Election 2008: So is Barrack Obama finished?

izisharp wrote: That's right. What's more disturbing is that the Clinton camp is lobbying to get the FL and MI delegates seated for her, even though she and every candidate agreed in advance that those primaries were moot. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI, yet Clinton's still trying to claim that state as a victory for her.

He was on the ballot in MI, he pulled his name off. There is something to the argument that the voters in those states were disenfranchised, but under no circumstances should the early results there be counted. If anything, I could see allowing them to hold a new election.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the Dems--via the superdelegates--do to themselves what the Supreme Court did to them in 2000?

Could it be Stolen Election - Part II?

so now we're comparing hillary to bush & co. this is just absurd.

Livetotravel wrote: [quote=mr. met]

Could it be Stolen Election - Part II?

so now we're comparing hillary to bush & co. this is just absurd.

I certainly wouldn't put it past Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Terry" McAuliffe if that's what you're asking

Just today Wolfson likened Obama to Ken Starr. Bitch move.

mr. met wrote:

Just today Wolfson likened Obama to Ken Starr. Bitch move.

care to put that in context? i guess it's more fun if you don't.

Unfortunately for all of us there's not a whole lot of context to elaborate on, so are the new Clinton campaign tactics.

"When Sen. Obama was confronted with questions over whether he was ready to be commander in chief and steward of the economy, he chose not to address those questions, but to attack Sen. Clinton," Wolfson said. "I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Clinton_aide_compares_Obama_to_Ken_Starr.html

Correctomundo -thank you Carni

mr. met wrote: so you are saying that clinton is imitating bush in 2000 and wolfson is saying obama is imitating ken starr. looks like you're both using the same rhetorical method.

"When Sen. Obama was confronted with questions over whether he was ready to be commander in chief and steward of the economy, he chose not to address those questions, but to attack Sen. Clinton,"

i guess we just won't talk about this part of the quote because obama would never avoid a question and attack hillary. must be a lie.

note that im not criticizing obama for doing it. it's part of the game.

You keep missing the point again and again. It's not that Wolfson called Obama out for answering a question by asking a question. It's that Wolfson COMPARED OBAMA TO KEN STARR!!!! Was it necessary to do so? What might the motive have been? Would it be to maybe demonize Mr. Obama? Ken Starr isn't exactly a hero in Democratic circles. Hillary comparing Obama to Bush last week; Wolfson comparing him to Starr this week.

mr. met wrote:
...

"When Sen. Obama was confronted with questions over whether he was ready to be commander in chief and steward of the economy, he chose not to address those questions, but to attack Sen. Clinton,"

i guess we just won't talk about this part of the quote because obama would never avoid a question and attack hillary. must be a lie.

This whole "must be a lie" construct of yours is a false dichotomy from the get-go.

At issue is whether one dignifies a ridiculous claim (that she is somehow more ready or qualified than he is, presented in the manner that one should fear for one's sleeping children if he is elected, since he will apparently lead us to inevitable disaster) with a serious response, instead of pointing out the fallacy of the question in the first place.

mr. met wrote: note that im not criticizing obama for doing it. it's part of the game.

Regarding those sorts of tactics (which I do not see in play in this case, see above...), fair enough, but isn't this sort of scorched earth policy usually saved for the larger campaign against the Republicans, not against one's own party?

Romney, Huckabee, etc..they all lost ground without resorting to such behavior after making similarly huge personal investments in their own campaigns, and I find that a little embarrassing for the Dems who have always aspired to better things.

I'm not proud to resort to this, but Mr. Met, just stop talking. You just aren't getting it.

c
this is what's fucked up
liberals are tearing up liberals
we're doing the republicans work for them
rush limbaugh is laughing his fat oxycontined ass off!

stop it all of you!!

vote BLOOMBERG!!!!

alafairnadia wrote: oh. and let's not forget the nafta snafoo on the eve of TEXAS and OHIO. who fucked that up, eh?

This just in...that whole NAFTA thing, the thing that Clinton successfully railed and stunned Obama with on the eve of Ohio and TX primaries, the factor that delivered Ohio and Texas primaries for Clinton?

Well, it turns out that it was actually Clinton's camp that reached out to Canadian gov't officials, saying not to worry about NAFTA, that their NAFTA statements were just Ohio campaigning posturing.



