Obama Campaign Believes "Starr" Remark Crosses Line

I've heard from several senior Obama aides today who are indignant about a new line of attack from Sen. Clinton's campaign.

On a conference this morning and in a follow up memo, Clinton aides compared recent Obama campaign tactics to independent counsel Kenneth Starr's Whitewater investigation/imbroglio.

Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, said Obama and his campaign were "imitiating Ken Starr."

In a memo entitled "No Answers, Just Attacks," the campaign elaborated: "Apparently, the Obama campaign’s idea of new politics is to recycle the same old Republican attacks on Senator Clinton that have failed for years. Imitating Ken Starr is not the way to win the Democratic nomination."

Bill Burton, Obama's national press secretary, responded:

“It is absurd that after weeks of badgering the media to ‘vet’ Senator Obama, the Clinton campaign believes that they should be held to an entirely different standard. We don’t believe that expecting candidates for the presidency to disclose their tax returns somehow constitutes Ken Starr-tactics, but the kind of transparency and accountability that Americans are looking for and that’s been missing in Washington for far too long. And if Senator Clinton doesn’t think that the Republicans will ask these very same questions, then she’s not as ready to go toe-to-toe with John McCain as she claims,”

Comments

Let's talk about crossing lines, and recall Hillary's charming comments about how she has the experience to be president, how McCain has the experience to be president, and how Obama's got a speech.

Stay classy, Hill.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 6, 2008 12:19 PM

Just when you think they can't sink any further, the Clinton campaign travels to new depths.

Fuck all that, Wolfson. Release the tax returns. NOW. And stop bitching about her being "vetted".

Posted by Scientific | March 6, 2008 12:21 PM

Barack Obama likely to Win Texas
Things may not be as bad for Obama as they seemed Tuesday night. In the Texas primary Hillary Clinton leads in primary delegates by 65 to 61. But Obama is leading by a whopping 12% in the Caucus count. So far only 40% caucus results have come in and he is greadually increasing his lead. Even if the ultimate caucus result remains the same i.e. Obama's 56% to Clinton's 44%, Obama will win Texas overall (not counting the Super delegates). This is how the math works out:

Delegate Allocation:
Primary (99% results in) Clinton 65 Obama 61
Caucus (40% results in so far
Obama 56% Clinton 44%
assuming total 67 delegates
allocated on this basis) Clinton 29 Obama 38

Total Delegates Clinton 94 Obama99

Once all the caucus results are in, Obama should claim victory in Texas.

Also he needs to fire his advisor Goolsbee who damaged him tremendously in the Ohio primary by telling a Canadian Consulate employee in Chicago that Obama does not mean what he says about NAFTA. Obama should also address this issue in his next speech and take it head on to put this controversy to rest.

Posted by Ajaz | March 6, 2008 12:25 PM

Hey, I can play this game too.

Which candidate is blowing the race?

Posted by southpaw | March 6, 2008 12:40 PM

ugh, this is why i wanted it all to end tuesday night.

THANKS A F**KING LOT, OHIO AND TEXAS!

Posted by rob! | March 6, 2008 12:41 PM

southpaw, you meant to say "away," right? Because otherwise it sounds a little different.

Posted by Jeff Hussein Larson | March 6, 2008 12:44 PM

What an utterly preposterous headline to this post: "Obama Campaign believes "Starr" Remark Crosses Line"

The headline is preposterous for several reasons:

1. It implies that comparing Obama to Starr might, in fact, NOT seem absurd to any intelligent observer.

2. It implies that there will be some mention of a "line" that is "crossed" in the Obama campaign's actual response to the comparison. When in fact there is no such mention.

3. It attempts, by combination of 1 and 2, to create the aura of a legitimate conflict about the comparison, when in reality we have an utterly absurd statement made by Wolfson and a reasonable response made by Burton.

When will Jeff Larson start giving this site some gravitas with Arrested Development quotes?

Posted by wj | March 6, 2008 12:47 PM

I wonder whether the Clinton campaign has any clue about how much it is angering those of us who support Senator Obama. It's not enough for Clinton to say we're stupid or delusional. And it's not enough for them to try to steal the nomination by relying on what they laughably call the "automatic" delegates. Now they're trying to completely destroy Obama and everything he stands for. God forbid that we should ever have freaking hope in this country. That is NOT permitted. We MUST keep "fighting" everyone, regardless of whether they're in our own party or the Republican party.

I wouldn't be taking it so hard if I thought for a minute that the Clintons want to do something good for this country. But I don't believe a word they say. They're in this for them, and for more power and even more money once Hillary becomes president and starts charging half a million per speech. They won't do a damn thing to help all of these poor people Hillary has dumped into voting for her.

