Hillary Camp Accusing Obama Team Of Dirty Tricks

Comments (23)

keith wrote on December 4, 2007 10:42 AM:

Those internal numbers most be worst than anyone can imagine.

someparisian wrote on December 4, 2007 10:45 AM:

Hillary's not just saying her competitors are using GOP talking points against her, she's now yelling about them using GOP-style politics on her supporters, all this based on little verfiable evidence (so far).

It may be my reflexive distrust of her campaign, but I don't think the alleged Obama dirty tricks are true. Crying wolf like that *does* sound like her campaign, though.

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 10:45 AM:

DESPERATION . . . . . . .

Clinton II's fall back: The republican playbook. Awwww, poor clinton II.

Obama/Webb 08

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 10:49 AM:

How dare people actually talk to voters and try to persuade them to vote for someone besides Hillary!

Oh, the shame of it all.

NYer wrote on December 4, 2007 10:50 AM:

Or, horror of horrors, these things are really happening. Just because it might be happening against Clinton doesn't mean it isn't happening. These tactics are used all the time - not nice but true.

BlueDog wrote on December 4, 2007 10:50 AM:

I’m not surprised. There’s been a stridency and hatred meme emanating from Obama supporters for months now.

LJ wrote on December 4, 2007 10:54 AM:

Ah, yes. The vast left wing conspiracy.

DRinOH wrote on December 4, 2007 11:06 AM:

I'm sure Hillary is the only candidate this is happening to...

CMC wrote on December 4, 2007 11:15 AM:

Is any proof being offered up by Hillary? It appears that not only is she not offering proof that Obama is behind this but she's not even offering proof that such things even happened.

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. The problem is that nobody believes you.

NCSteve wrote on December 4, 2007 11:30 AM:

Damn. This little Clintonian smear apparantly flashed from Hillary's campaign to Ben Smith and Eric's inboxes to the pages of Politico and TPMEC faster than light.

Here's what Hill's people actually said--along with my personal lawyerly take on its evidentiary value (i.e. none whatsoever):

"In Iowa, we have heard reports that Hillary supporters are getting calls that tell them incorrect caucus locations."

"Here's what our supporters told us" = hearsay. What the supporters told the campaign they were told by the person purportedly giving incorrect caucus locations = hearsay within hearsay. Note also that, even assuming such a calls occurred, there is no evidence that the caucus location information was actually wrong (the person called may have been mistaken), that it was willfully false as opposed to merely mistaken or that it was provided by a rival candiate.

"Supporters have also told us about push polls -- when they tell the pollster they support Hillary, they are given negative talking points about her and asked which attacks are the most effective."

Hearsay as to what the supporters told the campaign. Hearsay within hearsay as to what the alleged push pollster supposedly said to the supporter. Conclusory as to allegation that poll in question, if it happened at all, was a "push poll." No foundation for contention that this was a push poll rather than, says polling by Hillary's people testing negative messages which, as we now know, is common practice. Indeed, even if it was from a rival campaign, where's the support for the contention that this was a "push poll," i.e. slanderous lies disguised as a poll, rather than an issue testing poll, i.e. a poll testing the effect of truthful information about an opponent? There is none.

"In both Iowa and New Hampshire, we have heard that Obama staffers are berating Hillary supporters on the phone with negative attacks against her."

Hearsay as to what unspecified "supporters" in Iowa and New Hampshire allegedly said to the campaign. Hearsay within hearsay as to what the unspecified supporters were supposedly told by the alleged Obama staffers. No evidence of what was actually allegedly said by the alleged "Obama staffers" and no foundation for the claim that the persons making such alleged calls to the unspecified Hillary supporters were, in fact, "Obama staffers." Particularly suspect given that Hillary supporters have a tendency to characterize any statement about Hillary, however truthful, that's not fulsome praise of her greatness as a political mastermind and a humanitarian as a "negative attack."

"And here is a report from New Hampshire:

When my father informed them that he was supporting Hillary they proceeded to talk to him about her failure to reform health care when she was First Lady. He said it sounded like they were reading something that was already prepared."

Hearsay as to what the supporter told the campaign. Hearsay within hearsay as to what the supporter's said her father said to the person at the other end of the line. Hearsay within hearsay within hearsay as to what the supporter said her father said was said to him."

Add it all up, and it comes out to what we lawyers call, to use archiac Law French, a great big steamy pile of bullshit.

But hey, thanks for sharing this important breaking story with us Eric. While you're on the job, what's all this stuff we keep hearing about Obama being a Muslim sleeper agent?

DonnaG wrote on December 4, 2007 12:46 PM:

I have canvassed for Obama and we volunteers were told in no uncertain terms to never speak ill of other candidates. I do not in any way believe this latest joke from the Hillary camp.

This Clinton camp latest action most reminds me of Karl Rove's strategy of pretending, for nefarious publicity purposes, that his office had been broken into and bugged.

Bupalos wrote on December 4, 2007 12:49 PM:

I heard obama was a muslim agent working for the vast right wing conspiracy to hijack our justice system into unjustly prosecuting the misunderstood hero Marc Rich.

Anyone else hear that?

Bupalos wrote on December 4, 2007 1:00 PM:

I wouldn't put it past those Obama maniacs. My mother's neighbor's cousin said she saw one of them drinking blood with Carl Rove. I immediately thought of the 3 or 4 mentions of Carl Rove and Obama together from reporters here on TPM.

Just reporting the facts for the deluded folks who think more than two familes are capable of ruling this complex country.

Politics! Politics!
Ride the machine!
Hill in 08 and Jeb in 16!!

Lookingforhome wrote on December 4, 2007 1:14 PM:

Of course, the pure and saintly Obama, and all of the pure and saintly people that work for his campaign across the country are completely incapable of anything like this. Their management structure is so tight and so authoritarian that they can respond in seconds with absolute certainty that none of these activities are happening.

If it turns out that they are, how will all the Obama-lovers commenting here obfuscate and excuse it? We know they will, because their altered reality does not allow they or their candidate to consider themselves as normal people, capable of doing anything other than righteous, holier-than-thou politicking. This of course is a great model for running a campaign in the modern era, putting them in a position to run well against all the other saintly campaigns that they are likely to face. Like Huckabee...wait, no, their surrogates do push-polling too...but oh yeah they'll heed Mike's request to stop...because it was a real request...because he's saintly too...

JHo wrote on December 4, 2007 1:25 PM:

You're way off Lookingforhome. We (Obama supporters) have not labeled him a saint but we do regard him as the best chance for getting this country back on track. I'm really starting to feel bad for HRC; she's teeming with desperation.

votenic wrote on December 4, 2007 1:34 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

Chicagoan wrote on December 4, 2007 2:00 PM:

You Obama supporters just don't know about his campaign manager David Axelrod -- unless you care about dirty politics, police torture and the worst government corruption in America, there's no need for you to pay attention. I'm also curious what Obama's supporters think of his plan to pack the caucuses with Illinois kids going to college in Iowa who temporarily change residences to vote for Obama in the caucuses. I'm sure if you lived in a small population state and had your primary hijacked, you'd have no problem with it.

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 2:05 PM:

Lookingforhome,

It is true that given how large campaign organizations have become, it is virtually inevitable that some people in the organization will do inappropriate things. When such things are uncovered, the proper response depends on what you are talking about.

For example, if the problem is that a volunteer was being too argumentative on campaign calls, that volunteer should be reminded that such tactics tend to be counterproductive. If they can't help themselves, they should probably be given something different to do.

For another example, if someone was deliberately giving people incorrect information about voting locations, that person should be immediately fired from the campaign.

As a final example: using polls to test out negative messages is not push-polling. But if someone engaged in true push-polling, that person should be immediately fired as well.

DTM wrote on December 4, 2007 2:10 PM:

Chicagoan,

Actually, I think it would be great if more college students became involved in state and local politics during their time in college. In my experience, when students do that, some of them end up staying on after college, and the communities and states where good colleges are located end up benefiting.

In fact, that was always part of the rationale behind the public funding of flagship state universities (like, say, the University of Iowa) which attract a lot of out-of-state students: the state may end up retaining some of those students after they graduate, to the benefit of the state.

Anonymous wrote on December 5, 2007 7:14 AM:

Below is the E-mail I've just sent to the Hillary campaign. Can anyone tell me why I am wrong? How does this phone call equate to a dirty trick in any way?

To Whom it May Concern,

I am deeply offended by the recent statement you have put out in which you allege that a Barack Obama caller who makes a strong argument against Hillary's health care experience was engaging in "dirty tricks". If the incident in fact occurred as described:

"When my father informed them that he was supporting Hillary they proceeded to talk to him about her failure to reform health care when she was First Lady. He said it sounded like they were reading something that was already prepared."

Then this was evidently an attempt at political persuasion by a clearly identified campaign worker, using information previously researched. There is nothing "dirty" or inappropriate about a caller attempting (however ineptly or ineffectively) to make an argument about a political issue important to voters. To suggest otherwise is offensive to those of us who care passionately about American politics and who seek to engage directly with fellow voters about the race.

Please retract this allegation, as it is beneath the dignity of a US Senator, let alone an individual who seeks the presidency.

Thank you for your attention.

Karin J. Robinson

Karin wrote on December 5, 2007 7:14 AM:

Below is the E-mail I've just sent to the Hillary campaign. Can anyone tell me why I am wrong? How does this phone call equate to a dirty trick in any way?

To Whom it May Concern,

I am deeply offended by the recent statement you have put out in which you allege that a Barack Obama caller who makes a strong argument against Hillary's health care experience was engaging in "dirty tricks". If the incident in fact occurred as described:

"When my father informed them that he was supporting Hillary they proceeded to talk to him about her failure to reform health care when she was First Lady. He said it sounded like they were reading something that was already prepared."

Then this was evidently an attempt at political persuasion by a clearly identified campaign worker, using information previously researched. There is nothing "dirty" or inappropriate about a caller attempting (however ineptly or ineffectively) to make an argument about a political issue important to voters. To suggest otherwise is offensive to those of us who care passionately about American politics and who seek to engage directly with fellow voters about the race.

Please retract this allegation, as it is beneath the dignity of a US Senator, let alone an individual who seeks the presidency.

Thank you for your attention.

Karin J. Robinson

Ji wrote on December 5, 2007 3:22 PM:

GO OBAMA!!!

votenic wrote on December 11, 2007 5:21 PM:

2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

Post a comment

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