 21, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was Joe Scarborough who said that. I don't think he was telling the truth about that.
March 21, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
oops/ i meant phil singer.
all these hacks start blending together after awhile...
March 21, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
losing to "amateurs" IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!
March 21, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Atta boy, idiotic.
March 21, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, after days of others filling in, and now the return of idiotic, I have to ask - what's the source of the running joke? How is this excellent news for anyone? I'll be the dummy who asks...make fun all you want, I'm new(ish).
March 23, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, if you are ever in Portland Oregon, let me know and I will buy you some of our great micro-brew beers. You kill me.
March 21, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I extend the invitation if you are in St. Louis as well, although all we really have to offer are Anheuser-Busch products.
Second only to a President Obama, I'd have to say that idiotic has been the best thing to come out of the Dem nomination race. In fact, I think idiotic deserves his own federal holiday.
March 21, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only Anheuser-Busch?!? Brother, you need to get out more - to Schlafley's tap room specifically. We have great micro-brew in St Louis. Tell you what, when Obama gets the nomination you can meet me at the Tap Room and we can toast his candidacy with some Schlafley oatmeal stout. Cube3u can join us.
March 22, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Idiotic: Buddy, you're the best.
March 21, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count me curious to see where this goes. I have not yet read once where Obama's campaign, explicitly or implicitly, tried to link Clinton's campaign to the breach of Obama's passport files.
That said, would I be surprised if Clinton's fingerprints were on this? Not in the slightest.
If the Clinton campaign is blowing smoke up our asses about the Obama campaign trying to link them to this story - and let's be honest, it's always a safe bet that the Clinton campaign isn't telling the truth - then I hope the media calls them out on it. Of course, they won't.
March 21, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, one does imagine. If they are amateur hour, what must it say about the Clinton that they're losing? I don't see any reports of Obama campaign infighting or not being able to pay their hotel bills....
Mark Penn is a professional something though.
March 21, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
He amassed those delegates and votes BEFORE Dems knew his "moral comapss" was a hateful bigot, who hailed the violent deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
Poll released today: 56% are 'concerned' about Obama's relationship with his "moral compass".
Unfavorable rating: 50%.
Good luck with that in the general election.
March 21, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
We can do that. Or we can say, not this time.
March 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and Clinton's unfavorable rating is 55%. Good luck with that in the general!
March 21, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm well aware of Hillary's high negatives.
My point is that one of Obama's main selling points has been to point out her high negatives, saying she can't win.
Well, he can no longer make that argument. His unfavorable ratings are trending upward. He's tanking, people. I guarantee you, after the holiday weekend, as families gather together and discuss this awful mess (which is a phenomenon in politics), many of these doubts will harden and you will see his unfavorables continue their rise. Matching Hillary's and perhaps surpasing them.
Although his speech was great, academically great, perfect for the latte liberals, it has seriously irritated white people. They don't want a "conversation" on race.
March 21, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's comical.
I can see it now: "Can we say grace, please? Dear Lord, as you have so blessed us this Easter weekend, please strike that phony baloney Barack Obama down with a bolt of lightning. Amen. Please pass the biscuits."
Thanks for the giggle, MKyleM. Much-appreciated!
March 21, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anytime, my friend.
March 21, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vader - You mean "Pass the Latte"
I love it when wingnuts come on to tell us how Obama's negatives are on the rise. I have only a few things to say in response
Iraq
Recession
Katrina
GOP Corruption
GOP Incompetence
Condoning Torture
73 Year Old Man
Bush's third term
Trust me on this, the dems will wipe the floor with McCain, regardless of who wins the nomination, and notwithstanding the Clinton campaign's destructive tactics and Jeremiah Wright (whose most incendiary remarks are not that far removed from many of the things being said in 1968 by Martin Luther King, Jr., who called our country's leaders "war criminals" for their acts in Vietnam). What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Obama will win this thing, just take it like a man when it happens.
March 22, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
A guarantee! Fantastic.
March 21, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you've noticed, but no one here much cares for your random attacks. Stay on topic or go somewhere else...
And you want to cite polls, provide links. You don't strike me as the most "trustworthy person"
March 21, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you've noticed, but I don't care what you think.
Obama's personality cult loves the sound of their own voices. You want to have this blog all to yourselves so your sweet voices echo and echo.
