Tim Grieve of Salon.com: Clinton campaign "routinely" sends out oppo-research on opponents.

[ClarkUSA]

However, he says that the Edwards and Obama camps do not.

I have been reading threads which argue that Edwards and Obama are behaving like Republicans for
"attacking" Clinton so I decided to do a little digging to find out the real story. What I found out is
something I thought I'd share with my friends at GDP.

Tim Grieve of Salon's War Room says that the Clinton campaign "routinely" sends out opposition research
(ostensibly in the hope it be used to generate negative media stories on Hillary's opponents) in the form of
"behind-the-scenes e-mails to newspaper reporters and bloggers -- the sorts of e-mails we get from the
Clinton campaign but not from the Edwards or Obama camps...". After receiving yet another email Tuesday,
Grieve decided he'd had enough. Here's what he wrote:

'Here's our memo in response: Stop.

When Obama spoke of the "politics of hope" during his speech at the Democratic National Convention, he did so
to contrast it with what he called the "politics of cynicism" and the "politics of anything goes," the "spin masters"
and "negative ad peddlers" who would divide Americans, liberal against conservative, black against white, red
state against blue.

If Obama was suggesting that one candidate couldn't or shouldn't make it clear that he disagrees with another
on matters of substance, well, he didn't say that then, and he's not saying that now... While Clinton herself generally
-- but not always -- stays above the fray, the Clinton campaign routinely reaches out to reporters to provide
information they might use to attack her Democratic opponents. Some of it comes in public statements like the
Penn memo the campaign sent around today or the harsh, on-the-record comments Clinton spokesman Phil Singer
has made about Edwards' "flagging campaign" or Obama's "same old attack politics."

Much more of it comes in behind-the-scenes e-mails to newspaper reporters and bloggers -- the sorts of e-mails
we get from the Clinton campaign but not from the Edwards or Obama camps...We're probably breaking the rules
in mentioning it, but we figure it's fair game: If you're going to claim that the other guys are doing something wrong
in calling your candidate's views into question, you don't get to pretend that you're not doing the same.'

Grieve goes on to make a larger point that I've seen made here by some wise souls:

'The last thing the Democratic Party needs now is somebody else -- let alone one of its own -- suggesting that open
debate is somehow wrong... a one-sided conversation is a one-sided conversation, no matter who's doing
the talking. Elections are necessarily choices among competing candidates and competing visions. If Clinton can run
her campaign without ever mentioning why she thinks she's better than her opponents, more power to her. But mere
mortals can't do that, and they shouldn't have to. If Clinton was serious about having a "dialogue" -- if part of her
own hope for America is that we'll have a more open society than the one in which we've lived for the past six years --
then it's high time for her campaign to stop trying to shame its opponents into silence. Engage with the criticisms
or ignore them; just don't argue that it's wrong to raise them in the first place.'

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/3/101348/080

No matter who the nominee is, I hope after the primaries are over we can all join together in defeating the Republican
candidate next November. Until then, maybe we at GDP can focus less on strawman attacks and more on substantive
debate on the issues that matter most to the future of our country.

Thanks for reading.

[Lucinda]

1. If it's honest info and not spin

its fine with me. Misrepresentation, however, is shoddy politics and should be stopped.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. Doing dirt while claiming she's not and simultaneously sucking pity for being a victim is deplorable

It's very simple: it's extreme hypocrisy. The endless claims that many Clinton partisans make that she's somehow altruistic and not engaging in the politics of personal destruction is as flatly incorrect as the oft-cited propaganda that Bill Clinton didn't attack his opponents in 1992.

If she's claiming that she's not doing it, then that needs to be true; otherwise, it's the worst kind of dishonest posturing: claiming virtue while being underhanded and disruptive.

At least Edwards and Obama have the character to do it in the bright light of day, and when Obama got hit back pretty seriously by Clinton over the talking with hostile foreign leaders and use of nuclear weapons issues, he didn't bellyache about being picked upon.

This is just disgusting. It's nothing new, and the acts themselves aren't so out of keeping with standard politics, it's the smarmy and sanctimonious piety of the denials and misrepresentations that're disgusting. She'd best contain or stop this kind of thing, too; people don't like it.

[Lucinda]

9. My, my..."Sucking pity" is such a lovely turn of phrase.

She pointed out a fact, and didn't ask for pity. She said front runners expect it. Her comments made to a womens college, her alma mater in fact, were also on target. And also not asking for pity.

What you just did in your post is exactly what I was talking about.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. By talking about a "pile-on" and a "boys club" she's not playing for sympathy?

How so?

[MethuenProgressive]

2. Is Tim Grieve being honest? Is this the claim of one blogger?

This blogger is claiming no one other than Clinton sends out behind the scenes emails?
Sure. Yeah. Right...

[Adelante]

5. That's what I think, too

I wouldn't believe that for one minute.

[ClarkUSA]

10. The OP link is to a DKos blogger. Here is the link to Salon.com writer Grieve's entire article...

I don't see what Grieve has to gain by constructing a great lie. It sounds as if he has friends in the newspaper
world who've corrobated his story. He doesn't have anything to gain by angering the Clinton machine. In fact,
he has much to lose, given their immense political clout and the distinct possibility she may be the nominee
and later, POTUS.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/10/30/hope/index.html

[KittyWampus]

3. And a disturbing though- WHY does the media so readily play footsie with Clinton?

"Much more of it comes in behind-the-scenes e-mails to newspaper reporters and bloggers -- the sorts of e-mails we get from the Clinton campaign but not from the Edwards or Obama camps: On the "off-chance" you didn't read it, here's a copy of a Washington Post editorial calling Obama "irresponsible"; just "wanted to flag this item" in which the Huffington Post criticizes Obama on Iran; here's something Edwards just said about Iraq, and here's something contradictory he said earlier."

