Reply #8: A spokesman for Obama, Bill Burton, did not condemn the ad or the independent spending specifically" [View All]

[Tom Rinaldo]

"Coming from a campaign that is repeatedly launching absolutely false attacks against Sen. Obama, it takes some chutzpah. The facts is their camp clearly would like to have worker's voices silences and they need to live with that unfortunate position."

This is becoming all too familiar a tactic from Obama's people. Is it not a false attack for a pro Obama group to proclaim that "Hillary Clinton does not respect our people (hispanics)"? Meanwhile Hillary got attacked for dissing Blacks by even a suggesting that Martin Luther King Jr. could not bring about a social transformation on his own without the efforts of skilled politicians nailing down new laws.

That line of attack on Clinton was fanned by Obama's people, but they didn't call it an attack, they just "responded" to what they called Clinton's poorly chosen words. But with the shoe on the other foot, they have no comment on their own Union allies poorly chosen words, instead it is another opportunity to claim that Hillary is the one who uses dirty tactics.

Give me a break. Just disown the comment, OK? It was over the top. I understand what that Union was trying to say about disenfranchizement regarding the caucus sites but they flat out globablized it into Clinton not respecting Hispanics, period. That is bullshit and polorizing. It injected race once again into the campaign. Inappropriately.

Obama's campaign goes passive aggressive a little too often for my taste. It's never them, it's always the Clinton's, or their allies, who are "negative"

What can be more negative than that ad?