Bogus Charges Of Illicit Affairs. Modus Operandi For Aides Such As Chris Lehane (Clinton Operative?)

Well a few weeks ago, DU had a story that the news media had dirt on a POTUS candidate. It was dirt that everyone knew but no one had printed yet because it was awkward. DU'ers figured it was a GOP'er. Freepers figured it was a Dem.

Couple of days ago, Novak claims Hillary had dirt on Obama but wasn't using it. Obama's campaign was stupid enough to attack Clinton rather than ridiculing Novak (Obama should have just said "Yeah, Novak found out I'm a covert CIA agent).

Now we have a Clinton partisan (Taylor Marsh) recounting something Andrew Sullivan (an Obaman partisan) supposedly said about some Obama aide asking about Bill Clinton having affairs recently. Now I can't find the Sullivan comment where he talks about this Obaman aide. And would like to find it.

But lets go back in history (recent and not so recent) and track stories about candidates supposedly having an affair

................................................

This is from mid-October, we don't know who planted this story. Thank heavens it got no traction:

Edwards Denies Tabloid Report of Affair

Source: AP

SUMMERTON, S.C. (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards says a tabloid story that he had an extramarital affair is untrue.

"The story is false. It's completely untrue, ridiculous," Edwards told reporters Thursday after he was asked about the National Enquirer report.

The supermarket newspaper reported that the former North Carolina senator had an affair with a woman who worked on his campaign. It did not identify the woman, nor did it name the source of the information for its report.
..........................................................

Jumping back several years, we have Kerry being accused TWICE of having an affair. Both times by Chris Lehane.

First time was when Kerry was in consideration for Gore's VP. Lehane planted the story about Kerry then to torpedo the chance he'd get the spot.

Second time was when Clark was running in 04. It was reported initially that Wes said Kerry was about to implode due to an intern affair. But there was no actual verification Clark himself said that and it soon became clear that it was Chris Lehane once again smearing Kerry.

Chris Lehane worked for the Clintons and he's less an aide like regular staff and more like the "elves" that worked for the GOP INVENTING dirt. Lehane doesn't just seem to find real dirt on opposition, he makes shit up and plants it.

He worked for Kerry in 04 and got fired. Sadly, Wes Clark took him on. And most Clark supporters weren't too happy with that. Lehane is loathesome.

Chris Lehane has also appeared on CNN as a commentator although it's notable that he ALWAYS spouts the spin Hillary Clinton is using.

.....................................................................

My main reason for posting all this is to point out that there are Democratic operatives who work for candidates that will flat out invent crap. And there is a history of at least ONE operative named Chris Lehane known for planting crap about opposition having affairs. Here's a bit more on him. Let's realise that his kind is out there.

.....................................................................

From MyDD

Clinton Unleashes Attack Dog Chris Lehane on Obama
by Matt Stoller, Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 12:46:10 AM EST

One of the reasons complaints about blogger ethics are so stupid is that reporters and campaigns regularly speak in code that voters are not supposed to understand. It's like there are two languages in politics, one for the regular voter, and one for the elites. Chris Lehane's career is a perfect example. Now, we've criticized Carville for going on CNN and giving out pro-Clinton talking points as a generic Democratic analyst, and he hasn't really stopped. His excuse is that he's not being officially paid by the campaign, as if he wouldn't make millions and garner immense influence with another Clinton in the White House. Reporters 'get' that Carville isn't a generic analyst and see him through that lens, but viewers just see a trusted figure on CNN, and so they take away a different sense of the information they receive. Two different contexts, two different languages.

