Why is Obama in Bed with Karl Rove?
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? And yes, I am putting Novak in the same category as the crazy Iranian leader. Novak has damaged U.S. national security as much as Ahmadinejad with his exposure of Valerie Plame and the subsequent destruction of her clandestine intelligence network.
The Republican smear masters had already tipped their hand for dealing with Hillary Clinton. Look at Karl Rove’s debut column in Newsweek, where he lays out the strategy that Obama appears to be parroting:
“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]?’ Right now, Republicans are focusing much of their fire on Senator Clinton. Criticizing her unites the party, stirs up the unsettled feelings many swing voters have toward her and allows each candidate to say why he is best able to beat her.”
With Rove’s instructions to Republicans in mind, take a new look at Obama’s reaction to Novak. Is Obama wearing a wrist bracelet that says, “what would Karl Rove do”?
Robert Novak is a seasoned conservative columnist with a long history of publishing falsehoods, distortions and gossip. And he has been in bed with Karl Rove in running “information ops” against democrats. For decades he has been renowned for inflating shreds of tidbits of rumors into major stories to support various Republican efforts. In 1992, Karl Rove, one of Novak’s regular sources, was fired from the campaign of President George H.W. Bush for leaking derogatory information to Novak about Bush’s campaign manager and friend, Robert Mosbacher. In 2003, Rove again served as a source to Novak, leaking the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson. Even though the CIA warned Novak not to disclose her CIA identity in the interests of national security, he did so, insuring that Rove got a copy of the column before it was published. In 2004, Novak promoted the smear campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against Senator John Kerry’s heroic Vietnam War record. When it was revealed that Novak’s son was the marketing director for the right-wing publisher of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth tract defaming Kerry, Novak expressed disdain about the conflict-of-interest: “I don’t think it’s relevant.”
By his own admission Novak’s latest hyped controversy has no basis in fact. On November 17, he wrote, “Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party’s presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it.” His sourcing consisted of “word of mouth” and unnamed “experienced Democratic operatives.” Two days later, on Fox News, where Novak is a commentator, he confessed that he had heard a rumor from someone who had heard a rumor from someone. In short, he had no facts, perhaps explaining why Novak has been dubbed “No Facts” for years.
Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson’s categorical statement would seem to have put an end to this pseudo-event: “The Clinton campaign has nothing to do with this item.” But it did not end. Instead, it is being kept artificially alive.
As soon as Novak published his rumor, Obama elevated and dignified it as though it had credibility. “But in the interest of our party, and her own reputation, Senator Clinton should either make public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none,” he declared. Obama turned the alleged smear upside down. Rather than acknowledge that the predictable right-wing smear artist Novak was responsible for the innuendo, Obama accused Senator Clinton of being ultimately to blame. With this extraordinary statement, Obama lashed himself to Novak’s credibility as a reliable source on a story that transparently lacked any true source.
Even when the Clinton campaign forthrightly again denied the item was false and that no one involved in the campaign had anything to do with it, Obama’s campaign refused to let the matter die. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe once again accused Senator Clinton and her campaign of doing what Novak claimed: “Are ‘agents’ of their campaign spreading these rumors? And do they have ‘scandalous’ information that they are not releasing?”
Once again, the Clinton campaign openly stated it had nothing to do with the story at all. Then, Plouffe made another statement that suggested Obama had somehow wrung a confession out of the Clinton campaign and still implied that it was behind Novak’s lie: “The Clinton campaign has admitted that they do not possess the ‘scandalous information’ in question and we take them at their word. But what we don’t accept is their assertion that this is somehow falling for Republican tricks.”
The following day, November 19, Obama began a new line of attack, picking up a discredited story circulated months ago. “I’m not in this race to fulfill some long-held plan or because it was owed to me,” Obama said. An Obama spokesperson reinforced the point: “Barack Obama has not been mapping out his run for president from Washington for the last 20 years like some of his opponents.”
But where did this new attack originate? Just as he had used Novak’s false story for the previous two days, now he tried to damage Senator Clinton’s reputation by using another patently false story. Months ago, Jeff Gerth, the reporter who spent years hyping the Whitewater fables as real, and his co-author Dale Van Natta, attempted to promote their anti-Hillary screed, “Her Way,” with the supposedly startling revelation that Hillary and planned to run for president 20 years ago. But Gerth and Van Natta had no actual source. And the one source to whom they did attribute the story, Pulitzer Prize winning historian Taylor Branch, was someone they never interviewed and who told the Washington Post, “The story is preposterous. I never heard either Clinton talk about a ‘plan’ for them both to become president.”
Despite this story’s exposure as false for months, Obama eagerly exploited it to try to portray Senator Clinton as Lady Macbeth. First using Novak and then Gerth for his materials, he painted her as a dirty trickster, dishonest and recklessly ambitious.
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?
Obama’s tactics appear in sync with Rove’s script. His feigned victimhood 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.



Comments (152)
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.
November 20, 2007 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
DLC?
November 20, 2007 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
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
November 20, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 20, 2007 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
DLC = Democratic Leadership Council = GOP wanabees
November 20, 2007 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
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
November 20, 2007 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
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?
November 20, 2007 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, but Clinton is in the DLC leadership group, so I doubt they would be advising Obama.
November 20, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I missunderstood your questionmark. I agree that she is the candidate of the GOP wanabee wing of the party.
November 20, 2007 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
November 20, 2007 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
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).
November 20, 2007 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
November 20, 2007 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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.
November 20, 2007 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn it!! There you go being reasonable and rational. Good post.
November 20, 2007 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 20, 2007 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because it helps to sell newspapers and get hits on their website.
November 20, 2007 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
November 20, 2007 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that's the kind of Damn it!! I like to hear!
Thanks for the response.
Seek Wisdom
November 20, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I checked all of the ratings above and the lowest one I have seen is a 2. It is the 1's and 0's that count as troll ratings. I disagree with the 2's for content but it is better than the 0's I have seen in other threads.
November 20, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
November 20, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh bullshit.
November 20, 2007 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
November 20, 2007 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 20, 2007 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rove is boring, Kristol is so-so, Novak is always entertaining.
November 20, 2007 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like what? Give us some examples of the dirty tricks.
November 20, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev, the Rosenabaum piece to which you refer doesn't mention either Obama or the Obama campaign - not once.
November 20, 2007 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
These guys are as entertaining as a heart attack. The damage they have done to America through their "opining" is immeasurable.
November 20, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I meant the rumour was common knowledge.
November 20, 2007 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
November 20, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so who has accused the Obama campaign of spreading the rumors?
November 20, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ken Silverstein, for one. This has been going on for months, with both campaigns accusing the other of spreading rumours and gossip.
November 20, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Johnson: Why would Obama focus his campaign on unfounded “smears”?
Gosh.
Could it have anything to do with this? (published 1/17/2007)
Or this? (published 1/23/07)
November 20, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
November 20, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, just as I thought - you don't have any examples. Thanks for playing, though...
November 20, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's no better than "all carrot no stick"
November 20, 2007 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
November 20, 2007 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give us a few examples.
November 20, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
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"
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.
November 20, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don Key,
truly.
November 20, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
hadenough,
You caught it too, heh heh heh :-)
November 20, 2007 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dopey? No way!
November 20, 2007 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the heads up, John.
November 20, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
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:
November 20, 2007 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
November 20, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
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"?
November 20, 2007 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
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:
Dissembling seems to be your forte'.
November 20, 2007 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It won't let me in.
I any event, you know it was an attempt at humor :-)
November 20, 2007 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
November 20, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 20, 2007 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
November 20, 2007 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
November 20, 2007 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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
November 20, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
November 20, 2007 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
November 20, 2007 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny. I suspect she sleeps with him occasionally but I have no proof.
Best, Terry
November 20, 2007 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
November 20, 2007 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 20, 2007 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
November 20, 2007 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry has a hard time saying what he REALLY thinks of Hillary. Why bother with examples when you think you are certain?
November 20, 2007 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink