Clinton launches negative attack websites!!!

[mckeown1128]

ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

Votingpresent.com and Votingpresent.org are domains hosted by the same IP address as official Clinton Web sites, such TheHillaryIKnow.com, which was launched with much fanfare this week. The Clinton campaign intends to use these new Web sites to paint Obama as cowardly.

Clinton has attacked Obama for having occasionally voted "present" as an Illinois state legislator when it came to contentious legislation. It was a legislative maneuver that was sometimes part of a plan by Democrats to give cover to vulnerable colleagues...

Clinton has used these present votes to paint Obama as full of words but not action.
"I don't think people want a lot of talk about change," she told Iowans early this month.
"I think they want someone with a real record — a doer, not a talker. After eight years of incompetence, they don't want false hope, they want real results."

The link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4032659&page=1


Well, I guess it was only a matter of time.

[Renew Deal]

1. HAM

Hillary Attack Machine

[aquart]

4. Yeah, she should just bake a cookie.

[MethuenProgressive]

44. ObamaNation decides: Blame Obama's History on Hillary!!

:rofl:

[Connie_Corleone]

2. Criticizing his voting record is fair game.

Obama will respond by defending his record.

This is what she should've been doing all along instead of sending her cronies out, calling him a drug dealer.

[wyldwolf]

3. which is perfectly fine

[TwilightZone]

5. "Attacked" Obama for his record?

How does that work, exactly?

If Obama voted present, and the web site notes that, how is that an attack?

If the Obama campaign is this concerned about allegations that involve the truth, wait until the Republicans start in with the completely fabricated stuff.

[suston96]

6. How many of these threads with the same topic do we need?

Hillary is going after Obama's voting record?

Imagine that. You are a legislator and then become a candidate for higher office and attacks on your voting record is "negative campaigning"?

Good heavens, at long last, is there no honor?

[Occam Bandage]

7. I think your voting record is as legitimate an attack as can possibly exist.

[CoffeeCat]

15. Yes, but this is NOT simply attacking his voting record...

She's attacking him PERSONALLY by name calling. She's calling
him a "coward" and then misrepresenting and exaggerating his voting
record to further define him as a "coward."

Some of you act as if she's just rationally discussing a difference on
policy.

She's engaging in personal attacks and spinning his behavior in slanted ways that
erroneously support her new "Define Obama as a coward!" strategy.

Do you believe that Barak Obama is a "coward"? Do you think it's ok for a candidate
to call someone a "coward"?

When the Republicans did this to our candidates, we called it disgusting and disingenuous.

I guess when Hillary does it, it's just masterful campaigning?

[Occam Bandage]

23. Yeah, I think a failure to pin down your position through your votes is cowardly.

It's not a trait I want to see in a President. I think it's a legitimate line of attack. The legitimate counterattack is that "present" is a common procedure in the IL Senate, and that Hillary is distorting the issue.

[MGKrebs]

24. Where has Clinton called Obama a "coward" or "cowardly"?

I don't see that.

[Skip Intro]

8. Where are they!!!???

[BobRossi]

9. I am shocked!

Only two? ><

[CoffeeCat]

10. At least this will help her lose Iowa...

She is on thin ice with many Iowans as it is. These
attacks make her look desperate and vindictive. I
don't know too many Iowans who are inspired to caucus
by desperation and vindictiveness.

Do those outside of Iowa really understand how horrible
she has conducted her campaign here?

I didn't like her policies before she entered Iowa, but
the way she has run her campaign demonstrates gross
incompetence of such large proportions. It's one
blunder after another, and it's not improving.

She turned people off when she attacked someone who
asked her about Iran--during one of her speeches. She
attacked the person and accused them of being a plant.
Then, she planted questions in the audience at Grinnell
college, then lied about this--and then another Iowan
stepped forward and said that she was selected to ask
Hillary a planted question.

Then, one of her Iowa directors quits after sending out
emails that perpetuate "Muslim" rumors about Obama.

In general, she's given very impersonal, large speeches
and seemed allergic to honest, open dialog.

She rode in to Iowa--with the Rovian playbook in her hand.

I know she has Iowa supporters, obviously--but she has
offended so many people here! It's a complete wreck and
she's running on her "experience"???

After polling indicated that Iowans didn't like her (gee, I
wonder why), she's out grinning ear to ear with her bestist
friends from childhood in tow--to vouch for her niceness.

I want to scream, "Listen up honey! Your polls indicated
Iowans didn't 'like' you--because you ran a vacuous, insulting
campaign and refused to behave like a real person. We don't
like your fakery. Instead of bouncing around all 99
counties with your "I swear Hillary is a sweetheart" brigade--why
don't you just be honest, open and accessible???

Now, she's attacking Obama? That's her answer?

