MyDD :: Clinton Dirty Tricks

Restore America's Strength.

^^ What he said.

by RJEvans on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:42:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Election News Update (2.00 / 1)

really? that's how a political ad should start?

It's obviously an attempt to mislead and Hillary is getting called on it.

by JoeCoaster on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:44:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Election News Update (2.00 / 1)

It clearly says "Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President" at the end. Anyone who hears that will know it is from the Clinton campaign. It's another attempted to make Clinton look evil based on the popular theory that the Clintons are wicked and shameless politicians formed by those against them.

by HillaryKnight08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:47:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by leshrac55 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:53:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Funny thing about radios... it's easy to change the station. Someone could listen to half of this and simply think that it's a news report, since, I dunno... stuff like that happens all the time on the news.

At the very least, it's misleading. Seems like the "I approve this message" thing should be a requirement perhaps at the beginning of an ad as well as the end for the radio, similar to how stations need to pause for "station identification" now because of the War of the Worlds panic.

Not saying this will cause a "panic" like that, but the idea is to be forthright. =)

by HillaryKnight08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:58:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not. It twice says (once at the beginning and once at the end) things that show that it comes from the Clinton campaign. It's not misleading. Saying that is an attempt to stretch the scenario in your favor. Which I completely understand. However, the probably of the scenerio you're explaining is very slim.

by JoeCoaster on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:01:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The "once in the beginning" version needs to be verifed. Ben Smith states this but does not tell how he got that information. I'm getting the Hillary camp sent him a 'modified' version.

by MediaFreeze on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:17:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's how a political ad should start?

Sure. Why not?

Re: Election News Update (none / 0)

Do you think this is misLeading...
http://politicalamnesia.blogspot.com/200 8/03/obama-and-his-ability-to-mislead.ht ml

by darlamc on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:40:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's a fraudulent radio ad by Clinton. (none / 0)

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:24:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well it looks like all of this (none / 0)

destructive campaigning will probably pay off. sad really.

BHO/HRC 08

by omar little on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:39:44 PM EST

Re: well it looks like all of this (2.00 / 1)

It won't, really. Irrespective of the day's results one way or another. What it does is separate those with principles from those without, in the respective campaigns, the electorate and here. I know which category I am comfortable with. Winning isn't everything. It just seems that way sometimes.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:45:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well it looks like all of this (2.00 / 1)

I'd suggest you read my comment below, and then consider whether you really want to turn this into some sort of signifier of who has principles and who doesn't.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:46:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:21:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not disputing that her campaign has released a legitimate radio ad, I accept that. I was referring to the mischaracterisation of the NAFTA/Canada dispute by her campaign. There has been quite a bit of subsequent news since the AP consulate memo was released. It's the same with the Rezko case, TPM has a balanced overview of the case as it relates to Obama but from her campaign's point of view the mere mention of the name is somehow incriminating or damaging. That seems to be the bar set by some Hillary supporters here for many months and for me that's objectionable, or at least unprincipled.

I don't expect the electorate to be well informed on all these matters and that underlies the Hillary campaign's tactics, but there seems to be no excuse for it among those who are sufficiently engaged to be blogging here.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

Are you troubled equally on the NAFTA issue by the antics of the Obama camp?

by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:31:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by JoeCoaster on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:42:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

antics? I'm troubled by the antics of a foreign government trying to insinuate itself into our elections. That's troubling....

So far every official channel (Obama and Canada) have said there is no 'there' there. Hillary is pushing a distortion plain and simple.

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:43:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not confident about it, to be sure. If the meeting was at the consulate's behest that seems significant. The AP memo's provenance is an issue, in that it arose from a relatively low level source, and it's author has not made a statement on the subject yet, to my knowledge. That this allegedly involves the PM's parliamentary secretary's offce bears consideration.

But the Hillary campaign has been muddying the water and characterising it as intentional hypocrisy, as one would expect. And there seems to be no question the Conservative government in Canada is not impartial. Jury is still out for me. And I note that the original CTV report mentioned both campaigns in this context. We'll see. In the meantime it probably has cost Obama a few points in both OH and TX, that's politics.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

Since I don't have your way with big words I'll just explain very simply how it looks from my perspective.

When the story came out, they tried to suggest it was completely unfounded. When the name of the advisor was supplied, they tried to suggest that ok, so a meeting occurred, but it wasn't about NAFTA. When a memo of the meeting was produced, they tried to suggest that ok, so there was a meeting about NAFTA after all, but nothing was said about NAFTA that was any different from what Obama has always said. Yet for some reason they went head over heels trying to pretend that no meeting happened at all!

Also, the idea that we are supposed to credit Canada's "we regret creating the impression that there was any inconsistency" over the written memo that quite clearly shows an inconsistency is just mind-boggling.

While I believe politicians pull this sort of thing all the time and the only sin is getting caught, I have nothing but scorn for Obama considering all his efforts to mislead the public regarding Hillary's position on NAFTA. Time and time again, he offered the "boon" characterization from Newsday as though it was something Clinton had actually said. He deserves to be skewered for his sanctimony on this issue.

by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:49:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:24:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, as I said, it all depends on whose behest the meeting was called and what the agenda was. My understanding is that NAFTA wasn't originally on the agenda. Whether Austan Goolsbee was acting in his capacity of Obama economic spokesperson or in his role at the University of Chicago is unclear from both sides. It's credible that Obama's campaign was unaware of this when the original denial was issued, his worst demonstrated fault in the facts of the case as we now know them. There is no question this story is a negative for Obama as it now stands.

We have not heard a word from Joseph DeMora, who wrote the memo, of which Goolsbee has disputed the wording. We've had a couple of denial/non-denials from the Canadian Embassy in Washington on the subject and now an accusation that Ian Brodie, Harper's parliamentary secretary, was the source of the leaked AP memo in the first instance, which Harper's office has denied. There are even suggestions that this was a 'set-up' by the respective conservative parties in the two countries. Consider this:

There's another coincidence. While McCain is ingratiating himself with his right-wing Canadian friends, who returned the favor by accusing Obama advisor Austan Goolsbee of making a side deal with them over Nafta, Hillary Clinton is declaring that like her, "Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

This is revolting. Is the idea to do such damage to Obama that a remorseful Democratic Party will decide he's damaged goods after all, and she, by default, is McCain's only true adversary. Then her strategy would be better known as scorched earth than kitchen sink. And it's revolting. One way or the other, it's revolting.

Todd Gitlin - Talking Points Memo 4 Mar 08

I don't take that strong a view, frankly, but agree that solidarity among Democrats is as much an issue now as the veracity of Hillary's accusations.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

The idea that Goolsbee was somehow wearing his "professor" hat and not his "campaign advisor" hat when he talked about the campaign's rhetoric is just ludicrous.

It's not credible that Obama's campaign was unaware of the meeting, since Bill Burton has admitted that they knew about the meeting from the moment the original CTV story aired.

Based upon inaccuracies in the original story like calling it the embassy instead of the consulate, they tried to hide behind dodgy denials like "the facts of the story are inaccurate." Later, you had events like the candidate himself saying "it did not happen," which can only be a true statement if you consider "it" to refer only to the specific meeting alleged in the original story complete with all the background facts. Very, very dishonest behavior throughout this entire episode.

As for the notion that the whole thing was a set-up by a conservative government, I'd be more sympathetic if there had been a little more honesty throughout the process. Heck, you still have Obama supporters loudly proclaiming across the blogs that because those various details in the original story were inaccurate, somehow Obama's denials have been 100% unvarnished truth all along. This behavior is really sad.

My bottom line is that if you let your campaign get hoodwinked by a foreign government, it's kind of on you. Not to make too much of the episode, but part of the job description is to not give other countries an opportunity to spread egg on your face.

by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:11:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:21:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I take your point and it is definitely a bad moment. I still think the original denial is unfortunate but credible. But your argument has become one of 'process' rather than intent and on that we can agree. Point to Hillary, no question.

Re: Clinton Dirty Tricks - Ohio (2.00 / 2)

Yes, its a radio ad and its made clear by the "Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President" at the end. I also noticed something strange. The person who posted this report has a string of anti-Clinton diaries. I kindly entreat all people too question his objectivity.

by HillaryKnight08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:42:58 PM EST

Re: Clinton Dirty Tricks - Ohio (2.00 / 1)

***I meant that the person who posted the report on the website has a string of anti-Clinton reports.

by HillaryKnight08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:44:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

lol (none / 0)

guilty as charged...have you check susanwho's diary history?

by JoeCoaster on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lol (none / 0)

In the midst of your statement, I can firmly claim that Clinton is innocent this time. If anything considering the post from Steve, Obama is the one who would guilty. Although, I feel that I am not in the position to claim anyone guilty. Yet, it strongly contradicts his message of change.

by HillaryKnight08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:49:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

check the Newsday link provided (none / 0)

I'm not the source of the story.

by JoeCoaster on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:47:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: check the Newsday link provided (none / 0)

Yes, I know. In my correction post underneath my original post, I says the person from the website. I am truly sorry if it seemed as if I was accusing you.

by HillaryKnight08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:50:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So you're saying he's acting like Susanhu?

Re: Clinton Dirty Tricks - Ohio (2.00 / 3)

Here's the real scoop on this issue.

As Ben Smith reports, this radio ad says at the very beginning, "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approved this message." Obviously, no one who hears that would think they were listening to a news report.

The Obama campaign is passing around a transcript of the ad with the "I approved this message" line REMOVED, attempting to suggest that Clinton is actually running a "fake news report" instead of a political ad with the standard disclaimer at the very start. And yeah, if it weren't clearly identified as a political ad at the outset, maybe that would be sneaky, except it is clearly identified.

Note how Mark Halperin's post on this says at the very top that the script was provided by the Obama campaign.

Note how Ben Smith was taken in as well until he actually listened to the spot and supplied an update.

Removing the "I approved this message" line from the script and attempting to claim that Clinton is running a "fake news report" was a clever Election Day ploy by the Obama campaign. I give them credit. This diarist probably honestly believed there was a "Clinton dirty trick."

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:45:57 PM EST

by JoeCoaster on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:48:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Even with the disclaimer I have a problem with an ad faking it as a real news report. Some people will be fooled, which is the intent.

Re: Clinton Dirty Tricks - Ohio (2.00 / 2)

What do you think the intent is of the Obama campaign distributing a transcript with the "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approved this message" line removed from the beginning of the ad?

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:53:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by JoeCoaster on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:57:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ben Smith did not say where he got the 'aired' version from. The Clinton campaign perhaps? This is not a closed case in my book.

by HillaryKnight08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:02:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It seems that Mr. John Riley was so eager to post a report that would reaffirm the theory of Clinton's blackheartedness, that he forgot that there was a "Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President," at the end. Regardless of how you stretch it, I will continue to point out those seven words at the end.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

I find it amusing how you're continuing to blaze full speed ahead with this allegation, based on your imagination that "perhaps" the Clinton campaign doctored a new version, provided it to Ben Smith, and he didn't bother to report that it had come from the Clinton campaign.

I wonder if your mind is open even the least little bit to the possibility that the Obama campaign is pulling a fast one by deleting that opening line from their transcript.

by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:13:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by democrat voter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

dirty tricks are a staple of Axelrod and company. Obama has spent this whole past year trying to convince voters that Hillary is so divisive when by his very doing of that he is the divisive one, not her. Obama supporters further this divisiveness by claiming false things about Hillary. If Obama whines anymore he needs a skirt, geez!

democrat voter

-----------
Blog: http://fitnessnerd.blogspot.com/

Thank you!

Once again, Obama supporters show just how thin skinned they are. If Obama wins the Nomination, they're going to be chewed up in the General.

by FitnessNerd on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:50:07 PM EST

by JoeCoaster on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:59:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe you haven't heard all the 'media is soooo unfair' wining from the Clinton camp. Spare me!

by MediaFreeze on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:00:48 PM EST

Ouch - Truth hurts.

Facts are sticky things...

Maybe Obama should never have said, "It didn't happen." when asked last Thursday.

I can see that coming up in a few ads as well.

This one is really going to hurt.

by JoeCoaster on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:04:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reality hurts and faking an AP news report on the radio does not make true.

by MediaFreeze on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:13:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's not true?

It's a campaign ad that references the AP news story. What's wrong with that? Do they say anything that is not true? That's the problem Obama has with this issue. When you tell two different groups two different things and then say you didn't do it, nothing happened, you have to expect that your opponent is going to point this out to voters. If the facts were reversed don't you think Obama would tell Ohioans about it.

The initial CTV was completely debunked. (none / 0)

Obama was talking about that story, and events as described in that report never happened.

Now, it's become clear that the rightwing Canadian government was playing games with the US election.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:23:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by democrat voter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:05:53 PM EST

I just get sooooooo tired of these Obama people. They are the whiners in this race, Obama is a thin skinned guy who can't even take a news conference but walks out when the questions get even a little tough. Is this a way for any one who wants to be President to act? Of course not, Obama needs to get better or he will be trounced if he were the nominee. Of course, if he is, he doesn't get my paltry vote.

democrat voter

by JoeCoaster on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:09:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

After a week of "the media is being soooo unfair" from Clinton and friends. It's kind of the entire bases of her campaign at this point.

Talking about the thin skinned Obama people is laughable.

by MediaFreeze on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The media has been clearly biased. That's appropriate to point out as well.

natch (none / 0)

Right, how in the world does a campaign that lost 11 straight states not get the same positive coverage as the winning campaign. It's total unbelievable!

It was 'whinnning'...

by JoeCoaster on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:18:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: natch (none / 0)

Ah, the delusion that Obama's positive coverage only started within the last month. Keep working on creating that reality for yourselves, guys, but I'm going to stay in the real one.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:32:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by MediaFreeze on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:15:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let me ask you a question. If Obama gets the nomination and the media gangs up on him and gives McCain unwavering positive coverage, would you think Obama should point that out?

by JoeCoaster on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:20:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

unwavering positive coverage...

Again, 11 straight wins gets you positive coverage. That's the real world.