Clinton Camp Hits Back At Obama Over Novak Flap
Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying any part in Robert Novak's report that they are spreading some unspecified mud against Barack Obama, an allegation for which Obama denounced them yesterday. And not only are they denying it, they're attacking Obama for trying to use it against them.
"A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games," said Hillary spokesman Howard Wolfson, in a statement. "We have no idea what Mr. Novak's item is about and reject it totally."
Comments (50)
pacc wrote on November 18, 2007 9:07 PM:Of course! O-Bomb-A - yet again - got suckered and shows his lack of experience. He would be a disaster on the national ticket.
chigger wrote on November 18, 2007 9:33 PM:Careful, pacc, this O-BOMB-a may have a long fuse.
Zorba wrote on November 18, 2007 9:36 PM:The interesting thing about all this is that Hillary is likely to get the nomination, then they will kiss and make up and she will most likely select Obama for her V.P. candidate This would lock in the black vote as well as voters who have white-guilt syndrome.
kjoe wrote on November 18, 2007 9:49 PM:A defiant Obama personally responds:
“If the purpose of this shameless item was to daunt or discourage me… it will fail.” Read full statement here.
————–
Clinton spokesman Wolfson pushes back:
“Once again Senator Obama is echoing Republican talking points…. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games. Voters should be concerned about the readiness of any Democrat inexperienced enough to fall for this.” Read full statement here.
MAKE DAMNED SURE YOU CUT IT OFF RIGHT HERE, LIKE WOLFSON SETTLED EVERYTHING WITH HIS CONVOLUTED WISDOM!
You had better points made in your first article's responses. whatNCSteve wrote on November 17, 2007 7:45 PM was my favorite----you omitted the parts where the real crux of the issue was explored-------why are you doing this?
————–
Obama Campaign Manager Plouffe responds to Wolfson’s response:
“Are ‘agents’ of their campaign spreading these rumors? And do they have ’scandalous’ information that they are not releasing?
“Yes or no?” Full statement here.
————–
Clinton spokesman Singer responds to Plouffe’s response to Wolfson’s response: “The Clinton campaign has nothing to do with this item.” Full statement here.
————–
Additional Plouffe statement says Obama campaign accepts that Clinton reps have no “scandalous information.”
But adds: “We don’t accept (the Clinton campaign’s) assertion that this is somehow falling for Republican tricks…. When Barack Obama is their nominee, he will not allow the ‘Swift boat’ politics of fear and diversion to prevail in this campaign.” Full statement here.
Huh?????
Zorba wrote on November 18, 2007 9:36 PM:
The interesting thing about all this is that Hillary is likely to get the nomination, then they will kiss and make up and she will most likely select Obama for her V.P. candidate This would lock in the black vote as well as voters who have white-guilt syndrome.
The black voters I know are perceptive. The way for Hillary to lock them in is to make sense in what she says, and what she does.
As for white guilt syndrome---I am not certain that if there is such a thing, that it has much influence over voters figuring out how to vote.
I would be shocked, shocked to discover that the Clinton camp was trying to manipulate the media behind the scenes. I don't trust her as far as I could throw her. Nixon in a pantsuit.
No, I'm not a right winger. Just a lifelong Democrat who is praying she does not get the nomination. If she does, she will do for our party about what W. has done for the Republicans.
Anyone but Hillary in '08.
Daniel wrote on November 18, 2007 10:11 PM:A new poll from Missouri has great news for the 3 top Democrats who lead all 12 match-ups against the top Republicans! Remember that the general election important too!
hadenough wrote on November 18, 2007 10:54 PM:It would be nice if tpm could get somebody that had a clue. But then tpm would have to have a clue.
marshall from the front page:
"it was Hillary's poll-tested platitudes and then Obama criticizing Hillary's establishmentarian platitudes with platitudes about change and other platitudes about avoiding platitudes."
