Obama Slams Hillary For Reports Of Dirt-Mongering

Comments (122)

DemAC wrote on November 17, 2007 4:44 PM:

So now Novak (of all people!) is gospel to “the Politics of Hope” Obama? Novak supplies the mud and Obama happily slings it in Hillary’s direction. A very sad affair and it reflects poorly upon Obama.

mkolb wrote on November 17, 2007 4:46 PM:

Why on earth would Sen Obama or his people believe anything that Robert Novak "broke". Do they not remember that this is the man who blew the cover of a CIA agent without a backward glance or word of apology. Talk about the politics of personal destruction.

Rather than demand answers from Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama should be demanding answers from Robert Novak.

This sounds so Karl Rove

bjmoody wrote on November 17, 2007 4:49 PM:

Good for Senator Obama. We all still remember what happened to Senator Kerry when he wrongly thought that the swiftboat issue would go away. It did not, and Senator Kerry did not recover from the damage. I am pleased that Senator Obama is responding quickly and decisively to the smear. Otherwise, he will lose ground and be viewed as a pushover. I hope that Senator Clinton is not involved in this, but I am not too optimistic. We democrats should not smear each other. Discussing differences on issues is one thing, but personal smears must not be tolerated, and definitely must be acknowledged and forcefully pushed back.

Dave wrote on November 17, 2007 4:52 PM:

Rather than demand answers from Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama should be demanding answers from Robert Novak.

In the full statement, he actually goes after Novak first, calling out the column as "devoid of facts, but heavy on innuendo and insinuation" and referring to it as "shameless." That referring to Novak, not Clinton. He only then goes to criticize Clinton.

He goes after both, not one over the other.

Hatch wrote on November 17, 2007 4:52 PM:

Novak "broke" the story that Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA agent. Obviously, he shouldn't have printed that information. But it doesn't make that part of the story false. If Clinton's people are leaking to Drudge, as we've already learned, why wouldn't they also be leaking to Novak?

NYMARJ wrote on November 17, 2007 5:01 PM:

So the little birdie Rove spoke to the doucebag (as Jon Stewart calls him) and there is more dissension among Democrats - yippee. Also I do not see any mention of Howard Wolfson's strong disclaimer or attack on Novak in your report. Boy is this campaign season going to be even dirtier than the last one - hard to believe.

Avi Patil wrote on November 17, 2007 5:03 PM:

Looks like Obama camp is desparate...Trying to make a big deal of whatever Novak of all people is saying.

Dave and Bjmoody this is what republican playbook is...

If obama was smart he would make truce with Hillary and get on as VP. He could get 8 years of experience in white house. He can influence some of Hillary's policies and Dems can hold on to white house for next 16 years..

Dave wrote on November 17, 2007 5:07 PM:

If obama was smart he would make truce with Hillary and get on as VP. He could get 8 years of experience in white house. He can influence some of Hillary's policies and Dems can hold on to white house for next 16 years..

Hillary Clinton would never in 1 million years select Obama as her running mate. That's crazy talk.

The only conceivable appointment I could possibly see her giving him is a seat on the Supreme Court.

AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on November 17, 2007 5:09 PM:

Of course, the Clinton campaign is behind this! Give me a break. Their ties to Drudge are well documented in both the liberal and mainstream press. What really disgusts me is that Senator Obama is the the father of two young daughters old enough to hear about this garbage. This also reminds me how Senator Clinton covered for her husband with saccharin press conferences when women he sexually pursued called him on it during the New Hampshire primary. Talk about mud! Senator Obama has every right to call Senator Clinton on the disgusting behavior of the minions she employs.

hadenough wrote on November 17, 2007 5:11 PM:

Beyond pathetic.

"From Howard Wolfson:

Once again Senator Obama is echoing Republican talking points, this time from Bob Novak.

This is how Republicans work.

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.

Voters should be concerned about the readiness of any Democrat inexperienced enough to fall for this.

There is a campaign in this race that has engaged in the very practice that Senator Obama is decrying, and it's his.

We have no idea what Mr. Novak's item is about and reject it totally. Instead of pointing fingers at us, Senator Obama should get back to the issues and focus on what this election is really about."

Marsh nails obama:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26570

And here let me help put kleefeld:
Clinton endorsed by SMART union
LAS VEGAS - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday accepted the endorsement of a 230,000-member labor group that will soon be formed through a merger.

SMART, the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, will merge the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association and the United Transportation Union in January. The New York senator had previously received the endorsement of the transportation union, which is the larger of the merging unions with 125,000 active and retired members in the railroad, bus and public transit industries.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071117/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_union

Hey don't mention it.

Can't wait for obama/obama central's post trashing the SMART Union.

hadenough wrote on November 17, 2007 5:22 PM:

"AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on November 17, 2007 5:09 PM:
What really disgusts me is that Senator Obama is the the father of two young daughters old enough to hear about this garbage."

What in the world are you talking about? I kindly point out you are nutz. [that was being kind]

novak, the guy that outed a cia agent, spouts lies. obama, very desperate, picks up the lies and runs with them.

nofacts novak:
"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. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed. ... "

What "garbage" are you so upset obama's duaghters are hearing? You are nutz.

*** UPDATE 2 *** The manager of the of the restaurant tells First Read the Clinton campaign did, in fact, tip.

"They paid their bill, and they left a tip," said Brad Crawford, manager of the Maid Rite restaurant in Toledo, Iowa. "Everybody was satisfied. No question about it."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/08/455077.aspx

Maid-Rite's manager, Brad Crawford, said Thursday that while he was not present at the restaurant on Oct. 8, he knew that a bill was paid by the campaign that day. He also said that he believed three of six servers working that day received tips from people he thought were working for or affiliated with the Clinton campaign.

Crawford said he didn't know if campaign staffers meant "for their tips to be distributed to everybody" or whether they were meant only for individual servers.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16143435

This just can't be typed in enough: You are nutz

GOPmurderedconscience wrote on November 17, 2007 5:25 PM:

This is straight out of the GOP playbook and Obama is gladly playing along. Just like they blamed Clinton on Fox Noise for propagating that Obama was educated in a madrassa.
Maybe the Obama campaign itself is behind this, because this would be the story on right wing media for the entire week. Listen in the next couple of days to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox.

I am starting to asked myself why Obama's opponents, Dems or Rs, always had to drop out because of some dirt suddenly found about them.

kjoe wrote on November 17, 2007 5:39 PM:

Hillary is in a position to do the political process a great service.

The accusations Novak made were against her---not Obama. Novak has cast aspersions upon the people surrounding her. Hillary is the one who is playing along with the republican swiftboat playbook.

She is the one who needs to confront Novak---in person, if necessary, and tell him he is a fraud, and a liar, and he cannot name the agents he claims he heard this from.

You do not ignore these clowns---you nail them to the wall---

unless......you......can't.

acf wrote on November 17, 2007 5:45 PM:

Robert Novak. Now, there's a voice that you can depend on for ethical reporting. Can you say Valerie Plame? If Obama is listening to him, it's just further evidence that he's not ready for prime time, and following the same old, tired game plan of divisive attack politics to get what he wants.

AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on November 17, 2007 5:47 PM:

Please -- a sense of humor and balance. I was a waitress once. The name is to honor all those hard working ladies, including the one who rightly defended Senator Clinton. (I do know her campaign tipped the waitress.) Indeed, whenever I am out at a political event, I always tip the waitress at least 20%. The title is a reminder to all political junkies to "always tip the waitress!"

colonpowwow wrote on November 17, 2007 5:53 PM:

Excuse me, but I'm getting a headache.

Let me get this straight. Obama is criticizing Hillary because Bob Freakin' Novak says that her campaign claims to have dirt on Barry but ISN'T using it?

I heard it's something really nasty, like her saying that Obama didn't even maintain any personal records from his time in the Illinois legislature or something like that.

Obama in 2016!

Anonymous wrote on November 17, 2007 5:55 PM:

Hey Barac, maybe you should not demand anything from Sen. Clinton based on what traitor Novak wrote.

George W wrote on November 17, 2007 5:56 PM:

Hey Barac, maybe you should not demand anything from Sen. Clinton based on what traitor Novak wrote.

Anonymous wrote on November 17, 2007 5:57 PM:

It seems that the Clinton campaign has forgotten what the Republican Playbook looks like. Here's a play from the Republican Playbook:

Hillary Clinton is a man-hating lesbian who wants to kill your babies

Another play:

Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster because (insert insane rationale, like she was having an affair with him)

Saying that he hasn't taken clear stands on issues to avoid being on the wrong side of a poll? I guess a Republican might say that, but I doubt it because it's true--and Republicans hate the truth (and they really like smearing with sex and murder when it comes to the Clintons).

Another Republican play:

Hillary Clinton looked the other way on her husband's serial rape and cocaine dealing because she wanted power.

When Obama is confronted with a reporter (loosely used term when it comes to traitorous ass clowns) stating that Clinton has dirt on you, he has to respond lest it becomes part of the narrative that he is hiding something. This seems fair. Clinton supporters seem to think any act of defense on the part of the other candidates is straight out of the Republican Playbook--which is itself straight out of the Republican Playbook.

Straight out of the Republican Playbook:

Hillary Clinton stole FBI files to spy on her political rivals and also listened in on their conversations.

Not out of the Republican Playbook:

I disagree with Hillary Clinton because I don't think mandated health insurance is a good idea because it is unenforceable and because the real problem is that people can't afford it.

