DLC?

But why does Obama do this? Once Novak’s story was exposed as a smear itself, why didn’t he stop? Why did he keep it going? And why did he revive the Gerth falsehood to tarnish Senator Clinton’s character?

A question.

Edwards' attacks on Clinton seems to have done nothing for him but helped Obama. This is often the case in multi-candidate races. Do people believe that Edwards will continue to target her hoping to eventually catch Obama or will he go negative on Obama before the Iowa Caucuses?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Once again, the Clinton campaign openly stated it had nothing to do with the story at all.

But they did not say the story was false. The goal of communication should be to speak so that you cannot be missunderstood. Sen Clinton's entire campeign fails at this over and over again. either they are incapable of puting together a simple, unambiguous declarative sentance or they are trying to parse things with an eye towards plausible denyability on all subjects.

I also notice that you quote Sen Obama and his campeign but you paraphrase the staements made by Sen Clinton and her campeign. Why do you do that? Is it because their statements are so ambiguous that quoting them would not serve you purposes?

Either Barack Obama is hopelessly naive or terribly and dangerously inexperienced.

If he can't tell the difference between facts and Bob Novak's planted lies, how in god's name would he ever be able to sort out the disinformation coming out of countries hostile to us?

Scary.

And depressing.

Obama had better shape up and get himself a dose of common sense.

It's beginning to look like Obama can't tell the difference between HYPE and fact.

I'm not saying he shouldn't know down the rumors. But he should go after Novak, not Clinton. When he goes after Clinton he's just showing he is a craven politician.

The Presidential response would have been to publicly challenge Novak to produce the proof or shut up. It may be good politics for Obama, but it gives lie to his claim of a different type of politics.

ow can you say that Obama hopelessly naive or terribly and dangerously inexperienced if he finally lead in the polls? He is doing something smart.

So, you think he should have handled this the way Kerry handled the origanl swiftboat message? Ignoring negative stories has rarely served a candidate well.

Another question while we are at it, how is Sen Obama to know that it is hype when Sen Clinton and her people will not deny the accuracy of Mr Novak's peice?

Brilliant tactical decision by Obama. He knows this is tripe. But hey, why not make a little hay of it and tie HRC to traitorous hack like Novak? I love it.

I thought the biggest line of the night was when Sen Obama informed Sen Clinton that the top 6% is not the middle class. That is the one line that I have not heard again.

"In bed with Karl Rove?" Speaking of hyperbole....

You could easier denigrate Markos Moulitsas with that title and this essay's innuendo -- for agreeing to write in Newsweek alongside...you got it, Karl Rove.

Good grief.

“And so the question to John McCain from a woman at a town hall in South Carolina last Monday was tasteless, but key: ‘How do we beat the [rhymes with witch]?’

Interestingly, the Obama campaign was accused of spreading the rumour that H. Clinton was having an affair with a female campaign staffer. Ron Rosenbaum claims that this is "common knowledge" in D.C. and the LA Times is holding back publishing the story (why they would hold it back, is a mystery) it's like junior high, isn't it?

Now that's the kind of Damn it!! I like to hear! 

Thanks for the response. 

Seek Wisdom

Oh bullshit.

I don't think so, Davai. Rush Limbaugh may be entertaining to the dittoheads in a Joe Pine sort of way. But Rove, Kristol, Novak, et al. are not amusing attractions.

Rove is boring, Kristol is so-so, Novak is always entertaining.

Bev, the Rosenabaum piece to which you refer doesn't mention either Obama or the Obama campaign - not once.

No, I meant the rumour was common knowledge.

How would the Clinton campaign know what the story is - what were they supposed to say, "I don't know what Novak is talking about but it's false." Does that make any sense to you at all?

Is there anyone that has any real doubt about the dirty tricks played by Hillary Clinton?

Of course there are those who doubt her dirty tricks. There are still those who doubt the dirty tricks of Nixon and Bush II. And they were no where near as talented as she is at hiding ones real intensions.

Ken Silverstein, for one. This has been going on for months, with both campaigns accusing the other of spreading rumours and gossip.

Give us some examples of the dirty tricks.

I did.

She does it regularly in plain sight, especially when she's caught dead to rights. Lady Hawk calls it Republican mud-slinging.

Do try to read more carefully. There is no way on earth that Edward's "two Americas" is a Republican war cry. The Republican in the race is Hillary and the master of deception.

Hillary's campaign is the classic: "Those dirty, filthy, thieving, lying, scurrilous, card-cheating, immature, inexperienced male cowards are calling me names again just because I am a woman."

Then she loads up the old bank account with some more funds from "plain folks" corporations and lobbyists and hires more staff that are experts in gossip and opposition research.

Geez, it would be nice if Democrats could nominate a Democrat but I guess they ain't likely to do so.

Best, Terry

Larry pretty clearly couldn't vote for a Democrat other than Clinton. She's the only one who will practice the "all stick, no carrot" apprach to foreign policy all American Tough Guys thinks works so well.

It's no better than "all carrot no stick"

Give us a few examples.

Insight magazine owned by the Moonie Washington Times. "Sources said the background check conducted by researchers..." Of course this story has nothing to do with the nasty chain e-mail making the rounds before this that Obama was a Muslim and attended a radical Muslim school does it? As to the "story" Obama himself says he attended a "Muslim school" in Jakarta, so it's not that this info wasn't already out there.

reticulant,

you're linking to Insight.com, a right wing web site that features F Emmet Tyrell, a Richard Mellon Scaife crony during the Bill Clinton Presidency

What you're offering from them is their interpretation of what is occurring, and they're using unnamed nebulous sources. "Hillary's people" claimed Obama attended a Madrassa"

Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage? This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.

Who were these Hillary people?

By the way, CNN never connected Hillary's camp to the rumor, Insight.com did.

Unless you have names and quotes I suggest you peddle your Insightful comments over on Free Republic.com or Newsmax.com. Better yet, send your offerings to Bob Novak.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but my three favs are Joe Biden, Hillary, and Edwards. I could vote for Dodd as well. As far as your characterization of Hillary's foreign policy goes, you obviously have not listened to or read a thing the lady has said.

hadenough,

You caught it too, heh heh heh :-)

Of course Obama is a "craven politician". He's running for president. It comes with the territory. He's no more nor less craven than any other candidate.

Holy cow, I get home from a nice afternoon at the yarn shop, knitting and talking to a number of southern Republican women about the primaries and what Democrat we hope to vote for in the general election, and find that a verbal brawl has broken out.

I repeat what I said when this first came up - who in their right mind would take anything NoFacts says as truth?

And here's something to think about: with the internet as lightening fast as it is, if there were anything scandalous floating around about Sen Obama, don't you think it would pop up if you goggled for it? I sure can't find anything and I did some pretty creative goggling. And it's up to Novak to come clean, not anyone else.

Next, I agree with BevD, show me some concrete examples of Sen. Clinton's dirty tricks.

Finally, Sen. Obama does have much to recommend him, but he is a professional politician at near the beginning of his time. And, yes, he does remind me a bit of JFK. Here's the thing, though. With the manner in which he jumps on the wrong person when challenged, he reminds me of some of JFK's lesser decisions, particularly the Bay of Pigs. This bothers me.

And I too lived abroad for awhile as a young adult and while it did affect my worldview, I'd hardly count it as foreign policy experience and I got to do some pretty nifty things.

Lighten up and remember that the goal is to thoroughly trounce the Republicans - local, state, federal. Let us not eat our young.

Thanks for the heads up, John.

Novak heard it from an unnamed source who heard it from an unnamed source.

Because of the above, I, for one, put no value in Novak's story.

On November 20, 2007 - 6:09pm BevD said: Insight magazine owned by the Moonie Washington Times...

Thank you for the tip. Yes, we're well aware of Insight Magazine's ... provenance.

To follow up, we've also LexisNexised denials from Clinton spokepersons, including Howard Wolfson and Phil Singer ("We have no connection to this story and think it's deplorable.").

How did Insight respond?

According to Jake Tapper (published 01/26/07), thusly:

Jeffrey Kuhner, editor of Insight Magazine, responding to the denials by Clinton senior adviser Howard Wolfson on any involvement in the story: "Sue us. If he's so confident that this is a National Enquirer-style made up story, he and Hillary should sue the pants off us, because if they're right they could make millions and millions of dollars. But then we'll depose the investigators who have been conducting the investigation into Obama's background and they know it. This story is multi-sourced … I have never been more sure of a story in my life."

On November 20, 2007 - 6:26pm JohnW1141 said: I saw this poster's tactic before under a different name. He continually offers as fact right wing BS he reads on right wing web sites.

Ah yes. The Rove Playbook. What, pray tell was the "name" I used "before"?

I don't remember the name you used, but the tactic is exactly the same. As is your follow up post quoting Jake Tapper.

Come on, own up, remind me what name you used.

On November 20, 2007 - 7:29pm JohnW1141 said: As you did under your previous screen name...

Again, why all the mystery? Don't be bashful. Please tell: What was my "previous screen name" and where did I use it?

Hint: Needless Needful to day, you're completely and hysterically mistaken.

On November 20, 2007 - 7:29pm JohnW1141 said: ... you cherry picked, this time Jake Tapper's column, you never mentioned this part of the column

If I'm "dissembling" or "cherry picking" please explain how or where "Norm Ornstein" addresses the substance of Clinton campaign denials v. Insight's dare?

I think that the more intelligent comments in this thread (eg those that have noted that the Clinton campaign denials leave visible room for doubt) make one thing 'perfectly clear' -- the headline "Why is Obama in Bed with Karl Rove" is itself at best sensationalist and at worst an act of bad faith. I would expect better from columnists on a site like this.

Even though reasonable people might differ as to the wisdom of Obama's strategy, as well as unknown variables (eg -- could Obama's camp in fact know that Clinton folk HAVE been spreading such rumors?), surely claiming he is 'in bed with Karl Rove' is the sort of thing Democratic netroots would rightly condemn if it came officially from the Hillary Clinton campaign. We should be no less demanding here.

There were TWO fact issues that Hillary Clinton raised in the recent Vegas debate (as well as some interesting discussion on Democratic Underground about whether the booing was indeed as orchestrated as it sounded) -- BOTH the claims that Obama would leave 15 million people out of its coverage, AND the "trillion dollar tax hike" (obviously, it disingenuously doesn't use an ANNUAL basis of calculating the tax, and by that logic, even the smallest tax will eventually add up to huge numbers. (This is indeed an old Repug trick -- I believe it was used against Clinton in 92 if I'm not mistaken).

At any rate, I'd like to see Obama as a guest at the 'table for one', like Edwards was, and Hillary Clinton as well.

Overall, I am still agnostic as to whether or not Obama is rightly handling this particular issue, especially given the unknown variables I have referenced.

I think his Chicago ward boss advisers finally broke through his first attempts as a uniter, not a divider. David Axelrod, do you hear me? You're supposed to be the good guy. Is that true? Or are you just an old Mayor Daley scumbag anyway?

Ok, JohnW1141:

I can see you're paying attention. So we'll take this very slowly.

1. Go back to the place where you made your mistake. So, find that place you rated 0 accidentally.

2. Look at the bottom of that post. Where there's a little box - with an arrow, pointing downward.

3. If you click on the little arrow, you will notice, it works!

4. So, if you really meant not to rate that post, then you can simply revert your choice to "not rated."

5. Simple as that. Now, go ahead. Give it a try.

6. Thanks!

Seek Wisdom

Boy, does this stuff strike a nerve. I cross posted at Kos. That place did a nuclear meltdown. Sure looks like the internet has divided itself up into warring camps.

The vitriol among the Democrats is troubling. The chasm separating supporters of Hillary from Obama from Edwards is amazing to me. Can the rifts be healed when the campaign is over?

I will say it again. I think Obama has every right to knock down the Novak smear mongering. My complaint is that he is using a scum like Novak to attack Clinton. I would make the same complaint if he was doing this to Kucinich. Go after the real people passing the scum around. In this case it should have been Novak. Obama chose otherwise. That's my beef.

Larry, I have been thinking all day that "the knives are out." And it is sad to see. Sad. And scary.

Like I tell my patients.  First, figure out whose problem it is.  Only then, go after the problem.

I think we'll be able to get over the rifts. It all comes down to this right now, and I have a hard time seeing this as an illegitimate point of view:

The mainstream media annointed Hillary ahead of any primaries.

Obama's supporters are a passionate lot and are justifiably annoyed that their candidate has been treated more as "second tier" than as a threat.

Edwards supporters are a passionate lot and have not only seen their candidate get ignored but have seen his message be dismissed, so they're angry too.

The problem is not between Democrats at this point. It's between Democrats and a media that seems fixated on a Hillary/Giuliani general election.

I'll bet a lot of Republicans feel the same way.