In a lot of ways, I'm starting to think the best thing for Obama would be for Hillary to steal the nomination via the superdelegates. Then Obama can be there to pick up the pieces in 2012. I'm not sure either candidate can win the general election now. While I think Obama stands a chance of healing the rifts in the party, with all of Hillary's ridiculous pitching of groups against one another, she has a lot of supporters (women, Latinos) who likely won't be able to be talked into voting for Obama. And I don't see a way for Clinton to win back the African American vote (or the youth vote, or the votes of those of us who simply want a change in the way things are done) if she gets the superdelegates to give her the nomination.

This party is going down in flames. But the Clintons don't care, not one whit. It's all about them. My belief is that Hillary's stategy now is to either win the nomination via the superdelegate route, or if she fails, make sure she takes Obama down so far that there is no way he can win in November. Some great strategy. Thank you, Clintons.

Posted by Lynn | March 6, 2008 12:49 PM

At precisely 12:44 p.m. EST. It was the best I could do with what I had to work with. I agree that the site needs more gravitas, given Marc's apparent struggles with the OC Disorder and the resulting compulsion to post HRC campaign talking points at all hours of day and night.

Posted by Jeff Hussein Larson | March 6, 2008 12:53 PM

John Aravosis at Americablog reminds us that during her Senate race, Hillary was all over her opponent Rick Lazio for his failure to release his tax returns....

--------------

From The Hill:
Ann Lewis and Howard Wolfson, top aides to Clinton, held a conference call with reporters in which they said that Obama’s calling on the former first lady to release her tax returns were similar to attacks from the GOP that the Clintons have faced before.

“I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is a way to win a Democratic primary for the presidency,” Wolfson said.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Especially after it was Hillary who made "Mr. Lazio, release those tax returns" a key part of her 2000 Senate campaign against Republican Rick Lazio. Back then Hillary said it was "frankly disturbing" that a candidate would waffle over when they were going to release their returns. But now that she's the one waffling, saying she may release them "around" April 15 (if we're lucky), suddenly it's the Spanish Inquisition to expect her to be true to her previous word. (Obama released his returns a year ago.)

And a quick word about the "around" April 15th quasi-promise. Does around April 15 mean before or after the final important primary in Pennsylvania on April 22? And even if it's before April 22, how much before? Is Hillary planning on dumping 7 years worth of tax documents on the media with only days to go before the Pennsylvania primary, so there's no time for the media to fully vet the documents, no time for Democratic voters to find out what's in them and have all the facts before voting? Why not just release them now? It costs a dime to go to Kinkos. What is Hillary hiding that she would invoke Monica - Monica! - in order to change the subject?

Posted by cousin vinnie | March 6, 2008 12:57 PM

"1. It implies that comparing Obama to Starr might, in fact, NOT seem absurd to any intelligent observer.

Posted by wj"

If the shoe fits.

Here is obama handler plouffe:

Campaign Manager David Plouffe went so far as to call Hillary Clinton the "most secretive politician in America today."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/05/734818.aspx

Either the french sounding plouffe was born last night or he is a desperate liar. Take your pick.

Either the french sounding plouffe was born last night or he is a desperate liar. Take your pick.

obama's camp have proved they are pretty much keystone cops just like starr and the "liberal media" is the only thing keeping their disgusting side show going. But I’d throw in rove to. Go all the way back to the beginning of obama's campaign when adnag outed the 'not for attribution' emails obama's camp was sending out. obama nad his surrogates dragged out the most vile and disgusting rat wing lies then emailed to the "liberal media." Up to Jackson jr and obama’s SC HQ picking up the “liberal medias” race baiting after NH.

Posted by hadenough | March 6, 2008 1:00 PM

Marc. You need to take a WWEMD (What Would Edward P. Murrow Do) what story would he be all over, and how would he report it? I can't believe that so many journalist have the opportunity to get back to ideas, but are choosing to wallow in spin.

Is everyone too afraid to report the truth w/out spin? Is everyone afraid to call a pig a pig w/out spin? Right now I can tell you What Edward is doing; he's rolling around in his grave.
Hats off to the journalist, talking ques from Tina Fey!

The world is watching.

Posted by Eh? | March 6, 2008 1:04 PM

Lynn:

Now they're trying to completely destroy Obama and everything he stands for.

Would you like a crying towel? Get a grip.

*the world's smallest violin plays on*

Barack Obama opened himself up to that line by digging up old discredited charges in a desperate attempt to stem the tide against him.