Platitudes. Ya got that? What I can't figure out is how Hillary's 'poll-tested platitudes' ended up being 'establishmentarian platitudes.' Is marshall saying Hillary poll-tested establishmentarians? Is marshall saying people in general like 'establishmentarian platitudes.' Doesn't make sense to me. I'm not a mind reader so I'll guess marshall just wanted to see how many times he could type in 'platitudes.'
kleefled:
"Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying any part in Robert Novak's report that they are spreading some unspecified mud against Barack Obama"
novak did not report 'Clinton's campaign is... spreading some unspecified mud against Barack Obama.' First of all novak would have to be a reporter. He is a republican operative. See Plame. Secondly novak ‘reported’ “Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it.” That's from novak, republican operative. Thirdly kleefeld would have to stop clowning. Obviously that's not gonna happen.
obama is using a republican operatives smear to try to smear a serious dem nom. It's beyond disgusting. obama is *obamaing himself.
*Trademark
Anonymous wrote on November 18, 2007 11:11 PM:Daniel wrote on November 18, 2007 10:11 PM:
A new poll from Missouri has great news for the 3 top Democrats who lead all 12 match-ups against the top Republicans! Remember that the general election important too!
Uhhh---thanks for the heads up on polls daniel. I fault myself for paranoic suspicions---but I will throw them out there, anyway.
4 days ago, polling from survey usa showed Obama doing better than Hillary in Missouri on head to head matchups---so i wondered---why---another Missouri poll so soon, which---you guessed it---shows Hillary doing slightly better.
oh, but I was being paranoid---it is a poll from research 2000-different outfit--and had nothing whatsoever to do with rushing another Missouri poll to us 4 days later to show Hillary in a better light.
I'm out of the closet now, because of this story. I am proud to say I am for Hillary. She is brilliat, competent and very politically savvy. Barrack is an intellectual and a damn good orator. But he just doesn't have what it will take to beat the Repub nominee. She does.
Edwards? A pansy weight.
SurveyUSA and Research 2000 are polling companies. Doing polls is how they make their living. They will pretty much do a poll anytime, anywhere for anyone who wants a poll done and has money to pay them to do one -- even if they just polled the same race in the same state or locale the day before.
If you want to see who commissioned a poll, click the links. SurveyUSA always includes the name of the sponsor in the poll results they post on their site. Research 2000 doesn't publish results of their polls directly but like SurveyUSA they seem to political polls mostly for media clients such as TV stations and newspapers, so in most cases the publication that first reports results of one of their polls will be the one that commissioned the poll.
CalD wrote on November 19, 2007 12:26 AM:Thanks for the heads up on the Josh Marshall post, HadEnough. I would rate that Reed Hundt article on TPMCafe that he linked to as a must-read.
Akonitum wrote on November 19, 2007 1:30 AM:There is the "Clinton campaign," and then probably there are Clinton agents. Novak said "agents."
I expect Clinton agents indeed were responsible for the innuendo.
That fits with what I've read about Clinton campaign tactics in Salon and other sources, with the planter episodes, and with Clinton's associations with the likes of Murdoch and the Drudge Report. It also fits with my expectations of their tendency to parse their claims very closely to imply one thing while not saying another.
John Crandell wrote on November 19, 2007 1:49 AM:Obama and Clinton ought to get together and file one big law suit against Novak.
It's perfectly obvious what is happening here; smells like Rove to me. If Novak's report was included within his newspaper column, they should hit the Post as well, BIGTIME.
But we are overlook the obvious. What if there really is dirty on Obama? or what if Hillary has a dirt on herself for someone to find.
someone wrote on November 19, 2007 5:22 AM:well I'm not sure what to make of it all, but if TPM EC were the only place I looked for election news, I would only know HALF OF THE FUCKING STORY.
sorry Greg, you guys have jumped the shark.
Anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 6:16 AM:Zorba said "[Hillary] will most likely select Obama for her V.P. candidate."
And what makes you think Obama would accept?
Millions of thinking Democrats, progressives and independents will NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY if she is nominated. She is dishonest, unqualified, lacks sound judgment, will continue the worst of Bush-Cheney corporate-supportive war-mongering policies, and will divide the nation so deep it may never be repaired in our life time.