That whole caught winking thing regarding Obama was 180 degrees off.

Honestly, I don't think Clinton was even aware of this, and I'm sure the staffer that blabbed to Canada kept their mouth shut (as grave an error as this would have been for their campaign, had it come out).

Aieeeee. This election is enough to drive one to sniffing glue.

jeffrey wrote: [quote=alafairnadia]oh. and let's not forget the nafta snafoo on the eve of TEXAS and OHIO. who fucked that up, eh?

This just in...that whole NAFTA thing, the thing that Clinton successfully railed and stunned Obama with on the eve of Ohio and TX primaries, the factor that delivered Ohio and Texas primaries for Clinton?

Well, it turns out that it was actually Clinton's camp that reached out to Canadian gov't officials, saying not to worry about NAFTA, that their NAFTA statements were just Ohio campaigning posturing.



That whole caught winking thing regarding Obama was 180 degrees off.

Honestly, I don't think Clinton was even aware of this, and I'm sure the staffer that blabbed to Canada kept their mouth shut (as grave an error as this would have been for their campaign, had it come out).

Aieeeee. This election is enough to drive one to sniffing glue.




like I said in the clinton thread, I don't think that any of this is relevant beyond how obama will deal with the daily attacks of a general election. he's going to have shit coming at him from all directions - this is nothing. and to have him react in such a truly pathetic way is bad, campaign-wise. who cares what 'truth' is revealed afterward? in a campaign, short term information is key. you have to refute what's coming at you the best way you can.

which is why, frankly, I don't fault him for turning to the ken starr playbook. I agree with Carny and others - I'd prefer that dems not do this to each other. and I agree that clinton totally started it - she's getting beat and she's turning to the dirty tricks rule books for guidance. I get it. so, I also have no problem with obama getting called out on using the same dirty tricks. you get asked an uncomfortable or unanswerable question? don't answer - just attack. easy enough. obfuscation is the name of the game, that's how politicians live and, frankly, it's a lot ofwhat lawyers do. so everyone is probably vaguely comfortable. I just wish obama would obtain a thicker skin - he won't make it through a dirty tricks election if he reacts to every attack the way he did to the nafta shit.

I don't know about Barack, but his senior foreign policy adviser that called Hillary a monster is finished, apparently.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/obama-aide-apologizes-for-calling-clinton-a-monster/index.html

mr. met wrote:

Please provide proof of Obama attack

someone else posted that wolfson quote. to be honest, i have no idea what he's talking about. i just thought it was interesting that someone would post that quote and single out the ken starr sentence and ignore the real substance of what wolfson was saying (that obama dodged a question by attacking hillary.

Ah, no worries. Obama had requested that Clinton stop stonewalling requests for personal finances transparency (as he himself had provided up-front), and Wolfson was smearing Obama as another Ken Starr (for Starr is widely considered among Dems as a Clinton witch hunt character assassin). Wolfson's move was merely to shift focus from the fact that the press has asked for these documents for the better part of a year, and the Clintons have refused to provide them. The Clintons have received absolutely huge sums of 6- and 7-figure donations from various donors in recent years (some known insiders, and many unknown sources), so the question of who has donated (special interests or not) needs to be settled once and for all.

What is funny is that this is a direct quote from Wolfson himself in 2000, while working for Clinton on the Senate campaign against post-Giuliani-dropout candidate Republican Rick Lazio:

Howard Wolfson wrote: "Rick Lazio can't explain why it took three months to release his taxes. Now he won't come clean with New Yorkers and reveal the real cost of his reckless trillion-dollar tax plan. It's time for Mr. Lazio to stop playing games and start talking straight."

This was all over the media at the time, in the public record. The Atlantic cited it here, if you want recent proof:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/quote-of-the-da.html

In light of huge donors and questions about any quid-pro-quo strings attached, Wolfson's response to shift it into a smear against Obama (the Starr comment), and Wolfson's own hypocrisy given his own statements in 2000, you can see why people think he's nothing but a shifty and utterly wavering fabricator. At this point, people have no reason to believe that his statements are anything other than baseless attacks for political gain.

mr. met wrote:

she's better, she's more experienced, her methods are no sleazier than his, he Obama must be Starr because she should not be subject to examination of personal finances subsequent to huge donations from unknown parties, the list goes on).

i didnt compare obama to starr. i just find it hard to believe that obama is this squeaky-clean, perfect guy. in my opinion, all politicians are a bit dirty.

