All This Cocaine Talk And Going Negative Does

[SoFlaJet]

is piss people off and shows HRC and Mark Penn as being desperate. I think it backfires...even though they are disavowing all this stuff we still see Mark Penn on Hardball bringing it up again and then again.

[Renew Deal]

1. Is Penn going to be resigning tomorrow?

Hillary will have an excuse to fire him.

[snowbear]

2. Bill Press just said it makes the Clinton campaign sound desperate..

... and that it makes them appear that the wheels are falling off their campaign.

Even with that, her supporters here are still creating posts about it.

[tekisui]

4. Bill Press usually lines up behind Hillary.

[jenmito]

7. I notice that, too. But not this time.

[SoFlaJet]

6. No Clinton supporter I

Larissa-I'm solidly in the Edwards corner

[snowbear]

46. Oh, no S. Fla..

I didn't mean you!!

Just some of the silly comments that sprung up throughout the day from a certain candidate's supporters. You'd think -- especially after seeing that YouTube video of how disgusted those Iowa voters were --- that her supporters here would drop the ridiculous threads.

[acmavm]

3. What's amazing about all this shit is old people here in Nebraska are

eating up this idiot story, they act like what they guy did decades ago matters. But the same frigging idiots will not face the fact that Chimpy was a drunk, took drugs, and was a cheatin' whore.

I do not understand this at all.

[Joe the Revelator]

33. What do you mean?

Whats going on in Nebraska?

[acmavm]

50. It's a very weird and bitter election race. In Omaha (and from my ex-inlaws

in Lincoln) I hear people really bitching about the candidates. And you have to understand, this state was firmly democratic until two things happened. That was the introduction of the civil rights AND the equal rights amendments. That pushed Nebraska into the republican camp. So what is strange is the reaction to Hillary and Barrie. And this cocaine thing is playing really well with those who are paying attention and who are right leaning. f

Hillary, well let's just say some of the reasons she's disliked are pretty predictable. And Bill's name always pops up in the conversation.

And as much as I hate to admit it, there is always a lot of Edwards bashing. People either call him a commie socialist (so to speak because of his social programs) or a phony rich man.

For a while I heard a lot of pro-Rudy crap (people really did buy into his 911 schtick), but not so much lately. It seems to have shifted to Huckabee. At a couple of the really rabid repubs I know have gone in that direction. I suspect that maybe rural Nebraska might as well. They thought Tom Osborn was a holy man that could walk on water.

I don't know what to think, but I know what is said during the lunch hours, waiting in line at the grocery store, or when I was out paying my utilities.

I was thinking for a while that the crap slate of repubs running would turn the tide big-time back to the dems. Apparently I was wrong.

[sandnsea]

37. Is it Edwards or Biden, I forget

Making shit up isn't going to work. You act as if nobody else lives, or has lived, in rural America. There's a handful of grumpy 75 year olds who care about this, and that's it. Nobody else does.

[acmavm]

49. Oh crap. You have no idea what people think apparently. Because it's

more than the 'grumpy 75-year old' crowd who's paying attention to this. And how the hell would you know.

Making stuff up? You don't sound very stable. How the fuck would you know what people where I live think? I don't care where you've lived before, or where you live now. I know what I know. I know what I hear at work and elsewhere. You sure the hell don't.

[jenmito]

5. Exactly. AND-it's not a "fight" between the two. It's Hillary going negative and Obama cooly

responding. This isn't one of those "food fights" where they're both going negative and Edwards will slip through. This is Hillary's camp showing its desperation and the Obama camp showing its ability to respond looking presidential and above the fray.

[whistle]

8. I never heard that...link?

[Beacool]

9. I'm sure as heck no Obama fan, but

he should sweep this drug business under the carpet as fast as he can. Hillary may be hurt in the short term by this issue, but the Obama campaign making such a fuzz over it will only reinforce in people's mind that at one point in his life, Obama snorted more coke than mayor Barry. It may not matter to the college kids, but it sure as heck will matter to the more mainstream folks. Call it hypocritical, but people can turn a blind eye to anyone who experimented with pot, but coke is another issue altogether. If he were to win the nomination, does anybody really think that his drug use won't be hammered endlessly?

[Bullet1987]

10. The only thing Obama is trying to do is make money off of it...

his campaign is not slinging any mud back...so it's not a "fight" where they both get nasty and go down together. That's what Clinton WANTS from Obama...but I just hope he doesn't buy into it. It'll not just hurt her in the short term either. Because if she loses Iowa and New Hampshire because of this...and Obama wins one or both...that's LONG TERM!!