Obama is a man of character, principle, vision, charisma. He is true leader, not just the spouse of one. Why would he sign on to a neopotist, corporatist, Bush-Cheney-lite campaign?
If Obama does not win the nomination, he should focus on his Senate work, politely join Hillary on platform on campaign stops in Illinois and on stage at the convention. He then can wait for 2012, untarnished by the Hillary machine, and run to defeat the incumbent REPUBLCIAN president.
Anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 6:25 AM:doingnusance says "[Hillary]is brilliat, competent and very politically savvy."
Interesting analysis, but I totally disagree. Hillary may be brilliant at Atwater-Rove-Penn style attack politics, she may be good at cashig on in what Bill Clinton has accomplished. Her absolute failure with health care reform in the 1990s raises BIG questions about competence. Her votes on Iraq and Iran raise HUGE questions about her capacity for good judgment. She is calculated in every word, deed and cackle. Dishonest to the core.
We do not need Bill's wife for president. We need a leader with vision, integrity, ideas, and the capacity to inspire and persuade more thaan 50 percent of the nation. Hillary is not that leader. PERIOD.
dcshungu wrote on November 19, 2007 6:51 AM:Millions of thinking Democrats, progressives and independents will NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY if she is nominated. She is dishonest, unqualified, lacks sound judgment, will continue the worst of Bush-Cheney corporate-supportive war-mongering policies, and will divide the nation so deep it may never be repaired in our life time.
I feel your pain but I have more bad news for you and for all the far-left wingnut cases who think as you do: You are but a very small minority of the electorate and you and your vote won't matter at all unless the election is close. Millions of Americans who actually think (as opposed to those like the wingnuts who claim to be thinking Americans) would vote for Hillary and every poll has made this clear. She is leading Obama by double digits nationally, which translates into millions of Americans who would vote for her. Are they all "unthinking" Americans. The only evidence of "unthinking" Americans is that of folks like you who spew these dimwits without regards to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Just because you wish for something does not make so!
FYI: Her lead in the polls already includes the negative impact of wingnuts such as yourself who would never vote for her, meaning that even after taking your kind into account she still has a very healthy national lead. You do not matter at all. Got it?
Thomann213 wrote on November 19, 2007 8:00 AM:Excuse me Zorba, but welcome to THIS century! The idea that blacks automatically vote for a candidate because they too may be black has been proven to be myth in election after election, poll after poll, and academic study after academic study.
Black people vote just like any one else, based on their own self interest. Too perpetuate this myth is insulting.
Hillary is not that leader. PERIOD.
Wow. That was trenchant. Saying it that emphatically really helped me see the light. Oh...and thanks for writing the word "period." I wasn't quite sure you had finished until I saw that.
