Obama Campaign Mudslinging?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:53:10 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

What a pathetic campaign the Democratic Presidential race has become. I could not be more disgusted by it. And the answer appears to be yes, the Obama campaign is mudslinging too:

Barack Obama has unveiled a new line of criticism against Hillary: In speeches he appears to have started to point to the allegation made in Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta's Hillary book that the Clintons secretly formulated a 20-year-plan to deliver the presidency first to Bill, and then to Hillary. "I'm not in this race to fulfill some long-held plan or because it was owed to me," Obama said the other day. Asked if that were a reference to the Gerth allegation, an Obama spokesperson left virtually no doubt that it was, telling Newsday: "Barack Obama has not been mapping out his run for president from Washington for the last 20 years like some of his opponents."

Shame on the Obama campaign. Shame on Democrats. This race has devolved into the pettiest, stupidest most substanceless campaign I think I have ever seen from Democrats.

< Ending The Iraq Debacle Is Up To The House | Tancredo Catches Heat Over "One Language" Speech >

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.

Obama Campaign Mudslinging? | 24 comments (24 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hope? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by NYMARJ on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:42:02 AM EST

"hope" to tear down. For a Democrat knowing how important the next election is for us, I am hoping against hope not to get angry with any of the candidates and their campaigns - unfortunately, it is just getting harder and harder each day. The Republican campaigns must be having a BALL.

: Hate to break it to ya.... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by kdog on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 02:26:12 PM EST

but the Democrats have no interest in having anything to do with "us", they are doing quite well with "them"...."them" being lobbies and special interests.

Dear God, I hate primary season (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Plutonium Page on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:48:21 AM EST

The Republican candidates just sit and giggle at each other, in comparison to what we do.

I still think primary season should be a reality show, where the candidates all have to live in a house together.

Things would have been over in September.

: That's the Really Sad Part (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by BDB on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:58:49 AM EST

is that the Dem. primary season has gotten so personal that it's going to be hard to bring the party together when that is critical. When I read Democrats saying they would never vote for X if they are the Democratic nominee, I want to scream. Because whatever my reservations about particular Dems (and I have them about every candidate), there is a huge difference between them and the Republicans. All you have to do is think about judges to know that. The most damaging GOP talking point there is is that there's no difference between the parties. There's a HUGE difference between the parties. Every leading Dem has a plan to address global warming, provide millions with healthcare, and end the war in Iraq. Some of the plans may be better than others and we can debate about who is most likely to accomplish these things, but at least they all have these things as GOALS.

: But would the Netroots have anything to (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by oculus on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:43:29 PM EST

discuss w/o the primary season? Netroots is obviously bored with Iraq war and Constitution.

Hillary is dirty campaigner (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Jgarza on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 12:25:47 PM EST

This is a well known fact, i remember when Wolfsen was on hardball calling Obama a holocaust denier for saying he would meet with the leaders of Iran. That is what happens when you run against someone who is a dirty campaigner you have to fight back.

Besides this all seems pretty mild compared to the crap her campaign spews.

from the begening (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Jgarza on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 12:28:51 PM EST

she has tried to portray Obama as weak, and inexperienced. If pointing out that she is calculating is a "personal" attack, then so is this inexperienced and weak talking point.

I love that (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Jgarza on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 02:33:32 PM EST

there isn't a criticism of Hillary that hasn't at some point been used by a crazy right winger. But according to bloggers if you have a criticism that sounds remotely familiar to something someone right wing has said, you crossed the line.

from a commenter on TPM:

DonnaG wrote on November 19, 2007 11:15 AM:
Oh, I see, Greg. If one wants to discredit Obama's statement about Hillary's long term planning for a run for president, one must tie it up into the Gerth account which has already been addressed and challenged. That way the statement Obama is making can be diverted into nitpicking and away from how, in fact, Clinton has been planning for years to run.
Here is food for thought: Did Hillary Clinton move to NY and run for the Senate in order to prepare for a run for the Presidency? Did Hillary straddle fences in her Senate career in a way to prepare for a future presidential run? Did Hillary's Senate campaign raise outsized sums with an eye to accumulating extra millions to transfer as seed money for a presidential run?

Agreed (none / 0) (#1)
by BDB on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:06:02 AM EST

I think a large part of the problem is that the leading Democrats, particularly Obama and Clinton, but all of them to a large extent, agree on an awful lot of things. Obama's and Clinton's voting records are practically identical. It doesn't leave a lot for substantive attacks.

But I hate to see any of the Dems using GOP talking points against other Dems. I think, ironically, Obama has been the most guilty of this. I think Clinton has been the least likely to use them, although that may be simply because she is winning and has less reason to. The hedge fund stuff you posted earlier is not an encouraging sign, however, about where they might be headed.

When Dems use GOP talking points the only folks who win are the GOP. I can't believe after all the Dems have been through in the last fifteen years, so many of them fail to understand this.

: Should've Added (none / 0) (#2)
by BDB on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:10:34 AM EST

That while I agree that this campaign has rapidly devolved into crap, I'm not sure it's worse than some of the other ones. IIRC, Gore v. Bradley was also fairly nasty. In fact, a lot of the attacks the GOP would eventually use on Gore had also been used by the Bradley campaign.

Again, (none / 0) (#3)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:16:05 AM EST

what is wrong with suggesting that people should be wary of someone because of all-consuming ambition? People are free to think for themselves that being highly ambitious is a good thing, a neutral thing or a bad thing. They are also free to think that just because a considerably younger person's ambition became publicly apparent more recently doesn't make him any less ambitious.

The idea that candidates should not address both their own and their competitors personal qualities seems misguided to put it mildly.

: Again (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:20:12 AM EST

Assuming it is relevant which you seem to think it is, the claim has been totally discredited.
Again, you seem to revel in irrelevant inanities.

Well, (none / 0) (#5)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:23:24 AM EST

you are free to believe that personal character traits of the man or woman capable of, among other things, unleashing the largest military arsenal in the world is irrelevant. I'm not covinced however that no matter how many times you attempt to persuade people that it's irrelevant that most people won't continue to find you absurd.

Of course (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:31:29 AM EST

what I ACTUALLY said is thsat YOU and me and voters can know next to nothing on the supposed characters of these candidates as most of do not know them personaslly.

But you must have some special "character reading" device that the rest of us lack. you can tell people's characters by just looking at them.

Sheesh.


Absurd? Look in the mirror deconstroctionist. (none / 0) (#9)
by kindness on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:34:48 AM EST

You make claims about overarching ambition (I suppose in regard to Hillary) like none of the Presidential contenders doesn't have that same trait. Maybe Fred Thompson doesn't, but all the rest do.

And this continuing to bring up "character" as if it's an issue. That's an old Republican Talking Point. What part of Hillary's character do you think is lacking? Point it out instead of using inuendo to smear someone please.


: Learn to read (none / 0) (#12)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:51:35 AM EST

I asked what is wrong with one candidate suggesting voters should be wary of another candidate because of ambition. I then pointed out that voters are free to think for themseleves about the significance of ambition (or any other personal trait for that matter) and to decide whether they think one candidate really has more or less of that trait.
If you have no fear that a particular candidate's character traits will trouble any voters then you should not bother worrying about them being publcized and discussed.
It's also rather bizarre for candidates and their backers to make such huge efforts to construct a positive image of the candidate's character and then complain when THE COMPETITORS try to construct a negative image.
When someone runs for the office with the position that "my character is totally irrelevant and I will make no effort to persuade anyone that I possess any positive character traits," I'll agree that no one should waste time attempting to ascribe any deficiency of character.

It all goes on TOO LONG (none / 0) (#6)
by lilybart on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:24:14 AM EST

and this is the result, I think.

The media is not reporting on issues, just gossip and cat fights, blowing it all out of proportion in the name of NEWS.

We need to shorten the time people can campaign.

Don't worry, the GOP will see to it that the (none / 0) (#8)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:32:25 AM EST

general election will be worse. A lot worse.

Have your rain gear ready.

Primary season... (none / 0) (#16)
by Dadler on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 12:36:46 PM EST

...has become the NFL preseason -- it exists merely to put a few extra bucks in some pockets before ther "real" season begins.

Substance? C'mon... (none / 0) (#17)
by Lora on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:19:20 PM EST

While I agree with you on the mudslinging, substance never won an election, in recent history anyway.

hmmmmmmmmmmmm (none / 0) (#18)
by cpinva on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:39:45 PM EST

i've seen this movie before, everyone dies at the end.

ambition and greed are the two bulwarks of capitalism, tempered by reality and societal approbation. just ask adam smith. last i checked, there's nothing inherently wrong with being ambitious, presumably everyone who strives for great things is, or they wouldn't be striving.

this was an idiotic tact for obama, once again highlighting his present unfitness for higher office.

: "idiotic tact" and tack. (none / 0) (#19)
by oculus on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:41:58 PM EST

Offensive Attack Vs. Defensive Fear (none / 0) (#21)
by Aaron on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 02:00:50 PM EST

On Saturday I was up Ottumwa Iowa, canvassing for the Obama campaign, trying to get Iowans to caucus for the senator. I ran into a lady walking her dog, and asked her who she was supporting, Clinton she responded telling me that this might be "our last chance." By this she was referring to a woman becoming president, and I think this may reflect the viewpoint of many women who support Hillary Clinton, that the issue of a woman becoming president somehow trumps all other issues. I understand this concern, and sympathize, but my primary concern as a voter in this republic must be what is in the best interests of the United States of America, first and foremost. No single issue should in my view become the deciding factor in a choice of candidates, but apparently many Americans make up their mind in just such a way.

Also there has been an air of entitlement to the Clinton campaign for the Democratic nomination, which they seemed to start reevaluating as a direct result of the pressure coming from the Obama campaign. I believe this is good for the maintenance of a healthy democracy, where everything is questioned, and no one gets a free pass when it comes to becoming the People's Representative. I certainly don't want this to be the last chance that a woman has to become president, so I think we better start remembering who the Democrats are, and what we represent, and in that equation fear has no place. Let that be the purview of the Republicans. I much prefer to see candidates going after each other, then holding back and acting out of fear.

I'm also glad to see the Democrats doing, what we know these Republicans Republicans will never do, and that is engage in a vigorous debate which does attempt to differentiate between candidates who are very similar on issues, people need to be able to recognize the differences and be engaged in the process, and if that takes a little heated rhetoric, then so be it. We need to hold all the candidates feet to the fire, and see how they hold up in the flames, because it's only going to get worse in the national election. I want my front runners battle tested and combat hardened, because we know from experience that the Republican conservative machine in this country will do anything, anything, without regard for ethics and morality, to hold onto the White House. So we'd better get used to a little blood in the water, because I imagine it's going to get a whole lot nastier in 2008.

Obama who? (none / 0) (#22)
by koshembos on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 02:24:31 PM EST

When the campaigns started, I gave some money to Obama. Experience was never big with me and Hillary was quite wooden (she still is); why not go with the enthusiastic and energetic campaign that has a charismatic leader?

Later, Obama started the campaign. Being friendly with the fascists (Republicans) sounded terrible to me. Then came iffy votes, a partial health plan and many ideas from Edwards. That was enough for me. I don't support another compassionate liberal; a conservative one was enough for the whole century.

Mudslinging is little surprise from a candidate who ran out of gas and is left with fumes and mirrors.