Same reason he says there's a "Social Security crisis" and that Hillary supports corporate interests. Poorly recommended DLC campaign advisers whispering in their ears.

I hate Novak too. But you've got to get over his involvement in the Plame thing. National Security isn't Novak's responsibility.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

DLC = Democratic Leadership Council = GOP wanabees

Why does he answer the charges?

Because he knows what happens when even the most spurious charge is not answered immediately and unequivocally. Cases in point—Al Gore and John Kerry.

I doubt very seriously that the Republican Party wants to see any Democratic nominee other than Hillary Clinton. The person who is ultimately helped by these false charges is Clinton. Obama is merely being a smart candidate.

He will attack Hillary with the goal to destroy her and get a role in the future Obama administration. He has no political future if Hillary wins.

Right, but Clinton is in the DLC leadership group, so I doubt they would be advising Obama.

I missunderstood your questionmark. I agree that she is the candidate of the GOP wanabee wing of the party.

Dead on Larry Geater. TPM is really starting to sicken me with this whole pro-Clinton anti-Obama thing. It's just ham-fistedly obvious. I wouldn't find it offensive if they would just be up front about it. It's the coverup that gets you in trouble, guys.

If Party A says Party B knows something nasty about Party C, then it's up to Party A to say "no I don't," not "We're not the one's saying we know something nasty." Then party C says to party A, "hey come on, tell them you don't know some nasty secret about me or else tell what it is" and party A screams that they are being slimed by party C.

I am honestly surprised at what TPM is turning into, though it seems only to have infected the columnists, not the posters. For every one of these slanted stories, the majority of the posters come on to call out the BS.

Marshall is selling his credibility. When you have to write posts specifically defending yourself from the bias charge, and in that very defense you manage ten more slants for Clinton, you've got a credibility problem. And I've not yet seen a mention here of the fact that Clinton is calling lifing the SoSec ceiling a "trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class." That is the substantive story of the last debate, that should be blinking red letters...but now TPM is content to go with MSM horse-race spin garbage. I expect more.

Oh please. You're making multiple assumptions.

1-How do you know Novack's column isn't factually correct?

and

2-How do you know Obama's team didn't already know in the first place that it was factually correct? If the story is true, I find it hard to believe that rumors could be circulating on the DC cocktail circuit and the Obama team somehow wouldn't be aware of it.

So...who's being naive here? You really think such a whisper campaign is somehow below the Clintons? Even the ultra liberal Bob Herbert has noted how willing they are to get knee deep in mud and dirty politics and throw it around.

Also, it seems like you got your events reversed. In your original post, you seemed to at least imply that Howard Wolfson denied the contents of the column outright, but he didn't...at least, not until after Obama's team challenged him to.

I usually respect what you have to say, especially about foreign affairs, but it looks like you just copy/pasted Howard Wolfson's talking points from his press releases on this affair. Not only have other bloggers in the DC Circuit hinted that they're fully aware of the rumor-mongering going on, I've even seen some discuss what the contents of the supposed "dirt" actually is (in one case, it related to Rezko; in another, it related to supposed infidelity).

Obama could have told Novak to put up his sources or see me in court. The case would not have made it to court any time soon but it would have made political point that Obama didn't believe there was anything there. Freedom of the press protections run against the government -- not between private individuals. Novak would face the dilemma of paying damages or revealing his sources. It would put the onus on Novak where it belongs. We need to know if the third party making claims about agents belongs to any candidates support groups or whether we are talking about a Republican operative.

If, in the future, another candidate should come across damaging but not necessarily disqualifying information about Obama what should that candidate do with it?

Hypothetically speaking,is it better that Kucinich's belief in UFOs came out now when it can be evaluated in the primary or if it had come out after he hypothetically won the
nomination?

Obama has no hesitation in using stale sex scandals about Bill. Michelle's the world would feel differently about the US after they saw -- not my husband taking the oath -- but our family on the podium -- is another case in point of her sideswipe I'm just talking about us method of using this.
Not to mention that a respectable reporter reports that a named aide of Obama's was trying to interest the news media in researching Bill's currrent sex life.

