By the logic of many DUers, Obama should raise Whitewater, Travelgate, Lewinsky, Hillary's futures

[undercoverduer]

. . .trading, etc. This crap that some folks spew when defending some of the Clinton camp (surrogates) attacks on Obama is pure and utter nonsense. We you make the argument that her supporters are not doing anything that the GOP would do is silly.

I assume if Obama starts going after her on any of those issues as well as others he would be excused because he is not doing anything the GOP wouldn't do.

[Crazy Dave]

1. I don't think Obama would

But you can't count on the bloggers, the media and some of his supporters doing it. I personally think he is an honorable man and cannot be responsible for the actions of others not working directly in his campaign.

[undercoverduer]

3. Either way, what do you think of the defense that its acceptable because. . .

. . .its nothing the GOP wouldn't do.

[Crazy Dave]

16. It's not acceptable in my opinion

But do count on it.

[Tellurian]

17. Fine by us.. we have no fear or the Truth..as you've noticed her numbers rise..

the more mud you sling..please have at it!

[ccpup]

2. and the American People

having been down that road before will shrug their shoulders and say "yeah, we heard that all before and didn't care back about it back when the repugs were shoving it down our throats"

But potential scandals about Obama will be more salacious because 1) you don't have to blow the dust off them to use them and 2) he's a virtual unknown and, therefore, any potentially salacious info will be poured over, discussed, debated and kept in the news media for weeks.

Especially as he's sold himself as the Candidate of Hope and Change. That's a mighty easy pedestal for the media to knock someone off of. And it sells papers/gets viewers.

Welcome to National Politics.

[undercoverduer]

4. Regardless based on the logic of many DUers wouldn't you agree that he is only. . .

. . .doing what the GOP would do so no one should have a problem with it?

[ClarkUSA]

7. But, but, but... Hillary "has always been a change agent". I heard Bill say so!

:rofl:

[undercoverduer]

8. LOL

:kick:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

15. Sorry, I don't buy that.

People have an incredible capacity for remembering things and holding grudges. Wingnut guys I work with STILL bring up Monica Lewinsky like it happened yesterday. They still talk about Chappaquiddick fergodssake! Hell, the Civil War happened almost 150 years ago and there are parts of the country where they haven't gotten over it. It's not that they are the majority of the country by any means but these are the people who will come out in droves if Sen. Clinton is the nominee. Not only will it be tough to win the Presidency, but we may lose some Congressional seats. I've got a lot of experience in local races and I can tell you that a lot of Dems and Independents undervote in them. They'll vote President and nothing else. Republicans are much better at voting all the way down the ballot.

[liberalnurse]

24. I hope he does...

Shows his need to talk about someone and something since he's outt of momentum. Clinton has been successful when addressing all the tabloid chatter.

[Adelante]

30. The nature of potential "salacious" scandals is that they are new

Yes. (Although you still haven't provided anything new and "salacious" about Obama.) You act as though there are no new scandals to be uncovered about the Clintons, because you pretend they were only alive in the 90s. They've made a lot of money since then, for one thing, and the potential for scandal in the making of personal fortune in a few short years is always a good potential. A close look at Edwards' money, tripled since 2004, to take a different candidate as an example, cannot but hurt him, because of the current dive the economy has taken directly attributable to his investments. I don't know if a closer look at the Clintons' new money would produce "salacious" details leading to potential scandal, but you don't know that about Obama, either. Still you are comfortable spreading the possibility from one thread to another. Perhaps I will go look for some recent accusations against the Clintons, so I can join you in playing this game, because I am truly getting sick of this bullshit.

[ccpup]

35. you don't think the MSM

will look more deeply into the potential of his sweetheart land deal with the Mafia guy? Or the stock options he picked up from some of his biggest campaign donors? Or breaking FEC law by doing campaign business out of his Senate Office?

If you're sick of this "bullshit", then you're living in a fantasy world when it comes to Obama and how the MSM will literally eat him alive in the General. This "bullshit" will happen 24/7. He's new to National Politics and, by the time he's recuperated from the out-of-the-blue sucker punch and regrouped, whatever "scandal" they dug up will already be a part of the lexicon for the American Voter.