FYI: Her lead in the polls already includes the negative impact of wingnuts such as yourself who would never vote for her, meaning that even after taking your kind into account she still has a very healthy national lead. You do not matter at all. Got it?dcshungu - it looks to me as if you've confused some terms - "wingnuts" are conservatives, and Republican. I think the term you're looking for is "moonbat", often used derogatively to refer to progressives and "the Left", particularly by wingnuts and sometimes by DLC apologists. More to your point, I think you'll find many progressives will line up and vote for Sen. Clinton if she is ultimately nominated - many will hold their noses, but they'll vote for her. No doubt some will stay home on Election Day, which won't help anyone but Republicans - I hope that number is very low, but it's tough to say what it will be. What should be of greater concern, and if you could address it briefly I'd be grateful, is that Sen. Clinton will motivate more "wingnuts", Republicans and conservatives, to go to the polls to vote against> her than any other candidate, including Rep. Kucinich. And once they are at the polls they will vote in the other races on the ballot. If that doesn't concern you, I don't think you're paying enough attention or thinking through the possible consequences. The Democratic party stands to make gains in both houses of Congress, perhaps even substantial gains. Those gains are at risk if Republican voters are highly motivated to go to the polls - in a bad case scenario we could see a Republican POTUS emerge, AND a Republican majority in the Senate. Worst case(very unlikely, but not impossible) could leave the Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress. Not to mention state offices, such as Sec of State, you know, the folks in charge of voter registration and setting up the polls in the several states?? Just so we're clear - your dismissal of people who question the wisdom of making Sen. Clinton the Democratic nominee looks pretty foolish to me. They may not matter at all individually, but their concerns are well-grounded, and dismissing them suggests a pretty damning lack of good judgment - the same kind of judgment that insisted that collateralizing sub-prime mortgages and turning them into SIVs was a no-brainer and virtually risk-free. I'll leave you with these words of wisdom:
Just because you wish for something does not make so!Michael wrote on November 19, 2007 8:39 AM:
Good post kenga and I agree 100%. Don't hold your breath on dc addressing, let alone acknowledging, your point about republicans coming out in droves to vote against clinton II. I and others having been raising this point repeatedly with clinton II lovers and they just ignore the point. The tactic of the clinton II lovers is just to lob bombs and name call anyone who questions anything about clinton II. You are just supposed to be a good sheep and follow the queen and accept your fate at the hands of a republican getting the white house with the help of sheep clinton II lovers. Either it will be mitt the flip or clinton II, but it will be a republican sitting there nonetheless and 4 more years of stagnation at home and more dead americans and innocent iraqis in iraq.
donna wrote on November 19, 2007 8:39 AM:DESHUGANA -- Stop with the propaganda. The reason people reject Hillary is not because they are far-left wing-nuts. They reason they won't vote for her is that they are deeply ashamed of the state of politics in this country. We can thank the Clintons and their dirty tactics for that loss of faith and vicious blowback from the republicans.
loki wrote on November 19, 2007 8:46 AM:dcshugu certainly does not need me nor anyone else to speak for him/her...but after reading your post I couldn't help but point out that in the post you are refering/responding to, dcshungu I believe was criticising those who will refuse to vote if Hillary is nominated and they who actually believe she is no different--NO different--than Cheney/Bush.
For you to say their concerns are well grounded when you actually skipped over those "concerns" as actually stated is disingenuous.
loki wrote on November 19, 2007 8:49 AM:My apologies...the post from me just above is directed at Kenga.
dcshungu wrote on November 19, 2007 9:11 AM:dcshungu - it looks to me as if you've confused some terms - "wingnuts" are conservatives, and Republican.
Wrong. Conservative Republicans do not have the monopoly on wingnuttery. There are left and right wingnut cases. For me, they are pretty much the same: Fringe lunatic elements who have little or nothing constructive to contribute to the political debate because they take no prisoners: Either you are with them or they make you pay...They are loud, "passionate" and would rather throw the election to the other side than to vote for an ideologically "impure" candidate.
Gene wrote on November 19, 2007 9:24 AM:I am a life-long Democrat. I worked on Capitol Hill (4 years), for the DNC at the conventions, manages a Congressional campaign, and worked on campaigns from President down to school board. I've raised tens of thousands of dollars for Presidential candidates. I say all that for one reason: I am one of the folks out there who is a loyal Democrat, but who strongly believes if we nominate Hillary, the party will be shooting itself in the foot - yet again - by nominating someone who cannot win.
Hillary has "I would never vote for" numbers in the 48-50% range. That is an impossible negative to START with. The reason Rove and the other Republicans are telling everyone Hillary is inevitable is they are slobbering over the idea of running anyone against her. Her position on Iraq makes Iraq and non-issue; she is a fundraising goldmine for them (because she is so hated); and they have thousands of pounds of mud in their research to throw until things start to stick.
For those who agree - please consider supporting Governor Richardson - he is more qualified to be President than anyone running - I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. More importantly - he can win the election!
northlite wrote on November 19, 2007 9:28 AM:"Millions of thinking Democrats, progressives and independents will NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY if she is nominated. She is dishonest, unqualified, lacks sound judgment, will continue the worst of Bush-Cheney corporate-supportive war-mongering policies, and will divide the nation so deep it may never be repaired in our life time."