[Colobo]

13. He was candid about it. To try to make it an issue is just a dirty, desperate attempt

by the Clinton campaign.

[ArkySue]

20. Obama said it.

That he smoked pot and did coke. I saw the tape of it. It's not like Hillary "dug it up." If you don't think the Publicans won't jump all over that, you're crazy. Like a duck on a JuneBug.

[DrFunkenstein]

38. Obama Never Suggested He Was a Drug Dealer...That Was

All from the overly active imagination of the Clinton camp. Which is putting it very nicely.

[proudmoddemo]

51. You Fit In Well With Clinton's Vile Campaign

"Obama snorted more coke than Mayor Barry,"

You and your ilk--all of whom should just bolt to the Republican Party where you'd fit in better anyway--have run one of the most disgusting, vile, and racist campaigns in history. The Clinton campaign, presented with the challenge of running against viable African American candidate, chose the low road of the gutter and furthering racial stereotypes. Sorry, but I declare now, that I will, under no circumstances, vote for Clinton in 2008. What she has allowed to go on on her watch and her name is a disqualification for office. I'll leave my ballot blank in the general election if I have to.

[Tactical Progressive]

11. The only reason it backfires

is that the media - people like Chris Matthews - are willing to turn everything against Hillary. I'm sure Hillary was execting it. I was kind of hoping that the media had outgrown its Clinton-hatred, but I'm not that surprised that they haven't.

What should Hillary do?

She's supposed to just sit there and take it. Which she did for months, focusing only on policy and Republicans. Only to see Obama, and for a while Edwards, attack her continuously. It cost her.

If she says stop the attacks, she's playing the helpless woman 'card', and she's not strong enough without 'hiding behind' Bill or women or something.

If she hits back she gets accused of starting it, like the media is a ref that always happens to keep turning around just in time to see the hit back but never the initial hit against. Obama smears her time after time after time, while proclaiming he's the high-road candidate, all with no media criticism. Hillary ignores it for months on end, then when she starts to hit back, Obama whines and she's the vicious attacker. This plays into the long-time media smear of Hillary as rhymes-with-witch, which they are dying to go with. Obama plays his smears to that.

It's a lesson in misogny, combined with media Clinton-hatred. A double-shot.

It's systemic, but the Clintons are used to it. They just need to figure it out in these circumstances, with a smear merchant like Obama throwing mud and watching the media attack Hillary when she responds.

I personally think Hillary should keep up the attacks, just get better about how they do it. Obama is such an undistinguished candidate, and such phony human being, it shouldn't be hard. They just need somebody better than Mark Penn or whoever is running things.

[BootinUp]

12. Please post this as a thread. nt

[Colobo]

14. Yeah, that needs to be posted by itself.

It'll give all of us a good laugh.

[BootinUp]

15. By all means laugh,

probably good for you to be a little less dreadful.

[Colobo]

19. Dreadful?

[jenmito]

16. BULL.

Hillary allowed this sleaze to come out and claimed ignorance. NOBODY believes she didn't know about it. She HAD to know about it. Misogyny and "Clinton hatred" has nothing to do with it. You must be joking about Hillary "sitting back and taking it." Did you forget when she (and the others) jumped on Obama, calling him naive and irresponsible for positions she held at one time herself? She's losing now because of her own actions.

[Tactical Progressive]

22. Obama was naive and irresponsible

and he still is. He was trying to say, like the truly naive tend to do, that everybody else is just being a bunch of fuckups and he, Obama, will just go over there and talk with them and straighten out our problems. Gee, I guess nobody thought it all the way through like Obama.

It's like adolescent arrogance. Literally. Obama thinks he's "The One". It was right to call him irresponsible and naive after that. And he's still that way, with his old bullshit 'refighting the battles of the 90's' and 'stuck in the old politics', like he's just going to magically make everyone work and sing together. What kind of stupid shit is that? The kind of shit that comes out of an adolescent mind. Maybe he didn't notice what a bunch of intransigent assholes, what a bunch of stark-raving nasties Republicans have become since 1994. Or maybe he's just so arrogant that he believes his own bs.

Bottom line, naive was appropriate and accurate, and that weak crap is all you've got from Hillary after all the slime that Obama has thrown out; an almost constant barrage since the beginning. Up until the past few weeks, Hillary was practically the poster-girl for the woman who sits there and takes the men's insults.