Allow me to grab you a moist towelette as I gather my thoughts.

Politics is a tough business, if your candidate can't take it maybe he should go back to the Illinois state senate where things are a little bit more is speed.

Posted by Tim K | March 6, 2008 1:07 PM

Oh and ambinder thanks for not printing any thing the Clinton camp said but just copying and pasting obama talking points.

For the non-rubes here is a full account:

Communications Director Howard Wolfson accused Obama of "imitating Ken Starr" in his attacks on Hillary, and senior adviser Ann Lewis began the call with a statement that raised questions about Obama's claim he would offer a new kind of politics.

"One day after losing elections in Ohio and Texas, where the debate centered on issues of the economy and national security, the Obama campaign has apparently decided that instead of addressing these issues, they're going to focus on attacking Hillary Clinton. I did not realize that their version of new politics is to recycle some of the same old Republican attacks on Hillary that have failed for years. This new strategy, I've gotta say, suggests a campaign that is unable to make the positive case," she said.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/06/737322.aspx

Posted by hadenough | March 6, 2008 1:08 PM

His response has to be that Ken Starr was all about sex, and this is money, and in this country money talks. People have a right to know who has given hundreds of thousands, even millions, to the Clinton Foundation and Library. Sources of income are fair game even if their sex life is private.

Posted by Mimikatz | March 6, 2008 1:08 PM

Hey, Tim K, tell us about that berry juice thing again?

Posted by Heinrich | March 6, 2008 1:12 PM

tax returns plz ^_^

Posted by azn snsazn | March 6, 2008 1:13 PM

Wolfson himself has played the Ken Starr role on Clinton's behalf

Back when Clinton was running for the Senate against Rick A. Lazio, Clinton's campaign was all over Lazio to release his tax returns. Source: NYTimes

In fact, Wolfson himself played a role:

The Democrats have been sowing conspiracy theories of the what-is-Lazio-hiding variety, not to mention dispatching Uncle Sam to keep the issue in reporters' faces. On Wednesday, Howard Wolfson, the chief spokesman for Mr. Lazio's opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, even showed up at a Lazio event in Harlem to fan the flames. [emphasis mine]

Posted by Susan Kitchens | March 6, 2008 1:16 PM

"french sounding plouffe"

OMG - the Clinton supporters truly are following the Bush/Rove 2004 campaign strategy all the way down to calling their competitors "french".

That fits well with the "vote for the other guy and your kids DIE" ad.

Hilarious.

Posted by Kristi | March 6, 2008 1:16 PM

Hey, Tim K, tell us about that berry juice thing again?

I saw somewhere where someone referred to that Tim K guy as the board idiot. No doubt!

Posted by Walleye | March 6, 2008 1:16 PM

Obama's campaign needs to learn to speak in plain English. All they had to say was: "Vet this! You want a candidate that can go up against the Republican attack machine? Then release your tax returns now to prove that machine can't use it against you."

Posted by scruncher | March 6, 2008 1:19 PM

"tax returns plz ^_^

Posted by azn snsazn"

Agreed. It's looking pretty bad for obama. I'm guessing we'll find out he has some rezko cash buried in his income.

Posted by hadenough | March 6, 2008 1:26 PM

hadenough,

Just curious...what are you going to do during the next 8 years of President Obama's administration? How much will you have had by then? And when is enough, really enough?

Posted by DSG | March 6, 2008 1:32 PM

Being qualified to be President includes staying above those things which disqualifies one from being President. If Hillary can not release her tax return in the next fortnight she is simply not qualified. the "arround April 15" talk is simply dodgy. They should release it now or explain what they are hidding.

Posted by Raymond Micheals | March 6, 2008 1:48 PM

Walleye:

Coming from this board that's a badge of honor.

Heinrich:

Teaches me for being quotable.

Mimikatz:

Ken Starr was all about sex because he couldn't find any actual evidence of wrong-doing in financial dealings. That's the point.

Posted by Tim K | March 6, 2008 1:49 PM

Obama sucks. I am fed up with his lies and right wing smear campaign against our liberal standard bearer.

Please, won't some Party adults have a talk with him and force him out now before he destoys our chances to ever get universal health insurance?

Posted by ken | March 6, 2008 1:57 PM

Please, won't some Party adults have a talk with him and force him out now before he destoys our chances to ever get universal health insurance?

I think Ken might be a Republican troll. That said, it is clear to me that Obama needs to stop with the Republican attacks on Clinton. She's been fully vetted over 18 years. If she releases her tax returns by April 15 as she's promised, then what's the big deal?

