BUSTED! Obama campaign caught sending out anonymous hit-pieces on Hillary

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/06/obama-oppo-targets-hillarys-india.html

Senator Obama has been calling for "a new kind of politics," but his presidential campaign appears not to be above the time-honored tradition of sending out an anonymous, negative attack on a top rival.

Mr. Obama's campaign is circulating a document critical of President and Senator Clinton's links to India in an effort to portray Mrs. Clinton as having a poor record on outsourcing and protecting American jobs.

The three-page piece of opposition research, titled "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)'s Personal Financial and Political Ties," was obtained from a source unaffiliated with the Obama campaign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/us/politics/15clintons.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp

Shortly after the Clinton campaign released the financial information, the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, circulated to news organizations — on what it demanded be a not-for-attribution-basis — a scathing analysis. It called Mrs. Clinton “Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)” in its headline, referring to the investment in India and Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising efforts among Indian-Americans. The analysis also highlighted the acceptance by Mr. Clinton of $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company the Obama campaign said has moved American jobs to India.

A copy of the document was obtained by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, which provided it to The New York Times. The Clinton campaign has long been frustrated by the effort by Mr. Obama to present his campaign as above the kind of attack politics that Mr. Obama and his aides say has led to widespread disillusionment with politics by many Americans.

Asked about the document, Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said: “We did give reporters a series of comments she made on the record and other things that are publicly available to anyone who has access to the Internet. I don’t see why anyone would take umbrage with that.” Asked why the Obama campaign had initially insisted that it not be connected to the document, Mr. Burton replied, “I’m going to leave my comment at that.”

off. I don't want to hear another panel discussion on how everyone is so similar and at least they aren't George Bush.... Let's go! Rock -n- Roll!!

:eyes:

he's a fucking hypocrite if he is campaigning on a "new kind of politics" and is pulling these sleazy tricks.

It's not the tactics, it's the hypocrisy and Obama deserves to be questioned on it.

Did Obama really think that this "new kind of politics" would last long? Welcome to Washington.

It's called "dirtier politics than Dems are accustomed to using."

I never thought it was more than a sound-bite phrase anyway. There are only two kinds of politics - the kind that wins and the kind that loses.

:sarcasm:

Bake

But several of them do it.

A politician behaving like a politician. He surely must be "questioned on it." And I'm going to start asking dogs why they bark.

swift boating her opponents. Her campaign has done nothing like this to any of the candidates.

How in the world can a candidate say he is above the negativity of politics be responsible for hit pieces on his opponent. And if they did this what about the other stuff that has been posted about her.

This stinks. I suppose if she had not had proof it would be said she was the one trying to get Obama. I am glad Edwards campaign has not stooped to this.

They ALL do it. Grow up. Where in the world do you think the Rezco crap is coming from.

that she hasn't done?

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/07/be-careful-where-you-aim-that-mud-hillary
and
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=15816

:hi:

Obama doesn't hit anyone first but, if they mess with him, hey, he is going to strike back. fair is fair.

It is fair to ask Hillary how SHE will protect American jobs.

then why doesn't obama do this in debates? Why does he resort to anonymous hit pieces? He's a fucking hypocrite, that's why.

And thats OK I'll vote for her over any R come 11/08 but lets be realistic, Hil is more joined at the hip to our corporatocracy than any other of our candidates.

I guess what I'm trying to say is calling Obama sleazy while pimpin Hil is kind of a tough position top be in.

Good luck with it.

and it will be coming from all sides. You really need to find something more important to get excited about.

I have problems with hypocrisy. If Obama wants to be sleazy fine, but sure as hell don't campaign as a new type of politican.

I don't mind hit pices if a) they are true and b) they concern themselves with important issues.

This meets both criteria, but the hypocrisy argument is valid, as well.

He needs to declare war on Hillary now if he wants to win this.

Let's just sit back and enjoy the battle. :)

Hillary will run ads side by side of him being an attack dog and him preaching a new politics.