See?

someone wrote on November 17, 2007 5:57 PM:

wow. there is a lot missing from this blog post.

Jane wrote on November 17, 2007 6:01 PM:

Clinton cannot choose Obama as vice-president without looking weak: he has cast too many aspersions against her.

She should not appoint him to the Supreme Court because he is not strong enough on civil liberties.

The idea that Hillary, if she has discovered dirt on Obama, should not reveal it because he has two young daughters is ridiculous. If she has found dirt, who else is going to find dirt? She should let him win the primaries and then the Republicans can disclose this dirt?

The whole thing right now is ridiculous: Obama is attacking Clinton on the basis of double hearsay: Novak says someone says she said. As an attorney he should know better. Yes, Novak is attemptong to make trouble between Democrats (successful, thanks to Obama) and a swiftboating of Obama by Novak. The proper counter is to attack Novak, telling him to name his sources or shut up or I'll see you in court. Novak can win that case only if he can name reasonable sources.

This whole pattern of Obama attacking her about things that haven't been said is getting very old. Yelling Mama, she hit me when she didn't is one of the oldest childhood ploys.

bg wrote on November 17, 2007 6:03 PM:

So I guess there are three scenarios here:
1. Obama is piggybacking on Novak's whole cloth inventions to strike a political blow
2. Clinton is so covetous of the nomination that she'll trade in calumny and slander to win it
3. Obama has secrets

This is pretty effective story in terms of touching on the essential fears of supporters of either campaign in such a way that they'll be viciously pitted against each other, fighting for scraps of the truth where there may be none at all.

Anonymous wrote on November 17, 2007 6:11 PM:

Seriously? Take Novak to court? Really? Aside from the fact that the case would come up after the general election rather than the primary (defeating the whole purpose), you would be hard pressed to get the Court to force a reporter to reveal his sources (remember how hard it was to wring anything out of Judy Miller in a criminal prosecution).

As for "double hearsay" not being worth responding to: this ain't court. This is an election. You don't get to exclude the evidence so you have to try to negate it. You don't have the luxury of keeping your mouth shut unless there is direct evidence.

Irishamerican wrote on November 17, 2007 6:15 PM:

Good for Barack.
Good for all of us that are posting on here that aren't in The Hillary's "War Room".
There are those of us in the public, (regular people) that appreciate a man that will stand up for what he believes in and refuses to bow down in fear of the Clinton Machine OR Republican smear tactics. I wholeheartedly support Barack in putting the "politics of Hope" into action. Refusing to let the Clinton "campaign" or Republican hit stealth hit squads define what the Politics of Hope speaks volumes to me. This is a perfect example of how Barack Obama is going to clean up DC. At the Google town hall last week, someone from the audience asked him how he would clean up a corrupt DC system, when to do so would, would depend on the very people that benefit from it to change their ways. He quickly answered with a one word answer that summed it up....
Shame.
He explained that sunlight and transparency would be the only way to do it. He then described, in detail, how he would accomplish this. As President, he would incorporate an "online" searchable, cross-referenced database that is in a universal platform that would make anyone be able to match up earmarks, tax breaks, and representatives with specific legislation. He also pledged to have all bills and pending legislation up on the web for at least 5 days before he would sign it. This system will incorporate a "comments" system much like we have right here and on other blogs, so citizens could have input into what they thought of it.
Shame.
Making legislators have second thoughts to exposing themselves to the sunshine of citizen participation. A path right into the Oval Office inviting all of us to participate. He would also appoint a "CTO" or Chief Technological Officer, (Larry Lessig anyone?) to oversee and implement this system.
I applaud Barack Obama for standing up for himself and all of us with this bold, unfearing, exposure of this alleged "whisper campaign". This not only shows that he is no wilting violet, but once again he is showing that he is placing his bets on the American People to make informed decisions on there own without "spin" once they are informed.
He scares the shit out of the DC establishment structure. They depend on lack of exposure and low voter information to continue in this government "of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation".
The only friends he is going to have in this fight is us, the regular people of this nation. The special interests, (to include the "consultant class" who's very existance depends on the current corrupt system) will be no help to him, in fact, they will do everything to undermine his efforts.
So we who support Barack Obama encourage and support what he is doing here. All of those that want to scream his "inexperiance" in this matter don't know what the hell they are talking about. Your way would be for him to "be quiet" and not to give any of this legs, going along with the "good team, bad team" mentality that keeps us divided, and the consultant class in business.
All of this is acedemic though. The only test is the elections which start on January 3rd, 2008.
The Voters of Iowa are engaged, they are watching, and their are a lot of people that are going to wake up on January 4th to the understanding that their corrupt, conventional system is not only under attack, but it is getting it's ass kicked by the people led by Barack Obama.

Some of you call this "inexperiance".
I call it "Leadership".

Teresa wrote on November 17, 2007 6:16 PM:

Hey BG -- Here's another scenario for you. Robert Novak made this entire thing up in order to sow dissent amongst Democrats. After all, he cites no sources for the information and no other journalists have come forward to say they are hearing the same thing from the Clinton camp. Until one does, I say Novak is a damn liar.

MonaL wrote on November 17, 2007 6:19 PM:

"Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles..."

Geez, Obama really fell for it. Douchebag didn't even hear this first hand, so he doesn't even have to name his source, it's a rumor circulated in Dem circules.

Obama should have just laughed it off as an obvious rovian tactic. The Rethugs are scared, we need to act like we know it they are.

And why not Clinton/Obama? He'd be perfect to take over after 8 years of experience as VP.

CalD wrote on November 17, 2007 6:22 PM:

Slow news day, eh?

Anonymous wrote on November 17, 2007 6:26 PM:

Novak put it into print, but Hillary's "whisper campaign" against Obama is well known in D.C. It's the type of tactic Rove used for Bush against Ann Richards in the Texas governor's race and against McCain in the South Carolina primary.

Anyone who knows the Clintons is not surprised by this. Hillary is on the ropes and she's now hitting below the belt. Anything to win. So the sleaze begins.

Obama is wise to confront it head on. Novak is the messanger, not the source. Hillary needs to be "man enough" to either state that there is nothing to the rumor or come clean.

kjoe wrote on November 17, 2007 6:41 PM:

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''Teresa wrote on November 17, 2007 6:16 PM:
Hey BG -- Here's another scenario for you. Robert Novak made this entire thing up in order to sow dissent amongst Democrats. After all, he cites no sources for the information and no other journalists have come forward to say they are hearing the same thing from the Clinton camp. Until one does, I say Novak is a damn liar.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

I accept your scenario Teresa. The problem is---your saying so does not mean much. Hillary confronting him does not involve going to court. It would be a matter of public opinion----she damages his credibility---by exposing him as a fraud.

For some reason, all the Clinton supporters seem to be saying---do like President Kerry---laugh it off. Slow news day. Yawn.

bg wrote on November 17, 2007 6:45 PM:

Teresa, I accounted for the possibility of Novak lying in scenario 1. Even if that is the case, Obama's rebuttal clearly takes a swipe at Clinton:

"She of all people, having complained so often about 'the politics of personal destruction,' should move quickly to either stand by or renounce these tactics."

I happen to be an Obama supporter. I'm just trying to lay out avenues of interpretation without the specious advocacy already marring this thread. The Clinton campaign's response to the Obama memo (not posted here) is equally barbed.

terry hallinan wrote on November 17, 2007 6:49 PM:

Senator Clinton doesn't answer questions. She says everybody knows what she is.

Sorry, Obama. You are now part of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy along with half the country.

Best, Terry

GOPmurderedconscience wrote on November 17, 2007 7:05 PM:

This is what Joe Klein posted and he is spot on. If you have any doubt listen to Rush and Hannity next week. They know, this story planted by a well known Republican Operative damages both Clinton and Obama.

"This is outrageous. Journalists are continually bombarded with rumors, often scurrilous. They are not news. Rumors only become news when they are confirmed, cross-checked and responded to by the target of the attack. There are two possible reasons why Novak is peddling unconfirmed cra: (a) he is getting too old to do the actual legwork long-associated with his column (and respected even by those of us who find his views reprehensible) or (b) he has simply abandoned all pretense of being a journalist.

But you must understand that this is a smear that tarnished both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama."

By the way isn't it strange that the story starts with this? "Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent".
I guess those "Democratic Circles" include Obama's staff, operatives, friends, outside consultants and sympathizers. Why hasn't anyone of them come across the story and why is Novak of all people the one to publish it?

lcw wrote on November 17, 2007 7:18 PM:

If the Clinton people had nothing to do with Novak's statements, then obviously Hillary would say so. It would actually help her to denounce Novak and the politics of sleaze. If she doesnt't do that, it I think it's safe to assume that the sleaze came from her.

kjoe wrote on November 17, 2007 7:21 PM:

In spite of what Novak did in outting Valerie Plame----something desired by the neocons----Klein offers:

(a) he is getting too old to do the actual legwork long-associated with his column (and respected even by those of us who find his views reprehensible) or (b) he has simply abandoned all pretense of being a journalist.

So don't worry about Novak---which is the kerry swiftboat response---this could turn out to be a good issue for Obama.

The under current is that he is seizing an opportunity to remind democrats----Hillary is much more vulnerable to swiftboating than I am---you had better make sure she knows how to handle it before you nominate her.

merri wrote on November 17, 2007 7:22 PM:

My friends all tell me I'm a conspiracy theorist, so here's the angle I've been looking at. The financial manager of Hillary's campaign owns the National Enquirer. They planted story in the back pages last month that John Edwards was cheating on his wife. When MSNBC noted who owned the Enquirer, the story went away. Hmmm. This part is all true.

Well, lets all just wait to hear that Obama has a love child with three heads that he has been keeping hidden with his Muslim friends in Indonesia.

Can we have our country back now?

NCSteve wrote on November 17, 2007 7:45 PM:

First, I don't think Obama's "just responding to Novak." Three little straws in the wind.

1. Joe Klein broadly hinted that he's heard these "rumors" too, and not just from Novak.
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2007/11/garbage_in_journalism_out.html
Personally, it seems to me like Ben Smith at Politico is writing like a guy who wasn't exactly taken by surprise by this too, but I put in "seems to me" for a reason. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

2. Halpirin notes that Novak "has some pretty good sources in the Clinton campaign."
http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-on-bob-novaks-clinton-obama-report/

3. Last week sometime, someone using a nickname I never saw before and have not seen since oozed onto a TPMEC thread and essentially said that Obama's campaign would be over once "the truth" about his sexual indescretions and mob ties came out. I went ballitic (for me) in response. It was just so foul a comment, and so over the top, for this place, playing as it did on the ugliest, most base racial stereotypes, that it shocked me. The stuff posted by the this places's regular borderline troll Obama-hater was tame, and inside the lines, compared to this filth.

So personally, I think it may well be that Novak finally published a bit of poison that someone has been shopping around journalistic circles for a while now but that none of the ones with a shred of, oh, integrity, shame, self-respect, conscience--all that stuff that Novak so utterly lacks--wouldn't touch. That's his and Drudge's purpose, in fact. They convert the slimy stuff none of the others will touch (first) into news by publishing it so everyone else can talk about it without feeling too bad about themselves. Just like he did with the Swift Liars and the Plame outing.

Second, based on the above speculation, I would further speculate that Obama's campaign has been aware that this was going around for a while and, rightly or wrongly, believed it was, in fact, coming from Hillary's campaign. (Speaking of Drudge and Novak, btw, Hillary's campaign has a pipeline into the septic tanks of both of these rancid pus-mongers now.) Knowing it would be published eventually, they saw an opportunity to make the point that a) it's all lies, b) they're going to hit back hard at this kind of stuff as soon as it surfaces, c) people who think Obama's too nice to win and are reluctantly supporting Hillary because they think only she can wage a sufficiently bloody fight to win against the Republicans need not worry. (That latter is certainly something I read constantly in blog comments: "I don't like her but she's the only one who can fight dirty enought to win.")

Finally, as an aside, we all know that the campaigns watch this site carefully and we all know that their campaigns--and their oppo teams--drop the more than occaisional birdy into the TPM'ers ears. (Hell, most of us suspect that campaign operatives post from time to time, though there's a rather marked tendency to use that charge whenever people think someone's too fulsome or spinning too hard.) I'd be really interested to know if any of them had ever heard any hint of this garbage before. I doubt they could tell us without burning a source, though.

Anonymous wrote on November 17, 2007 8:07 PM:

It is very nice of the people at tpm to post Hillary's matchups in Iowa---where people have been taking a close look at the candidates--- right below the comments section----and even nicer of them to provide a link which gives----the rest of the story. Good day.

IA-Pres
Nov 16 SurveyUSAClinton (D) 47%, Giuliani (R) 43%IA-Pres
Nov 16 SurveyUSAClinton (D) 49%, Romney (R) 43%IA-Pres
Nov 16 SurveyUSAClinton (D) 49%, Huckabee (R) 43%IA-Pres
Nov 16 SurveyUSAMcCain (R) 48%, Clinton (D) 44%IA-Pres
Nov 16 SurveyUSAObama (D) 52%, Giuliani (R) 39%IA-Pres
Nov 16 SurveyUSAObama (D) 53%, Romney (R) 39%IA-Pres
Nov 16 SurveyUSAObama (D) 56%, Huckabee (R) 35%IA-Pres
Nov 16 SurveyUSAObama (D) 50%, McCain (R) 42%

DonnaG wrote on November 17, 2007 8:34 PM:

Obama's strength is centered in integrity, and so was his response to to this whisper smear about 'Hillary agents speaking through Novak'.
His response was the opposite of 'staying quiet' or 'laying low'. Obama loudly and clearly called the chickensh*t whisperers' bluff for all the world to see, and did so in the same manner he usually employs, which is to use this occurence as yet another 'educable moment'.

I can just imagine Wolfson's devious mind working this one........'Ok, if Obama declines to say anything, we can call him weak, or we can wonder aloud about him, em, hiding something..... and... but ok, if Obama reacts to this, we can call him inexperienced to be falling for this.' Sorry, Howard Wolfson, guess you don't have what it takes to snare a man like Obama into your construct.

pacc wrote on November 17, 2007 8:44 PM:

Uh-oh, sounds like Saint Barry got caught!

BrewhouseBob wrote on November 17, 2007 9:14 PM:

pacc, you sound like a troll.

Whether HRC or her minions had anything to do with this, it is clear that she is far too much a part of the problem... Politics as usual... I'm sick of it. This has to change.

george wrote on November 17, 2007 9:41 PM:

Seems to me there are way too many Clinton operatives writing comments aginst Obama in this TPM site. The Clintons are capable of this type of sleaze; they perfected dirty campaign in the 90s. remeber when Bill slept with Monica, Jones,and Kathleen Wiley, and how James Carville was trashing these women. The fact is the Republicans are going to revive all these issues about Bill's sexcapades and that's why Clinton won't win against Gulliani. The smart thing Democracts can do this time is to nominate Barack if they want to avoid losing the way Kerry and Gore did in the past election cycles.

Ogre Mage wrote on November 17, 2007 9:59 PM:

Why is Obama drinking Novak's grape-flavored Kool-Aid? Novak is about as fair and nonpartisan of a source as Katherine Harris overseeing the Florida 2000 election. Any fool could see Novak's ulterior motive.

Ogre Mage wrote on November 17, 2007 10:08 PM:

The fact is the Republicans are going to revive all these issues about Bill's sexcapades and that's why Clinton won't win against Gulliani.

I have to chuckle at this. Are you not aware of Giuliani's sordid personal life? Attacking Bill will open the door to do an expose on Rudy's skeletons. I don't think they want to open up that can of worms.

Anonymous wrote on November 17, 2007 10:11 PM:

When did they nominate Rudy?

stlounick wrote on November 17, 2007 10:16 PM:

Senator Clinton needs to issue a personal statement disavowing Novak's column as NOT originating from her campaign. Novak may be a Republican fool but he has actually charged the Clinton campaign with sleaziness. Hillary should personally address this; Wolfson blaming Obama for Novak's accusations is simply not enough.

Anonymous wrote on November 17, 2007 10:33 PM:

Obama and his supporters appear to be fools.

p_lukasiak wrote on November 17, 2007 10:36 PM:

bottom line here is that Obama made himself look like an idiot here.

The smart thing to do would have been to challenge Novak's credibility, then throw the controversy over to the Clinton camp to deal with -- but in an impartial way. (something like "Listen, we all know that not only is Novak careless with the truth, he's a direct pipeline from Karl Rove and the DNC when they want to smear someone -- so I'm not taking this seriously. This isn't just an attempt to smear me, but Senator Clinton as well -- and I expect that you will be hearing from her campaign soon.")

What he did was accuse Clinton of being responsible for the smear (demand that she "concede" that there was no basis for it), which was really dumb unless he had some proof -- which he clearly doesn't.

The fact is that there are a lot of idiots supporting both candidates who are more than capable of starting rumors about the other candidate -- and these people have no connection to the campaign. Unfortunately, Obama hasn't figured that out yet, and lashed out at Hillary without any justification.

Its a rookie mistake, and Wolfson is right -- Democratic voters can't afford to risk losing the election because Obama doesn't understand how the media works. Because the media is interested in hyping a battle between Obama and Clinton, this episode won't have much impact --- but if Obama had lashed out like this at his GOP opponent in a general election, he would have been hounded by the media until he apologized (and he would, eventually), then called weak for doing so.

p_lukasiak wrote on November 17, 2007 10:45 PM:

oops, in the above post,

Karl Rove and the DNC

should read

Karl Rove and the RNC

Anonymous wrote on November 17, 2007 11:04 PM:

I think that Obama was right to respond the way he did. If he doesn't respond forcefully people would wonder what it was that was out there and why he seemed to be avoiding it. The "tell me what you've got, or cut out the garbage" approach makes the statement that he doesn't believe he has anything to be afraid of. Regardless of whether this really was started up by Novak, from agents of Hillary, or from others, it was out there and he was right to respond forcefully.

And for those of us who think that Hillary is 100% ambition and will say or do anything to win, it doesn't seem unreasonable for Obama to believe that she either was behind this or will soon be behind something else sketchy to try to hurt him.

pacc wrote on November 17, 2007 11:07 PM:

Well, over on Raw Story, there's some guy from Chicago who says it's common knowledge that B.O.'s got a problem with white girls (if you know what I mean). With cow face Michelle naggin' all day long, you would sort of expect something like this. Then again, Barry's such a little dork weenie, a sex scandal is hard to imagine. Couldn't you just see the quotes...? "Well he had a bit of a time getting it up, so nervous and all!"

Then, in the comments at HuffPo, the word is that O-Bomb-A's scandal is that he used to be a pot dealer during law school. I personally don't think this is the scandal myself (though it would be interesting if he could be arrested or something).