Obama has been terrific for the party. He's generated a ton of enthusiasm. But it's clear that his inability to win either Ohio or Texas was the result of a turn in the polls once people got to know him a bit more (Rezko and the Goolsbee flap). I'd hate to see him get creamed in the generals because he wasn't fully vetted.

These next 6 weeks will be crucial, but I do think that Obama supporters should be prepared to come behind Hillary if she wins PA and the superdelegates line up behind her. Hillary supporters have always been prepared to get behind him if he were the nominee.

Obama will be a fine candidate in 2012 if she loses or 2016.

Posted by Joe Strummer | March 6, 2008 2:10 PM

before he destoys our chances to ever get universal health insurance?

I thought Hilly and Harold took care of that back in '93?

Posted by Juan | March 6, 2008 2:11 PM

i agree totally with lynn if you think anything hillary says comes from heart you are mistaken.
8 years in the WH wasn't enough?
tax return release is very very telling for anybody who is honest
about anything! what does this mean that she first refused and now she says april 15!!
another point is that i think if clinton had won 12 straight states
you can bet that they would have made obama quit.
i hope he wins the next few and i hope that the young and the true
americans pull thru for this last hope that this country has.

Posted by alan | March 6, 2008 2:14 PM

She's been fully vetted over 18 years.

How about the money trail from Frank Giustra and his uranium mine in Kazakhstan to Bill to Hillary? Has that been "vetted"?

Posted by Cal | March 6, 2008 2:17 PM

Our campaign is being too nice. When you go to war with the Clintons you go nuclear not these half-hearted misstatements:

Mr Burton instead of spending all these lines defending your request to Hillary's tax release why don't you simply type the following question:

"Enough stonewalling, the American people demand answers: Did Arab extremists pay for her campaign in Ohio? The American people deserve to know".

STOP APOLOGIZING, if you want war with the Clintons better throw everything you have.

Posted by yiannis | March 6, 2008 2:18 PM

I do believe that the pot has now called the kettle black, and I don't mean that in a racist sense. :-)

Posted by Comrade Kevin | March 6, 2008 2:30 PM

I think the Republican trolls are the ones voting for Obama in the open primaries...

Have any of the cult-of-Obama ever stopped to think about why the Republicans would prefer that he face McCain in the election? It's because they don't think he has a chance in hell of beating McCain.

Posted by Dr. S. | March 6, 2008 2:41 PM

Hold your horses folks--Ajaz is right on. CBS, CNN, and the other media stooges are totally jumping the gun here. Hillary is brilliant at manipulating public opinion, playing both victim and victor at the same time. Don't believe the hype!

Posted by TXCourtney | March 6, 2008 2:46 PM

Let the American PEOPLE see your TAX RETURNS Clinton ! What are you afraid of ?

Posted by PulSamsara | March 6, 2008 2:47 PM

"But it's clear that his inability to win either Ohio or Texas was the result of a turn in the polls once people got to know him a bit more (Rezko and the Goolsbee flap)."

Let's see, Rezko is all insinuation with actually nothing behind it.

Goolsbee was a nothing story set forth by the Canadian government after the Clinton camp had already contacted Canada to say to take anything said with "a grain of salt."

So actually, instead of knowing more about Obama, they have heard things that at best are slurs, and at worst downright lies.

And Clinton has hardly been vetted. Her foreign policy experience? Not vetted.
Her ties to Rezko? Not vetted.
Her ties to contributors to Bill's charity? Not vetted.
Her refusal to return donations from a convicted criminal? Not vetted.

Look, this game can go both ways. For either of them, there will always be something that can come up. So don't use the "she's been vetted" line, because it is patently ridiculous.

Additionally, the Republican attack machine can just make things up or take a small story and twist it into something it isn't (like Clinton has done with both Rezko and NAFTA-gate).

And as we have learned this past week, truth becomes irrelevant.

Posted by john | March 6, 2008 2:48 PM

Have any of the cult-of-Obama ever stopped to think about why the Republicans would prefer that he face McCain in the election? It's because they don't think he has a chance in hell of beating McCain.

I disagree. Either one could win. I just think there's less risk with Hillary. If the Republicans attack her over tax returns, most voters will simply shrug their shoulders. They have already built in a sense that she's got these problems.

Posted by Joe Strummer | March 6, 2008 2:50 PM

Has anyone ever noticed that every time the Clintons political opponents fail to defeat them they resort to resurrecting trumped up, exaggerated and discredited charges from the past? This is a familiar road that Obama, Axelrod, Plouffe and Burton are travelling down.

