Here's The Obama Muslim Smear E-mail Sent Out By The County Chair Volunteering For Hillary

Comments (66)

P wrote on December 5, 2007 3:24 PM:

I had somebody I know spouting these Obama lies back to me recently - and she wasn't a nutcase (just somebody who doesn't follow the news).

Michael wrote on December 5, 2007 3:24 PM:

Until Ryan Callanan's position in the campaign is known, it will remain unclear what exactly we should take from his inclusion on the email list. It could very well be that the sender simply wished to send it to her friends or colleagues and has made his acquaintence through the campaign.

However, if he has some access to the higher levels of the campaign, one has to wonder why he wouldn't send this on up the ladder or, if he did send it up the ladder, why the chair wasn't fired sooner. Worst case for the Clinton team is that this ends up looking like they were fine with the email smear so long as it wasn't connected to them, even if that's not true at all.

Who Ryan Callanan is and what position he holds in the campaign could go a long way towards shaping that perception.

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 3:25 PM:

So one member of the campaign sent it to another member of the campaign along with a bunch of other people about two weeks ago.

Unfortunately, I think this just became a story about who in the Clinton campaign knew what and when, and what action was taken prior to the story breaking on Kos.

Michael wrote on December 5, 2007 3:27 PM:

...actually, a correction to my previous post. The _worst case_ scenario for the Clinton team is if this ends up looking like something they orchestrated.

The next-worse case scenario is that it was something down by an over-zealous county-chair, but the campaign tried to cover it up or was fine with it until it went public.

dcshungu wrote on December 5, 2007 3:30 PM:

IMHO, this guy is a bigot whose identity should be exposed and not protected.

Finally revealed! The unspecified "dirt" that some Hillary "sympathizers" had told Novak they had on Obama! I would not be surprised if some dimwit out there who was privy to this "dis-information" didn't actually believe that it was a trump card that could played against Obama...

JenJen wrote on December 5, 2007 3:33 PM:

I "shutter" to think????

The whole Muslim "accusation" is disgusting enough, but to accuse Obama of being some kind of Manchurian Candidate is just beyond the pale.

Hey Greg wrote on December 5, 2007 3:34 PM:

Smith has an e-mail response from the Clinton staffer in question condemning the slur e-mail.

dcshungu wrote on December 5, 2007 3:34 PM:

Michael wrote on December 5, 2007 3:24 PM:

Until Ryan Callanan's position in the campaign is known, it will remain unclear what exactly we should take from his inclusion on the email list

Callahan is immaterial. He was on the receiving end of a "chain" letter of the kind that clutters my junk mail bin daily...No one had ever asked me if I wanted to be included before they spammed me.

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 3:34 PM:

dcshungu,

Weren't you saying the other day that this is a trump card that could be played against Obama if he is nominated?

loose change wrote on December 5, 2007 3:35 PM:

"Judy" could be Judy Rose:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=12638

Vermonter wrote on December 5, 2007 3:37 PM:

There's no evidence that the Clinton campaign was behind the Madrassa hoax as Insight Magazine suggested...

But Jonathan Alter wrote a piece at the time last January which included this from Harold Ickes...

~~~~~~~~~~~~

“If they [bloggers] can finger you trying to drop poison into the well, you’ll be hurt by it,” Ickes adds. “Stuff moves out so quickly that campaigns have to exercise much more control over their negative information apparatus.”

~~~~~~~~~

It’s certainly in no way an admission that Hillary Clinton’s "negative information appartus" was behind the madrassa hoax. But, it’s hard not to read that as an affirmation that "well, you know, maybe we throw around a lot of nasty ideas and if people got wind of some of them, it wouldn’t look so good for us."

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16842036/site/newsweek/

katharine wrote on December 5, 2007 3:43 PM:

The Clinton supporter/volunteer didn't just receive the emmail, but purposefully sent it on. This was revealed by a Chris Dodd supporter. See the link.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/clinton_county_chair_in_iowa_i.php

To propagate this form of slander is a crime. If it is discovered that the Clinton campaign encouraged it, or knew about it and covered it up until it got out, they are criminal too.

chelser wrote on December 5, 2007 3:45 PM:

Why are you posting this now? I received this email in June or July. I have no relationship with either candidate. This email has traveled many internet miles! I have no problem with the truth and want to know the truth about any candidate DON'T YOU?

Perry wrote on December 5, 2007 3:48 PM:

Is it just me, or has it become a pattern for the Hillary Campaign that she accuses somebody of something (which happens to be a completely overblown accusation), and then hypocritically does the same thing herself soon afterwards? First it was mudslinging...now it was her accusing of Obama of "Dirty tricks" and misinformation one or two days ago

dcshungu wrote on December 5, 2007 3:49 PM:

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 3:34 PM:

dcshungu,

Weren't you saying the other day that this is a trump card that could be played against Obama if he is nominated?

The Dissembler's trouble with comprehension of Standard American English (SAE) continues. I never endorsed it is a trump card. I had stated that the Republicans are so shameless that they would not hesitate to use it as such a card, and this was in response to Michael's ongoing fantasy that Muslims from Riyadh to Islamabad would be grateful to America for electing a black POTUS named Barack Hussein Obama. Look it up. It is in the archives.

No decent person would stoop so low, but then again, the Lee Atwater Republican Smear Machine has never been accused of being decent...

Should credible evidence surface to show that Clinton's camp was behind this smear, she'll immediately lose my support (and suspect that of many), as I could never look the other if such an abomination be perpetrated by a Dem candidate against another. You have my word on that.

Michael wrote on December 5, 2007 3:51 PM:

Callahan is immaterial. He was on the receiving end of a "chain" letter of the kind that clutters my junk mail bin daily...No one had ever asked me if I wanted to be included before they spammed me.

I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with you here, dschungu...

If the email had been sent by anyone other than another Clinton staffer, then, yes, he would be totally immaterial. He's not responsible for the content of the span he receives.

HOWEVER, he could be considered responsible for not acting on the information that someone in the Clinton staff was spreading such vicious and bigoted lies, seeing as how he himself is a Clinton campaigner and the idea that he got a chain email from someone he doesn't know who also just happens to be a Clinton volunteer strains credulity.

What Callanan did with the knowledge that this country chair was spreading these lies, and what he was in position to do based on his spot in the campaign hierarchy, are all entirely relevant.

If it turns out that he passed this along to the higher-ups, and people of import in the campaign saw it and sat on it and did not fire the county chair outright, well, that reflects rather poorly on them.

If Callanan was in position to do that (pass it up the ladder) and did not, he should be fired as well as the country chair.

TheraP wrote on December 5, 2007 3:52 PM:

"not the God of the Koran"

Honestly, folks. One God. Judaism. Islam. Christianity. All believe in one God!

I know it's a terrible, terrible email. But it really gets laughable when people think it's a different God. If you believe in God and believe God is One, how can you imagine someone's worshiping a different
God? It's just ludicrous. But I guess that's fundamentalism for you!

dcshungu wrote on December 5, 2007 3:54 PM:

Oops.. Too important to leave the errors in there.

Should credible evidence surface to show that Clinton's camp was behind this smear, she'll immediately lose my support (and I suspect that of many), as I could never look the other if such an abomination is perpetrated by a Dem candidate against another. You have my word on that.

Michael wrote on December 5, 2007 3:55 PM:

Ben Smith has this:

UPDATE: The Clinton campaign forwards Callanan's immediate response to the email which, though he didn't pass it on to the campaign, reflected his disgust at it:

From: Ryan Callanan
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:49 AM
To: 'Judy'
Subject: RE: Meet Barack Obama]

I’ve gotten this forward before. It’s racist and ignorant. I can’t believe that people believe this stuff.

Ryan

I guess that's acceptable, though I would've liked to see him pass it up the ladder...as Smith notes, he did indeed fail to do that.

I can live with that response from Callanan, and retract what I was saying earlier about Callanan possibly being fired if he didn't pass it up the chain of command.