Are you really this ignorant? That you'd rather have an uncompassionate war-mongering Republican because you can't have your perfection? Why not just vote for Ralph again, there being no difference between Hillary and Rudy/Mitt/etc, except for the Supreme Court, health care, the environment, civil rights, women's rights, etc. Are you really this angry and ignorant? If you are, this is a sad day for those of us who have seen too many Dems go down to right wing Repubs because too many on the left are so idealistic that they'd undermine a moderate version of their own values with someone antithetical to their values. Get real!
kenga wrote on November 19, 2007 9:30 AM:loki - I see what you mean, I didn't directly address dcshungu's specific criticism, but frankly I didn't intend to.
I wanted to take a broader look, and bring up the myopia problem. You'll note that I wrote: "What should be of greater concern" in reference to the excoriation of "wingnuts". I'll work on my writing so that it's more clear when I'm refering to dcshungu's "wingnuts" and their fellow travelers who have deep reservations about Clinton as the nominee but not for the same reasons.
And for the record, I think anyone who paraphrases Bull Connor deserves a slap. (Meaning Connor's "It's a question of mind over matter: I don't mind and you don't matter.")
dcshungu wrote on November 19, 2007 9:31 AM:What should be of greater concern, and if you could address it briefly I'd be grateful, is that Sen. Clinton will motivate more "wingnuts", Republicans and conservatives, to go to the polls to vote against> her than any other candidate, including Rep. Kucinich.
I have addressed this oft-heard "concern" on several occasions. It won't matter. How many self-described "conservatives" (right "wingnuts") do you think make up the electorate and how many of them do you think would vote for a Dem candidate, no matter who is? 30-40% and 0%, respectively. These tare folks who are still expressing support for Bush and are die-hard Republicans, who would usually go to the polls and vote for the GOP down the line, regardless. I believe that things would start out and unfold as follows: Each side would start automatically with about 40% support from its rank and file members, which would leave about 20% of the electorate to determine the outcome of the election. These would be centrist Repubs or Dems and Independents who are generally referred to as "swing voters." It is they who would determine the election's outcome and not the number of rightwingnuts who would be motivated to go to the polls if HRC is the Dem nominee. The number of these rightwingnuts is limited so that if the rank and file Dems take to the polls to support their nominee (and I believe they will), it would be a wash, leaving folks at the center of the American political divide to pick the winner.
dcshungu wrote on November 19, 2007 9:56 AM:Gene wrote on November 19, 2007 9:24 AM:I am a life-long Democrat. I worked on Capitol Hill (4 years), for the DNC at the conventions, manages a Congressional campaign, and worked on campaigns from President down to school board. I've raised tens of thousands of dollars for Presidential candidates. I say all that for one reason: I am one of the folks out there who is a loyal Democrat, but who strongly believes if we nominate Hillary, the party will be shooting itself in the foot - yet again - by nominating someone who cannot win.
Hillary has "I would never vote for" numbers in the 48-50% range. That is an impossible negative to START with. The reason Rove and the other Republicans are telling everyone Hillary is inevitable is they are slobbering over the idea of running anyone against her. Her position on Iraq makes Iraq and non-issue; she is a fundraising goldmine for them (because she is so hated); and they have thousands of pounds of mud in their research to throw until things start to stick.For those who agree - please consider supporting Governor Richardson - he is more qualified to be President than anyone running - I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. More importantly - he can win the election!
Care to provide a link, a poll, anything that could cause anyone to take your rant seriously? Is it not a bit foolish to try to make a case that someone (HRC) can't win at a time when all indications are that she is winning, and to try to make the case that a candidate (Richardson) with single digit poll numbers can win...?? You well know he won't get anywhere, so I hope you would consider voting for Hillary (pinch off your nostrils if you must but do go and vote for your party's nominee. "Sitting his one out" would be equivalent to a vote for the other side...Your non-vote would still count...for Rudy!)
rabbit wrote on November 19, 2007 10:03 AM:In the 95% male echo chamber of political bloggery, it is easy to think that Clinton will motivate more people to vote against her than to vote for her. But remember, the voting-age population is 52% female. And I think gender will make a difference.