No one is saying he is perfectly squeaky clean. Yes, all politicians have some skeletons (or other things, hah) in their closet.

But c'mon, the Clintons are in a whole 'nuther league.

Okay, I'll elaborate, and (can provide zillions of links for each case if you really need many, many specific reminders of each) After their years in the White House, their unique powers and authority aloof/above of even party leadership of Howard Dean etc., the scores of seven-figure contributions they have coming in from the Saudis and other curious and unknown parties, the Norman Hsus, the prior ol' club advantages all their heavy ties and favors with Governors and other local politicos based on Presidential favors past and perhaps promised, the list goes on.

People are just saying that he has come from little funding and way down the list to take the lead by all measures by running for the most part a positive campaign, with his own message and provided details when asked, whereas Hillary's campaign has dwelled on merely reactionary positions to others' messages, often going on demoralizing and disheartening baseless attacks and threatening legal maneuverings and clamoring to change the rules that do not suit her mid-stream, and all this while claiming victim herself and claiming the other side is the one reading The Word According To Rove.

What's more, anyone who has followed the Clintons closely for the last 16 years since Bill ran for President -- even those who voted for and supported them such as myself -- can tell you that for all the great things accomplished, they have an equally long list of very shady dealings and connections that no one wants brought up, to let sleeping dogs, er, you know.

So why bring them up?

1) Hillary did it. She is playing victim and saint, saying that Obama's the corrupt and dishonest one, often with wild fanfare and gesticulation. What you are witnessing out there against her is not based on mere sexism, as if it would happen to any woman (although sometimes some of it unfortunately ends up expressed in such ways, in the same way that people who rail Bush express that as a lampoon of him for being a southern rube). No, this is about her as a person, not as a woman . Her tactics have been rife with hypocrisy and what you are hearing out there is something else entirely. It is a collective groan from everyone but her supporters of of "Ohhh no she didn't!"

See this article for more on that note.

2) Clintons have received huge 6-and 7-figure donations in recent years (hardly news) from unknown sources that would seem to be very germane to her political aspirations, and yet the Clintons have flat out refused to dispel this issue by providing personal finances transparency as others have, and as she and Wolfson so publicly demanded of another candidate in prior years. There is no denying that this is utter hypocrisy for starters, extending into the totally disingenuous and dishonest when she accuses Obama of Rezko corruption despite his having disclosed finances and been vetted by Chicago media already for this. It is literally that she is taking her infractions and then smearing them on others who have proven otherwise, because apparently that makes for good theater.

And that is just sad.

And hardly the lead by example people are looking for, especially as that's all she has as de facto longtime front-runner to fend off the other guy got where he did by running a clean campaign.

1) Clinton has long been involved with several corrupt funders

2) Clinton even has known corrupt public officials out on the campaign trail working for her

3) Clinton and her husband have received millions from unknown sources in the last few years (with what later price?)

4) Bill Clinton pardoned scores of corrupt relations in his final days of office.

i'm pretty sure an examination of every powerful politicians campaign contributions would yield interesting findings. earlier, you accused me of being vague, which is fair, but it seems like you're doing the same thing here. i'm not asking you to site your sources and provide evidence for each of these claims, i'm just pointing it out.

These are all beaten to death over the last many years, but okay, as I have all along, here are instances of each one I mention:

1) Clinton has long been involved with several corrupt funders
--> See Norman Hsu, for starters

2) Clinton even has known corrupt public officials out on the campaign trail working for her
--> See Albequerque Mayor Martin Chavez, who campaigned heavily among latinos in Texas for her, and who is already in Pennsylvania working there. What about him?
a) ABQPAC scandal, using a PAC funded by lobbyists and government contractors as his personal bank account
b) Hosting his fundraising benefit at the home of a man later convicted of
-- defrauding the elderly
and
-- indicted for racketeering with the New Mexico Treasurer himself

3) Clinton and her husband have received millions from unknown sources in the last few years (with what later price?)
large donations concerns, requests for Clinton tax statements
Large donations to Clinton's campaign

See Tom Bradley on Mcneil Lehrer News Hour video I posted last night for more discussion.
-->
Again...Obama is not beholden to any large donors, because his fundraising model has centered upon raising millions of very small donations from millions of people. But Obama has released his personal finances anyway, just to provide transparency for good measure.


