GOP recycles Clinton's attacks against Obama

And yes, I'm aware of WA Times as the source, but the truth can come from anywhere. I'm just disgusted.

GOP recycles Clinton's attacks against Obama
Speeches echo inexperience
Christina Bellantoni (Contact)
Thursday, June 19, 2008



Voters thinking the Republican lines of attack against Sen. Barack Obama sound familiar aren't experiencing deja vu - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton previewed several of them during the primary campaign.

Democrats warned that the prolonged Obama-Clinton battle could give Republicans ammunition, and they have been proved right as Mrs. Clinton's harsher words resurface in campaign missives from Sen. John McCain and national, state and local Republicans.

He is naive and inexperienced on foreign policy, Mrs. Clinton suggested for months. Republicans have echoed the attacks.

Democrats now want to move past the nasty fight and Clinton backers are standing by Mr. Obama's side, but Republicans aren't eager to let the opposing party forget its warring.

"We could point to many, many examples during the debates where the words 'irresponsible' and 'naive' were applied to Senator Obama, but not by a Republican, but by Hillary Clinton. She'll probably be in a different position now, but these are issues that Hillary Clinton very dramatically pointed out during the Democratic primary," former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani told reporters Wednesday. The former Republican presidential candidate was using Mrs. Clinton's line to go after Mr. Obama after the Democrat's formation of a national security "working group" to advise him on the issue.

more...:puke:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/19/gop-recycles-clintons-attacks-against-obama/

and they won't work for McSame.

That'd be less ammo for the rethugs.

It's all old news now and people know what is what.

it sure as hell won't be now.

potentially damaging. But don't you believe that. Continue to believe this won't make a difference if it makes you feel better.

Anyone who would respect the word of a Republican more than all those who were repeating Hillary's talking points ad-nauseum during the primary is not bloody likely to vote for Obama anyway.

So how is it potentially damaging?

those recycled talking points are mostly pure negative attacks on Obama's character, on his his ability, qualifications, experience, and so on. Because HRC (under the tutelage of Charlie Black's partner Mark Penn) has already introduced these negative ideas, McCain's campaign can easily reinforce them while getting off scot-free, doing double damage to the Dem Party. McCain can get off scot-free, that is without being tainted by the negativity, while doing double-damage because the negativity can rightly be attributed to a very highly placed and widely well-regarded Dem, at the same time being "authenticated" by the same attribution.

So McCain gets all this Penn/Black inspired negativity for free - and it takes only a 12 second add spotlighting 6 or so seconds of Hillary saying that Obama is an unqualified blowhard, a pie in the sky cult leader, or whatever, to trigger several weeks worth of the kind of repellant conditioning that we were subjected to in the primary. Furthermore, it's hard for Obama's campaign and Dems in general to fight back against this because, once again, it puts HRC in the spotlight while revisiting the worst of the Dem on Dem polarization.

And this is why so many Dems, "pundits" and wannabe pundits, censured HRC for using these tactics over such a long time even after her candidacy became a statistical improbabability.

stupid, stupid post

That minority, when confronted with the historical facts of prolonged primaries hurting the General Election, and the conventional wisdom of Party Elders, founded in that fact; generally respond with some OTHER bullshit meme.

Apparently, the facts, will never effect some folks' judgement.

Such loyalty should be the province of Republicans.

If the OP is "stupid, stupid," I submit that yours is

STUPIDER

Gabiche'?

I doubt it.

but, your post about trying her "trying to win" is about as smart as hilary's tactics.

Answer-->>Because in a primary you are reaching to the base, and hit either left or right, depending upon your party affiliation. Left hits from the left(base), right hits from the right(base). You don't ever-EVER-give the opposing party ammo, because ultimately the most important thing is to get your party in power. Unless that is not your goal, unless your goal is to take power at any cost.

Example: No one in the republican primary accused McCain of being too right on women's health. They said that he was too "left" etc. Democrats can't use the attacks on McCain during his primary against him in the GE--because all of his primary attacks came from the right of him, something that Democrats can't use against him.

