Novak, Obama and Hillary: Don't Fall for It

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 03:24:16 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Robert Novak (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

There's nothing that Republicans would like more than to see than some down and dirty infighting among Democrats.

Robert Novak is stirring the pot.

Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.

Sen. Obama is striking back, not at Novak, but at Hillary, whose campaign has said they have no idea what Novak's talking about.

Obama accused Clinton of "Swift boat' politics" and vowed he will not be intimidated.

More...

Even though Novak published it today, it seems dated, like something he has been sitting on:

It comes during a dip for the front-running Clinton after she refused to take a stand on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's now discarded plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

That period was weeks ago. It also sounds Republican-generated to me. What Democrats talk to Novak? One problem with Republicans is you can't trust the description of them as sources. Remember when Scooter Libby told Judith Miller to refer to him as a hill staffer when using information he provided her?

Novak has zero credibility on this and Obama should know better.

So far, Hillary's campaign has responded:

"This is how Republicans work. A Republican-leaning journalist runs a blind item designed to set Democrats against one another. Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games. Voters should be concerned about the readiness of any Democrat inexperienced enough to fall for this.

I don't disagree with Obama's campaign that Hillary's campaign should come out and flatly deny having any scandalous information about Obama.

Then let's get back to issues.

< Short Memories | Markos vs. Karl Rove in Newsweek >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Novak, Obama and Hillary: Don't Fall for It | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

They did flatly deny it. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by masslib on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 04:19:03 PM EST

From the statement you site:
We have no idea what Mr. Novak's item is about and reject it totally.

And, then again:
Asked if the campaign had any secret information about Obama, he said, "No. No, we don't."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312063,00.html

did you read your own link? (none / 0) (#8)
by Jgarza on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 05:52:20 PM EST

the story of the novak article was that Hillarys "agents" were engaged in a whisper campaign, not that there was any underling truth to it. They denied they were sitting on anything, they never denied they were not a part of a whisper campaign. Thats the point of a whisper campaign, its usually about nothing.

[ Parent ]

Um, what was the whispering campaign (none / 0) (#9)
by masslib on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 06:01:13 PM EST

about? And, what is an "agent"? Even Obama is taking Hillary's word for it that she doesn't have any information on him(that she wasn't going to use):

Obama's team later said they took the Clinton campaign at its word but bristled at the idea they fell for Republican tricks and should not have fought back against "smear politics" in the race for the presidency in the November 2008 election.

www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1743072420071117?pageNumber=3

[ Parent ]

That she has something bad on him (none / 0) (#10)
by Jgarza on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 06:11:37 PM EST

That is the whisper campaign, to make him look weak. the implication being that a republican challenger wouldn't hold back, but that virtuous Clinton is staying above the frey.

She never denied that her "agents" were going around telling people she had something bad on him, just that she had something bad on him.

[ Parent ]

Look at his word choice... (none / 0) (#11)
by masslib on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 06:15:52 PM EST

"Agent" could mean any dumbass who supports her. She can't deny what everyone in the free world says. This is silly.

[ Parent ]

if you believe that (none / 0) (#12)
by Jgarza on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 06:22:56 PM EST

you slurped the kool aid

[ Parent ]

And you're taking your info from Bob Novak (none / 0) (#13)
by andgarden on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 06:53:15 PM EST

I'd be careful not to throw stones.

[ Parent ]

: I'm not taking my info from Novak (none / 0) (#22)
by Jgarza on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 10:42:35 PM EST

read my comments before you criticize them. All i have said was that this is plausible. I have never said it was true, but that doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton doesn't have an obligation to clearly state her involvement if any in this.
Instead she tried to sling mud at Obama, and play political games.

[ Parent ]

She is running for president (none / 0) (#23)
by Jgarza on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 10:43:39 PM EST

I would hope she is capable of keeping her campaign under control.

[ Parent ]

: There's no indication it is from (none / 0) (#28)
by masslib on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 01:59:19 AM EST

the campaign. He says "agent". That could be literally anyone.

[ Parent ]

Both campaigns should take a deep breath and step (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Geekesque on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 05:31:00 PM EST

back.

Obama responded immediately and forcefully, like he had to.

Clinton pushed back strongly and issued a denial, like she had to.

Let's talk about issues.

more kool aid? (1.00 / 1) (#1)
by Jgarza on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 04:07:11 PM EST

"Experienced Democrats see this for what it is. Others get distracted and thrown off their games. Voters should be concerned about the readiness of any Democrat inexperienced enough to fall for this. There is only one campaign in this race that has actually engaged in the very practice that Sen. Obama is decrying, and it's his. We have no idea what Mr. Novak's item is about and reject it totally. Instead of pointing fingers at us, Sen. Obama should get back to the issues and focus on what this election is really about."

Hum attack the victim that doesn't sound like the response of someone innocent.

What Democrats talk to Novak?

Hum i wonder? Maybe one that went to Drudge before the debate, and the one who had Rupert Murdoch hold a fund raiser for her? Maybe that democrat?

Even though Novak published it today, it seems dated, like something he has been sitting on:

It comes during a dip for the front-running Clinton after she refused to take a stand on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's now discarded plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
That period was weeks ago.

I haven't seen any evidence that she has recovered from the dip, have her poll number come back up? I mean, i know her advisors, i mean the analysts on cnn said she did, but I haven't any actual evidence that she rebounded.

Slurp slurp
She would never do that!
Just give me more kool aid

Let me Get this Straight (1.00 / 1) (#2)
by SFHawkguy on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 04:08:52 PM EST

So any criticism of Hillary is Republican-influenced?

Give me a break. You Hillary apologists are the ones that use Republican style attacks. You screen audiences so its filled with Hillary supporters. You plant fake questions. Worst of all, you use attacks that are upside down, opposite of reality, and almost impossible to refute--just like Bush and the neocons do.

Case in point. This slur above. This is the second time you have accused those of us that think Hillary is the wrong candidate of using Republican style attacks. Hillary is the one that uses Republican style attacks. Hillary is in fact the most Republican, right-wing candidate. I don't like Obama either but please spare me this patronizing silly claim that poor Hillary is being attacked by the big meanies to her left--just like the Republicans do. Nonsense.

This Hillary slur of "Republican style attacks" may work on "moderate" Americans (right leaning people) but it will simply rile up those of us that are real liberals. Hillary may have fooled you but spare me the patronizing Bush-style attack line. Those of us to Hillary's left have an honest disagreement with her and if she continues these slurs she will indeed create a division on the left.

And guess what? It's not going to be Novak's fault. This one will be the right-wing candidate, Hillary Clinton, own fault. Shame on you for falling for Hillary's little game.

: This story had one source. Bob Novak. (none / 0) (#4)
by scarshapedstar on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 04:24:13 PM EST

So any criticism of Hillary is Republican-influenced?
This is almost as pathetic as when we were told that Petraeus's recitation of White House talking points was totally independent and anyone who insinuated otherwise was a traitor.

[ Parent ]

Novak (none / 0) (#5)
by NYMARJ on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 04:44:20 PM EST

This has all the earmarks of Karl Rove whispering into Novak's ear. Even the Politico is wondering why the Obama people are giving Novak so much credence - which really makes me wonder. They think Obama wants to try to tie Clinton to sleeze and cover himself against something that might come out about him in the future. Politics - not beanbag

Novak, Obama and Hillary: Don't Fall for It (none / 0) (#6)
by GOPmurderedconscience on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 05:18:15 PM EST

I am strucked by the first part of the first sentence of the story:

"Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent..."

If it's in Democratic circles, where ALL Dems have supporters, why is then the story being published by a GOP apparatschik?

: Fixed version (none / 0) (#31)
by scarshapedstar on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:22:26 AM EST

Agents of the Republican party are spreading the word in Beltway circles that agents of Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent...
Not only is it more clear, but it has the added virtue of being true.

[ Parent ]

"Republican" (none / 0) (#14)
by diogenes on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 07:40:24 PM EST

1994 secret health care campaign? Massive coverup of Monica Lewinsky, letting an young office intern twist in the wind because of a CEO (what feminist would do that?) when Hillary could have told Bill to either immediately confess himself or she would do it for him? General campaign attack machine and paranoia? It's Richard Nixon all over again.

: Republican (none / 0) (#16)
by RalphB on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 07:43:53 PM EST

That's right, those were republican talking points all through the 90s. Now many so called progressives and the Obama campaign are embracing them. It's ludicrous and pathetic.

[ Parent ]

Novak has Democratic sources too (none / 0) (#15)
by joejoejoe on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 07:41:33 PM EST

From the Washington Monthly:

Even the election of Bill Clinton didn't diminish his access. "Bob's sources tend largely to be on the right," one of his colleagues says, "but he always has olive branches at work with Democrats that he then pretends to criticize." For example, liberal political consultant Bob Shrum--a Novak friend and source for thirty years--has long provided Novak with scoops from inside the Democratic Party because, this colleague says, "they have a good-natured, locker-room type of relationship where it's okay for Bob to make fun of Shrum on the air." Novak takes pains to flatter his sources in print, and refers to Shrum in his column as "one of the nation's premier campaign strategists, media designers, and speech writers."

I'm not saying Novak has good sources in the Clinton camp but a "whispering campaign" is by definition laundered through other sources and Novak certainly has good sources who are friend of friends of the Clintons. None of the above means Bob Novak isn't a snake, I'm just saying he's a snake with good sources, even among Democrats.

Mom, she hit me! (none / 0) (#17)
by koshembos on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 07:43:54 PM EST

Novak is a professional Republican lier and agent. Hillary's campaign came out saying they have no clue what Novak is talking about. (I hope it's true; swiftboating will cause them terrible damage.) Denying it publicly is a major mistake because it imparts credibility to Novak and invites suspicion.

Obama shows his immaturity. He could have said: "I'll react forcefully against any such attack no matter what the source is if and when it comes. I hope we haven't deteriorated that far in the Democratic party" But crying Mom is toddler's preference; and pretends victimization.

People in Glass Houses... (none / 0) (#18)
by BDB on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 08:04:12 PM EST

Via TheGarance (quoting a Sun Times summary):

The story, titled "Teacher and Apprentice" by associate editor Marc Ambinder, describes how Obama campaign staffers were "frustrated" because the press was not covering Clinton "in the way they expected it would."

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

: mudslinging (none / 0) (#24)
by Jgarza on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 10:52:30 PM EST

why are the cult of Hillary people so rude and unethical?

[ Parent ]

Its a self fullfilling claim (none / 0) (#19)
by ding7777 on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 09:17:25 PM EST

since Hillary's agents are now discussing Novak's story within Democratic circles

: Which I suspect is the point... (none / 0) (#20)
by BDB on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 09:37:10 PM EST

I never thought I'd agree with Joe Klein, but he's right, this is a smear on Obama and Clinton. "Campaign agent"? What the hell is that? Is that like Libby being a "hill staffer"?
I presume, however, that Obama's people have decided that there's some upside in going after HRC on it. So now we have Dems attacking each other based on things written by Robert Novak? That seems like a fantastic idea. What could go wrong? /sarcasm

[ Parent ]

2 possibilities (none / 0) (#25)
by Anduril9 on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 11:22:07 PM EST

It is possible that Clinton or Obama had a hand in this. The question you should ask is which candidate benefits from this the most.

Clinton enjoys a tremendous lead among Democrats. For Obama, and not for Clinton, Iowa is a must win state. Clinton may have wanted to assure a victory there by touting Obama's inexperience and possible vulnerabilities in the general election but, it is equally likely, that Obama wanted to erase people's perception of the Nevada debates where he didn't do as well as Clinton by focusing on Clinton's supposed malicious machinations.

From the Clinton camp, it would appear that Obama stands to benefit more from this. Why? 1) He needs to win Iowa. 2) One way to close the gap is to legitimize personal attacks by showing that the other side did it first.

The only way that the Clintons would benefit more from this is if there is a possibly damaging fact about Obama. In which case, the anger here is justified. But even then, it would have been a risky undertaking for the Clintons to do it because even if they were so inclined, it is too transparent. Malicious as you may think they are, their team is the best in the field and they will not make this rookie mistake for a very short-term gain.

: Another stab at the possibilities - 3 (none / 0) (#26)
by Anduril9 on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 11:22:56 PM EST

Even if Clinton loses Iowa she could still easily win the primaries. Granted, the winner of Iowa will come out stronger, but Clinton's lead is so formidable that they can take a hit in Iowa and still make it up elsewhere. Also, Clinton has just come from a very good performance in Nevada. They don't need this now, even if they were so inclined.
But Obama or Edwards need Iowa like they need air. Without an Iowa win, they could very well just kiss the primaries goodbye. They need this.
Why would Clinton risk it? She's the frontrunner. Normally, it's the frontrunner that's attacked. Now that this issue has effectively legitimized personal attacks for the Obama camp, it stands to reason that they will definitely benefit more from this. Will they take the bait? The answer will tell you more about Obama than any rhetoric would. If they come out with negative attacks - whether veiled or direct - then you would have known who is behind this all.
The benefit for the Clinton camp is just too small and the risks too great for them to do this. For Obama or Edwards, the rewards are just too high and the risk minimal.
Ask yourself, who among the candidates do Republicans like most? Which candidate could have gotten the Republicans to do this indirect hit job?
If the Clinton camp DID have information damaging to the Obama campaign, how difficult would it be to make the source anonymous? With our technology, it would be very easy to do just that. In one stroke they could have damaged Obama's campaign and distance themselves from the dissemination.
If the Clinton camp DIDN'T have any info at all, it would have been very unlikely that they would have a) used Robert Novak, b) used gossip as a means of dissemination and c) risk a campaign that with all indications and having just come off a good performance in Nevada is only growing stronger.
I rest my case. If someone wishes to smear Clinton for this, they're looking at the unlikeliest suspect. It would have been more likely that the Obama or Edwards camp had something to do with it. Or the republicans, of course.

[ Parent ]

do you (none / 0) (#29)
by Jgarza on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 03:37:35 AM EST

boo and heckle at debates too?
Did you read her response? sounds like an over reaction to me.
ofcourse came from the same guy who said Obama was holocaust denier because he was going to negotiate with Iran.
As for your "story," you had no citations, no links, it was a load of crap.

As for Hillary, look at her record in the primary. if she is criticized from the left. Iraq war authorization, klyle Lieberman, she stands her ground and fights. If it is from the right. DL's for immigrants, 94 health care, DOMA, she waffles and caves. Not someone i want to represent me.