Obama Campaign ADMITS Creating & Distributing in Iowa Doc With Dubious Claim Against Edwards..LINK

[Blackhatjack]

"Mr. Positive" seems to have shown the the voters in Iowa a bit more Negative information about himself than about Edwards --that he is not above creating and distributing a dubious claim against Edwards for political gain. But the real exposure for Obama here is a lack of judgment --making a claim against Edwards that is ridiculous WHEN AN EVEN STRONGER CASE CAN BE MADE AGAINST HIM for the exact same result he tried to hang on Edwards.

THe 'glass houses' line at the end is particularly appropriate.

**********************************

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/12/dropping-oppo.html

"Dropping Oppo"
December 10, 2007 6:00 PM
Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent

"Circulating among Iowa labor circles, I am told, is this leaflet, which looks to be a standard opposition-research paper against former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC.

The shocker? It's from Mr. Positive, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.

Not that it's a shocker that Obama is drawing differences between he and his opponents. (UPDATE: The Obama campaign says this document came because a local union requested information on the differences between him and his opponents.)It's a shocker because Obama chief strategist David Axelrod told ABC News that "One of the things people appreciate about (Obama) is he’s not a cheap-shot artist" and this flier is full of cheap shots.

The cheapest shot ... that Edwards somehow has something to do with Whirlpool when the company was closing down Maytag plants in Iowa, Illinois, and Arkansas.

Why is that a cheap shot? Because the link is that Edwards worked for the controversial Fortress Hedge Fund while it owned stock in Whirlpool as it was shutting down those plants.

But some argue a far more direct link exists between Obama and those plants shutting down."

".....People in glass houses in Newton, Iowa, shouldn't throw Maytag dishwashers.

Or something like that."

-- jpt

(NOTE: This blog has been updated to reflect the Obama campaign's confirmation that they created the document, and to better convey my skepticism about both charges.)

[Bluebear]

1. How "hopeful" on Obama's part! A real "change" in politics we can all embrace!

:crazy:

[Blackhatjack]

2. Caught distributing the Oppo Doc, the Obama Campaign finally owned up to it. See the LINK. n/t

[Bluebear]

3. I saw it. The "Audacity of hope" my eye. nt

[Blackhatjack]

7. The 'audacity' characterization may be right. n/t

[sandnsea]

5. The union requested it, hardly nefarious

Much ado about absolutely nothing. Again.

[Nailzberg]

9. The document speaks for itself but you're trumping up the "finally owned up" charge

The oppo document clearly states "Paid for by Obama for America and Printed In House". You act like there was a denial by the Obama campaign, when there clearly was not.

[Blackhatjack]

15. Obama Caught Dropping Oppo Doc in Iowa Saying Edwards is Anti- Union ...LINK

The original Jake Tapper blog entry is preserved on this site, without the later updates that appeared in the OP LINK version. This is one story that will will not be 'spun' to be an innocent act on behalf of the Obama Campaign no matter how hard they try --because there were too many witnesses.

And that is why the Obama Campaign finally owned up to its creation and distribution.
*******************************

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/10/211512/76

Obama Caught Dropping Oppo Doc in Iowa Saying Edwards is Anti- Union
by Seymour Glass, Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 09:15:09 PM EST

One day after Obama had an event at a non union arena in NH - and needed a waver from the state AFL CIO to even appear there because it is being picketed by the union - it is being reported by ABC News that the Obama campaign is circulating a opposition doc about John Edwards, saying that he is anti- union and helped shut down one of the states largest employers.

[Nailzberg]

26. Fails to address your charge of "finally owning up"

Yes. I understand they were caught distributing an oppo document. But your language insinuates the campaign denied distributing this document, a contention not included by the bloggers you cited. Why devalue an already valid argument by inserting fabricated and unsubstantiated material?

[Blackhatjack]

38. I provided the link so that you could see the updated differences in the OP LINK...

Of course you do have to read the update at the end of the OP LINK to understand that the Obama Campaign finally owned up to creating and distributing the document.

[sandnsea]

4. Here's the 2 page paper

Totally fair, no cheap shots at all.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Obama%20Oppo%20on%20JRE%20-%20On%20Labor%20in%20Iowa.pdf

[Blackhatjack]

6. I guess you did not read the LINK in the OP....

To say the charge Obama's campaign made against Edwards is ridiculous is an understatement. Anyone in this country could own a mutual fund which invested a small amount in one of these companies.

However, the Obama - Crown Family connection is a direct relationship, and given they are contributors and bundlers for Obama, he is closer to being connected to the lost jobs than Edwards.

The interesting fact here is the initial reluctance of the Obama Campaign to admit they created and distributed the document in the first place. Once they were caught, they had to admit it.

That is a 'judgment error' in any politician's book.

[sandnsea]

8. They're equally concerning

Pointing out Edwards' work at the hedge fund is as important as the Crown Family connection to Obama. Neither are cheap shots.

[Blackhatjack]

11. BUZZZZZZZZZZ!!!! WRONG ANSWER...... they are NOT EQUALLY CONCERNING....

The Obama - Crown Family relationship is a direct relationship, and they were directly responsible for the closing of the plant and lost jobs.

[sandnsea]

12. Edwards working at a hedge fund is concerning to me - DON'T YELL

Jesus. The hedge funds manipulation of global money markets has contributed to many of the economic problems in this country, including foreclosures in New Orleans and now this Maytag connection. They're equally concerning.

[Blackhatjack]

19. "No one is so blind as he who refuses to see..." n/t

[sandnsea]

25. I see wrong with both of them

but I'm the blind one. :eyes:

[cali]

14. a hedge fund is NOT a mutual fund. period.

and Edwards' connection with a hedge fund, the sleaziest actors on wall street, is damning. And it's true.

