Clinton campaign accuses Obama's of 'dirty tricks'

I think it more likely that Hillary is either making this up or doing it herself so she can blame it on Obama.

There is nothing she won't do.

Attack Ads Work

If i was running team Clinton?

I would be unrelenting with the pressure
on Obama.

All Presidents get tough
on their politikal competitors.

do you want to win?

no pity.
get tough

They're pulling a Romney, push polling themselves!

"(We will post the Obama campaign response as soon as we get it.)"

Didn't you just give their response above when you suggested it could be someone unaffiliated with their campaign.

And so what? Whether it's his campaign or his surrogates that allow him plausible deniability it's still dirty politics from the supposed voice of "hope" and a "New Kind of Politics" that's supposed to be free of this sort of nonsense.

Looks like the Swamp will now be working overtime as Obama's chief media strategist and PR arm.

I am continualy amazed at Clinton's hyprocrisy. I shouldn't be, I guess.

This sounds made up by the Clinton group to smear Obama.
I work for Obama in AZ.

Bigdawg-

Is Obama supposed to have a squad of thugs that go out and stop supporters from doing thing he doesn't like?

A candidate, any candidate, simply cannot control all of the actions of those who supprt them. Individuals and groups have the freedom to act in any way they like, and there is nothing that can be done to stop them. The actions can be denounced, but they cannot be stopped.

The Clinton campaign is becoming a horrible joke. They're doing exactly what they've done in the past and one of their smear tactics is to accuse an opponent of what the Clinton people are already doing. That way, when the Clintons are discovered, they can just say it's a payback conspiracy. Sound familiar? Does anyone really want these charlatans to be back in office?
And the Clinton friends in the media need to be careful if they cross them because the Clintons can employ their detectives against reporters as well as political opponents. Who knows what those reporters were up to in kindergarten?

This seems like something which could be proven fairly easily now, recording devices, caller ID ect. It seems like Hilary's camp issued a press release based on (as far as I can tell) 3 anonymous tipsters in 2 separate states. Color me skeptical.

This is what's known as a preemptive strike which the Clintons have employed before to smear an opponent. The problem is that we are not getting the full story of the Clintons. For example, why did the Tribune ignore Hillary's getting booed lustily Saturday night in Iowa? Did it not fit the template?

Luke, nice spin there. I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if it was against your boy or if it was a Republican.

No John D, I'm not that partisan. I didn't blame Bush senior for the Willie Horton ad, or Bush Junior for the Swift boat ads.

Why do you assume otherwise? Are your ethics subjective based on political party?

If this is really going on, why don't you just hang up the minute you realize that it's a smear against another candidate.
How pathetic that we get all caught up in something so trite.
Just hang up and be an adult.

I'm not going to dignify these unsubstantiated reports with a response. We all know the Clintons or at least we should, for our own good.

I may be a Republican, but this seems like the pot calling the kettle black. Especially with some of the recent comments about Obama's "Grade-School" aspirations to be President.

Maureen Taylor-

I think the point a lot of us here are trying to make is that there was no phone call. This could well be Hillary making stuff up to smear Obama with.

If you don't think she would do that you don't know the Clintons.

I may not agree with John D, Bruce and Paulo on much, but on Hillary Clinton's character they are 100% correct.

Obama never takes responsibility for anything. He would either deny it or would say he did not know about it. Do we need a president who will not take responsibility? Obama camp should have said that they would look into this and put an end to it.

In any case, voters should examine each candidate's record of accomplishments and experiences. This election is very important, and we cannot afford to elect an untested candidate like George Bush again.

This is sanctioned by the Obama camp, Luke, and you know it.

He's a hypocrite, phony and liar. His "New Politics" is nothing more than the same old dirty Chicago-style politics he's accustomed to. His campaign is operating more cynically than ever, though he claimed to want to remove cynicism from politics.

ss
"Obama camp should have said that they would look into this and put an end to it"

So if they came out with a party-line answer that would cover it for you? Come on...please don't be that naive. Show me where Hillary has taken any responsibility for anything? Including voting to support this war - she still waffles on it. Get real.

Hillary's going nuts, isn't she?

If she can't handle being slightly behind in a poll without going crazy, I don't know how she will be able to fulfill the office of president without going completely bonkers.

Let me start by saying I hate the Bush Administration.

That does not mean I will vote for any Democrat who is nominated. I will vote for the best person, whatever party, or independent.

I think the ideal Republican response to Hillary's campaign would be for Laura Bush to announce her candidacy.

"...I'm not going to dignify these unsubstantiated reports with a response.....
Posted by: Phil | December 4, 2007 12:51 PM

Yes you are and yes you did. LOL

"I may not agree with John D, Bruce and Paulo on much, but on Hillary Clinton's character they are 100% correct."

Anything Clinton can be discredited to their history. No benefit of the doubt can exist because if there was "you just don't know the Clintons." Anything John D, Bruce, and Paulo can be discredited using that same measure. No benefit of the doubt can be given because if it is "you just don't know the our Fellow Dead Ender's history." They're SOOOOOO unbiased and credible.

A negative attack against Hillary is also known as the whole unvarnished truth.

Sounds like Obama's inherited traits from cousin D. Cheney are emerging ;)

Luke, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then.

Too funny, er John E., please provide examples of when the Left has ever had any credibility on anything.

Ah, desperation brings out the best in people

"Too funny, er John E., please provide examples of when the Left has ever had any credibility on anything."

John D, er Mark Silva,I'll provide examples when you provide that I'm John E. (Again, I'm not.) Now, don't you worry, I won't leave you hanging buttercup.

Clinton bombed "Bosnia/ Kosovo" for "47 straight days." (You agreed something needed to be done..hahaha)

How's it feel to taste your own medicine in order to relive you of that amnesia ... never say "ever."

I am waiting for Clinton and Obama to burn themselves out on each other. That will leave the reasonable ones: Edwards, Biden, Dodd or Kucinich.

Too funny, pretty poor attempts at making a point. Perhaps you aren't John E. Maybe, it's more like John E-lite.

Anyway, "John D., er Mark Silva"? Yep, keep smoking the dope there.

Oh, and while I agree something needed to be done in Bosnia/Kosovo, I'm making a point, which I'll spell out for you.
Was there genocide taking place there? Not really.
Clinton spoke of hundreds of thousands being killed. We found fewer than 20,000 graves. The left was quiet about regime change and our invasion, which was NOT UN approved. The Left was quiet about bombing a soveriegn nation and killing innocent people. So, you folks were quiet and apparently OK with what took place there, but not OK with doing the same thing in Iraq? That's called hypocrisy, dear, too funny.

Buttercup,

If you want to accuse me of being John E and feel justified in calling me John E, than you are the one smoking the dope. I'm only smoking the blunt you passed to me.

Thank you for YOUR attempt at snake charming. Now belly dance to this.

YOU said "provide examples of when the Left has EVER had ANY credibility on ANYTHING."

I provided you with an example that proves your allegation is farce. Are you now telling me that the left had no credibility in bombing Bosnia/Kosovo? You better not be since your often cited and equally much anticipated argument (4:38) can only stand when bombing Bosnia/ Kosovo is considered a credible action. You considered it credible when you said something needed to be done. You consider it credible when you use it to point out the hypocrisy in the left. You are not credible when you deny the credibility of a whole party, and then continue to argue that actions by that party, Clinton in Bosnia/Kosovo, are credible enough to argue for actions by President Bush in Iraq.

In other news, "the kettle called the pot 'whitey.'"

Too funny, in regard to Kosovo and Bosnia, Republicans also were calling for some sort of action.

If anything, Clinton waited too long to do anything. But, anyway, taking action on Bosnia was not a left function, there was pretty much unanimous agreement. Hmmm, sort of like in 2002 when most Democrats supported action against Iraq too.

Buttercup,

A) Not ALL Republicans unanimously liked the idea. REAL Republicans questioned action in Bosnia/Kosovo. Real Republicans were critical of any ground troop engagement.

"An almost total lack of clarity and coherence as to the outcome the Administration's policy is designed to produce, as well as how that outcome serves the national interest of the United States; and"

"It is imperative that Congress compel the Clinton Administration honestly to address these flaws in its policy before U.S. forces are committed to Kosovo. Indeed, the fact that comparable questions were not answered with respect to the Bosnia deployment (and in most cases still have not been answered) is one reason the Bosnia operation has now become precisely what the Administration promised Congress and the American people it would not be: an ill-defined, open-ended nation-building project -- with no end in sight.

This paper argues that in Kosovo, as in Bosnia, future NATO enforcement of a jerrybuilt "settlement" may be designed less to protect American interests than to suit the short-term political needs of the Clinton Administration.
NATO enforcement of a jerrybuilt "settlement" in Kosovo may be designed less to protect American interests that to suit the short-term political needs of the Clinton Administration. And, as in Bosnia, the United States may soon find itself serving the purposes of the most unsavory elements on all sides of an ethnic conflict."

http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1998/kosovo.htm

The ideas to intervene were liberal war hawks ideas. At that time the mere thought of foreign intervention, let alone foreign intervention based on ill-defined national security interest or solely based on morality, was not well received by the public in general, let alone Republicans.

B) It does not make a difference. Clinton is a yucky liberal right?

"You are not credible when you deny the credibility of a WHOLE party, and then continue to argue that actions by THAT PARTY (That includes ANY ACTIONS by ANY of its PARTY MEMBERS), Clinton in Bosnia/Kosovo, are credible enough to argue for actions by President Bush in Iraq."

It does not matter if "Republicans" were on it too. It does not matter if "the Left" are hypocrites. The only comparison being made is YOUR accusations of credibility, and YOUR actions that prove your accusations false. The whole point is the left was there correct. Last time I checked "unanimously" involves both parties so YOU make my point--the left took part in something credible while you continue to deny they have any credibility what's so "ever". In this respect the only hypocrite in the room is YOU.

Keep spinning those tires, buttercup.

I believe that Hillary is making this up or doing it herself so she can blame it on Obama. There is something a candidate will not do in order to win.
I also believe that candidates can not control every one of their supporters opinions/acts.