He'll crash and burn if he goes negative. He put himself into a box and if he runs a negative campaing the hypocrisy issue will be his downfall.

Hil is avery polarizing figure any attack on her will not be met with the same sympathy as an attack on say.....Obama.

I'm really tired of this so-called "polarizing reputation" of Hillary's. Sure there are people who don't like her; but, I believe this is true of every candidate in both parties, isn't it? Hard to believe when her numbers and money raised contradict this ridiculous misnomer. It's as if all of our candidates are loved completely or hated by all. We all know it's a mix.

Hillary is no more polarizing than any other candidate. Can we please stop with the right-wing name calling. It demeans all of us; but especially here at DU.

that have unfortunately, left an indelible negative impression on lots of voters. You're right, many candidates are "polarizing" for many reasons, but Hillary has been a pinata for a long time--and she alienates many on the left, as well.

You're the one being a hypocrite. You're supporting the queen of slime, and the second someone fights back - you slime them for fighting. Typical Clinton politics. She's the hypocrite and she's the one that's going to pay for her negativity in the end.

that's the hypocrisy - Obama shouldn't pretend to be above the fray and then engage in the mudslinging.

Look at Dukakis. He tried to be above the fray by not adressing Daddy Bush's smears and look where that got him. Bush Sr. certainly wasn't a hugely popular individual but Dukakis blew it.

Even Kerry went easy on Baby Bush at first and while I admire him for that, being nice just doesn't work anymore.

by embracing hypocrisy. New type of politics my ass.

But I guess it just goes to show you can't remain above the fray for long. Ah, politics.

and is proud of it. Not a hypocrite, but still a sleaze.

obama says he doesn't do slimy politics, but does so anonymously

So what does that make him?

A sleazy hypocrite!

I rather have my sleaze honest, thank you very much.

He can't Catch her in the polls, He can't catch her in fund raising, can't catch her in endorsements. He just can't catch her. If he has started this type of a campaign this early he will surely crash & burn.

very desperate to go negative this early.

Will you be printing up those bumper stickers? If you do, the small print should read, "no really, I am honest. Really. Sleezy & honest"


:rofl:

A crook is exposed by an honest person - and you criticize the honest person for being a snitch??

Thats one hell of an assertion with nothing to back it up. Unless you hace something to back it up, do you?

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/07/be-careful-where-you-aim-that-mud-hillary
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=15816

:popcorn:

Have they denied it? are they back peddling like someone else?

in their own smelly ways.

Is ANYONE so naive as to think they don't all do this? Really?

Really?

I don't care about the sleaze.

I care about the hypocrisy.

Yes, even Dennis, who chastises other candidates for being politically motivated in their actions but himself waits until the campaign season to pull this Cheney impeachment matter out of his butt.

So what is this?

Your hypocrisy is bigger than mine?
Six of one - half dozen of another.

But what she brought was an outsourcing firm. Obama should have no hesitance in talking about that.

*edit to add links:

http://buffalog.blogspot.com/archives/2003_06_22_buffalog_archive.html

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0413,perlstein,52234,1.html

Clinton or anybody else running should have no hesitance in talking about that!

:P

Statistically, he is a baby boomer himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer

Are you saying he opposes Clinton because he hates baby boomers? that's the most assinine argument I've heard yet.

in an attempt to separate himself from other candidates, I think. I don't remember exactly what he said - maybe somebody has a link?

Clinton is yesterday's news. She is too compromised. But that has nothing to do with "baby boomers."

He is new and younger - too new, IMO, to have the kind of experience that would be helpful to a president. But we'll see. The campaign is an opportunity to prove otherwise.

I'll take green over a corporatist. But that's just me.

and i sure don`t want anyone my age running the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/weekinreview/21broder.html?ex=1182052800&en=6a3ed55bd67c73f9&ei=5070">Shushing the Baby Boomers

"he writes,

“I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation — a tale rooted
in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago — played out on
the national stage.”

