Hillary camp reaches an even lower low - accuses Obama team of "dirty tricks" with zero evidence

Hillary Camp Accusing Obama Team Of Dirty Tricks
By Eric Kleefeld - December 4, 2007, 10:30AM

The Hillary campaign is now accusing the Obama camp of "berating Hillary supporters on the phone" in Iowa and New Hampshire — and going a bit further by subtly accusing the Obama camp of dirty tricks, using the same campaign e-mail to talk about "reports that Hillary supporters are getting calls that tell them incorrect caucus locations."

With the caucuses and primaries getting closer and closer, we'll be seeing a lot more reports like this one. The full e-mail from Hillary campaign manger Patti Solis Doyle is available after the jump.

"I wanted to let you know immediately about reports our campaign has received about possible dirty campaign tactics in Iowa and New Hampshire -- and ask for your help.

In Iowa, we have heard reports that Hillary supporters are getting calls that tell them incorrect caucus locations. Supporters have also told us about push polls -- when they tell the pollster they support Hillary, they are given negative talking points about her and asked which attacks are the most effective.

In both Iowa and New Hampshire, we have heard that Obama staffers are berating Hillary supporters on the phone with negative attacks against her.

<SNIP>

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/hillary_camp_accusing_obama_team_of_dirty_tricks.php#more

But it doesn't look right.

His supporters are grasping at straws, complaining about a joke, asking why Hillary hates kids, and now this leap of logic

No 'leap of logic.' Perhaps you didn't read the TPM story closely.

Nowhere does it accuse anyone of doing anything. It merely says they have received reports of dirty tricks.

Now Obama supporters cant even defend what THEY say

"In both Iowa and New Hampshire, we have heard that Obama staffers are berating Hillary supporters on the phone with negative attacks against her."

There's your accusation. Thanks.

it's quite clear actually.

the talking points the campaign would approve. I think anyone who ever phoned banked knows that there are people who do this. It is also tough to imagine how you control it. Here in the example, the person identified himself as from Obama. I do think the comments went far beyond what Obama would want. This may be something the Obama campaign will have to say was inappropriate and that phonebankers will be better trained.

...Obama started it!! (Edwards too) I've watched every debate and Hillary not once attacked any of her fellow candidates, in fact, she was supportive of them. The only person she attacked was Bush. Until....Obama and Edwards piled on her. So, what did you expect, that she would just lie there and take it. Obama and Edwards started the mud-slinging...then when some of it came their way, they cry foul!

"Hillary has been planning to run for years and years" is a right wing lie and Obama uses it and tries to hide that he has been planning to run for all of his life

Did you even read the story? Hillary's campaign is making the claims.

For someone who decrys "mudslinging," Clinton sure knows how to sling the mud. It's pretty clear she's going to level a fantastic new accusation against Obama each day from now until Jan 3.

The Obama camp speaks of the "politics of hope" (which is a cheap catchphrase) all the while attacking Hillary, but willing to get along with the GOP. :eyes: Hillary strikes back and now she's the "bad" one here. :eyes: So if a woman defends herself, she is wrong. Sadly, many here think that Hillary should gladly take the assaults from the other candidates but she has no right to strike back. :eyes:
:thumbsdown:

I'm with Hillary on this one.

in Harlem where the "white lady" wasn't allowed.

If I use Obama supporters on DU as a barometer, then I could easily see this as being true.

Not saying Obama himself is advocating this behaviour --but I can well see it happening from over zealous Obama folks on the ground.

but wasn't going to say... Some of them can definitely turn you off of their candidate. (and I'm not even an HRC supporter ;-) )

That their are over zealous campaigners in every single camp.

even Hill's.

None of this means the candidate ordered dirty tricks.

On that, we agree.

: a small state, word of mouth, the caucuses trying to king hit the front runner. But I would not be so certain that it's the Obama campaign. Emails have gone out saying Obama is a muslim.

I think if you use the rage and heat of Obama supporters on this board as a barometer, it's very easy to believe some campaigners would go too far.

And I'd make the same argument for ANY candidate in ANY political race ANYWHERE ANYTIME.