I know so many of you are new to politics, so I hate to tell you that it just doesn't work that way. Just because Obama says it, doesn't make it so. There is no such thing as contention-free politics. I really hate to disillusion you.
March 21, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love it when Hillary supporters get all crusty and hardbitten about how much experience they have with politics in the real world and how Obama supporters are just a bunch of naive newbies who don't know how things really work.
All those naive young fools like Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Ted Sorensen, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, John Lewis . . .
And Dude, I'll lay even money I've voted in more presidential elections than you have.
March 21, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you seriously suggesting that Clinton's favorability ratings put her in a better position for a general election? You've got overwhelming positive ratings for Obama that have taken a dip thanks to a manufactured scandal vs. Hillary's 15+ years of having 60% of the country hate her. Her numbers are consistent...the more people see of her, the less they like her.
Good luck with THAT in the general election.
March 21, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I spy a troll
March 21, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I spy an amateur!
Lets see. He is a black man named Barack Hussein Obama. He refuses to wear the American flag. His wife says she's never been proud of the US (that is, until her husband is about to win the nomination). His "moral compass" thinks 9/11 was an appropriate response to the past sins of the country, declaring "GOD DAMN AMERICA". Obama, trying to put out the fire, says he is like family and cannot disown him.
Gee. What kind of person thinks that is a winner?
An amateur.
March 21, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still spy a troll, and its getting angry ;(
March 21, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, please look at the reports of that sermon. The full reports, not someone's cut-and-paste hack job. He was quoting a Reagan official. No one thinks 9/11 is appropriate to anything except Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell.
March 21, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
guys, when you feed a troll it grows and stays around. When you just poke it and laugh at it, it retreats to its shadowy bridge. :)
March 21, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What kind of person stays married to a husband who has countless bimbo eruptions, affairs with 21 year old interns, and long relationships with lounge singers?
I call them a craven opportunist.
That marriage is as much of a lie as Liza Minelli & David Guest (albeit for different reasons)
March 21, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you quote Clinton's unfavorables too?
Or at least give a link or identify which poll or polling outfit you are talking about.
Amateur hour, indeed.
March 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
He never hailed the violent deaths on 9/11. If you are referring to the "chickens coming home to roost" comment, he was actually quoting Edward Peck, former Iraq ambassador and member of Reagan's anti-terrorism task force.
If you're looking for hailing 9/11, lets go to look at McCain's endorsers...
March 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
learn how to read a poll.
you're wrong or you're intentionally misleadeing.
56% of REPUBLICANS "have doubts"
The internals show only 17% of Democrats saying Obama shares Wright's ideas, along with 20% of independents and 36% of Republicans.
Fox also asked respondents whether they had doubts about Obama because of his association with Wright. The results: 35% Yes, 54% No, with the numbers standing at 26%-66% for Democrats, 27%-61% among independents, and 56%-33% with Republicans.
via andrew sullivan
March 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for conceding that Senator Obama will be contesting "the general election". We also appreciate your "good luck" wishes. We will try our best to win, and it is nice to know that you are rooting for us.
March 21, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gallup:
Percent of Americans who view Hillary as UNtrustworthy: 53
Percent of Americans who view Hillary as trustworthy: 44
Good luck with that in the general election yourself.
If you are wondering what Obama's numbers are, it's 63/29 favorable/unfavorable.
March 21, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and he raised $55 million in Feb. to Clinton's $19 million.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-money21mar21,1,6702245.story
March 21, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, because the Pros over at Camp Hillary have been doing such a bang up job, being, as you say, behind in Delegates, Votes and States. Yep, "just a bunch of amateurs over there, that are beating us..."
March 21, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "amateur hour" response is typical of this "silly season."
March 21, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, Someone seems to have let the cat out of the bag, too soon. As usual, it is going to turn around and bite them in their collective as..es.
March 21, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Scarborough reported that, and it was a lie from him. You shouldn't take Joe Scarborough at his word.
March 21, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, Phil? Wasn't the Clinton campaign going to have the nomination wrapped up on Super Tuesday? How's the money holding up?
"Amateur Hour," said the kids from Romper Room.
March 21, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well if it came from MSNBC, you can count that as coming from the Obama campaign. They are about as unbiased as TPM, which is saying something.
