Optimistic Ickes pans Penn's pessimism

THE TRAIL A DAILY DIARY OF CAMPAIGN 2008

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/18/trying_to_heal_a_rift_in_new_h_1.html

Trying to Heal a Rift in New Hampshire
By Alec MacGillis


Three New Hampshire Democratic leaders who signed a letter two days before the state's primary at the request of Hillary Clinton's campaign, attacking Barack Obama as soft in his support for abortion rights, are asking Obama supporters in the state to put the rifts of the primary campaign behind them and praising Obama for being "strongly pro-choice."

Of the two dozen prominent women who signed the critical letter, e-mailed by the Clinton campaign to a list of supporters and undecided voters, three have now signed their names to another missive asking abortion rights supporters in the state to come together and take comfort in the fact that all of the Democratic presidential candidates are firmly pro-choice.

One of the three Clinton supporters went even further, saying in an interview Thursday that signing the letter attacking Obama was a "mistake."
Katie Wheeler, a former state senator, said the Clinton campaign had not given her background information about Obama's record on abortion rights when it asked her to sign the letter calling him weak on the issue, and said that, as a result, she did not understand the context of the votes that the letter was attacking him over.

"It should never have gotten to the point where anyone thought Obama was not pro-choice," said Wheeler, a founder of the New Hampshire chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "I don't think the Clinton campaign should have done that. It was divisive and unnecessary...I think it was a mistake and I've spoken to the national [Clinton campaign] and told them it caused problems in New Hampshire, and am hoping they won't do it again."

The new letter and comments by Wheeler are the latest twist in a back-and-forth that Obama supporters believe did real damage to his campaign in the final days in New Hampshire, though Wheeler said she doubted that the e-mail had that much impact in the final day of the race. "I don't think this one thing would sway people," she said.

Nonetheless, the conflict over Obama's "present" -- rather than "yes" or "no" -- votes on abortion bills in the Illinois legislature has left behind such deep divisions among the state's Democrats that some Obama supporters vowed, in the wake of her come-from-behind N.H. win, not to vote for Clinton, should she become the party's nominee.

The e-mail arrived in selected New Hampshire in-boxes shortly after a postcard from the Clinton campaign that attacked Obama for being "unwilling to take a stand for choice" was mailed to homes.

"The difference between Hillary's repeatedly standing up strong on choice and Obama's unwillingness to vote 'yes' or 'no' is a clear contrast, and we believe the voters in New Hampshire deserve to know this difference," the e-mail stated. "We support Hillary Clinton because she never ducked when choice was at stake."

The Clinton campaign has made the same charge repeatedly over the past year, including a couple weeks before the Iowa caucus.

The Obama campaign had rebuffed it by invoking statements by an Illinois Planned Parenthood official, who said the "present" votes were part of a deliberate strategy to protect other pro-choice legislators, other than Obama, in vulnerable districts.

But the fresh New Hampshire attack arrived much closer to election day, leaving the Obama forces scrambling to respond by rushing out an automated phone call on the evening of Jan. 6, two days before the vote. On primary day, Clinton won by two percentage points after trailing in the final polls by as much as 10 percent, thanks in large part to a last-minute surge in support from women.

The new e-mail seeking conciliation was signed by five prominent Clinton supporters in the state -- including Wheeler, House Speaker Terie Norelli, and state senator Maggie Hassan, the three who signed the initial attack. The letter, which was also signed by several Obama supporters, states that "many of us...engaged in good faith in the rough and tumble of competitive politics. In doing so, feelings have been bruised and some deep anger has emerged." It goes on to downplay the dispute created by the initial e-mail as "nuanced differences" which should not be allowed to "drain our energy."

And it concludes, in seeming contrast to the initial attack on Obama's abortion rights credentials, that

"The good news is that all of the candidates within the Democratic Party are strongly pro-choice and we should be proud that our efforts have led to such a solid field. "
In the interview

Thursday, Wheeler said she was not aware of the explanation of Obama's present votes by Illinois Planned Parenthood when she agreed to sign the critical letter at the request of Clinton officials in New Hampshire.

"What we didn't know was the circumstances of those Illinois pro-choice votes. Since then we've learned that it was the plan of the pro-choice community in Illinois. These were subtleties that those of us in the Clinton campaign here didn't understand," she said. "I for one did not understand the present votes....I did not know the full context."

Wheeler said she regretted the ill will it had caused. "I'm sorry there was a misunderstanding, and we're hoping to heal divisions that still may exist," she said. "It's a real pity it got so intense, but that's what happens in that close an election.

People get impassioned and lose their judgment..It was the heat of emotions in a tight election where everybody cared deeply about the issue, and many of us over-reacted.

"

The other two Clinton supporters who signed both the critical e-mail and the conciliatory one stood more strongly by the initial one. Sen. Hassan said she, too, was unaware of the Illinois Planned Parenthood defense of Obama at the time she signed the critical letter, that she had only been told by the Clinton campaign that the Illinois chapter of NOW had cited concerns about Obama's present votes.

She said it was wrong for anyone to suggest that Obama was not pro-choice, and that she was sorry about the upset that the letter had caused.
But Hassan stood by what she said was the main point of the initial e-mail, that Clinton was the most staunchly pro-choice Democrat. "All of the leading Democratic candidates are strongly pro-choice but I think Hillary's record is unparalleled. I stand by what I signed before the election and don't think it's inconsistent with" the new e-mail stating that Obama is strongly pro-choice, Hassan said.

"Everybody's going to interpret these letters and e-mails as they want to." 