It's probably like the whole world believes by now. Novak and the Repugs suckered BO, and like the inexperienced stumble bum he is, he bit, hook, line and sinker.

What a disaster O-Bomb-A would be on the national ticket.

RaymondA wrote on November 17, 2007 11:18 PM:

p_lukasiak, you have crystallized for me why the Wolfson line that you defend is actually dead wrong.

Suppose in the general election campaign, Novak had reported: "Agents of Rudy Giuliani have been telling well-connected people in NY in Washington that they have solid information about a Hillary scandal while she was Senator of New York, but have chosen not to use it." Would Wolfson be silent about this story? Would he only go after Novak? Or would he criticize the story AND say that Giuliani should either reveal any info has campaign has or state that there is no such information? Something tells me he'd do the last. The only reason that I think the Hillary defenders think that Obama is wrong to take that same path is because they think that when it's a fellow Dem who is accused of spreading mud, the response should be different.

I have seen no indication however that Hillary should be viewed as a fellow Dem and natural ally of Obama or any other Dem. The Clintons always have been about themselves, not the party.

I highly recommend Stephanopoulos' White House Memoir, "All Too Human." He explains that Hillary encouraged Bill to hire Dick Morris after the Dems lost the Congress in 1994 and welcomed Morris' advice that Bill should adopt the popular parts of the Republican agenda and distance Bill from Congressional Dems: that's the original "triangulation" formula. Steph reports that the Clinton-Morris strategy recognized that Dems in Congress might well get angry, and that this would be better for Clinton's own popularity.

Remember, Bill got serioius coattails for Dems; he lost seats for Dems in Congress even as he won in 1996, and he only gained a tiny number of house seats in 1998 in the midst of impeachment.

EvanR wrote on November 17, 2007 11:23 PM:

It's amazing how quickly people tie themselves in knots, with ever more convoluted accounts of why/how either Clinton or Obama are supposedly plotting to push this story. I think we've reached the point in the campaign where if you favor Clinton, Obama is an evil fraud, and if you favor Obama, the same is true of Clinton.

One point: just because Robert Novak is wedded to the conservative agenda and has behaved unethically at times doesn't mean he doesn't have excellent sources and doesn't mean he is merely making something up or pushing garbage soley at the behest of Clinton's or (far less plausibly) Obama's campaign.

Novak was one of the very first (and few) who reported on the far-rightward tilt a GW Bush Administration would almost certainly take. He will perform hatchet jobs at times, but at others he's simply a very well-connected reporter/insider who likes breaking juicy stories.

Daniel wrote on November 17, 2007 11:30 PM:

A new poll was just released of Wisconsin's general election, and it has good news for both Obama and Clinton!

slcathena wrote on November 17, 2007 11:52 PM:

I find it amazing how many new posters have shown up to chastize Obama in this thread. Rather convienent, really.

p_luk, I disagree with you that Obama did the wrong thing for the same reason RaymondA does. Additionally, how many times have I heard commentators on this and other blogs contend that Obama doesn't have the guts to stand up to challenges? If he hadn't come out forcefully against Novak and challenged Clinton this post would have the same aforementioned EC neophytes all over the fact that Obama can't fight back and would get swiftboated.

Franklin wrote on November 18, 2007 12:18 AM:

The Obama campaign calls the Clinton campaign out -- and rather than denying the charges, the Clinton people attack Obama for running a sleazy campaign for merely suggesting that the Clinton people are doing exactly what they are doing.

Rather than a clear repudiation of Bush Era politics the Clinton people are running a textbook Bush/Rove style campaign (handpicked audiences and planted questions, refusing to reveal campaign bundlers, whisper campaigns, etc). Voters who think that a campaign style won't filter into a style of governance are being played for suckers.

RaymondA wrote on November 18, 2007 12:27 AM:

Four things.

First, Obama's response does not look naive to me at all. When I first saw the Novak item in the NY Post, I was somewhat dismissive because I know Novak is such an asshole,). But even I, a Novak reviler, harbored the thought, "Geez, I hope there's no weird scandal about Obama; that would really shock me and upset me. I'd never forgive Obama for dashing so many people's expectations and getting checks from them as well."

If, after this NY Post piece appeared, Obama had only taken out after Novak and not challenged the HRC campaign to speak out as well, that would be consistent with the notion that some "Hillary agent" was "holding back" some "scandalous information." By framing his statement in a way that would induce the Hillary campaign to speak up about this, I for one am now confident that the underlying charge of a significant "scandal" is horseshit. After Gary Hart dared reporters who believed there was substance to the rumors about his philandering to follow him, and they did, no candidate ever "dares" those in possession of truly scandalous info to release it, so I think Obama's tactic will make his supporters and contributors quite comfortable that there's no real scandal out there. Indeed, even the Hillary supporters above almost all believe there is no Obama scandal, and that Obama's "sin" here is accusing Hillary's campaign of spreading the false idea that there is a scandal. Sorry, but if Novak is swiftboating me, I'd rather have the public believe that I was a tad too quick to accuse my opponent of being behind the story than have the public believe I've engaged in scandalous conduct. So, again, I like Obama's response.

Second, I hate Novak, but does anyone know whether he has a track record for running factually false stories, as opposed to merely irresponsible ones? As we know, every word in the reprehensible Valerie Plame column was true. Plame was a CIA operative; she was married to Wilson; one of Novak's sources was "no partisan gunslinger"--Richard Armitage; and the other was, Karl Rove. It's truth is what made it so damaging to Wilson and to the country. Had it been false, no one would have been "outed."

Halpern at Time says that Novak is often an asshole, but does have a lot of sources, including some close to Hillary. So I ask, what facts has he misreported? And how often does he make such mistakes? I am not an expert, but some TPM readers may know of Novak's reputation with regard to accuracy.

Third, Hillary's people are known to consort with Drudge -- they've never denied it -- so why is it implausible that they'd use Novak the way they used Drudge in the past? Think about the post-modern brilliance of that: Person reviled by Democrats and the left (Novak or Drudge) spreads dirt about Obama or Edwards or some other HRC opponent. The dirt gets out there, and creates confusion among voters, most of whom don't know to discount the source. (Face it, those who comment on this blog and know that Novak is the author of the Plame story are an infinitesimal percentage of voters, and probably account for ZERO undecided or persuadable voters). So now some innuendo about Obama is "out there," and if Obama gets upset, the Clintonistas (read Wolfson) have a pre-packaged response: "What a simp Obama is to respond to some Republican water carrier like Novak! How NAIVE can you get (double over laughing)." Except that's the very trap Wolfson planned all along: don't leak to a CREDIBLE journalist; then you can't deny the leak and have the liberals and Dems (whose votes you need) believe you instead of the reporter; leak to someone who won't be believed by your own supporters but who very well might be believed by some undecided or not terribly informed voters (collectively, the majority of voters). And those who believe the story won't even think to blame the HRC campaign, because the story if believed has the "official" campaign deciding NOT to spread the scandal news.

Fourth, in looking at Wolfson's response, it's odd if Novak story is completely false, that Wolfson would not simply say, either [1] "The Clinton campaign is not in possession of any 'scandalous information,' so the Novak story could not be true and Sen. Obama should direct his anger to Mr. Novak"; or (if the Clinton camaign does have info it at least considers "scandalous") [2] "We are not aware of anyone associated with this campaign or Senator Clinton who has made statements like those Novak alleges; it would be against our policy to make such statements and we continue to urge our supporters not to traffic in rumors." Instead, Wolfson's statement, and even Singer's later statement, on behalf of HRC is carefully parsed: "The campaign did not have anything to do with the story." That tells us nothing, because Novak did not claim "the campaign" had anything to do with it; he claimed that some "agent" of Hillary did, which could mean any one in Hillary's wide coterie who does not have an official position on the campaign.

So, call me naive, but I think there's a decent chance (40-50%?) that the Novak story is "true" in the sense that some person closely allied with Hillary -- but possibly not an employee of her campaign -- is telling well-connected people that the campaign has dirt on Obama and that it's decided not to spill that dirt.

Michael Caine wrote on November 18, 2007 12:33 AM:

Once again, Hillary and her supporters show their true colors. It is extremely telling that rather than eviscerate Novak for falsely accusing them of starting a whisper campaign against Obama, they chose to attack Obama for daring to call upon Hillary to openly denounce both Novak's claim that they were threatening to use such swiftboating tactics and the very usage of such tactics.

NCSteve wrote on November 18, 2007 12:35 AM:

Jesus Christ, pacc, get some help, already. Seriously.

RaymondA wrote on November 18, 2007 1:51 AM:

Yep, NCSteve, Pacc's sources for what Obama "may have" done are .... "other commenters" -- other pseudonymous amateurs like ourselves! What's worse is that the guy who commented on the Raw Story and the guy who commented on Huff Post may have been friggin' Pacc under another name, for all we know.

By the way, did TPM ever explain why they changed the comments section at Election Central so that you don't have to register. It seemed to me that the registration system was at least some protection against highly irresponsible comments, because you at least had to always use the same pseudonym when you commented. You could also check the track record of the commenters, to see how likely they were to be shills? If TPM has not explained this, and you are reading this deep down into the comments, Greg or Eric or [shudder] Josh, could you post the reasons for the new (actually not so new) system?

Zorba wrote on November 18, 2007 5:51 AM:

There is no dirt on Obama. Sen. Joe Biden told us he's "clean and articulate."

Jan wrote on November 18, 2007 6:44 AM:

What is Barack Obama thinking?!!!???