As to this incident, I doubt Hillary knew it was coming, though it wouldn't surprise me if they've discussed whether or how hard to go after Obama's drug use. So what. You'll get your mileage with the media inferring it was sanctioned by Hillary whether it was or it wasn't.

[jenmito]

24. Right. So naive that he spoke out against the IWR and predicted exactly what ended up happening

while Hillary was busy voting for it, trusting Bush, while over half of the Dems. voted against it.

And Obama was called naive for being so bold as to say he'd talk to our enemies...WHY? Hillary, again, tried to look tough by saying she would NOT promise to meet with our enemies and then Wolfson came out and accused Obama of being willing to talk to a Holocaust denier. So Hillary, again, is like Bush in another way.

He was ALSO called naive and irresponsible for saying he'd strike inside Pakistan IF they wouldn't cooperate AND we knew where bin Laden was. He's right. Hillary's wrong and now proving she's using Rovian tactics to try to win.

[BootinUp]

26. The Democrats will

commit hari cari over that fucking catch 22 vote. Mark my words.

[jenmito]

27. Which vote-the one Obama was against?

[Tactical Progressive]

30. Oh jen, always falling back on the IWR, like pulling a magic blanket over your head

for protection. And it is about as much defense as a magic blanket.

It's been explained to you, and Obamanauts everywhere, exactly how meaningless that is. You just don't want to know. Obama plays his IWR bs to give himself some kind of foreign policy cred. Which is about as phony as everything else about Obama.

I'll give you the quick rundown one last time:

1) Obama didn't vote on the IWR, so anything he says on it carries roughly - absolutely zero weight

2) Obama himself said he didn't know how he would have voted on it (omg!)

3) Obama would have voted YES on the IWR. Not a doubt in my mind.
You can see it clearly in everything else he has said and done re Iraq.
My credibility on this assessment is simple: because this isn't a slam on Obama.

4) Yes was the correct vote on the IWR.
Kudos for Obama. I'm giving him credit.

Obama would have voted Yes on IWR and if he hadn't that wouldn't be a positive.
In any case he had no skin in that play so what he said outside of the crucible means nothing.

But you always have to fall back on that as if it makes him a hero. You don't even understand anything about it, or about what Obama would have really done, but somehow, his one non-vote on an issue he would have voted opposite his rhetoric on, like the rest of the Dems did, is some kind of major integrity test that only he passes. It is absurd. Even if it is so much of what people hang their Obama hats on.

[jenmito]

31. First of all,

what he said about the IWR WAS relevant as he was about to run for the US Senate.

Secondly, he said he didn't know how he'd vote because he was about to give the Keynote speech for 2 guys who voted for it.

Thirdly, I mentioned other things besides the IWR but the fact that you think it was right to vote for it tells me why you support a hawk like Hillary.

[Tactical Progressive]

35. I'll give you that

His remarks about the Iraq War were more than irrelevant back-seat driving in view of his Senate run. Not anywhere near the weight of those in the Senate actually casting the vote - as so many Dems did who were against the war but for giving IWR leverage to Bush - but not totally irrelevant. Wes Clark, who I supported in 2004, did the same thing - spoke out vehemently against an Iraq invasion, but later admitting he would have voted for the IWR. Two related but different things that neither they, nor I, have a problem distinguishing.

Obama, in the same way, would have voted for the IWR. I give him credit for a presumptively correct vote, though no one, not even Obama himself, will ever know for certain. I don't consider myself or Hillary or Wes or Barack from what I've seen of him, much of a hawk. That's just something you can't really understand in your simple black and white view of Obama and the war.

And yes, Obama is inexperienced and naive. And dishonest. And smearing. And arrogant. Basically, not alot of admirable character traits mixed in with not alot of experience. Hillary beats him in every way, including the IWR, but yes, she's stepping down into the mud to deal with him.

[jenmito]

43. Yeah, thanks...

but I deserve a lot more than "His remarks about the Iraq War were more than irrelevant back-seat driving in view of his Senate run," because he would NOT have voted for the IWR. Neither would Wes Clark, whom I supported in '04, too. The Repubs. claimed that he would have (just like you're doing now) but he said he wouldn't have. They quoted some things he said (just like you're doing about Obama now) but he claimed he would NOT have voted for it. Don't lump in Obama with Hillary. She does the same thing in debates when she says, "We all believe ..." and then they disagree with her.

And no, Obama is experienced, intelligent, and honest (while Hillary said a president shouldn't say what they really think).

I hope Hillary keeps the negative attacks going. She keeps sinking further and further.

[Tactical Progressive]

45. I hope she keeps the negative attacks coming too

Pretty soon the novelty of just the fact that a woman is fighting back against mudthrowing by Obama will wear off. And Obama's game of throwing mud then crybabying when it's thrown back won't work so well.

And no, Obama is demonstrably not experienced nor honest, unless you consider his pre-teen 'foreign policy' experience or his denial of long-term Presidential ambitions to have any credibility. Even his generic rhetoric about the high-road and new politics are just the kind of self-promoting dishonesty that we usually see from Publican candidates. Say what you aren't and people will believe it.

Except we have his actions as countervailing proof of his dishonest rhetoric, which kind of flattens that.

I'm thinking maybe somebody should check into Obama's drug use, because the Publicans surely will. I'm guessing he did drugs after he was a teenager. Which honesty by Obama won't surprise me in the least.


on edit: You were a Wes supporter too? Now see, that's a real guy. Obama is just alot of empty and deeply disingenuous talk. I'm surprised. And yes Wes did say he would have voted for the IWR, which I would have expected and like he should have done.

[jenmito]

48. Don't you see how going negative has been hurting her? You sound like one of her advisers who

are giving her bad advice. And regarding Wes Clark:

"And the press has focused on Clark's morphing position on the congressional resolution to authorize war in Iraq. After saying last week that he probably would have supported the resolution with certain caveats, Clark later said he never would have voted to support the war."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/25/in_early_days_of_his_campaign_clark_sees_new_kind_of_combat/

[BootinUp]

25. "nobody thought it through..."

:rofl:

[Colobo]

41. So Hillary is "The One", then?

[TeamJordan23]

17. Mark Penn is the new Dick Morris. nm

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. It will do what it was probably intended to do, give Edwards Iowa

[BootinUp]

21. Now thats some interesting

political comment.


could be.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

23. Uncommitted voters hate negative campaigning and believe all smears

The only card Hillary has left in Iowa is that she can afford to lose it, and Obama cannot.

It has always been Plan B.

And Obama cannot counter-act it... it's impossible. As LBJ always said, "make him deny it."

[jenmito]

28. No it won't. Obama's not getting in the mud with her. Like Axelrod said tonight,

"It's the sound of one hand clapping. And that's the hand of the Clintons."

[Tactical Progressive]

32. Obama doesn't have to "get" into the mud

Obama is "the one" that has been in the mud throwing it at Hillary and Democrats in general for a long time. It's his mudhole.

Hillary just threw some mud back at Obama, he whined, and the media came to his rescue against mean Hillary. Poor baby.

Nice try pretending that Hillary started this. You might even convince some other Obama supporters. I think however, that most here know how long the mud's been being thrown, and not by Hillary.

[jenmito]

34. You're just making stuff up...

You, like your candidate, don't know how to deal with the crumbled "inevitability" factor.

[Tactical Progressive]

36. Obama has been the smear merchant of this campaign

Nobody has to make that up.

Hillary is finally throwing back. Good for her.

And I don't think that the 'inevitability factor' has crumbled, so I don't have to deal with it.

[jenmito]

40. You're making that up. Pointing out differences is not smearing her.

Hillary went negative a long time ago but wasn't called on her hypocrisy and now that she has slipped and BLATANTLY gone negative, saying "Now the fun starts," she's spiraling even further. I hope she keeps it up!

[Colobo]

42. TP has nothing on Obama.

The anger of this person's posts show the desperation Hillary and her supporters are feeling.

[jenmito]

44. That's obvious.

:)

[EFerrari]

29. I seriously don't like either of them but after this shit, I'm ready to send money

to Obama. I'll never vote for him but the Clinton campaign has seriously crossed a line that shouldn't ever be crossed. Geezus. It's embarrassing that this woman holds public office at all. Poor New York.

[suston96]

39. All This Cocaine Talk And Going Negative Does ......

....is rattle Obama camp-followers, who were hoping that his preemptive admission to drug use, which was intended to bury it early in the campaign, just isn't working as he/they planned.

Obama may win the nomination but this drug talk won't go away.

[snowbear]

47. Are you listening to wingnut media?

CNN, MSNBC, and NBC Nightly News all made Mr. Penn of the HRC campaign look like a complete and total fool.



Did you see the clip of the Iowa voters they questioned about the bogus allegations?

They were DISGUSTED by the type of Rovian tactics being used, and rightly so.