Norelli, the House Speaker, said she had been aware of the Planned Parenthood defense of Obama's Illinois record at the time she signed the critical e-mail but was comfortable with the letter's attack against Obama

nonetheless, noting the concerns of the Illinois NOW chapter had raised about the votes.

"I would say that the record is clear that he voted 'present' seven times. Planned Parenthood, some of the time at least, says it was part of a deal.

Well, NOW says that in 2004, they chose not to endorse Sen. Obama" because of the votes, Norelli said. "I would say every voter needs to have all the factual information and each individual needs to make their own decision."

As for the new conciliatory note, Norelli said there was no inconsistency in calling Obama "strongly pro-choice" after attacking him on the present votes. "I would take any of the Democratic candidates on issues of choice over any of the Republican candidates. But I would take Hillary Clinton and her leadership on choice over Senator Obama," she said.

Norelli said the purpose of the latest e-mail was to help calm the ruffled feathers of the Obama supporters.

"We are working to heal any problems that there are among the Democrats and looking forward to working together closely," she said.

"They have time to get over it."

One of the Obama supporters who signed the reconciliation e-mail,

Mary Rauh, said she did so because she was very worried that the rift created by the primary could seriously harm abortion rights efforts in the state if it was left unadressed.

But she said that she remained aggrieved by the Clinton attack and by the willingness of so many Democratic leaders in the state to go along with it, and worried by reports that similar e-mails attacking Obama on abortion rights have gone out in other states preparing to vote.



"We still have battles to fight in New Hampshire and we can't let dirty politics destroy the choice voice here. It's too important," Rauh said.

"But for Clinton to do this to the choice community is so appalling. I can't tell you how it distresses me ... how devastating this and how horrified I am that the Clinton campaign would do this. I fear it will happen elsewhere and it's just appalling."
Posted at 4:06 PM ET on Jan 18, 2008

The Clinton campaign doesn't care about the truth. Now they've done it again with the email they sent to the Drudge Report. They keep talking about Republican dirty tricks - hah!

Clinton has tried every trick in the book to discredit Obama.
He just stays right on message... telling the voters what he wants to accomplish and how he'll do it.
Good for you, Obama. That's what we want.
Maybe Hillary should take a cue before the election is totally lost for her. But, I suspect, she'll let the idiots around her convince her to get even more negative and tip-toe the line of truth.
Spread your message and let the voters decide whose is better. But, dear lady, you're heading for loss with all of this negativity and all of the "half-truths".

Hillary's campaign is INDICATIVE of how a Congress will be governed.

Obviously her supporters (those who are left) do NOT care about the welfare of this country.

This ON-GOING mess is absolutely ABSURD.

Funny how Clinton accuses Obama of doing exactly what She is guilty of. Is Rove on her payroll?

Hillary Clinton's chief strategist is MARK PENN. Charlie Black, John McCain's top adviser, is chairman of BKSH, the DC-based lobbying subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller -- of which MARK PENN is CEO.

Yes, this is the same lobbyist Barack Obama was referring to when he criticized John McCain for allowing lobbyists to conduct their business on board his bus.

BKSH is a bipartisan lobbying firm. Black, the chairman is the top Republican. The top Democrat is R. Scott Pastrick, who like Penn, supports Hillary Clinton.
Both the Clinton and McCain campaigns are run by the same lobbyshop!

Both Clinton's are going down swinging, and tainting their already dirty name in process. Kind of sickening and sad at the same time. Decent story about her (and some other good commentary about McCain) here.

http://infogiant.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/win-at-all-costs-why-hillary-is-bad-for-america-and-definitely-more-of-the-same/

Once the primary is over, the rhetoric will be swept aside and only issue will remain; can the Democratic candidate beat McCain, and help the Party add to our Senate majority? If our candidate is Obama, the answer is yes, if Clinton the answer will be no. Something to consider before deciding on which candidate to support!

Clinton is runninf a sleaze factory.

Yes, katie Wheeler, but Hillary knew what she was having you sign wasn't true.

What kind of a candidate drags her trusting supporters into signing something blatantly untrue?

And after watching her publically mock a fellow Democratic Senator (Obama)in Rhode Island yesterday, I have given my full support to Barack Obama.

I guess I'm fortunate that there aren't too many human beings in my life who act like Hillary clinton.

The DNC should stand by its decision to exclude the Florida and Michigan delegates. Those states were warned and they moved up their primaries anyway. The rush for early primaries is out of control. What really needs to happen is for states to APPLY for primary dates and then have the 2 major parties conduct a grand hat drawing for what states get to vote when. And no primaries until February!

Wow, this is indeed a pretty sad state of affairs when political activists sign documents that they do not fully understand. As horrific as I find this campaign tactic, I'm not surprised, given the many other examples of sleazy politics on behalf of the Clintons. Still for these so called "leaders" to allow themselves to be used is pathetic and makes me think they are ill equipped to be in those positions in the first place.

Some of them seem irate that they were used but they have some culpability.

Don't believe the HYPE.

The way Hillary Clinton has run her campaign does not boad well for how she would run the country.

Fortunately we'll never have to find out how bad it would have been to have a second Clinton administration. Thanks to Sen Barack Obama.

The NATION thanks you!

Obama 2008

As progressives who to see a dem. in office in November. I amshamed of senator Clinton. Her behavior over the past 72 hrs have been absolutely horrific and unbecoming of a commander-in-chief.

When it's over wonder how the Clinton's will spin her current shameless trash-talking? "I wanted to prepare Barack for the vast right wing conspiracy?" Sadly though we may never be rid of them. We know they cannot live unless they are in the spotlight. Oh yeah, she has another 5 years as Senator of New York! Hah! Glad I don't have that to look forward to! Oh boy, Senator Clinton is back! Yikes!