It didn't work when Jerry Brown when he tried it in 1992. It didn't work for George H. W. Bush that autumn. It didn't work for Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich in 1995-1996, or Ken Star in 1998-99. Rick Lazio tried dredging all of this up in 2000 as well. The Arkansas Project failed to destroy the Clintons despite their best efforts. An unprecedented $60,000,000 investigation into the entire personal and financial history of two people and they came up with nothing! Except that Bill lied about sex. That's it.

Every time a political opponent of either Clinton gets desperate they kneel down, grab a fist full of mud and throw.

That's all this is.

Posted by Tim K | March 6, 2008 2:57 PM

Joe - Hillary Clinton has waged one of, if not THE most negative campaign in democratic primary history, especially in the last two weeks.

She has clearly decided to put herself ahead of the party by labeling her fellow democratic opponent as "unqualified" to lead this nation. That type of garbage makes me wonder if Karl Rove is now on her payroll. Her actions of the last week are clearly going to hurt the party when Obama is nominated. She needs to stop now and be more respectful of her fellow democratic opponent before she does some real damage. There really is no way he will pick her as his VEEP now.

Posted by Philly Dog | March 6, 2008 3:05 PM

Is there anything else Obama can do to prove he is not ready for the big time? I used to have a favorable opinion, but I've come to the conclusion Hillary is right -- he's an empty suit that plays the victim and whines. Plus he's thoroughly compromised by his complicity in the Rezko corruption scandal. It's time for Obama to head back to the IL state senate. He's not ready for prime time.

Posted by Tom | March 6, 2008 3:12 PM

grab a fist full of mud - Tim K

Shouldn't that be a cup full of dark, sweet berry juice, Tim?

Posted by Walleye | March 6, 2008 3:12 PM

Thanks, Tom, for trolling. Doesn't your WalMart shift start at 4:00? better get going!

Posted by Laura | March 6, 2008 3:14 PM

Walleye:

You're a lot like the Obama campaign. Cannot or will not respond substantively to what's been said, but instead ignore the legitimate arguments and respond with noise.

What problem do you have with being black? With people with darker skin tones? I was simply asking the question of why anyone assumes darker skin tones are a negative attribute. One of the great things about the increased appreciation of diversity and difference in society is being able to recognize that indeed Black is Beautiful, just as white and brown and every other shade is beautiful. I'm just highly disappointed that some people here choose to further negative stereotypes associated with skin color by implying that if Barack Obama's skin looks a shade darker in a photo that makes him less appealing to voters. That's pretty insulting to voters.

In any event, if Obama thinks he can win the nomination by raising discredited Republican talking points about land deals then he can go right ahead and we'll see how far that gets him.

Posted by Tim K | March 6, 2008 3:21 PM

What problem do you have with being black? With people with darker skin tones?

Tim K:

Nice Clintonian pivot of taking something that you said:

"The darker the berry, the sweeter the juice"

which is a racial slur, and somehow turning it around to make the problem about me. Not surprising that you'd try on that pathetic tactic, but amazing nevertheless.

I have no issue with skin color whatsoever. I have a mixed race family, and I vigorously support an African American Presidential candidate. It's you, as evidenced by your inane slur, that most obviously do. As a habit, I don't throw around the term "racist" lightly. However, in your case it's easy. Make duplicitous excuses, attempt to interject plausible deniability, whatever. You know the deal, I know it, as does anyone who read your comment. You're a racist jackass. It's just too bad I don't have the opportunity to give you a bit more graphic perspective face to face.

Posted by Walleye | March 6, 2008 4:01 PM

Tim K may be a troll, but at least he's a hardworking troll. he averages about 5 minutes between posts. keep up the good sock-puppetry.

Posted by BA | March 6, 2008 4:07 PM

Seems like Tim K is a racist with Mama issues. What could be more pathetic than that?

I laugh at guys like that. They tend to be short, bald, and loud.

Posted by Estrella | March 6, 2008 4:16 PM

Marc, that made me laugh a little. I'm thinking "uhm, what does pushing for tax returns have to do with blowjobs, cigars or interns??" but I'm sure that the Clintons won't ever explain that.

To the person who asked whether the Clinton campaign knows the anger or effect they are having ~ I believe that they absolutely do. While I think they seem to operate on the echo chamber effect of "say it loud enough and often enough and it drowns the rest out" they aren't stupid. I'm guessing that at worst, the newly engaged voters for Obama will either be so disheartened with a Clinton ticket that they'll stay home or that they'll vote Dem. Either way, it works for Clinton and that isn't stupid, that's standard politics.

