Hillary Official Who Made Obama Drug Comment Is A Goner

Comments (94)

loki wrote on December 13, 2007 4:24 PM:

Turns out, CalD, it is possible to fire him.

CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 4:26 PM:

No, loki. It isn't. But he can resign.

Deacon wrote on December 13, 2007 4:27 PM:

Falling on his sword... or hoisted on his own petard?

loki wrote on December 13, 2007 4:27 PM:

Yes, no pressure at all. It was all his idea.

Keith wrote on December 13, 2007 4:35 PM:

Here let me help you with that sword....

Michael A wrote on December 13, 2007 4:36 PM:

There goes that bus. Now let's see if she backs it up over him again.

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 4:38 PM:

Out of curiousity, does this keep happening with the Edwards campaign and I am just missing it?

Thethinredline wrote on December 13, 2007 4:38 PM:

Might this be the husband of Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen? Perhaps it's her brother... Anyone know?

bridoc wrote on December 13, 2007 4:38 PM:

Right, even before this episode their campaign was anything but positive. It is pretty ridiculous that the person who threw the first negative punch always goes back to claiming to be positive while decrying "Republican play book" tactics, yet she keeps on playing dirty.

I wish the media was a little more concerned with facts than following this stupid ass rat race.

She better either get a grip on her campaign people, or quit playing the plausible deniability crap before she runs out of people to lead her campaign.

CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 4:39 PM:

loki,

You said, and I will quote, "Shaheens ignorant remarks should have got him canned. Don't know why they didn't."

I just explained that they couldn't just haul off and fire someone that high-profile. That works for minor staffers, not the husband of a former governor of the state and not for simply expressing his opinions about things Obama did in fact say.

I didn't say that Shaheen couldn't suddenly decide to spend more time with the family. I kind of figured that one for about a coin toss.

RESPECT Republicans wrote on December 13, 2007 4:40 PM:

I live the liberal infighting

You whiney Democraic wimps

Oh gosh, gee wiz, oh your so strong,
can I feel your muscles. Oh I am just swooning over the raw display of Democratic prowess. Oh my , I feel a bead of sweat trickling down my breast bone.
I do declare I think I may swoon.

Yeah , all you Democratic losers are so pitiful. Get use to republican power -
because there is more to come for many many years.

George Bush is the best thing that ever happened to you all, your like a bunch of
babies who need to be suckled on a republican tit.

Ted wrote on December 13, 2007 4:42 PM:

Nice to see some evidence of holding people responsible for their deeds or misdeeds with a consequence.

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 4:42 PM:

CalD,

Are you distinguishing between firing someone and asking for their resignation?

savvy wrote on December 13, 2007 4:43 PM:

Well another one who demonstrates how Hillary excells at KILLING the MESSENGER.

The pattern of events though shows that this is a well orchestrated attack on Obama and the politics of personal destruction is a deliberate tactic on the part of HRClinton that she joyfully engages in as it is the 'fun part'

And if the emails, essays, and drug use aren't enough, check out the confirmation that Hillary does indeed have staffers spamming the blogs:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/13/nh_blog_unmasks_a_campaign_in.html

Tom St wrote on December 13, 2007 4:44 PM:

How exactly does Hillary's campaign start to turn their campaign around? They're desperately afraid of going negative, and Obama has all the momentum. Can they make this up on the ground?

dcshungu wrote on December 13, 2007 4:44 PM:

Keith wrote on December 13, 2007 4:35 PM:

Here let me help you with that sword....

From the moment I saw that comment, I knew it was so stupid and ill-timed that heads would roll...

LOL. Good riddance but perfect timing though: His self-immolation could serve to stir the narrative away from the so-called "Obama debate zinger" that has TPM and folks in the other thread hyperventilating. His departure having already been decided upon, Shaheen could just have been waiting in the wings to be the sacrificial lamb in case Clinton stumbled badly in this debate...Nah, too, convoluted to have been a planned strategy.

loki wrote on December 13, 2007 4:47 PM:

OK...I'm not proud about this, but here goes:

To RESPECT Republicans,

You "live" liberal infighting?

"Democraic?"

It's "you're" so strong not "your."

And it's "you're" like a bunch of babies, not "your" etc...

And capitalize that last "Republican!"

Thanks and please come play again!

NCSteve wrote on December 13, 2007 4:47 PM:

All right, who left the door open and let the dickless 12 year old trolls in?

And now that the ritual disembowelment phase of this mission is complete, we are still left with the question, was this a case of "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_II_of_England

or, of "So somebody's just gonna have to go out there and take one for the team. And I think in all fairness it should be Butters."?

http://www.tv.com/south-park/cartman-joins-nambla/episode/2469/summary.html

Because, it most certainly was not a case of just some loose cannon talking some random sh*t.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/11/as-iowa-nears-clinton-al_n_76235.html

Keith wrote on December 13, 2007 4:50 PM:

dcshungu:

You've been fairly reasonably lately, so I won't give you too much grief on the Obama zinger. But this isn't going to stop the spread of the zinger. If anything it stops the bleeding on the issue. As for the zinger, that bad boy is going viral (and Chris Matthews' head is probably going to explode tonight on Hardball).... The holidays can't come fast enough for Clinton at this point.

bob wrote on December 13, 2007 4:51 PM:

Is the Hillary campaign still PHONEBANKING out of Bill Shaheen's NH LAW OFFICE?

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 4:52 PM:

By the way, I wonder if Shaheen would have gotten fired if not for the selling drugs part. I have no idea if this is true, but it seems entirely possible that was an ad lib, and from what I have seen that particular comment has really outraged a number of African Americans.

Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 4:52 PM:

I think this could have been pre-planned, up to and including Shaheen's resignation.
The cable news stories are talking about Obama and drugs, and Hillary comes out looking clean ( I think).
I'm a Hillary supporter, btw.

LJ wrote on December 13, 2007 4:53 PM:

Get use to republican power - because there is more to come for many many years.

Slept through the 2006 elections, did we?

loki wrote on December 13, 2007 4:53 PM:

Keith,

Well that's a good point. Matthews is sporting some serious wood right about now. His insanity over Clinton knows no bounds.

dcshungu wrote on December 13, 2007 4:56 PM:

Tom St wrote on December 13, 2007 4:44 PM:

How exactly does Hillary's campaign start to turn their campaign around? They're desperately afraid of going negative, and Obama has all the momentum. Can they make this up on the ground?

The news of an impending Clinton campaign demise is greatly exaggerate, IMHO. If you get your head out of "where the sun don't shine" and come up for air in the real world, you'll see that it is a long-shot for anyone to beat Hillary, regardless of the tightening of the polls in the early states, which have always been competitive in every elections, including having folks like Pat Buchanan, Gary Hart, Tsongas, Pat Robertson, McCain score "upsets" there only fizzling immediately thereafter.

za wrote on December 13, 2007 5:00 PM:

RESPECT Republicans,

What, have all your Republican friends been convicted and jailed already? No friends "left" but us?

Or do you just need a life?

I agree, but wrote on December 13, 2007 5:02 PM:

loki

We Dems can spell and punctuate but
other then that ??????
Republican Muscle has got a point
Our voices really don't carry very far,
the leaders we elected don't hear us.

So what to do????

EH wrote on December 13, 2007 5:03 PM:

This is a nonstory. Every campaign has dirty workers who spread unsavory information about opponents early in the season only to be "fired" or "resign" when the jig blows up. Seriously, there are people who are specialists in early-campaign dirty tricks, it's their stock in trade. This Shaheen guy was never going to go all the way until the election, he's just a dirty-tricks tool. Now Hillary can distance herself while the information she supplied is used to help Republicans (and by extension, her).

dcshungu wrote on December 13, 2007 5:06 PM:

Tom St wrote on December 13, 2007 4:44 PM:

How exactly does Hillary's campaign start to turn their campaign around? They're desperately afraid of going negative, and Obama has all the momentum. Can they make this up on the ground?

LOL. I did not change. You all did! With Obama's fortunes haing apparently changed, you have been so full of goodwill that the animosity that you "projected" onto anyone who supports Clinton has gone down at bit. If I sounded "vicious" it was because I would always respond in kind and then some. But I have always said that anyone who wanted to have a civil and "intelligent" debate would get one from me any time. Please do not revert to your old selves. It has been almost pleasurable to frequent these fora lately. I hope Obama continues to do well until he gets slaughtered on Super Tuesday, then it will be over and we all would unite to support Hillary for the fight against the GOP.

pacc wrote on December 13, 2007 5:07 PM:

Billy Shaheen should never have resigned. Everything he said is true. O-Bomb-A used cocaine during his adolescent identity crisis and over 78% of voters say they will not vote for a candidate who has used cocaine.

All true.

If whiny weanie Barry thinks this is rough, wait till you see what the Republicans have in store. Fortunately he will never make it out of the Democratic primaries.

loki wrote on December 13, 2007 5:08 PM:

EH,

Dammit! I'm supposed to be the most cynical in here! Ah hell...you win. ;^}

Keith wrote on December 13, 2007 5:10 PM:

Pat Buchanan, Gary Hart, Tsongas, Pat Robertson, McCain score "upsets" there only fizzling immediately thereafter.

Good point, but you forgot the one major caveat . . . none of them had the cash, organization or charisma to compete with the then frontrunner. Try as one might, there is no historical comparison that aptly explains what's happening right now. I think a lot of people who support her were looking for a viable alternative. To the extent Obama can maintain that aura of viability, he's got a better than average chance of taking the whole thing. If HRC loses Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, she very well could implode on Feb 5.

votenic wrote on December 13, 2007 5:10 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

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

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 5:15 PM:

Tom St,

As an aside, probably one obvious answer is for Clinton supporters not to attack anyone who dares to raise the questions you raised.

Anyway, the polls are definitely close enough right now in Iowa that anything could still happen. The likely voter models are simply not precise enough, and things like turnout and well-organized efforts to maximize support during the actual caucus process could make a significant difference. And I strongly suspect winning Iowa or at least beating Obama is still something Clinton very much wants to do.

If Clinton does lose to Obama in Iowa, however, I suspect they will discount that loss as unsurprising. We already have seen the talking points, such as that Bill never campaigned in Iowa and that Senator Clinton started off behind in the polls (they don't tend to mention she was originally behind Edwards, not Obama).

They will probably then try to spin whatever happens in NH as a "comeback" (even if she doesn't win). The idea would be to get enough momentum back to hold onto the big states on Super Tuesday, most notably California.

I'll let you decide if all that is plausible. I will note that it has been a very long time since someone lost both Iowa and NH to the same person and then won the nomination, and in that case the person who won both and then went on to lose the nomination was an establishment frontrunner who was deemed to have underperformed even while winning (Muskie).

And to my knowledge no one (at least no one in the last thirty years) has won the nomination without at least finishing second in one of either Iowa or NH. That makes this an interesting situation with both Obama and Edwards in pretty good positions in both states (Edwards less so in NH, but still a solid third right now).

CornBred wrote on December 13, 2007 5:16 PM:

TOTAL Missed opportunity by Hillary. She should have "fired" him last night or this morning, not allowed him to "resign". There's a difference. It's kinda like Bush not firing Rumsfeld, but just eventually accepting his resignation. Leaders have to FIRE people sometimes. If there was a situation ever where Hillary needed to fire someone, it was Billy Shaheen. Geez...another wasted chance for Hillary to prove she can lead.

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 5:20 PM:

Keith,

Moreover, in almost all those cases the eventual winner at least took one of Iowa and NH. The only exception is Bill Clinton in 1992, and he didn't lose both to the same person, but rather to two different local favorites (Harkin and Tsongas).

blackstar wrote on December 13, 2007 5:21 PM:

it seems very telling that no-where in Shaheen's "ending statement" did he say that his comments were A) completely unsupported or B) out of line, despite not just the fact that they both of these things but that it was their wrongness, ostensibley, that is forcing him to resign in the first place!

instead, he goes to every length to deny Clinton's role in their exposition rather than retract them as false or misleading innuendo. this should say quite a bit about the Clinton campaign's purpose and priorities.

spinn wrote on December 13, 2007 5:22 PM:

Nah, actually this is kind of refreshing...someone resigning after a misstep like this is how it *used* to be. It's not as mean as an outright firing, everyone understands it to be a firing really, but it's a graceful way out.

We've just gotten used to law-breaking, insensitive Repub cronies hanging on forever without any consequences, that we'd like people to be outright fired. But if we get back to mutually agreed resignations for people when they do wrong, well...I wouldn't complain.

NCSteve wrote on December 13, 2007 5:27 PM:

Everyone keeps saying Tweety's head is going to explode over this and its going to explode over that, but, unfortunately, it never actually happens.

Keith wrote on December 13, 2007 5:32 PM:

DTM: Good point.

NCSteve: You've been on a roll lately.

Everything But Yule Brenner wrote on December 13, 2007 5:34 PM:

"(and Chris Matthews' head is probably going to explode tonight on Hardball)...."

Yep - into a fountain of spit.

Oh, wait - it does that every night...

Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 5:36 PM:

Howard Fineman thinks he'll be back in some capacity.

CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 5:54 PM:

Yule,

I had the Mr. Magoo show-- I mean, Hardball on for a few minutes earlier and couldn't help thinking Chris Matthews, so far behind the curve, he must be able to see his own ass from where he's standing.

bob wrote on December 13, 2007 5:57 PM:

They are just milking it for another day of media coverage, another spin in the cycle. Now the original comments are in the news again.

Think about it. It's clearly part of their cynical strategy.

dcshungu wrote on December 13, 2007 5:57 PM:

pacc wrote on December 13, 2007 5:07 PM:

Billy Shaheen should never have resigned. Everything he said is true. O-Bomb-A used cocaine during his adolescent identity crisis and over 78% of voters say they will not vote for a candidate who has used cocaine.

All true.

If whiny weanie Barry thinks this is rough, wait till you see what the Republicans have in store. Fortunately he will never make it out of the Democratic primaries.

One last time. The veracity of the comment is beside the point. It was absolutely awful and stupid politics during a Dem primary race, because most people in the "liberal" party, i.e. us, do not give a shit about that stuff. Such attacks would turn off even people who are die-hard Hillary supporters in deep blue places like CA and NY (she'd lose me if she were personally responsible). Obama does not look or act like someone who is on crack. He is a very intelligent and successful young man, who might even be POTUS some day (2016 -:)! Do you think such an attck would stick on him with the Dem primary voters? Also, because of the obvious "stereotypical" implication, how well do you think that attack would sit with African-Americans in the party? I am glad the Shaheen resigned. Leave the dope use attacks to the party of "family values"...

I did a single puff of a joint (and "inhaled") 21 years ago after finishing undergrad and it got me so sick that I never touched anything like it or anything in the family of *oids since. Now, please tell me how that affects who I am today?

We should not be of so full of "passion" that we let go of simple common sense. It would make us stupid. It is what distinguishes us from the other party... or so I thought.

Michael A wrote on December 13, 2007 6:01 PM:

Wow dc!!!!! Sometimes you truly amaze me. Good post again.

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 6:05 PM:

Michael A,

Of course, dcshungu is also trying to suggest that while such an attack wouldn't work in the primary, it might in the general election.

pacc wrote on December 13, 2007 6:15 PM:

Sorry, dcshungu. I reject the apologist stuff. O-Bomb-A would be a disaster on the national ticket, and this is one more reason why. Billy Shaheen was right and long-time Democrats (such as myself - voting Democrat since 1968, including a stint as a Congressional Press Secretary) believe O-bomb-A needs to be accurately, publically and FULLY vetted. If and when he is, Democrats will reject him and his race-baiting, loose cannon wife in droves.

Michael A wrote on December 13, 2007 6:23 PM:

Pacc, I agree that he should be fully vetted. What about your hero, clinton II, shouldn't she be fully vetted as well?

Once again DTM, the suggestion is probably as you describe. Spot on.

dcshungu wrote on December 13, 2007 6:24 PM:

Michael A wrote on December 13, 2007 6:01 PM:

Wow dc!!!!! Sometimes you truly amaze me. Good post again.

I am like that all time, if you would just really read my posts.

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 6:05 PM:

Michael A,

Of course, dcshungu is also trying to suggest that while such an attack wouldn't work in the primary, it might in the general election.

I cannot help you with your paranoid afflictions other than to offer to give you a brain MRI scan to ascertain their extent...pro bono.

I am here to pontificate and I can speak freely, so I could have suggested that his drug use could be a problem but I do not think it would be even in the GE. On the other hand, his race would be exploited, but no one other than folks like myself who are not connected with any campaign can say it openly because it would be fatally mortal politics! Got it now?

Always remember that I am here to pontificate just like you, and that I will vote for Obama if he wins and that I am free to say anything that I want and that campaign-onnected people couldn't because I do not represent anyone but "dcshungu."

dcshungu wrote on December 13, 2007 6:30 PM:

pacc wrote on December 13, 2007 6:15 PM:

Sorry, dcshungu. I reject the apologist stuff. O-Bomb-A would be a disaster on the national ticket, and this is one more reason why.

The Hillary Camp and Shaheen himself are with me on this one. I fully agree that Obama does not yet have what it takes to be POTUS and that nominating him is the only way we could lose this election, but the best way to ensure his nomination is to go after him with stupid attacks that would turn the Dem voters against the attackers, in favor of Obama! This is simple common sense, I think.

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 6:32 PM:

Michael A,

The real tipoff was: "Also, because of the obvious 'stereotypical' implication, how well do you think that attack would sit with African-Americans in the party?" That qualification (limiting the comment to African-Americans "in the party") was a bit too obvious.

dcshungu,

I have never suggested that you should not speak freely, nor even implied as much (e.g., by saying something to you like "please get lost"). I do, however, reserve the right to do so myself.

CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 6:53 PM:

DTM:

By the way, I wonder if Shaheen would have gotten fired if not for the selling drugs part. I have no idea if this is true, but it seems entirely possible that was an ad lib, and from what I have seen that particular comment has really outraged a number of African Americans.

For the record, Shaheen didn't accuse Obama of selling drugs. He just said he'd probably be asked about it (which is probably true). Here's the quote I read.

"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year. Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama's openness about his past drug use -- which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire -- with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was "young and irresponsible."

Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

dcshungu wrote on December 13, 2007 6:57 PM:

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 6:32 PM:

Michael A,

The real tipoff was: "Also, because of the obvious 'stereotypical' implication, how well do you think that attack would sit with African-Americans in the party?" That qualification (limiting the comment to African-Americans "in the party") was a bit too obvious.

dcshungu,

I have never suggested that you should not speak freely, nor even implied as much (e.g., by saying something to you like "please get lost"). I do, however, reserve the right to do so myself.

Of course, you are free to speak freely AND honestly, but your constant reading of ulterior motives into what I am saying freely and honestly betrays your own dishonesty. You dissemble all the time so you assume that everyone else does it. Wrong. It is not by accident that I refer to you as "the dissembler." Your reading more into what I write here is what is called "projection."

Just read my posts as meaning exactly what they say. I do not state by implication; I just state what I think even if it makes it seem at times as if I were "race baiting"; you of all people ought be aware of it by now.

Kefa wrote on December 13, 2007 7:27 PM:

Now I know I'm gonna get a lot of het for this thought here...but I see a bit of light from this. If this drug exposure become anything big or something that can derail Obamas mo. I would rather it happen here and now rather then it happen in Sept or Oct of 08.

hdpv1918 wrote on December 13, 2007 8:35 PM:

This is actually rather important for the state of NH, because Bill Shaheen is the husband of former gov. Jeanne Shaheen who is running for the Senate against incumbent Republican John Sununu. Her previous race against Sununu was affected by the infamous Republican phone-jamming scheme for which several Republican operatives have been convicted, and investigations into White House involvement are continuing. For her husband to be connected with dubious campaign innuendos affects her forthright, straight-arrow presentation. Big Bad for Billy!

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 8:42 PM:

CalD,

And for the record, I didn't claim that Shaheen accused Obama of selling drugs.

dcshungu,

Of course, that is what I did (read your post to see exactly what you were saying).

EH wrote on December 13, 2007 9:08 PM:

I fully agree that Obama does not yet have what it takes to be POTUS

This is completely ahistorical. If there's anything we should have learned over the past 7 years is that the above statement is completely unrealistic. Really, why not just boil your argument down already? What does Bush have that Obama doesn't?

Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 9:36 PM:

Hillary is such a lying hypocrite. Attacking Obama is her strategy now. The Muslim charger, the kindergrarten charge, the drug charge, its orchestrated and sanctioned, and it gets the hurtful misinformation out there.

Hillary's election officials started these attacks, and Clinton and her operatives keep them going describing them in detail before denying responsiblity for promoting them. Marc Penn, Clinton's Rove, was on Hardball spinning and denying and talking incessently about Obama and drugs. It was untrue, ireresponsible, mean spirited.

Hillary runs a sleazy campaign.

CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 9:55 PM:

DTM wrote: And for the record, I didn't claim that Shaheen accused Obama of selling drugs.

Well, then. Glad we got that straightened out then. I am sure you would not have wanted to leave anyone who didn't bother looking up the quote for themselves with a mistaken impression.

eatbees wrote on December 13, 2007 10:23 PM:

I still think most of Obama's support comes from the Lieberman wing of the party or progressives who for whatever reason, have not been paying attention.

XalD wrote on December 13, 2007 10:26 PM:

Probably just something you ate.

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 10:52 PM:

CalD,

I'll admit I am fascinated by this hypothetical person who has only read my post on this subject and is trying to figure out what it happened. Does this hypothetical person know who Shaheen is? Do they know what drugs are? Do they even understand English?

But, yes, my post was intended for people who know what Shaheen said. For those people, my phrase "the selling drugs part" should have been clear.

XalD wrote on December 13, 2007 11:46 PM:

DTM,

I am completely convinced that you wouldn't have wanted anyone to get the mistaken impression that Billy Shaheen so much as suggested Barack Obama had ever sold drugs. I'm not arguing with you.

Jim H wrote on December 14, 2007 1:38 AM:

Shaheen should have stayed if justice had anything to do with it. This is what's happening, and watch the process: first there's an article by ex-WaPo Tom
Edsall, which is vaguely suggesting that "someone" in the Hillary campaign is thinking about introducing some kind of scandal. This wasn't credible when the Prince of Darkness pulled another "man in the middle" attack, why is Edsall any better? Then, a WaPo columnist asks Shaheen the question. He, like a fool, answers. All he was saying is, don't you think they'll bring it up? All primary long, the Obambis have been pronouncing Hillary "unelectable" and "divisive" because the Republicans attack. Don't you think they'll attack Obama for what he's admitted? Believe me, they've got the oppo research going now. Then the very clever Chicago pols handling Obama, having said, "don't attack me on drugs!," and "Clinton will attack me on drugs!" calls that an attack. Hmm, Br'er Rabbit triangulation. It's not an attack, just a call to reason here. I see it as, look, every Democrat is going to be lambasted. But scream racist, or "manipulative" or any of the other right-wing buzzwords, and Hillary backs up. I don't think she should have, because neither she nor Shaheen did the slightest thing wrong.

Desider wrote on December 14, 2007 3:45 AM:

Hillary fired 2 staffers for the Moslem emails.

When the drug comments came out, she was obviously behind them because she didn't fire Shaheen. Now that Shaheen has "resigned" Hillary either 1) treacherously ran over him, or 2) was still behind it but is making him the dirty tricks scape goat.

There is no winning in the blogosphere, only 6 degrees of spin and 6 contradictory ways to be wrong at the same time.

Desider wrote on December 14, 2007 4:10 AM:

Regarding drug use out in the real world, it's very normal for friends to get a bag of something in and split it up, or to sell off enough of a small buy to pay for your own share - petty dealing. Petty at least for liberals. In the hands of conservatives who can explain away gay hookers and a meth habit, these trivialities will become full-blown scandal, especially since the press follows wherever Republican faxes lead.

Lessee, what was the hot topic of the 2004 election? Oh, Kerry's cowardice and faking his medals. Not his anti-war activism, it was his 5 medals. Who got fired over Bush's skipping out on the National Guard? Dan Rather!!! How did that email go? Oh yeah, "That font couldn't have existed in 1971". Except that it did. But that was enough to bury not just the 1 document but the whole issue of Bush's Guard service and Rather's career.

There seem to be dreamy types believing that Obama is a uniter and that the press likes him too much to do this or that the Republicans will play nicer this time. It was just last year that the Republicans ran the "Harold, Call Me" ad in Tennessee and it worked to sink Harold Ford's election. The Democratic campaigns have been extremely nice and squeaky compared to what they can expect.

Anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 4:30 AM:

The "narrative" is about to change; please get ready for it and try to stay "civil":

December 13, 2007 Oprah getting backlash from some fans for Obama supportOprah and Obama were greeted by record crowds on the campaign trail last weekend. WASHINGTON (CNN) — Oprah Winfrey's recent campaign swing with Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama was greeted with wild cheers and record-breaking crowds. But some of the talk show host's fans aren't happy she's become politically outspoken, and many are sounding off on Oprah's Web site. "Oprah," says one, "count me as tuned out for now." Another writes, "It's a real turn off for a lot of your fans." And yet another says "She has crossed a line and lost my trust completely." But, what's especially interesting about reading Oprah's Web site is why some of those fans seem to be upset: the way she stumped for Obama, they say, seemed to pit white against black. "I've been inspired to believe that a new vision is possible for America," Oprah said while on the stump with Obama in South Carolina. "Dr. King dreamed the dream, we get to vote that dream into reality." Back on Oprah's Web site, one commenter wrote, "Winfrey has artfully begun her stump speeches alongside Obama with a negative racial tone." And another commenter wrote, "Don't pit blacks against whites." Interviewed on ABC's Good Morning America Wednesday, Winfrey rejected the notion she is supporting Obama merely because he is black. "I get a little..I guess the word is 'offended,'" Winfrey said. "To think that I would be supporting someone just because of their skin would mean we haven't moved far from Dr. King's speech in 1963, where he said we should be judged by the content of our character not the color of their skin." In another interview, Winfrey told CNN that she weighed carefully whether she should get involved in politics, wondering whether she would "lose viewers as a result." "I made the decision that I have the right to do it as an American citizen," she said.

The bottomline speaks louder... no wonder she refused to do a commercial for him...

DemAC wrote on December 14, 2007 5:03 AM:

pacc wrote: I reject the apologist stuff. O-Bomb-A would be a disaster on the national ticket, and this is one more reason why. Billy Shaheen was right and long-time Democrats (such as myself - voting Democrat since 1968, including a stint as a Congressional Press Secretary) believe O-bomb-A needs to be accurately, publically and FULLY vetted. If and when he is, Democrats will reject him and his race-baiting, loose cannon wife in droves.

I agree in principle. Ironically however Obama will not be “vetted” in any meaningful way lest he actually wins the Iowa caucuses. The, perhaps, the media will “vet” him. But as long as he’s perceived as some sort of starry eyed, wonder boy underdog – he’ll get away with, if not murder, at least drugs.

As you correctly imply though; would Obama get the nomination and we’d have to wait until the fall after the Convention before the stones are turned and the closets investigated, then we’re in for a real disaster come November.

DemAC wrote on December 14, 2007 5:27 AM:

Desider,
Hear, hear!

And what’s really interesting are those “6 degrees of spin and 6 contradictory ways to be wrong at the same time” when they interact with “dreamy types believing that Obama is a uniter and that the press likes him too much to do this or that the Republicans will play nicer this time”.

Obama never once in his entire life has had to stand up against the Big Red Slime Machine. Perhaps because of this the Obama supporters confuses his inexperience with innocence, as in there can’t be anything there to make anything of. The logic of the Obama supporters is in many ways flawed. Apparently sincere they profess to believe that Obama can’t be harmed because all the dirt the Big Red Slime Machine will dig up will be either old (as in being once mentioned in a book) or untrue (as all things usually are with the Big Red Slime Machine).

Their nice and cozy dream world however deflates quickly when Hillary Clinton is the subject. Even the dreamiest of dreamy Obama supporters then profess to be worried that there may be something there that the Big Red Slime Machine could make something of. Although we all know that whatever it is, it is either very old or very untrue and usually both at the same time.

A double standard at work it is. A double standard invented in the dream world of the blogosphere to protect Obama’s candidacy. A double standard that, in the end, can only badly hurt the Democratic Party.

DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 6:55 AM:

I'm amused at the idea that the vaunted Clinton political machine, which has been looking for dirt on Obama going all the way back to kindergarten, is somehow incapable of vetting him.

By the way, the hard reality is that we already know there is a "double standard" in politics when it comes to personal attacks. As I have reminded the same people many times now, we have a recent example of a case where the "Big Red Slime Machine" pulled all the usual tricks and failed, namely Bill Clinton in 1992. Unlike with Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, and although Clinton gave the GOP plenty to work with and mishandled several scandals, his negatives eventually went back down in time for the election.

As an aside, Democrats are not exactly shy about attacking Republicans either. On their side, we know that people like Reagan and even Bush II did better in the face of attacks designed to drive up their negatives than people like Bush I.

So you would think the obvious thing to do would be to figure out what made Bill Clinton different in public perception than Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, and try to find a candidate more like Bill (and Reagan and even Bush II) than those other people. But of course the people promoting fear of the Big Red Slime Machine do not want you to do that.

Why not do that? Why not look for the solution to the problem they are telling you to be so worried about? Because, of course, the obvious solution would lead you away from the particular candidate they are supporting, and toward her rivals. And most importantly, the whole premise of her candidacy is fear of the Republicans.

So, because they support this particular candidate, they do not want you to think about solutions to the problem of the Big Red Slime Machine. Rather, they just want you to remain afraid. Very very afraid.

DemAC wrote on December 14, 2007 7:06 AM:

DTM,
So Obama is Bill Clinton?

Yeah… riiight…

DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 7:32 AM:

DemAC,

You might note I did not single out Obama. I think if you were looking for the candidates who had the closest resemblance to the Bill Clinton of 1992 in this race, you could make a reasonable argument for any of Obama, Edwards, and Richardson. And of course you don't need someone identical to Bill Clinton. Rather, the idea would be to analyze what about Bill (and Reagan and even Bush II) led to the typical attacks backfiring.

Incidentally, I will note again you didn't try to figure out a solution to the problem you have identified. Rather, the only function served by your post was to try to convince people Obama was not a solution (and without any analysis of what a solution would look like). So again, it seems clear to me that your goal is to try to make sure people stay afraid, and to discourage them from actually trying to identify solutions.

DemAC wrote on December 14, 2007 8:29 AM:

DTM,
I have already identified the perfect solution to your problem: nominate Hillary Clinton. She is battle tested and wise and as good a candidate as they come. She has taken on the Big Red Slime Machine and come out on top. Battle scarred? Sure. But she knows how to beat them.

Your idea of going look-a-like fishing for which candidate resembles Bill Clinton however strikes me as somewhat impractical and borders to silliness.

Michael A wrote on December 14, 2007 8:42 AM:

Morning demac. I agree 1000% on the vetting issue. Lets vet all the candidates and start with clinton II. She hasn't had any vetting at all and has gotten a huge free pass. Obama already has been vetted by the vaunted clinton attack machine. Lets vet her so we don't get swiftboated again. Any problem with that?

DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 8:43 AM:

DemAC,

I think we disagree on the facts.

Hillary Clinton has won two Senate elections in New York, a heavily Democratic state, and was only seriously challenged in her first race in 2000. In that race, she ended up winning by a considerably lower margin than Al Gore won New York in the Presidential election.

That result in her one serious electoral test to date indicates that a considerable number of people were willing to split their ticket between Gore and Clinton's Republican opponent. Of course even under the best possible interpretation of the result in 2000, Gore barely had the electoral support to win the Presidency, and so any substantial lessening of that support would have led to a crushing loss. Accordingly, I don't see why someone objective would consider Hillary Clinton's electoral record to be particularly comforting.

More broadly, it is true that we already know the effect GOP attacks can have on Hillary Clinton's negatives: they can be driven very high for long periods of time. So, accepting that as a final result is not a solution to the problem you identified. Rather, it is simply a capitulation to the problem.

DemAC wrote on December 14, 2007 9:07 AM:

DTM wrote: I think we disagree on the facts.

We obviously do. There is nothing, nothing, the Rethugs can say or do to raise Hillary Clinton’s negatives anymore. They have a host of spent bullets and that’s all they have. Kind of like the poo poo Michael A usually repeats ad nauseam here on these pages. Besides, from a Democratic perspective, a Rethug onslaught against Hillary would be like a free dinner and breakfast too. The voters would produce a very comforting backlash against any attacks.

Obama on the other hand? They have already figured out his propensity for lying and he is virtually unknown for the voters. My guess would be a Rethug 527 somewhere is sharpening their knives to use against him as we speak.

Michael A wrote on December 14, 2007 9:31 AM:

Demac, very funny "poo poo." You gave me a huge morning laugh. I don't necessarily agree with your analysis about the effectiveness of the "poo poo," but very funny. Also, communication 101, get the bad news out now, like the "poo poo," to cut back on its effectiveness, like obama did with the drug bs. Incidentially, another juicy fact about the poo poo, I wonder why rove's protege griffin was installed as the US attorney for arkansas of all places. Gee, I wonder why? He wasn't installed in illinois, was he.

Now where do you come off with the garbage about obama's "propensity for lying"? That's a new unwarranted attack. Propensity for lying???? Come on you have no basis for that one.

DemAC wrote on December 14, 2007 9:49 AM:

Michael A,
I stated that the Rethugs now have discovered Obama’s propensity for lying. The Rethugs usually take the little things and blow them out of proportion.

Democrats on the other hand know Obama’s been lying about a number of things for some time now. For example Obama said that his strongest experience in foreign relations is that he grew up for four years as a child in Southeast Asia. Then went on national television (Nightline) to assert that he didn’t say what he in fact said. Another example is the O-bomb-A moment where Obama lied about his remarks on Pakistan after it backfired.

Michael A wrote on December 14, 2007 9:59 AM:

Oh, you are kidding right???? Both of your claims are totally false. Did you listen to the entire context of what he said? If those are lies, clinton II is lying all over the gd place. He absolutely did not say that "his strongest experience in foreign relations is that he grew up for four years as a child in southeast asia." Same thing with the pakistan statement.

Comeon demac, you are better than that. Propensity for lying my a**. He has more honesty and integrity in his pinky that the clintons put together. You want to talk about clinton II's iraq war vote and clinton I's lies about being against the war from the beginning? Now that's lying.

DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 10:07 AM:

DemAC,

Again, noting that the personal attacks have driven Clinton's negatives to a very high level, then wondering if it is even possible for them to go any higher, is not actually solving the problem. Rather, it is simply capitulating.

In contrast, if you were actually interested in solving the problem, you would look for someone who seems to be able to survive such attacks without having their negatives go up to and remain at such a high level.

Michael A,

You have to have some sympathy for the position people like DemAC have been put in. Their core arguments for Clinton's candidacy depend on the idea that no one can possibly face such attacks, no matter how baseless, without having those attacks work. But at the same time they are making that claim, Clinton is throwing everything she can find at Obama, and it isn't working. So even while they are making this claim, their preferred candidate is in the process of disproving it.

That has to be pretty darn frustrating.

Michael A wrote on December 14, 2007 10:12 AM:

DTM, I know I sound like a broken record, but excellent point once again. You truly are the voice of reason.

DemAC wrote on December 14, 2007 10:32 AM:

Michael A wrote: Oh, you are kidding right???? Both of your claims are totally false

I presume you find the Rethugs1. Transcript from Nightline Nov 26th:
TERRY MORAN: So let’s talk about experience, which you talk about a lot. You said recently that the strongest experience you have in foreign relations is that you grew up for four years as a child in Southeast Asia.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, that’s not exactly what I said. What I said was I think one of the things that sets me apart is that I spent time in other countries.

No, Obama, that is exactly what you said.

2. The Obama campaign worked for weeks on a foreign policy speech. The Obama campaign publicized the speech as a major event because they were trying to get away from the previous Obama blunder regarding meetings, without preconditions, with rogue world leaders. The Obama campaign proudly and prominently placed their big foreign policy speech on the Obama website.

Obama’s speech went off like an O-bomb-A. The Chicago Sun-Times not only published the speech, they also published the accompanying “Fact Sheet” distributed by the Obama campaign. The Fact Sheet and speech transcript were labeled repeatedly as “Paid for by Obama for America”. Obama’s remarks in that bomb of a speech (which appeared to call for an invasion or at least attack inside Pakistan) were not off-the-cuff remarks. Obama’s speech was worked on and massaged for weeks before he delivered it. The Obama campaign not only provided transcripts of the carefully crafted speech but it also distributed a “Fact Sheet” to supplement the speech. In the transcript of the speech, the Fact Sheet about the speech and the actually delivery of the speech the ugly paragraph about Pakistan was included.

From the “Fact Sheet” the following deserves to be highlighted: ”In addition, if the United States has actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf will not act on it, an Obama Administration will. Obama also will increase aid to Pakistan for development and secular education to counter extremists.

Paid for by Obama for America”

The clear implication by this crown of creation speech by the Obama campaign is that (a) Obama would attack inside Pakistan if need be and rub President Musharraf’s nose in this action; and (b) an implicit threat to remove Musharraf and redesign Pakistan’s government. President Musharraf clearly read the Obama speech. Musharraf is a dictator. Musharraf seized power undemocratically in Pakistan via a bloodless coup in 1999. Musharraf saw the threat aimed at him directly, and he reacted. Obama recklessly provided Musharraf with a fig-leaf reason to impose the Pakistani State of Emergency:

Obama, confronted by harsh reality and by most of the other Democratic candidates running for president decided to lie and defame and distort.

In the August debate Obama lied directly to Dodd. From MSNBC:

The biggest point of contention in the debate last night came stemmed from an argument Obama made recently — the idea that he would take action against Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, if that country’s leadership won’t act. Several candidates criticized Obama on that point… and the fiercest exchange was over what Obama said in his recent speech.

Dodd: “If you’re making a mistake today, you ought to stand up and say so. It was a mistake in my view to suggest somehow that going in unilaterally here, into Pakistan, was somehow in our interest.” Obama replied: “I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with Musharraf”

So, who is telling the truth? Judge for yourself. Here is what Obama said last week: “It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.”

Dodd was correct about what Obama said… Obama did not say he would work with Musharraf.

Obama – with his propensity for lying – will be an embarrassment to the Democratic Party should he win the nomination.

DemAC wrote on December 14, 2007 10:40 AM:

Michael A,
That first line above should read:
I presume you find the Rethugs more trustworthy than me.

(And BTW, as you’re so full of it – no offense taken...)

Michael A wrote on December 14, 2007 10:55 AM:

No I don't find republicans more trustworthy than you. I am confused by the prior post. Are you block quoting or are those your gratuitous attacking additions?

Also, I still don't see it. If you have to bend and twist and distort to claim someone is lying, it won't fly. On the other hand, mr. bill's comment about being against the war from the beginning was a clear and a blatant lie. Same type of thing with clinton II's war vote and the iran vote. She's lying about her intent and what she was voting for. It's clear from the record and what the legislation said.

These two alleged lies are way to complicated to try to spin into "lies." See the difference.

DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 11:25 AM:

Michael A,

That is really the problem. As we are seeing, if people do not find your attack on someone's honesty credible, it will backfire and become a question of your competence and ethics. Part of whether the attack is credible is its factual accuracy, but part as well is whether it fits into a broader narrative of arguable importance which calls into question the person's fundamental honesty.

DemAC's attacks don't come close to meeting that second bar. No one is going to think it is important exactly what Obama said about the value of his experience living abroad at different times, as long as the overall story is the same (he thinks it is valuable). Similarly, no one is going to care about minor variations in Obama's statements about hypothetical situations involving Pakistan as long as the overall story is the same (he thinks in these situations we should try to work with Musharraf, but should take unilateral action if Musharraf won't act).

So, this sort of thing just isn't going to work. As you point out, though, something like Kerry trying to explain away his vote for the Iraq War resolution--now that fits into a broader narrative people do care about. And obviously anyone who voted for that resolution will confront the same problem in 2008.

Again, though, DemAC is not really trying to think this through objectively and figure out who is in a position to best deal with this sort of thing in the general election. This is all rather an attempt to get people to believe each candidate is equally vulnerable to this sort of thing, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

Michael A wrote on December 14, 2007 12:07 PM:

Excellent and clear observations. A couple of additional thoughts.

I "lived" overseas for several months, not years, and it does give you a different perspective that I believe is very valuable. Also, it just seems like these two alleged "lies" are totally grasping at straws. I really don't think they would ever fly and I am sick of people misrepresenting what his point was about living overseas. It really turns me off and I think will turn other people off.

Also, I really think the war votes will come back and bite her in the butt, just like kerry as you pointed out. She was for it, before she was against it. The way she is trying to sluff off the fact that she didn't do her job in the senate and stop this horrible travesty speaks volumes. The dead and maimed don't care about these lame excuses and twisting of the truth.

Sheila wrote on December 14, 2007 12:13 PM:

I'm a trained family therapist and systems analyst.

Obama's past drug use should be an issue: how did it impact his life at the time? What did he do to deal with the problem? Simply quit? Get religion? Does he still have self-management/addiction/substance use/abuse problems?

The answer to the last is yes. He struggles, even after all these years, with an addiction to nicotine even though it negatively impacts his relationships with his intimate family members and is a serious health risk. What does he say about that?
"I plan to quit. I'm not perfect." --suggesting that it's insignificant so therefore petty of us to raise the issue.

Other candidates' health risks in the past have been issues. Substance abuse, if it has been significant and not dealt with in a responsible, accountable manner, should raise a big red flag. If the flag had been bigger and redder around Bush's alcoholism, his substitution of religion for booze and his failure to deal with the roots of the problem (narcissism, rage/anger issues, black and white thinking etc...)we wouldn't be where we are today.

Michael A wrote on December 14, 2007 12:30 PM:

I'm a nuclear physicist, a neuro-physician and a psychiatrist.

That was a garbage post sheila. You are claiming that there was some sort of incredible problem that needed intervention or was a health risk. Uh, people recreationally try drugs all the time that don't have a problem and don't need intervention.

I wonder if clinton I had the type of intervention you describe because of his marijuana use. He was a pot-head. What did he do? Find religion. Was clinton II taking a toke with him? Did she get intervention? We should find out, shouldn't we. It is a health risk, right?

Liam wrote on December 14, 2007 12:45 PM:

Here is the real irony in the situation:

Senator Clinton is basing her campaign on her experience having prepared her to be the one to lead from day one. She is selling her proven leadership.

Now, here is where the irony comes in.

It is her campaign, that she is the leader of , that is having to fire senior campaign staff, for stuff like this, and the spreading of smear spam.

An out of control campaign staff makes her leadership claims ring very hollow. If you can not set the right tone for your campaign staff, and have to keep throwing loose cannons overboard, then you are not really displaying the type of leadership and management abilities that you keep proclaiming you have.

SteveG wrote on December 14, 2007 1:38 PM:

What I do respect about all of this is when you work for Bill or Hillary and you screw up big you get FIRED! For the last 7 years we have had a president who was far more loyal to his buddies than the American people who hired him.

In my opinion the single biggest reason the Bush Admin has been so incompetent is that he tolerates incompetence.

Grant wrote on December 15, 2007 2:34 AM:

Yeah, the Clinton campaign takes full responsibility and act on it. That idiot Wyoming guy on the other hand, who claims that Wyoming voters hate Clinton but love Obama, he doesn’t know that. He just bullshits based on his own prejudice and perception. Anyone thinks that idiot will be fired from the Obama campaign? Of course not. Obama has a free license for idiocy in his campaign, it’s the Politics of Hope, see.

DemAC wrote on December 15, 2007 2:55 AM:

Michael A,
I’m sorry if the graphics in my lengthy post above were more confusing than clarifying; it’s not always easy to use the HTML tags to a perfect result.

I do however stand by my statement though that Obama has a propensity for lying.

That the Clinton campaign, because of circumstances, is forced to play nice on him right now doesn’t mean that the Rethugs will, should he capture the nomination. Then his propensity (yes, I like that word) for telling audiences what they want to hear regardless of the truth will be a disastrous problem for the Democrats.

fred wrote on December 20, 2007 9:21 AM:

hi people this good links
sock proxy list
tube sock
cute sock
girl in sock
wigwam sock
wholesale sock
high knee sock
sock fetish
striped sock

Post a comment

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