March 21, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is really funny. Personally, if I was getting my ass kicked by someone in a competition where I started with an enormous advantage, I would not try to talk up how bad they were. I would do the opposite. If the person with the huge avantage (and by huge advantage I mean being: white, not having Hussein Obama in your name, has the same last name and institutional support as the only Democrat president in nearly 30 yrs) convinces everyone that the person kicking their ass is an amateur, what does that say about them. Not to mention that it falls into the campaign narrative of old establishment politics vs. new ideas.
March 21, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC just broke that Hillary's file was looked at too!
March 21, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was Scarborough on Morning Joe, speaking to Matt Lauer, who said that he "thinks" the Obama campaign is going to push the angle of the tangential Clinton involvement.
I think Singer was seriously overreaching on this one...
March 21, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
To add to that, David Axelrod phoned into the program later on, and didn't mention the Clintons in connection to the passport breach.
Again, Joe Scarborough saying that he thinks the Obama campaign is going to play up this angle is hardly evidence that the Obama camp is doing so.
March 21, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amateur hour?! That's a pretty funny indictment coming from that toxic, race-baiting, train wreck of a clusterf**k otherwise known as the Clinton campaign.
By the way, I've seen both blogosphere and media speculation of Clinton camp involvement, but has anyone in the Obama campaign actually leveled that charge? All I've heard, aside from their rightfully plaintiff call of "foul," is that they're (justifiably) calling for a full investigation.
If anyone can provide a link to a specific charge coming from Obama's campaign, I'll gladly stand corrected. Otherwise, as Shakespeare might have written once (I'm guessing -- I don't read much) methinks he doth protest too much.
March 21, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen anyone in the Obama camp make that accusation, but I have certainly seen Hillary's camp pimping the Wright story. They want to call someone else 'amateur hour'? really? the most incompetently run campaign in modern memory, excepting Rudy Giuliani's?
March 21, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
why does fred thompson get no love?
March 21, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disinterested incompetence is less noteworthy than desperate incompetence.
March 21, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama camp isn't pushing anything. MSNBC reported last night that the person overseeing the office were these breaches took place was a former Clinton employee. Singer's overreacting in an attempt to deflect attention from that memo the Obama camp released this morning.
March 21, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quick Greg! Post about Hillary's passport breach!
Nobody did about Obama's, but that's ok, this is Hillary TPM.
March 21, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
They posted about Obama yesterday, on the front page.
March 21, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just more of the kitchen sink strategy. Guess they aren't too happy that Richardson is not only endorsing Obama he is suggesting Clinton end her campaign and the party start battling McCain.
Go Obama!
March 21, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Clinton campaign is going to flame the Obama camp for tieing them to this thing, they could at least do some quotation or citation so we could judge for ourselves.
March 21, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did TPM even ask the Clinton Camp to provide a source or sources to back up their claim, or did TPM just take dictation.
Did any so called reporters even ask the question, or would that have exposed them to charges that they were biased against Hillary?
March 21, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Colbert's White House Correspondents Dinner Gig...
"But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"
March 21, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like the Clinton campaign should go after Olbermann and Scarborough for their tenuous claims, unless they have some proof the Obama camp is pushing this line. If they're just going off on what MSNBC said (and neither Keith nor Joe said they got the info from Obama), their overreaction is weird.
March 21, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Modest Proposal:
How the State Dept. can fully protect their passport files from unauthorized snoopers, and spies.
Install the TPM login method. No one will be able to stay logged in long enough to accomplish a damn thing.
March 21, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good and true one, Liam. Calling Greg Sargent ! Greg Sargent!
March 21, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! God help us if government computers are managed by the same technical people who manage this site and implemented the "upgrade".
March 21, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amateur hour? Um, seems to me the Obama campaign did pretty well getting Wright and Rezko, his two biggest problems, out of the way 5 weeks before the next primary while Hillary's campaign lurches from one crisis to another and is now claiming she'll release years of damning information in her tax returns a week before PA votes.
She's spent the last month breaking her word and unsuccessfully trying to get her minions in MI and FL to cobble together another vote that'd blatantly put the fix in for her in their states.