Bob Novak is trying to swiftboat both of the Democratic frontrunners... in one short undocumented column.

It won't work with Clinton.
But the buzz now will be that Obama must have something to hide.
Why didn't answer Novak with, "Novak's column is utter baloney because I have nothing to hide"???

More than anything Obama has said so far, THIS shows me how naive he is regarding the Rightwing Slime Machine.
Bob Novak is friggin' President of the club!

Anonymous wrote on November 18, 2007 6:54 AM:

Michael Caine,

Once again, Hillary and her supporters show their true colors.

Doesn't everybody here know they are red as in Republican?

I suppose not.

Certainly Democrats are not above using whispering campaigns and other dirty tricks but no Democrat I know thinks big corporations and their lobbyists are just plain people like you and I.

"Trust me" is not normally a great campaign slogan and especially not when a lady has a bit of dirt on her hands.

"Out damn spot," ordered Lady MacBeth but the spot wouldn't out. The other Republican that the GOP nominates will surely point out the stains.

Be nice to talk about peace, healthcare, energy, global warming, immigration, Social Security, raising the lower classes from poverty, education. Can't with Hillary. She says that's Republican mud-slinging.

Best, Terry

terry hallinan wrote on November 18, 2007 7:02 AM:

I apologize for the last post as "anonymous."

I don't ever mean to post messages with any kind of alias and certainly not as "anonymous."

Even I screw up at times. :-)

Best, Terry

Jan wrote on November 18, 2007 7:06 AM:

I note that someone posted that even Clinton supporters aren't posting here that Obama has a scandal.
YES!
I'm a Clinton supporter. I DO NOT think Obama has a scandal!
I have not written a comment negative towards Obama except that he's naive.

BOB NOVAK wanted Democrats to come on blogs all over America and be naive enough about politics to post stuff exactly like this:

george wrote on November 17, 2007 9:41 PM: "Seems to me there are way too many Clinton operatives writing comments aginst Obama in this TPM site. The Clintons are capable of this type of sleaze; they perfected dirty campaign in the 90s."

BOB NOVAK just won the jackpot!!!!!

george, let me introduce you to the Rightwing Slime Machine. The RSM perfected the dirty campaign, and the RSM perfected it against those very Clintons that YOU blame for BOB NOVAK'S column.

It's very frustrating to watch Democrats fall for this pathetic stuff hook, line and sinker. Bob Novak just won a big bet somewhere off of george's comment.

DemAC wrote on November 18, 2007 7:09 AM:

Once again, Hillary and her supporters show their true colors.

Doesn't everybody here know they are red as in Republican?

No, I must admit I didn’t know we are. However, last time I checked Novak certainly is. He is also known to be not overly ethical (Valerie Plame anyone?)

Now, as Obama chooses to use the mud supplied by Novak and slings it around trying to hit other Democrats and Senator Clinton – well, what does that makes Obama???

Dawn wrote on November 18, 2007 7:10 AM:

I don't care if Robert Novak says he has ironclad evidence that Hillary is a Russian spy - you just do not quote Novak to slam a fellow Dem.

I want very much to like Obama. But he Doesn't. Get. It.

Not that difficult wrote on November 18, 2007 7:20 AM:

Anonymous has it right. And this is exactly why we don't need another 4 or 8 years of the repeat button being pushed -- it is too easy for them with HRC --

Obama's camp did exactly what they needed to do -- come out swing against Novak & HRC -- he needs to show backbone and that is what he did -- did anyone see the Tancredo ad? Do you think that 2008 is going to be worse that 2004? Slam every slur --

DemAC wrote on November 18, 2007 7:26 AM:

Not that difficult,
No, no, no. You just don’t get it, do you? I’m sure Obama camp are thinking themselves really clever right now. Meanwhile the Republicans are laughing themselves silly.

We cannot win with a candidate who apparently stomps right ahead into this, the clumsiest of traps.

Laura Brown wrote on November 18, 2007 8:06 AM:

Obama has officially made an ass out of himself with his inexperienced and hysterical response to this gig from the Big Red Slime Machine. Joe Klein captures the essence of the whole thing very well.

colonpowwow wrote on November 18, 2007 8:23 AM:

I would be willing to bet that for 90% of us longtime Clinton supporters here, both the official and non-official position is that what a candidate or politician does in their personal life is not worthy of judgement.

Last time I checked, it's the Republicans that cloak themselves in layers of hypocrisy running as "anti-gay gays" and "family values" prostitutes (I consider the clients to be prostitutes as well as the service providers).

That said, regarding Obama's "scandal."
I am confident that I speak for that 90% of my Hillary-lovin' comrades when I say I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't make any difference.

p_lukasiak wrote on November 18, 2007 9:30 AM:

'If, after this NY Post piece appeared, Obama had only taken out after Novak and not challenged the HRC campaign to speak out as well, that would be consistent with the notion that some "Hillary agent" was "holding back" some "scandalous information." '

I happen to agree with you completely. The problem that I have is that Obama didn't go after Novak and challenge Hillary, he accepted that Novak was telling the truth, and blamed Hillary. (Indeed, what you think should have been done is what I said Obama should have done -- point out that Novak is a GOP shill, and challenge the Clinton campaign to clear things up without accepting the credibility of Novak.)

And that is why I think that Obama screwed up hugely.

This is what Obama actually said...

“During our debate in Las Vegas on Thursday, we heard Senator Clinton rail against the politics of ‘throwing mud.’

“At the very same time, in Washington, Robert Novak was publishing a column in which he reported the following: ‘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…’

“The item did not identify these ‘agents,’ nor did it reveal the nature of the charge. It was devoid of facts, but heavy on innuendo and insinuation of the sort to which we’ve become all too accustomed in our politics these past two decades. If the purpose of this shameless item was to daunt or discourage me or supporters of our campaign from challenging and changing the politics of Washington, it will fail. In fact, it will only serve to steel our resolve.

“But in the interest of our party, and her own reputation, Senator Clinton should either make public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none.

Obama immediately assumes that Novak's column is essentially correct, and that people who are working for Clinton ('Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton') have been instructed to spread rumors about Obama -- and then he tells Clinton to put up ('make public any and all information') or shut up {'concede the truth').

The simple fact is that Clinton supporters doubtless engage in unsubstantiated gossip/speculation about Obama.... and that Obama supporters do the same about Clinton (see some of the accusations against Clinton above.) The gossip of supporters is simply not the same as "agents" of Clinton spreading rumors -- and Obama should know the difference, and know that Novak is more than capable of twisting reports of idle gossip by supporters into "agents' spreading rumors.

Obama had the nerve to say that Clinton should act for the sake of the party -- but its Obama's naive rookie mistake that is hurting the party here (just look up at all the GOP talking points Obama supporters are spewing in the previous comments.)

This was not a situation that required a "Swift Boat" response -- there was no one publicly making accusations about Obama that had to be address immediately. This required a much more deft touch, because it is the kind of story that can be killed simply by having both campaigns treat it with contempt.

someone wrote on November 18, 2007 9:38 AM:

By the way, did TPM ever explain why they changed the comments section at Election Central so that you don't have to register. It seemed to me that the registration system was at least some protection against highly irresponsible comments, because you at least had to always use the same pseudonym when you commented. You could also check the track record of the commenters, to see how likely they were to be shills? If TPM has not explained this, and you are reading this deep down into the comments, Greg or Eric or [shudder] Josh, could you post the reasons for the new (actually not so new) system?

yeh! what he said. The change was done undemocraticly, and the thriving dynamic online community that was, is now funking lame.

WTF?

DonnaG wrote on November 18, 2007 9:40 AM:

Something about this whole 'todo' is certainly junior high schoolish and paricularly reminds me of the behavior of teenage cliques. A popular clique leader gets his/her nose out of joint when a new charismatic student comes to school and takes attention away from the clique leader........so what happens next? Some clique followers begin to start an ugly rumor about the new student, and the whispering campaign ensues. This behavior is utterly vile, of course, and often does lasting damage UNLESS the new student is wise beyond years and strong enough to take them all on in assembly hall.

Barack Obama is wise beyond his years. He is perfectly capable of taking on the craven whisperers, raising the level of behavior beyond teen dynamics, neutering the effect of old cliqueish alliances, and demonstrating rare and much needed adult leadership.

Um, in case anyone is interested.....the poster pacc [11:07 pm] offers the perfect example of a teen mentality clique whisperer.

upper left wrote on November 18, 2007 10:19 AM:

I find the responses of the HRC supporters a bid hard to fathom:

If Novack has completely fabricated his report, why doesn't the Clinton campaign simply and unequivically deny the substance of his story? Instead Wolfson and many of the HRC supporters here are trying to spin this as part of their "Obama is naive" narrative.

What would be naive would be to believe that it is impossible for such a story to be true. It is almost universally acknowledged that the Clintonistas are some of the most skilled practicioners of the "dark arts" of politics. In fact, one of the primary rationales of the HRC campaign is that she is tough enough to beat the Repugs at their own game. To automatically assume that she would not use those skills at a time when she is being strongly challenged by Obama, in Iowa, would be very naive.

This is not to say that Novack's report is to be believed, just that it can not be automatically dismissed. Obama is right to call out Novack and to call upon Clinton to clarify whether or not there is any truth to his report. Wolfson's response reminds me once again why I dislike the the Clinton's style of politics so much. Rather than simply confronting Novack for lying, they try to exploit the situation to attack Obama.