[Blackhatjack]

16. Just as I thought, there is no defense to the Obama Action here...n/t

[cali]

27. they all do opposition research

As far as I know nothing in that paper was untrue. He's pointing out Edward's history. And I notice you don't have a defense of Edwards teaming up with a sleazy hedge fund and making millions off their sleazy investments that hurt working people.

[Blackhatjack]

37. Off topic --but go ahead & provide us proof Edwards 'made millions' off sleazy investments

Sure is easy to throw out the smears. Now back it up with proof. Give us those links to proof Edwards made 'millions off their sleazy investments that hurt working people.'

Just to save you some time --it is totally untrue and if you had an ounce of integrity you would admit it.

But go ahead --we will give you a chance to prove this outrageous allegation.

[waiting for hope]

39. I hear crickets...

Wonder why? ;-)

[Blackhatjack]

40. Typical of 'hit and run smears' .... you ask for proof, they disappear.

[NMMNG]

10. Such Audacity

[ClarkUSA]

13. As I recall, the Edwards' campaign had a thick booklet of oppo-research leaked to the press in '03

And it contained far nastier stuff than this. He was running as the candidate of hope and sunshine then... so maybe he was full of shit, too?

Or was he doing what all campaigns do?

[Blackhatjack]

17. Another cogent defense of the Obama Campaign for their actions here... oh wait, no defense at all!

[ClarkUSA]

18. No defense needed. I notice you didn't comment on what I posted above.

Because you're a hypocrite.

[Blackhatjack]

20. Let's review: Your Defense of Obama is 1. "Hey Look Over There...." 2. Name calling...

Well I am persuaded. NOT.

[ClarkUSA]

21. Again, no response because you can't admit that Obama is doing what no doubt Edwards is also doing

... And has done in the recent past. Edwards' 2003 oppo-research booklet was far nastier than anything we've seen from Obama.

Your outrage is a sham. Oh, and nothing in the Obama campaign's oppo-research was a lie or a smear. Everything in it was factual.
I've heard Edwards attack Obama plenty on much less evidence than that. But I'm not getting bent out of shape or writing outrage
memoirs about it.

[Blackhatjack]

23. You have failed to address the subject of the OP & are trying to divert attention from the topic...

I provided links to back up my allegations. So far you have provided nothing but unsubstantiated allegations, and you continue to refuse to address the OP topic --but continue to try and change the topic. I don't play that game.

[ClarkUSA]

32. Gimme a break! Those two pages contain nothing but public facts about Edwards' voting record...

Nothing but Edwards voting record. There is no slime, nor smear. Its just two pages full of facts.

Your going to have to dig deeper into that sewer you have your face stuck in to find dirt on Obama. THERE JUST ISN'T ANY!!! :)

[Inspired]

24. Do you have a link to these attacks on Obama?

If you've heard Edwards attack him plenty, then I would appreciate hearing exactly what was said. I've heard Edwards speak many times and I've never heard him attack Obama.

[Bluebear]

28. chirp chirp chirp

[ClarkUSA]

30. I don't keep links to that stuff and I am not sweating what Edwards said... however...

But I have read stories on WaPo and NYT where Edwards said Obama wasn't "tough" enough to go up against Republicans, whatever that means.

Nothing like Clinton's slimeball Rovian crap, I grant you. But it's still an attack.

[Blackhatjack]

34. I see...You have 'read stories' is your proof. (Avoiding the Inspired's question) n/t

[Inspired]

41. No kidding! Yeah, I've 'read' stories too!

What a joke. I've seen Edwards speak dozens of times and he has never said one word against Obama....ever.

[Blackhatjack]

42. I have heard Edwards speak numerous times and I never heard him attack Obama either...

Some of these people intent on smearing Edwards do not know what they are talking about, and they can't help but embellish their smears --which sets them up to be challenged for proof.

Of course when that happens they just leave until the next time they can jump into a thread and repeat, rinse ....... and leave again.

[MrSlayer]

22. Admitting it proves their honesty or something.

And hey, Oprah likes him!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

29. Dubious claim in a political campaign.

Now I've seen it all.

[ClarkUSA]

31. Was there something false in this memo? No.

A union asked for information from the Obama campaign to distinguish themselves from Edwards. They sent this memo. It involves publicly known votes
as part of Edwards record. I don't see the issue? Have you been this worked up about the three Clinton campaign workers dismissed for sending emails
furthering the smears about Obama as a secret Muslim plant?

[Blackhatjack]

35. You have a problem staying on topic. This has nothing to do with Hillary Campaign workers.

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. Let's see how Obama handles this one.

[Blackhatjack]

36. Bottom line: Obama shot himself in the foot trying to paint Edwards as 'anti-union' ...

No one is going to take seriously Obama's claim that Edwards is 'anti-union.' People know Edwards has been the most positive supporter of Unions, has received the most support from Unions, and that is why Obama is trying to 'peel away' some of that support for Edwards by making this spurious claim.

What is significant here is that the Obama Campaign picked an issue, the lost jobs from Maytag closing in Iowa, to try and attack John Edwards when in fact Obama has a closer connection to those lost jobs himself than Edwards.

This shows a lack of judgment on Obama's part, and it reveals a side of Obama that conflicts with his carefully crafted image of a candidate who would not engage in this kind of tactic.

[killbotfactory]

43. How dare Obama portray Edwards record in a negative light!

Outrageous! Outrageous I tell you! John shits sunshine and progressivism, how dare Obama!

</phony indignation>