:eyes:

He IS a baby boomer!! :rofl:

-------------------------------------

http://speechwriting-ghostwriting.typepad.com/speechwriting_ghostwritin/2007/02/barack_obama_ex.html">Barack Obama - Exploiting Baby Boomer Memories To Sideline Baby Boomers

As Barack Obama announced his candidacy for president in Springfield, Illinois, of course
a chill went down my spine. I am a baby boomer. Every nuance of the Obama performance
awakened memories of my youth filled with John F. Kennedy as well as the hope and promise
of a new generation. Yet, 45-year-old Obama has gone on the record saying that the time of
the baby boomers is over and now the torch must be passed on to the current generation.
Question: Can he pull this off - that is, using the Kennedy mystique to bring to the forefront
the fresh values of a post-baby boomer world?

It's a big gamble.

More....

--------------

Especially since the largest voting block is the baby boomers!!!

Or google it. He's pretty clear.

http://www.nysun.com/article/56332?page_no=1
Clinton Taps Newly Active Indian Donors - June 12, 2007 - The New York Sun

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/06/obama-oppo-targets-hillarys-india.html
Obama Oppo Targets Hillary's India Ties - Latest Politics Blog

never trust the new york times

What she brought was Tata, an Indian outsourcing firm. Geez, thanks Hillary.

http://buffalog.blogspot.com/archives/2003_06_22_buffalog_archive.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0413,perlstein,52234,1.html

...if i told my best friend who will probably vote for hillary that she was in bed with the indian outsourcing crews..well i`d have to get out of the way of flying objects!!

Till then...

He's going to find out soon just how formidable the Clinton campaign machine truly is.

Hillary is married to the greatest campaigner of our times in either party. She has been learning from the best for nearly 30 years now and her experience running for senator in NY has done nothing but sharpen her for this campaign.

Obama is no slouch himself on the campaign trail, but his lesser degree of experience will dog him from time to time.

Some things can't be bought from consultants. Charisma is one of them.

.

she's leading in every poll I've seen. She wouldn't do that if she didn't have talent and charisma.

and he had a talent in finding those TV camaras on 9/11 and staying in front of them.

I hated Rudy before and I've hated him since, but as a New Yorker who lives downtown, I have to say, Rudy was the only one keeping it together on 9/11. Do you realize no one from the feds said a word to the public until late afternoon, and that was Karen Hughes? Bush himself did not speak (except for one bizarre, disjointed comment during his bunnyhop) until around 8:00 that night. I won't accuse Rudy of hogging the cameras on 9/11. He stood up and did his job, unlike the Bush admin. I'm sorry to say it because I can't stand the guy, but on that day, and I was a traumatized, terrified New Yorker who could see the fires from my house, I was glad taht somebody, ANYbody, was coming before the cameras to try to tell us what was going on. The one comment I remember most was when they asked him about casualties and he said, "more than any of us can bear." Some situations bring out the humanity in people, or alternatively, reveal their deepest flaws, as we saw in George Junior. Rudy was not a hero, but he was not a worthless coward like George W. Bush was, so I will give him that.

he was widely hated in NYC, and still is to this day. I'm just saying that I think hogging the cameras was the last thing on his mind on that day. truly.

To Bernard Kerik (if true), about how glad he was that GWB was president that day. Who wouldnt be glad to have a president that sits there seven minutes after being told the country is under attack.

only he and Kerik know if it's true, which I HIGHLY doubt.

He's trying to exploit 9/11 to get into the White House and for that he's deserving of everyone's utter contempt.

he certainly did better than Bush did. It's the before and after stuff that bothers me. But he was fine on 9/11 - as a matter of fact, just after 9/11 Chelsea Clinton wrote an essay for the now-defunt Talk magazine about her experiences on 9/11 and said that on that day she was thankful that Rudy Giuliani was mayor (of course she also said she was thankful that her mother was one of NY's senators) - I re-read that quote from her recently and wonder how she feels about it now. :)

I agree with you there. He's a scheming, disingenuous, pandering liar about 9/11 now. He took his one moment of honor and turned it to crap. So be it.

what she has is a lot of money to throw around. please, she's a lousy speaker, primarily because she's completely insincere.

her famous Wellesley commencement speech in 1969 got her featured in Life magazine. One of my favorite recent speeches of hers was this one at Ann Richards' memorial: http://keyetv.com/video/?id=9120@keye.dayport.com

She gave a great speech in 1969! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I cited 1969 because it proves that she has a long history of well-received public speaking. And do you remember her "women's rights are human rights" speech in China in '95? Very powerful. Those two particular speeches of hers are legendary. But I suggest you watch the clip of her at Ann Richards' memorial - it really impressed me.

