Hillary vs. Obama: The War on the Election

Senator Hillary Clinton was recently the target of an attack by Hollywood mogul David Geffen, former Bill Clinton backer. Geffen made abrasive remarks about Hillary and her husband, telling New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd that “everybody in politics lies,” and that the former president and his wife “do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

Geffen is a supporter of Illinois Senator Barack Obama and has contributed $2,300 to his campaign. The Clinton campaign demanded that Senator Obama denounce Geffen's comments and give back the donation.

Obama, campaigning in Iowa, has refused to do so, stating:


"It's not clear to me why I'd be apologizing for someone else's remark. My suspicion is that the voters of Iowa are probably more concerned about what both myself and Senator Clinton think about Iraq, health care and jobs."

Edwards stated:


“We need a leader who will be open and honest with you and with the American people — who will tell the truth, who will tell the truth when they’ve made a mistake, who will take responsibility when they’ve made a mistake."

Clinton refused to disavow her 2002 vote and Edwards believes her decision will lie heavy on her conscience.

Clinton rival, Senator Chris Dodd, said two responses people in public life never like to give are: "I made a mistake" and "I don’t know.”

Both Edwards and Dodd have since apologized for their vote to authorize the war in Iraq and seem to think that Hillary should admit she was wrong as well.

The 2008 Election is closer than we may want to realize, and politician attacks are hitting below the belt.

South Carolina Senator Robert Ford said if Barack Obama were to win the nomination, he would drag down the rest of the Democratic Party because "he's black." Ford later apologized, yet Hillary Clinton has acknowledged Ford's support of her campaign. It's almost as if she is more than willing to continue this political attack theme.

Many voters may find it difficult to support a candidate, such as Hillary, who participates in such low blow tactics.
She seems to be the epitome of Geffen's comments.

Posted by Dana J. Tuszke at February 22, 2007 2:15 PM
Comments
Comment #209311
Many voters may find it difficult to support a candidate, such as Hillary, who participates in such low blow tactics…Posted by Dana J. Tuszke at February 22, 2007 02:15 PM
Yet so many people voted gleefully for W…go figure. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 22, 2007 2:34 PM
Comment #209313

It’s a tough thing. I don’t know why the democratic party chose this time to parade out a flawed Female candidate for president, and also encourage a viable black candidate.

I really feel in my heart and mind that Bill Clinton did a great job as President. However, Hillary won’t get my vote, not matter how much I despise what the republican party has become. I will just drive directly home on election day if Hillary is on the ballot.

Mr. Obama on the other hand, so far, has all of my interest and has me considering conributing for the first time in my life. If I contribute it will be with my feet and voice, not my money. I don’t want someone else speaking for the $20 i would likely contribute. I will put in $1000 worth of feet and words if the time comes when I feel it is worth it.

I am interested to see how this plays out.

Posted by: bandman at February 22, 2007 2:56 PM
Comment #209314

I think Obama will take the high road and respond with pithy comments to disarm these clinton attacks. It is disapointing that the mud and dirty tricks have come out. But I think it would be appropriate if Obama could end this era of dirty politics, by beating the queen of sleaze politics.

Posted by: MikeD at February 22, 2007 3:13 PM
Comment #209319

I was disappointed in Hillary coming after O’Bama. I don’t see what he has to do with Geffen’s opinion. Then again, I don’t see any of this as a big deal. As far as sleaze goes, it’s miles away from George Bush’s sliming of McCain or past opponents. Not in the same league at all.

Posted by: Max at February 22, 2007 3:46 PM
Comment #209331

Bush’s “sliming of McCain” is pretty much just an urban legend repeated by leftist activists and of course McCain himself, in the tradition of every candidate who accuses his opponent of “sliming him.”

There is actually no evidence whatsoever that some of what’s said out there (i.e., that Bush supporters tried to spread rumors about McCain having a black baby) ever even happened, or if it did that Bush’s campaign was actually behind it. It’s a lot like the allegation that the Hillary camp is out there trying to spread rumors that Obama was educated in a madrassa and that he’s a closet Muslim. Is it true that Clinton is behind it? Who knows, but even if it’s not, there is a lot of mileage to be gained by any candidate in trying to paint him/herself as a victim, and such rumors should be taken with a grain of salt.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 22, 2007 4:58 PM
Comment #209333

Dave1-

Yet so many people voted gleefully for W…go figure.

Reckon maybe their a little wiser now?

Max

I was disappointed in Hillary coming after O’Bama.

What do ya expect? Obama is the only Democrat I see that has a chance of beating Hillary for the nomination. The Queen of sleaze and lies aint gonna let that happen without slinging as much mud as possible.

As far as sleaze goes, it’s miles away from George Bush’s sliming of McCain or past opponents. Not in the same league at all.

Typical Liberal, can’t talk about anything without taking a shot at Bush. “Nice weather. That stupid Bush sure botched it again.” “Yeah sure is nice out, and it’s all that stupid Bush’s fault.”
Fact is, as sleazy as Bush may have gotten ya aint seen nothing yet. Just wait until the Democratic nomination comes down to just Clinton and Obama. Then you’ll see sleaze so thick you can’t even cut it with a knife.
Clinton wants to be Queen of the Untied States and doesn’t care what she has to say or do to get it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 22, 2007 5:19 PM
Comment #209349


Ron-

Sadly, I must agree with you. Not sad because I agree, sad because what you predict will come true. It would be wonderful if candidates could debate issues and answers and leave the mud out. But, I guess that is a forlorn hope.

You have characterized Hillary quite well. She will do anything to win. If Obama is as smart as everyone thinks he is, he will ignore the blonde witch and concentrate on his message. Even I, a diehard libertarian, agree with quite a bit of what I have heard from him so far. I would like to see some details on health care, foreign policy, energy, etc., but I am hoping that will come. In the mean time, I will watch Hillary self-destruct and cheer all the way.

By the way, my Mom and Dad lived in Arkansas before they passed away. Both were yellow dog Democrats. After Clinton’s first term, I asked him why he voted for him for President. My Dad said that seemed to be the only way to stop him from screwing up the state even more!

Posted by: John Back at February 22, 2007 7:24 PM
Comment #209350

I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked, just like Dana! I can’t believe anyone in the democratic party would stoop to these depths! And of course republicans would never commit such impolitic breaches of etiquette……..

Posted by: pianofan at February 22, 2007 7:27 PM
Comment #209351

So, Loyal Opposition, this doesn’t count:

Watching her husband embrace the president in the new commercial must be distressing to Cindy McCain, whose former dependence on prescription drugs was highlighted in anonymous campaign leaflets the night before the South Carolina primary (before anyone knew that Rush Limbaugh would make addiction fashionable on the far right). According to Newsweek’s inside account of the campaign, she began sobbing loudly while watching the returns that sank McCain’s campaign. Trying to soothe her, her husband said, “Think of how the Bushes felt two weeks ago in New Hampshire,” where Bush had unexpectedly lost the primary. Between sobs, she replied, “We never called his wife a weirdo.”

The assault on McCain’s family didn’t spare Bridget, the little girl they had adopted from a Mother Theresa orphanage in Bangladesh. In the mouths of anonymous “push-pollers,” who called Republican voters across South Carolina to smear the maverick reformer, Bridget was transformed into an illegitimate black baby (a variation on Bill Clinton’s mythical black son). “Christian” conservatives eagerly spread baseless rumors that McCain had consorted with prostitutes (another old Clinton-bashing smear), and that he was also homosexual.

Like the right-wing veterans now seeking to turn Kerry’s distinguished Navy service against him, McCain’s faceless enemies in South Carolina twisted his heroism as a Vietnam prison-of-war to tar his reputation. Bush had the gall to stand up at a rally with Ted Sampley, the vicious pamphleteer who denounced McCain as a “traitor” and a “Manchurian candidate.” The whispering campaign said that McCain had been found “mentally unstable” after his release from the North Vietnamese prison camp. As McCain asserted in a CNN debate, Sampley had launched other nasty smears against Bush’s own father years before. “You should be ashamed,” scolded McCain. But Bush, who had urged his campaign team to go heavily negative, showed no signs of remorse.

Posted by: mental wimp at February 22, 2007 7:28 PM
Comment #209357

John Back,

‘It would be wonderful if candidates could debate issues and answers and leave the mud out.’

Yes, it would BUT it would be boring and 95% of the population wouldn’t even know who was running.

Campaigning has to have lies, bashing, and scandal or the American public tunes out completely.

I find it amusing when members of one party call for apologies and say they shouldn’t be like that to each other - not until it gets down to the wire anyway.

Posted by: dawn at February 22, 2007 8:05 PM
Comment #209367

Dawn-

True..alas,’tis true. We are indeed a nation asleep.

Perhaps one reason is the length of our campaigns. We are over a year and a half from the election and how many people have announced? And, how many more will join the fray? I would like to see something from the Federal Election Commision or other official entity that would limit the campaign to not more than six months. That might prod the candidates into telling what’s good about them, not what’s bad about the other guys. What do you think?

Posted by: John Back at February 22, 2007 8:48 PM
Comment #209368

Most likely niether Clinton or Obama will get the nomination much ti the disapointment of the GOP. A more electable,centrist candidate will emerge. The Dems have a deep bench.Richardson,Vilsack,Edwards ?

Posted by: BillS at February 22, 2007 8:48 PM
Comment #209375


BillS-

I don’t think so. Richardson is a virtual unknown with very little national exposure up until now. Vilsack is an extremely long shot for the same reason. Edwards is an outside possibility unless he starts making some extreme left moves. Also, people might remember the campaign of ‘04.

Posted by: John Back at February 22, 2007 10:02 PM
Comment #209378
Yet so many people voted gleefully for W�go figure
Reckon maybe their a little wiser now? Posted by: Ron Brown at February 22, 2007 05:19 PM
We can only hope, but given the negative levels of discourse exhibited nearly everywhere, I have low expectations. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 22, 2007 10:20 PM
Comment #209384

John Back

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were also unknown nationally at this point in the game.”…remember the campaign of 2004.” Edwards did well in the what was a close election. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Posted by: BillS at February 22, 2007 11:04 PM
Comment #209386

Mental Wimp, your quote is from an opinion piece, not a news report—and it even says that these were “anonymous leaftlets.”

Have you seen these leaflets? Are there reproductions of them available in the media or is this just a second, third, or fourth hand rumor?

And if the leaftlets were anonymous, they could have been by anybody from Libertarians, Naderites, Republicans or Democrats who didn’t want McCain to win the SC primary. I have no idea who produced them, and the idea that Bush ordered them is just as unverifiable as the fact that they even existed.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 22, 2007 11:17 PM
Comment #209435

LO

And if the leaftlets were anonymous, they could have been by anybody from Libertarians, Naderites, Republicans or Democrats who didn’t want McCain to win the SC primary. I have no idea who produced them, and the idea that Bush ordered them is just as unverifiable as the fact that they even existed.

Well, yes, they would make sure there was plausible deniability so that folks like you could say exactly what you say above and so, in a court of law no one could convict the party of nefarious deeds. Nonetheless, your clumsy “Plan B”ing isn’t really credible, now, is it?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at February 23, 2007 1:24 PM
Comment #209460

John Back

“Perhaps one reason is the length of our campaigns. We are over a year and a half from the election and how many people have announced? And, how many more will join the fray? I would like to see something from the Federal Election Commision or other official entity that would limit the campaign to not more than six months. That might prod the candidates into telling what’s good about them, not what’s bad about the other guys. What do you think?”

I totally agree. Way too much time is spent campaining when they should be doing the nations business which is what we pay them for. It is getting to the point that they put in less time working than they do campainging. This is ridiculous as far as I am concerned. Just one more reason I am in favor of rigid campaign reform.

Posted by: ILdem at February 23, 2007 4:39 PM
Comment #209468

mental wimp tries to Rathergate a leaflet. haha

Posted by: jm1656 at February 23, 2007 5:09 PM
Comment #209604

This is good practice for what they’re going to face from republicans. These guys are lightweights at the smear game compared to them… but it’s interesting to see how each of them deals with the attacks.
my take on the situation
(I can’t help but view Obama as a bit naive although he probably does know what he’s getting into)

Posted by: dumpconners at February 24, 2007 5:35 PM
Post a comment