Is he naive and wet-behind-the-ears O'Bambi or the savvy Caucus Killer Creep?

So many memes, so little time.

Sour grapes make a bitter whine, ObamaNation.

Far be it for me to stop them from self-destructing. Keep it up.

There was always this lore that swirled around Hillary, regarding her
"well-oiled political machine."

It was as if we were supposed to stand in awe of her political prowess.

As an Iowan, I've seen this political machine up close. They've disintegrated their
lead and Obama has pulled ahead. The campaign planted questions at Iowa event and
destroyed their credibility.

Now, Hillary is suggesting that when Obama helps Iowa college students participate
in the caucuses, that he is "busing in out of staters to Iowa!". Major lies. Obama
is merely doing what many Iowa Dem political workers are doing---urging Iowa's college
students to return to their Iowa college towns during their winter break, so they
can participate in those caucuses.

Up close, Hillary's political machine is more like a rusted jalopy that keeps
backfiring.

We are not impressed.

Just once.

I pointed out that he OP is just media BS. The Clinton letter accuses no one of anything. It merely says that they have received reports of dirty tricks

Really?

"...we have heard that Obama staffers are berating Hillary supporters..."

why that's not an accusation, it's a... uh... it's a... uh... ok it is an accusation without proof isn't it...

Lame...even for the Hillary camp.

a foul odor in the room.


















Oddly enough, I was the only one who could smell it!

We don't need no stinking evidence!

From the Obama camp...knowing that this looks very bad for their candidate...

I have no doubt whatsoever these reports are true...simply taking after the behavior of their candidate...

and called out for what it is - a stinky Rovian political smear tactic.

Ah...you, "SaveElmer," have not doubt whatsoever these reports are true. Right. Slimy is as slimy does. Your girl would be proud.

Several witnesses to these events...all reported some verbatim...

The sleazeballs at the Obama campaign probably thought they could yet again get away with their Nixonian tactics...

Swift Boats was exaggerated. The truth will surely out.

its got to be some sort of record.

the emotional part of the issue. How I see the negativity. Pols are humans and no slickness can cover feelings that give away facts and troubles. Neither Obama, nor apparently Hillary, are all that good at this, which is endearing in a way, but signals a real lack of the right skin for the presidential campaign.

She is just barely getting the heat beyond the yapping puppies of her past Senate races where the gender issue easily made the lousy GOP look even worse. In tough campaigns there is no such easy success that can be mistakenly estimated as campaign strength and misapplied to real competition.

I take it Iowa is becoming a crucial firestorm because Obama and his campaigns would rather fight, awkwardly or whatever, than go gently into the night, but not as vicious a problem as the nastier honed GOP rivals, surely. I sense frustration runs deeper in her campaign because, having so much, starting to lose it at several levels, is incredibly unsettling. That is very human.

Obama, whose oratorical skills and high road personality suffer at other levels, has finally decided he must really let loose if he wants to be president and wants people to see that.

The tests against the GOP are going to much worse than these relatively polite intra party skirmishes, which is why both pols and voters are watching this closely. Nervousness will not win votes.

I would guess, purely looking at Iowa, that Hillary has problems. Perhaps her numbers are on the decline and the undecideds not firming up in her favor combine with the peculiar caucus problem of being fewer people's one's second choice. That last alone makes her very vulnerable to having a tempting knockout win in Iowa become a showy and revealing disaster. The fact that a number of these things appear to be a dilemma for her campaign points out the validity of many of the concerns people have about her campaign in general. She could survive anything except a meltdown in trying put aside the concerns and weaknesses right now. Perhaps she was drawn in because she had to be drawn in and that frustratingly highlights a lack of confidence or something behind all the banked money and delegates and power structures she owns in the pre-vote period.

If you want to examine who is doing what that is dirty, or rude, or ham-handed, one might better examine the effect. The effect might be in the long term to the advantage of the one being studiously overlooked- and written off so he can be ignored. An effect that the Edwards team may have calculatedly nudged into existence. It would be extraordinary if Edwards expected Hillary to flame out so completely that the final strategy would be to take on Obama one on one. Or that Obama would blow himself out of the water going one on one with Hillary.