Get it?

had she not made those comments.

A lot of fence-sitters that were just way turned off.

so literally, she may have been trying to win, but it was precisely those tactics that made her lose.

during the campaign against another Dem but he couldn't, remember her "shame on you" and other comments from her and her surrogates, who then pretended outrage when he defended himself...

you.

That is an outrageous statement to suggest that Clinton is the reason the republicans thought of negative ammo to use against Obama.

Completely unbelievable.

using that Dem's words in ads. That ammo would not have been there if she hadn't opened her mouth.
Got it?

And in doing so they distinguish themselves from the competitor and highlight their own strengths while highlighting the other's weakness. It is done EVERY CAMPAIGN.

Good God. It is if you something more from Clinton than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE EVER. It is as if you are upset that she had the nerve to run. This was not a coronation. This was a competition.

It is Not Clinton's Fault that the republicans are running negative ads.

coming from another Dem, the comments have more weight.

And it was those comments that got soooo many Obama supporters so riled up and bitter towards Clinton and got a lot of fence-sitters to side with Obama. It showed lack of loyalty to the party.

It's one thing to criticize your intra-party opponent, but it's totally over the line to flat out say the guy in the other party is more qualified. That hurts the party, not just Obama.

All of us who want to see a Dem in the WH have a right to pissed about this, it was stupid and unnecessary.

There is nothing new there. You are blaming her for things democrats do to each other in competitions all the time. It is as if you expect more from her than any other campaigner (including Obama, who had some pretty nasty things to say about Clinton).

But, to blame her for Republican negative ads...is to ignore history, and really ignore common sense: as if they would not have thought of them on their own!

She never said he was more qualified.

said that the Republican nominee is more qualified than the opponent they were currently running against. If you are soooooooo sure that she did nothing out of the norm, please give us proof.

You are absolutely correct that in an election you have to show your strengths and expose your opponents weakness's, but that does not mean you say that the other party's nominee is more qualified, those words come back after the primary is over. That is why they are upset, if you can't see that then you are blind.

That is what they do. They don't care about the truth what-so-ever. They just throw the same old crap again and again and see what sticks. Look at their play book. The same old tired stuff. If it works, America does not have a chance.

If people can not see through this by now, well, what can I say. It is waht it is.

I read the very first post! The repukes have nothing original so,of course, they recycle.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

party traitor is crossing the line.

grumble grumble...I fucking TOLD you so....grumble grumble

:/

<snip>

Clinton aides and the RNC most of the year were on the same page, e-mailing reporters negative articles about Mr. Obama - and in particular his ties to indicted real estate developer Tony Rezko - within moments of each other.

"I never thought I'd compliment Clinton, but she actually made some solid points in the primary about Obama's weak judgment," said RNC spokesman Alex Conant.

"I never thought I'd compliment Clinton, but she actually made some solid points in the primary about Obama's weak judgment," said RNC spokesman Alex Conant.

Transparent as their perversion.

Hopefully Obama's campaign has a good firewall between themselves and that ugly little self-serving daisy-chain.

He's ready for them.

to deflect it.

This has been a stunning offensive campaign and I'm loving it!

as long as you're loving it. :)

But I agree, he knew it was coming. Political attacks are fairly standardized. I'm sure Axelrod and Obama have had their plans ready on this one for a year now.

The thing about attacks is that no one expects a perfect candidate. Some attacks you just let go, and focus on what you are good at. It's impossible for Obama to argue "I'm not inexperienced, I've got fifteen years of job experience at the federal level!" So he won't bother. He will counter-attack instead, by pointing out McCain's negatives, and his own positives, and just leave the accusations in the dust.

It's worked so far for him. And when it stops working, he's got Phase II planned out. I ain't worried about Obama, he's proved what he can do.

How about, "I have more experience at the federal political level than did newly elected Presidents GW Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Carter, Kennedy, Eisenhower and Franklin Delano Roosevelt ... combined!

Obama was a state senator, what experience at the federal level??? He was a US senator for only 2 years before he announced his candidacy. The following men had a combined total of 16 years in the US Congress and 37 years as governors.