Posted by Lolo | March 6, 2008 4:29 PM

Marc, that made me laugh a little. I'm thinking "uhm, what does pushing for tax returns have to do with blowjobs, cigars or interns??" but I'm sure that the Clintons won't ever explain that.

To the person who asked whether the Clinton campaign knows the anger or effect they are having ~ I believe that they absolutely do. While I think they seem to operate on the echo chamber effect of "say it loud enough and often enough and it drowns the rest out" they aren't stupid. I'm guessing that at worst, the newly engaged voters for Obama will either be so disheartened with a Clinton ticket that they'll stay home or that they'll vote Dem in spite of it. Either way, it works for Clinton and that isn't stupid, that's standard politics.

Posted by Lolo | March 6, 2008 4:30 PM

Tim K,

I particularly enjoyed this line from your many instances of fine analysis:

Every time a political opponent of either Clinton gets desperate they kneel down and...

Ah,now that image really does bring me back to the 90s. Thanks!

Posted by wj | March 6, 2008 5:00 PM

The greatest assets Bill Clinton had back in those days of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy were his enemies. Who could bear to be in the same room, let alone on the same side of any question, with the likes of Tom Delay and, yes, Ken Starr? Now, in their hour of need, the Clintons are again attempting to square the circle and transform one of the most promising, young politicians of our time into one of those hypocritical hacks of bygone days. This is character assassination of the first order. For what? For suggesting that Hillary Clinton should release her tax returns.

I am reminded of the great Joseph Welch's tired, sad comment to Joseph McCarthy during the Army hearings in the 1950s:

When McCarthy persisted in slandering his young client, Welch responded, "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never gauged your cruelty or your recklessness[...]" When McCarthy resumed his attack, Welch interrupted him: "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

It is time for someone in the Democratic Party to rise up and stop this before it is too late. What is at risk is an entire generation and the generations-old connection of the party to the aspirations of African-Americans. If this does not stop, there will not be another Democratic President for years to come. It is time to call for decency.

Posted by Mwelch62 | March 6, 2008 5:03 PM

The greatest assets Bill Clinton had back in those days of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy were his enemies. Who could bear to be in the same room, let alone on the same side of any question, with the likes of Tom Delay and, yes, Ken Starr? Now, in their hour of need, the Clintons are again attempting to square the circle and transform one of the most promising, young politicians of our time into one of those hypocritical hacks of bygone days. This is character assassination of the first order. For what? For suggesting that Hillary Clinton should release her tax returns.

I am reminded of the great Joseph Welch's tired, sad comment to Joseph McCarthy during the Army hearings in the 1950s:

When McCarthy persisted in slandering his young client, Welch responded, "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never gauged your cruelty or your recklessness[...]" When McCarthy resumed his attack, Welch interrupted him: "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

It is time for someone in the Democratic Party to rise up and stop this before it is too late. What is at risk is an entire generation and the generations-old connection of the party to the aspirations of African-Americans. If this does not stop, there will not be another Democratic President for years to come. It is time to call for decency.

Posted by Mwelch62 | March 6, 2008 5:04 PM

My favorite Hillary defense, paraphrasing Joe Strummer:

America doesn't care if Hillary is a lying, corrupt, cynical, power-hunger, secretive politician. They just think she's on their side, or something.

Posted by Elrod | March 6, 2008 5:27 PM

Its sad to see that the Clinton camp is taking lessons from Karl Rove. Where in fact both Clinton and Obama camps told the Canadian Government that NAFTA renegotiations should be taken with a grain of salt
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home
the Clinton camp has the audacity to criticize Obama. Reminds me of the presidential draft dodger campaign who impugned McCains bona fides as a war hero.

Posted by Herbster | March 6, 2008 6:52 PM

Hillary and her chaotic campaign are straying from their usual ruthless campaign to morph into twisted psychopaths determined to seize the power. Clinton is beyond Rove in her relentless search for dirt and destruction. This woman is sick.

Posted by Martha | March 6, 2008 8:10 PM

This is just a new way of trying to re-cast any criticism of Hillary Clinton as a "right wing talking point". As if anything that Clinton happens to do is automatically blessed into leftist orthodoxy. Give me a break.

Posted by baudelairien | March 6, 2008 8:18 PM

The Obama camp really needs to toughen up their language. Bill Burton said "And if Senator Clinton doesn’t think that the Republicans will ask these very same questions, then she’s not as ready to go toe-to-toe with John McCain as she claims.”

Not as ready AS SHE CLAIMS? Part of the reason Obama looks 'weaker' (in the eyes of some) is because of wishy washy words like those. They need to tell people flat out that Senator Clinton can't lead and can't win.