I don't really have a horse in this race - of all of them I prefer Kucinich, but I think it's imperative that a Democrat be elected. I really don't see how it's obvious that Obama is more electable than Clinton. As Josh Marshall points out, we've had a lot of platitudes from him -- and also a lot of mistakes. I really don't trust the people running his campaign.
rabbit wrote on November 19, 2007 10:04 AM:P.S. Just look at the poll numbers above -- Obama running neck-and-neck with Giuliani -- in MINNESOTA?????
He could still convince me. But the odds are getting steeper.
Michael wrote on November 19, 2007 10:08 AM:dc, so your response on clinton II energizing the republican base is so what? I guess we can write off all light blue and purple states then, so then what happens? She loses the election because the republican base is energized and gets out the vote in swing states to beat her. She does win NY and Cali, big deal, because she loses it all. What a way to win an election.
See polls in iowa, florida, virginia, pennsylvania, and all the other states in play basically.
Now, if you nominate someone who is not devisive, doesn't energize the republican base and generates republican support to the tune of 40%, what do you have? A democratic landslide with a mandate to run the country on a unified basis. A normal person would chose the second choice, a blind clinton II lover would rather go down in defeat.
dcshungu wrote on November 19, 2007 10:30 AM:Michael wrote on November 19, 2007 10:08 AM:dc, so your response on clinton II energizing the republican base is so what? I guess we can write off all light blue and purple states then, so then what happens? She loses the election because the republican base is energized and gets out the vote in swing states to beat her. She does win NY and Cali, big deal, because she loses it all. What a way to win an election.
See polls in iowa, florida, virginia, pennsylvania, and all the other states in play basically.
Now, if you nominate someone who is not devisive, doesn't energize the republican base and generates republican support to the tune of 40%, what do you have? A democratic landslide with a mandate to run the country on a unified basis. A normal person would chose the second choice, a blind clinton II lover would rather go down in defeat.
You have OCD because you keep asking again, and again, and again about issues that had already been addressed several times but you keep claiming that they had been ignored. And, you need to use your heard sometimes: No Dem candidate would get 40% of the Republican vote, and every Dem candidate would energize the Repub base of wingnuts? Kerry's negatives stood at 13-20% going into the GE in 2004. By election day, his negs were where Hillary's are today, after 15 years of being hounded by the MSM and every wingnut case out there. Got that?
Gene wrote on November 19, 2007 10:33 AM:dcshungu - here is one amnong many.
Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President
Other top tier candidates in both parties win more acceptance; Richardson & Huckabee favored most
While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party's presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.
The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton -- 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18-29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.
Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.? %
Clinton (D) 50%
Kucinich (D) 49%
Gravel (D) 47%
Paul (D) 47%
Brownback (R) 47%
Tancredo (R) 46%
McCain (R) 45%
Hunter (R) 44%
Giuliani (R) 43%
Romney (R) 42%
Edwards (D) 42%
Thompson (R) 41%
Dodd (D) 41%
Biden (D) 40%
Obama (D) 37%
Huckabee (R) 35%
Richardson (D) 34%
Not sure 4%
At the other end of the scale, Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrats Bill Richardson and Barack Obama faired best, as they were least objectionable to likely voters. Richardson was forever objectionable as President to 34%, while 35% said they could never vote for Huckabee and 37% said they would never cast a presidential ballot for Obama, the survey showed.
The Zogby Interactive poll, conducted Oct. 11-15, 2007, included 9,718 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of /- 1.0 percentage point.
Michael wrote on November 19, 2007 10:45 AM:Gallup poll of republican voters.
Clinton II - 78% stated that they would never vote for her, 16% said they would.