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 3:56 PM:

dcshungu,

Just to be clear then, you are now saying the Republicans might try this same tactic in the general election, but only a dimwit would believe it would work, correct?

dcshungu wrote on December 5, 2007 3:58 PM:

Michael on December 5, 2007 3:51 PM.

You make some good points but gotta go...
...Research Committee Meeting Time!

Later, Gator!

Zueda wrote on December 5, 2007 4:00 PM:

loose change wrote on December 5, 2007 3:35 PM: "Judy" could be Judy Rose:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=12638

Found this through yahoo:

www.genealogy.com/users/b/a/k/Jerry-Wayne-Baker/FILE/0001text.txt
He married Jewell Clair Scallorn on 24 December 1919 in Clinton, Custer County, Oklahoma. ... Family Posted by Judy Rose on Thu, ...

Hmmmm...

Michael wrote on December 5, 2007 4:02 PM:

loose change--

I hate to be speculative with people's reputations, but my best guess would be:

* Judy Wagner of Larrabee, Cherokee County; Former Mayor of Larrabee, Activist

I'm not sure if she's a county chair or not, but she's a "Judy" on Clinton's Iowa leadership council from cherokee county...fititng well with the email address "jcheroke"

press release detailing Hillary's leadership team in Iowa

Zueda wrote on December 5, 2007 4:02 PM:

jcheroke@fyiowa.infi.net

Zueda wrote on December 5, 2007 4:03 PM:

www.genealogy.com/users/b/a/k/Jerry-Wayne-Baker/FILE/0001text.txt
He married Jewell Clair Scallorn on 24 December 1919 in Clinton, Custer County, Oklahoma. ... Family Posted by Judy Rose jcheroke@fyiowa.infi.net on Thu, ...

Pete wrote on December 5, 2007 4:08 PM:

I hope people do go check Snopes when they get this email since they totally eviscerate the argument:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Michael A wrote on December 5, 2007 4:09 PM:

Notwithstanding the facts that I am not a clinton II lover and that the campaign has been doing some desperate things this week, I cannot believe that they would condone or encourage this type of e-mail. It just doesn't make any sense and they cannot be that dumb, notwithstanding the kindergarten thing. This type of e-mail would never work concerning dem primary voters. I don't think it would work in the general either if republicans pulled it. It would only effect the wacko minority of republicans that would not be for obama anyway.

Bottom line, I don't believe it was authorized in any way. Incidentally, dc would never have made the comment she did if there was any chance, whatsoever, that it was authorized.

NH Dem wrote on December 5, 2007 4:10 PM:

I'd say snopes.com has a pretty good case for libel here, if they can find the right person to sue....

Jeremy wrote on December 5, 2007 4:11 PM:

The persons within Hillary's campaign responsible for forwarding this deserve public shaming as the bigots that they are. However, I (an Obama supporter) see nothing here to indicate a Vast Hillarian Conspiracy. I won't jump to the kinds of conclusions that Hillary and her team did over perhaps no more than one over-zealous Obama volunteer getting testy on a couple of phone calls. I betchya with their campaigns' volunteers engaged in these kind of lies, the Clinton team is regretting suggesting those kinds of conclusions are warranted. This is way worse than an overzealous caller.

Zueda wrote on December 5, 2007 4:13 PM:

Also found a Judy Rose using this jcheroke@cedar-rapids.net

Aging Reader wrote on December 5, 2007 4:15 PM:

In case one is interested in looking at what Snopes actually says in regards to some of the points in the nutty newsletter, look at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

This was posted March, 2007, so the junk being spread is nothing new. I have seen the controversial e-mail several times in the past few months, usually sent to me by very right leaning friends. I get a pleasure in sending them the actual Snopes URL.

loose change wrote on December 5, 2007 4:17 PM:

Zueda found what I found. The email "jcheroke@fyiowa.infi.net" - an Iowa email - was attached to someone named "Judy Rose" as recently as 2000. Just google the email address. Then search "'Judy Rose' Iowa" and you pick up the blog on the Clinton website.

jt wrote on December 5, 2007 4:32 PM:

Pretty clear the link to Hillary has been established on both ends. This was sent from a Hillary County chair to a Hillary campaign staffer

15 DAYS AGO.

Why wasn't the HRC Co. chair who sent this fired immediately? Answer: Because they just got caught today!