Really, I don't think Obama is in a position to complain.

This is the strangest thread. Some people downgrading posts of others, it seems, just because they disagree with them. Can't you disagree without wanting to blacken somebody's eye too?

I'll probably be practically troll rated, just for saying so. But honestly, folks, it's bad enough out there without a brawl breaking out here.

I urge a little civility. Especially in the ratings. Use words to disagree. But the rating should say something about the logic or the usefulness or the eloquence or nonsense of the comment.

Politics is painful enough. We don't need dirty tricks here too.

Seek Wisdom

Damn it!! There you go being reasonable and rational. Good post.

Because it helps to sell newspapers and get hits on their website.

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

Thanks for the response. 

Seek Wisdom

Oh for crying out loud - they categorically denied having anything to do with it. "We have no idea what Mr. Novak's item is about and reject it totally." What about that is ambiguous?

Dead on Larry Geater. TPM is really starting to sicken me with this whole pro-Clinton anti-Obama thing.

Aww, come on. TPM provides a superb service to the country and to those of us who aren't taken with the DLC Republican Lite maneuvering.

It is incomprehensible to me that Josh Marshall can claim to see little difference between the main candidates but we shouldn't judge anyone by their poor eyesight.

Is there anyone that has any real doubt about the dirty tricks played by Hillary Clinton? She does it regularly in plain sight, especially when she's caught dead to rights. Lady Hawk calls it Republican mud-slinging.

Don't you go messing with Josh Marshall even if he is blind as a bat and tone deaf as well. He can dig up dirt that no gossip columnist could ever find.

Best, Terry

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

Like what? Give us some examples of the dirty tricks.

These guys are as entertaining as a heart attack. The damage they have done to America through their "opining" is immeasurable.

BevD

None of that says that Mr Novak's peice was false. Words have meanings and they are important. Having no idea what an item is about and rejecting it are not the same as saying it is false.

OK, so who has accused the Obama campaign of spreading the rumors?

How about "No one invlved with this campeign is holding the kind of information described by Mr Novak.", or "Mr Novak's asertions are false.", or "We are unaware of any scandleous information about Sen Obama."?

But hey if they said that then they would have put the rumors about Sen Obama to rest and they want to avoid that even if they know the rumors are false.

Johnson: Why would Obama focus his campaign on unfounded “smears”?

Gosh.

Could it have anything to do with this? (published 1/17/2007)

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.

Sources said the background check, conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton, disclosed details of Mr. Obama's Muslim past. The sources said the Clinton camp concluded the Illinois Democrat concealed his prior Muslim faith and education.

Although the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism, the sources said his Democratic opponents believe this to be the case—and are seeking to prove it. The sources said the opponents are searching for evidence that Mr. Obama is still a Muslim or has ties to Islam.

The sources said Ms. Clinton regards Mr. Obama as her most formidable opponent and the biggest obstacle to the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nomination. They said Ms. Clinton has been angered by Mr. Obama's efforts to tap her supporters for donations.

Or this? (published 1/23/07)

CNN ran a news segment last night on Paula Zahn’s show, “CNN debunks false report about Obama.” In the wake of our story, CNN sent their correspondent to check out the Muslim religious school attended by Barack Obama as a young boy. CNN concluded that allegations “that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a ‘madrassa’ are not accurate.” The school’s deputy headmaster told CNN: “"This is a public school. We don't focus on religion.” CNN’s correspondent then told the “Situation Room” on Monday: "I came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa ... like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. … I've been to those madrassas in Pakistan ... this school is nothing like that."

