McCarthyism And Some Coin

A fundraising e-mail sent by Terry McAullife, the Clinton campaign chair:

Dear Friend,

Do you think Bill Clinton is like Joe McCarthy?

Of course you don't. Neither do I. But Barack Obama must because this past weekend, his campaign compared President Clinton to Joe McCarthy. Joe McCarthy!

Ever since we won in Ohio and Texas we have been seeing these kinds of personal attacks from the Obama campaign. It's hard to believe that a campaign that talks so much about changing the tenor of our politics would employ these kinds of tactics, but its the kind of thing we are seeing every day from Senator Obama and his campaign.

Here is just a small sample of the words they have used to describe Hillary and her campaign: "disingenuous," "divisive," "untruthful," "dishonest," and much more.

Well I'm not going to stand for it, and neither should you. There's no better way to fight back than to show your support for our campaign in the face of these attacks.

Click here to make a contribution and help us fight the negative attacks.

I appreciate everything you're doing to help Hillary win, and I know she does too. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Terry McAuliffe

Comments

and obama should answer with his own fundraising email asking people if they think bill richardson looks like judas.

Posted by freaktown | March 24, 2008 8:10 PM

Posting complete fund-raising letters on blogs is not news, nor appropriate for a blog like this.

But this is how the Clintons manipulate the press. Have Bill say an absolutely outrageous thing about Obama's patriotism, and bait Obama's supporters into replying. Get outraged at the reply, blame the Obama supporters for the entire thing. Make it the story of the day, and send controversial copy to journalists who have nothing better to say.

The media is biased--in favor of Clinton...even if a journalist voted for Obama, that journalist so compensates for his own bias that he ends up posting inconsequential fund-raising letters from the Clinton campaign.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | March 24, 2008 8:22 PM

This Clinton fundraising appeal is amazing for its disingenuousness given James Carville's comparison of Bill Richardson to Judas, a much less credible comparison. At least several national commentators have agreed that Bill Clinton was trying to question Obama's patriotism. The Judas thing is pure ad hominem. Those responding to the Terry McAuliffe appeal may as well write their check to John McCain.

Posted by primary observer | March 24, 2008 8:22 PM

OK, McPeak's McCarthy comparison was over the top. But when McAuliffe cites the Obama campaign's attacks, writing, "Here is just a small sample of the words they have used to describe Hillary and her campaign: 'disingenuous,' 'divisive,' 'untruthful,' 'dishonest,' and much more[,]" you have to wonder whether it should evoke the same reaction from HRC supporters as the McCarthy comment. To most Americans, those accusations seem awfully credible and relevant to the campaign.

Posted by north_aufzoo | March 24, 2008 8:24 PM

More important, perhaps, than the content of this message is how many such messages the Clinton campaign is sending out. They are showing up in my mailbox with increasing frequency. What are the latest reports on her fundraising?

Posted by THS | March 24, 2008 8:25 PM

Man, is there anyone more obnoxious than Terry McCauliffe? He writes like a little girl that didn't get invited to the prom.

Posted by Chris | March 24, 2008 8:54 PM

Here is just a small sample of the words they have used to describe Hillary and her campaign: "disingenuous," "divisive," "untruthful," "dishonest," and much more.

Seems pretty accurate to me.

Posted by AKBY | March 24, 2008 9:06 PM

This is absurd. McCauliffe comes off looking more like Cauley McCaulkin. I don't know who I dislike more, Howard Wolfson or Terrence. But, answer me this, who would feel compelled to reach for their wallet if they received this pathetic, "Do you think Bill Clinton is like Joe McCarthy" letter?

As I read the following sentence, I thought how accurate it was if they didn't specifically mention Hillary: "...the words they have used to describe [Hillary and] her campaign: "disingenuous," "divisive," "untruthful," "dishonest," and much more." This sounds like an accurate portrayal of what has been playing out among Clinton's staff, doesn't it?

Just show us the taxes and be done with it.

Posted by cadmus | March 24, 2008 9:15 PM

"disingenuous" Yep

"divisive" Totally

"untruthful" See hillary's Bosnia lie and many many more

"dishonest" Yep

Hard to see those as attacks. Just the plain truth.

Posted by Dudeabides | March 24, 2008 9:23 PM

At some point, the Democratic Party consensus that one must not speak of Clinton's record will dissolve.

When it does, here are some of the issues and terms that will surface:

- just how did Hillbilly made a six figure sum of money trading in commodity futures in Arkansas?

- does experience include the expertise in perjury?

- what about the records that cannot be found that turns up in the White House?

- White Water

- Monica

- Hillbilly's Health Care Plan

- How was a fortune spent on a Senate election campaign where Hillbilly ran nearly unopposed?

Want us go on?

Hillbilly, the last thing Americans will remember you for at the rate you are going is the destruction of the Democratic Party in the face of a shoo in victory.

That is the real Clinton legacy.

Posted by D | March 24, 2008 9:52 PM

This just reminded me I needed to send in my monthly (small) donation to Obama's campaign. Thanks!!

Posted by Shawn Fassett | March 24, 2008 10:57 PM

It certainly brought out the cool aid crowd for the Pied Piper. Nothing like an opportunity for
cheap grace to regurgitate the GOP message.

Posted by overtherainbow | March 24, 2008 11:07 PM

It certainly brought out the cool aid crowd for the Pied Piper. Nothing like an opportunity for
cheap grace to regurgitate the GOP message.

Posted by overtherainbow | March 24, 2008 11:07 PM

It certainly brought out the cool aid crowd for the Pied Piper. Nothing like an opportunity for
cheap grace to regurgitate the GOP message.

Posted by overtherainbow | March 24, 2008 11:07 PM

Is Bill Clinton like Joe McCarthy? He says he's not. I take him at his word. There isn't any reason to doubt that...as far as I know.

Posted by Tom J | March 24, 2008 11:11 PM

ambinder the Clinton shill again posts Clinton propaganda word for word.

Marc, why not just let the Clintons post directly to your blog using your by line. It will save you some time and change your so-called reporting not at all.

It's not just that Ambinder feigns objectivitly while being totally in the bag for Hillary, but that he's such an amateur he can't even hide it.

Keep it up, Marc. Your bosses must realize what a fraud you are. Expect to be canned when Hillary finally admits the obvious - that she's lost - and your use to the mag as a Clinton source ceases to matter.

Posted by Just the Facts | March 24, 2008 11:17 PM

This e-mail, like the incessant Rev. Wright story, is nothing more than something to get the die-hards to rally around. It's for them to parrot to anyone who will listen and to turn office discussions into Crossfire-type shouting matches.

Posted by socctty | March 24, 2008 11:51 PM

If he wasn't on it before, Terry has
made the BottomFeeders hall of fame today.
He joins the ranks of Penn, Carville, Wolfson,
Williams, Begala, oh, crap, I'm having
a carpal tunnel moment.

Posted by interferon | March 25, 2008 12:37 AM

Let's have some fun with the Bible here. Fine, Richardson has traded honor for a few shillings. Hmm, but there is a problem: if Richardson is Judas, that means Hillary is...Jesus.

Alas, I thought only we Obamabots have gotten our candidate confused with the First and the Last. Once again, Hillary will even steal Barack's godliness to win a few votes.

So, who is the real Jesus? It reminds me of a certain Monty Python skit: let's toss her in the water and see if she floats.

Posted by Reginald Avery Wilkins, Ph.D. | March 25, 2008 12:38 AM

McAullife is a pimple on the nether
region of politics. He ain't called
"The Punk" for nuthin'. But golly, it
seems like Hilly needs my support....but
I'm not an undereducated, unmarried
mother of four....so I'll put my wallet
back on the dresser.

Posted by hombre | March 25, 2008 12:43 AM

Of course, if neither of them float, then John McCain, who appears as old as the Word these days, might have more of a claim than is readily apparent.

Posted by Reginald Avery Wilkins, Ph.D. | March 25, 2008 12:47 AM

David Brooks, in Tuesday's NYT column, does the best job yet in assessing just what a Black Widow Clinton has become to the Party. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25brooks.html)

Yet, even at that, Brooks' himself is too kind a gentleman to accurately see exactly what drives the fiend.

She knows she won't be the nominee. But, with the constant pro-McCain blurbs contributed by Hillary and Bill (that will help make the case for a McCain win in ads this fall), and her DefCon-4 attempts to destroy Obama, she now plans on sabotaging his chances in November.

That way she believes she can run again in 2012 when McCain sits for re-election. No one can reasonably expect our Evita to wait till 2016.

As always, it's all about Hillary. David Brooks has a sense of that, just not the Heart of Darkness to truly understand the depths of her depravity.

Posted by filmex | March 25, 2008 12:53 AM

"sent by Terry McAullife"

Ambinder, it's spelled McAuliffe.

one L and 2 F's.
u seem to have trouble with spelling

Posted by khalid | March 25, 2008 1:05 AM