Howard Wolfson Uses CFL Playbook

Ugh ugh ugh (0.00 / 0)

Great diary.  I was working on a similar one about the Arivosis comparison of Hillary to Lieberman, so I stuck it over in the diary section rather than FP it just after you posted yours.

I think we both notice that stating that any candidate is the equivalent of Lieberman is a stretch right now - frankly, I think that such comparisons make Lieberman seem less bad than he really is.

If this kind of early negative netroots attention to Liebermanesque rhetoric helps any campaign change their approach, though, I think it's a good thing.

---

by: Maura @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 22:38:54 PM UTC

These kinds of tactics (0.00 / 0)

do NOT endear Hillary to people who are still shopping around for candidates to support. In fact, if I was a big donor, it makes me less inclined to give her any money.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 22:46:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Didn't mean (0.00 / 0)

to step on your virtual toes. Our Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy needs to start being a little more efficient! :)

I share many of your concerns about individual candidates, Obama included. A crucial role for the blogs in the primaries will be ensuring that we hold all candidates accoutable for their tactics, regardless of how we feel about them individually.

No enforcing right-wing smears, no throwing the party under the bus. Period.

---

by: tparty @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 22:46:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amen (0.00 / 0)

I think we could even use this quote of your as something of an MLN "mission statement" regarding '08 primary coverage during the upcoming year:

A crucial role for the blogs in the primaries will be ensuring that we hold all candidates accoutable for their tactics, regardless of how we feel about them individually.

No enforcing right-wing smears, no throwing the party under the bus. Period.

BTW, no prob on the double-posting.  I put in laundry while I was in the middle of drafting, and the early bird gets the worm!  :-)  That is, I didn't get my memo from George Soros telling me you were already posting about this in time. 

---

by: Maura @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 22:51:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And so the fighting begins... (0.00 / 0)

It's all over MSNBC. I have to admit that I think Clinton's camp is coming out as being a little too aggressive with these demands (that's a diplomatic way to put it). Is it because of a fear that Obama somehow has some momentum this early in the race? Especially with the big donors?

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 22:39:51 PM UTC

It's a ridiculous demand (0.00 / 0)

No candidate should have to return money and disavow a supporter who happens to say something negative about an opponent of the candidate he/she supports.

What an utterly silly sort of demand for any campaign to make!  It would be laughable if it wasn't treated so seriously by the media.

---

by: Maura @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 22:42:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's another great writeup on the tiff (0.00 / 0)

From the Carpetbagger Report has the best write-up I've seen on this so far.

Shakespeare's Sister sums it up best:  "You're stupid!  No, you're stupid!"

The whole thing is stupid.

---

by: Maura @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 22:47:52 PM UTC

Josephine Lieberman (4.00 / 1)

I saw somebody refer to HRC as Josephine Lieberman somewhere on the internets. I thought that was clever. Not particularly fair (Hillary didn't write a handful of editorial valentines to the Bush admin in the WSJ at key times undercutting her colleagues) but clever.

---

by: joejoejoe @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 22:54:53 PM UTC

UMMM? (0.00 / 0)

"If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money."

How can Obama remove Geffen from his campaign when he doesn't even work for his campaign? That is as Republican as demanding Iraq to destroy WMDs that they never had to begin with... Impossible.

Chalk it up to right-wing-type political smears.


Drinking Liberally in New Milford
ePluribus Media

---

by: Connecticut Man1 @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 23:12:24 PM UTC

Counting on drive-by opinion formation by voters (0.00 / 0)

The facts don't matter, remember?  All that matters is forming a big negative blot that you can use to dissuade people from getting to know the candidate (millionaire Ned, negative Ned), so people think they "know the truth about....".

They've been shopping around and testing the various choices in the catalog of smears to see who responds to what, where.  That's how it looks, anyhow.

Pretty unattractive.  Quit using smears to jockey into position and do a campaign on the issues, how's 'bout?

Oh, yeah, the smears are what the Clinton's CT friend recommends.  The one who is so turned off by partisan bickering and natterers of negativity.

Is it enough to be the Windex against the smear campaigns that work to blur the views of the candidate? 

What more can we do to lead the way in focusing on issues and qualifications that are important to us, getting to know the candidates beyond bite/counterbite?  Am thinking of how to contribute to that at the moment, but for now let's just say if we have the will maybe we can find the way.

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 23:35:01 PM UTC

More dish from Maureen (0.00 / 0)

Couldn't find the full Geffen interview by Dowd in NYT, but came across this on the internets (scroll down):

More from Dowd:

-- "I don't think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person," Mr. Geffen says, adding that if Republicans are digging up dirt, they'll wait until Hillary's the nominee to use it. "I think they believe she's the easiest to defeat."

-- She is overproduced and overscripted. "It's not a very big thing to say, `I made a mistake' on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can't," Mr. Geffen says. "She's so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms."

-- Once, David Geffen and Bill Clinton were tight as ticks. Mr. Geffen helped raise some $18 million for Bill and slept in the Lincoln Bedroom twice. Bill chilled at Chateau Geffen. Now, the Dreamworks co-chairman calls the former president "a reckless guy" who "gave his enemies a lot of ammunition to hurt him and to distract the country."

-- They fell out in 2000, when Mr. Clinton gave a pardon to Marc Rich after rebuffing Mr. Geffen's request for one for Leonard Peltier. "Marc Rich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the country rather than pay taxes or face justice?" Mr. Geffen says. "Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling."

Ouch!

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 01:08:39 AM UTC

it's nice to sit by (0.00 / 0)

and let others flame her here. :-)

The simple fact is that some of us saw this comming. And "I told you so!" so there! :-)

Hil is doing DLC bullcrap. Just where did Joe get his staff? DLC-land!

There is nothing that should surprise anyone here.

A number of us on-line are still trying to track down where the Richardson smears are coming from... amazingly we can't find them coming from the right wing GOP machine anywhere. That seems to leave a gaping hole that seems to indicate that he was shot at by one "of our own". Now, just what was Richardson doing when he got hit? Hmmm, he was raising funds, over $2,000,000 from FOBs. You know, the guy who's wife is trying to make him the First Husband. He wasn't threatening Edwards, Obama, Kunich, Dodd, and Joe (I'm really in it, I swear!, I'm really a' running!) Biden. He was a direct threat to Hil-Dollars. Now who would benefit by stopping Richardson's ability to do some real early big money fundraising? Yes, that's speculation, but right about now "motive" is all we have as we can't find anyone who admits to knowing just who started the "he plays around" smear and gave it legs.

Hil is really starting to piss off the base, and she doesn't care because she knows that she has what she always had, corporate dollars. The problem is that corporate dollars can not buy a primary (just ask Lieberman) when you have an active base that has turned out against you.

Anyway, nice to see MLN people picking up on this. We (Democrats) do have to demand a higher standard than rovian tactics and a win at all costs mentality.
 

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 01:15:48 AM UTC

Hillary doesn't care about the grassroots (0.00 / 0)

or the netroots.  She believes that her name recognition and her money will get her through the primaries.  So she has started to campaign for President now by appearing to be tough on terrorism -- an appeal to those living in red states.  She did the same thing by sponsoring a bill to outlaw flag burning.  In her mind, once she gets the nomination,the grassroots and netroots will come crawling back because they have no where else to go.  The question is, will we?

I have vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals -- Butch Cassidy
Check out www.ctsmartgrowth.com

---

by: commonweal @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 13:55:45 PM UTC

I will never crawl to the Clinton's (0.00 / 0)

They are whores for corporate interests.

---

by: Larkspur @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 14:25:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]