[ClarkUSA]

13. I can hazard two guesses.

One is media access, which the Clinton campaign severely restricts to reinforce the
impression she is the president-in-waiting.

Two is laziness on the part of some reporters, networks, and journalists to do the
research and find a story on their own, preferring to accept the piece of political red
meat thrown at them (I had a reporter tell me this during the 2004 presidential
primary season).

[BootinUp]

4. What a non-issue Timmy.

I couldn't really care less whether he wants to receive emails from the clinton campaign or any other campaign.

[rodeodance]

6. and?

[creeksneakers2]

8. I don't see any difference between the E-mails and

public statements from the Hillary campaign.

Hillary did an ad complaining about piling on but she didn't say nobody could criticize her. I don't know where the Salon.com blogger came up with that idea. The blogger says Hillary "tries to shame her opponents into silence." That statement is way overboard.

Obama told the press himself that he was changing tactics to draw distinctions between himself and Clinton. I have no problem with Hillary drawing attention to Obama changing positions.

Hillary hasn't pretended she never attacks an opponent or that she is a victim. Her message is that she is being attacked from all directions but is strong enough to stand up to it. That's the reality.

[ClarkUSA]

11. Grieve's larger point is getting lost so I'll repeat it.

"If Clinton was serious about having a "dialogue" -- if part of her own hope for America is that we'll have a more
open society than the one in which we've lived for the past six years -- then it's high time for her campaign to stop
trying to shame its opponents into silence. Engage with the criticisms or ignore them; just don't argue that it's wrong
to raise them in the first place."

Also:

"If you're going to claim that the other guys are doing something wrong in calling your candidate's views into question,
you don't get to pretend that you're not doing the same."

[JNelson6563]

16. Not hard to believe

I think that there was an effort to shame Clinton's critics from the last "debate", you remember, the "pile on" and such?

And following the lead of the official campaign I see here on DU claims that criticism (no matter how valid) is simply doing the "work of the right wing" and "helping Rove".

It is very evident throughout, from top to bottom, stem to stern and all that. To not see it would pretty much require that one doesn't WANT to see it.

Julie

[creeksneakers2]

17. "Shame opponents into silence"

is a gross exaggeration of making the point that her opponents and the media are all piling on her at once. Will any of them actually be silent because Hillary criticized the way they piled on? Is there any pressure to do so? None of her opponents will be ashamed, especially not Edwards who is the sleaziest of all of them.

I don't call all criticism of Hillary right wing or working for Rove. The differences on the Iran resolution, for example, are left wing type disagreements. Stuff like the story that Hillary called an audience member a plant or that Hillary is a double talker who won't a stand on an issue are examples of right wing slander type attacks. The right wing attacks with false anecdotes and slanders against character.

Another right wing tactic is to take away a target's ability to move by creating special unfair rules that apply only to right wing opponents. Thus, Democrats who don't go along with the right wing legislative agenda are called "obstructionist." The idea is to get Democrats to fear being called obstructionist, so they'll stop opposing the right wing legislative agenda. There are many other examples of these right wing tactics. Double talk is intended to force Hillary into a position where she can only give black and white answers that will be later condemned for their failure to point out nuances. "Shame opponents into silence" is a smear that labels any retorts Hillary makes as anti free speech. Its intended to stop Hillary from being able to respond.

I'm not influenced by what I want to see. I am influenced by years of monitoring right wing media and seeing how the sleazy attacks against the Clintons work.

[LoZoccolo]

12. I would definately want our candidate to show the ability to do this research on the Republican. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

15. This is exactly what the GOP did in 2000.

They fax'd little clusterbombs to the MSM who printed it without vetting. By the time the truth came to light, if there was a retraction it was on page 17 and, by then, the MSM had moved on to launching its next clusterbomb.

Seen it before. Karl Rove 101.

IMO all's fair in politics if you can stand the taint.

[Terri S]

18. I want to kick this

I think it's really important that everyone sees the kind of sleezy, underhanded way that the Clinton campaign goes after her competition behind the scenes while feigning innocence to the public. As far as I'm concerned, this is right out of the Karl Rove handbook and highlights a very important reason why I simply don't trust her. It points to a real dishonesty and hypocrisy and willingness to go to any depths to win. This may be really projecting unfairly, but if she'll do this against members of her own party, will she treat, say protesters against her policies, fairly and above board? Will she, like someone else we know, say in speeches that she is against torture, while secretly giving a wink and nod if she thinks it's necessary? She's hinted that there MAY be instances where the necessity may arise. Will she publicly talk about diplomacy with Iran, while secretly preparing to military intervention? She's gotten more money from the defense industry than any other candidate Dem or Repub.

The projections may be totally unfair, but when you operate behind the scenes like this in a campaign, we'd better be concerned with what she'll do once she has all the power that the * administration has amassed in the last 7 years. She's showing everyone how she operates now. That doesn't engender a great deal of trust for me in how she'll operate once in office.