Posted by Joseph | March 7, 2008 12:00 AM

It's fun to watch liberals squabble. Poor Barack. He's been told to bring a butter
knife to the alley brawl with Clinton Inc.
Looks like he'll do what he's told. If he
had more testosterone than Hillary thinks
he has, he'd bring a Tech-9 and a Kevlar
athletic supporter. L'il ol' Hill has had one of
those on for years.

Posted by interferon | March 7, 2008 12:28 AM

Clinton Inc. has called Obama the eqivalent
of a dope-pushing dreamer with ties to
a Chicago "gangster" who can only win black
votes...and he gets his hackle up over a reference to Ken Starr?. Maybe he's dumber than Hillary is portraying him. If so, he's not
ready for prime time.

Posted by interferon | March 7, 2008 1:20 AM

Clinton Inc. has called Obama the eqivalent
of a dope-pushing dreamer with ties to
a Chicago "gangster", who can only win black
votes...and he gets his hackle up over a reference to Ken Starr?. Maybe he's dumber than Hillary is portraying him. If so, he's not
ready for prime time...he may need more time
on the ol' Clinton plantation.

Posted by interferon | March 7, 2008 1:23 AM

I still reserve the right to vote for someone I respect in the general election. Clinton's campaign has lost my respect. I have voted Democratic all my life, but I will not vote for her if she is the nominee. Her campaign has insulted about one half of the Democratic electorate by implying that we are delusional because we fail to appreciate her obvious superiority. No, Clinton has some baggage that makes me feel she cannot win in November. Originally, my chief objection to Clinton was her name. I don't think I am naive because I do not want to have our republic under either a Bush or a Clinton for 28 years!

As the campaign unfolded, Obama became the anti-Clinton option. I haven't been swooning over Obama. But I have seen him conduct a masterful campaign to her disastrous one. Hillary's only option to get back in the race was the "kitchen sink", but at that point she lost the election, if not the nomination. What were her advisors thinking?

I think the superdelegates had better consider very carefully her electability. If she leads such a divisive campaign, do they really think she can get a solid Democratic turnout? McCain is not Bush, and on character he beats her hands down. I think maybe Hillary was doomed when Obama chose the high ground, because as he gained momentum, he made the way in which politics is fought just as important as issues to many of his supporters. His message that the approach matters resonated with many voters, and I guess if Hillary can't learn that lesson in the primaries, she will learn in November. It is not just a matter of losing black support in the general, but even those of a typical 55 year old white female in Oregon.

I would guess that many Democratic voters were paying attention, because of the excitement of this race. Maybe that's why we are so dismayed. Has this type of bashing gone on in other Democratic primaries? Did I just miss all the down and dirty all these years? Anyway, Hillary is probably sunk, because by being forced down into the gutter by her inexplicable missing- in- action phase during February, she has turned a lot of intelligent voters off. Can we get a Bloomberg-Obama ticket still? Maybe I'll vote for Nader as a protest vote. Or, I might go with a winner: McCain.

Superdelegates, save us! Your role is to put the good of the party before everything else, and give us our best chance in November. It is simply a reality that Hillary's only route to the nomination will alienate many Democratic voters. Why should a candidate who seemed to fall asleep while the delegate totals were being gained by the other candidate be allowed to drive the Democratic Party into the ditch? She made huge mistakes, and I am not seeing any more ability in her to adjust for her mistakes than George W. Bush has demonstrated in Iraq. She does not appear to be any more able to admit a mistake and accept the consequences than Bush. That shows a grievous lack of judgment. The real world does not offer a way back from every stupid mistake, and simply digging in harder can be tragic, as we've seen in Iraq. That seems to be her instinct. This is a very dangerous bias in a Commander in Chief.

Oh, by the way, Wolfson (and Hillary): it's been 8 years since the Clintons were last in the national spotlight. That means all voters under twenty-six don't have the foggiest notion about all that vetting. Where do you get the idea that it shouldn't be the responsibility of other candidates to make sure all voters are informed about anything that might affect the viability of any candidate? After all, the youth vote seems to be Obama's base. Maybe he'd feel guilty if he didn't pursue this and some of them ended up voting for Hillary in the general election who would not have had they been fully aware of her history. I think this is going to be a character election, not an issues election. Don't make the mistake of thinking that by tarnishing Obama, drawing him into a nasty fight with you, that you make your candidate any more palatable. We'll just vote for Nader.

Posted by Tina | March 7, 2008 1:39 AM

I still reserve the right to vote for someone I respect in the general election. Clinton's campaign has lost my respect. I have voted Democratic all my life, but I will not vote for her if she is the nominee. Her campaign has insulted about one half of the Democratic electorate by implying that we are delusional because we fail to appreciate her obvious superiority. No, Clinton has some baggage that makes me feel she cannot win in November. Originally, my chief objection to Clinton was her name. I don't think I am naive because I do not want to have our republic under either a Bush or a Clinton for 28 years!

As the campaign unfolded, Obama became the anti-Clinton option. I haven't been swooning over Obama. But I have seen him conduct a masterful campaign to her disastrous one. Hillary's only option to get back in the race was the "kitchen sink", but at that point she lost the election, if not the nomination. What were her advisors thinking?

I think the superdelegates had better consider very carefully her electability. If she leads such a divisive campaign, do they really think she can get a solid Democratic turnout? McCain is not Bush, and on character he beats her hands down. I think maybe Hillary was doomed when Obama chose the high ground, because as he gained momentum, he made the way in which politics is fought just as important as issues to many of his supporters. His message that the approach matters resonated with many voters, and I guess if Hillary can't learn that lesson in the primaries, she will learn in November. It is not just a matter of losing black support in the general, but even those of a typical 55 year old white female in Oregon.

I would guess that many Democratic voters were paying attention, because of the excitement of this race. Maybe that's why we are so dismayed. Has this type of bashing gone on in other Democratic primaries? Did I just miss all the down and dirty all these years? Anyway, Hillary is probably sunk, because by being forced down into the gutter by her inexplicable missing- in- action phase during February, she has turned a lot of intelligent voters off. Can we get a Bloomberg-Obama ticket still? Maybe I'll vote for Nader as a protest vote. Or, I might go with a winner: McCain.

Superdelegates, save us! Your role is to put the good of the party before everything else, and give us our best chance in November. It is simply a reality that Hillary's only route to the nomination will alienate many Democratic voters. Why should a candidate who seemed to fall asleep while the delegate totals were being gained by the other candidate be allowed to drive the Democratic Party into the ditch? She made huge mistakes, and I am not seeing any more ability in her to adjust for her mistakes than George W. Bush has demonstrated in Iraq. She does not appear to be any more able to admit a mistake and accept the consequences than Bush. That shows a grievous lack of judgment. The real world does not offer a way back from every stupid mistake, and simply digging in harder can be tragic, as we've seen in Iraq. That seems to be her instinct. This is a very dangerous bias in a Commander in Chief.

Oh, by the way, Wolfson (and Hillary): it's been 8 years since the Clintons were last in the national spotlight. That means all voters under twenty-six don't have the foggiest notion about all that vetting. Where do you get the idea that it shouldn't be the responsibility of other candidates to make sure all voters are informed about anything that might affect the viability of any candidate? After all, the youth vote seems to be Obama's base. Maybe he'd feel guilty if he didn't pursue this and some of them ended up voting for Hillary in the general election who would not have had they been fully aware of her history. I think this is going to be a character election, not an issues election. Don't make the mistake of thinking that by tarnishing Obama, drawing him into a nasty fight with you, that you make your candidate any more palatable. We'll just vote for Nader.

Posted by Tina | March 7, 2008 1:39 AM

Just to put the facts on the table:

Wolfson made the comment about Ken Starr-type tactics in response to Obama's subject line in his memo demanding her tax returns:
"What is Clinton trying to hide?"

Clinton has had information about her finances out there for about two decades. She has said publicly that she will be releasing her returns on or about April 15. So, then asking what she's trying to "hide" is a question straight out of the Rightwing Smear Machine's dirty and divisive campaign tactics textbook.

Personally, I don't care if Obama wants to play dirty politics; politics is dirty.

But it's quite obvious that his campaign promise of "I'm a Uniter, not a Divider" is wearing very, very thin.

Posted by Jan | March 7, 2008 6:30 AM

Clinton is baiting Obama here. Don't rise to it Obama! Don't let her get a rise out of you. You've done a beautiful job this season. Stick to your message. Be honest when necessary (stop pandering to the Archie Bunker crowd - they're not having it). You'll be fine.

Much love!

Elizabeth

Posted by Elizabeth | March 7, 2008 1:36 PM

Where is Wolfsen's resignation? He's done the name calling too. Aren't we allowed to say whatever we want without a politician, any politician getting us temporarily suspended or fired? What kind of a nation is this?

HRC is ugly when she's scared.

Posted by CC | March 7, 2008 2:43 PM

As a green I welcome the demise of the democratic party.
Thank you hrc.

Posted by Jim b | March 8, 2008 12:32 PM