To What End Is Senator Obama’s “Full Assault” on Senator Clinton?

As posted at Taylor Marsh, Peter Daou, Clinton's Internet director, has sent out the following email:

I'm writing this to a group of bloggers. Some of you are Hillary supporters, some not, some neutral.

I want to address a pervasive misconception, namely, that Senator Obama hasn't run a negative campaign against Hillary. I think it's time to put that misconception to rest.

The truth is that for months, the Obama campaign has been attacking Hillary, impugning her character and calling into question her lifetime of public service. And now the Chicago Tribune reports that Senator Obama is preparing a "full assault" on her "over ethics and transparency." To those who contend that Senator Obama is the clear frontrunner, I ask, to what end this "full assault" on Hillary?

On CNN last Tuesday, Senator Obama said, "Well, look, Wolf, I think if you watch how we have conducted our campaign, we've been very measured in terms of how we talk about Senator Clinton. ... I have been careful to say, that I think that Senator Clinton is a capable person and that should she win the nomination, obviously, I would support her. You know, I'm not sure that we have been getting that same approach from the Clinton campaign."

The facts of this election stand in stark contrast to that statement. Senator Obama and his senior campaign officials have engaged in a systematic effort to question Hillary's integrity, credibility, and character. They have portrayed her as someone who would put her personal gain ahead of the lives of our troops, someone who would say or do anything to win an election, someone who is dishonest, divisive and disingenuous. They have adopted shop-worn anti-Clinton talking points, dusted them off and unleashed a torrent of unfounded character attacks against her. Among other things, they have described Hillary - and her campaign - as:

"Disingenuous"

"Too polarizing to win"

'Divisive'

"Untruthful"

"Dishonest"

'Calculating'

"Saying and doing whatever it takes to win"

"Attempting to deceive the American people"

"One of the most secretive politicians in America"

"Literally willing to do anything to win"

"Playing politics with war"

To top it off, they have blanketed big states with false radio ads and negative mailers -- ads and mailers that experts have debunked time and time again. They have distributed health care brochures using Republican framing. They have tried to draw a nexus between Hillary's votes and the death of her friend Benazir Bhutto. And one of Senator Obama's top advisers (who has since left the campaign) recently called Hillary "a monster."

This "full assault" on Hillary comes from the very top of the Obama campaign, not surrogates and supporters.

This "full assault" is being directed at someone I personally know to be a thoughtful, brilliant, principled, compassionate person, someone the world knows as a good Democrat, a trailblazer, a lifelong champion for children and families, a respected former first lady, a senator, a presidential candidate.

This "full assault" is targeting a staff of hundreds of hard-working, dedicated Democrats, who I've had the privilege of working with for the past 14 months.

This is a hard-fought campaign - as it should be. Like any candidate for elected office, Hillary has made clear why she thinks she would do a better job than her opponent. She has laid out comprehensive policy proposals, put forth her 35-year record of accomplishment, and spent countless days introducing herself to voters across the country. She has said that she is far better prepared to take on John McCain on national security. She has contended that she is the candidate with the experience to confront the GOP attack machine. She has argued that she is more electable. She has said that Senator Obama's words are not matched by actions. And she has challenged him to live up to core Democratic values and goals such as universal health care.

I recall indignation online at the suggestion that Senator Obama has not made the case that he is ready to be Commander in Chief -- the concern being that this would be terribly detrimental to him in a general election. As I blogged recently, and as many of you know, I spent 2004 in the Kerry-Edwards war room, and I understand full well that national security will be front and center in the general election. It's not a matter of choice. And the reality is that the public views Hillary as better prepared to take on Senator McCain when it comes to national security. Democrats must factor that in as they nominate a candidate to win in November.

If that suggestion is potentially harmful to Senator Obama in a general election, how exactly do the personal attacks against Hillary (which echo and reinforce rightwing talking points) help her in the event she wins the nomination? I recall no similar outrage at those harsh attacks on her character, many of which were directed at her when she was the clear frontrunner and seen as the likely nominee.