Face it. Everyone is desperate and they should be. The people make the decisions. The sooner the party pros surrender to the people first politics the sooner they will get out of this bad fit of corporate money and media schmooze.

I'm not an Obama supporter, but you don't have to be, to see that Hillary
is roaring full steam ahead by turning on the attacks.

In Hillary's own words, "They're attacking me (now Obama), because I'm (now Obama)
is ahead."

Except for planting questions at Iowa events, Hillary was running a pretty clean campaign before Obama pulled ahead. A Des Moines Register poll was released this week, revealing that Obama
has pulled ahead of Hillary. Immediately, the bashing of Obama begins.

Because Hillary is behind, we're supposed to believe that Obama is a scurrilous, horrible,
underhanded person. Riiiiiiiiiight. Hillary had the gall to question Obama's "character"
yesterday at a speech in Cedar Rapids.

http://media.www.dailyiowan.com/media/storage/paper599/news/2007/12/03/Metro/Hillary.Turns.To.Buddy.System-3127676.shtml

Yesterday, she attacked Obama. She lied. She suggested thathe was "busing in supporters
from outside of Iowa to caucus for him." Actually, Obama was doing what many Democratic officials have done for many years in Iowa---urging Iowa's college students--who will be on winter break during the caucus--to return to their college towns and caucus. These students are all eligible to caucus, as delineated in Iowa's election laws. No one can participate in the Iowa caucus unless you've been
an Iowa resident for at least 30 days. No one is attempting to "bus" anyone in, because it would be logistically impossible for them to participate in the caucus.

Hillary is attacking Obama with lies. There's no doubt in my mind that her latest,
"He's push polling against me!" theatrics are part of her multi-pronged, newfangled attack-dog
strategy. First, she attacks his character, then lies about him "busing in supporters" and now
she's claiming that he's engaging in dirty tricks--when there is no proof of this happening.

Hillary's lies are more transparent than Saran Wrap.

Who says they haven't gotten reports of those things happening?

If this is just an email telling supporters to be on the lookout for dirty tricks, I don't see what the problem is.


As usual with the Obama crowd, it appears much ado about nothing.

"in house" e-mail.Which begs the question,it if were strictly a "dirty tricks" campaign,why limit it to Clinton supporters?It looks to me like an alert being sent to campaign helpers.

"Supporters have also told us about push polls -- when they tell the pollster they support Hillary, they are given negative talking points about her and asked which attacks are the most effective."

Read this interesting article about push polls by Marc Ambinder that was published on 13 Novemeber 2007:

Who's Behind The Negative Messaging In Iowa?

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/whos_behind_the_negative_messaging_in_iowa.php

http://thepage.time.com/obama-camps-response-to-clinton-accusations-of-dirty-tricks/

Obama Camp’s Response to Clinton Accusations of “Dirty Tricks”

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton’s response: “This flat-out falsehood is the latest attack in a silly season where our opponents have promised to stop at nothing in an effort to tarnish Barack Obama’s character. Push polling or tactics of confusion have no place in this campaign and we don’t or won’t engage in them. Unlike some other campaigns, we want every potential Iowa caucus-goer to participate in the process, no matter who they support.”

People are deliberately confusing a legitimate campaign method with some illegitimate methods that aren't taking place.

How is it wrong to call a voter, identify them as a supporter of Candidate Y and then to read a script telling them why your candidate X is better than Y?

It is different from pretending to be an uninterested third party and asking "what do you think of Candidate X now that he's stopped drinking?" That would be a push poll. Of course, giving out fake caucus locations is just plain dirty pool.

Even so, we don't have a third party confirmation that any of this is happening. I was always fascinated years ago to see Richard Nixon falsely accuse his opponents of dirty tricks, then to go on and use these imaginary dirty tricks to justify his own schemes.

You can say she is lying or mistaken, and she may be, but that isn't the same as "zero evidence"


http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/dirty_tricks.php