Clinton Launches Obama Attack Web Sites

[EV_Ares]

DES MOINES, Iowa, Dec. 20, 2007
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.

It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.

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, though in some instances it appears that Obama voted present to avoid taking a position with some political risk -- such as with a bill that would have allowed children as young as 15 who committed crimes with firearms on or near school property to be prosecuted as adults.

rest of the article @ link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4032659&page=1

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. Thread number 4 on ths subject! n/t

[rinsd]

2. Apparently the Obamanation is feeling the heat.

New polls IN IA and NH show his surge evaporating.

[SaveElmer]

3. When Obamanation has to start 4 threads on the same topic...it can be only one thing...

DESPERATION!!!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Desperate like a fox!

Whatever that means...

[EV_Ares]

6. When HillaryNation has to post Drudge reports of Edwards that shows desperation.

[EV_Ares]

5. LOL, this shows desperation "It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has

launched a web site with the express purpose of launching serious criticisms on a rival."

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. I think this bears repeating...

...since it seems the OP can endlessly be recyled, why not a reply?:

Why is is again that anyone old enough to use a keyboard...
Edited on Thu Dec-20-07 12:41 PM by Tom Rinaldo

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?