James Carville is the most high profile of these double-agents, but there are others. One very prominent Clinton surrogate is Chris Lehane, who ran negative campaigns for Gore in 2000 and ran the Clark campaign into the ground in 2004 (after resigning from the Kerry campaign), along with his partner Mark Fabiani. Lehane, though he doesn't officially work for Clinton, has a long relationship with the Clinton and their machine entourage, even garnering PR business with current Clinton communications director and former Glover Park Partner Howard Wolfsen on Michael Moore's films, which are produced by Clinton ally and supporter Harvey Weinstein (see this clip, where both Weinstein and Moore laud Clinton and discuss Weinstein's relationship with her). Lehane is regularly used by reporters as a quote machine, speaking unofficially for the campaigns in a 'hands-off' manner so Clinton spokespeople don't have to say it. When Lehane says something, you can pretty much be assured that it's coming from the Clinton campaign.

So you won't be surprised to see this underhanded attack coming from Lehane's mouth on Obama's situation with Tony Rezko, an Obama donor who has just been indicted. This story is being floated again, probably with the intent of killing Obama's sheen now that he appears to have underperformed a bit in the debates versus Clinton (that's the narrative, whether it's true or not, and frankly, it was all so boring I couldn't pay attention).

First, here's what a normal Democratic strategist says who isn't trying to hurt a candidate and Rezko and Obama.

Democratic strategist Stephanie Cutter, who is not affiliated with any presidential candidate, said the situation "may leave voters with the impression Senator Barack Obama is and was indeed a politician, but I'm not sure that's earth-shattering."

And here's what a Clinton surrogate says.

Campaign consultant Chris Lehane, who worked in the Clinton White House and for Al Gore in 2000, said it shows voters that Obama "puts his pants on the same way as any other politician" -- something that "undermines the core Obama brand, that he is a different kind of leader."

Note how the reporter, Mike Robinson of the AP, qualified Cutter as 'unaffiliated' while saying that Lehane had worked in the Clinton White House and for Al Gore. They both read like they are just commenting, but to insiders, it's well-understood to mean that Lehane speaking for Clinton and Cutter is unaffiliated. Two languages, two contexts. Very annoying.

Want more proof Lehane is speaking unofficially for Clinton? Let's look at the spin coming from Lehane, which is almost always pro-Clinton and on-message. Here's Lehane on Clinton's electability 'problem', before she decided to run.

"Hillary Clinton has a good sense of self," said Chris Lehane, a longtime Democratic strategist who worked in the White House for President Clinton. "I don't think she makes this race unless she thinks she has a pretty good chance of winning the whole thing."
And more? Here's Lehane spinning on Obama's $25M quarter, a clear victory for Obama.

"Anyone who can put together $25 million in a quarter comes off as a very serious and credible candidate," said Chris Lehane, who was the spokesman for Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000. "Enough people have been around the block in the Clinton world that they understand this is a marathon, not a sprint."
That's the Clinton line, straight up, and it's laughable to think that a neutral observer would say this. And that's the point, the reporter quoted Lehane to get an unofficial Clinton perspective, because the Clinton campaign isn't going to say what Lehane said officially, even though they want this out there. It's like the Rezko rumor, which the Clinton people want out there, but without their fingerprints. To make this point even more firmly, see what Lehane said only months earlier.

In March, Democratic operative Chris Lehane, who has been a staffer on multiple presidential campaigns, likened this exclusionist fund-raising strategy to that undertaken by George W. Bush during the presidential campaign of 2000.
"He put together a financial infrastructure that laid the foundation for a presidential run and locked down the Who's Who of the Republican fund-raising community," Lehane said. "Hillary Clinton's ability to lock up fund-raisers is not only a positive for her, but also takes away those potential assets for others."

So now the Clinton campaign understands this is a marathon, not a sprint? The pro-Clinton spin is so thick that Lehane can't resist even when it's about fashion.

For Mr. Obama and other candidates like John Edwards who have gone tieless in public appearances, the look could help convey youthfulness and openness to change, says political consultant Chris Lehane, who advised Bill Clinton. But "the downside is, does it reinforce any issues regarding whether he has enough experience or gravitas to be president?" he adds.
Journalists regularly quote Lehane to speak unofficially for the campaign. Lehane was even rumored to be working on a California 527 seeking to move up the primary date to benefit Clinton (note that I can only find this sourced on one blog, though Lehane does speak positively of the 527 here in SF Gate). The effort is over, since California moved up its primary.

