Wikileaks.. McCain campaign doc. Has anybody seen this yet?

Is it real?

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Divide_and_conquer:_McCain%27s_plan_to_wrest_Clintonion_women_from_Obama%3F

Wednesday May 27, 2008
JULIAN ASSANGE (Investigative Editor)

Is this leaked document, allegedly sent to a McCain campaign team group, the real deal?

MEMORANDUM

To: *******
From: S. Schmidt
Date: May 15, 2008
Subject: Clinton Strategy

According to both internal polling and exit polls by independent news
organizations, the Democratic Party is becoming increasingly polarized along
certain segments of its base. The recent result in West Virginia, while generally
unsurprising and definitely unlikely to cause any real shift in the race,
highlights the growing bitterness between certain supporters of Clinton and
the Obama camp in general. This unique situation has created an opening that
could help depress the turnout of key Democratic demographics in November.
The specific group we are targeting is a cross-section of white, female voters
over the age of 40. Internal polling reveals that this group is the most likely to
support John McCain after Obama wins the nomination. However, we expect
Obama’s numbers to improve following Clinton’s drop. Our job is to make sure
that number stays as low as possible.

Our limited financial resources and the media’s attention on the Democratic
race, however, prevent us from reaching this group. Our aim is to point out
specific issues that we believe resonate well:

1. Sen. Obama’s connection to Rev. Wright
2. His inexperience
3. His links to the corrupt Chicago political machine

However, we cannot fully achieve this goal without a greater commitment on
the part of McCain’s fundraisers and our various media partners. In lieu of
that, we have developed a number of inexpensive ways to reach this audience.
We have already worked to reinforce the Clinton campaign’s narrative about
the unfair treatment that some networks, specifically MSNBC, have given her
camp. We are also planning to unroll a new campaign to highlight Obama’s
experience deficit.

Simultaneously, our team has been testing new lines of attack through
independent pro-Clinton communities on the Internet. Our hope is that our
message here will spread by word-of-mouth. Our local community organizing
has also been successful. We have organized dozens of “meet-ups” across the
country for Clinton supporters, and we have used that time to stress the
importance of punishing the DNC for choosing the undemocratically selected
far-left Obama. At the moment, this is nothing more than a headache for the
Obama campaign. With a greater commitment on your part, I hope to see it
metastasize into something much more.

Let me know if you need more detail.
-S
Wikileaks received the document from an anonymous source last week. Interestingly it has not appeared anywhere else.

"S. Schmidt" is possibly Steven Schmidt, McCain's senior campaign advisor. The document outlines a strategy designed increase rivalry between followers of the Democratic Party candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The "meet-ups" mentioned are "grassroots" in-person get-togethers arranged using "meetup.com" (see http://hrclinton.meetup.com/ for Clinton).

On May 27 (prior to publication) Wikileaks gave the McCain campaign team a copy of document. After some delay, campaign spokesman Jeff Sadosky denied the document's authenticity, but would not be drawn into additional detail.

Is the memo what it purports to be?

No:

Denied by McCain spokesperson Jeff Sadosky.
Election campaigns have a history of producing some fabricated leaks.
Motive is present. The memo's dissemination would benefit Obama at the expense of Clinton and McCain.
Sometimes injudicious or fairly informal language.
Yes:

Election campaigns have a history of producing many more true leaks than fabricated ones.
Campaign committees have a history of denying true leaked memos.
The memo is highly critical of Obama, but only Obama's campaign stands to benefit from a fabrication.
Election campaigns are long, fast moving and stressful. There is a history of injudicious memos having been written during election campaigns.
Informal language is frequently used within a campaign group. Campaign groups tend to become very close, united by their common purpose.
If one was motivated to produce a fabrication, then a politically far stronger fabrication could have been produced.
Despite Wikileaks sitting on the document for several days while waiting for comment from the McCain team, the memo did not appear anywhere elsewhere on the internet or in the press. Nor did the McCain spokesperson mention that they had seen it before.
Genuine sources want protection, but campaign fabricators want maximal dissemination, so why hasn't the document been disseminated elsewhere?
In my experience, election fabrications are an act of desperation i.e when the author's political party is in a difficult position. This certainly isn't true of the Obama campaign which is the only major group to benefit from the leak.
If the document is fabricated, then the people and methods behind the frame-up are of substantial interest. Did Obama's team frame McCain?

If the document is legitimate then it reveals wilful duplicity on behalf of parts of McCain's campaign and shows that McCain is or was behind bolstering some aspects of Clinton's campaign.

Regardless, it seems like an effective, even largely forced strategy for McCain.

Let us hope we don't have to wait until the President is sworn in to find out.

Source document: John McCain US Presidential election Clinton strategy (2008)

Retrieved from "https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Divide_and_conquer:_McCain%27s_plan_to_wrest_Clintonion_women_from_Obama%3F"

Who knows if the McCain camp wrote it up. They actually said that they were targeting Obama as a corrupt Chicago style politico way back in the winter. Everyone knows they will use Wright. And McCain is now actively courting Clinton voters. So the substance is true.

by psychodrew, Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:52:45 AM EST

They're doing it.

The Republicans.

They're doing it.

And as we know, all so painfully well, they are good at it.



While many of us have been debating whether or not Hillary conceded in time to guarantee financial support to retire her campaign debt or a spot on the ticket, the Republicans are wheeling out their public relations campaign to attract disaffected Clinton supporters.

Today, the New York Times editorial page asked thirteen political "experts" to give their opinions as to why Hillary was defeated. It could not be better scripted to divide us.

From Republican Congresswoman Heather Wilson:


The Democratic nominating system favors the most liberal candidate -- in this case, Barack Obama.

But there is a second reason Hillary Clinton lost that some are reluctant to openly acknowledge: a latent and lamentable sexism. She lost because the superdelegates -- the Democratic establishment -- went against her.

She became a caricature: too smart, too strong, too assertive, too rational, too competent. Think how the young Harry Potter and his male friends initially reacted to Hermione Granger and you get the idea.


From former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman:


Fifteen years after I was elected New Jersey's first female governor, women running for office continue to face huge obstacles. Indeed, watching Hillary Clinton these last few months, it's clear that voters and the news media still struggle with images and expectations of women as candidates.

When Mrs. Clinton made points forcefully, people called her shrill, not bold and determined. When Mitt Romney teared up, he was described as compassionate, while she was labeled weak.

For its part, the news media paid too much attention to Mrs. Clinton's haircuts and jackets, ignoring the male candidates and their endless parade of blue suits and red ties.

The press presented Barack Obama with his two years in the Senate as an agent of change, not a novice. In contrast, ABC's Charles Gibson asked Mrs. Clinton if she would "be in this position" if it weren't for her husband.

To this day, a businessman with no elected experience is considered qualified for high public office; a woman with the same background is called unprepared.

Mrs. Clinton's sex was not solely responsible for her loss, but the implicit and explicit challenges that women face are such that we as a country must take notice if we want all people represented in public service.


And to top it off, we have former Virginia governor L. Douglas Wilder


Hillary Clinton's campaign was done in by a sense of entitlement and hubris.

There is no greater evidence of that than the fact that, three days after the final two primaries in the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, she had yet to gracefully acknowledge her defeat. By waiting so long, she threatened her future stature within the Democratic Party.

The question now should not be, "What about Hillary?" but rather, how does Mr. Obama plan to win and to lead -- with or without Mrs. Clinton.


Here we have two Republican women discussing the sexism faced by Senator Clinton and a Democratic African-American male citing her hubris. An article meant to divide our party at this crucial time could not be more perfectly scripted.

To my fellow Clintonistas, I say these Republicans are not our friends. These are the people that hate Hillary and seek to capitalize on our anger and frustration. Congresswoman Wilson and Governor Whitman are George Bush Republicans and their sympathy for Senator Clinton is rather convenient, if not disingenuous. Where was Gov. Whitman's outrage when the Washington Post ran a story about Hillary's cleavage?

To my progressive brothers and sisters who supported other candidates, at this time, I ask you to empathize, not criticize. Their plan to divide us depends on us turning on each other. We all believe in universal health care. We all believe in reproductive rights. We all believe that we must end the war in Iraq. We all believe in marriage equality. A bitter primary battle should not change that.

Please remember, these people are on the wrong side of history.

John McCain wants 100 years of war.

John McCain hates poor people.

John McCain wants to create the world's first ever fetus police.

John McCain admires George Bush's foreign policy.

John McCain loves the lobbyists he says he hates.

John McCain wants to give Social Security to Wall Street.

If we haven't learned anything from the relentless coverage of Hillary's cleavage and Obama's lapel pin, we should understand that the media is not our friend. They don't want us to succeed. They want us to fail. They want Democrats to be divided. What an exciting story to cover: The Democrats implode and fight amongst themselves and hand the White House to their darling John McCain.

Don't let them do it.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/8/115245/9660