When she could have spent weeks milking Samantha Power's comments showing her human side proving she's no monster instead they sent us dog whistling Ferraro peddling white resentment.
There's multiple examples of Hillary supporters being ripped off by her finance committee. All passed off as amateur mistakes.
That's no way to run a campaign.
Today's payday and I'm sending another $100 to Obama.
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/dt2nsl?source=mainnav
March 21, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would bumbling an "inevitable' candidate's campaign make Hillary's staff amateurs? Who cares if she lost; at least they're well paid for their amateurism.
March 21, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
1st Clinton surrogate: "We think the Obama campaign will accuse us"
2nd Clinton surrogate, in reference to 1st: "See! Obama is attacking us!"
3rd Clinton surrogate, in refernce to 1st and 2nd: "See what a mess these amatuers on Obama's campaign are making!"
March 21, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that is why it is called triangulation.
March 21, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
March 21, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is "amateur hour" as bad as "monster?" It's close. It's clear that Singer should step down.
March 21, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Is "amateur hour" as bad as "monster?""
No. The former is belittles one's adversary whereas the latter vilifies him/her. To that end, from the OED:
Amateur: "One who cultivates anything as a pastime, as distinguished from one who prosecutes it professionally; hence, sometimes used disparagingly, as = dabbler, or superficial student or worker"
Monster: "any imaginary creature that is large, ugly, and frightening...person of repulsively unnatural character, or exhibiting such extreme cruelty or wickedness as to appear inhuman; a monstrous example of evil, a vice, etc."
Thus, while the "amateur" diminishes the stature of the opponent, "monster" dehumanises him/her meaning that calling the Obama campaign amateur hour is situating it negatively on the scale of normal activity, while calling Clinton a monster is placing her outside the realm of the possible in terms of humanity and morality.
Next offesive question?
March 21, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama (D-Rezko) = poor choice.
March 21, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the sort of non sequitur, non-substantive off-topic post that makes absolutely no sense to me, whether from an Obamaton or Hillbot or whomever. Why do you bother?
March 21, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
His candidate went broke nearly a year before Clinton did, has high negatives over half the country, flip flopped on most of his signature issues, and doesn't know who the country is fighting.
And is up to his neck in lobbyist trouble.
And maybe will be indicted before November for campaign fraud.
...it's all he's got.
March 22, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shouldn't you fact check before posting this allegation?
March 21, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
YES, GREG. Have you yet gone "back to check the original MSNBC report"???? Update, please!
Did any of the "reporters" on the call try to pin Singer down on what the hell he was talking about when he "CLAIMED that a discussion this morning on MSNBC SUGGESTED that the Obama campaign was TRYING to tie Camp Hillary to the breach of Obama's passport files?
Did anyone laugh out loud?
March 21, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kitchen sink means anything goes. So goes Hillary.
March 21, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still waiting for Greg to provide evidence that the Obama campaign tried to link the Clinton campaign to the passport security breach. How else can you justify printing her campaign's (apparently false) charges verbatim?
...waiting
...waiting
...waiting
March 21, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would happen if you all just stopped reporting on anything the campaign flaks say and just concentrate on the candidates.
I really find this every day back and forth behind the scenes to be massively stupid and un-helpful.
March 21, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is professional. Remember Hillary's huge 35 million haul in Feb? Turns out that was some fuzzy math.... It was 19 mil
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/
March 21, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that blogger is misreading the LA Times article--seems to me they are saying that the total fundraising for Hillary during the campaign (not just the February figure) includes the $10 million from her Senate warchest and the $5 million personal loan. Wasn't the personal loan made in January?
March 21, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
GASP! Are you claiming, on the basis of mere facts, that Hillary Clinton lied!!!!? That's reckless, and frankly, desperate and they will not be tied to it. You're just an amatuer math-doer, obviously not well-versed in the sophisticated alterntive mathmatics that apply to her campaign.
March 21, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dancing Bear's right. It looks like a misread. Never mind.
March 21, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dammit. Wasted a perfectly good rip. I do note that according to the figure on Bloomberg, she added 400K to her announced total through the miracle of rounding, but, hell, in this campaign, that really is a pretty trivial amount. (I can't believe I just called 400K a trivial amount. Oh to have such trivialities in my own finances.)