Lehane knows he'll get paid back by Clinton.

said remembering who your true-blue friends are is a must for a political winner.
"I think history is pretty clear that those folks who are loyal to the Clintons find the loyalty is really reciprocated -- and that is one of the reasons why so many people have stuck with them for so long,'' he said. "They really do respect and appreciate it when someone is loyal, and that manifests itself in many ways ... that is what good politicians do.''

I wonder why he's been saying things like this since 2005?

Three years ahead of the election she dominates the field and "is in the strongest position any non-incumbent presidential candidate has ever been in the modern history of the Democratic party" according to party strategist Chris Lehane.

Now let me note that this is not a knock against Lehane. I have two basic points here. One is that I'm really getting tired of political journalists speaking in code to voters such that you have to decipher what they are really trying to say to the people that matter. Political journalism should not exist in the realm of seventh grade girls who pass secret mean notes to each other in class about the other kids. And two is that I am really tired of campaigns who engage in this kind of nonsense. If Clinton wants to draw attention to Tony Rezko's history with Obama, if she and Mark Penn really want to open up that can of worms, they should have enough principles to come out and say it in the open. It's possibly a legitimate question, frankly. I'd like to know more about Rezko and the Chicago machine. But I don't think it's fair to spread rumors like this in print using surrogates who are clearly on your time under the guise that they are unofficial and neutral observers when they are obviously such pushers of pro-Clinton spin.

He was involved in the Gore, Clark and Kerry campaigns. Stay away!

him as many expected made it SO easy for Cheney during his debate, didn't it? Lieberman looked like a Cheney bobblehead during that debate. Kerry never loses one on one debates.

You end up making everybody look bad- the phony "target" as well as the phony "source".

Look at the names you've got up there- Sullivan? Yeah, he's been a Democrat for all of a week. Novak? I rest my case.

Novak is involved in this. The man is a traitor and no friend of Democrats. Why would anyone put any credence into what he has to say?

Who would possibly have been working against those two back then?

The Vanity Fair article last month had Gore's people talking about being undermined throughout the campaign by Clinton loyalists.

And Lehane was definitely the guy who pushed Clark to attack Kerry with the smear about an affair in NH.

And there are other observations from 2004 that have been noted:

April2004:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Woodward's book:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

And Robert Novak.

And Andrew Sullivan.

:eyes:

just misunderstood?

But if you honestly think that the 2000 election being stolen was driven by the Vice Presidential debate performances, I think you're stretching to say the least.

There's a few people who can be blamed for making the theft of the 2000 election easier, not the least of which is Ralph Nader. I think these nefarious "Clinton operatives" are pretty far down the list.

I never said the debate stole the election - we all know that RNC stole that election and it was being set up since 1999 according to Dan Rather's report on the electronic machines a few months ago.

And the RNC was able to do it because the DNC had allowed state infrastructures to collapse since the mid90s in red and crucial swing states. And with Terry McAuliffe overseeing FURTHER weakening and collapse of those state infrastructures, even after hearings into 2000's election fraud, then it's not difficult to see it was ALLOWED to happen because they were not interested in succeeding in 2002 and 2004 any more than they were interested in winning in 2000.

Sorry.

and how they all ended up being protected throughout the 90s.

Robert Parry has some thoughts about the deep-sixing of the outstanding matters left in IranContra.
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Can't argue with iron-clad arguments like that. :eyes:

Surely you couldn't be so unknowing about his journalistic credentials?

And the BCCI report couldn't be completely foreign to you, too, could it?

for the sake of political expediency. That's hardly breaking news, "consortium" or not. If the guy has some sort of earth-shattering evidence pertaining to something, let him document it on an actual source. What you've linked is an opinion piece saying "Gee, whiz, Bill Clinton and the DLC may have spent too much time trying to get along with the republicans".