Obama - 39% said they would vote for him, 43% said they wouldn't and 18% were undecided.
Oh, my bad it was only 39% and not 40%.
Your responses concerning energizing the base have ranged from show me polls, which I have to ignoring the issue. How is that responding? Sounds like a clinton II response.
Signed - left wing, commie, pinko, wacko, wingnut, naderite, ocd etc.
Gene wrote on November 19, 2007 10:46 AM:dcshungu - on the remainder of your commentary - You sound like a HRC plant - rather than responding to any specifics, you charaterize my comments as a "rant" and rely on HRC's current lead in polls to dismiss both the points I made: HRC has a huge negative to overcome in any national election and Gov. Richardson is an attrative candidate.
On point one: Elections are about winning the swing voters - who they are and how many you need to win is the whole ballgame. When you start out at the razor's edge, you have to win them all (an almost impossible task). That is the position HRC starts with. As adept as the Repubs are at smearing, I don't put HRC's odds as very good at turing the "I will never votes" into a vote.\
On Gov. Richardson: Governors are who Americans vote to be President. The only Governor on the Dem side is Richardson AND he has the diplomatic, energy, fiscal responsibility and executive experience to win.
While being first lady undoubtedly gave HRC some insights, I strongly doubt she sat-in on many Cabinet meetings or other executive decision-making events. She was a good political advisor, but first lady is not a strong qualification for President.
To analogize: If this were an interview for the next CEO of the biggest business in the world, would the candidates with NO executive experience or the candidate who was married to a CEO even be considered?
Gene wrote on November 19, 2007 10:33 AM:dcshungu - here is one amnong many.
Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President...
Thanks for doing the research. I am aware of that poll but I give it little credence as I cannot reconcile it with anything that we've seen of Hillary juggernaut. Maybe you would be able to reconcile for us that Zogby poll with Hillary's strength in the Dem field, and why she is running almost consistently better than any other Dem candidate against Giuliani? This is not just an academic exercise: You quoted poll numbers and I would like for you to reconcile the numbers you cited with the overwhelming number of head-to-head match up polls that show Clinton running very strongly across most demographic groups. She trounces Rudy in CA and NY with a lead of some 30% and numbers approaching 70% support (while the other candidates struggle against Rudy in these electoral vote-rich Dem bastions, none of which a Dem can lose and be elected POTUS.)
People are schizophrenic about HRC: on one hand, they feel that she is the best candidate for POTUS, on the other, the constant MSM drumbeat of adjectives such as "polarizing", "cold and calculating", "ambitious" (you know the canonical list)invokes a Pavlovian reaction out of them that makes them "fear" or "distrust" Hillary... Overall: She is winning because she is the devil they know, so they are willing to take the good with the "bad"!
DonnaG wrote on November 19, 2007 10:57 AM:The public is supposed to forget recent history: that the Clinton campaign was deceptve enough to try several different spins on the waitress tip story, that the Clinton campaign was deceptive enough to have planted questions at forums, that Clinton remained deceptive enough to need two weeks to
'clarify' her position on licensing illegals, that Clinton deceptively counts within her years of 'experience' some eight years as First Lady, but hides any documentation that would support such a claim..... and through a reqauisite forgetting of these and other blatant deceptions by her campaign, the public is now supposed to believe the Hillary spokesperson spin that not one of them [through proxies] fed slime innuendos to Novak?
Well, I find her campaign behavior more and more rovian and insulting to common sense. She is actually the dirtiest Democratic candidate at the very time when this country is desperate for a thorough cleaning up of politics that can only occur with honorable leadership.
dcshungu wrote on November 19, 2007 10:58 AM:LOL. Am I a Hillary "agent" or "plant"...
dcshungu wrote on November 19, 2007 11:12 AM:DonnaG:
and through a reqauisite forgetting of these and other blatant deceptions by her campaign, the public is now supposed to believe the Hillary spokesperson spin that not one of them [through proxies] fed slime innuendos to Novak?