March 21, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew it would turn out like this. Didn't the Clinton camp do the same thing at the end of last year with their leak to Drudge?
March 21, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, when you have to preface your summary of the latest Clinton conference call with the words "This is interesting," it's a good bet that it's not. The Clintons call the Obama campaign "amateur hour" and it's news? If you can't find stuff more interesting than that, maybe you should spend some time reporting. Or something.
March 21, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the desk of:
Howling Wolfson
We Professional Losers here at Camp Hillary, accuse those Winners over at Camp Obama of being Amateurs.
We Professional Losers from Camp Hillary are unveiling our new campaign theme:
IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE OUR PARTY.
You know we mean it. We have done it before.
Just to show that we mean business: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has endorsed John McCain for Commander in Chief, ahead of Senator Obama.
Party unity is only for when Hillary needs it.
Hillary is the new Lieberman.
March 21, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on target.
March 21, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you're talking about running the kind of ugly, scorched-earth campaign that Clinton has, then yes: I guess Obama IS an amateur. Point well taken.
March 21, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Olbermann at 9:00 PM CDT received something about a "terribly tenuous" "possible tie" between the Clintons and one of the snoops, as in "they know each other". Clinton camp will ALWAYS turn a pointing finger straight back at Obama, whether or not the pointing finger was even his, which it WAS NOT. She's a schoolyard badass, no question about it. So are her surrogates. So are her more "intense" followers posting religiously at blogs, some of them paid staffers, in the opinion of many--just the OPINION, as far as I know.
Sorry, don't want to contribute to a free-for-all atmosphere at this much nicer-than-the-others political blog. I'm here to get more news and to read the opinions.
Anyone ever watch The Onion production (Youtube)of the importance of "BULLSHIT" in presidential campaigns? Toooooooo funny.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_9AH-ufAkCU
March 21, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Amateur hour" made me burst out laughing. It's such an absurd thing to say, it's absolutely hilarious. Honestly, who, in Obama's camp or elsewhere, immediately suspected Hillary was behind the passport breach? I'm venturing almost no one. The logical likely culprit would be the current GOP administration. The Clinton camp is just slinging that kitchen sink like crazy. It's comical. Talk about looking desperate.
March 21, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the subject of the non-accusation accusation, I'd say it's rather funny that they jumped up to critique the Obama campaign for an accusation they didn't deliver. Guilty conscience, perhaps? ;-)
March 21, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a perfectly reasonable assumption if you're with her campaign.
Hillary's campaign, and Wolfson in particular, is notorious for constantly thumbing out toxic little emails to his pals in the press and, rightly or wrongly, they perceive themselves as having been responsible for forcing the biased MSM to publish every negative story about Obama ever through sheer force of their own political brilliance.
Ergo ipso facto, if somebody in the MSM says something bad about Hillary, Obama must be behind it because they are absolutely certain he's even worse than they are.
Hillary logic. Bears a remarkable resemblence to insane troll logic, but there it is.
March 21, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg: With all due respect, this tripe of yours that this is a valid argument is off the charts, I watched MSNBC, and Obama's camp never suggested that......you constantly do this. Just say it, for lords sake, you back HRC, just SAY it.
March 21, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't sensed it before, at least not to the extent others have, but as I interpret it this presumption of validity does indicate a bias.
March 21, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's funny how all these Hillary supporters on here smear Obama with things like Rezko, Wright, Race, etc, but then if you counter with...well, with anything of substance, they say:
"I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying that's what the Republicans are gonna say."
or worse,
"I'm not saying these racist things because I'm a racist, I'm just telling you what the rest of America is gonna say it."
March 21, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton lied about February donations...
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=926
16 million less than what she claimed
March 21, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew it.
I f-ing knew it.
Thanks for sharing that.
March 21, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that, I did not know.....
March 21, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. This should be its own blog post. Good find.
March 21, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't count on it.
March 21, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pantsuit on fire.
March 21, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because you spend millions of dollars on high-priced consultants, does not mean you'll do better then a bunch of amateurs.
March 21, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopemonger, hold off on that one. I think Al misread the LA Times story. It was ambiguous at best.
Anyway, the "amateur hour" comment is highly amusing. "Those clueless idiots! They're barely beating us!"
