Obama's Character Problem? "Daily Howler" points out ...MAYBE...

... Weird! We read Obama’s book—and discovered Clinton’s plan:
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2007



Unlike Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid really are broken, he says. This is exactly what Clinton says now—and Obama attacks her for it. Just last year, this outlook displayed the audacity of hope. Today, it’s a sign of bad character.

We’re sorry, but we’ve seen this movie before; it played in 1999 and 2000, and it did massive harm to this country. At that time, Bill Bradley had launched a self-consciously high-minded run for the White House, just as Obama has done this year; Bradley faced a strongly-entrenched front-runner, just as Obama does. But uh-oh! When Bradley failed to gain sufficient traction against his opponent, he and his campaign began launching bogus attacks on this fellow’s character—and he used reams of old RNC spin in launching these punishing sorties. Indeed, by the late fall of 1999, Bradley’s campaign was using every old RNC attack-line that could be found in that org’s butcher shop. (The “mainstream” press corps loved these scripts, and was quite happy to pimp them.) With Bradley, this process even descended to the point where he claimed that his opponent, Al Gore, was responsible for the 1988 Willie Horton race-sliming—an ugly, ludicrous, inexcusable charge which the RNC had brainlessly pimped since July 1992. (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/01/02, for a fairly detailed account of this matter. You’ll see George Will making this ludicrous charge against Gore during the 1992 Dem convention.)

What makes this eight-year-old episode so much like the current one? Just this: In his own 1997 best-seller, Time Present, Time Past, Bradley had explicitly said, in substantial detail, that Gore did not racialize the Willie Horton matter. Needless to say, everyone with half a brain already knew this. But you know how these high-minded White House campaigns can be! Having told the truth in 1997, Bradley began to “misstate” in 1999—and the mainstream press, which was now jeering Gore during debates, was perfectly happy to let him. (Except Mort Kondracke. See link above.)

It’s hard to watch high-minded Obama now without thinking of high-minded Bradley back then. In Obama’s book, published last year, he proposes Clinton’s current plan! But today, when she takes this stance, he attacks her character. It’s the same stance he promoted last year. (And on This Week, just this May.)

This is how Bradley helped Bush reach the White House. His claims that Gore was a hit-man and a liar were recited by the press corps all through the 2000 general election. Now Obama is calling a front-runner names—contradicting what he said in his best-seller. Unless you want a Republican successor to Bush, it’s very bad news to see this bad movie back in the theaters again.

Note on history:Yes. Sometimes, strategists do recommend such conduct. And ambitious candidates do sometimes accede. We’re sorry to have to speak frankly today. But this is your recent, sad history.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh111607.html

for any of the candidates

Or is he for it again? It's hard to keep up.

If you can follow Clinton's five illegal DL belly flipflops these past 2 weeks, you can keep up with anything.

Mark Penn probably wrote ghostwrote this for Daily Howler while taking a break from giving Blackwater PR talking points.

Congrats - good work for a Saturday morning.

It's not farfetched given what we know of Bunker Hillary, given that they feed stories to Drudge also.
I guess HillaryIs44 is a laughingstock with zero credibility, so it's on to a new campaign surrogate website.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with his bio...

He was Al Gore's room mate at Harvard and was appalled at he way Gore was pilloried in the press during the 00 campaign and his blog was a response to it...

As for the Clintons I don't blame them at all for being suspicious of the press...

And for the OP I think it's kind of silly... Barack Obama is a politician and he does what a politician does... Taking dumb positions doesn't strike me as a character flaw...

Almost 2 years ago it was reported on the QT that Republican opposition researchers had extensively investigated every page of Obama's book, his previous speeches, his record in the IL State Senate, and his personal life issues(ie. drug use, education, relationships, etc.).

Both Edwards and Clinton have been through highly publicized campaigns where the Repub candidates have used the opposition research collected on them. Not so with Obama.

If Clinton is the Democratic Nominee, there is plenty of 'tried and true' opposition research to use that has worked before when husband Bill ran and was in office.

Edwards comes out the cleanest of the three having run for President and VP in the last election cycle, and there being very little substance dredged up on him.

So far Repubs have sat back and watched Clinton and Obama duke it out knowing they are well armed with either of those as the Democratic Nominee. However, Edwards presents a real threat that will not be easily diffused if he becomes the Nominee.

Now, suddenly, it all makes sense. Clinton v. Obama is the media's dream match-up. They're prepared for either of them should they win the primaries.

Now that I come to think of it, there really hasn't been that much "substantive" dirt dug up on Obama.

They're saving it for later.

Too bad if Edwards gets in.