I wouldn't disagree, but like I said, that's not exactly breaking news.

So I'm just trying to keep straight who the "bad" Democrats are, this week. In 2000, it was Al Gore-- you know, there was "no difference" between Bush and Gore, remember?

In 2004, it was Kerry who was the sell-out... good grief, there were big fights here between the Dean and Kerry people. (in retrospect, I think Dean would have been the far better candidate) But Kerry, FWIW, was all over BCCI. Now Wes Clark, it seems, is on the "dark side", and obviously the argument here is that HRC has embraced the dark arts and is some kind of Manchurian Republican...

Look, she's not my first choice either- but if she DOES get the nomination, what are you going to do? :shrug:

the same way Poppy was.

And BCCI guilt extended to players being protected by Clinton - and THAT is why some powerful Democrats were undermining Kerry - because they knew Kerry would open those books if he had the oval office power to do so.

thank you thank you thank you...I can't be the only person here on DU who does not buy this. Blessed be the virgin mary...I am not alone.


ufff...

I got that off my chest.:hi:

accountable on those matters?

Because only one or the other can be true. Either Poppy Bush was held accountable throughout the 90s on all those outstanding matters left when Bill took over - - or he wasn't. Bill said in his book that he felt Poppy Bush deserved a peaceful retirement so matters were not pursued. What do YOU think happened?

but keep spinning, I like the patterns your clothes are making. Its kaleidoscopic.

To not at least admit that is too be very naive.

Probably the second most bogus lie I've seen floated is the creationist bullshit that comes out of the Discovery Institute, but that's another thread.

exactly.

I dunno. Just popped into my head.

Because if you are, just say so.

I'll try and explain some very basic, fundamental philisophical arguments for you.

I probably had it running through my head because of the Creation Museum thread from a couple days ago.

Are you a creationist or otherwise in denial about evolutionary truth? If so, you have my deepest sympathies for being so fundementally wrong on an issue of science and biology.

Lehane almost had Wes Clark repeat the smears on camera in NH against Kerry and he backed down at the last minute. That would have ruined Clark for the future.

Lehane also had his laptop 'stolen' that had all of Kerry's campaign info on it in 2003 before he was fired.

And Douglas Brinkley knows something about this, because he made this remark in April2004:


http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

And we all know what Carville did on election night.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

"Lehane almost had Wes Clark repeat the smears on camera in NH against Kerry and he backed down at the last minute."

have their inside spinners...maybe not as experienced as Lehane, Carville and Rove...but wannabee's that are just learning their craft. The only one who doesn't seem to have one supposedly has no chance of being elected because what he says comes from his own mouth and folks just think he's whining because he has to stand up for himself. And, that's why he can't be elected.

You can't get rid of the spinners and they are useful...so your point is to be wary when rumors start to realize that it could be from a spinner trying to knock out an opposing candidate.

What is important to realize though is that there really sometimes are "Blue Dresses." I say this as person who never believed the "Blue Dress" was real. Argued with everyone I knew that it was the Vast RW Conspiracy and Issikoff lying about this. Told folks about Mellon-Scaife and the Arkansas project and folks rolled their eyes at me. Turned out they were right and I was wrong. Since then I try to hold off and get as much info as possible even if the story sounds fake. At this point there's probably much we don't know that could be true that would swing our vote and much that isn't true that might work the same way.

I don't want another liar like Bush in the WH who managed to shoot down every sordid detail of his life by having a compliant press, though. And, I don't want any nominees who get shot down with some sordid thing coming out just before the election to throw it. More likely to happen with a Dem than a Repug.

I guess we just have to be skeptical ..."trust but verify." :shrug:

Because, guaranteed, somebody will overlook your caveat, and insist the urban legend is true.

and Clark made the final decision to NOT do it. But LEHANE was the one who had been pushing him to make the smear public and some reporters were readied.

