Obama aide criticizes "craven" act by Edwards, Biden, and Dodd (Obama disavows aide's actions again)

The "new kind of politics" rolls on. Thankfully, once again Obama himself says had nothing to do with it. It was just a stray staffer, who I am sure is a 19 year old political rookie who decided to risk his job by making an "unauthorized" criticism of three Democratic candidates to the press because he felt like it. Don't you see all the mistakes made by rogue staffers at the HRC, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, Romney, Ghouliani, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, Paul, Hunter, and Gilmore campaigns? :sarcasm:

Instead of offering some comfort to families and friends of those killed in a tragedy they should be at a fund-raiser with millionaires. :eyes:

What really is craven is constantly hiding behind your staff when you attack your opponents (either that or someone is by far the worst manager of any of the 18 candidates for president of a $3 trillion government)...

Candidate trips to firefighters’ memorial are ‘craven,’ says aide to Sen. Obama

==An aide to Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) presidential campaign said the candidates planning to attend today’s memorial service in Charleston, S.C., for nine firefighters who died this week are engaging in a “pretty craven political act.”==

==The staffer qualified his criticism by adding that it would not be politically craven if the candidates had been invited.

==After press time, Obama Press Secretary Bill Burton told The Hill in an e-mail, “Those comments absolutely do not reflect the sentiment of Senator Obama or his campaign.”==

South Carolina native and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Joseph Biden (D-Del.) are planning to attend, and one source in Charleston ==
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/edwards-predicting-big-second-quarter-drop-off-2007-06-22.html

as the foot entered the mouth.


Got employment???

Notice how you don't see this from any of the other 17 campaigns for president? Is Obama hiding behind his staff, in order to protect his "new politics" image, or is he just far more an incompetent manager than the other 17 candidates for president?

If this truly was "unauthorized" the "rogue staffer" will pay a price. I doubt it, though. No one apparently has been fired for the "unauthorized" smear memo that was distributed not for attribution.

So obviously it's Obama who's in the wrong.

If Obama dropped the charade of being morally above the lowly 17 and admitted that he was a typical politician running a typical campaign such things would be no big deal. Of course, we know he won't do that because it would reduce his support. He needs to keep the charade going. What better way than getting all the benefits of attacks while shifting all the blame to "rogue staffers"?

because the only way to get real employees for a political campaign is to draw from the pool available, which means people who cut their teeth in the present cutthroat environment and for whom a caustic tone comes naturally. It's tough to train people out of what they've been learning all their political lives.

But by all means, a thousand stabs in the Forum for Obama having the audacity to try.

By the way, shifting the blame isn't working anyway so what political advantage comes from it?...

==which means people who cut their teeth in the present cutthroat environment and for whom a caustic tone comes naturally. It's tough to train people out of what they've been learning all their political lives.==

It is simple: follow the bosses' orders or get a pink slip. If he set such a rule his team would act like saints.

==But by all means, a thousand stabs in the Forum for Obama having the audacity to try.==

Sadly, it increasingly seems more like the audacity to cynically exploit a longing among the public for political gain while having no intention of actually doing what you say (and implicitly chide others for doing).

==By the way, shifting the blame isn't working anyway so what political advantage comes from it?...==

Good point. Let me clarify. Obama is a politician, not a lonely saint among sinners as advertised. He wants to win. The political advantage in making attacks is known, that is why they all do it. Obama does not completely erase the stain by constantly blaming "rogue staffers" who never get fired. What he does do, though, is minimize the damage by doing this (although it should be noted it does eliminate any damage from his core of true believers and keeps the contribution spigot from them flowing). This is why was deferential to HRC before the cameras during the debate and then turned around and released a not for attribution smear of her. He knew the cost of publicly attacking her would be too great. Still, he needed the boost an attack provides and devised a way of retaining all the benefits of the attack while minimizing the damage. In the end it is a cost/benefit analysis and this method makes the benefit greater than the cost. An overt attack would cost more than the benefits it would bring, given his image and key campaign theme, and this is why you see him behave differently in public.

Because then you'll call him a coward who won't fire himself.

he personally feels. This has nothing to do with Obama.

Who charged his campaigns twice for a 400$ haircut, had two campaign workers leave in disgrace for anti-catholic comments, and has video out of him primping his hair. While all trivial the same argument applies. If Edwards can't run a campaign how can he run a country.




On a side note: I like Edwards and he is a very close second in my mind. My above comment is Bullsh%t. I said it because it is the same argument used against Obama here. Give me a f*cking break. Ease up on Obama. He NOR every member of his staff are perfect.(and he doesn't claim to be)


I also like how you want Obama to claim the comments when he clearly doesn't agree with them.

==. I said it because it is the same argument used against Obama here.==

There is a difference, even aside from the things you listed, which have nothing to do with managerial skills (what does hair have to do with that? Two of your examples relate to hair. The other is about not checking every single blog post made by 2 bloggers he hired). Edwards has run a major law firm that he founded. He has executive experience; Obama does not have any executive experience and is asking for us to trust his ability to, in his first executive position, run a $3 trillion government.

==I also like how you want Obama to claim the comments when he clearly doesn't agree with them.==

Yeah, it just happens that way. He--unlike HRC, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, Romney, Ghouliani, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, Paul, Hunter, and Gilmore--keeps having "rogue staffers." What do they do? The same exact thing: smear Obama's opponents. Surely it must be a bad streak of luck that it keeps happening to Obama, and that they all happen to be doing the same thing. The other 17 candidates magically never face this problem, which Obama has faced twice in as many weeks now...