March 21, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/21/124415/357/523/481545
Kos has the FEC report. It's true. Clinton using Enron-style math
March 21, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That story has vanished from DK.
March 21, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny coming from one of the worst run campaigns in recent memory. I'm still waiting for the riding in a tank in an oversized helmet moment.
March 21, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
On a serious note:
Why did the State Dept not treat those three security violations as cases of potential espionage. Since the three people did not have authorization to look at Senator Obama's passport files, then how did they manage to access the files, without actually hacking into the systems.
Something does not add up about this story. They fired two contract workers, but only suspended another person, and have not named any of them. Did they even contact the FBI to investigate three cases of potential espionage. How do they know that one or more of those people were not moles for a foreign power?
It looks like we may not be getting the truth about this.
March 21, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I want to know is why does a "contract worker" have access to passport files? WTF. Were they contractors for haliburton? I am soo looking forward to changes in our government in november. Its absurd.
March 21, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton campaign has made blunder after blunder. If you'll pardon the expression (borrowed from Shakespeare), this clearly is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
March 21, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still waited to be updated on why Clinton camp falsely accused Obama camp of blaming them.....
March 21, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"That aside, it seems like a valid question to ask whether the Obama campaign is really accusing the Hillary camp of being behind the passport files caper."
No it doesn't. There is not a single scrap of evidence that supports the bizzaro-world assertion by the Clinton campaigns flak pushing it.
March 21, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amateur Hour??? Sounds like a porn site to me. Her campaign is teetering on absurdity. It's getting funny, almost to the point I'm feeling sorry for them.
March 21, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It the Obama campaign is amatuer hour, what does that make your losing ass, Clinton?
March 21, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
A call for reason
This is a unique moment in the American Presidential history that cannot be ignored. After eight long years of Bush’s mismanaged politics domestically and abroad, after a war that was uncalled for, a crumbling economy scarred by raising gas prices and foreclosures, no one, at this point, should need to be reminded that there is no better time, no better opportunity, no better moment, to claim the White House back to a democratic leader. But a leader that can not only be seen as a transition step from failed politics but someone who can truly inspire and catalyze change in this country.
The fact of the matter is that this campaign, more than any other in history, has succeeded in engaging millions of voters (young and old, poor and rich, black and white) in understanding their role in politics and that their voices do matter. This is no small feat and it should not be ignored—nothing that the McCain-Bush camp will ever be able to claim. For that alone, I am grateful to both candidates. But the reality that the Clinton campaign has consistently failed to admit is that the Clintons represent mere transition, while Obama embodies the voice of change, the voice of a new future at arms reach.
There is, in fact, a wide gap that separates the two democratic candidates. While Hillary has played “by the book” of how politics are normally done, acting subversively, divisively (and unequivocally fiercely), Barack has demonstrated consistently his contempt for hypocrisy, cynicism and ruthless means to get to an end.
Hillary is an intelligent woman, no doubt about it. Obama has made a point to acknowledge it every time they have a face-to-face encounter. She has served the country to the best of her abilities, I have to believe, and before anyone could fathom that Barack could sweep the election away from her, she would have had a true shot at locking down the nomination. But now, clearly against all odds (it’s virtually mathematically impossible for her to surpass the delegate lead and the popular vote count Obama has), her perseverance has morphed into blind stubbornness, helping in absolutely nothing when making our (democratic) case against Mr. McCain. At this point, I question what Hillary is trying to prove and to whom. Is it that her political ambition is just this uncontrollable that she can’t see past her own meager attack tactics?
The country has given the lead to Barack Obama, a lead that he legitimately owns out of his own merits as not only a politician, but a grass roots organizer and, more importantly, an undeniable President of the (future) United States of America. He has shown the vision, judgment, assertiveness and determination to become an historic president. On all levels, on all accounts. And this is what Hillary’s campaign needs to start conforming to.
The realities of this campaign have been that Clintons will stop at nothing, and that’s not a quality to be praised. It’s rather a myopic view of how this election should unfold. After the memorable speech on Race, all doubts, if any still existed, about Obama’s ability to be Comander and Chief should have been dissipated. I am still to hear Clinton make such a remarkable impact on American society as Obama already has.