Madam, even you can figure this one out: If they wanted to give this story real legs and a lot of air time, why would the Clinton Camp leak it to Novak, who they despise with a passion, when they have the ubiquitous Matt Drudge?
Inquiring minds wanna know....!
rg wrote on November 19, 2007 11:13 AM:It's very odd to me, that either Novak did something really slimy or Clinton campaigners did. And yet Obama gets criticized for speaking out against it???!! It seems to me that this supports the character problem with Hillary, planted questions, accusing voters with tough questions of being coached on questions, etc...
dcshungu wrote on November 19, 2007 11:32 AM:It seems to me that this supports the character problem with Hillary, planted questions, accusing voters with tough questions of being coached on questions, etc...
Campaigns plant questions all the time as a way to get a candidate to speak about given issues. But really folks, to make a big deal out of the question planting story is bordering on the pathetic.
Reductio ad absurdun:
In order for this "question planting" issue to have any meaning at all, you would have to believe that Clinton had been provided with lists of questions that the moderators had planned to ask in advance of the many Dem debates, all of which she won, save for the Drexel U clash... We have seen her answer questions, unscripted and under pressure during the debates. What then is the meaning of the fairly common strategy of planting questions other than the embarrassment of getting caught doing it?
DonnaG wrote on November 19, 2007 11:35 AM:dcshungu, your inquiring mind is closed. You take anything written by others and simply do your damndest to 'explain' it away... as you just did about the Zogby poll of 9,000+ people.
I do not bite on your attempts to muddy matters with your invite to conjectures about why the Clinton camp would, in fact, leak to Novak, or your wild claim that they despise Novak [do they also despise Drudge?]
I am going on the recent history of Clinton camp's deceptive behavior to judge whether to 'believe' the Clinton camp in this latest matter.
dcshungu wrote on November 19, 2007 12:02 PM:I do not bite on your attempts to muddy matters with your invite to conjectures about why the Clinton camp would, in fact, leak to Novak, or your wild claim that they despise Novak [do they also despise Drudge?]
Everything in your previous post that I had responded to contained nothing but conjectures...
Conjecture: Hillary's Camp fed the innuendos to Novak.
Rebuttal: (a) consider the source; (b) the unnamed 'agents' might not even exist or be part of the Clinton Camp; (c) unspecified innuendos do not constitute a charge of anything (nothing at all was said!!!), so that real story is exactly as what the Clinton camp had described it to be. Obama's lack of political experience led him to become a hack for Novak and the GOP, who must have been high-fiving all weekend:
"A Republican-leaning journalist [read: hack] runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games," said Hillary spokesman Howard Wolfson, in a statement. "We have no idea what Mr. Novak's item is about and reject it totally."
Clinton's team would gone to Drudge! They are too good to deal with someone like Novak, a loose canon whose every writing or utterance is immediately considered suspect!
Anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 1:48 PM:Drudge and Novak are both scum suckers.
So is Rupert Murdoch, who hosted a benefit for Hillary Clinton.
Anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 1:53 PM:The responses of both camps are entirely to be expected as they seek to take advantage and make hay out of the incident.
Everyone suggesting anything else about this, including TPM, needs to take a step back and look at what happened.
1. Novak wrote piece of dubious reliability about Hillary camp having Obama gossip.
2. Obama camp tries to turn situation around by blaming Hillary.
3. Hillary camp responds by denying and blaming Obama for believing it and uses "inexperienced" meme.
BFD.
Peggy McGilligan wrote on November 19, 2007 9:43 PM:Hillary Clinton always has more than one iron in the fire, or perhaps in this case the dirt. But like a good many Americans, I don’t want either Clinton back in the White House. What is past is prologue. But before we help Hillary unpack at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue - consider the incidence of Al Qaeda flight students, trained at the University of Bill Clinton. It’s a straightforward matter. Take a minute; find an utterance, one misstatement of fact. Hillary Clinton: Positively Pandering, Definitely Duplicitous, Ultimately Unelectable: http://theseedsof9-11.com