If he doesn't agree with comments or memos that are unauthorized and damage his campaign why doesn't he fire such incompetent, rogue employees? You know the answer...

How do you know he didn't fire the employees? To answer your question he isn't the only one to have over zealous campaign workers, you just don't hear about the other candidates because they are not a threat to Hillary... and her media supporters. I would love to see a list of those many attacks from the Obama camp....

Well, I'll quote http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/18/133711/536">Kos on the whole haircut thing:


Look, Obama's campaign messed up. He needs to get better control of his campaign and get it in order. However, as the original post in this sub-thread pointed out, all of the campaigns, including Edwards, are having small problems which get blown way out of proportion. These incredibly stupid media driven things are problems because they let the media attack the candidates images, Edwards as a populist in touch with regular people and Obama's new kind of politics rather than focus on what the candidates and the party stand for. Why are people happy when our candidates struggle over stupid things like this? People make mistakes. Campaigns make mistakes.

The only other Dem with a high enough profile to get this kind attention is Clinton, and she is known for the rough and tumble of dirty campaigning, so when her campaign refuses comment after the Washington Post refuses unattributed opposition research on Obama, it doesn't become a massive story.

Instead of focusing on these Edwards and Obama campaign screw up stories, the media (and all of us at the DU) should be chewing at the following ad nauseum:

of course, it doesn't. You could do better for you candidate if you promoted his achievements.

and your last sentence is perfect advice for the OP. ;-)

Resko associated with practically every politician in Illinois. He also was friends with Obama for years before he was investigated.

she didn't realize, the only qualification necessary was the willingness to wear a "NO Vote for HRC" T-shirt.

Unbought tickets galore. For tonight. From Craigslist:

“Greetings, Barack Obama and Ben Harper will be performing/speaking along with many other noted celebs at the Hammerstein Ballroom tonight! Contact me for ticket details, I have over 100 tickets. The event is from 8-10:30, all proceeds will go to Obama For America! This is the largest fundraiser in the ‘08 Election thus far– be a part of it! Tickets start at $100 for general seating, $250 for preferred seating and $500 for a VIP reception with Ben Harper and Senator Obama (preferred seating included) prior to the event!”

Is the Bloom off the Rose?

100 dollar tickets are not easy to sell no matter who the candidate is. Funny all the stories I have read show Hillary having seats left over at her events.

Loop poles to escape taxes, investments in companies that contradict Edward's platform. Maybe Edwards should pull his 25 million out, dont u think?

so that more people can have the opportunity to get some of that wealth.

That way there can fewer people trying to get a piece of his.

who were acting negligently, often, because they put profits before people.

Now he wants to be president so that he can help even more people who are on the downside of opportunity because our country has made a lot of political choices that put them there.

Forget Fortress. If Edwards wanted to be super rich, he'd go back to being a trial lawyer. He has made legal investments that are giving him a chance to be your president so he can make your life better. If you want to criticize him for that, it doesn't really matter because he'll still have an excellent chance of being president and making your life better.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Moreover, that isn't as bad as the Obamas profiting off of health care by sitting on the board of a prominent hospital ("that Senator Obama has benefited from the University of Chicago Hospitals marking up their actual costs by 350 percent on the uninsured. The most troubling examples of Obama losing his moral compass on the healthcare issue are his wife, an employee of the hospital, receiving an increase in her total compensation by almost $200,000 a year shortly after he was sworn in and University of Chicago Hospitals executives providing Obama with over $100,000 in campaign contributions over the past few years."), or the Obamas profiting of sitting on the board of a company that aids and abets Wal-Mart. At least they have a direct say in the operations of those entities, like BO supporters love to point out about HRC's tenure on Wal-Mart's board.

As Truman, said the buck stops here. They should be responsible for what their aides do. 17 candidates--I repeat 17 candidates--never have these problems. Only Obama does. Either he is cleverly hiding behind them, as I say, or incompetent. BO supporters reject the first theory. What else could it be if not incompetence? Why does it not happen to the other 17 candidates?

And why this he promote this shady industry. Hedge Funds are different than things such as mutual funds. Hedge Fund managers made about $500 million to over a $1 Billion last year. And its sure convenient for many of them to dodge personal and business taxes. And Edwards knows that everyone in the industry does that. Rather than speak up against it, he is contributing to part of the problem.

And Michelle Obama's pay increase was due to a promotion that she received and had nothing to do with Obama getting elected.

on higher incomes.

Which other candidate is going to do that?

And almost $200,000 in campaign contributions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_2.html

Disclosure forms to be released on Tuesday will show how much Edwards was paid for his work at Fortress, which lasted until December 2006, when he stepped down to run for president. He has received $167,460 in campaign contributions from Fortress employees and their families, his largest sum from a single company.

is that all these statements are like shots across the bow at anyone who wants to represent the little guy.

The link in the OP leads to this:

:hi:

:hi:

I am for Gore, but I realize that our candidate will probably be someone else, so let's not help the GOPers out PLEASE. I am confident that Obama's disavowal of this ridiculous accusation is sincere. Why shouldn't candidates attend this memorial?