Who Went Negative Last Night?

There is a true silliness to the way certain quarters want to act as if Hillary Clinton initiated the negativity in the debate last night. Take for example the normally levelheaded Josh Marshall:
One observation stands out to me from this debate. Hillary can be relentless and like a sledgehammer delivering tendentious but probably effective attacks. . . .
I take it Josh missed Obama's tendentious attacks. Here is where it started. Here was the first attack of the night, in Obama's FIRST answer of the debate:
So it is absolutely critical right now to give a stimulus to the economy. And Senator Clinton mentioned tax rebates. That wasn't the original focus of her plan. I think recently she has caught up with what I had originally said, which is we've got to get taxes into the -- tax cuts into the pockets of hard-working Americans right away.
An unprovoked and tendentious attack one could call it. I call it campaigning and highlighting differences about what each candidate SAID. This CAN NOT be out of bounds in a campaign. But who was the first with a personal attack? Well, that would be Obama again:
[W]hile I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.
That is a tendentious personal attack. Maybe Josh Marshall missed it. I imagine he heard Hillary's tendentious personal attack in RESPONSE:
I was fighting against those [Republican] ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.
Some can only see bad in Hillary and good in Obama. I submit the picture is a bit more complicated than that.

< Stock Market Plunging Open Thread | Oscar Nominees Announced >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    As was clear to all of us last night (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:34:55 AM EST
    We had a good live blog here.

    I wish we had more Obama supporters in it (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:39:15 AM EST
    I am at best a tepid supporter. I think I am pretty objective but I would like a reasonable advocate for him here.

    J. does not think he is up to it and has ruled him out.

    It would be great if we could have a reasonable discussion here.

    I will be very forceful today against attacks on Obama as "a Republican."

    That is false and unacceptable commentary here.


    Well, as you know, I just can't (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:45:04 AM EST
    at some point Geek will return back to earth, I think.

    Certain supporters. . . (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:50:50 AM EST
    do their candidates more harm than good.

    If you mean Geek (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:02:32 AM EST
    He plays a certain role at daily kos. In a way, I understand it as I played a similar role for Clark in 2003 and 2004.

    I actually think the worst of it is due to one, the seeming indifference to what the site has become from the Admins, and two, Adam B. has been the worst of the lot PRECISELY because he has the imprimatur of authority. He should have been reined in and was not.

    I truly wonder what happens if Hillary wins the nomination.


    the indifference by the admins will (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Teresa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:34:54 AM EST
    be the end of that site as we know it. It will never recover. It boggles my mind that they don't see their credibility being destroyed. They really need some front page posts that balance some of the craziness on the rec list. What is allowed to be said in some diaries just amazes me. Community moderation is not working there anymore.

    Community moderation (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    died long ago when I lost my battle with peeder on limiting TRs.

    But you have to admit you (none / 0) (#108)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:17:00 PM EST
    are a little more civil here...

    more and more i think about (none / 0) (#98)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:42:56 PM EST
    going to daily kos and think, "nah, i don't need the turmoil and rah, rah!" i hope it doesn't do damage but many might leave not because their candidate didn't win but because of the turmoil there.

    I would say Adam (none / 0) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:30:18 AM EST
    Jgarza seems to have actually stopped his rah rah nonsense.

    Geek is good here (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:49:50 AM EST
    Supporters of candidates during the primaries (none / 0) (#48)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:25:19 AM EST
    tend to avoid blogs that are perceived as either strongly pro-another candidate or anti-their candidate.

    You tend to call folks out equally, but the site's tenor overall tends to be fairly anti-Obama and pro-Clinton.  

    Similarly, someone like Yglesias tends to be the opposite way, and draws a diametrically different crowd.

    You see it at the bigger sites too--the Obama and Edwards folks tend to congregate at Dkos, while the Clinton folks dominate the Rec List at Mydd.


    That's fair (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    But now that we are attracting a bigger crowd I am cracking down on the unfair assaults on Obama, calling him a Republican and the like.

    If you are referring to my comment yesterday, (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    I was being snarky on Obama's choice of McClurkin, the reprogrammed ex gay man Grammy award winning Gospel singer.  What I should have sd. was, was Obama's choice to have McClurkin, whose views are quite well known, a covert message to those who view homosexuality as a sin but "fixable" and who adamantly oppose gay marriage?  