On the contrary, Hillary’s tactics are weak and short-lasting: her so called experience that includes eight years in the White House as First Lady are still to be vetted, her involvement in any crisis or critical decision taken during that time is overtly questionable and dubious, her poor judgment on the war issues regrettable. Her use of kitchen sink politics (including aligning herself with McCain as far as the two best qualified for the presidency due to experience) hinges on mediocrity and despair. And this is what I fail to understand—why is Clinton still in the race? What good does this do to the Democratic Party, to the country and to politics in general? I am at a loss. My fear, however, is that this drawn out race will hinder our ability to show union, and rally the country behind a need for change. I believe the last thing we all want is another republican in the White House that supports Bush’s policies.
Hillary’s last resort is the appeal to the super-delegates. And It can’t be any more unfortunate than this: winning not by popular vote, not by number of states, not by pledged delegates, but winning by using the subversive, demagogic powers that command in Washington. This would be a blow, I have to believe, for most democrats, especially after the Al Gore/Bush debacle. It would be shameless, ruthless and utterly unacceptable.
I lived in Europe, where politics are and have been rotted for generations, and lived in the US only to witness Bush’s disastrous politics. Hillary Clinton is above average, but far from the greatness of Barack Obama—a leader of such caliber I have never seen in my lifetime. And the first step to making a change is believing we can make a change. The gap between Hillary and Obama is the gap between good and great. I believe that greatness is possible and I urge Mrs. Clinton to let History take its right course.
March 21, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree that Obama will probably win the nomination, I think you're forgetting that while he has a lead, it's only about 10%. It's not as though the whole of the Democratic party has overwhelmingly embraced him -- he's winning, but barely.
Th eother thing I wanted to suggest to you is that there is no evidence that Obama is a great leader. He has no resume that would suggest that you diefy him to the extent you have. He migh be a great leader, but we don't know that yet. What he does is make a great speech. But even in his speech Tuesday, he said very little beyond we all have problems and we ought to be able to talk about it. No plans, no strategies. Not even a call for someone to come up with him. The text of the speech was, basically, we all have problems with each other and we should admit that. Which may be a fine idea, but I'm not sure it affords someone "greatness."
Not that Clinton has a resume, either. She doesn't talk as well, but she -- and her husband -- do have a history of getting things done. Maybe Obama will be the same -- maybe he wil be the transcendent figure many claim him to already to be. But he's not there yet.
March 21, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Firstly, can we please dispense with the notion that TPM is biased either way? Yes, there will be articles that may seem biased one way or the other (depending on your viewpoint) and, yes, I'm sure the correspondents do have their own personal favourites but that does not mean that every article has a bias to it. When you cry "bias", you simply uncover/display your own ignorance. Instead of analyzing what has been said and agreeing/disagreeing with it on its merits (or lack thereof), it is easier to say "oh you're just biased against Hillary / Obama". It's utter rubbish so PLEASE STOP IT!
Secondly, let's clear the passport access issue up. Obama's passport file was accessed on 3 separate occasions this year and an investigation is warranted. Hillary's passport file was accessed once last year by a trainee who was told to look up some random names. McCain's passport file, not yet known why it was accessed, I would speculate it was done by one of Rudy's henchmen, hehehehe.
Finally, I agree with Susana Cascais above. A majority of people are saying "No More". I also have a growing feeling that Obama will be the next president and although I think he will be a great one, he won't be/can't be the "cure-all" that we need.
One final point I would like to make is that the engaging of millions in the political process is probably something we can credit to George Bush (oh shit! did I just give our chimp-in-chief credit?!?!?). His administrations policies have been so divisive, destructive, un-American and selfish that most people, who have otherwise tolerated Washington D.C.'s mis-management, have said enough is enough and jumped on board with the new candidates. Although I would take Hillary over any republican, she does indeed represent "more of the same" leadership. Perhaps Obama will too but I'm much more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt as he has not shown any of the entitlement (nor "kitchen sink" tactics) that HRC has shown and, additionally, he has shown much more courage throughout the campaign. Now I don't know about you, but that's the stuff that I think leaders should be made of!
(sorry for ending with a pre-position!!!).
March 21, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We're going back to check the original MSNBC report and we'll keep you posted."
STILL WAITING GREG!!!!!