4) Bill Clinton pardoned scores of corrupt relations in his final days of office.
Clinton's 140 pardons on his last day of office
aaand here's a list of all 140 pardons...

And to make matters worse, Hillary Clinton's brothers were nailed having been paid well over 7-figures "consulting" for parties seeking presidential pardons.
Pardons reemerge as issue in Clinton run

Honestly, I could go on as this has been going on for years, but that would probably be beating a dead horse at this point, as I believe I've provided many-fold evidence of the tip of the iceberg of issues around their various dealings.

Whatever Obama has comes nowhere near the scale of what the Clintons have going, which is why I am disappointed that she opted to "go there" and put this huge trust issue out there herself, instead of developing her own positive messages.

A fighter is great if it's the good fight. She should not have tread into the area of fabrications, innuendos, deceit and seeking to shift or even reinvent goalposts as it suits her position, mid-contest.

That's how she loses prior backers like me, who are not looking to reward this behavior with support.

mr. met wrote:

I'm not proud to resort to this, but Mr. Met, just stop talking. You just aren't getting it.

ha, likewise. i was really trying to be fair, giving ground where i thought appropriate. but you just refuse to budge even the slightest bit. this pristine image of obama you have in your head will not be tarnished. i guess that's another testament to his campaigning skills.

Well, that one wasn't me. (I know mr. met knows, just clarfying for others)


As I mentioned elsewhere (above or in other thread) I have appreciated these conversations and see all this as positive air-clearing discussion.

No one's really looking to change people's minds, that's an individual/personal thing. I think people are just looking to rebut some of the fluff spotted out there in the wilds of the various camps, especially since innuendos and false claims started being passed off as assumed fact.

For my part, I don't like when either side abandons the good fight, for even the direct and issues-oriented responses to attacks from one side are portrayed as unprovoked attacks by the other.

We're at the brink of where this goes hopelessly negative if each side considers it inevitable (one because they think it's the only thing that works, the other because they consider it may be the only thing to level playing field of baseless attacks, innuendos and claims lobbed from the other side.)

Personally, I am open to calling them both out whenever either side transgresses, defending either one against BS if benefit of the doubt is the reasonable thing to do, and simply leaving out of the conversation and giving full benefit of the doubt for either side regarding many of the dubious-at-best claims that have come out in recent weeks (recent alleged but highly questionable race-baiting by video darkening as an example of things not worth mention).

Eh, I've said enough. Back to 'verk.

alafairnadia wrote: like I said in the clinton thread, I don't think that any of this is relevant beyond how obama will deal with the daily attacks of a general election. he's going to have shit coming at him from all directions - this is nothing. and to have him react in such a truly pathetic way is bad, campaign-wise. who cares what 'truth' is revealed afterward? in a campaign, short term information is key. you have to refute what's coming at you the best way you can.

which is why, frankly, I don't fault him for turning to the ken starr playbook. I agree with Carny and others - I'd prefer that dems not do this to each other. and I agree that clinton totally started it - she's getting beat and she's turning to the dirty tricks rule books for guidance. I get it. so, I also have no problem with obama getting called out on using the same dirty tricks. you get asked an uncomfortable or unanswerable question? don't answer - just attack. easy enough. obfuscation is the name of the game, that's how politicians live and, frankly, it's a lot ofwhat lawyers do. so everyone is probably vaguely comfortable. I just wish obama would obtain a thicker skin - he won't make it through a dirty tricks election if he reacts to every attack the way he did to the nafta shit.

I agree with your overall point for the General Election when needed, against the Repblicans.

And Obama did get totally stopped in his tracks when this NAFTA thing (that he had no idea of) came out of left field from all sides, focused on him alone for whatever reason.

Unlike other cases where he's been a cool customer under heavy fire, this time he blinked, and lost. Going forward, he'd better adapt the "fool me once, fool me twice" approach for the sake of the heavier battles ahead.

You are right, hesitation and lack of immediate response loses ground and causes doubt, and opens a huge flank for attacks to distract him.

He won't progress unless he gets a handle on that again, and right quick.

Had to give credit to your points where credit was due, but now I'm duckin' back to work for reals. (so things may be less long-winded for a while )