This leaves me to one of two conclusions:

1) Novack is right and Clinton's campaign is truly sleazy, or

2) Clinton's campaign thinks it is more important to try to twist this situation to there advantage against Obama than to strike a clear blow against the "politics of personal destruction."

In either case it reinforces the reasons that I strongly prefer either Obama or Edwards.

LJ wrote on November 18, 2007 10:54 AM:

I don't think anyone is surprised that Hillary would start a whispering campaign like this. She lacks the character and integrity to confront Obama directly. It's smart of Obama to call her out on it. She should either put up or shut up.

heretic wrote on November 18, 2007 11:07 AM:

I hadn't seen those GE match-up poll results from IA yet. So thanks for posting them. I am actually pleasantly surprised as Obama has not fared so well in previous matchup polls I have seen. In fact, even other recent polls in surrounding states still show Hillary doing better or the same as Obama. But he really slams her in Iowa, that's for sure. Even beats McCain, which she almost never does in these match-ups.

As an aside, its kind of ironic that McCain is clearly the strongest GE candidate the repigs have. He is a solid conservative, extremely hawkish, yet far more moral than his counterparts. While he has his rift with the evangelical wingnuts, he is far more in their camp than Rudy, Romney, and Thompson, all of whom have been opportunistic about social issues rather than principled. Arguably, McCain's stances on torture and immigration are just more evidence of his humanity (relative to his peers, not the Dems).

Now back from my digression, I figure Obama is doing so well in IA because he has put so much time in there. That's a relief, because I was pretty sure he had no chance of winning the GE if nominated. However, if he gets the nod, he might actually have a good chance as people get to know him better. I think a lot of rank and file Dems prefer Hillary because Obama comes off like a snooty intellectual. But since Iowans are probably no fan of such a demeanor, he must come off differently in retail politics than he does in his more scripted mass events. I really do hope there is no major dirt on him, though. The thing about Clinton is there is nothing left to be revealed about her.

Unlike some of you on this list, I will vote for either one or any of the other Dems, too. I really hope some of you simpletons out there get your acts together before election day and don't sell us down the river again like you did in '00.

heretic wrote on November 18, 2007 11:13 AM:

BTW, while I think the charges that TPM is pro-Hillary are ludicrous—Josh evens seems pro-Obama in many of his blog posts, which are not news, so he can be biased—it would definitely have been fairer to stagger those poll results from IA so one didn't have to click a link to see that Obama was actually doing better than HRC in GE matchups in that state.

heretic wrote on November 18, 2007 11:27 AM:

I am deeply disappointed at how negative Obama has gone. He really has demonstrated a lack of integrity by all the swipes he has been taking at Hillary. He should have never portrayed himself as above the fray, because he is clearly easily offended and vindictive. People say that he is just distinguishing his positions from hers, but that is not what he is doing. He has essentially accused her of being lying and deceitful by saying she says one thing and does another. He can distinguish his positions from hers without bashing her. By doing so, he feeds a repiglican meme that she is a lying, deceitful bitch—something that will be played up if she wins the primaries. (I can even see it now—repiglican ads in the GE that feature Obama bashing Hillary.)

Personally, I think all politicians fit in this category, including Obama (who has done things like obscured his wife's ties to companies that have benefited from his position or parsed the issue of lobbying money—he takes money from state lobbyists and contributors to federal lobbies, as if this does not make him indebted to corporate power). Yet, it does seem to be scoring some points for him in IA (which actually surprises me as I thought they didn't like negative politics there). Many IA dems are so conservative that they would be repigs if they didn't depend on federal handouts for their agricorporations. So, I guess it's not really surprising that many prefer an overtly religious candidate like Obama and hate Clinton almost as much as the wingnuts do. More indication that they need to be removed from the early nominating process. They are an unrepresentative group who have handed us loser after loser for decades.

stlounick wrote on November 18, 2007 11:41 AM:

Again, Senator Clinton needs to personally refute that her campaign had ANYTHING to do with any information provided to Novak. She can even add that it is all part of a "vast right wing conspiracy".

I find it bizarre that her campaign has not done this. Novak used the term "agent" which certainly implies a person working for the Clinton campaign.

Obma was right to cut at Novak and then to ask Senator Clinton to disavow the involvement of her campaign and this sort of personal attack sleaze.

I will guarantee you that I will use the failure to respond in my discussions with primary voters in Missouri. I will guarantee that if I am forced to do this, Hillary will LOSE votes.

p_lukasiak wrote on November 18, 2007 11:55 AM:

I find the responses of the HRC supporters a bid hard to fathom:

If Novack has completely fabricated his report, why doesn't the Clinton campaign simply and unequivically deny the substance of his story?

I'm far from a Hillary supporter (prefer Edwards actually) -- and I'd support Obama over Clinton were it not for the fact that h has consistently demonstrated that while he can be excellent on the stump, he's not really "ready for prime time."

As to why the Clinton campaign just issue a simple denial -- they probably would have had it not been for Obama's really stupid attack on her. I do, however, think that the Clinton campaign's response could have been more measured, because there is what appears to be a deliberate and underhanded implication that Obama is not ready to be President -- Wolfson can maintain deniability and say "oh, that isn't what we meant, we were just talking about his readiness to deal with the kind of campaigns that the GOP runs", but IMHO, the Clinton response was deliberately provocative when it should have taken a higher road.

And again, this was not an incident of "Swift Boating" of Obama -- no one is standing up and making accusations about him, and the way to deal with it is to work with the Clinton campaign to bury it (Clinton was smeared in the Novak column as well.)

Jan wrote on November 18, 2007 11:57 AM:

A sample of the rightwing Blogoshere today:

"Okay, there’s some political juice with the Kerik story and Giuliani, various stories about Thompson and McCain and the push-polls and attack phone campaigns leveled against Romney. But the Dems keep stirring up mud between each other that is the one thing they’re doing better than Republicans in the 2008 race. While this is going on the GOP can calmly go about their business selecting a nominee. There’s a better than even chance the current bickering among Democratic party contenders may take a toll with at least one candidate... maybe all."

Congratulations, Democrats!
Obama's belief in Rightwing Slime Machine Darkprince Bob Novak's rumors may take a toll with at least one candidate... MAYBE ALL.
So, Obama supporters want to give credence to the Rightwing Slime Machine, and maybe take us all down???
What a teammate.

paDem wrote on November 18, 2007 12:19 PM:

I call on all Democratic operatives, and on political reporters who typically see a flow of this kind of rumor to go public and confirm whether or not they've heard the same thing.

If they have, that's prima facie evidence that *someone* is peddling the rumor.

Then it's a process of elimination to figure out who. Openness and transparency and accountability, people.

If HRC's people aren't peddling this crap, they should be willing to help figure out who is and make common cause with Obama.

If not, they're the culprits. Simple.

paDem wrote on November 18, 2007 12:22 PM:

Hey, Jan.

He's not her teammate. He's competing with her.

That's the problem, right?

It interrupts the entitlement meme, the inevitablity of her being the first woman president, apparently.

That's bad in Hillary World. I wish it were enough to make her worthy, though. It ain't.

Coonsey wrote on November 18, 2007 12:37 PM:

Senator Obama is right. The Clinton campaign - if INNOCENT of any wrong doing when it comes to this Novak opt-ed - then they should immediately deny and condemn such stories. What's to stop somebody from spreading rumors about HER?

Coonsey's View
Political Blog and Forum
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

rg wrote on November 18, 2007 12:40 PM:

Yuck - so what is our choice here? We can believe that Novak made this up out of thin air? He is exceptionally creepy and that is possible. We need Obama to react perfectly to a weird slimy attack that is maybe from Novak or maybe from some Hillary people? But reacting perfectly is impossible because we all have a subjective opinion of what that is. We need Hillary to react perfectly - same situation, same subjectivity. I like to see Obama to be strong against slime so I'm happy with what he did. I don't think this column is from anyone reliable so it does not change my opinion of Hillary. It probably only serves to reinforce the opinions we all already have. If there is some proof of something - let's discuss and if not let’s ignore this and move on.

p_lukasiak wrote on November 18, 2007 12:43 PM:

If HRC's people aren't peddling this crap, they should be willing to help figure out who is and make common cause with Obama.

geez, would you please get a grip... the best thing that Obama can do for himself is to let this thing die...

I mean, do you really think that the Clinton campaign would do something this dumb ---they've already denied it, and the only thing that would be accomplished by making it a bigger story than it already is greatly increased speculation about Obama.

terry hallinan wrote on November 18, 2007 12:47 PM:

p_lukasiak:

Clinton was smeared in the Novak column as well.

What makes you think so?

The riposte that Novak outed Valerie Plame is actually not in Hillary's favor while damning of Novak. Plame was a CIA spy.

All campaigns use dirty tricks to one degree or another. Obama's crew was caught earlier peddling damning information on Hillary and Obama fessed up.

The response by Hillary with a counterattack is symptomatic of her entire operation. It argues for something other than sweet innocence.

Best, Terry

paDem wrote on November 18, 2007 1:02 PM:

"geez, would you please get a grip... the best thing that Obama can do for himself is to let this thing die..."

It's not that simple. If he 'lets it go', he risks allowing the slime to fester in the voters' minds.

Also, 'letting it go' is just another way of saying "leave HRC alone", which is another way of saying "she's entitled to be the nominee."

Which is another way of saying, to any question aimed her way, "Gee, there you go again, Mr. Inexperience, going all negative again. What happened to hope?"

Get a grip yourself. This ain't beanball. If HRC can't handle the heat of a real contest -- which apparently she's too thin-skinned to do -- then maybe she ought to step aside.

paDem wrote on November 18, 2007 1:06 PM:

So, to ask again: are any reporters willing to say they're privy to the same rumor?

Any Democratice operatives?

Is the Clinton campaign willing to disavow holding onto any negative info against Obama?

Is the Clinton campaign willing to stand with Obama against Novak's assertions? Isn't he the real problem here?

Unless they can't, that is.

Time for a few straight answers, Howard.

sean wrote on November 18, 2007 1:13 PM:

Fine. The veracity of the story is unclear. But if TRUE the provocation is clear. No one seems to have made this connection: Marc Ambinder, in his Atlantic piece on the media wars btw HRC and BOM, mentions this:

"And at a campaign event in Iowa, one of Obama’s aides plopped down next to me and spoke even more bluntly. He wanted to know when reporters would begin to look into Bill Clinton’s postpresidential sex life,”

Hello?!?! Where's the outrage over this factually reported tid-bit? I mean, good lord. Talk about right-wing-like antics. Would it be wrong of HRC to quietly (although obviously Novak got wind of it) remind the Obama campaign that this sort of bullshit simply WILL NOT do.

Jane wrote on November 18, 2007 1:22 PM:

Barack believes that he would make the best President. He says that's why he is running. But he doesn't seem to have a plan B if he doesn't win the nomination. In that he seems like Bush, my plan is going to work so I have no obligation to calculate the consequences if it doesn't work.

Reagan instituted a thirteenth amendment for Republicans -- don't harm each other in the primaries. It helped them win.

The fact is that primary elections are different from general elections -- the other candidates are both competititors and teammates. Barack doesn't get that. He thinks he is just a competitor and owes nothing to Democrats generally.
He makes his attacks in forms which will make it harder for Hillary to win the election if she gets the nomination as is likely.

p_lukasiak wrote on November 18, 2007 1:25 PM:

Is the Clinton campaign willing to disavow holding onto any negative info against Obama?

you're serious? You want to demand that the Clinton campaign go negative on Obama? You want the Clinton campaign to make public every rumor they've heard about him?

Because I guarantee you that they have lots of stuff that will make Obama look bad. In fact, in response to Obama's meltdown, they released this....

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4261

your candidate has at least figured out that he's better off backing off and containing the damage from this by dropping it.

Jane wrote on November 18, 2007 1:44 PM:

One of the memes that Barack has used as attack is that Clinton is more conservative than he is which is not true.

As of 11/18 the Progressivepunch.com lifetime progressive score for Hillary is 91.21 tying her with Schumer for 16th. Obama is 24th at 88.73 .Lieberman is lifetime at 76.72. These numbers change as each relevant vote occurs. Essentially, Progressivepunch tracks how frequently each Senator votes with the progressive Senators when those progressive Senators are opposed by the majority of Republicans.

For 07/08 as of 11/18, Clinton has voted with the progressive senators 90.13% of the time while Obama has voted with them 81.64 % of the time. For reference this year Lieberman voted with the progressive 81.40 % of the time.

unpoetaloco wrote on November 18, 2007 1:51 PM:

Why is anyone surprised that Novak, whose column is ostensibly a political gossip column, would write about political gossip? It's disingenuous to challenge Novak's journalistic standards considering the man hasn't written a true piece of journalism for decades. He's a political gossipmonger, the Walter Winchell of Washington.

NCSteve wrote on November 18, 2007 2:11 PM:

Three points.

1. Why are all you Hillarites just assuming that Obama's campaign is reacting solely to what Novak said? On one hand, many of you go on an on about how rough and tough your gal is, and how only she can run a sufficiently dirty campaign to beat the big scary Republican smear machine to a standstill but, on the other, you just assume that Hillary is so pure and good and wonderful that it is beyond belief that she would ever let her people spread rumors like this.

Campaigns are well aware of what other campaigns are saying to reporters off the record because reporters love to tell them. When the madrassa smear first came out, Obama's campaign made it clear it didn't buy the contention that Hillary was behind it. Further, it is well known that Hillary's campaign has a pipeline into Novak's cesspool, and if you want to get something vile into the public record, he's your goto guy.

Accordingly, I would suggest that you consider that its at least possible that Obama is going after Hillary's campaign on this because Wolfson and co. have, in fact, been floating this rumor about a rumor and now its in print. Or, failing that, explain why it just couldn't possibly be true.

2. It never fails to amaze me how avidly, and uncritically, Hillaroids will frame every political move by an opponent, and by Obama in particular, as a huge political blunder and every move by Hillary as a political masterstroke of such overwhelming brilliance that merely to contemplate it brings tears to their eyes. It's like that's their only frame they've been given by the Cube for analyzing every event so every event is made to fit into that frame, no matter what mental contortions are required to accomplish the task.

3. Right on schedule, here's the censorous tut-tutting that anyone is saying something bad about the Inevitable Nominee. It was fascinating to me that Hillary finally came out in Las Vegas and made it official Hilsoc dogma that all of her competitors are required to run capaigns of Hillary praise or else be branded as Republican sympathizers. I notice, however, that she doesn't seem to apply that rule to herself.

p_lukasiak wrote on November 18, 2007 2:33 PM:

It never fails to amaze me how avidly, and uncritically, Hillaroids will frame every political move by an opponent, and by Obama in particular, as a huge political blunder and every move by Hillary as a political masterstroke of such overwhelming brilliance that merely to contemplate it brings tears to their eyes.

and it always fails to amaze me that Obamoids don't realize that the criticism of Obama isn't coming just from supporters of Hillary....

Accordingly, I would suggest that you consider that its at least possible that Obama is going after Hillary's campaign on this because Wolfson and co. have, in fact, been floating this rumor about a rumor and now its in print.

It really doesn't matter if its true or not -- what matters is how Obama handles this kind of situation. If the Obama campaign has certain knowledge that the Clinton campaign is doing what it is accused of doing, then he should say that. Absent certain knowledge, he looks like an idiot accusing Clinton of doing it based on a column by Novak.

additionally, as someone else mentioned, even if it is true, the fact that the Obama campaign has been trying to get the media to pay more attention to Bill Clinton's post-presidential sex life suggests that this is a warning shot at Obama....

Finally, even if it is true, how certain are you that there isn't something "scandalous" about Obama? Quite honestly, I'd be surprised if there wasn't, because powerful, attractive, charismatic men are never lacking in opportunities for infidelity -- and, well, men ARE pigs.

RWN wrote on November 18, 2007 2:36 PM:

All the early prognostigators here are either surrogates, (hired or supporters and volunteers) or not looking at entire picture.

First WHO BENEFITS: GOP, NY POST, Nowak, Clinton...
1) GOP wants to face Clinton in the general election, they have faced their wanted opponent except when Perot split the independents in'92, and JFK in '60. Other than that LBJ was incumbant, RFK was dead, Muskie removed, Teddie removed, Mondale, Dukakis and Clinton were preferred. Gore was incumbant and then Kerry was preferred. Edwards would have beaten Bush in '04 and Obama and Edwards are far stronger in '08 than Clinton.

2) NY Post (Murdock already supportive of Clinton in '06) and draws attention to it. But is that because he wanted to face Clinton in the general all along?

3) Nowak, again attention comes his way as his credibility is less than colera.

4) Clinton: As Nowak tried to characterize it she appears prudent not wanting to make caustic the primaries.

But all are forgetting the BLOWBACK and the successive tactics by OBama. If there was some rumor you don't think the Obama campaign had wind of either the rumor or semblance of a rumor. BLOWBACK is no different than a torpedo that comes back to kill the launcher.

loki wrote on November 18, 2007 3:22 PM:

NCSteve,

First, love all the name calling. Great way to move the conversation forward.

Second, rather than ask Clinton supporters to prove the Clinton campaign didn't do this, how 'bout Obama supporters prove they did.

Lastly, now that we've have a more comprehensive look into Obama and his campaign team and their willingness to do oppo research to discredit Clinton by offering it up to different news orgs...can you at long last stop pretending he's any different, somehow purer than any other politician in this American system?

'Politics of Hope' my ass.

sandra wrote on November 18, 2007 3:43 PM:

l do not think Barack Obama has any scandal. Hilary is scared of barack Obama and she will do anything to anybody who stands in her way to be the nominee and barack Obama is th only thing standing in her way right now.

Shame on you Hilary!!! who is throwing the mud now? the Clintons are dirty Politicians and they will stop at nothing. she is loosing ground in Iowa and NH and she does not like that.

Hilary is a con/artist-politician and she is infact corrupt.

Anonymous wrote on November 18, 2007 3:48 PM:

colonpowwow is very generous. Of course it would be very hard for the Clintons to run on the moral high grond against anyone. So from Hillary's perspective there are a whole lot of "irrelent" topics that are OUT OF BOUNDS in this campaign: private life, character, morals, ethics, honesty, fidelity, marriage, family, loyalty, faithfulness, integrity, trustworthiness, truth, lies, distortion, respect, misrepresentation, mendacity, accuracy, fairness, to name a few. Too bad for us voters who are sick of lies, deceit, domestic charades, and presidents we can't trust.

Oops, maybe in democracy we have the right to make our judgments on who to vote for for president based on whatever criteria we choose, irrespective of what "the rules" accordiing to the Hillary Machine. Note to the Clintons: you live in a glass house, put down the rocks.

Dave wrote on November 18, 2007 3:48 PM:

Reagan instituted a thirteenth amendment for Republicans -- don't harm each other in the primaries. It helped them win.

