Attack Timeline documents just how much Obama & Edwards have been attacking Hillary

[Karmadillo]

From the media coverage, one would assume the Clinton campaign is monotonously negative while Edwards & Obama have courageously attempted to take the high road. It appears reality is slightly more complicated.

http://www.attacktimeline.com/

[Joe the Revelator]

1. Hold on I thought whining about attacks wasn't allowed...or is that only when you're called a...

drug dealer?

[Joe the Revelator]

2. And why did Hillary not add a section on her attacks on her site?

Seems a little self serving to me.

[ElizabethDC]

5. A campaign website? Self-serving? Say it ain't so! n/t

[Joe the Revelator]

7. I'm not the one who presented it in this thread as a factual timeline

Don't fuss at me.

[maddiejoan]

11. Why didn't Obama?

I'll assume it's the same reason.

[Joe the Revelator]

12. Does Obama even have a site like this?

nt

[maddiejoan]

26. Yes

It's called "Hillary Attacks"

edit* intesting -- it was up before and part of his website --can't find it now

[Lucinda]

55. I saw it the first day it was up. The first "fact" was incorrect and supported Hillary's point.

It was about the number of people his health care policy would leave out. The article validated Hillarys claim of 15 mil, and said it was hard to tell what hers might end up being, so it contradicted his statement, and attempted to disprove hers. I didnt go back after that...but I did see it.

[ClarkUSA]

29. No, he does not have a separate website like all the ones sanctioned and paid for by Hillaryworld

All of his campaign's work is on his websiite as it should be... no misleading URLs suggesting otherwise or pro-Clinton bloggers writing hit pieces
on sites like HillaryIs44 who then write the same garbage for Huffington Post (see Taylor Marsh).

[maddiejoan]

31. He certainly does!

http://origin.barackobama.com/hillaryattacks/

[sandnsea]

33. That is connected to the campaign

Not something separate that people might not know the campaign is behind.

[maddiejoan]

34. Last week

It was accessible through the domain name

hillaryattacks.com

This has since changed for some reason, but last week it was as I say.

[tammywammy]

39. It's this

http://hillaryattacks.barackobama.com/

That's what I saw the first time it was posted on here.

[maddiejoan]

41. Thanks

[ClarkUSA]

45. Exactly.

ZING! :toast:

[aquart]

53. "Hillaryworld"?

Wow, being pro-Clinton is just the most subversive thing on your little planet.

[snowbear]

3. Rock on Edwards and Obama !!!

Glad you are better than that ~~~

Then again, look who's running the show ---->>>>

Barf !!

[Lucinda]

4. Interesting site. The design is cool and they provide source links.

Thats two good things in my book. :)

[Joe the Revelator]

8. But it only provides one side of the story.

Pretty lame in my book.

[Lucinda]

21. And it does it with facts. Which is pretty smart in my book.

[ClarkUSA]

23. What can we expect from a site run by Mark Penn and Peter Daou, the phony poll pushers?

Clearly, your high expectations are misplaced. The website is all style, no substance and meant to be spread to liberal blogs like HillaryHub, which
it links to (at the bottom). No doubt we'll soon have Clintonian blogger-stenographers picking this up soon and Hillaryworlders will be using
their clone blogs to advance their point that -- no, it's really Obama and Edwards that have gone negative and poor widdle Hillary that's defending
herself against "the boys". :eyes:

[AX10]

6. Obama is a smarmy SOB.

He talks of unity with all including the GOP but then attacks his own party member.
:thumbs:

[Joe the Revelator]

10. Yeah Hillary and her staff would NEVER attack an opponent.

Not Hills and her crew.

[AX10]

14. Obama struck first.

The "politics of hope"! :eyes:

Obama has more one liners than * did in 2000.

[Joe the Revelator]

17. All political hackery aside

You're not dumb enough to believe half of the shit that you spew, are you?

[AX10]

18. It's the truth.

On the other hand, you are a Rovian expert at spewing shit.

[Joe the Revelator]

22. When did Obama strike first? What was the exact attack?

Thanks.

[Lucinda]

25. Go check out the site. They link to outside sources.

[Joe the Revelator]

28. How does that prove that he was the first to strike? Hillary didn't include herself..

in her "factual" analysis.

[Lucinda]

37. She isn't doing any analysis. The article in question is a piece

published in the Telegraph, that states that Obama's first salvo targeted Clinton. Did you read it?

[Joe the Revelator]

38. For sake of argument...

Lets say that Obama's "first salvo" targeted Clinton. Who's to say that Clinton had fired many a salvo in his direction before he decided to hit back?

You can't tell that from Hillary's whine site, which is why her effort here is pointless. If she really was just an innocent bystander, she should have cataloged her own attacks, to show how above the fray she is.

[Lucinda]

46. Wouldn't that be made clear by the content of their comments?

If she attacked, I would think that their comments would reflect the fact that they were responding to an attack from her. Should be pretty easy to sort that out by reading them.

[Joe the Revelator]

48. You're assuming too much.

[Lucinda]

50. No. I really dont think I am. I've followed them all since the first debate.

I didn't start out supporting Hillary. And I made my final decision after watching Hillary, Edwards and Obama very carefully. I've paid attention to the rhetoric. From all of them.

Where I did assume too much, was thinking that we were having a real discussion.

We both know that a candidate under attack is going to bend over backwards to point out the infraction if they choose to defend themselves.

[Joe the Revelator]

49. 2nd of all, his "attack" was on her IWR vote...

It's going to be real hard to classify that in the same vein as someong, oh I don't know, calling him a drug dealer.

[Lucinda]

51. She never called him a drug dealer. And the articles are a mix of

personal and policy attacks.

We obviously disagree about the merit of a candidate gathering and posting these things. I wish they all would. I think it's incredibly useful. And I really hope our nominee will do it as well.

[snowbear]

13. Too moderate for your liberal likings, eh AX?

[AX10]

16. Howard Dean is in charge of the DLC now.

Stop spreading LIES!

[snowbear]

24. WTF ???????????????

"Howard Dean is in charge of the DLC now."

Harold Ford, Jr. is in charge of the DLC !!



Dr. Dean is in charge of the DNC.

---------- Are you even a Democrat?

[ClarkUSA]

32. Facts, schmacts...Clintonians don't need them to prove their points like we little people do.

Don't you know that by now? :crazy:

[AX10]

62. Wrong letter typed.

Should have been DNC.

[ClarkUSA]

15. This, from a person who thinks Obama would never be where he is if he weren't black

Racists make me sick.

[snowbear]

30. Read their post above --- they claim Howard Dean is in charge of the DLC !!!

OMGF...........

[ClarkUSA]

36. rofl! Can we nominate it for a DUzy?

OMFG is right! This is the caliber of Hillary's support here at DU in a nutshell. Emphasis on "nut".

:rofl:

By the way, have I ever told you that I enjoy your creative and Hillaryous use of emoticons greatly?

[snowbear]

40. I can't wait until MadFloridian see's that someone sez Doc Dean leads up the DLC !!

Them's fighting words!


MadFloridian... where are you when we need you?

[ClarkUSA]

43. bwahahaha!

And the offending soul would have a Clark avatar! Shades of 2003!

Too funny. I can't stop chuckling. What a moron.

[ClarkUSA]

9. Differentiating on the issues are not attacks. Questioning votes are not attacks.

But in Hillaryworld, it is, I guess. :eyes:

[sandnsea]

35. Obama's "first salvo" - the IWR

He dared to criticize her war vote, the audacity.

How stupid. I think a lot of people will see the site and get a quick lesson in why they shouldn't vote for her.

[ClarkUSA]

42. OMG -- you're right! How pathetic. How Rovian = Clintonian.

I just scanned quickly and saw the crooked lay of Hillaryland at a glance. Plus the HillaryHub and the Hillary campaign contribution link. It would be
funny if it weren't so deadly serious. It IS stupid but unfortunately, I have a feeling this website is another in a long list of surrogate Hillary campaign
URLs that will be used to fool undecideds on liberal blogs and suggestible members of the media. No other candidate does this shit but Clinton.

Watch soon for Taylor Marsh, The Left Coaster, Daily Howler and other Clintonian blogger and news surrogates to push the Obama and Edwards are
the TRUE negative campaigners, not their poor, widdle, misunderstood "girl" Hillary.

[BeyondGeography]

19. Just about all of these are comments on her record conflated into personal attacks

:boring:

[Lucinda]

20. Came back to K&R

[MadBadger]

27. And Clinton supporters get pissed that Obama makes money off attacks.

[ClarkUSA]

44. Hypocrisy is thy name, Hillaryworld.

They are just jealous because Obama is so-o-o damn good at outraising their girl in terms of primary cash. And they can only dream of
having over 95% of their donations coming from contributions of less than $200 completely sans federal lobbyist and PAC $$. All they
can say is Hillary gets the most lobbyist and PAC money than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, and that's not exactly a
ringing endorsement to anybody except the DLC and the Des Moines Register.

[aquart]

54. So Obama will sweep the primaries and you'll rejoice.

And if he doesn't you'll claim the fix was in.

But of one thing we can be certain, win or lose, you will be insulting and snide to Hillary Clinton and anyone who defends her.

But that ain't cause she's a woman, nuh uh.

[creeksneakers2]

47. Well constructed

and confirms my previous observation that Edwards is a mudslinging phony who will sink to any level to get elected. Most of the Obama stuff is in bounds but Edwards is a real jerk. At least he was until it all backfired on him.

[Adelante]

57. I noticed Edwards is finally in there

Unlike Hillaryis44, (which I don't say is an official site), where the Edwards page was blank all year no matter how much he banged on Hillary, and Obama was hit constantly even when he didn't. I guess that could change now if the campaign has decided to take the gloves off for Edwards. But it is a handsome site, I agree.

[NMMNG]

52. I'm shocked I tell you!

[Perry Logan]

56. This is too funny. There's a bloody TIMELINE of attacks on Hillary, and the Obamites are whining!

[MethuenProgressive]

60. Facts and history should be off the table as far as ObamaNation is concerned.

They'd rather believe Bob Novak's gossip and fantasize that NH co-chairs get secret messages from Hillary's black ops HQ.

[hedgehog]

58. "Attack" may or may not equal mudslinging.

Calling someone on their votes, speeches and proposals is fair play.

Distorting what someone has said or done edges into mudslinging since distortion can be in the eye of the beholder.

Whispering campaigns,questions about personal lives, outright lies and exaggerations; that's mudslinging.

[Onlooker]

59. But aren't Edwards and Obama pure as the driven snow?

Of course, Edwards and Obama are politicians just like Hillary. That's why they're among the frontrunners. What's annoying is how disingenuous they're supporters are pretending they're so much more ethical than Hillary. One of the reasons I support Obama is that he's just as manipulative as anyone else, so I think if he wins the nomination he can win the presidency.

[burythehatchet]

61. Would this be referred to as a "whineline"?