Democrats will be able to get over this because, in the end, it's not something we're doing too each other. The vitriol is to be expected given that the media is giving short shrift to anyone who isn't a Clinton or Giuliani supporter. That makes supporters of other candidates angry and supporters of Clinton and Giuliani defensive.

Honestly, I could vote for Hillary and I well might, even in the primary. But I'm still annoyed by her "inevitability."

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Hillary isn't my first choice, she's too close to the DLC

That's funny. I suspect she sleeps with him occasionally but I have no proof.

Best, Terry

I'm fighting for my son's future and a sustainable peace, not a dangerous and destabilizing crusade to stamp out all of Israel's enemies

Larry has a hard time saying what he REALLY thinks of Hillary. Why bother with examples when you think you are certain?

So now Obama can not answer what is out there? And it took Clinton a couple of days to come out with a sort of denial.I think he has every right to go this and my question still is why did she not answer this forcefully as a falsehood? But okay she has a place at the table for you too==but would not put all my eggs in one basket just yet==what are you going to do if she loses?By the way you have proven my point with your lovely headline. So Clintonesque.

"The problem is not between Democrats at this point. It's between Democrats and a media that seems fixated on a Hillary/Giuliani general election."

You've hit the nail on the head. The media wants a story and seems to have decided that the most interesting story is Clinton vs. Giuliani. To that end, they seem perfectly happy to print all kinds of slanted stuff just to stir the pot and make a story and, worse, seem perfectly fine with ignoring things that should be a big deal such as, say, Giuliani's company's client list.

The idea of the press representing "truth, justice, and the American way" seems to have gone out of style with Clark Kent, Lois Lane, Perry White and the Daily Planet and they were fictional. I blame Roone Arledge who moved news departments into entertainment organizations and the print media followed. When you have to consider the bottom line, it skews your view.

My advice would be that Demcrats not buy into this but rather search out what is important as opposed to what leads. (If it bleeds, it leads)

Finally, it is so easy in a forum where you cannot see each other, to pose as someone you are not just to stir the pot some more.

So who is your candidate? In the last debate all of candidates refused to promised not to use force against Iran. So you don't have a dog in this fight.

My dog is Edwards because he is not a pit bull like your Lady Hawk. He is not all I could wish for but then this is not a perfect world.

Even Jim Webb, who knows something about war and has led the fight to keep us from a peremptory strike that seemed to be on the agenda, would not promise to never fight a war with Iran. That would be as irresponsible as voting for Kyl-Lieberman.

The farce of naming an armed force of a country as a terrorist organization but then claiming to separate the country from that designation defies any semblance of logic.

I suggest sending your hawks to Iraq and the doves to the White House. Older ladies can do terrific damage with an umbrella. One can only imagine the terror they would wreak in the hearts of al Queda armed with howitzers. Don't need more guns around the White House. Dick Cheney has proven that.

Best, Terry

SUCCESS!

Thanks. My mistake was I wasn't going back to the original post for the correction.

Ya larn sumetin every day.

Excellent points, cloudy.

The article set the tone for the discussion and we can all see exactly where it went.

Sad.

I am not looking for a candidate to promise never to attack Iran. For that matter, I am not looking for a candidate to promise never to attack Bulgaria, to promise never to attack Paraguay or to promise never to Sri Lanka. I expect the position of all candidates to be that they will use force against any other country that seriously moves to use force against us, and where the use of force is our best option. No one can completely predict the future. So I don't care what is "on the table" or "off the table".

Nor is my problem that Clinton is just some kind of generic "hawk". Maybe she is and maybe she isn't. But it is not really her positions on the non-Middle East portions of the world that concern me, or at least not tremendously.

It's her position on Middle East specifically that peeves me. In my view, Clinton truly has neocon-lite vision and plan for the region, an Israel-centric agenda for routing Hizbollah, rolling back Syria and Iran, and precipitating revolutionary regime change in the latter two countries. She' a Lieberdem, and has been backing and chearleading every crucial aspect of the neocon "forward strategy" for the region since 2001. That's why she now has people like Charles Krauthammer and Martin Peretz in her fan club.

Of course this is America, and all candidates tend, as you know, to tilt heavily toward Israel. But I don't think any of the other Democratic candidates are as unequivocally bought in the neoconservative Middle East transformation agenda as is Clinton. Several of them have created significant openings in their policy proposals for a different approach.

Of course, Clinton is doing a lot of pandering lately - supporting Lieberman-Kyl one week and the Webb legislation the next, so one might be forgiven for being confused about where she really stands. But looking at her record over the past six years, both on the Senate floor and in her speeches and foreign policy articles, I'm confident in my judgment about where her heart lies.

She wants to keep forces in Iraq in perpetuity, to continue tightening the screws on Iran. She wants to increase the size of the armed forces to get more warm bodies for the impending fights to come. Her sporadic noises about possible diplomacy with Iran et al are perfunctory and unconvincing, tailored for a primary season in which she has to run further left than she would like. She has said nothing to suggest the possibility of a new regional security order, into which iran and Syria would be folded. She's still on the march. Her agenda results in expoanded war in the region, sooner or later.

I am not looking for a candidate to promise never to attack Iran

That's why she now has people like Charles Krauthammer and Martin Peretz in her fan club.

It's her position on Middle East specifically that peeves me. In my view, Clinton truly has neocon-lite vision and plan for the region, an Israel-centric agenda for routing Hizbollah, rolling back Syria and Iran, and precipitating revolutionary regime change in the latter two countries.

Can you point to any speeches of them that prove your point.

Not only brimming with Muslims, but known Muslims, at that. Implies Muslims lying doggo, sleeper cells of embryonic terrorists.

I would not believe Novak (him being the douchebag that he is) if the Clinton campeign did not go to such rhetorical lengths to avoid stating that the story is false. They through their inability to make a simple declarative statement have made someone as untrustworty as Novak look like he just might be telling the truth.

So is he accusing the Obama campaign of spreading rumours? It appears so, doesn't it?

They DID. Are you not listening? This is a typical wingnut operation. In January they started with their chain e-mail about Obama's dangerous Muslim schooling with the title, "Be very, very careful" they then move to get a second tier source to write about it and then they wait for the MSM to pick it up and spread it nationally under the guise of a "news story". This story in Insight magazine states that Clinton will be releasing that information right before the primary, so guess where you here the rumour again? From Novak, a WINGNUT. The purpose of course, of the entire exercise is to smear BOTH candidates.

They used the EXACT same operation to innoculate Bush with the DUI story - they planted it as a rumour Gore was spreading and then vociferously complained that Gore was using "dirty tricks." Look at what they did with Kerry - the rumour started that Kerry's boat crew was telling all and sundry that he was really a cowardly showboat that was only interested in medals and then started with chain e-mails, moved on to a second tier news outfit and then waited for the mainstream to pick it up. That the rumour isn't true, doesn't matter - they count on the old adage, "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and that's all you need."

Troll,

I read your post then went back and re read Larry's column. Rather than being a Hillary
"water carrier", I think he's right to question Obama's using questionable sources such as Novak and Gerth.

After the Clintons were cleared by at least 2 Special Prosecutors of any wrongdoing in Whitewater, Gerth kept churning the Clinton/Whitewater story. Novak got his information from an unnamed source who got it from another unnamed source.

Any Democrat who uses these two sources to attack Hillary deserves to be criticized, so I'm with Larry on this.

And, No, I'm not a Hillary supporter, I'm a liberal who originally backed Obama until he started allowing his handlers to handle him.

They DID. Are you not listening?

When and where? You keep refering to their statement that they do not know what Novak is talking about. That is not a denial that they are spreading muck.

Let me try this analogy.

1. Jim has been beaten.
2. Jane is responsible for investigating the beating.
3. Bob, an un reliable source tells Jane that Jill did it.
4. Jane does not believe Bob but she has to check the lead out.
5. Jane asks Jill if she beat Jim.
6. Jill replies that she does not know Bob or what he is talking about.
7. Jill has not denied involvment in the beating but her mother will claim that she has.
8. Even though Jane believes Bob to be unreliable she is begining to think he might just be telling the truth now because Jill will not deny the accusation. Jills mother does not understand what janes problem is.

We are Jane and those of use who have spent the last 15 years learning how to disect a well parsed sentence will not accept this less than straight answer. We have been burned to many times. I do not know if Sen Clinton is dishonest or just lacks the logical skills to recognize the way her statements apear to those of us who have been listening to presidents dispute the definition of is or torture.

I don't mind the questions Mr. Johnson is posing in this article. I think we all get a little queasy when we feel campaigns have "Gone Negative". For instance, Hillary's claim that Obama's only foreign policy experience was as a 10 year old living abroad. Ewwww... It’s just dirty, Hillary. Please stop.

But politics can be rough and tumble. Negative campaigning leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I think Mr. Johnson rightfully asks some illuminating questions about how the Obama campaign is run, and how they could have approached this scandal (non scandal) differently.

* Personally I see this as a non scandal. I take the events at face value. I think Hillary has "appeared" to be involved in smearing Obama in the past, (Madrasa non scandal) whether she was or not I have no idea. But Obama has every reason suspect her of dirty tricks, and wanted her to confirm or deny any involvement in the mud Novac was stirring up. ~ Again, this is just my opinion. You have every right to yours.

What I take issue with is Mr. Johnson’s fire breathing rhetoric, which is clearly designed to damage Obama, not to reveal some truth about this "Scandal".

It is Mr. Johnson's opinion that: Obama is in bed with Carl Rove.

Larry Johnson Wrote: Why is Obama in Bed with Karl Rove?
Larry Johnson Wrote: Is Obama wearing a wrist bracelet that says, “what would Karl Rove do”?
Larry Johnson Wrote: Obama’s tactics appear in sync with Rove’s script. His feigned victim hood is a negative attack on Senator Clinton’s character to drive the numbers, which in turn Obama hopes will determine the nomination. While posing above the fray, but executing Rove’s strategy and exploiting Novak’s innuendo, Obama has embraced the audacity of hype.

It is Mr. Johnson's opinion that: Obama wants to pump up Count Novacula.

Larry Johnson Wrote: Why would Obama, the candidate of “hope,” pump up the claims of Novak, “the prince of darkness”?

It is Mr. Johnson's opinion that: Obama might run with smears if they came from the president of Iran.

Larry Johnson Wrote: If Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Hillary Clinton’s campaign told him that they had some dirt on Obama, would Obama’s staff react as they did to the Robert Novak column of November 17?

So. Lets be clear. These are the words of a pit fighter who is defending his choice for the Dem Primary. Whatever the merit of the questions he's raising, the conclusions are those of a fire breathing Hillary supporter. Not a journalist. Not a dispassionate observer of the race. Not an undecided Democrat. He is Clinton’s man.

Hey Larry, that’s cool. I respect that. Hillary is my second choice. But let’s not pretend that Mr. Johnson is approaching this even handedly. I just want to know if you work for them or have in the past.

Jealous, are you? I had been wondering what bothered you about her and now I know.

Not all men want to sleep with Bill Clinton I can assure you.

LOL!

Best, Terry

After the Clintons were cleared by at least 2 Special Prosecutors of any wrongdoing in Whitewater...

Karl Rove and Cheney and Bush were "cleared" by a special prosecutor by the same reasoning.

A prosecutor generally makes a decision on whether to prosecute on matters independent of guilt or innocence. If he does prosecute, the verdict of a jury may or may not the correct one.

In each instance, it is best for a serious investigator to look at the matter.

"Whitewater" actually actually much more than the land scam that remains undeveloped to this day as far as I know.

My favorite was Hillary's cattle futures trading. On her very first day of trading, Hillary is supposed to have made a blizzard of trades with a crooked broker. It is not unrealistic to presume she actually had no knowledge that other accounts profits were assigned to her.

If you want to believe that Hillary is innocent as the driven snow and other people were just giving her money out of the goodness of their hearts like the corporations and lobbyists today that she swears she will do nothing for, you are perfectly free to do so.

Not everyone will agree with you however.

I still think the worst horror to come out of the Watergate impeachment was the thought of Henry Hyde with a mistress. Mark Russell once said that anyone who doesn't believe there is a mess in Washington has never seen Henry Hyde take a shower.

Some things best left in the past.

Best, Terry

Two things are being confused in this debate:

Novak reports that a third person accused Hillary's campaign of sending 'agents' to go to Democratic activists and report that she had dirt on Obama but was not going to use it.

Obama has asked her to deny that she has dirt on him. He is not entitled to ask her to give him a clean bill of health -- he, not she, is the one in the position to know if there is any dirt out there.

Whether or not she has dirt on him is essentially none of his business if she is not using it. It also depends how you define dirt -- cocaine use in the past is something that he has admitted to. Cocaine is a brain damaging drug and can affect your use of language.

That said, if she is going around having her campaign drop hints that in itself is using the dirt. What he is entitled to ask her to deny is this second part -- that any one from her campaign is making such approaches. I think this second point is adequately covered by her campaign's WTF are you talking about? response.

So the two things which are being confused are:

1. Does she have any dirt on him?

2. Was she using it in any way such as by stating to political activists that she does have it but is not going to use it?

kosmotropic.

You are apparently a bit confused so let's see if I can help you out here. This is how the conversation played out, in order:

"On November 20, 2007 - 4:48pm Dan K said:
Bev, the Rosenabaum piece to which you refer doesn't mention either Obama or the Obama campaign - not once.

On November 20, 2007 - 4:56pm BevD said:
No, I meant the rumour was common knowledge.

On November 20, 2007 - 5:07pm Dan K said:
OK, so who has accused the Obama campaign of spreading the rumors?

On November 20, 2007 - 5:36pm BevD said:
Ken Silverstein, for one. This has been going on for months, with both campaigns accusing the other of spreading rumours and gossip."

The article I quoted and linked to was authored by the afore mentioned Ken Silverstein.

If you have a problem with what HE wrote and the way HE wrote it, go pitch your bitch at the relevent target. Ken Silverstein would no doubt be amused.

I'm sure you must be right... lol. When I point out that someone who says, "Why is Obama in Bed with Karl Rove?" might be a Clinton loyalist, I have certainly exposed myself to everyone on this site that I am without a doubt a George Bush, Bomb Iran, lets torture for fun, lets trample privacy rights, cut taxes and destroy America’s economy republican.

You are a joke for even posting these comments JohnW1141.... Please leave your inane comments for those at the corner, little green whatever they are called or the drudge report. Your goofy troll like comments will be very welcome there.

On to other news....

terry hallinan0 said:

After the Clintons were cleared by at least 2 Special Prosecutors of any wrongdoing in Whitewater...

Karl Rove and Cheney and Bush were "cleared" by a special prosecutor by the same reasoning.

Karl Rove and Cheney and Bush were NOT cleared, Fitzgerald said Libby threw sand in the investigation's eyes, which made it impossible for the investigation to be thorough. Nothing like that happened in the Whitewater investigation as not only 3 Special Prosecutors looked at it, Republican Congressional Committees had hearings du jour, and wingnut Richard Mellon Scaife was funding all kinds of political skullduggery like The Arkansas Project trying to get the Clintons.

If you want to believe that Hillary is innocent as the driven snow and other people were just giving her money out of the goodness of their hearts like the corporations and lobbyists today that she swears she will do nothing for, you are perfectly free to do so.

Not everyone will agree with you however.

Don't be childish, this is a strawman.

Actually, there were 3 independent prosecutors that looked at Whitewater,
all Republicans, I forgot about Ken Starr, and to try to compare the Whitewater prosecutors with Fitzpatrick investigating the Plame case is ludicrous.

By the way, Rove was able to "adjust" his testimony to the Grand Jury about 5 or 6 times, too bad Clinton couldn't have adjusted his testimony about Monica.

AJM,

"Novak reports that a third person accused Hillary's campaign of sending 'agents' to go to Democratic activists and report that she had dirt on Obama but was not going to use it."

Its he said, she said, he said.

'An unnamed source told me that an unnamed source told him...blah blah blah.'

"Journalism" has hit rock bottom.

The fight concerns Democratic activists and I think there are rifts in the party. One side is the established political leaders in Washington and the other side comes up through the local and state party structures, or at least what exists today.

I do not believe that the Democratic Party WDC crowd is in touch with the majority of Democratic activists and voters in the country. I believe they are totally out of touch.

Dean was one expression of this discontent. Now, we are seeing the same discontent expressed by Edwards and Obama. The war is merely one symptom; so is the lobbyist money where the special interests are getting more in WDC that the American voters who elect these cretins; and going to war on such flimsy reasons is not a reason to reward those who were so very, very wrong.

It was once suggested that if the networks were allowed to televise execution, FOX would demand its right to have naked executions.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Had the Romans realized that the proper formula was Popcorn and Circuses, we might be speaking Roman today. Res ipsa loquitur.

Check the record: Progressivepunch.com has a category called Corporate Subsidies. This appears to have involved a series of past votes when the Republicans were in the majority because later Senators, such as Obama, were not rated. The progressives lost all by 12.50% of these votes but Hillary voted with the progressives every single time.

Thats Troll Bait. Not troll. And this bait has a hook inside, thank you very much.