And, you're right, I DON'T KNOW about scandals associated with Obama and, frankly, I'd prefer not to see them. But if the MSM and the repuglicans can turn a brave career as a soldier into a running -- and damaging -- joke using purple band-aids, then what oh what will they do with the few examples I offered above with a man who doesn't have experience with the National Media and might be caught flat-footed?

[undercoverduer]

45. Again, by your logic then it is COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE for Obama to offering up new GOP talking . . .

. . .points on Clinton because sooner or later the MSM will and if she can't stand the heat she should get out of the kitchen.

[ccpup]

51. not like it's surprising to see

Obama turn to GOP Talking Points ... again.

[Adelante]

49. Who the hell says the MSM and the RNC won't go after Obama?

Everybody knows they will go after Obama and anybody else who is the Dem nominee.

The bullshit I am sick of is from you with your incessant posting of imaginary scandals and fear-baiting.

Here is Obama's haul - let them fucking make something of it - or will a $30M fortune or a $54M fortune built over a few years provide riper pickings in a year the economy is nose diving? Should we worry about that? :scared:

Net Worth: $1.3 million

Where he got it

After Harvard Law, Obama didn’t exactly rake in the big bucks. He led a voter-registration drive and then worked for a Chicago law firm that specializes in civil rights and employment discrimination.

He earned $60,000 as an Illinois state senator, plus another $32,000 as a lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

Michelle Obama, however, worked for a while as a big-firm lawyer, leaving to take jobs in the nonprofit sector. She wound up as vice president for community affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a position that paid nearly $317,000 a year.

She resigned in May and also left her post as lead independent director of Tree House Foods, a private-label food business.

According to the Obamas’ tax return (Obama and Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut are the only candidates to release one), their income hit $1.7 million in 2005 and $991,000 in 2006.

The big boost came from his writing, following the stirring speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention that made him famous.

First came a memoir, “Dreams of My Father,” and later “The Audacity of Hope,” which was on the New York Times bestseller list for 30 weeks.

Where it goes

Excluding Michelle Obama’s retirement plan, whose value needn’t be reported, the couple has about $715,000 in investments. All the money except for two very large checking accounts is in mutual funds.

About $350,000 is divided between Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund, a socially responsible fund, and Vanguard Wellesley Income, which has a mix of 60 percent bonds and 40 percent stocks.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/5.html

[ccpup]

52. if my Posts are that upsetting for you

then perhaps you should discontinue responding to them. :shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

62. No one is saying that but it's a convenient Hillaryworld rationalization for their attacks on Obama.

It's the Bill Shaheen way!

[wyldwolf]

5. one of his supporters on DU enjoys raising RW points about Clinton

[undercoverduer]

That is not the point of the OP. . .the question is what do you think of defending. . .

. . .that action by claiming that its justified because its the same thing the GOP would do and Hillary and her supporters should just accept it.

[Forkboy]

11. And you rush to defend all the candidates from that? Or just Hillary?

I asked you last week, after you accused me of not defending Hillary from RW attacks, if you had ever defended anyone but her. You skipped out on that thread toot sweet. You don't care if RW points are used, just so long as it isn't against Clinton.

I'll ask again. Have you EVER defended another candidate besides Hillary from RW talking points?

[wyldwolf]

41. I'm sorry. Does the DUer raise RW points about other candidates? I haven't seen that.

:shrug:

[Forkboy]

43. When others do you're silent. Unless Hillary is the target, of course.

Then suddenly they suck again.

[wyldwolf]

48. I'm referring to one specific DUer using specific Hannity/Limbaugh attack pieces

I've yet to see anyone else do that on DU.

[Forkboy]

50. I know who you're refering to.

But he's far from alone in using lousy sources to prove a (weak) point. Just the other day a Hillary supporter used Newsmax, Hannity and Limbaugh to prove a point.

Even the rabidly right wing Newsmax.com is caught up in the Obama pity strategy. In an article entitled simply Hillary Attacks Obama, the article talks about Hillary taking Obama to task over his charges over her vote on Kyle/Lieberman. Obama has managed to gain pity while at the same time avoiding an explanation of why he was not present for the vote on Kyle/Lieberman.

Want more Obama pity? Just listen to Hannity or Rush. I wrote in my journal the other day about how it seems everytime I listen to Rush or Hannity I hear about how the mean 'ol Hillary is attacking poor little Obama. They know full well a lot of Democrats like me don't have access to Air America during the day in the car and are stuck with them. So they are playing the pity card for Obama every chance they get.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3884956&mesg_id=3884956

[wyldwolf]

56. umm...

1. How do you know this guy is a Hillary supporter?
2. He wasn't using RW talking points against Obama unless you believe stating Hillary attacks Obama is a rightwing talking point, to which I would many Obama fans say the same thing.

Aside from a fairly unbalanced rant, the author did not use any rightwing talking points against Obama. He used both righwing and Democratic sources to try and make a point.

That is long way from claiming Clinton turned down Obama and Sandy Berger stuffed classified documents in his pants.

[LWolf]

6. I don't really care what he does one way or another,

as long as he doesn't win the nomination. He can prove his worth in the Senate, if he feels the need to do so.

[ClarkUSA]

9. You're absolutely right, although unlike Hillary, Obama isn't running a BS Rovian campaign.

That doesn't mean we can't bring up these points everytime the Bill Shaheen apologists repeat their swift boating rationalizations
around here. ;-)

[MethuenProgressive]

13. He's been running a straight forward Rovian campaign since March of '05

Pro-Obama Video Mashes Hillary Footage With 1984 Apple Ad ...Pro-Obama Video Mashes Hillary Footage With 1984 Apple Ad - The Huffington Post.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/03/05/proobama-video-mashes-hi_n_42693.html - 61k -

[undercoverduer]

14. So are you ever going to have anything nice to say about Richardson?

You know to justify your "cover" LOL

[MethuenProgressive]

20. Donate. Do a search. Then post a retraction.

"undercover" = "sock puppet"

[undercoverduer]

23. No need to post a retraction. . .

. . .there is nothing to retract. . .LOL

[MethuenProgressive]

26. So the "undercover" gimmick is to get away with calling other DUers liars?

:puke:

[undercoverduer]

28. Not at all, but when you notice a pattern there is no need to stay silent. . .

:kick:

[MethuenProgressive]

33. It admits to sockpuppetry 'my day job requires me to be undercover when commenting on certain issues

How many names are you logged on as this afternoon?

[ClarkUSA]

57. It's against DU rules to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet, MP.

You may want to stop.

[ClarkUSA]

55. Oh, cut it out... why are you so defensive?

It's clear to everyone who you are really for by who you keep defending.

[ClarkUSA]

53. lol! That anti-Hillary ad was made by a guy WHO WORKS FOR RICHARDSON NOW

:rofl:

The Obama campaign had NOTHING to do with that independent ad and the guy admitted it -- after he was fired by his boss
but BEFORE HE JOINED THE RICHARDSON CAMPAIGN.

[ThatPoetGuy]

19. Obama is running a COMPLETELY Rovian campaign.

A whisper campaign of lies and innuendo about anyone who talks honestly about his policies. Obama's supporters are spreading talking-points about Krugman, aimed to smear the man while taking the attention away from a fair critique. The aim is to ruin him, ruin the progressive who spoke out, and intimidate the rest of the liberal editorialists and thinkers into falling in line.

His camp's attack on the unions has been nasty and dishonest. They ran a COMPLETELY innocuous ad, and Obama's supporters smeared the unions for using a 527. They used the 527 in an ethical manner, but that doesn't matter to the Obama/Gibbs campaign.

Obama is running a dirty, disgusting, and evil campaign to destroy good people who care about America, and doing all this while giving us empty rhetoric about "hope."

[ClarkUSA]

34. What an Orwellian outcry! Examples of Rovian-Clintonian attacks:

Having Bill Shaheen "wondering" whether Obama was a drug dealer IS Rovian.

Having Bob Kerrey "complimenting" Obama on his "Muslim" family background and "praising" Obama's attending "a secular madrassa"
is Rovian.

Having Clinton county coordinators/regional directors repeatedly send out "Obama is a dangerous Muslim Manchurian Candidate who
attended madrassa" emails is Rovian.

Pro-Clintonian Iowa push polls attacking Obama's and Edwards' policy positions erroneously is Rovian.

P.S. Krugman has been debunked by more people than the Obama campaign. Pointing out Krugman is full of BS is not Rovian.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of using 527s while decrying 527s on the campaign trail is not Rovian.

Like all the Hillaryworld partisans around here, you're confusing truth with lies. Like candidate, like supporter. :hi:

[ThatPoetGuy]

39. Not a Hillary supporter.

I'm for Edwards, or Kucinich, or Biden.

Krugman's statements haven't been debunked. Obama partisans have spread false claims that he's biased. They've spread a LOT of these falsehoods. This is known as swiftboating: attack the man himself with such a cloud of falsehoods it becomes difficult to see the truth.

The cowardice of John Kerry, the dishonesty of Paul Krugman: these are just big clouds of lies. Rove was responsible for one, Obama the other. They are equally reprehensible.

You could take a brick and smash me in the face with it. That would be a misuse of the brick. You can also build a house with bricks. Bricks have some small potential to be misused. 527s have a greater potential to be misused.

The unions did not misuse the 527s.

The unions used 527s to pay for an ad saying that they wanted better health care, less dependence on oil, and so on, and they said that Edwards has a plan to help. That's the ad that Obama decried. It was completely fair and above-board. They built a house with their bricks, they didn't hide behind a shadowy consortium to overwhelm Obama with scurrilous personal attacks. But Obama suggested they did. Obama made it look like the unions, buying airtime to state a fair opinion, were doing something scummy. And that affects the way people view the unions. And that's as Rovian as it gets.

[MethuenProgressive]

42. It's an ObamaNation delusion.

"If you don't worship our idol, you must be a HillBot!"
DU's ObamaNation is a one trick pony. And the trick sucks.

[ClarkUSA]

46. How's your alleged support for Richardson going?

:eyes:

[MethuenProgressive]

54. "If you don't worship our idol, you must be a HillBot!"

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

58. Your needle is beginning to skip. Better call Mark Penn so he can replace it.

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

44. You are an apologist for candidate hypocrisy at the very least. Here is Krugman debunked (links):

"Not according to Robert Reich, who has much more cred than Krugman in economics AND policymaking..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3806130&mesg_id=3806287

"Krugman, the Times Oped Page, and Obama"
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/krugman-times-oped-page-and-obama.html

"Why Paul Krugman Is Wrong About Health Mandates"
http://sentineleffect.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/why-paul-krugman-is-wrong-about-health-mandates/

"Jonathan Alter Explains Why Krugman is Wrong"
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2551

527s are a huge FEC loophole. Obama didn't attack the ad's content, just the seeming hypocrisy of Edwards' decrying 527s on the campaign trail
for months while accepting his former campaign manager's and political director's 527 help during the campaign. Anyway, we'll let the voters
decide who's talking out of both sides of his mouth, eh? Obama publicly told a pro-Obama 527 not to make commercials for him many months
ago. Why didn't Edwards?

[undercoverduer]

47. "He told a pro-Obama 527 to not make any commercials for him"

Impressive.

[ClarkUSA]

63. Yup, Obama preempted any 527 problems months ago...

Whereas if Edwards had had the ethical foresight to do that, he wouldn't be encountering these headlines now:

"John Edwards busted on 527?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3892442&mesg_id=3892442

[ThatPoetGuy]

59. And you are an apologist for truly evil actions.

Responding to Krugman's analysis is one thing, but Obama started the whisper-and-lie campaign that suggested Krugman was being dishonest. Can't be trusted, don't you know. Don't believe a word he says.

This IS swiftboating. It IS dishonest.

Krugman gave an informed opinion. Reich and Alter gave informed opinions that conflict with Krugman. Cohn, who knows more about healthcare economics, has an informed opinion that conflicts with Reich and Alter. All of that is okay: well-intentioned people disagreeing knowledgeably.

Obama's campaign did not respond with good intentions. They did not respond honestly. They posted a few quotes from Krugman out of context, distorted them, and then pretended the distorted quotes contradicted each other. The purpose of this was to raise questions about Krugman's HONESTY, not his analysis. This was character assassination in place of dialogue. This was straight out of Rove's playbooks.

Obama's smear on Krugman spread across the blogosphere and the editorial pages. The talking-point has blown up into full-scale hit pieces in HuffPo and elsewhere, and none of the suggestions about Krugman's honesty are grounded in anything factual.

Dispute his analysis or his conclusions. But calling him biased, or calling him a liar, or saying we shouldn't trust him -- that's just vile.

This is a smear, and it is sticking. It is appalling, and it is evil, and it is straight out of Rove.

-----

I do have to say, I wonder if my candidate would still have the moral high ground if he weren't running third. As it is, he's way ahead of Hillary, and Hillary is way ahead of Obama. She may have allowed her campaign to spread dirty rumors about Obama, but at least she hasn't launched a completely baseless character assassination on a great progressive voice.

[ClarkUSA]

61. *yawn*

:nopity:

[MethuenProgressive]

10. Obama already has - using weasel words.

"re-fight all the battles of the 90s" etc.

[undercoverduer]

12. So that is a GOP talking point? Let's humor you and pretend it is. . .

. . .wouldn't that be justifiable given the logic used to defend Hillary's right wing attacks on Obama.

[MethuenProgressive]

18. When will Obama call for an end to his email smear campaign against Clinton?

If, as you claim, the candidate is responsible for everything done in his/her name...

[ClarkUSA]

22. Pssst... It's Clinton staffers who've swift boated Obama via their "madrassa" emails

:eyes:

[undercoverduer]

25. Do you really think facts matter to those who pretend to support one candidate. . .

. . .while attacking another on a different candidates behalf? You know sort of like that AFSCME mailer crafted to look like it came from the Edwards folks. . .LOL

[MethuenProgressive]

27. Another "undercover" post calling me a liar.

You're a mod, right?

[undercoverduer]

29. lol

Am I getting to you?

[MethuenProgressive]

32. Laugh all the way to your tombstone, sockpuppetduer

[undercoverduer]

37. Have fun trying to make that happen. . .

. . .:kick:

[ClarkUSA]

38. Funny you should take it that way, MP.

Did he mention you by name?

[undercoverduer]

40. Of course I didn't mention anyone by name. . .more importantly. . .

. . .I don't think I would be in danger of being tombstoned. I raise issues and try to advance discussions. While some of my threads I have been controversial I'm not here to start flamebait.

[ClarkUSA]

60. You're bulletproof... MP is flipping out because he can't address the impeccable logic of your OP.

He's broken DU rules by accusing you of being a sockpuppet. If he continues, he's the one who's in danger of being tombstoned.

As for you, you've been very good at fact-finding and offering logical counter-arguments that turn Hillaryworlders' memes on their ear, which
drives Clintonian apologists/partisans/acolytes batty -- even more so than usual. I can see how good you must be at your day job. ;-)

[ClarkUSA]

36. lol! So true, so true. You're much too quick for them, undercoverduer!

That's a fine reminder to me and others... and what a great OP. My hat's off to you. ;-)

[ClarkUSA]

21. Yeah, he should refer to all the crap the Clintons put America through by name, one by one...

Instead of pointing out the obvious in a classy, gentlemanly way. :eyes:

[zbdent]

31. I've been saying (not recently, but historically) that the ONE thing we should

have adopted from St. Reagan was the tactic of doing the Republicans' dirty work for them and totally trying to destroy ourselves in the circular firing squad ...