This "full assault" on Hillary comes from the very top of the Obama campaign...

[Maribelle]

Peter Daou, Hillary's internet communications director sends out an e-mail to bloggers pointing out the negative campaigning by Obama.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012152.php


Read the whole article at the link, if you have time, where you will find links embedded in the message from Daou.


Below is just the message from Daou.

The truth is that for months, the Obama campaign has been attacking Hillary, impugning her character and calling into question her lifetime of public service. And now the Chicago Tribune reports that Senator Obama is preparing a "full assault" on her "over ethics and transparency." To those who contend that Senator Obama is the clear frontrunner, I ask, to what end this "full assault" on Hillary?

On CNN last Tuesday, Senator Obama said, "Well, look, Wolf, I think if you watch how we have conducted our campaign, we've been very measured in terms of how we talk about Senator Clinton. ... I have been careful to say, that I think that Senator Clinton is a capable person and that should she win the nomination, obviously, I would support her. You know, I'm not sure that we have been getting that same approach from the Clinton campaign."

The facts of this election stand in stark contrast to that statement. Senator Obama and his senior campaign officials have engaged in a systematic effort to question Hillary's integrity, credibility, and character. They have portrayed her as someone who would put her personal gain ahead of the lives of our troops, someone who would say or do anything to win an election, someone who is dishonest, divisive and disingenuous. They have adopted shop-worn anti-Clinton talking points, dusted them off and unleashed a torrent of unfounded character attacks against her. Among other things, they have described Hillary - and her campaign - as:

"Disingenuous"

"Too polarizing to win"

'Divisive'

"Untruthful"

"Dishonest"

'Calculating'

"Saying and doing whatever it takes to win"

"Attempting to deceive the American people"

"One of the most secretive politicians in America"

"Literally willing to do anything to win"

"Playing politics with war"

To top it off, they have blanketed big states with false radio ads and negative mailers -- ads and mailers that experts have debunked time and time again. They have distributed health care brochures using Republican framing. They have tried to draw a nexus between Hillary's votes and the death of her friend Benazir Bhutto. And one of Senator Obama's top advisers (who has since left the campaign) recently called Hillary "a monster."

This "full assault" on Hillary comes from the very top of the Obama campaign, not surrogates and supporters.

This "full assault" is being directed at someone I personally know to be a thoughtful, brilliant, principled, compassionate person, someone the world knows as a good Democrat, a trailblazer, a lifelong champion for children and families, a respected former first lady, a senator, a presidential candidate.

This "full assault" is targeting a staff of hundreds of hard-working, dedicated Democrats, who I've had the privilege of working with for the past 14 months.

This is a hard-fought campaign - as it should be. Like any candidate for elected office, Hillary has made clear why she thinks she would do a better job than her opponent. She has laid out comprehensive policy proposals, put forth her 35-year record of accomplishment, and spent countless days introducing herself to voters across the country. She has said that she is far better prepared to take on John McCain on national security. She has contended that she is the candidate with the experience to confront the GOP attack machine. She has argued that she is more electable. She has said that Senator Obama's words are not matched by actions. And she has challenged him to live up to core Democratic values and goals such as universal health care.

I recall indignation online at the suggestion that Senator Obama has not made the case that he is ready to be Commander in Chief -- the concern being that this would be terribly detrimental to him in a general election. As I blogged recently, and as many of you know, I spent 2004 in the Kerry-Edwards war room, and I understand full well that national security will be front and center in the general election. It's not a matter of choice. And the reality is that the public views Hillary as better prepared to take on Senator McCain☼ when it comes to national security. Democrats must factor that in as they nominate a candidate to win in November.

If that suggestion is potentially harmful to Senator Obama in a general election, how exactly do the personal attacks against Hillary (which echo and reinforce rightwing talking points) help her in the event she wins the nomination? I recall no similar outrage at those harsh attacks on her character, many of which were directed at her when she was the clear frontrunner and seen as the likely nominee.