Clark showed good sense on this. And many of us warned Clarkies back then that LeHane was NOT there for Clark.

Please let me have a link so I can read about it.

share the dirt they had been teased with (undoubtedly by LeHane) but Clark would not.

You were here at the time - you know this went down, WesDem, and none of us blamed Clark at all because Kerry's camp knew LeHane was the one responsible.

Alot of the inside stuff didn't make it to print, but this Clark-friendly blog was keeping eyes on it - and I notice some LeHane articles that the blog linked are no longer available.

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/000809.html

Think back to the time, WesDem and you'll remember how this went down and the reports we were hearing from inside the campaigns.

I have no idea what happened in New Hampshire that you're referring to. I would like confirmation of this:

"And Lehane was definitely the guy who pushed Clark to attack Kerry with the smear about an affair in NH."

"Lehane almost had Wes Clark repeat the smears on camera in NH against Kerry and he backed down at the last minute."

Where does this information come from?

I am surprised that this isn't clicking for you.

Reporters were being primed for some dirt that would be coming on Kerry - they expected it to come from Clark camp - we had heard LeHane was pushing this - Clark wouldn't do it. So - again - where's the disconnect? What am I missing? Were you not here at the time? Aren't you curious why links that used to be part of this story are now mostly dead and no longer found?

"they expected it to come from Clark camp - we had heard LeHane was pushing this - Clark wouldn't do it"

That's all I'm asking.

.

I know about the story in Nashville with the reporters from the bus. But even there, nothing says Lehane almost got Clark to say anything and there was no camera. So it seems you are talking about a different incident and that's the one I would like to know about. Where does that story come from?

and the following days.

And I also recall vividly here at DU how Kerry people warned Clarkies all along that LeHane was not to be trusted.

Yesterday a DUer claimed to have heard with her own ears Clark say from a rally in New Hampshire broadcast on CSPAN the Kerry intern implosion rumor that Drudge hung on him, and which the reporters present deny Clark said in Tennessee. She provided her anecdotal evidence. You seemed to have information about a New Hampshire incident, so I wanted a link to read about it. And, no, I don't remember that discussion the night of the NH primary, in particular, but it could have been in a thread where I wasn't present. However, I do remember perfectly well that ALL of the campaigns were buzzing with it in New Hampshire.

and that it was LeHane ginning it up. In my view, getting Clark to say the rumor into a mic oncamera would have destroyed Clark for a furtue run, too. And THAT is why LeHane is such a piece of shit - he is a saboteur - and like the Rovians works YEARS in advance. Notice that no campaign officially hired LeHane this goround?

I'm not accusing you of doing that. I was just trying to confirm or not confirm this story about Clark saying something in New Hampshire about it as some on DU are claiming (not you).

It was made after a speech with the cameras still rolling and Wes was milling about in a crowd that was thinning out. I believe it was the rally where Michael Moore introduced him. A reporter asked Clark flat-out and he hinted at an impending bombshell that would hit the Kerry campaign. My researchers (on loan) will need to find the raw footage and not the speeches that are edited for time in the archives.

I'm glad to see you haven't been called a liar and had the punitive termination of friendships for having the audacity to speak up. But that is indicative of the bulldozing political machine that is executed on these boards daily to flesh out the inevitably theme of this race.

You are saying Clark did not say this in front of a camera in New Hampshire, although Chris Lehane wanted him to.

Another poster is saying Clark did say this in front of a camera in New Hampshire.

This is why I was asking you for the backup.

rsomething coming and may have alluded to it in general terms, but the bottom line for me as I recall from that time was that he would not go to the mic and repeat the actual smear and that showed sound judgement.