That speaks volumes to me and should doom her candidacy. Disgraceful

Keith wrote on December 5, 2007 4:37 PM:

My problem is that (1) this isn't an overzealous volunteer, this is her County Chair and a member of her Iowa Leadership Council and (2) knowing these facts, the fact that a staffer didn't report this up the chain of command, immediately, is troubling. The only reason this woman was let go was because the Dodd county chair. It reflects poorly on HRC and her campaign. I'm not blaming them for the county chair's actions, but there apparent IN ACTION once they were put on notice about this.

And the other point: this distracts from what was touted as a major speech today by HRC.

MissTiff wrote on December 5, 2007 4:37 PM:

Here's your smoking gun connection:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:jakZUdUYIM8J:www.rootsweb.com/~okkingfi/oldquery3.html+jcheroke+%22judy+rose%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

It says:

POPE / MCQUIN (MCQUEEN) / BEAGLE
Searching for information on these families.
Judy Rose
jcheroke@fyiowa.infi.net

It connects "Judy Rose" with "jcheroke" and is from Iowa.

colonpowwow wrote on December 5, 2007 4:40 PM:

Honestly, does anybody really care about this kind of smear garbage being spammed?
We all encounter this kind of stuff (mostly from right wingers, fundys, and anti-immigrant loons all the time.

It's about as vicious, factually accurate, and substantive as a john mccutcheon smear post about Hillary Clinton on TPM-EC.

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 4:40 PM:

I can see how one person in the campaign would send it to another person in the campaign, with something like an, "FYI, this e-mail is still being sent around."

But unless I am reading it incorrectly, Callanan was able to see that the County Chair was sending it to more people, at least one of which was not a Clinton staffer.

That is not necessarily damning--maybe Callanan assumed those were other Clinton people. But this seems worth following up.

colonpowwow wrote on December 5, 2007 4:58 PM:

Let's see:

Stating or implying that Obama is a closet radical Muslim because of some convoluted innuendos coupled with outright lies about his background and disseminating such vicious garbage through cyberspace = SMEAR

Stating or implying that Clinton is corrupt (a criminal - corruption is a federal crime you know) by making innuendos coupled with lies, and because she is honest about the source of some of her corporate campaign donations (lobbying firms as opposed to just corporations that HIRE lobbying firms) and posting that she is corrupt on TPM-EC forums = NOT A SMEAR

That about right?

LarryE wrote on December 5, 2007 5:08 PM:

Pete said (December 5, 2007 4:08 PM):

I hope people do go check Snopes

Beat me to it. In fact, eviscerate is exactly the verb I was going to employ. GM truly do TA.

Chelser said (December 5, 2007 3:45 PM):

I have no problem with the truth and want to know the truth about any candidate DON'T YOU?

Which is why things like this email continue in circulation despite being demonstrably false: There are always enough dolts like Chelser out there to believe them.

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 5:12 PM:

colonpowwow,

You aren't helping Clinton by trying to claim those are equivalent arguments.

When Edwards calls the current system in Washington "corrupt", he isn't bringing a federal indictment. And, of course, his claim resonates with a lot of people.

So, I don't think people are going to buy that spreading an e-mail that claims Obama is a Muslim sleeper agent is the same thing.

greg wrote on December 5, 2007 5:12 PM:

When I worked for a another Presidential candidate in 2004 at the State Level, I was the recipient of all sorts of goofball and insane emails alleging conspiracies, etc... My response was never to debunk, but rather to ignore. I'd bet that any Clinton "staffer" whose name appears on the header is simply a link in somebody's "contacts."

Just because a staffer is on a spam list does not mean a thing in, and of, itself.

JJF wrote on December 5, 2007 5:15 PM:

C'mon, everybody. Look what Callahan said about the email:

"I’ve gotten this forward before. It’s racist and ignorant. I can’t believe that people believe this stuff."

This is a total nonstory. Let's move on.

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 5:18 PM:

greg,

The person forwarding the e-mail was also part of the Clinton campaign, a County Chair in Iowa.

I think people are getting confused because at least one of the people to whom she forwarded the e-mail was also a Clinton staffer. That is relevant because that means someone else in the Clinton campaign was aware this County Chair was forwarding this e-mail around 15 days before the story was broken on Kos.

Ron Byers wrote on December 5, 2007 5:20 PM:

Wasn't this on the front page of the Washington Post just the other day. It must be true. :)

anonymous wrote on December 5, 2007 5:30 PM:

DTM,

Actually, there are only six names in addition to Callanan, since "Gary Hart" appears twice.

But, hey, anything to enhance the alleged egregiousness, eh, DTM, even being dishonest about how many people it was sent to.

MissTiff,

You'd better watch out for slander or libel charges.

The posted e-mail makes it clear that the e-mail address for "jcheroke" in the suspect e-mail ends in ".com" not "fyiowa.infi.net"

Maybe they are two different e-mail addresses for the same individual, but you'd better not let your Hillary Hatred lead you to make assumptions that might later prove to be false.

anonymous wrote on December 5, 2007 5:32 PM:

DTM: "That is relevant because that means someone else in the Clinton campaign was aware this County Chair was forwarding this e-mail around 15 days before the story was broken on Kos."

And he says he didn't pass it on to the campaign, but handled it himself by telling the sender how disgusting it was.

Yeah, what a terrible, terrible person he is.

colonpowwow wrote on December 5, 2007 5:38 PM:

DTM:

I didn't say they were equivalent. The Edwardian "cooruption" smear on Hillary is a lot more insidious because the implication can be made in a public manner without the charge even having to be made directly or backed up with any kind of facts.

So what exactly is Edwards saying or implying when he criticizes her for accepting legal corporate donations and being honest about it (as opposed to him parsing it)? What's his point? What is his implication as applied to Clinton?

He's not making some general statement about Washington corruption. He's aiming at her and making a not-so-thinly veiled innuendo re HER being corrupt(ed) by accepting this money.

Last time I checked, an indictment can't be brought against one just for being a Muslim "radical" either.

Anonymous wrote on December 5, 2007 5:44 PM:

What's wrong with being a Muslim, hmm?

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 5:48 PM:

anonymous at 5:30,

I think you are missing Callanan. On the e-mail at Smith's blog, I count six addresses X'ed out, Hart (indeed listed twice, but I only counted him once), and Callanan. That is a total of eight.

anonymous at 5:32,

I'm not sure what information you have about Callanan. But what it says at Smith's blog is: "A Clinton staffer who also received the email responded instantly by denouncing it, but didn't forward it to campaign-higher ups, a copy of his email indicates."

Which appears to be true: there is no indication in the e-mail from Callanan that he forwarded on the e-mail he had received. That doesn't answer my question, however. For one thing, it doesn't address whether he noticed the County Chair was sending the e-mail to other people. It also does not address other ways in which Callanan could have communicated what was going on to other people in the campaign.

Again, I'm not trying to skewer Callanan. I just think these are logical followup questions in light of what I have seen so far.

anonymous wrote on December 5, 2007 5:51 PM:

DTM,

My bad on the counting.

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 5:54 PM:

colonpowwow,

As an aside, you are the one who brought up the red herring of federal crimes. That said, the e-mail does a lot more than just claim Obama is a Muslim (see below).

Anyway, I would guess Edwards is suggesting that lobbyists have an undue influence on politicians thanks to their campaign contributions. Again, you can disagree with that claim--and reasonable people do--but I doubt a lot of people are going to agree with you that making such a claim is the same thing as accusing Obama of being a Muslim sleeper agent.

Anonymouse at 5:44,

Nothing. The e-mail does much more than erroneously suggest Obama is a Muslim, however. There is a lot in there, but I think it is fair to say the basic claim is that Obama is a Muslim sleeper agent planning to destroy the United States.

anonymous wrote on December 5, 2007 5:56 PM:

DTM,

We don't know whether Callanan knew it was a county chair.

We don't know how many e-mails get forwarded to him on a daily basis.

We don't know who all the other people addressed are and what their roles are.

Given that this story has been debunked and in the news for months and we don't know if he knew who sent it, to whom it was sent, and why, we have not reason to believe it was something he should have forwarded to a campaign presumably inundated with information.

dcshungu wrote on December 5, 2007 6:09 PM:

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 3:56 PM:

dcshungu,

Just to be clear then, you are now saying the Republicans might try this same tactic in the general election, but only a dimwit would believe it would work, correct?

Close. It would work on>/b> dimwits and it has...

Enlightened people would see it for what is: foul, crass and bigoted.

colonpowwow wrote on December 5, 2007 6:10 PM:

Accusing someone of being corrupt (giving favors in return for money) is accusing someone of commiting a crime. What is it that the Dukestir is in prison for. What was the name of the crime that he was charged with?

It's not a red herring. The implications re condemning someone for taking filthy lobbyist lucre is clear. Again, otherwise what's the point? What's the punchline?

It's smearing someone with a thinly-veiled accusation of criminal behavior. It's sleazy.

Anonymous wrote on December 5, 2007 6:23 PM:

If members of the GOP are this competent, where are the anti-Romney, anti-Mormon emails?

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 6:28 PM:

anonymous at 5:56,

If your point is that we don't know enough to draw any conclusions, I agree.

dcshungu,

You wrote above: "I would not be surprised if some dimwit out there who was privy to this 'dis-information' didn't actually believe that it was a trump card that could played against Obama..."

That made it sound like only dimwits would believe it was a trump card that could be played against Obama. But are you now suggesting someone beside a dimwit could think it was a card that could be played against Obama (I guess because it would work on dimwits)?

colonpowwow,

I don't think most people understand the word "corrupt" to automatically require criminal behavior. Indeed, I think a lot of people would suggest our laws do not go far enough in criminalizing behavior they view as corrupt.

But anyway, if you think it helps your candidate to argue that no one should be suggesting that Washington is corrupt, I won't stand in your way.

Anonymous wrote on December 5, 2007 6:36 PM:

Here are some additional Clinton supporting bigots:

http://www.observer.com/2007/hillary-supporters-obama-being-muslim

colonpowwow wrote on December 5, 2007 8:32 PM:

DTM:

Stop being obtuse. I'm not talking about corruption in Washington. I'm talking about the Edwards tactic of implying that if you take money from lobbyists you're somehow corrupt and that this is aimed at Hillary.

What is the meaning of corruption, even when applied to Washington as a whole, other than doing political favors in return for money as a tit-for-tat (which is a crime - which is what Cunningham got nailed for)?

What other meaning do you have for corrupt? Your skin starts to rot? Being corrupt means on the take, in the pocket. If you accuse someone of being corrupt, you're accusing them of criminal behavior - doing legislative favors in return for money.

Again, it's sleazy what Edwards is implying, especially when he gets legal money from corporations who hire lobbyists. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with lobbyists either. Unions lobby. Teachers lobby.

Edward's spending a lot of ad money mplying that (unnamed person) taking lobbyists' campaign contribution money is somehow corrupt. Otherwise, again, what's the point of the "issue?" You'd be corrupt if you took some kid's money from his piggybank and then later voted to give him a free armored car. That's what's corrupt. Not WHO gives the money.

Anonymous wrote on December 6, 2007 6:59 AM:

Does no one else notice that this whole thing became a story because the Hillary campaign fired the person who sent the email and commented on it publically?

In fact, the didn't try to cover anything up, they did the opposite and in doing so they shone a national spotlight on the fact that this has been debunked in a way that Obama himself couldn't do?

Is the hatred of Clinton so deep that this example of real integrity is being spun by those who hate her into something sinister on her part?

savvy wrote on December 6, 2007 7:54 AM:

Anon
It is difficult for HRClinton to get the benefit of the doubt here in terms of having done the right thing due to her announcing just a few days ago, that the'fun' part was about to begin.

It is also difficult for people who pay attention to her campaign not to see a clear pattern and attitude projected of 'winning at all costs' coupled with HRClinton's own announcement that she is 'in it to win it' as well as the entire tenor of her campaign so far.

Let's recall. Hillary attacked Barack early on in this campaign about remarks that a Geffen made and demanded that Barack denounce Geffen for his having called the Clintons liars. Do you remember that? She further wanted Barack to return the funds Geffen raised.
That was her first shot at Obama that was below the belt, where she tried to hold him accountable for remarks a supporter made who was not associated with his campaign. But more importantly who had a 14 year relationship with the Clintons themselves. HRClinton's campaign had to back off that attack as it was senseless given the Geffen's relationship with Hill and Bill was longer than OBama has been in politics.

The next time Hill attacked Obama was the foreign policy flap where she called him 'naive and irresponsible'

Then there were the allegations that Hillary was the source of the story about Barack attending a radical madrassa.

Then we get Hill accusing Barack of wanting to be President since kindergarten.

So, all of this is a general pattern of behavior by Hillary and her campaign and it cannot help but permeate throughout her campaign since we all know shyt rolls down Hill.

Not to mention that Hilliary boasts of being a fighter and has always been the pitt bull for Bill's campaigns as well as his bimbo eruptions.

When you put all of this together it is reasonable to believe that Hillary's basic demeanor and methods.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 8:08 AM:

colonpowwow (assuming that was you as Anonymous),

That's the thing: a member of Congress can take a lobbyist's money for their campaign one day, then have that lobbyist come in and help them write legislation favorable to their cause the next day, and that isn't a crime. But some people think it should be.

This is actually an incredibly complex issue, because the Supreme Court has interpreted the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution as giving members of Congress broad immunity for legislative acts, including things like writing legislation. So, in a typical bribery case at the federal level, you have to catch the legislator actually making an explicit promise at the time of receiving the contribution, and hold them liable for the promise rather than any subsequent legislative act taken to fulfill the promise. And if everything is implicit, then generally there is no way of finding them criminally liable.

And of course with lobbyists, it is very easy for everything to be implicit because legislators know what causes the lobbyist favors (in virtue of for whom they lobby). Which is why some people believe that lobbyists should simply be barred from making campaign contributions to members of Congress: the constitutional limits on the applicability of federal corruption laws makes it very easy for lobbyists to have undue influence.

But all that probably doesn't matter. The political point is that I just don't think you are going to help your candidate by claiming calling this sort of thing a version of corruption is as bad as calling Obama a Muslim sleeper agent.

savvy wrote on December 6, 2007 8:16 AM:

oops that last line should read.

When you put all of this together it is reasonable to believe these are Hillary's basic demenaor and methods UNTIL she gets caught...and then she acts like she was unaware of what is going on...after having fostered the atmosphere to be such in her campaign.

O and let's not forget how she planted a question...claimed she knew nothing of thest methods...YET...the staffer showed the girl an entire notebook with questions categorized by topic for individuals to ask based on their demographics.'

That notebook was too specific for the entire campaign not to be aware of it and for Hillary to have no knowledge of it.

Jeffrey Sykes wrote on December 6, 2007 8:52 AM:

This is the same email I've been combating here in North Carolina.

I am glad to see it finally getting the scrutiny it deserves.

S Robinson wrote on December 6, 2007 2:23 PM:

The reality is that 80% of the information in this article is true. I mean its verifiable. Some of the bigoted adjectives like radical, extreme are out of line but the facts remain. This shouldn't disqualify him from being president though.

Truth Seeker wrote on January 3, 2008 11:47 AM:

So what is true and what is false in the email hoax? The most effective email hoax wraps the lies in truth... Regardless who sent the email, dissect the statements one at a time and try to prove them all false.

david kelley wrote on January 11, 2008 8:25 PM:

Whomever sent this out believes Obama can win. The opposition is running scared. This is their usual fear mongering (which is usually false). The opposition (especially the current administration) is always trying to scare us into voting for them or giving up our rights or allowing them to shred the constitution. They can't debate us on the issues because they will lose. So they do things like this to sway people who don't pay close attention. We must continue to discredit this kind of nonsense but we also should see this for what it is. They don't want Obama to run because they know he will win.

Post a comment

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