Both candidates are running a vigorous campaign. Both have had surrogates or supporters who have crossed the line and made offensive statements that they rejected. And these offensive statements are an unfortunate part of a long and close campaign. Those who make a habit of automatically assuming and ascribing to only one candidate the worst motives, ignoring more reasonable and benign explanations, who substitute conjecture for fact and then use those assumed 'facts' as a foundation on which to pile more conjecture about only one candidate's intentions, who express anger at negative campaigning and perceived dirty tricks but focus on only one candidate's words and actions, risk losing credibility. And those who conclude from that one-sided reasoning that Hillary ought to stop seeking victory, should ask themselves if quitting in the middle of a hard-fought – and winnable – contest is a desirable attribute in a future president.

Hillary has rightfully stated that as Democrats we should be proud of our field of candidates. And it is truly inspiring to see the level of enthusiasm among voters this cycle. We should encourage as many people as possible to become part of this process and to forcefully advocate for their candidate of choice. But there is a sharp line between supporting a candidate (and excusing their faults, which all supporters do to some degree) and conducting a "full assault" on an opponent's integrity and character. The Obama campaign's unabashed attacks on Hillary's honesty and trustworthiness should give every Democrat pause.

We are all entitled to support and oppose whomever we choose, but I challenge my online friends to call this "full assault" on Hillary's character for what it is.

Boycotting Hillary-Bashing Left-Wing Blogs

Photo Credits: Getty Images

Alegre’s post at Taylor Marsh announcing her decision to launch her own writer’s strike at Daily Kos caught my attention this morning. I don’t often check in at DailyKos, so it will be easy for me to join Alegre in boycotting that online community. But as I read the details of Alegre’s complaint regarding the sexist, misogynist attacks on Hillary Clinton by rabid Obamaphiles at DailyKos, I was reminded that similar conditions exist at the HuffingtonPost, Obama’s flagrant online mouthpiece, equally well known for its Hillary-bashing.

Was anyone surprised that Obama elected to release his statement to the HuffingtonPost on Friday regarding his pastor, Jeremiah Wright’s hate speech; or that HuffPo responded by giving Obama a banner headline with a ridiculously pious photo of this so-called harbinger of “the new politics” who frequently boasts of his good judgment?

In the past several days, the media overall have predictably continued to trash Geraldine Ferraro for her remarks that were arguably a mere statement of the facts (read Earl Ofari Hutchinson’s defense of Ferraro here).

But back to Alegra, she states her case at the beginning of her post at Taylor Marsh:

“I’ve been posting at DailyKos for nearly 4 years now and started writing diaries in support of Hillary Clinton back in June of last year. Over the past few months I’ve noticed that things have become progressively more abusive toward my candidate and her supporters.”

She continues:

“I’ve put up with the abuse and anger because I’ve always believed in what our on-line community has tried to accomplish in this world. No more. DailyKos is not the site it once was thanks to the abusive nature of certain members of our community.

“Instead, I will put my energy into posting at sites where my efforts aren’t routinely trashed, spammed and ridiculed by a handful of angry, petty and spiteful folks who clearly have too much time on their hands.”

Alegre includes MYDD and TalkLeft among left-wing sites who fight fair, and she concludes with an invitation to join her in a new labor union:

"The double standards, the distortions, the hateful, irrational, personal attacks, and the lies about Hillary and her long and distinguished record of public service stop here – and they stop now.

"So I hereby announce the formation of a new labor union...

"The American Federation of Concerned Bloggers (AFCB).

"This is a writer’s strike - who’ll join me on the picket line?

"By the way...

"Are you current on your union dues?

"Pony-up folks."


To read Alegre’s post in its entirety, go here.

Merit Badges Due Both Geraldine Ferraro and Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Photo credits: www.middlepassagepress.com

The Huffington Post is well known for its Hillary-bashing and Obamania, so when an article appears on its Web site that offers strong support to the first serious female presidential candidate in American history - or to one of her beleaguered supporters - it's time to take note. Earl Ofari Hutchinson posted a fine piece today over at Huffpost that addresses the firestorm evoked by Geraldine Ferraro’s recent comment about Barack Obama’s standing in the Democratic primary.

Hutchinson begins:

“Fire former Democratic VP candidate and Hillary Clinton advisor Geraldine Ferraro? She ought to get a merit badge pinned on her for having the guts to tell the truth. Ferraro got it right on both counts when she said that race has made a difference with Barack Obama. He has gotten a virtual free ride from much of the media. His paper thin voting record, lack of experience, zig zag stances on foreign policy issues, Republican lite positions on health care and the sub prime housing crisis, repeated subtle going negative against Hillary Clinton while giving himself a plausible deniability out and insuring that Clinton gets dumped on when she hits back has been blatantly obvious. The media and much of the public have kept hands off him in part out of sheer terror of being branded racist and in part out of hatred for Clinton. And that's the other thing that Ferraro got right. She flatly called the media sexist and said that many Americans, she really said America, has a huge problem with a woman running for president.

Displaying courage equal to that of Ferraro, Hutchinson continues:

“The Obama camp screamed bloody murder at Ferraro's brave and very accurate remarks. They went through tortured gyrations in demanding that Clinton fire Ferraro by comparing her to the justly released Obama aide Samantha Power. There is no comparison. Power should have gotten a swift boot for her personal, slanderous and mud sling name call of Clinton as a "monster." Ferraro did not engage in personal name calling against Obama but rather made a blunt political comparison between the double standard treatment Clinton's campaign has gotten versus Obama's.

“That double standard should rankle anyone who believes in at least some fair play in what's arguably the dirtiest business around, namely American politics. But that's been a moot point when it comes to dealing with Clinton. From the instant she tossed her hat in the presidential ring back in January 2007 she's had to deal with a relentless barrage of gender tinged wisecracks and outright insults on the campaign trail. At one rally, hecklers yelled to her to iron their shirts. Other gender taunts and slurs were even less flattering. Radio host Rush Limbaugh told listeners in one of his nationally syndicated shows, "Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?" Clinton has been taunted in some online websites with fake ads for toilet brushes labeled, "First Cleaning Lady" and a Clinton nutcracker was also for sale. It cracked nuts between her legs. Hillary Clinton's hairdos, ankles and even her cleavage did not stir any sustained protests or outrage from either men or women.

“A female in the White House would shatter the frozen in time mindset that the first lady isn't the president but the emotional helpmate to the president. That notion, though, is still a foreign concept to many men. In February, the Associated Press and Yahoo News found that 40 percent of Republicans said they would be reluctant to vote for a woman. A much smaller percentage said they would be reluctant to vote for a black.
“More than three decades before Clinton made her run for the White House, then New York Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm the only other woman to make a spirited run for the presidency as a Democrat quipped that "Of my two 'handicaps' being female put more obstacles in my path than being black. I've always met more discrimination being a woman than being black." Chisholm got a frosty reception from the male members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Thirty six years and nine presidential elections later some things haven't changed as Ferraro noted for a woman that seeks the highest office in the land.

“The politically correct view is that Clinton's entrance into and drive for the presidency will permanently alter the hostile mindset of many men that a woman is not equipped to hold the highest office. That's been the biggest myth of all. In Democratic primaries in January and February Obama held his own or surpassed Hillary's vote total with white men. He did it in some of the most traditional bastions of white male voter resistance to backing a black candidate in elections past.

“The votes he got from the men didn't necessarily mean that these men were enthusiastic backers of Obama. It likely meant that when it was a head to head contest between a man and a woman, they backed the man. Many liked Obama's message of change, but there were undoubtedly other men that simply didn't like Clinton, or rather the thought of a woman in the highest office. As Ferraro accurately put it lots of men fit that bill.

“Clinton will be under intense pressure to dump Ferraro. She should mightily resist it. After all, no one should lose their job for telling the truth.”

In my opinion, both Earl Ofari Hutchinson and Geraldine Ferraro are due merit badges for speaking the truth.

Does Clinton Have the Edge in the Democratic Race?

Photo credits: Getty

Despite Obama’s recent wins in Wyoming and Mississippi, Rick Klein at ABC News suggests that with six weeks to go in the run-up to Pennsylvania’s primary, Hillary Clinton might have the edge.

Klein reports:

“The Clinton campaign plans to use the coming six-week gap in primary voting to aggressively push its case that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., lacks the necessary experience to be president as the superdelegates loom by far as the most important voters in the race.

After Obama's Tuesday win in Mississippi, the strategy of defining the Illinois senator while the delegate count stays essentially frozen reflects a belief by Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign advisers after withstanding perhaps the roughest month of Clinton's presidential campaign that the New York senator now has a powerful ally on her side: time.”

Klein reminds us that “Clinton's campaign has proved more adept at seizing control of the race when no one is voting.

Just in the past few weeks, Clinton has kept pressure on Obama with a stinging TV ad suggesting he's unprepared to serve as commander in chief; left him on the defensive over NAFTA and controversial comments made by a high-level foreign-policy adviser; and made headlines by suggesting publicly that Obama could be considering as her running mate.”

Adding up Clinton’s advantages, Klein continues:

“The lull in the voting action is likely to include several debates in Pennsylvania, a format in which Clinton has typically excelled.
“It will also allow the Clinton campaign to work to find a way for Florida and Michigan to have their votes count; both states favor Clinton demographically, and a solution that allows those state delegations to be seated at the convention is likely to cut into Obama's delegate lead.

“And the next primary on the calendar -- Pennsylvania, April 22 -- is in a large, diverse state that's similar to others that have leaned toward Clinton.

“Clinton has maintained a solid lead in Pennsylvania polls, and Obama's advisers acknowledge that their candidate is the underdog in the Keystone State.

“A win there would add to Clinton's delegate count, pull her close in the overall popular vote and strengthen her campaign's argument that she's best suited to carry the important states on the presidential map.

“‘It could be, to some extent, a split decision,’ said Steve Grossman, a former Democratic National Committee chairman who is backing Clinton. "There should be no rush to judgment now, since we have a lot more evidence to gather."’

Read more:

Charismatic Leaders, for Good or Evil

Photo credits: AftermathNews

We’ve heard a lot about Barack Obama’s charisma in the Democratic race: he draws huge crowds at his political rallies, which he quickly transforms to foot-stomping, screaming, chanting revival meetings through his evangelical preaching style oratory.

In comparison, Hillary Clinton speaks at her events in the tone of a candidate who is serious about undertaking the role of the presidency and urges her audience to later hold her accountable for the specific policy commitments she makes to them.

In this morning’s Boston Globe, H.D.S. Greenway comments on the power of charisma. Greenway points out that throughout history, charismatic leaders have represented the forces of both good (Winston Churchill) and evil (Adolph Hitler).

Citing Joseph Nye’s book, The Power to Lead, Greenway states:

“’There are many qualities of leadership of course, which Nye examines, but what struck my eye in this political season was his discussion of ‘charisma.’ It comes from the Greek for ‘divine gift, or gift of grace,’ and those so gifted include, in Nye's eye, Mahatma Gandhi, Adolf Hitler, Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill, Benito Mussolini, Tony Blair, Fidel Castro, Nelson Mandela, Osama bin Laden, Jack Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Joan of Arc, and Eva Peron.

“Charisma can be a great source power, i.e. the power to persuade rather than force, but then soft power itself can be put to evil use. Hitler came to power through free elections, after all, and his speeches brought his audiences to a frenzy. And bin Laden spreads his lethal mischief by persuasion rather than coercion.”

About the Democratic primary, Greenway comments:

“Nye doesn't address the current political debate, but in today's race it seems to be Barack Obama who drew the charisma card. Like Reagan and Kennedy he seems to come up with the words that inspire, much to the annoyance of Hillary Clinton who is forever wonkish. Her husband seems able to coast on charisma, but she seems doomed to impress rather than inspire.”

Greenway concludes:

“Yet charisma for one ethnic or linguistic group can be anathema for another. Hitler's undoubted magnetism might not have worked on Italians. And Mussolini's operatic style would have seemed hilarious had he tried it on the British. But then the British never produced a Verdi, a Donizetti, nor a Rossini. Who knows, Obama might be boring in Burma, while Clinton might be electrifying in Beijing.”

Personally, I trust Hillary Clinton’s wonkish personality rooted in her ethic of hard work and dedication to lead the nation more than I trust Obama’s charisma that appears to deter his followers from examining his thin resume.

The Actions of Obama’s Advisers Raise Questions About Obama

Photo credits: AP

In today’s Boston Globe, Peter Canellos highlights Barack Obama’s recent difficulties in keeping his advisers on message:

“But if there was a warning for the Obama campaign {in the Samantha Power incident}, it was not about the dangers of negative campaigning. It was about the importance of having a consistent message and an effective chain of command.

“Power was the third Obama adviser to stir up a cloud of dust in recent weeks by apparently substituting his or her own views for Obama's: In addition to the "monster" comment, made to a Scottish newspaper, Power told the BBC that Obama's plan to withdraw all troops from Iraq within 16 months was subject to change once he took office.

“Susan Rice, another foreign policy aide, committed the misstep of opining that neither Obama nor Clinton was ready to handle a 3 a.m. phone call announcing a foreign policy crisis. Rice probably meant that no one can be fully prepared for the burdens of the presidency, but John McCain was only too happy to jump on her words and announce that he, at least, feels up to the job.

“Perhaps most damaging of all, Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist advising Obama, apparently sought to reassure Canadian officials in the days leading up to the Ohio primary that the senator wasn't really as critical of the North American Free Trade Agreement as he sounded on the stump. A memo produced by the Canadian consulate in Chicago suggested that Goolsbee felt the heated antitrade rhetoric was ‘political maneuvering.’”

Canellos suggests, “The actions of Obama's advisers raise as many questions about Obama as about the advisers.”

Explaining further, Canellos writes: “'Message control’ is a common catchphrase among political consultants, but it is crucial to governing as well. And when recent administrations have had problems with message control, it has usually signaled some sort of weakness in the boss”

To read more, go here.

Debunking the Punditry’s Latest Attempts to Smear Hillary Clinton

Lately, Media Matters for America has been busy calling pundits to account who have persisted in twisting, distorting, and often truncating Hillary Clinton’s comments made during a recent 60 Minutes interview. I’ve personally come across at least five or six op-ed columns in the Washington Post and NY Times in which the authors accuse Clinton of implying that Obama is a Muslim in response to Steve Kroft’s badgering her on the issue.

Most recently, Media Matters for America has debunked Bob Herbert’s attempt to smear Clinton in his NY Times column:

“Herbert wrote, "[60 Minutes correspondent Steve] Kroft asked Senator Clinton if she believed that Senator Obama is a Muslim. In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: 'No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.'

" But as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, during the interview on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Clinton repeatedly made clear that she believes Obama is not a Muslim.”

To read the full account in Media Matters for America, go here.

I was a day late in reading E.J. Dionne’s column that appeared in Sunday’s Washington Post. Titled Culture Wars? How 2004, Dionne’s piece is a refreshing change from the dishonest, calculated drivel in the op-ed columns mentioned above. Dionne actually states in print:

“On the Democratic side, cultural and religious questions have played almost no role in the battle between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. They have spoken instead about economics, health care and the war in Iraq. Strikingly, both have been intent on putting an end to religious divisions in the electorate and have sought to welcome the devout to the Democratic Party.”

Dionne continues:

“Obama has been explicit about the need to broker political peace between Democrats and believers. ‘If we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway,’ he said in an important speech at a 2006 meeting organized by the progressive evangelical Jim Wallis. ‘More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms." Clinton has also spoken movingly of the role of faith in public life. "I'm living by the Scripture that says we are all members of God's household," she told a Baptist convention in Atlanta in January.’”

To read Dionne’s column in its entirety, go here.

I’m hoping those who would continue their cynically misguided efforts to inject the race/religion card into the Democratic campaign by smearing Hillary Clinton will soon wise up and realize the bitter irony in resorting to such means to try to secure the nomination for a leader presented as the harbinger of the “new politics.”

By the way, after remaining silent about the earlier false accusations of racism against both Bill and Hillary Clinton until after the South Carolina primary was over, Barack Obama managed to hang his head during a later debate and publicly acknowledge that the Clintons are not racists.