Clark's Rivals Irked by Campaign Aide's Tactics

"Now, Mr. Lehane has become a target in a fight among Democrats about whether opposition research is going too far. With General Clark rising in the polls in New Hampshire and Howard Dean facing a spate of negative news reports, from stories about stock he sold as Vermont's governor to remarks maligning the Iowa caucuses, many Democrats are convinced they see the invisible hand of Chris Lehane.

"He's doing what he does, and what he learned quite well in war rooms and hard-fought campaigns," said one Democrat who works for a rival campaign. "It's just that right now, he's doing it inside the family, as opposed to across the fence. And so it's received differently. He's spilling blood in our house."

...

"On Monday morning at 9, reporters traveling with General Clark were clustered in a hotel lobby here when Mr. Lehane blew in, carrying an oversize cup of coffee from Dunkin' Donuts and wearing his trademark mischievous look.

"So you heard Kerry's attacking us," he said, referring to Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts — a candidate he advised last year.

Minutes later, Mr. Lehane produced two documents: a flattering remark Mr. Kerry made about General Clark, and a not-so-flattering synopsis of a 1996 Boston Globe article that said Mr. Kerry had stayed rent-free at the home of a lobbyist. All this transpired two hours before the Kerry camp said a single word."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/16/politics/campaigns/16LEHA.html

Trippi and Lehane have a duel.

when a rival campaign decides it's appropriate to hand out fliers at your event.

Get outta here...I mean...what's next?

Handing out "flyers" at your opponents' events?

There's nothng new under the sun when it comes to negative campaigning.

Or calling voters and telling them they are innelegible?

Or maybe saying that you are the only candidate that opposed the war from ther start when you aren't?

There is also calling voters and telling them Kerry has Cancer.

I guess we agree.

Clark will never get my vote, no matter what.

:hi:

i am really irked over this

a Lehane Trippi duel seems in order

above the frey. :eyes: Riiiight. ;) They are apparently the dirtiest of them all. Well with the exception of Gephardt perhaps.

...The Clark campaign is armed for defense, yes.

But unlike the other campaigns, they aren't launching the bombs.

Did Clark go out and say Kerry bunked down at a lobbyist's house in a stump speech?

No.

"They are apparently the dirtiest of them all."

Uh, I'd look a little closer at Mr. Trippi, myself :hi:

Please go back and do so, or at least read the OP. Thanks.

...and stand by my statement. Clark did not attack Kerry on the stump.

Where's the evidence to the contrary?

It's about dirty politics.

while his assistant does the dirty work.

...while his opponents wallow in the mud themselves.

Hmmmmm.... I back Clark's approach, thanks :hi:

to be exposed soon. People don't like pigs. :hi:

The Dean campaign is squeaky clean and everyone else is involved in dirty politics. Gotcha :eyes:

"People don't like pigs."

Perhaps the best explanation yet as to why Dean continues to plummet in the polls :hi:

look here for a dose of painful reality.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

What must be additionally painful is that Chris Lehane is actually helping John Kerry. LOL, I wonder if he infiltrated the Clark camp to do just that? Now, that's a gas... Kerry will cream Clark in the national race. Sure Clark will open up the door for *soldiers* but when it comes to the issues, Kerry's got him beat ten fold.

You're talking about Kerry and Clark in the national race :hi:

this one.

...would be more concerned with how Dean is doing in Iowa right now than what will happen between Clark & Kerry in New Hampshire.

But, then again, the doctor is tanking in both states, so why not focus on the opponents who actually have momentum? :hi:

and amazing support across this nation. Iowa is one small kernel in the great scheme of things. Clinton lost Iowa remember?

:hi:

Bodes well for another Arkansan in this year's primary :hi:

:hi:

the list of similarities grows.

Interesting.

Julie

All the high talk about honor and integrity was just that- high-talking fluff. All of Clinton's dirtiest people are on the Clark campaign- I am surprised that all of this is such a surprise to everyone.

At ALL. He comes across as slimy.

It is blood-sport, complete with side-bets. The thin-skinned and pacific should seek other lines of work....

"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force out-numbered in the field differs from Waterloo."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Clark campaign dirty tricks have cast a very long shadow indeed.

As you are A.B.B. once the general election is upon us....

That is what matters most.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

But I am convinced that of all the candidates, Clark will do the most damage to us in the general election.

Too divisive, too unknown.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

His appearance on Tweety hardened my growing Clark discomfort.

He is, or at least comes off as, a really manipulative, amoral creep.

Generally makes me want to scream, which is bad for my heart.

It has always seemed to me, though, that to describe a political operative as a manipulative, amoral creep is a little redundant. It has always been my understanding that is part of the job description.

He was WAY the smarmiest.

I mean, it was not even CLOSE.. the guys for Gephardt, Kerry, and Dean were like princes of clean by comparisom.

He made me feel...dirty.

He looks suited to the work at hand....

Those are the people it is best to have working for, rather than against, you, in my view.

If you can't argue policy, attack the campaign. Seems like I've seen this before. "Make them stop pickin' on me Terry!"

which is essentially the same thing as the IWR unless of course were pissing and moaning about Gephardt caving too soon and not supporting Biden Lugar."