As a non-supporter of Hillary's warmongering and corporate corruption,
I should be joyful at her continued failures. However, by now, it's
just getting tiresome.

I don't know who is advising her, but they're either really ignorant
or they really don't like her.

[asdjrocky]

11. TwoSparkles-

What you say carries a lot of weight with me because you are in the thick of it. Thanks for the report.

[durrrty libby]

32. lol

[asdjrocky]

35. Laughing at people?

Seriously, is that all ya got?

[MGKrebs]

33. For the record- the attacks (so far) do not exist. OK?

This is a rumor about the intent of a website described in inflammatory language not actually used by anybody in the campaign. it is imaginary.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

40. .

[asdjrocky]

12. And I believe advising her is Mark Penn of B&M-

He came along in 94 and the Clinton's have not been the same.

[CoffeeCat]

16. How can Hillary be so ignorant?

What worked for George Bush in 04, does not work now.

People are so tired of the orchestrated, scripted "events" in which
candidates spew their 10 talking points and avoid honest discussion.

How could Hillary Clinton not know this?

How could Hillary Clinton fail to understand the Iowa caucus process?

She seems so completely inept and her campaign so poorly run. I'm
astounded by her lack of foresight and her inability to organize
an effective campaign.

It's astounding.

[Beacool]

34. With all due respect to you and your state,

I have never cared, nor will I ever care, who Iowa votes for in their caucus. I have yet to meet someone in my part of the country who has ever said that they were going to vote for X candidate simply because IA voted for him. BTW, as a state who has yet to vote for a woman at a state level, I would have been shocked if Hillary had been your first pick anyway.

I have asked plenty of people in NJ, NY, PA and now that I'm in FL here too, if their vote would be affected by whoever IA and NH pick as their choice. I have yet to hear from anyone of either party say that they gave a fig about those two states' choices.

[CoffeeCat]

47. It's not about me or my state...

You should care about which candidates Iowa and NH picks, because these candidates are
truly tested in these states.

I wouldn't care if the first few primary caucuses/votes were conducted in other states. However, we
need this process because the incompetents and the fakes are usually weeded out. If they're
not weeded out, they don't fare as well as the more authentic and honest candidates.

If Iowa and NH lost their important spots in this election process, and Montana and Tennessee
were 1st and 2nd instead---I would pay VERY CLOSE attention to which candidates these
states selected.

These first states demand that candidates talk with voters face to face and take the
difficult questions and be challenged by REAL CITIZENS. This is so crucial to our
democratic process, more so than "Super Tuesday" in which the winning candidates succeed
because they the most tainted money that funds a vacuous, impersonal slogan-fest of television ads.

I'd much rather have the primary process front loaded with individual states that truly test the
authenticity and honesty of the candidates--as opposed to their bank accounts--which seep
with money from lobbyists.

[Evergreen Emerald]

14. It is a shame that the Iowans cannot see past the distortions.

I do not understand how addressing the opponent's record is an "attack." And the fact that she uses the technology available, is innovative, not negative.

I guess I thought Iowans were able to see through the BS media distortions to the truth. What is wrong with addressing the opponent's voting record?

[durrrty libby]

19. There is nothing wrong with it. The Hater Hysteria is in overdrive

with their silly fauxrage and self importance:eyes:

[karynnj]

13. Hillary 44 has seemed pretty coordinated with them

and it's been there and nasty for months.

[durrrty libby]

28. That is complete BullShit.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Why is is again that anyone old enough to use a keyboard

can launch or use a preexisting web site to make real or distorted attacks against the record of any political figure that they want, and that is kosher, but an actual candidate can not even register a domain name for a site that suggests it will examine voting records of opponents without that on it's face being a horrible indictment of that candidate which seemingly makes them unfit to hold public office?

Look at the front page of DU GD-P, any time, any day, and this joint is littered with threads focused on attacking the records or one or more candidates, with attacks on Hillary Clinton's record generously (to say the least) represented. Are people saying that also is slimy but since it's only us doing it then it doesn't matter? Or are people claiming instead that what is done on web sites like DU every minute of every day is positively contributing to the public debate about our candidates?

I get the distinct impression that folks here think when we do it we are righteously shedding light on important aspects of the careers of candidates who we strongly believe do not deserve our support. And we do it with impunity. We use the web to call candidates liars and Republican enablers and whores and corporate pawns and empty suits and anything else we want to throw out there, and it is called free speech and democracy in action. But should a candidate who actually is running for office attempt use the internet to focus attention on aspects of an opponents record that they find questionable: OMG that bitch or bastard!

It's time for the blogosphere to grow up. Either we are a real part of politics in America, or we are a bunch of nobodies killing time next to a virtual water cooler. Either what we do with our use of the internet is defensible or it is slimy. Why should the candidates themselves be barred from using the internet to raise issues about the literal voting records of opponents (in a manner 1/10th as inflammatory as many threads here I might add) as the blogs we post on internet web sites every day?