Whether he he may have alluded to it at some point as something that might be coming, I don't know - I only know that he would not take the step Lehane WANTED him to take and that is to attack Kerry with the smear directly.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200406/green

"Democrats may not have been successful using research against Bush, but they have fared much better deploying it against each other. One prominent Democrat has already fallen victim this year—though the attack was orchestrated within his own party. By last fall Howard Dean had achieved the unlikely status of front-runner in the crowded race for the Democratic nomination. Yet for all his popularity, the public knew little about him. He had built a following almost overnight, mainly because of his strident opposition to the Iraq War and a visceral anger toward the Bush Administration that other candidates were thought to lack. By the time Gore endorsed him, on December 9, Dean's victory in the upcoming primaries seemed assured.

That same week Ben Holzer, the research director for General Wesley Clark's campaign, arrived with Lehane, who was then working for Clark, in Washington, D.C., for a series of visits to the major television networks, newspapers, and newsmagazines. They toted a three-ring binder that contributed as much as anything else to Dean's rapid demise. The Clark campaign had classified the stories in it as singles, doubles, triples, or home runs, based on the damage they were expected to inflict. Holzer and Lehane offered producers and reporters exclusives on many of these stories with the proviso that if they were not used quickly, they would be handed to a rival. In the hypercompetitive world of political journalism this pretty much guaranteed swift airing or publication.

Gore's surprise endorsement marked the Dean campaign's high point. Six days later, on December 15, Dean declared with typical candor that the capture of Saddam Hussein "has not made America safer"—a comment that stirred public doubts about his fitness for the presidency and also about his increasingly visible hotheadedness and frequent gaffes. Against this growing uncertainty the Clark campaign set off a barrage of stories portraying Dean as hypocritical, dishonest, and incompetent. According to interviews with reporters, producers, and campaign staffers, these are some of them. (Lehane and Holzer, citing promises of confidentiality to reporters and producers, would neither confirm nor deny that these stories originated with the campaign.)"

Very long article.

Yep.

Everybody was doing it to everybody, as they are now.

It is so much easier.

I won't vote in the primary, and will have to think about the GE

remember the "Elves" like Coulter?

One can excuse opposition research and I, for one, don't object.

It's the planting bogus crap that galls me.

As long as it's not lies, oppo is a fact of political life, as far as I'm concerned. Every campaign does negative oppo. Supporters always want to believe they don't, but candidates don't have much choice if they want to get anywhere.

want to absolve him on this.

Do you really believe that Kerry would fire someone who was acting honestly? He's not wired like that. Do you really believe LeHane accidently left his campaign laptop on a seat in an unlocked car?

I'm not absolving Lehane of anything. As I said, he is what he is, does what he does. Just because I asked you for proof of a statement you made does not make me a Chris Lehane defender.

You said this:

"And Lehane was definitely the guy who pushed Clark to attack Kerry with the smear about an affair in NH."

"Lehane almost had Wes Clark repeat the smears on camera in NH against Kerry and he backed down at the last minute."

I asked for backup. You don't have any links. You remember a DU discussion on NH primary night.

I think that's where we are, right?

And if others hadn't heard about it, too, then why do some links show Lehane in their speculation at the time, but the links they have are no longer found?

We call it scrubbing when powerful GOPs do it.

I don't like it, either, because it's hard to provide backup when I feel sure something happened the way I remember it.

112,000 google hits.

LeHane was nixed from the Kerry camp and joined the Clark Camp who then hinted at the impending bombshell in a "gee I love it when the Russian skaters fall on their keister in an Olympic competition" kind of way.

What resonates is the adamant denial on these boards that that stuff actually happens within the party. The enforcers here at DU insist in the most unpleasant of terms that the GOP is to blame, pay no attention to the political operative behind the curtain. We do that at our own peril.

I wonder if they are just naive about politics and new to it. Anyone who has followed it or read about it knows both sides have their bad as well as good things about them.
Operatives are paid to smear dirt. But, it is when they make stuff up that I feel is going over the line.

If it makes more than one Democrat look bad, so much the better. Better still if it sets up a really angry dynamic among the Democratic candidates.

Trusting Novak to tell the truth on any level is just plain stupid.

Let's hope someone will read your post. I salute you fellow DU'er.:hi: