Obama Camp Hits Hillary Over Campaign Official Who Brought Up His Past Drug Use
The Obama campaign has just slammed Hillary for an interview her New Hampshire co-chair Billy Shaheen gave earlier today, in which he brought up Obama's past drug use and used it to question Obama's electability by suggesting the GOP would attack him for it. Here's the statement just out from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe:
“Hillary Clinton said attacking other Democrats is the ‘fun part’ of this campaign, and now she’s moved from Barack Obama’s kindergarten years to his teenage years in an increasingly desperate effort to slow her slide in the polls. Senator Clinton’s campaign is recycling old news that Barack Obama has been candid about in a book he wrote years ago, and he’s talked about the lessons he’s learned from these mistakes with young people all across the country. He plans on winning this campaign by focusing on the issues that actually matter to the American people."
Still no word form Camp Hillary on this.
Late Update: The Hillary campaign says it does not condone the remarks in any way.
Late Late Update: Shaheen himself adds the following in a statement: “I deeply regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the campaign in any way."
Comments (57)
DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 5:20 PM:I actually wish they hadn't done this. I don't think the Obama camp needs to call her out on this - just stay above the fray. They are knocking themselves out over there, just let them dig their own grave.
This just allows Hillary to say, "it wasn't me...," which of course wouldn't work before, and hopefully/probably still wont.
Jeremy wrote on December 12, 2007 5:21 PM:Obama's honesty and candidness is sure refreshing.
PwapVt wrote on December 12, 2007 5:22 PM:The rethugs are going to use it cause HRC just handed it to them.
c wrote on December 12, 2007 5:25 PM:Someone's working fast. Maybe too fast. DRinOH is right. Can I be the second person to say that the tone of rapid-response sucks?
Don't use words like "desperate." Let voters make their own minds up about things like that. Just be dignified and firm.
Same problem with the rapid-response to Krugman the other day, which could have made a good rebuttal but instead tried for cheap debating points.
Kimball wrote on December 12, 2007 5:25 PM:This just allows Hillary to say, "it wasn't me...," which of course wouldn't work before, and hopefully/probably still wont.
Repudiating Shaheen might fly. Suggesting he doesn't speak for her when conducting an interview as the NH co-chair simply will not.
I think the campaign's statement is pretty much on the mark for a response.
Raymond A wrote on December 12, 2007 5:26 PM:This is very sad. A day when I've come to conclude that George W. Bush, whom I revile, has more decency than the Clinton camp. Bush told a teenage girl who said she struggled with drug addiction and decided to try go get straight that "her President had made the same choice" and overcame his addiction to alcohol. This whole story vindicates Andrew Sullivan's thesis that the Clintons remain in a "defensive crouch" because they overlearned certain lessons of the Sixties: you must deny anything having to do with drugs, or you will be marked as culturally disqualified, etc. etc.
cms wrote on December 12, 2007 5:26 PM:Good statement, very measured. I'm glad it came from Plouffe.
And of course Obama's team had to respond to this -- as we've seen time and time again, ignoring attacks Does. Not. Work.
George W. Bush was elected despite his widely known alcohol addiction and drunk driving problem and lingering questions about his cocaine use. Bill Clinton was elected despite his widely known use of marijuana. Barack Obama was elected to the Senate even though he revealed his past drug use years prior to the race.
The HRC attack is particularly ridiculous in its assumption that dismissing questions about prior drug use as "youthful indiscretions" shields one from questions about drug distribution or when a candidate last used drugs. If a candidate was a drug dealer, calling his dealing a "youthful indiscretion" doesn't shield him from questions about it -- it just means he's covering up the truth. We ask our candidates to be open books, searching every corner of their life for information barely relevant to the office they're running for, and yet when a candidate dares to give us the honesty we demand he's attacked for it.
This is why Hillary's candidacy is so destructive to the Democratic Party and the political process. Her people are willing to say and do anything to get her elected. It's not about values or integrity, it's about running your steamroller over all the other candidates, whatever the cost.
RaymondA wrote on December 12, 2007 5:29 PM:The response was pitch perfect. Call her out on this kind of crap and remind voters of kindergate, saying this is teenagergate. Democratic primary voters do not like this sort of malarkey.
Also, I must second the commenter who wisely noted that this form of innuendo -- "WE aren't bothered by his youthful drug use, but those horrible Republicans are, and we must not hand this to them" -- actually is precisely what hands the issue to them. "The rethugs are going to use it cause HRC just handed it to them.
newKnow wrote on December 12, 2007 5:29 PM:Let's see, Bill got elected twice (thankfully) in the face of all types of allegations. But Obama can't win by being truthful? Humm... Hillary, you need some new advisors. Your arguments are not making sense.
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 5:30 PM:Good response. Reminds everyone of the kindergarten 'joke' and casts their attack in the same vein. And leaves their powder dry....
Adam wrote on December 12, 2007 5:30 PM:I just don't understand what the Clinton campaign's point was with all this. Aside from using their tried and true method of attacking a Dem by pointing out attacks that Republicans could make if they were so inclined, bringing up Obama's drug use plays into the very worst impressions people have of Clinton.
First, Obama wrote his book about 15 years ago before he had ever held elected office. By having it out then I think it makes him look less calculating, and more like someone who has not been planning to run for President their entire life, which is in distinct opposition to the consistent stories about Hillary positioning herself for this run in everything she has done.
Second, the openness that Obama's admission shows brings up questions of Clinton's evasiveness, and the public's impression that she can't give a straight answer on anything. It also brings up comparisons of Bill's famous "I didn't inhale" answer in 1992 that is the epitome of Clintonian attempts to have it both ways.
Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 5:31 PM:I actually thought that he shouldn't respond either. However, it is a very good response. Short, sweet and to the point. Very good response. Kind of like his response to the reporter's question about clinton II attacking him for wanting to be president in kindergarten. Obama has class and character. Clinton II has neither.
Steve in DC wrote on December 12, 2007 5:31 PM:I agree with you cms - very measured response. Basically equating it to the stupid kindergarten comments (which most found to be laughable), I thought was effective. Just makes HRC's campaign look small, mean-spirited and (worst of all) desperate.
NCSteve wrote on December 12, 2007 5:31 PM:Everyone seems to have amnesia about the stories in Politico and (I think) the WaPo earlier this week indicating that her campaign was actively trying to push this story into the MSM.
DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 5:31 PM:cms,
I guess my point is, this wasn't an attack. It was a desperate, flailing, and ineffective move that only served to make her campaign look petty and silly. You only serve to dignify that sort of rubbish by responding to it. By using the term "desperate," Plouffe makes this a debate and brings the campaign down to her level. Just stay on message and let her dig her own grave over there, she's been doing a good job of it for a solid month now.
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 5:32 PM:And Greg:
You say that you've not heard from Camp Hillary. Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the Co-Chair of New Hampshire camp enough? Surely you don't suggest that this is the Co-Chair is gone maverick on HRC? You've heard from HRC. Her campaign previewed this earlier today (check Marc Ambinder or see Ben Smith yesterday)....
vena wrote on December 12, 2007 5:33 PM:I thought the response was a little harsh and in my opinion it would be better to let Hillary sink her own ship. But, it's a good general statement for people out there who aren't aware of the politics that have been going on the past week.
anon wrote on December 12, 2007 5:34 PM:As the two centrists in the lead for the nomination reduce the race to idiotic trivialities such as this, we can only hope that the only REAL Democrat with a chance at the nomination and who is far and away the most electable candidate for Democrats nationally, will benefit from the pettiness and negativity as they tear each other up. Go Edwards!
Amber wrote on December 12, 2007 5:34 PM:It's Ali-Foreman, I tell ya: Rope a dope; Hillary's down for the count. Barack Boma Aye! I wonder if Will Smith will lead that chant when he stumps for Obama.
NCSteve wrote on December 12, 2007 5:34 PM:And, btw, how utterly typical of her campaign to, once again, argue that candor is a political liability? Its the only thing they say that I'm confident they truly believe.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 5:35 PM:It is hard to tell in any given case whether a rapid response really is needed, but the Obama campaign long ago announced its policy would be to respond quickly (and truthfully) to any such attacks. In addition to eliminating the risk that the failure to respond quickly will let a story spiral out of control, I suspect they are also trying to demonstrate their basic competence at hardball politics to the chattering class.
gqmartinez wrote on December 12, 2007 5:39 PM:Camp Hillary worse than Bush "We torture and lie about WMD"? Ha.
My view is that Obama is a little too eager to answer every comment thrown at him. To be sure he can't sit back and get pummeled, but this only prolongs the whole discussion of his drug use. Yeah, Obama has been candid about this, but we also have the supposedly "damning" paperwork from 10 years ago stewing in the background (I don't think it's a big deal). The last thing Obama wants to do is to have people think about his weak points. Again, none of these are big deals, but if people think about Obama having liabilities--something almost no liberal blogger or media pundit talks about--it could be bad for the campaign.
A pretty small number of Dems consider him to be the most experienced, true or not. Hillary was mopping the floor with him when experience was much talked about. Getting people to think about Obama's past--which I don't think is that bad--can only help to reinforce the perception of his supposed lack of experience.
With about 10 days left for Obama to escape the primary with absolutely no critical scrutiny, I have no idea why they want to give a stupid statement like this legs.
DaveW wrote on December 12, 2007 5:39 PM:Obama's response was just right. Anybody paying the slightest attention realizes that the Clinton attack DID smack of desperation. She should be called on it.
I've never been a fan of hers, but lately she's become a genuine embarrassment. What's next -- Hillary doing the concern=troll dance over some alleged sexual escapade by Obama? Her hypocrisy knows no bounds. She is the only Dem I will not vote for in the general election.
AC Slater wrote on December 12, 2007 5:40 PM:Perfect response from the Obama camp.
If Clinton keeps up this kind of crap, the next couple weeks (months?) are going be ugly.
onceler wrote on December 12, 2007 5:44 PM:good to see the Obama camp hitting right back at these bullshit smear attempts. of course Obama should hit back - he can easily appear above the fray by not hitting back in kind (ie, with a bullshit smear of his own).
Bupalos wrote on December 12, 2007 5:46 PM:Damn. Weak single on the hanging curve. The key is POLITICS OF FEAR. They simply should have crafted a statement saying Obama does not need to lie about or hide anything in his past, and welcomes the kind of open and honest conversation that his opponents on both sides of the isle have learned to fear.
That says it all.
Shouldn't matter too much because this is a big time self inflicted on the Clinton side. Mentioning the kindergarten thing was fine as far as it goes, but ultimately all this says is the CAMPAIGN is wrong. He needs to subtly say the problem isn't the campaign, but the candidate.
Jeremy wrote on December 12, 2007 5:46 PM:anon. With all due respect to Edwards changes of heart on issues from Iraq to the environment to bankruptcy to etc., I think that Obama's got a little bit better track record as a progressive.
DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 5:47 PM:DaveW,
That's the point. As you said, anybody paying attention already realized that it smacks of desperation. No need to respond, since the "attack" itself is already the best you could hope for.
Still, it wasn't a terrible response, and I like the last sentence. Just unnecessary.
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 5:50 PM:If he doesn't answer this that, it in and of itself, gives the story legs. And quite frankly, in some ways, I think Obama wants it to have legs.
It's not like he has anything to hide (hell it's in writing). In fact, this allows him a nice pivot to the offensive: he can reinforce the politics of hope vs. the politics of fear mantra that is at the hallmark of his change agenda. Clinton's arguing politics of fear here.....
Just something to keep in mind over the next couple of weeks.
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on December 12, 2007 5:58 PM:Great response. I would jettison Shaheen.
His wife's senatorial campaign also must not be happy with this.
gqmartinez,
The bigger picture here is that Clinton is trying to win on electability. Her campaign is not dumb, and they know they won't win the primary just because Obama used drugs as a teenager. What they are trying to do is suggest Obama can't win the general election because he used drugs as a teenager, and they are hoping that will be convincing to primary voters.
And that is why Obama needed to respond. His campaign is also not dumb, so they know they have to address the electability issue (not the teenage drug issue, which on its own is insignificant). And a competent rapid response does that, meaning it shows they can handle this sort of attack competently.
john mccutchen wrote on December 12, 2007 5:58 PM:Our Empress of Inevitability hasn't any clothes.
Grim sight indeed
stlounick wrote on December 12, 2007 6:00 PM:Liked the echo from Hillary's earlier campaign statements that Obama was going negative because he was doing badly in the polls. The Hillary campaign earned those opening sentences in Obama's response.
And, yep, I expect the GOPers to try to make hay of it. I suspect we'll all point out their hypocrisy vis-a-vis Bush's drinking. So. What. Every human on the planet would have "problems" in these sorts of political campaigns.
And I agree with someone who wrote that Obama actually sounds more honest because he confessed this years ago than Clinton does on about anything.
This response was correct.
Marc wrote on December 12, 2007 6:01 PM:You people buy into the Republican "Hillary Clinton as Madame De Farge" framework just as much as the GOPers. It's ridiculous to believe this wasn't anything more than Billy Shaheen saying something stupid. If you dislike Hillary Clinton more than George W. Bush, there's obviously something wrong with your thinking.
votenic wrote on December 12, 2007 6:01 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
The attack was low and unnecessary by HRC. What makes it particularly shameful is how Shaheen asked if Obama was a drug dealer. This is a subtle way of race baiting. I take no issue with most criticism, but that is particularly low and uncalled for.
RaymondA wrote on December 12, 2007 6:10 PM:That was fast. Politico is reporting that Wolfson disavowed Shaheen's comments. Now the question must be, will he be fired? The drug use line is mine run idiocy, but the innuendo about selling drugs is way beyond the pale. Grounds for booting his ass off the campaign.
Heraldblog wrote on December 12, 2007 7:04 PM:Publicly, the GOP will call Obama an al Qaeda plant. Behind the scenes, Republicans will resort to racist fears of race mongrelization. This is going to be ugly.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 7:12 PM:Herladblog,
As I have noted before, if the Republicans try that, I am pretty sure it will end the GOP as a national party. And although I like the idea of the Whigs making a comeback to replace them, I'm told the Federalists is a safer bet.
bvd wrote on December 12, 2007 7:34 PM:MARC- No one said they dislike HRC more than GWB, and most of us will vote for her if she gets the nom. But that has nothing to do with whether she's a good candidate or not - and even less to do with whether she's the best candidate or not. Let's not even get into honesty or integrity.
And I'm getting a little tired of the collective amnesia about how bumpy, disappointing and UN-progressive the Clinton admin was so much of the time. Yes, I miss him after the Bush admin - but, hell, I miss Gerald-frigging-Ford compared to Bush.
One problem seems to be that the pro-Hillary people feel HRC is ENTITLED to the nomination. Anyone else is at best a usurper or, at worst, ahem, uppity.
Sorry, I ain't buying it. If she gets the nom "Clinton Fatigue" will return long before the general election.
RMcLamore wrote on December 12, 2007 8:00 PM:Folks . . . what this is all about is a dress-run for how to respond to Swift-boating.
And, while we're at it, just how repugnant is it that the Clinton campaign would resort on MULTIPLE occasions to sleazy innuendo (and worse, get caught at it . . .).
As for electability, the key here is that the Obama campaign has refused to cower in the face of these lame attacks. This ain't Bob Shrum's campaign . . .
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 8:02 PM:Excellent post RMcLamore!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2226551,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
NCSteve wrote on December 12, 2007 8:38 PM:"Yes, I miss him after the Bush admin - but, hell, I miss Gerald-frigging-Ford compared to Bush."
lol! Serously. Laughing now.
On reflection, I think its good if this story runs for a bit. That way, any issue with the past drug use gets worked out in the press now. Better to do it in response to Hill's concern trolling in 07 and let the press deem it "old news" if the R's really do trot it out in 08. (Which, btw, they can't if Giuliani pulls out of his own New Yorker nosedive.)
I think this will turn out to be a net positive for Obama in the general, as follows:
Dirt from team Clinton oppo research = attenuated flu virus
Swift-Boat style Republican attacks = the flu
Better that he gets the booster shot now prior to the general.
Thanks Hillary!
JO wrote on December 12, 2007 10:44 PM:The comment by HRC's campaign told us far more about HRC than about Obama, which is the essence of Obama's response. Anyone seen any polls lately that shows HRC in anything but decline?
CalD wrote on December 12, 2007 11:02 PM:Not to worry. Bush and Rudy have got his back on this one. Yeah.
Audrey wrote on December 13, 2007 1:31 AM:Well their Hillary goes again first it 3 grade now its high school well as Hillary says Obama must be winning because Hillary slinging mud then she blames her staff but america not stupid they know that Hillary see every thing an ok it before it sent out . HILLARY you dont want to open that box sex gate BILLS ismoke pot but i didnt inhale should i name some more of the clintons virtures
ogtob wrote on December 13, 2007 1:35 AM:Gee, past drug use that he already admitted to. Can we reinvestigate why Hillary went into Vince Foster's office to remove files after he died from a Gunshot wound suicide? What files did she take anyway?
Seriously, this kind of stuff is not necessary and reinforces my instinct that she would be vindictive as a President.
Katie wrote on December 13, 2007 1:47 AM:The despicable,underhanded Clinton has been sitting on this a while and thought to strike now--what a gift to the country-hope she continues to play it this way because the faster she is gone the better for all of us.And hopefully she will take her Fruedian slip husband with her. I honestly think he is trying to sabotage her,which is fine with me.
I am soooo tired of the coronation and the owe it to me meme from her. Still having a hard time finding anyone that supports her
Either Clinton is behind the dirty tricks, or she has no control over her campaign. Either way, it is a fine example of her lack of leadership skills.
vijay wrote on December 13, 2007 3:55 AM:Shaheen was going below the belt but it does not detract from the truth Obama is unelectable
Jeff Morgan wrote on December 13, 2007 6:06 AM:I think the response was responsible. There's a difference between "above the fray" and plain old passive, and Obama can't get passive just yet.
I personally wouldn't have brought up the poll positions; but this was more responding to the story than hitting Hillary, which is good.
Got that Right wrote on December 13, 2007 6:44 AM:Oh Billy Shaheen, blunder boy.
Remeber when the NH Dems ousted Dean for Kerry, bad move of arrogance.
Remeber when Hillary wanted to start the conversation with invite only rallies in NH.
Oh Billy Shaheen, now this?
swarty wrote on December 13, 2007 8:28 AM:
Of course they are going to respond. John Kerry let the lies of the Swift Boat assholes sit there in the media for far too long. They were lies, for sure, but by not fighting back, he gave the impression that there could be some truth to them. Lesson learned.
I thought the tone of his response was quite appropriate. If you notice, he never actually brings up the words "drugs, marijuana, or cocaine." He has already admitted using them. Very few voters have read the 15 year old book. His response involves a mention of youthful indiscretion, which we all have a few of. That helps to minimize it right there. He accuses her of picking on both a kindergartner and a teenager.
Nicely parried, IMO.
Weston Cain wrote on December 13, 2007 9:25 AM:"Amen" to Jan Frackley.
Wes Cain
Overland Park KS
Very well done.
Not hitting back leaves people with the impression that the candidate is a wimp.
I hate to be so base about it, but after 12 years of Republicans campaigning on Josh's Bitch Slap Theory of Politics, and Glenn Greenwald's on-going discussion of how Dems are constantly portrayed as weak, how can this even be debatable?
Earlier posters have also highlighted how Kerry sunk himself by not responding to the Swiftboat Liars (and Keery said, if he could do it again, he would have gone after them immediately).
Finally, after seeing the most recent Washington Post embarrassment unfold over those "ugly rumors" about Obama being a closet Muslim terrorist, how can anyone doubt the MSM won't quickly pick up ridiculous slander like this if it isn't beaten back? Yeah, it might draw more attention to an issue, but that's the calculation you make. Considering that Shaheen is himself a bit of an embarrassment, and how quickly the Clinton campaign backtracked, this issue was clearly handled well.