Yep, seen it.

That's exactly what it did, it's true, it's an ISSUE. One cannot possibly be "against the war from the start" when you supported ANY resolution that would authorize war.

It's different than some vague lumping people all in one boat slander. I am absolutely fed up to my eyeballs with Howard Dean and his refusal to debate the issues because he knows he can't win on any of them.

Biden/Lugar.

You really dont think a 5 term governor with an amazing understanding of the *issues* would have trouble debating John Kerry? Humorous.

I'd like to keep the thread on topic if you don't mind. It's about Chris Lehane who JK fired from what I gather.

Dean was speaking out against the war vigorously before it started. There you go-- "From the start."


Let's see what we have with Kerry (who actually cast a vote!) :

This fellow declares that the Vietnam war is wrong, then goes off to fight in it and subsequently talks abou the risk to his OWN life at every opportunity; never mind the hundreds villagers living under primitive conditions he had/could easily kill... THEY are unmentionable. Now in 2003 Kerry knew the evidence against Iraq was false (or he was incompetent), but since his campaign started losing to Dean and Clark all we hear is Kerry wailing 'Bush lied to me!'

'Waaah! I didn't want to be the hypocrite!'

It's not as if Dean or the others don't have opposition research trying to dig up dirt on there rivals. It just happens that there is more dirt on Clark's rivals that is out there than Clark, or at least Lehane has been able to find more than the others.

To be honest, Lehane rubbed me the wrong way when I saw him on Hardball, before this article came out, so this article didn't really give me any less of an opinion about him, but he or Clarks campain staff hasn't taken nearly as many mean-spirited and misleading cheap shots and low blows against there rivals as Dean's staff. Or Kerry's for that matter

watch and see. :) And, read the article. The cheap shots against Dean in the past week alone.

Sharpton gate-Chris Lehane?
Trooper gate-Chris Lehane?
Cheater in Iowa gate-?? Gephardt and Lehane?

Oh and lets not forget the Osama add. You can bet that has "Chris Lehane's" name all over it!

What else am I missing? :eyes:

the first time it was posted

And I didn't say all of those incidents involved Lehane, but maybe some of them did. I guess he's not allowed to that though, because, after all, he or any of the other people working for Dean's serious rivals aren't "real democrats" right? When Trippi uses slimeball attacks, it's apparently a noble act to you, but if they're working for Clark or Kerry or Gephardt, or sympathetic to them, it's beyond the pale

of it by.........Chris Lehane. :hi:

This is newsworthy because Clark claims to be running a clean campign. Bookmark it so you can keep the truth at hand.
Yes watch and learn dish on the General is not far away.

And, I don't think it's dirty to mention Clarks voting record personally.

That's the slimiest piece of garbage I have ever seen. He's done so much slimy crap in this campaign that we'll never know all of it.

plans to endorse Dean. What's slimey is the garbage that Trippi is accused of such a thing.

The Dean campaign said Carter has/had no plans to endorse him *period*

Again, lets stick to the topic shall we?

That's what Trippi said. And tried to hype it up to the point that Carter had to issue a statement that there would be NO endorsement. And once again, the Dean campaign had to clarify.

And when there's a topic where Dean is whining about campaign tactics, expect me to be right there to call bullshit. I don't care who Dean is smearing this week, I will fight every single time. That is absolutely sticking to the topic.

The media made it appear that it might be a Carter endorsement, not Joe Trippi-who DENIED it immediatley.

Again, let's stay on topic.

They were specifically talking about Carter. Not any other surprises. And bullshit campaign tactics is on topic. No matter who is spewing it out.

Washington insiders, creating a fake justification for war... those are accusations about policymakers that become detached from reality.

What do they say in return? Dean is unelectable, angry, attacks politicians, extremist, blah blah...

It's hilarious: Two wars in 3 years and a tanked economy and no one is supposed to be accusatory about anything but a politcians who attacks bad policy makers.

How vulnerable they must feel!

Manufactured anger, slander, whining and no solutions. That's a great big no thank you. People will always choose hope over anger. That's why George Bush keeps going up in the polls. They choose to believe him. If we don't give them real explanations to our problems and significantly better solutions, we'll go nowhere. Anger is the most pointless emotion on the planet. It has NEVER gotten me anywhere.

he hasn't gone tit for tat like the other campaigns.

Dean called Clark a republican, an equally unfair and harsh response would have been for Clark to call Dean a snobby little fairy but he ignored the idiocy and focused on telling people about his superior platform.

Dean has also made the implication/accusation that ALL of his serious candidate opponents aren't "real democrats" a central them of his campaign, which is very low.

:) Have you read that article yet? Chris Lehane is the dirtiest of dirty. He *leaks* stuff to the press in an underhanded manner. You can't be falling for this Clark=Clean campaign crap can you?!

Clark=filty campaign, which is pretending to be clean. Read the article ;)

and it's the only way he can compete with a dishonest campaign like dean's, who is doing the same thing.