    Yes (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:21:24 AM EST
    I was referring to your comment.

    Any opinion re the rest of my comment? (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:23:28 AM EST
    I have said that very thing (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:44:12 AM EST

    It just takes me awhile! (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:52:59 AM EST
    I've read your conversations w/andgarden on this topic but didn't know anything about McClurkin then.

    It has less to do with the commenters (none / 0) (#69)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:05:24 AM EST
    and more to do with the blog proprietors.  Yglesias tends to rap Clinton on foreign policy and prefers Obama in that aspect, so he draws more Obama folks.  

    The tenor of the comments section matters a great deal less--idiots saying stupid crap is unavoidable in the comments section.  


    What the proprietors TOLERATE (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:20:16 AM EST
    is very much at issue.

    The Yglesias crowd  GENERALLY is pretty snooty.

    Now, SOMe Obama supporters of the dkos variety show up there but they are the exception.


    What Is Your Opinion Of Kos' Post (none / 0) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:52:28 AM EST
    "Hillary has Lieberman's back." and his comment of  "Hillary thinks Lieberman should keep his committee assignments, even though he's campaigning for Republican John McCain."

    Watch the  video and tell me that he gave a fair and objective view of what she actually said.

    At the moment I'm an Edwards supporter. But you know what, I really don't like it when blogs using biased, inaccurate reporting.  I don't find it acceptable when the MSM resorts to these tactics and definitely don't like it in the blog.


    But bloggers do not (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:54:09 AM EST
    claim to be reporting.  

    I would have felt icky had Obama (none / 0) (#83)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:05:43 PM EST
    said that "Joe is an Independent Democrat."

    Did She Say Lieberman should keep his committee (none / 0) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:31:26 PM EST
    assignments anywhere in that clip?  Did Kos distort her comments or not?

    Your icky feelings are irrelevant  to the question asked.


    Whatr do you think he will say (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:51:13 PM EST
    if asked?

    This is a ridiculous comment.

    Come on, you KNOW that was a crap post.

    you can say that here. No one will tell on you at daily kos.


    I was glad he wasn't asked that question. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:41:22 PM EST
    In fairness, had Obama been asked that question and given that answer, he would have had his clock cleaned all over the blogosphere.

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:56:03 PM EST
    It would have been rationalized away.

    Obama is the beneficiary of blind support in the blogs now.

    I hope I would not have rake him over the coals.

    No need to pick a fight about Joe Lieberman right now.


    Blind support? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:43:49 PM EST
    He got roasted pretty good over the Reagan comments.

    And every time Krugman takes an axe handle to him, most bloggers nod in agreement.

    Hamsher and Stoller were practically slitting their wrists when Lamont endorsed him.


    Heh (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:20:18 PM EST
    MOST of the blogs rationalized the Reagan comments away.

    And they were BAD comments.

    What SHOULD have Obama said?

    What he said last night.

    I am telling you, this is GOOD for Obama. It is making him a better candidate.


    Nope (none / 0) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:37:10 PM EST
    If Obama had said exactly the same thing, there would have been hundreds of posts saying that Obama didn't say Lieberman should keep his committee assignments. And they would have been right. I would have been right along with them pointing out that Obama did not say that.

    But because it was Hillary that is not what happened. Very few people pointed out that the post was inaccurate. Instead, it sparked the normal anti-Hillary feeding frenzy.


    Whatever Hillary said or did not say re Lieberman (none / 0) (#103)
    by felizarte on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 05:53:13 PM EST
    irrelevant as whether Lieberman gets to keep his chairmanship or not.  His vote right now is the only one that is keeping the democrats in administrative control of the Senate.  If they take his chairmanship away, all he has to do is caucus with the republicans and the whole senate gets reorganized.  For now, he is pretty much acting like a republican--supporting McCain and all.  His power will only dissipate when the democrats elect another real democrat to increase their majority in the Senate.

    That is a question that should be asked of Hillary and Obama.  And I suspect that they are pretty much of the same opinion--neither one of them would want to be responsible for turning over the Senate to the Republicans and Dick Cheney, the presiding officer of the Senate.


    Josh didn't mention that Obama lied, either. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by MarkL on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:34:57 AM EST
    Obama totally misrepresented his own remarks to the Reno paper in last night's debate.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:36:55 AM EST
    Jeralyn demostrates that in her post below.

    I don't see (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:18:34 AM EST
    inconsistency with what he said at the debate and in the interview.  The outrage was a bit silly, and many people willfully put words in his mouth, or argued against thinks Obama never said.

    Because in the interview he didn't (none / 0) (#109)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:24:39 PM EST
    say Reagan was able to get Democrats to vote against their own economic self interest. He didn't even come close to saying something like that.

    what do I object to? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:35:35 AM EST
    Attacks on "candor" "trustiworthiness", etc.

    Obama and Edwards did that to Hillary in earlier debates and it was outrageous.

    THAT is the line they should not cross imo.

    I objected to Obama's Wal-Mart line (disclosure, I represent Wal-Mart) and Hillary's Rezko line in response.

    Those are out of line.

    And Obama STARTED that last night.

    MSM (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:43:35 AM EST
    I don't know about the other outlets, but I was pleased to see CNN noted Obama started it with Walmart last night before showing Clinton and Rezko.  Maybe Clinton's glasnost with the press is working to at least get her fair coverage?

    And I thought the Open Left brief blog of the debate was quite fair, noting that both were attacking and both were, at times, being misleading about the other.  I think Obama completely misrepresented his Reagan/Republican comments, but I don't think Clinton's characterization was entirely accurate (although she is a politician and that's what they do, including Obama).  This may not be how I would describe it, but it seems fair to me:

    And the tone of the debate is just vicious.  Barack Obama is basically calling Bill and Hillary Clinton liars, Obama attacked Clinton for being a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Walmart, and they are each misrepresenting the facts.


    ... Oh damn Clinton just attacked Obama for representing slum lords who contributed money to his campaign.

    ... Wow, Edwards is now tearing into Obama for voting 'present' over a hundred times.  Clinton got booed, and Edwards is actually funny.

    ... I am really enjoying this debate.

    Because last night Obama most definitely went negative first.  Now, unlike Josh, I don't consider that to be a criticism.  Even if he wasn't my candidate, I was glad to see he had it in him.   I thought he was pretty good on attack.  He still sucks at defense, however.  


    Negative is such an empty word (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:49:10 AM EST
    Now going PERSONAL means something to me.

    And Obama went PERSONAL first.


    You're Right (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:53:08 AM EST
    That's better.  It's like Marshall.  And now, Yglesias, didn't hear Obama repeatedly call the Clintons liars and then slam her on Walmart.

    And when she goes after him on things like present votes, which is not at all personal, those are for some reason out of bounds.  Why should they be out of bounds?

    Honestly, it pains me to say it, but I think some folks hear attacks differently when they are said in a woman's voice.  Either that or they are totally blinded by their Obama love.  Or both.

    Which is not to say Clinton didn't attack or get personal last night.  She did.  My only point is that she wasn't the only one.


    Their commentary (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:59:55 AM EST
    is simply ridiculous on this.

    Well I think (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:30:24 AM EST
    for most democrats being accused of supporting privatization of SS and all the other crap she mentioned is pretty personal, so he responded in kind.

    NO, it's not personal; moreover, it's (none / 0) (#85)
    by MarkL on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:16:46 PM EST
    justified, given Obama's strong support for personal choice, and the fact that his top economic advisers are pro-privatization.

    Obama bias (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Joebasic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:44:10 AM EST
    The fact that mant can't see their blantant Obama bias is perhaps the scariest aspect to all this.
    We are back to "Omaba was forceful", "Hillary was shrill and hysterical".
    Even Tweety is back to talking about Hillary "cutting throats".
    Really sad.

    Scares Me Too (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:59:09 AM EST
    Hopefully we are not developing our own brand of "kool aid" drinkers for Obama. Truth and objectivity do matter.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:15:46 AM EST
    you didn't read Marshall's post, but it wasn't exactly favorable to Obama.

    I think Josh (none / 0) (#110)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:30:43 PM EST
    probably got plenty of emails after his negative Bill Clinton piece (I sent him one), so it did appeared he was trying to be ojective about the debate until he got to the "present" vote - which he walked back a little.

    Different rules. . . (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:48:19 AM EST
    for different fools.  Rabid supporters of one candidate despise in their candidate's opponent behavior which they readily excuse -- or even applaud -- in their own.

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:52:27 AM EST
    wrote that in a post the other day.

    The funniest thing at daily kos is how saying one thing about Hillary and/or her supporters gets you to the top of the rec list or showered with 4s while saying the same thing about Obama gets you labelled a troll and troll rated.

    I do wonder what daily kos is going to do and be if Hillary is the nominee.


    They'll get over it (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:14:18 AM EST
    We all will.  Then there will be primary reform ;)

    We'll see (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:24:59 AM EST
    Sadly. . . (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:14:52 AM EST
    it will probably remain the Daily Kos which is nothing to be proud of at this moment in Democratic politics.

    Certainly, it will be good for Talk Left's traffic.


    Hate to say it (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:24:29 AM EST
    It crossed my mind that it is good for TL traffic.

    yes (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by ogo on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:37:54 AM EST
    I'm here more then ever.  I never comment but just this once wanted to say I'm really appreciative of the dialogue but as you said it would be good if there were some real Obama partisans who could advocate without the slash and burn retoric.  

    I'll support the Deomocrat.


    Please comment (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:48:41 AM EST
    We like to hear from everyone who reads us.

    I think it (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:50:25 AM EST
    would be nice for a change if an Obama supporter could be objective and debate it in a true, fact for fact, sense....Not blindly stumbling and stammering that Hillary is evil reincarnate and Obama is the 2nd coming...

    Matthew Yglesias (unsurprisingly) is doing it too (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by dk on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:54:21 AM EST
    BTD, I had the same feeling as you this morning when I read Matthew Yglesias' "Debate Recap" post.  In it, he agrees with one of his commenters who wrote about being "repulsed" when Hillary goes for the jugular, and that going for the jugular is the "whole rationale for her candidacy!"

    To me, that post just seems Sullivan-esque.  It just boggles the mind.  I suppose there is a possibility that, somehow, there is more going on here than just the plain old application of a sexist double standard, but I just don't see any other explanation for it.

    They are becoming quite open (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:59:09 AM EST
    in their bias.

    I do wonder what these folks are gong to do if Hillary wins the nomination.


    I do think (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by dk on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:04:45 AM EST
    that if Hillary wins the nomination, it is going to force these unliberated men in the intelligentsia to do a lot of soul searching.  Hopefully enough of them will come out on the right side of that.

    Too late, IMO, for soul searching. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:33:59 AM EST
    Or shall I say, too deeply imbedded to change.

    its clear OBAMA came out looking to attack (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by sammiemorris on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:55:01 AM EST
    Suzanne Malveaux started it by talking about fiscal responsibility and how Senator Clinton claimed he couldn't account for $50 billion of his spending programs. He took the question and instead of answering it, he went into a tirade against Senator Clinton for attacking him for the past month. When she tried to point out that its hard to debate Senator Obama because he seems to have a holier than thou attitude, she initially struggled to do it. John Edwards in effect delivered the closing argument for her, and his brilliance in doing it put Obama's combativeness in a negative light. Where one might have previously thought Obama came across as self-assured and confident, John Edwards' simple and highly effective rebuttal transformed Obama into a cocky Washington politician.  

    When Obama brought up Walmart, Senator Clinton basically had her oh no you didn't moment and came back with a pretty vicious counterpunch.

    In any case, there has been a lot of talk about how the Clinton-Obama spat may divide the party, and that a Clinton victory could depress African American turnout in November. This argument is usually made by Obama supporters, but I think they fail to see the other side of the argument as well. Yes, we have seen unprecedented turnout in all three states, but Hillary has received more votes in two of those states. There is a lot of talk about Obama bringing new voters to the polls, but nobody seems to mention that Senator Clinton has managed to draw even more new voters than him and that is why she has won. A lot of these new voters are older women who like African Americans, may not handle a loss by their favored candidate that well.  

    If Obama does end up running against McCain, it may be difficult for him to recapture that vote after his "likeable enough" and Walmart comments.


    Yes Edwards was key last night (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:58:17 AM EST
    Josh Marshall "Dead Even" (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by xjt on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:14:22 AM EST
    I like Josh, and have read TPM since its inception. But it's very clear that he is an Obama supporter. TPM ran a post called "Dead Even" several days ago, stating that they received equal amounts of email complaints from both Hillary and Barack supporters claiming they're biased at TPM. This post seemed to suggest that they felt they were being neutral. I'm sorry, I'm not buying it.

    Josh Marshall supports Obama over Clinton. He can deny it all he wants, but it really shows. Just look at his live blogging of the debate last night. There's obviously nothing wrong with being an Obama supporter. But I wish he would just admit it.

    Frankly I'm surprised at such a negative reaction to Clinton from him, although he certainly fits the Obama supporter demographics. I'm a Clinton supporter and I don't go over there anymore because I'd rather not read the Hillary bashing.

    That type of thinking reminds me (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:21:40 AM EST
    of how the Media proclaims it knows it is neutral - liberal and conservatives both complain.

    like (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:25:04 AM EST
    the Ambremoff is a bipartisan problem line.  Ohh that makes Republicans and Democrats mad, we must be correct.

    Yep (none / 0) (#106)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:56:27 PM EST
    And ironically I'd normally expect TPM to take any MSM entity using this very bad logic to task for it.  Probably isn't going to happen here.

    Getting (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:20:09 AM EST
    equal complaints shows how wrong he was, just because his wrongness is equally negative to Hillary and Obama doesn't change the fact that he is wrong.

    Please. Marshall writes plenty of stuff (none / 0) (#40)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:22:12 AM EST
    that is unflattering to Obama. He did so last night.

    I have a pretty good awareness of which bloggers are ringers for which candidates, and Marshall isn't in anyone's corner.


    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:23:26 AM EST
    On THIS issue, in THIS post, I think it is clear Marshall was NOT even handed.

    I would disagree, but I can't claim (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:10:34 AM EST
    impartiality.  If I were trying to rationalize my take on it, I would posit that it's possible that Obama is a bit better at throwing an elbow when the referee isn't looking, whereas Clinton just throws haymakers and doesn't care if she gets caught.

    To put it another way, Obama was better able to weave his verbal punches into a narrative whereas Clinton's tend to jar the observer more.


    This is absurd (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:17:54 AM EST
    Was the referee NOT looking when Obama brought up Wal-Mart?

    Josh chose to be willfully blind on this.


    I dont really understand (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:07:27 PM EST
    how his two sentence statement is being willfully blind.  He said Clinton's attack were relentless and Obama was not effective and refuting them.

    How is this unfair to Clinton, he didn't say Obama didn't go after her, just the didn't think they were effective.


    this si a common occurrence with you (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:49:38 PM EST
    You are of the school that thinks politics is made up of incomplete statements.

    It is clear that he IGNORED Obama's attacks.

    You make my point exactly.


    well (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:19:37 PM EST
    I think he didn't think it was effective, again I disagree with Josh Marshall on this.

    Yes (none / 0) (#76)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:21:31 AM EST
    They each sure have their own style of fighting however, the male chauvinist comes out in alot of comments and they start calling Hillary shrill etc which is totally unfair...Like Tweety....He is a big chauvinist when it comes to her....

    I don't agree that the first (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:51:50 AM EST
    was an attack, it was fair game to talk about him being ahead relative to the economy.  The Wal-Mart comment is stupid and personal because it has nothing to do with the debate or her ability to run the country.  the first example goes to her ability to foresee problems and address them quickly.

    The slum lord comment is stupid.  He should have answered "Do you think we should spend as much as we did on Whitewater investigation or would you prefer that I tell you now how we have responded to the allegations against Rezko and which charities we have donated the money to?"

    There has to be some of this in the debates now so that the edge is lifted off later in the GE debates.  Float out the mud that we know of right now, it makes for a more focused campaign in the GE.

    I think the slumlord was dumb considering that pols do not do background checks on everyone they associate with and Clinton has been around long enough to know that some folks who portray to be great people sometimes have graveyards in their closets....

    Completely agree (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:53:20 AM EST
    with this comment.

    Obama's relationship (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:32:34 AM EST
    with Rezko was comprised of more than merely accepting campaign contributions from him.  

    A Question - Answer Needed Please (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:56:39 AM EST
    Does Rezko own slum property?

    I guess what I'm asking is how or why Clinton's statement was distorting the truth.

    It is my understanding that Rezko and Obama have had a close relationship for years and he did contribute to Obama's campaign.

    From what I read. . . (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:24:07 AM EST
    on dKos last night (yes, yes, I know) the problem with Clinton's statement is that Obama worked perhaps 5 hours on Rezko real estate matters.

    But That Really Understates Obama's Relationship (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:44:56 AM EST
    with Rezko. That makes it sound like that was the their only involvement. They have a relationship that dates back to 1990.

    Well she (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:47:06 AM EST
    brought up his representation of him as an attorney, and he responded to it.

    Lots left out there. See Chicago (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:38:04 AM EST
    Sun Times.

    Yes (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:57:38 AM EST
    Rezko is known as a slumlord.

    Relationship (none / 0) (#26)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:01:31 AM EST
    I'd also say that, whatever the merits of the Rezko stuff, Obama pretty clearly understated his relationship with the man.   But he was in a tough spot because, while I don't think Obama is corrupt, the Rezko stuff and Obama's relationship with him is pretty convoluted and difficult for Obama to discuss in 30 seconds.  

    I think if Rezko comes back to bite Obama it will be the characterization of his relationship and not what that relationship actually entailed.


    I Guess That Is Where I Was Going With (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:30:40 AM EST
    my question. If Obama had a long standing relationship with Rezko  then it might be fair to think that he knew that he was a slum lord. Just like it would be fair to think that Clinton knew that Wal-Mart was not an employee friendly business. In both areas, I think both the candidates are vulnerable to  attacks to their creditability on some issues. I also think that it would be better if the candidates refrained from tarnishing their opponents images by these types of attacks and stuck to the issues.

    I agree that I don't think Obama is corrupt.


    We'll see (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:03:40 AM EST
    I think it is a nonissue.

    IMO (none / 0) (#35)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:16:38 AM EST
    the most bothersome relationship of Obamas is Alice Palmer and that whole mess....I wonder if she has made a statement recently on him...That issues was terribly sad....

    Please read the Chicago Sun Times (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:37:07 AM EST
    multiple articles re Rezko, including Obama's relationship with him.

    Thanks I Just Stumbled Over Those Articles (none / 0) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:47:33 AM EST
    using my primitive google skills. It normally takes me forever to find what I want, but if I persist I normally get there.

    I was (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:14:19 AM EST
    surprised by Josh Marshall too, he claimed Obama couldn't respond, maybe you are right and he actually missed that part of the debate.

    Marshall is not an Obama supporter, AFAIK. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:20:32 AM EST
    His commentary from last night was pretty even-handed.  

    No (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:22:45 AM EST
    I just demonstrated it was NOT even handed.

    Please address the argument.

    I just have been complimenting you. Don't make me look foolish.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:27:47 AM EST
    I agree Obama completely held his own.

    If it's a stylistic critique, then it's very (none / 0) (#71)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:12:14 AM EST
    plausible that Clinton uses a sledgehammer approach whereas Obama uses more subtle, if not more high-minded, attacks.

    It wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:16:42 AM EST
    It was an attempted factual description.

    Obama and Rezko (none / 0) (#45)
    by xjt on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:24:57 AM EST
    Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought that Obama's dealings with Rezko involved Rezko helping Obama buy his mansion, or helping him buy it way under market value. Via Brian Ross at ABC news:

    "In sharp contrast to his tough talk about ethics reform in government, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., approached a well-known Illinois political fixer under active federal investigation, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, for "advice" as he sought to find a way to buy a house shortly after being elected to the United States Senate.

    The parcel included an adjacent lot which Obama told the Chicago Tribune he could not afford because 'it was already a stretch to buy the house'.

    On the same day Obama closed on his house, Rezko's wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time."

    I thought at last nights debate Obama said his only connection to Rezko was that he'd done five hours of legal work for him. This looks like a deeper connection than that to me. I can't find the original article where I read this anymore. If someone has it please post a link.

    He was (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:26:54 AM EST
    responding to the charge the he represented Rezko as legal counsel.  If Hillary wanted the house to be an issue she should have brought it up.

    apparently Obama (none / 0) (#61)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:42:13 AM EST
    Had a 17 yr relationship with the man and he was on Obama's senate finance committee or something like that but I agree with Big T that there are more important issues than that....

    Here is a link to series of (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:46:24 AM EST
    articles in the Chicago Sun-Times:

    My sense (none / 0) (#78)
    by manys on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:25:21 AM EST
    I think both Hillary and Obama went negative on Edwards as a unit. With the recent stories about his lack of coverage, H&O got all soapy and dramatic, guaranteeing that they would dominate coverage and video clips on the news, just the two of them. A classic example of marginalization.

    David Sirota has weighed in at DK: (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:40:02 PM EST
    Being on the Walmart Bd. of Directors is way worse than being assoc. with Rezko.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:47:54 PM EST
    You know David. He can be a kook sometimes.

    Hmmm. I remember some heavy weight (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:05:01 PM EST
    back and forths between you two.

    Sure (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:53:49 PM EST
    But David has no hard feelings.

    I normally agree (none / 0) (#88)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:47:47 PM EST
    with Sirota but in this instance I vehemently disagree....Wish they would all get back to the issues at hand...wonder what Paul Krugman would say....

    Obama and Wallmart (none / 0) (#92)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:52:16 PM EST
    Because I am a link idiot the link below may not work.  This article lays out how Michelle Obama: "For what it's worth, Obama's wife Michelle received $51,200 in 2006 for attending a few board meetings of TreeHouse Foods, a giant firm that relied heavily on its close business relationship with Wal-Mart"

     Article on Obama and Wallmart

    On Rizko, On the Rezko issue everyone is focusing on the donations. It's not the donations. It's the nature of community organizing. If you are a good organizer, your ear is in the street. You know what is going on and who is getting what, and where people are screwing the community. Well, Obama claims he did not notice the 30 failing   buildings Rezko had. The buildings that it took, which is usually true, the city years to figure out. Now he claims he only worked 5 hours on due dilligence paper work. Well, the due dilligence needed to be done before taking the money.

    Any person with any care or love for a community would have checked out Rezko. You don't just do that in community organizing, take money from developers and not check them out. If you walk the Streets, you listen to what people tell you.

    This is my concern, his style, his inexperience. He delgates and trusts. You have to do the work, you have to check these people. As a community organizer, worker and fighter I find this to be negligent. There is no excuse.

    Why are these issues not being followed up,  I guess the party does not want to scorch the inspirational leader.  But do you think the Republicans will hold back?

    who went negative? (none / 0) (#96)
    by socdem53 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    All I know is that none of our candidates should be going negative against one another.  If they want to highlight their differences, they should discuss what they have accomplished.  While past actions are important to consider, it's America's future on the line.  Our candidates should be presenting their ideas for this country's future and let us decide.  
    As for who has more money than the other or a bigger house, give me a break.  They all have more money than the average person.  They sure have a lot more than I do or ever will.
    The Republicans will coming after whoever wins that soon enough.  We need to come together and defeat the Republican party.

    The descent into (none / 0) (#97)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:29:41 PM EST
    one-sided smears and shilling at a site for a particular candidate means the issues aren't being properly discussed. This from the WaPo yesterday, 'Attraction Effect' Helps Voters Pick From the Pack, made me think about the effect of self-segregation on the blogs by candidate support and how it's destroying whatever value the comments sections used to have for discussing the issues and evaluating the candidates.

    In the absence of comparative information, volunteers who were told a candidate would bring $2 million into the local economy did not have a good way to evaluate whether this was bold or mediocre planning. They did not need any comparative information, however, to know a DUI rumor was problematic. So they gave the candidate low marks. But when volunteers were able to compare the candidates, they could now see that a $2 million plan was tangibly better than a measly $1 million plan. This put the DUI concern into a new perspective -- it was just a rumor. The candidates remained identical, but the weight that volunteers assigned to the measures changed -- and this reversed the voters' preferences.

    ...the point of research by Lowenthal and many others is that victory is not decided by the characteristics of the candidates, but the relative weight voters assign to the different issues.

    I'm just reading most sites in rss lately as a result.

    Here is Bill Clinton's take on (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 05:49:04 PM EST
    the squabbling between HRC and Borack Obama during last night's debate:

    Former President Clinton said Tuesday he enjoyed the bickering.

    "I know you think it's crazy, but I kind of like to see Barack and Hillary fight," Bill Clinton told a mostly white crowd of about 300 at a black church in Greenville, S.C. "They're flesh and blood people and they have their differences -- let them have it."

     [Courtesy of AP/Newsday.]

    ABC: Is Bill Clinton getting (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:34:16 PM EST
    inside Barack Obama's head?


    P.S.  I keep thinking of Being John Malkovich.