Both candidates are running a vigorous campaign. Both have had surrogates or supporters who have crossed the line and made offensive statements that they rejected. And these offensive statements are an unfortunate part of a long and close campaign. Those who make a habit of automatically assuming and ascribing to only one candidate the worst motives, ignoring more reasonable and benign explanations, who substitute conjecture for fact and then use those assumed 'facts' as a foundation on which to pile more conjecture about only one candidate's intentions, who express anger at negative campaigning and perceived dirty tricks but focus on only one candidate's words and actions, risk losing credibility. And those who conclude from that one-sided reasoning that Hillary ought to stop seeking victory, should ask themselves if quitting in the middle of a hard-fought – and winnable – contest is a desirable attribute in a future president.

Hillary has rightfully stated that as Democrats we should be proud of our field of candidates. And it is truly inspiring to see the level of enthusiasm among voters this cycle. We should encourage as many people as possible to become part of this process and to forcefully advocate for their candidate of choice. But there is a sharp line between supporting a candidate (and excusing their faults, which all supporters do to some degree) and conducting a "full assault" on an opponent's integrity and character. The Obama campaign's unabashed attacks on Hillary's honesty and trustworthiness should give every Democrat pause.

We are all entitled to support and oppose whomever we choose, but I challenge my online friends to call this "full assault" on Hillary's character for what it is.

[Maribelle]

1. What if we Hillary Supporters have a little contest to name Obama's 'full assault'?

I think we can do a grand job at calling it for what it is, yes?

[JohnnyLib2]

2. I'll start -- Obamassault, as in "oh, boy, another Obamassault...."

However--I suspect we need to verify the allegation, just to avoid backfire.

[Maribelle]

4. That's a great start!

I'm thinking having the ass in the middle of the word truly calls it like it is! :evilgrin:

[judaspriestess]

3. "too polarizing to win"

"Disingenuous"

'Divisive'

"Untruthful"

"Dishonest"

'Calculating'

"Saying and doing whatever it takes to win"

"Attempting to deceive the American people"

"One of the most secretive politicians in America"

"Literally willing to do anything to win"

"Playing politics with war"



These are all karl rove talking points.

[qnr]

5. Thank you, this is useful n/t

[jackson_dem]

6. I crossposted this in GDP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5113929

[Maribelle]

7. Thank you!

[Maribelle]

8. The attack timeline

http://www.attacktimeline.com/


So far in March:

03/11/08 Obama campaign: 'There is no reason to believe that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration.'


03/11/08 Obama spokesperson Axelrod said Clinton campaign follows an 'insidious pattern' when it comes to race.


03/10/08 Obama said Hillary was 'saying one thing and doing another' on NAFTA.


03/08/08 Obama campaign: Clinton camp should 'stop telling the American people things that they know aren't true.'


03/06/08 Obama campaign manager says Hillary is one of the ‘most secretive politicians in America today.’


03/05/08 Obama campaign manager says 'The Clintons are the gold standard of negative tactical campaigning.'


03/05/08 Obama surrogate accuses Hillary of 'derogatory comments.'


03/05/08 Obama spokesperson accuses Clintons of being 'the same old thing' and using 'kitchen sink strategies that have mired us in the mess we're in, in Washington.'


03/05/08 Obama questions whether Hillary was 'negotiating treaties or agreements' or 'handling crises' when she visited foreign countries.


03/05/08 Obama spokesperson falsely accuses Hillary of misleading people about whether Obama is 'a devout Christian.'


03/05/08 Obama surrogate accuses Clinton campaign of trying 'to exploit race, exploit sex, exploit fear for political expediency.'


03/05/08 Obama spokesperson alludes to Hillary's 'law firms and real estate deals.'

[Branjor]

9. I am confused....

What actually happened vis a vis either the Clinton or Obama campaign (or both?) assuring the Canadians they would not touch NAFTA?

Hope this is not OT.

[anamandujano]

10. Briefly, an Obama official named Goolsbee took a meeting with

an important official in Canada, telling them not to worry about what Obama says in the campaign about NAFTA, that it was only political positioning (for Ohio.)

When they were outed by Canadian TV, the Obama campaign tried to accuse Hillary of doing it (while they denied their involvement.)

Hillary immediately offered immunity to anyone in her campaign or anyone who gave information about who may have done such a thing. It was later shown that she had never done anything of the sort.

Meanwhile, a memo surfaced showing that Obama had lied and his man did in fact assure the Canadians that he was only posturing on NAFTA for the primary.

As usual, we had several revisions of the story from Obama, first outright denial and on and on, as information became available to show that each previous story was a lie.

[rodeodance]

14. a bit off target but the past response is what she is up against:

5118955, Not to add fuel to the fire but
Posted by HannibalBarca on Mon Mar-17-08 07:01 AM

what do you think of the following article?

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

A sudden change of heart? Hardly.

Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.

Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.

"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough people to keep her out of office."

Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.

About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to....."


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/

[doeadeer]

15. Canadian Government Confirmed Clinton Never Contacted Them

They did that a week ago. A Rumor is flying around the Net that Clinton contacted Canada about NAFTA too. But the Canadian Government confirmed a week ago that no one in the Clinton campaign ever contacted them. It was even on their government site.

Someone wants you confused. And it isn't going to get better before it gets worse.

Listen to your gut and what you believe in, think for yourself and don't buy into misinformation.

And remember they want you confused.

[anamandujano]

11. And while they were doing all this, whenever Hillary tried to defend

herself or clarify her positions or get some information out of Mr. Vague (since the press wasn't doing it), the Obama campaign would take words or events and call it racist (fairy tale), in effect trying to muzzle her and Bill, and keep them from talking at all. They were helped by the MSM, needless to say.

edit to add--something I'm just starting to realize, McCamy Taylor, who writes the journal about the media, is always trying to pretend it was Rove, not the Obama campaign, who started all this sh*t.

At present, he or she is equating Ferraro's comment with the whole Wright situation.

In essence the threads are all about Rove setting up the Dems in a circular firing squad. My problem with this is that Obama instigated most of it, profited from it and is only now getting his comeuppance. Taylor seeks to take the blame from Obama.

I have been in several of the threads asking questions and posting the Jesse Jackson Jr. video. If anyone sees any of the threads (they're probably all in the journal), stop in and see if you agree with me. TIA

[Branjor]

13. Thanks anamandujano!

It was getting confusing with the claims of all the Obama supporters, who I do not trust.

[doeadeer]

17. Taylor and Blame

Yes, well, the argument Taylor present about each side whittling down the other encouraged by outside forces, such as Rove, works to a degree.

Except blame does land on Obama and Taylor does remove it. No one may be noticing but Obama is sounding more and more right rather than left. Hate is okay. Let's have a bigger war, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, etc.

The key issue is the disparity between the private and public Obama, not "guilt by association." The private Obama attends a church where hate is okay. The public Obama is supposedly for unity and against divisiveness.

Maybe there is such a big disparity because the public Obama is exactly what a lot of people have been saying, just words. Saying you're a thing doesn't make you a thing.

And who said Rove and Obama HAVE TO BE in different camps?

I think one has to continue to think for one's self and remain firm to one's principles and listen to one's gut and PAY ATTENTION.

[libbygurl]

19. 'And who said Rove and Obama HAVE TO BE in different camps?'

We can't know, can we?

[rodeodance]

12. i feel sick after reading this.

[murbley40]

16. Well said!

[doeadeer]

18. Remember DailyKos and Huffington Post

Remember the Clinton supporters have walked out of DailyKos due to abuse and consistent and unrelenting bad mouthing of Hillary.

And right now they are in full scale attack on Hillary on Huffington Post.

Sometimes what you think you are seeing is exactly what you ARE seeing.