Oposition research and leaking is the norm, and every one of the major campaigns have people responsible for doing. Some have clearly been more successful than others. Edwards is also somebody running a RELATIVELY clean campaign. He and Clark are running the cleanest, but his people have still done some questionable things to Clark invovling Hugh Shelton.

But Clarks is the dirtiest campaign.

You either deny or accept that the other campaigns have opposition research or "dirt-diggers" as one might call them.

Not all the campaigns make open bomb-throwing at there opponents a central theme, and only one campaign, Dean's, can clearly be seen as having set the tone, by going negative from the start and not letting up.

My work here is done ;)

Negative is not pointing out the past votes of your rivals. Negative is not even mentioning Dean's former position on the retirement age. Those are facts. Dean's campaign has been run based on the facts.

What's negative is: The Osama ad, The so called trooper scandal, The Sharpton bullshit show, The Dean is cheating *waaah waaah* but I've got no proof crap.

These all smell of Chris Lehane.

the complaint made by the Dean operative in the article. It's a lot of bluster with little substance and no evidence.

:eyes:

This week, tensions over Mr. Lehane burst into prime time, when Steve McMahon, a consultant for Dr. Dean's campaign, erupted in frustration at Mr. Lehane on the MSNBC program "Hardball." Mr. Lehane casually mentioned a four-year-old videotape that surfaced last week, showing Dr. Dean criticizing the Iowa caucuses as "dominated by special interests" — a definite no-no for a candidate courting Iowa voters. Clearly irritated, Mr. McMahon interrupted him.

"You know about it," Mr. McMahon said. "It came from you."

"That tape did not come from me," Mr. Lehane shot back.

Mr. McMahon, insisting he was bound by a confidential source, said later that he could not "provide proof." But he did say he wanted to put Mr. Lehane on notice. "I'm reacting to a lot of evidence that comes over the transom," he said, "and I wanted to sort of fire a shot at him and let him know that when he's doing this stuff, we hear about it."

That's as close to evidence as the article got.

And the post I replied to implied that Lehane was involved in all of the above, none of which was substantiated.

.

A guy with a clear history of unrespectable and borderline criminal activity in dem primaries.

He cheated to get us the lemon that was Mondale and he's snaking through this primary to give us another in Dean

In-teresting.

Mondale is no lemon. I'm from Minnesota and Mondale is an amazing man. Paul Wellstones sons asked him to run for Senate here when their Father died. Why? Because Mondale was one of Paul Wellstones heros.

I resent your comment greatly.

i was about 14 months old during that election, so you'll excuse me if I didn't get to the polls to vote for either Reagan or Mondale.

Whatever opinion you have of either Dean or Mondale, they're both "amazing men" to some people who would/will run on a platform of raising middle class taxes(or "just" going back to the previous decades rates on the middle class if you like) against an incumbant republican president engaged in a worldwide campaign against an ideology.

interesting analysis. I think I *get it* now. Clark is following in the path of Reagan.

it's called straight-forwardness.

Dean denying or neglecting to suggest anyone but "ken lay and the boys" got a tax cut could, make that, should, really take a page from him

It's called pandering.

Beware of politicians who promise you everything.

Something must be done to begin restoring the nation's fiscal house. This was President Clinton's tax strategy, and it worked.

It is nevessary to drive a wedge between those who finance the reactionary movement, and those who provide its foot-soldiers. This is an excellent wedge to that purpose....

Because *it worked*

The 90's were quite different than the current situation.

about all the mud slung at General Clark

Stop Doing That! You CANNOT do EXACTLY what the OTHER campaigns are doing! The nerve! Sheesh. Let them punch, but don't punch back. Let them bully. Do NOT defend yourself. Let them dish dirt on you and you just sit there and take it, OK?

Riiiiight. That would be a really good stategy. :eyes: You think Lehane is GOOD...think of what could be. James Carville! :7 I still haven't heard Clark say anything about Kerry. BUT, I also don't expect him to just sit back and take it. Bring it on!

Go, Wes!

but all is fair in politics. Unfortunately the media whores feast on this stuff.

So why are they only discussing Lehane? In addition, maybe the candidates who are complaining shouldn't have unfairly attacked Clark.

Dean mudslinging = good

Everyone else mudslinging = bad


Get with the program! :hi:

Clark=Clean campaign :puke:

I'm sure you all got that one, because it's repeated here again and again.

Do remember, Clark is running a D-I-R-T-Y campaign, and try to retain that knowlege going forward.

You won't feel so bad when Joe Lieberman and John Kerry call him a Republican that way.

...at least my guy won't go running to Terry McAuliffe :hi:

Make them stop, Terry! Please, please, please...make them stop saying bad things about me! :cry:

:hi:

and the gang are fair play.

Clark has not been unfairly attacked *yet*

Clark is ready. He handles those attacks with ease. He's not threatened by it. How many American's are going to give a shit about who he voted for 20-30 years ago? NO ONE is going to care. Besides that, it's a LIE. He NEVER was a republican...but keep repeating it enough, maybe it will come true. :eyes:

calling it an attack is a stretch.

But *Bring it on* they will. Glad your prepared.