We at Insight commend CNN for at least showing the initiative to follow-up on the story and send a correspondent to check it out. But, contrary to their claims, CNN didn’t debunk anything about our story. For the record, Insight never—not once—in its article claims that Obama went to a Madrassa. We didn’t claim it; Hillary’s people did. We reported—and we fully stand by our story—that the Hillary Clinton camp had conducted their own opposition research on Obama’s Muslim past, and that the Clinton investigators had concluded Obama had attended a Madrassa. This is what Hillary’s camp was saying and desperately trying to prove—not Insight. Our sources also confirmed to us that the Clinton camp had come to the conclusion that not only had Obama been raised and educated as a Muslim, but that he had been deliberately concealing it. Moreover, our sources also said that Clinton’s people were seeking to find out about the possible radical Wahhabi angle, and then peddle their information to their media allies later this year—prior to the January 2008 primaries.

Larry, this is ridiculous. They categorically denied that they had any idea whatsoever as to what Novak was yammering about, and you want them to prove a negative - "why no, Tim, I didn't spread rumors about Obama having two wives..."'

This is EXACTLY like the Washington Times/Insight magazine "story" that the Clinton campaign was spreading the rumour that Obama attended a Madrassa = and guess what, when they were told to put up or shut up, they claimed they heard it third hand.

Yeah, just as I thought - you don't have any examples. Thanks for playing, though...

reticulant,

Here is a tip for ya: When you have to quote a repub smear mag to make your point you don't have a point

I did not ask for them to prove anything either positive or negative. I said that they have not denyed that they have muck on Sen Obama. They can say that they do not know what Mr Novak is 'yammering about' every day from now until the primary and it will never be the equivilent of saying the rumor that they were holding dirt on Sen Obama is false.

Larry, I know this is futile, but how do you think they can prove that they don't have "muck" on Obama? How do you propose that they do that? Now they said they have no idea as to what Novak is talking about and they categorically denied that they're spreading rumours like this, and you want them to say, "we have no dirt on Sen. Obama" as though you'd believe that and you wouldn't be complaining that they didn't specifically say WHAT dirt they didn't have.

Bev,

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. He's pretty slick though, he manages to get credible news outfits into his posts, in this case, CNN.

Don Key,

truly.

Larry,

I think Hillary scares the shit out of Rove and his Republican gang. She's the one they don't want to run against so they're getting the MSM to zero in on her. One of their tactics is to spread the idea that she isn't electable, and the MSM, as they did during the Gore, and Kerry campaigns, will be only too happy to pick up whatever bullshi* the right wing puts out there.

Hillary isn't my first choice, she's too close to the DLC, but if she gets elected she might surprise me.

SHI*, I meant to give the 0 to Larry.

Since he had so many 5s, I did it in the interest of humor.

Ol dopey John.

Dopey? No way!

I've been posting here for almost three years, and Larry Johnson has never written anything remotely like that. You should do a little research before you post something like that.

Interesting, isn't it, that he manages to publish this one month before the primary although, according to him the rumours have been swirling for several months.

Kind suggestion to JohnW1141:

If you make a mistake in a rating, it's a simple matter to redo it. Just go back and change it. It's not set in concrete.

Seek Wisdom

As you did under your previous screen name, you cherry picked, this time Jake Tapper's column, you never mentioned this part of the column:

Last night on Nightline we took A DEEPER LOOK at the Obama "madrassa" mania....

Some interesting tidbits...
Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. ""There's now almost a predictable process here. People have learned how to get things covered, even when they shouldn't be covered. You either start with a revelation in the Drudge Report or Insight magazine, that then gets picked up by the New York Post or The Wall Street Journal and Fox News and by the blogs, and before long there's enough noise out there and enough buzz that comes from it that everybody from The New York Times, to The Washington post, to the network news decide they have to cover it. And it doesn't matter if it's true or not."

Dissembling seems to be your forte'.

It won't let me in.

I any event, you know it was an attempt at humor :-)

awhile as a young adult and while it did affect my worldview

You dissembled by not including the part of the Trapper column I had to bring to the room's attention.

Insight's "dare" is nothing more than theatrics.

Your name is different but the fingerprints are the same.

I didn't think the issue was whether they had muck on Obama. The issue is whether "agents of the Clinton campaign" are spreading muck about Obama, or more to the point of Novak's assertions spreading the rumor that they have muck that they have decided not to use. You're not going to get them to deny outright that they have muck in their possession, since they most likely do have muck in their possession. I'm sure all of the campaigns are aware of various kinds of muck pertaining to all of the other candidates. There is muck in everyone's life, and the campaigns have researchers who come up with a lot of it. And even when they are not looking for it, various supporters pass it on to them.

"Interestingly, the Obama campaign was accused of spreading the rumour that H. Clinton was having an affair with a female campaign staffer."

Is this what you're referring to?

"The hard-to-credit rumor of Hillary’s Sapphic excursions is being stoked by right-wing bloggers. They suggest that this supposed romance shows the candidate is not only a lesbian but consorting with terrorists, given that the Michigan-born Abedin is reportedly from a family brimming with known Muslims.

But it’s not just Republicans who are pushing the story. Will Folks, a well-known blogger in South Carolina, reported yesterday that he’d “heard from sources at rival Democratic presidential campaigns who claim that they ‘know it to be true’ that Hill and Huma are romantically-involved.” I called Folks, and he said that two different Democratic campaigns had told him about the alleged affair, but neither had “presented anything remotely resembling proof.”

Folks said he couldn’t identify which campaigns were spreading the story, so I called Rod Shealy, a top GOP consultant. Shealy told me he had no idea of who was talking up the story—but that the only Democrats with active staffs and organizations in South Carolina were Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson."
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001616

I don't think so.
I see that Obama and Edwards conspired to crash HIllary. Notice, that even after Obama is 8 points ahead of Edwards, Edwards is still going after Hillary, not after Obama.

Go after the real people passing the scum around. In this case it should have been Novak. Obama chose otherwise. That's my beef.

You can't actually demonstrate that Novak is the source of the scum Larry, and is only making it up. You just think it's true, apparently based in part on your loathing for Novak. Maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong.

But if you are now suddenly squeamish about vitriol, you might want to avoid expressions like, "Why is Obama in bed with Karl Rove?" Linking a Democrat with Rove and his tactics - them's fighting words.

I do not think it is sad at all. Hillary Clinton signed off on a war in Iraq that has killed tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, 4000 US service men and women, and put US interests and global reputation in the toilet. And she's been banging Aipac's drum for more Middle East mayhem ever since. When Israel was dropping bombs on non-combattants all over Lebanon, she took to the streets of New York with her pom-poms and shrieked for more.

I'm so sick of this "why can't we all get along?" party loyalism crap. This isn't a goddamned school board election; it's deadly serious business. 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 and build a permanent military occupation in Iraq. If the knives aren't supposed to come out when its a matter of life and death and vital interests, when are they supposed to come out?

my three favs are Joe Biden, Hillary, and Edwards.

Eclectic collections are a delight but that is equivalent to posting that your three favorite saints are Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan and Mahatma Gandhi.

I admire your breadth but not necessarily your judgment.

The prophets that I can remember of the Cao Dai in Vietnam were Jesus Christ, Buddha and Victor Hugo. The Pope and his women cardinals preached non-violence and had one hell of an army to back it up. When I was asked for a donation, I asked where the money would go. "To the mission in Los Angeles," I was told. For sure, religion is sorely needed there. You might want to look into a faith that would seem to suit you well.

Best, Terry

They suggest that this supposed romance shows the candidate is not only a lesbian but consorting with terrorists, given that the Michigan-born Abedin is reportedly from a family brimming with known Muslims.

That is an extremely racist thing to say.

I noticed that you start out by saying
"is this what you are referring to?"

and then seeming to "Quote" someone who maintains a hard-to credit rumor.....the endquote is missing, so it is not even a grammatically correct way of putting things.

But I suppose it is your intent to get away with suggesting that that the lady in question is not only a lesbian but one who consorts with terrorists based on the mere repot that she comes from a famiily that is "BRIMMING with Muslims"

Now lally if someone said that you were not only a lesbian but also a nazi Zionist because you come from a family that is brimming with Jews, you would probably say that that was outrageously antisemitic.

Be more careful what you say and how you say it.

Your intention to defame the woman is transparently obvious.