- Clinton was the senior governor of the country when he ran in 1992, he had been in office 12 years.

- Kennedy had been in Congress for 14 years before he ran in 1960, 7 years as a US Rep. and then 7 years as a US senator.

- Roosevelt had been a US senator for two years and governor for 2 more years.

- Bush had been governor for 5 years. In his case I agree that experience did not count for anything.

- Reagan had been governor for 18 years.

- Eisenhower is the only one who had not held elected office.

Are you seriously going to tell me that a governor is less prepared to handle the WH than a 2 year senator??????????

Obama only had 2 years at the federal level. That's a fact, no way to argue that point.

Besides, since when is a 2 year senator more prepared to handle the presidency than a governor who has been in office for years making executive decisions? Albeit, Chimpy is the exception to that rule.

Face it, Obama IS inexperienced. Will it hinder his ability to be an effective president? Who knows? None of us has a crystal ball, only time will tell. For the sake of the country, though, I hope that he's a fast learner.

you're so good at backhanded attacks.

the man oozes leadership, practically every position he has taken has been backed by the experts those with the big experience. Try gas tax holiday.

why don't you compare what he's been saying about foreign policy since the start to the big experience guys: Biden, Richardson, Kerry, Gore, Webb, even Conservatives like James Baker, Colin Powell, Arlan Spectre, even Gen. Petraus. Who know when you have the right answer? -when the experts with different ideological backgrounds are in agreement.

that's what cabinet positions are for: specialized expertise, the President shouldn't be expect to be an absolute expert on every front.

the President is supposed to be the moral leader of the country, the guy that can get everyone to get up and move and work on what needs to be done, to give inspiration in the dark days and to give the average person out there a sense of faith in their government that allows society to remain effective and livable. That's his main task almost before anything else.

Besides, no amount of experience can engrain in a person the difference between right and wrong, either they have a moral compass or not, and many times experience wears away at a person's moral compass and replaces empathy with cynicism, and what we need now more than anything, is a truly moral president: the experts will give him the facts, he will synthesize those facts, guided by basic morality and a sense of justice, give us good policy.

more federal experience than a host of presidents combined, which is not the case.

Whether he'll be a good president or not, no one knows. Every election is a gamble, we'll just have to wait and see.

That's all you do.

He could claim stupid stuff, but it would only focus attention on his weaknesses. He hasn't been a governor, either, and until a couple years ago he was a local politician and community level activist. Experience is not his winning argument, not by a long shot. He knows his strengths, and will stick to them.

And how do you get Kennedy in there?

It's not as if the rw aren't predictable.

They had a three month head start and are still 2 laps behind.

Pretty pathetic, really.

don't believe it. Obama has facts and thats all he needs. This crap they're recyling now is just inuendo and smears.

Thanks Hillary.

A sixth grader given a mock assignment 8 months ago to predict how Republicans would attack Obam could have come up with this without even asking his or her parents for help with the homework. That's why Hillary used it. It is a legitimate weakness in Obama's resume. Obama comes back with the judgment argument instead. Hey, no one is perfect. That's why we can have multiple threads here talking about whether Obama would be helped more by adding a VP with foreign security creds or one with economic creds, because there is no absolutely perfect candidate who is 100% invulnerable to attacks from the opposition. Everyone has a weakness and all political pros on both sides know exactly what each candidate's main weakness is.

Anyone who would be swayed by arguments against Obama framed in Hillary Clinton's past words who would not have been swayed in the same way when that argument is being made by John McCain in his own words, will be more swayed by the words in favor of Barack Obama that Hillary Clinton will be making for him on the stump this summer/fall. George Bush Senior attacked Ronald Reagan over "Voo Doo economics" in the Republican primaries and then ran as his VP running mate in the fall. Sure some Democrats had fun with Bush Sr's words, but those Democrats weren't going to vote for Reagan anyway. Democrats always planned to attack Reagan on his economic policies being crazy anyway. Voter's whose opinion was actually likely to be influenced by what Bush Senior had to say 1n 1980 were more influenced by what Bush said when he endorsed Reagan, not when he fought him.

be used to court women of a certain age, though. I don't think that's what Hillary intended during the primary season and I hope those women of a certain age listen to her now when she tells them to back Obama. She is doing the right thing and I really have to give her a lot of credit for it. IMO, her strength really showed after it was all over.

And on another note, I hope she takes the time she needs to rebuild her physical and mental stamina for the fall campaign and for what needs to be done in the Senate. Why must we put our candidates through this torture test? It's a wonder anybody runs for this office. It's almost like what we put young doctors through during their internships and residencies, except they're young and in peak physical condition for the most part.

But I truly believe that she will be able to rectify the damage. I think there is a lot that she can do to undue that damage, including trying to appeal to women by making appearances with Michelle and going on a nationwide tour, having discussions with women . She needs to do all she can to help bridge the divide. Hillary is masterful. I think she can do this successfully. :)

counteracting all that shyte..it's not like's true or anything.

While I am sure it wasn't her intentions, her GOP style attack campaign should weaken the GOPs attacks.

the truth hurts.

'Cause if you're not here to get Obama elected then it's not the place for you.

And why they are among my least favorite element of the political process. People lose sight of the future, and the potential consequences of their actions, in the heat of their desire to win the immediate contest.

Everything said by a politician in a primary should be subjected first to the test of asking 'What if I do not win? What would be the effect of this statement on the general election if I am not the candidate?' But in the heat of competition, each candidate works hard to maintain the conviction he or she will win, and so this essential test is rarely if ever applied.

Primaries ought to be conducted in the form of a showcase for each candidate's attacks against the opposing party, a collective pre-view of what the general election lines employed will be, with the party electorate choosing which seems the most effective at the task to come. Attacks on other candidates within the party should never be made.

"Deem it not impossible you can err."

was that an awful lot of the mud was flung by rather low-level campaign workers--the kind who, when I did it, was told never to talk to the press.* It was up to the candidates to undo damage that should never have occurred in the first place.

Add to that the intense scrutiny our the final two received from the media and the fact that both were infinitely more interesting than the Republican candidates, and then the historical significance of this one, and all hell was guaranteed to break loose.

I stayed out of GD/P and all my news came from the tube and the newspapers and I may have seen the whole thing differently. Every time one of those allegations hit the news I thought to myself "why is the press spending so much time on what an unnamed campaign staffer said?" Then I looked at their coverage of the Republicans and it was so obvious--our race was far more interesting, and of course historic, than their campaign. The Democrats were under a powerful microscope that the Republicans weren't.

I'm not arguing your point because I completely agree with you, but I think this campaign was way different.

*Edit: also, an awful lot of "homemeade" campaigning--all too vulnerable to low, low-level opposition "black ops" tactics.

I know things were said in the heat of the contentious primaries, and am sure Clinton would swallow her words if she could. Too bad that's not possible.

if human beings were not involved.....

alas



said in a hope you find the humor in it kind of way. :)

And on the positive side, the long and close-fought primary campaign has invigorated our Party in every state, with great increases in registration and donations and public interest in the election. We can expect much increased turn-out to our banner in November in consequence.

It was a foregone conclusion that her statements criticizing Obama would be used by the Repubs. I doubt it will give McCain much traction.

to come up with these arguments even if HRC hadn't used them first?

Perhaps to some independents who may be sitting on the fence, independents who supported/liked Hillary but have not or will not commit to Obama?

These arguments will only work for those fence-sitting voters LOOKING for a "socially acceptable" reason not to vote for Obama, other than the obvious reason that you and I both know. (Obama wasn't going to get those voters anyway.) And I am saying this objectively and sincerely, not as a HRC fan.

angry that their candidate did not get the nomination.

The ones that have not already committed to voting for Obama in November or are still sitting on the fence are looking for reasons NOT to vote for Obama.

They seem to believe all the republican emails about Obama. And the fact is, they're just not comfortable voting for a black man. Finally, my fil said that outright to one of my sons.

Now, they may come around in the end. I know from experience that it's damned hard to pull the lever for another party when you've been solidly in one corner for years. I used to be a republican long years ago. And the first time I had to put my conscience and education to the test (and vote for Dukakis) was pretty tough. So I'm hoping that as time goes along they'll learn more good stuff about Obama and that in the end they just can't vote republican. I mean, for cryin' out loud, they're 87 years old. Why switch now?

I'm just waiting to hear or see the first commercial, using Cinton's voice, with the voiceover saying "Even Hillary clinton says......"
That is the risk of contested, close primaries I guess, but it's dangerous.

:shrug:.. it was just a matter of time.. which in a strange way is going to make Senator Obama victory that much sweeter.. he had to fight the machine of all time in his own party, and now the rw 527's are gearing up..


But I did hear a rumor that they will do some damage.. but are backing off.. because of all the bad news that is going to come out from what the republicans have done to this country..they want to pin it on the democrats and trying and do a take back in 2012.. another Contract with America..they are counting on the voters short memories and their ability to twist history

You are certainly above that, sista.

Too bad reality is so difficult for you to deal with.

it's a fact.

:-(

(what can you say?)

That's what you say.

Obama was. So just because Clinton's attacks on Obama did not succeed, that doesn't meant that a similar tactic by McCain won't work. McCain's right wing base might be more receptive to this sort of thing.

..they are the scumbags NOT i repeat THEY ARE THE SCUMBAGS


NOT Hillary

apples and rhutabegas

why did you have to "go there?" ascribing false and incendiary allegations to the OP where NONE EXIST?

hm?

Loyalty is nice. I like loyalty.

try a little loyalty... you can do it.

who believed it in the primary and think it no less true in the general.

It is called a death of self inflicted cuts. Welcome to Hillary verse. The problems with the cut is Obama is not the only one who will sink if people continue to believe the initial charge.

over into the NOW. We're not going to walk on gawd damn eggshells for your sensitivity.

Do they really want to go there?

The GOP would not have to do anything. Only rerun all of Olbermann and Maher and Stewart's shows. After all they are "our" guys.

And talking heads talk; she was a candidate who should have known better.

issued the statement. Pardon the shout, but does anyone else see some irony here???

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Can't fault Hillary here. She and Obama both had plenty to say about the other, and the repukes would have used the loser's comments against the eventual nom, whoever he or she would have been.

doesn't make it so. Name one sound bite the rethugs could use against Clinton that Obama said. 'I like her enough' hardly qualifies compared to the nasty things she said. And guess what? You'll get to hear them all, because that's what the GOP's going to do. Air 'em til you're sick of hearing them.

Annie Oakley comes to mind.

He was being silly, because she was being silly with the "I was on da farm when ma' pappi took me out back and gave me ma' first real gun shootin' lessin" routine. I heard she spit some chew out into a spitoon, right after saying that! haha.

oh brother!

So, let's just leave it at that mild one.

He called her untrustworthy, said she wasn't being straight with the American people.

Don't remember them? I think you do.

He practically began the campaign by calling her bush/cheney lite.

Remember that one?

I can get links and more if necessary, but I don't see how anyone who paid attention to the primaries we just came through would be oblivious to these things.

all you seem to post of late is form their shit slinging pages...politoco.com especially


just saying

And why don't you post something, anything! instead of flaming people who do? All you seem to do is criticize. Very unbecoming of you.

you need to check your eyesight.

This primary was no more vicious than many others that came before.

If she were the nominee the Republicans would be using her opponents' words against her too.

:eyes:

That carries more weight then stuff she said when she was trying to win a primary.

she said anything demeaning about Obama.

And he was her opponent. How hard is that to understand?????

Besides, the vitriol in this primary was nothing compared to some previous ones.

Oy vey.

DITTO DITTO DITTO

I'd like to see her explain to the public she only said those things because she was trying to win.

KO: John McCain's Connection to Big Oil & The Enron Loophole June 18, 2008



Arnold's Enron Secret -- Greg Palast
Posted on October 5, 2003, Printed on June 19, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/16902/

That's why she's the nominee after all!