Obama Campaign Circulating Negative (And Ultimately False) Story About Bill Clinton

We've just obtained an email that shows that the Obama campaign yesterday circulated a negative, and ultimately false, story about Bill Clinton -- that he allegedly made money giving a speech on September 11, 2006.

Campaigns, of course, circulate negative stuff about each other all the time. This email is unusual in that it is flagging something potentially negative not about a primary rival but about the former President -- one who obviously isn't running in the Democratic primary and who remains popular with Dem primary voters.

Indeed, the email is particularly noteworthy in that it reflects one of the curiosities of this race -- that one of the candidates' spouses is a popular former President, and thus is playing a highly visible role in the campaign, making him a target for anonymous attacks from Hillary's rivals.

snip...

The email, which was sent out by Jen Psaki of the Obama campaign and circulated to reporters (not us) on an off-the-record basis late yesterday, details some things that the Obama campaign found in Hillary's financial disclosure documents, which were released yesterday. More after the jump.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/15/obama_campaign_circulating_negative_story_about_bill_clinton

Frontrunners don't go on the attack.

Going negative in such a manner is often a sign that the campaign thinks it needs a boost or has stagnated. That they did so in a slightly less public fashion then say Edwards in the last debates shows they are not quite desperate.

This one is very poorly done. Team Clinton wins this round.

I take great solace from the fact that we are a messy party. But I gotta give Clinton props for her slickness.

THIS is why they want Clinton in the spotlight, not so much the whole "corporatist" thing. So many angles, so many connections, and new and unique perspectives on what would otherwise be the same tired old political meat grinder.

They must have anticipated this kind of story and expect to turn them to their advantage. It's going to be great drama, especially when the VWRC gets cranked up and they go toe-to-toe with the campaign.

So far this doesn't pass the smell test.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/the-backstory-on-obama-clinton-attack-memos/

Scroll down and see the links to Memo 1 and Memo 2.

but I really hate this shit.

Of course, I know many will tell me that the TRUTH needs to be out there, but HEY, these are OUR candidates!!!

This kind of stuff really does serve as a test of certain qualities in the candidates. If you look at this process as the last bit of training before we send our representative out into a complicated, difficult, often antagonistic, and treacherous world, then in a lot of ways it is a good test. Sometimes it drifts way off base, but I think for the most part we end up with someone who is tough, smart, capable, strong, and dedicated. Unfortunately, we often also get untrustworthy handlers, egomaniacs, cold and ruthless dominators, and deceivers. Once we even got a mentally retarded, alcoholic, insecure, failed pretzel-wrestler. But hopefully that was an anomaly.

been over the last two weeks an increase of Clinton Posts and no other candidate is barely talked about.

http://www.observer.com/2007/bill-clinton-post

I didn't note this happening at the time, although I was living in New Jersey then, but coincidence-wise, it's remarkable. Just a hop across the bay from the WTC, it must have been quite a speech that day.

and their ideas, not fling mud at each other. The country needs serious discussions, not more wallowing in the mud. Don't give the Repukes more ammo for the General Election.

and he may get some some backlash.