[SaveElmer]

18. Poor Barack doesn't want anyone looking at his record...

Such that it is...

I can understand that...not much "there" there

[loveangelc]

20. this won't be good for her and will only make her slide

if this really becomes big news.

[durrrty libby]

31. That is silly, makes no sense and is a rather dimwitted conclusion

[loveangelc]

42. You're silly and dimwitted if you believe it wouldn't hurt her in Iowa n/t

[CyberPieHole]

21. So? BHObama decided to take the gloves off when he was behind in the polls...

she shouldn't do the same? If Obama can't take the time to vote on important matters you think this qualifies him to be president? How? He is the least qualified for office. I'd vote for any of the candidates over him.

[Capn Sunshine]

22. Yeah. Let's compare voting records

Hillary's drones are playing right into our hands.
You honestly want to go there? Voting records?
Are you sure or are you desperate?

[Occam Bandage]

26. Obama's voting record in the Senate is no better than Clinton's.

[Capn Sunshine]

27. We'll let the public be the judge of that

unlike the Clinton Campaign I trust the voters to decide

[Occam Bandage]

30. What can you point to?

Their mutual funding of the war? Her K-L vote--which Obama ducked? That isn't a winning argument; make it an issue, and she gets an opportunity to defend her vote, while Obama has to apologize for (yet again) failing to take a position.

Seriously, where's the difference? The few issues that Clinton has failed to vote the right way on are the same few issues that Obama has failed to vote the right way on.

[KennedyGuy]

25. Don't you know..Obama is "THE ONE"..

He simply can't be criticized..
Oprah says.."I think he is THE ONE"..
Now go pray for forgiveness for having the gall to criticize Obamas record...

[emilyg]

41. Ok. - I'll light a candle for forgiveness.

[zulchzulu]

29. Ah, I remember the day when Hillary said she wouldn't attack other candidates

Heck, you believe a Clinton and you are fucking screwed, no pun intended.

[Beacool]

36. Oh, I see, she was supposed to simply roll over an play the role

of a good submissive woman while Edwards and Obama attacked her? Please........

[zulchzulu]

37. What Hillary says one day may be contradictory the next day

I don't care if she's a woman or not. She gives good women a bad name in my view.

[DURHAM D]

46. Stop - you don't speak for me.

When you get your uterus transplant maybe you can try to speak for all women.

Your comment is not just sexist - it is chauvinistic.

[Beacool]

48. Hear, hear!!!

I think that she's a GREAT representative for women, not just here but also abroad. Why would she otherwise be the most famous American woman (non performer) in the world? It's not simply because she was a First Lady, but because millions of women have seen her as a beacon in their fight for equality. When Hillary could have coasted along ala Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan, she stuck her neck out and spoke in hostile countries about the rights of women. Even today, after more than a decade of her speech in Beijing, that speech is still quoted by many women's groups in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

[killbotfactory]

38. Misleading bullshit, as usual

"Anyone who says that a `present' vote necessarily reflects that someone is ducking an issue doesn't understand the first thing about legislative strategy," said Pam Sutherland, Planned Parenthood's chief lobbyist in Springfield. "People who work down here and know how things get done are hearing these accusations and saying, `huh?'"

...

Sutherland just laughs. "We also had Emil Jones, Lisa Madigan, Miguel del Valle, Rickey Hendon and other very strong pro-choice legislators voting `present' on that one," she said. "It was all done to pull `present' votes off the fence."

Obama confirmed Sutherland's account of the legislative strategy and said, "No one was more active to beat back those bills than I was."

"Criticizing Obama on the basis of `present' votes indicates you don't have a great understanding of the process," said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/20/101819/09/539/424577

[MGKrebs]

45. Not.

OK, the Planned Parenthood thing was a tactical move. Fine. But what are you arguing- that he never ducked a controversial issue? Of course he did. All politicians do, and they have to defend their record when they run. This is as fair-game as it gets.

In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois Legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from blacks, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

In the end, Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted "present," effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way./div]

[pgh_dem]

39. funny thing in the article...

Sorry, I'm still laughing at the note in the abcnews story about Edwards' campaign launching the "PlantsForHillary.com, purporting to be from various forms of flora supporting the New York senator, though that website was taken down after a day."

And that's being used as the 'somebody else launched an attack site first' rebuttal.

Tinfoil hat moment: anybody else notice that Obama trips the javascript spell-check (with the squiggly red underline), but Edwards and Clinton don't? Damned anti-Obama web software! ps you can right-click it and 'add to dictionary' :7

[MethuenProgressive]

43. Why are all FACTS about Obama's past called "negative"?

Because... they mostly are?