Jane --

Not sure what you're speaking of here, but the anecdote I think you're referring to is Ronald Reagan's "11th Commandment": Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.

Bear in mind, though, that, in context, he was referring to after the primary. The "commandment" need not apply to the primary season.

The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery.

CalD wrote on November 18, 2007 3:48 PM:

How did I know this topic was going to log over a hundred comments? I must be psychic.

Anonymous wrote on November 18, 2007 3:52 PM:

CalD How did you know? Because your wrote 80 percent of them.

slcathena wrote on November 18, 2007 3:55 PM:

loki, the reason that we should ask Hillary if she did what she's accused of is that there was a public airing of her holding on to dirt. Did it come from a slimy source? Sure, doesn't matter. It's a slimy source that people read and Obama knows he has to respond to it. How ridiculous would the following response look:

"Bob Novak has a history of distorting the truth. I know that my dear friend Senator Clinton is above doing something so dastardly to win the nomination. She is so above the fray. Novak should retract his lies about HRC."

They are NOT BFF, he is not campaigning for Clinton. And anyone who thinks that should be the response is not living in the reality of primary politics.

jester wrote on November 18, 2007 4:04 PM:

Jane says "Progressivepunch tracks how frequently each Senator votes with the progressive Senators when those progressive Senators are opposed by the majority of Republicans."

Do you really think someone should choose between Hillary and Obama based on some website's "progressive" index score?

On the two most important votes Hillary Clinton is every likely to cast she showed horrible judgment. She voted to give George W. Bush authority to invade Iraq. And knowing now what she says she didn't know then, she "trusted" Bush again, giving him sanction to attack Iran. I don't need some obscure Congressional rating website to tell me Hillary Clinton does not have the quality of judgment I believe a president needs to have -- particularly our next president in light the damage done by our current president.

loki wrote on November 18, 2007 4:20 PM:

slcathena,

Your post is one big straw man. I don't think that should be anyone's response. I don't think they are best friends...don't care if they are. I also did not say that nobody should question the Clinton campaign.

What are you talking about?

slcathena wrote on November 18, 2007 4:26 PM:

Loki,

The example may be over the top, but the question is not. Hillary was publically outed as doing something. That means she's on the defensive and has to prove that she "didn't" do something, to use your phrase. Obama is not obliged to do any work to prove she did something other than call her out based on the very public accusation and ask her to show her hand and repudiate Novak.

CalD wrote on November 18, 2007 4:42 PM:

Anonymous wrote on November 18, 2007 3:52 PM:

CalD How did you know? Because your wrote 80 percent of them.

Wow. Now I knowI'm psychic. I even knew I was going to get back some lame-ass comment like that in response to that last post. Damn, I'm good!

loki wrote on November 18, 2007 5:23 PM:

slcathena,

For the record...nobody has said that Hillary herself has done anything. It's her "agents" that Novak referenced. So you are off on that one. As for her campaign they said they didn't do it.

And lastly, once again, I didn't say that they shouldn't ask the Clinton campaign about it. Which is what you suggested. Wrong on that count, too.

dcshungu wrote on November 18, 2007 5:51 PM:

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. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.

Witness the spectacle: Novak alleges that unnamed "agents" of Sen. Clinton are spreading rumors that her camp has unspecified "scandalous information" about Obama, and he takes the bait and fires off a shot at Clinton, starting a squabble between the two top Dem candidates. For Novak and the Repubs: Mission accomplished.

Obama should not have dignified this double hearsay by one Robert D. Novak by releasing the statement that he did. He should have seized the opportunity to teach everyone about what he means by "Politics of Hope" by expressing solidarity with Clinton and challenging Novak to either name the alleged Clinton "agents" who have been spreading the purported rumors or just shut the hell up.

Note that these so-called "agents" of Sen. Clinton might not even be individuals who are directly associated with her campaign (LOL. I have been called an "agent" of Sen Clinton in these boards!) So, therefore, unless Obama has evidence that these "agents" are members of her campaign who authorize to spread rumors, he should take issues with Novak and not Clinton. By mindlessly going after Clinton, Novak and the Repubs win, and Obama loses by giving legs to a non-story.

Anonymous wrote on November 18, 2007 6:32 PM:

What if Novak had written that Obama's agents are spreading the word that Obama unspecified damaging information about Hillary, but has decided not to use it? I think Bill and Hillary would have gone ballistic.

Zorba wrote on November 18, 2007 8:44 PM:

"Swiftboat" means to point out a candidate's past, so that people can decide on a person's qualifications. Novak was not trying to "swiftboat" anyone since he didn't point out any past history on either candidate.

Zorba wrote on November 18, 2007 8:48 PM:

How do we know it wasn't some friend/agent of Bill and Hillary that contacted Novak and hinted at the rumor, so that Novak would print it, then the Clintons could chastise Obama if he reacted. The Clintons are not as stupid as they were in the 1990s. They have grown in deceit since then, and could very well be the "source" to Novak.

CalD wrote on November 18, 2007 8:58 PM:

What if Novak had written that Obama's agents are spreading the word that Obama unspecified damaging information about Hillary, but has decided not to use it?

Excellent question, Anon. I've been kind of wondering the same thing. If I had to guess, my guess would be that if the tables were turned, Senator Clinton would likely have gone after Robert Novak with all guns blazing. She probably would also have issued a challenge to the Obama campaign to produce whatever they had as Obama did. But I imagine that if they just denied all knowledge as she did in this case, she likely would have left it alone so as not to fuel further speculation that she doeth protest too much. That would be the smart move.

There would be no downside to going after Novak. He's already hostile to her, it would give her instant hero status with a lot of the base and this was after all this was a clear breech of journalistic ethics on his part. So that seems like a no-brainer. Going after Obama though, in the absence of any any tangible proof of his actual involvement, would likely drive up her own negatives with little to be gained by it. I haven't seen her do very many things that dumb in this campaign. So beyond firing a warning shot across Obama's bow to let him know she's watching I imagine she would concentrate on Novak.

That's assuming Obama had sense enough not to charge into the fray himself and give her an opening to attack him cleanly. But of course you never know with Obama. He does have just the teeniest to overreact sometimes, and Clinton I think has just about mastered the art of punching his buttons. So he just might.

Buzz Tyson wrote on November 18, 2007 10:26 PM:

Obama did the right thing to take the issue on forcefully. Clinton has emasculated the other Democratic candidates because they can't say anything critical about the Clinton Administration, not even the pardons. The men all wind up looking weak. They've been in an impossible position so if they've got any opening to go at her, they should do it.

CalD wrote on November 18, 2007 10:40 PM:

Correction. That next-to-the-last sentence of my previous post should read:

...He does have just the teeniest tendency to overreact sometimes...

stlounick wrote on November 19, 2007 1:40 AM:

CalD, I disagree. Obama had every reason to react exactly as he did. Let me repeat myself, both Clinton and Obama had reason to be ticked off with Novak.

Only Obama responded--and he certainly had to respond to this sort of attack on his character and integrity. Any poster on this thread asserting that Obama was too quick to respond is either lying or perhaps an advisor to Kerry's campaign.

Clinton should have immediately responded that her campaign had absolutely NOTHING to do with Novak's assertions. She did not and that's a black mark.

dcshungu wrote on November 19, 2007 6:24 AM:

stlounick sez:

Only Obama responded--and he certainly had to respond to this sort of attack on his character and integrity.

LOL. That is exactly why this looks very bad for Obama: There was no attack on either his character or intergity! The so-called Clinton "agents" were unnamed (and we're not even sure if these "agents" exist or are associated with Clinton) and the nature of the "dirt" was unspecified!!! For Obama to take double hearsay from one Robert D. Novak and use it as a pretext to slam a fellow Democrat makes him look very bad! He has become a hack for Novak and the Repubs! They planted a totally irresponsible story, and he stupidly fell for it when he directed his fire at Clinton: mission accomplie...for Novak and the Repubs.

Michael wrote on November 19, 2007 8:23 AM:

What's funny is that I have seen clinton II lovers make these same type of scurrilous allegations against obama in posts on this site. Why wouldn't we think that she would do such a thing? She runs around claiming that she has "taken on republicans," "knows how to play their game," "will do anything to win," "she's your girl to beat republicans in november," etc. It logically flows that she would break out the dirty tricks against dems as well. Why wouldn't she? She is a winner after all and will do anything to win, right.

loki wrote on November 19, 2007 8:35 AM:

Michael,

Is Hillary really running saying she "will do anything to win?" That she "knows how to play their game?" Could you point me to a link that show's her saying these things?

Thanks.

paDem wrote on November 19, 2007 9:27 AM:

"Finally, even if it is true, how certain are you that there isn't something "scandalous" about Obama? Quite honestly, I'd be surprised if there wasn't, because powerful, attractive, charismatic men are never lacking in opportunities for infidelity -- and, well, men ARE pigs."

If this doesn't provide a primary reason for thinking this rumor-mongoring is coming from Howard and HRC's other campaign people, (nothing does.

Andrew Sullivan posits another thing that might be behind this.... Hillary has GOT to be worried about another bimbo erruption around Bill, and is probably frantic that it might come out during the primaries.

Men "are pigs", as you say.

(Nice touch, by the way. It's a good way to get men on your candidate's side. Classy. )

Zorba wrote on November 19, 2007 9:31 PM:

One can only be "swiftboat" if you point out their past that makes him look foolish. Saying you know something about someone is not enough. you have to actually tell what it is that he did that allows a swiftboat to out the truth.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)