« Political Parties: How Many are Too Many?
Can This New Poll Be Right? Well, Maybe . . . »



Clinton Supporter Spreads Info Alleging Obama Link To 70s Radicals

April 19th, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief

Print Print

It’s increasingly clear that the Clinton campaign’s negativity is so intense that it will eventually be compared to the infamous negative number Republicans George Bush and Karl Rove played on Senator John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary — but the Clinton campaign’s negativity is unrelenting….and now offers a new twist:

In the latest melody in the medley of personal attack politics, a Clinton supporter is putting out information alleging rival Senator Barack Obama is linked to 70s radicals…but saying this is how the REPUBLICANS will do it. It’s the perfect cover story for deniability. We’re not saying it, this is what the Republicans will say.

From The Huffington Post (which seems to be breaking campaign news that’s giving both sides headaches these days):

A high-ranking labor supporter of Hillary Clinton is distributing to union leaders and to Democratic strategists a document detailing the radical activities of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, two former members of the ’70s group the Weather Underground, who decades later, in Chicago, crossed paths with Barack Obama.

The document - a three-page emailed essay by Rick Sloan, communications director for the International Association of Machinists as Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) — takes both literary and political license to outline what Sloan believes would be the thrust of a hypothetical Republican campaign against Obama focusing on his tangential connection to Ayers and Dohrn.

The goal of the essay appears to be to discredit Obama as the prospective Democratic presidential nominee.

Indeed: seldom in the recent primary histories of either party has there been such a steady, unceasing campaign to raise the negatives of an opposing candidate (and one who is likely to get the nomination). All primaries have some of it. But the Clinton campaign is now seemingly COMPRISED of it. (Even Hillary Clinton’s argument to voters in Pennsylvania is negative today: she’s telling them not to “throw away your vote” on primary day…which is not exactly a long argument as to why voters should vote for her and what positive things she can do for the country).
But there is more to the HP piece:

The most damaging new material cited by Sloan appears in a link to an FBI Freedom of Information web site — where a viewer can examine hundreds of pages of a study of the Weather Underground and its leaders, written in 1976 by the Chicago FBI office, just at the group was disintegrating at the end of the Vietnam War.

Sloan contends that the purpose of his document is to outline what he conjectures will be the tactics of Republican operative Karl Rove, an informal adviser to John McCain’s campaign, if Obama is the nominee. The title of Sloan’s paper is: “What Is Rove Up To?”

Actually, there are no signs that Rove is up to to anything on this issue…yet.

But it’s clear the Clinton campaign is reducing his workload in months to come.

Rove may be able to take two weeks of vacation time in Palm Springs if they keep doing his legwork for him.

For the Republican perspective, be sure to read Ed Morrissey. Here’s a small part of what he writes:

We could see this coming for months, and the results should be delicious. Huffington Post writer Tom Edsall reveals that a union has developed an extensive and detailed attack on Barack Obama’s connection with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the former Weather Underground terrorists, while at the same time deriding it as “McCarthyism”. How do they square that circle? They wrap it into a cautionary message that asks, “What will Karl do?”:

Well, this is really convenient, isn’t it? Not only can they indulge in what they call McCarthyism, they can blame their bete noir Karl Rove for it before he even utters a word. This frees up both Democratic contenders to fling as much mud at each other under the WWKD concept. We can call it pre-emptive McCarthyism, another great concept in campaigning from the people who brought us the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Then Morrissey writes:

Meanwhile, the real Karl Rove can sit on the sidelines while the Democrats diminish themselves at the speed of light in an orgy of hypocrisy. That’s what this really is — a way to campaign hard while blaming others for the damage it causes, as hypocritical an effort as one will ever see in politics.

I never thought I’d use that dreaded word, but:

Ditto.



This entry was posted on Saturday, April 19th, 2008 at 10:48 am and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Democratic Party, Primaries, Negative Campaigning, Pennsylvania, Elections, Barack Obama, 2008 Elections, Democrats, Karl Rove, Hillary Clinton, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 4 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Since the polls show that these attacks don't help Hillary, and may actually be hurting her, this strategy confuses me. Andrew Sullivan (who admittedly froths at the mouth every time Clinton's name is mentioned) has claimed it is a part of a strategy to ensure McCain beats Obama, opening up a chance for Hillary to run again in 2012, but that reeks a bit too much of conspiracy theories to seem likely.

    As a result I'm left wondering what the goal of the attacks is. While Hillary may not be the most trustworthy person ever to take to the campaign trail, she's definitely one of the smarter ones to do so, so there has to be a reason behind the current strategy. If anyone has any idea what that might be I'd be interested in knowing.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, I agree with the sentiment, but a high-ranking member of the Aerospace Workers union isn't particularly high in the Clinton campaign rankings. It seems like good evidence about the bitterness with which many supporters operate, but I can't blame Clinton too much for this. Or should I?
    • ^
    • v
    pacatrue - While it may be true that a union head is not a member of the Clinton campaign, the broader concern is that Clinton has given her sanction to these sorts of attacks. From the question about the Weather Underground during Wednesday's debate:

    "Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position. ...So it is -- I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about. And I have no doubt -- I know Senator Obama's a good man and I respect him greatly, but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising."

    Throughout the debate she had the opportunity to state that these lines of attack are inappropriate, but instead she gave her approval to them. Similarly, her current TV ads that are beating the "bitter" comments to death show a willingness to embrace these types of distractions. As a result, it seems fair to lay some blame on Senator Clinton when these attacks continue and are expanded on.
    • ^
    • v
    I once met Ayers and his quondam girl-friend Diana Oughton [she was gorgeous, he should have been in that Greenwich Village townhouse] during a flirtation with SDS in Ann Arbor. If Obama were serious about a national political career, he should not have been so naive as to associate & continue to associate with Ayers & Dohrn. What is the statute of limitations on a self-confessed terrorist who only regrets he didn't do more [ironically in an NYT article on 9/11/01]? This after the Obamas became friends with the Ayer household. Obama might say he was unaware of Ayers' felonious actions [thrown out of court by a leftist judge], but then he would appear naive.

    I know the superior intellects of the MSM elites will dismiss this association, as well as that with Rev Wright, as "trivial," but it appears from the latest Gallup poll that Hillary has picked up momentum nationally and will be harder to discard by the superior intellects of the DNC & Dr. Dean.

    A lot of people don't think associating with "former" terrorists who regret not having blown up more US installations is "trivial." Perhaps a majority of voting Americans will feel that way the first Tuesday in November.

    And even a union official might have understood that in the general, HRC might have a better shot at the WH than Obama.
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Political Parties: How Many are Too Many?
Can This New Poll Be Right? Well, Maybe . . . »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.