It's hard to remember anyone who was a more rousing or moving speaker.
I think Hillary spoke from the heart here

also in 2004. Definitely a very inspiring lady.

It's hard to remember anyone who was a more rousing or moving speaker.
I think Hillary spoke from the heart here

otherwise she wouldn't have made it this far. She may not be the best campaigner in the world (due to her lack of charisma - although I think she does have a *little* charisma) but I think her intellect, among other things, certainly adds to her talent as a politician.

I don't believe she has any true supporters who aren't on the payroll. Whatever happend to Peter Daou?

and it wasn't just coattails and money - Bill got as far as he did in large part because of her help, IMO. Money? Just the contributions, really, which people gave because they supported her. When Bill and Hillary left the White House, they were in debt due to all the legal fees that they'd had to pay.

As of last fall she was the second highest recipient of lobbyist money after Rick Santorum. I assume now she is first, although I would have to verify.

Unless you think all polls are bullshit.

I don't belive her support is very enthusiastic. People getting behind Obama and Edwards are doing it becuase of their ideals. I think Clinton's support is more shallow and cynical.

I think many people support her for name recognition alone. Have you seen the poll of women with college degrees and women without and their support for Obama vs. Clinton? Without college degrees it is 2-1, and with, its 38-34 percent Clinton. So that name recognition, which I see as a result of her husband seems to carry a lot of weight.

Having said that, this household has donated to both Obama and Edwards. So I am being a dispassionate analyst here, which will come in handy for the brutal primary season.

We have some real candidates with some real integrity in the running. I'm sick of getting suckered by the DLC.

Aren't we all overjoyed that they've started the circus early?

Seems Obama was the more desperate one in this story - his campaign attempted to smear her anonymously and got caught at it.

THE REMARKABLE THING IS THAT THEY HAVE REFUSED TO CREATE FALSE DIVISIONS THAT BLITS WOLFER WOULD LOVE.

So let's find out....Calling, Obama supporters! Obama supporters!

Has anyone who has attended an Obama event, is signed up to receive mailings (electronic and ground), voluteering, etc. seen this piece?

From the NYT:

"Shortly after the Clinton campaign released the financial information, the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, circulated to news organizations — on what it demanded be a not-for-attribution-basis — a scathing analysis.

<snip>

"A copy of the document was obtained by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, which provided it to The New York Times.

Then it's not a hit piece, swiftboating, hitting below the belt, or sleazy. It's called THE TRUTH.

Here are some quotes about Obama's "new kind of politics":
http://starbulletin.com/2007/01/17/news/story02.html


http://tinyurl.com/2enem7


I see nothing in these quotes that promises not to mention anything negative about another candidate. Unless someone can find a quote wherein he makes such a promise, it's not hypocritical either.

What IS sleazy is twisting someone's words or actions and making a big stink about it, like "Kerry said the troops are stupid," or "Dean's scream," or "Obama is responsible for what Geffen said about Clintons."

Obama Campaign Circulating Negative (And False) Story About Bill Clinton
By Greg Sargent | bio
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.

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

and you find this tidbit:
http://www.observer.com/2007/bill-clinton-post

It's quibbling to say the story was false because he actually spoke on 9/10 (in USA). More than likely it was timed that way to be delivered on 9/11 at its destination.

See page 4 of this pdf
http://tray.com/pfd/S07pfd/00001/00001217.pdf

Exactly who's being false/misleading/unfair?!