March 21, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever noticed how, well, "Freudian" the Clinton campaign is sometimes? Projection or something like that. The first time that just left me gasping for air was the "Obama's too ambitious" bit, going from kindergarten to Hillary herself describing him, derisively, as "someone who was planning his presidential campaign the day he was sworn into the Senate." ...... Words fail.
There have been a whole bunch along the way, really should collect them ----- but I think today's accusation that the *other* campaign has been run like an "amateur hour" most definitely belong up on the top shelf of that collection.
March 21, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amateur is mismanaging the financial and human resources of your campaign.
March 22, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Amateur hour?" Really? Shall we ignore the fact that the Clinton campaign is in the red while Obama has raised a ton more money than her all throughout the campaign? Shall we ignore the fact that Clinton managed to lose 11 primaries in a row with around 20-point margins? Shall we ignore the fact that the Obama campaign was prepared to move on from Super Tuesday with the groundwork already set while Clinton had assumed that Super Tuesday would be her coronation? Who's really acting amateur around here?
This is in no way protecting the conspiracy theories linking this passport mess to Clinton. It's just... amateur? Come on.
March 22, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
As they sday on the Jim Rome show when someone celebrates a sack while their team is down two touchdowns with a minute and a half to play: "Scoreboard!"
March 22, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sen Clinton has lost the Dem primary race... loosing state count, delegate count, etc etc etc.
Can she get 63% of ALL the next batch of Primary states? err YES is Sen Obama is not on the ballot in those states... So whats her ultimate goal?
Her campaign's continued endorsements of the Republican parties nominee might lead some to the conclusion that she feels that if (she) Sen Clinton is not the Dem nominee for President then Sen McCain should be the next President in November.
Wait ...the all knowing superdelegates will rescue her & hand her the nomination at the Dem convention; regardless of the States won, Delegates won or votes won. Thats the only reason she stays in the race...
March 22, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is to laugh.
After winning 11 states in a row,it's a good thing for the Clinton campaign that the amateurs are running the Obama campaign. If they were professionals Hillary would've been forced to concede defeat by now.
March 22, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Amateur hour" could mean a lot of things. Winning the majority of delegates, winning the majority of the popular vote, actually having a plan for after Super Tuesday. I think Phil Singer should be specific and explain exactly how much of Obama's campaign has been "amateur".
March 22, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...Hillary Spokesperson Describes Obama Campaign As "Amateur Hour"..."
OMG that's rich... People you have to watch this piece of video...
You have to see it to believe it... Hillary has no shame -- lol
Hillary Clinton in Bosnia
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/hillary_clinton_in_bosnia.php#comments
Un'freakin'believable.
High 'elders' I really don't want this woman teaming up with McCain and Lieberman against Obama when she starts lying about the WMD in Iran... I think you officially pull her plug now! pleeeeeeze....
March 22, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me, or does Hillary's "Ready On Day One" theme sound amateurish in the way she inserts her mantra into everything? It seems she is saying at breakfast time she is ready on day one to have coffee and Danish, ready on day one to get into her limo, ready on day one to have a Q&A, ready on day one to have your passport vetted, ready on day one to go to the bathroom, ready on day one to wipe her... well, you know.
This annoying habit, plus the familiar cackle, plus talking like Moms Mabley when addressing a black audience... it's not sending out any pro vibes to me, anyway.
March 23, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton's should be embarrassed.
P.M. Carpenter at Buzzflash writes "This, from "Fact Checker" Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post:
Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous." When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down."
Numerous reporters ... covered her trip. A review of nearly 100 news accounts of her visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the First Lady....
Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony ... shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.... [CBS News] footage shows Clinton walking calmly out of the back of the C-17 military transport plane that brought her from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.
The affair -- from original reality, to told version, to corrected version --is borderline comical in its bizarre surreality, and a definite candidate for one of those 527 ads in the general election. But it is, as well, disturbingly and quite unfunny.
After "35 years of experience" Hillary had to know that someone would check her story. Yet did that prevent her audience manipulation, her twisting of events, the tale's swindling core? Not a bit. She just blustered ahead and bellowed whatever she thought people would buy -- and they would be awed. She trusted, that is, in the electorate's unremitting gullibility and common ignorance of the truth.
March 23, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't this the same campaign that employs Mark Penn?
March 23, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink