                     I READ THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE WITH ALARM:
                     Â
Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks
Anti-Obama Ad Heightens Unity Fears
By Alec MacGillis and Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 24, 2008; A01
Â
DILLON, S.C., Jan. 23 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign aired a new radio ad here Wednesday that repeated a discredited charge against Sen. Barack Obama, in what some Democrats said is part of an increasing pattern of hardball politics by her and former president Bill Clinton.
The ad takes one line from an Obama interview -- "The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years" -- and juxtaposes it with GOP policies that Obama has never advocated.
"Really?" a voice-over says. "Aren't those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we're in today? Ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street. Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis. Are those the ideas Barack Obama's talking about?"
The Clinton campaign argued that it was simply quoting Obama. But in the original context, Obama was describing the dominance of Republican ideas in the 1980s and 1990s, without saying he supported them, and asserting that those ideas are of no use today.
Â
Feeling stirred up I wrote the following response to the Hillary Clinton Headquarters:Â
Â
To whom this concerns:
I like Hillary and would like to vote for her - however:
I find the attack on Obama re the remarks made about Reagan petty, tortured, innacurate, stretched and unworthy of her stature. Please, please, please, have Senator Clinton  concentrate on what her enlightened and progressive ideas and how she plans to implement them. This high road approach plus her obvious experience should be enough to beat Obama.
If she insists on taking the low road, I predict she will lose the election and deservedly so. If I read it right the majority of the country is hungary for civility - at least respectfulness that is organic, authentic, and consistent not just trotted out when it seems politically expedient.
Sincerely,
Gibbs A. Williams Ph.D - a concerned voter
            Â
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 48
As Jack Web said: "Stick to the facts"
Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Speculations are a matter of conjecture, Bert. They usually have no valid support and that's why they're called speculations. I just said, "it wouldn't surprise me if..."
As I also added, there had to have been an agenda. If the Republicans were behind it, I think they would have been wise enough to wait until he got the Dem nod, and then gone ahead with it. Too untimely for a Republican plot. Seems to have landed in perfect timing for someone else's though. hmmmmmm?
But I see mudslinging from both the Democrats and the Repubs. However, mostly the Democrats get the airtime on this. Gee.. Wonder why they get more mudslinging airtime. Any thoughts.
What am I waiting for? I have in my lap the "Official Ballot" for the California primary.
It reads:
Partisan
President of the United States
Presidential Preference vote for one
John Edwards
Chris Dodd
Hillary Clinton
Joe Biden
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel
_______________
(Then of course, there are many other issues of no importance to the rest of the country to be voted on.)
I already know for whom I shall vote. Why not get on with it, and be done with this thing. Done today; the END of this!
I do not know HOW a certain candidate got my name, address, and personal information, but maybe now she shall cease from sending me her advertisements, for I shall NOT be voting for her.
If you read the article to which I provided the link, you would also have read that
"Republicans have confidence, based on the historical record, that they know how to handle a Black candidate in a campaign setting."
Did you know that the argument here was that I said that I would not be surprised if Hillary was behind the email campaign slandering Obama? The only reason that what you responded to is here is because everyone else here thinks the Republicans had more of an agenda to start such a rumor. That's all it was about. I was merely trying to show that it would not only be untimely for the Republicans to do such, that it has turned out very timely for the Democrats, and that the Republicans have less motive in any time frame.
I'm sure you didn't realize that though. Everyone on Gather knows you're an Obama supporter, Nalita. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama himself knows.
You say that you are free to speculate without having to defend your anti-Clinton innuendo...and I suppose that is true. And then you attack my speculation that the Republicans might be responsible. You can't have it both ways. If you are free to speculate, so am I! And neither of us will ever know who started that abominable piece about Obama.
I can only say for sure that as quickly as I heard of Obama in relation to this race, I received the defamatory emails about him. And they all came from my good conservative Republican friends. One who has sent them to me three times already! So I can't help thinking that the source for them, not the Republican party, but the actual source is people like Karl Rove, who work behind the scenes for the Republican candidate without knowing who it is. And Obama has been known since the Democratic convention in 2004 so if some one wanted to look for "dirt" they've had plenty of time.
What I read in Clintons comments is that she caught him making a statement that he should have been smart enough to avoid, with praise for Republican ideas, which is anathema in a primary. And she caught him flat footed on that one.
That anti Obama piece will circulate heavily in the weeks before the general election if Obama is the nominee. And his church will be brought in to it and degraded in a swiftboat like attack! This election will be about race if they can make it that and Obama is nominated. If Hillary gets the nod, it will be a great deal about gender, with everything negative that Rove and his ilk can conjure up!
I got two of them, James, and one of them came from a Democrat and one from a Republican. I don't think the email address books of most people are politically separated though. To use your personal email as a source to make that premise is surprisingly dilettante for your more usually sophisticated arguments.
That other one you're referring to, James, is not anything that is surreptitious. It is the latest brouhaha in the news and everyone knows that his allusion to Reagan politics was a strong point for Hillary.
I still say that if the email was generated by anyone's people, my bet goes to Hillary. As I've said, it's surfaced at the most opportune time. He's already made speeches to refute it, and has done it very well, but it's done its damage. By the time the general election is here this will be long forgotten. The Republicans have much bigger fish to fry with Obama, as cited above.
Somebody sent me an interesting web site with a little quiz to help you pick a candidate that most closely reflects your views.
I took the quiz, and Kucinich came out on top for me.
If you're interested, here is the link.
Obama and Clinton tied at 55.
Ron Paul was the highest scoring Republican on my quiz, Sue.
He tied with Edwards, the lowest scoring Democrat. Both got 40.
The booby prize goes to Romney. He got a score of 5.
Thanks for the link! Mine came in with Kucinich on top and followed by Clinton, then Obama, then Edwards. Bottom scores were Huckabee and another with 12.
Appreciate your comment! No, I don't have my address book separated by party. I don't need to and the vast majority of people in it are Republican. I have yet to have a Democrat send me a spam message degrading a Republican candidate. They just don't seem as inclined.
One of my conservative friends in Connecticut sends things that have recirculated widely, the CC list is included, and frequently other messages are included in getting to the one he wanted to forward, so I know he's got a bunch of radical conservative people in his circle.
Frankly, I don't send the darned things on regardless. Things that say "send this to everyone you know" simply die on my machine.
Guess I'll have to do it again to find out who the second and third choices are now. Obviously wouldn't hurt to have another first choice either. Thanks for the link because I didn't have it anymore.
Doesn't at all surprise me that most of your email list is Republican, James! I knew you had redeeming qualities! :)
All circulation emails stop in my box too. I did get a wonderful one the other day though, showing the USS New York, built from 22 tons of scrap metal from the World Trade Center. What a beauty!
Mike Gravel was also second on my list after Kucinich and ahead of both Clinton and Obama.
Re: The USS New York...it's true that it is being built with metal from the WTC, but the photo that has been widely circulated in an Email is NOT the New York. It's a sister ship, the USS San Antonio. The New York is still under construction.
Here's the story on USS New York from Snopes.
Apology accepted.
Thanks to you too, Gibbs, for a venue to discuss. Hope the comments I've made haven't digressed too much from your intent. As I said, she capitalized on the comment he made. It's always up to the constituents to ferret out the truth or the lie of any claim a politician makes about an opponent, unfortunately. In this case, she did twist its intent, but that's Hillary style, so if you like her you'll have to concede with the assertion that what you see is what you get.
According to this article, 3 federal "employees" are being "investigated"
for ""allegedly sending"" this email.
It's a bit presumptuous of you, unless you have some conflicting and corroborating information of your statement, to assume I need to apologize to you.
1. Are all Federal employees Republicans? I don't see any reference to any particularly partisan wrongdoing in this article.
2. No charges have been filed according to this article.
3. Even if files had been charged, there's a nagging little legal right called "innocent until proven guilty" that just might be applicable here.
4. The article states only that these employees have been accused of sending the email. This, in no way, even alleges, that it was originated by them.
I say let them duke it out - the White House will one ugly bloody fight after another so let's see how they do it, now.
It has absolutely no bearing on the context of this thread which was merely conjecture about its origination.
It's a fact of Internet Life that otherwise seemingly honest and ethical people will forward the most scurrilous, hate-filled garbage without checking it out, especially if they happen to secretly sympathize with the attackers. This is particularly true of attacks on Hillary Clinton, and I suppose I have become somewhat militant about attacks on her, even though she is not my favorite candidate for President.
The Right Wing has been doing a hatchet job on her since Bill was in office. Everything from calling her a witch to criticizing her fat ankles! I have never seen such a nasty, lowdown campaign since Nixon smeared a female Democratic opponent in one of his early contests. As a result, I feel some real sympathy for Hillary, and I suspect there are a lot of people in this country who share my feelings. The hardball attacks may backfire on the rednecks and create a swell of support for her.
It would serve them right.
I took the test again, Sue, and posted the results in your article.