Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hilllary's campaign, Larry Johnson, Taylor Marsh and their despicable hypocrisy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:07 AM
Original message
Hilllary's campaign, Larry Johnson, Taylor Marsh and their despicable hypocrisy
Hillary's campaign floated this story:

Clinton Camp Pushes O-Bomber Links: Ignores Her Own Radical Ties

Clinton, Obama Spar on Ties to Radicals

By JUSTIN ROOD
Feb. 22, 2008

The Hillary Clinton campaign pushed to reporters today stories about Barack Obama and his ties to former members of a radical domestic terrorist group -- but did not note that as president, Clinton's husband pardoned more than a dozen convicted violent radicals, including a member of the same group mentioned in the Obama stories.

"Wonder what the Republicans will do with this issue," mused Clinton spokesman Phil Singer in one e-mail to the media, containing a New York Sun article reporting a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the 1970s group Weather Underground, to Obama in 2001.

<...>

And in 1999, President Clinton also pardoned 16 violent Puerto Rican nationalists responsible for more than 100 bombings of U.S. political and military installations, after they promised to renounce violence. The attacks reportedly killed six people and wounded dozens more. In justifying the pardons, President Clinton noted none of the men had been convicted of crimes that resulted in death or injuries.

<...>

Contacted by phone Friday morning, spokesman Singer declined to comment for the record for this article.

"If the Clinton campaign is truly concerned about the exploitation of the Weather Underground issue by the Republican attack machine, perhaps they should focus on the pardon of some of its members in the waning days of the Clinton administration," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

more


Hillary's shill Taylor Marsh ran with story, producing this despicable piece: Barack Obama's Willie Horton, but also failing to mention the Clintons' connection to the group.

Would You Pardon Them?

Monday, Feb. 26, 2001

In eight years as President, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton each issued roughly 400 pardons. But in their final days, just 10 trickled out of Reagan's White House, while 177 flooded out of Clinton's. And Marc Rich's pardon isn't the only one that appalled federal prosecutors. While most of the 177 were for minor drug and fraud offenses, roughly a third raise serious questions. A TIME analysis of the pardon fever--the symptoms included well-connected lawyers and pols pulling strings, bypassing the Justice Department and sending petitions directly to the White House, often at the last minute--turned up these eye-popping remissions of sin.

The Big Apple Gang

U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White is furious at Clinton for several New York cases. In 1993 and '94, Harvey Weinig, 53, helped launder at least $19 million for the Cali drug cartel. Justice strongly opposed his petition, but Clinton commuted Weinig's 11-year sentence--cutting it in half--and now he is scheduled to be set free. Last week White released documents showing Weinig was also involved in a kidnapping plot. Former White House aide David Dreyer, a relative of Weinig's, told TIME he asked Clinton chief of staff John Podesta and former White House counsel Beth Nolan for the commutation "as an act of mercy."

Edward Downe Jr., a publishing and financial executive, pleaded guilty to insider trading in 1993. He was sentenced to three years' probation, and paid $11 million in fines. Downe has contributed $21,500 to Democrats since 1991, including $1,000 to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign. His application went straight to Clinton, and White's office learned about it only the night before his pardon.

<...>

The Radicals

White is also upset about the commutation Clinton gave to Susan Rosenberg, who was convicted in 1984 of carrying explosives and weapons for the Weather Underground. One of Rosenberg's guns was bought with fake ID by Linda Sue Evans, who also took part in the 1983 bombing of an empty room at the U.S. Capitol to protest the invasion of Grenada. Clinton's order freed both from prison.

more


Sen. Chuck Schumer was among the critics of Susan Rosenberg's pardon.

The story floated by Hillary's campaign and her surrogates Taylor Marsh and Larry Johnson is so bizarre and disgusting and loaded with hypocrisy:

When The (Former) Terrorist Kissed Hillary

By Cernig

What kind of world is it when Democratic partisans are attacking John Podhoretz for his defense of a Democratic candidate? A topsy-turvey born out of a win-at-all-costs mentality where smearing your current rival is more important than party unity, that's where.

But Larry Johnson asks the question of news that Obama once visited Weather Undergrounder William Ayers: "What politician in their right mind would visit a known terrorist?...Is there anyone else other than Obama?"

But Larry Johnson asks the question of news that Obama once visited Weather Undergrounder William Ayers: "What politician in their right mind would visit a known terrorist?...Is there anyone else other than Obama?"

Well, Larry and Taylor, there's this:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_cHfiC-1_5uk/R7-jBVvtnWI/AAAAAAAAAMk/yupQjjrfMpk/s400/Paisley+Clinton+McGuiness.jpg

The accompanying London Times article - from December 8th 2007 not years ago - reads:

When the puckered lips of Martin McGuinness made contact with Hillary Clinton’s soft white cheek yesterday, a loud “Mmm-wwakk” noise could be heard across the hotel lobby – and, perhaps, beyond if American voters were listening closely enough.

Mrs Clinton had briefly stepped off the presidential campaign trail to meet the Rev Ian Paisley, the Northern Ireland First Minister, and his deputy, Mr McGuinness, who were in Washington on a week-long American charm offensive.

The two men, once sworn enemies, were later heading over to the White House for their first joint meeting with President Bush, where they were expected to ask for help in attracting investment to Northern Ireland.


The guy on the right is Mr McGuiness, who on one occasion was labelled the "IRA godfather of godfathers". McGuiness was certainly more than "some college kid spray painting railroad bridges with graffitti". He was tried and convicted of belonging to that terrorist organisation after after being caught with a car containing 250 lb (113 kg) of explosives and nearly 5,000 rounds of ammunition and at the time said he was "very, very proud" of his membership of the IRA.

(The guy on the left, by the way, was never a terrorist but is widely regarded as an odious bigot as well as funder and enabler of the opposite side's terrorists and as such has almost as undesirable a past.)

<...>

So what's it to be, Larry and Taylor? Were Hillary and Bill wrong to share a podium with unrepentant foreign former terrorists or is it that you think American lives count more than, say, Irish ones? Or is it just that in your zeal to smear your favorite's rival you've lost all sense?

I suspect the latter.

more


Terrorist conviction

In 1971, it is thought he became the 21-year-old commander of "Free Derry" and appeared at a Provisional IRA press conference where the new leadership offered to talk peace.

In May 2001 he became the most important member of the modern Republican movement to reveal his role when he confirmed that he would be telling the Bloody Sunday inquiry that he was second-in-command of the IRA in the city at the time of the tragedy.

During the 1970s he avoided internment - but not trial for terrorism related offences in the Republic.

At his 1973 conviction, Martin McGuinness said: "We have fought against the killing of our people. I am a member of Oglaigh na Eireann (IRA) and very, very proud of it."

Since then, Mr McGuinness has remained at the forefront of the republican movement.

His first meeting with British politicians came in July 1972 when the Provisional leadership was secretly taken to London for what would turn out to be failed talks with the government.

link


Now Taylor Marsh, who knows no shame. In January 2007, before she became a the paid hack (see below), Taylor Marsh smacked down Hillary:

Clinton and Talk Host Schultz Collide

(be sure to check out the queen been image)

Read the Raw Story piece. It dovetails nicely on my piece last night. More on that story in a minute.

But seriously, this is getting pretty ridiculous very fast. Evidently, Clinton's people believe she can get elected by dissing progressive radio, while simultaneously sticking a finger in small business blogs. Hey, but when you're as big as Hillary you don't need your grass roots peeps. She can do it all by herself... with the help of those right-wing bloggers whose sites she advertised her live web chat.

Ed Schultz isn't taking this malarkey either.

Many of you have requested hearing from Hillary on progressive talk especially The Ed Schultz Show. I want you to know our producer James Holm tirelessly works the contacts and has repeatedly tried to connect with Clinton's people.

Cutting to the chase, Hillary's people treat us like "dirt." We are constantly disregarded, told things that aren't true, and given speculation an interview might happen someday.

Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. This morning I watched Hillary Clinton tell CNN she is accessible. What? To the TV cameras yes, to the base of loyal listeners on progressive talk radio, absolutely not!

Reaching over 2.5 million listeners who are engaged in changing the country I believe qualifies us for some attention. I realize Hillary is an international figure and star but this pattern of treatment to The Ed Schultz Show has been an on-going pattern which tells me all they care about is her mug on TV.

The conservatives have done wonders with audio continually talking to and solidifying their base. It's apparent to me radio is minor to the people surrounding this leading candidate. ...

Liberal talk show host trashes Clinton's staff, sends out photo with Obama emphasis added

Ed, I feel your annoyance. It's fitting that the above story appears next to Clinton's web chat BlogAd, isn't it? (heh-he.)

I've been writing about this for years. The fact that the DC Democrats just don't understand progressive radio, nor do they care one whit about it. This story about Hillary treating Schultz like "dirt" is emblematic of her campaign so far, but symbolic of DC Democrats. Can you imagine anyone in the Republican Party treating their right-wing hosts like this? Not. Going. To. Happen.

I really had no feelings whatsoever about Hillary one way or the other from the start. I was excited she was the first woman with a chance to win who was actually running. But I have to tell you that after the last few days or so I've moved into the camp that is not impressed at all with Clinton and the team she has around her, who seem not only arrogant, but possessing a queen fetish.

My conversations with someone I always considered an ally didn't help either. Evidently, Hotline was interested in the small business post I did last night and called Clinton's office to check it out. Someone in that office told Hotline that my story was inaccurate. Leaving aside some of the judgments I made in the piece that could be construed as subjective, there is nothing inaccurate about my piece. In fact, Peter Daou, someone whom I have been friendly with and have good relations with because he has been very forthcoming with me and even generous once, said in a conversation I had with him this morning that he didn't care about the criticisms in my post, but that I needed to make a correction about the ad buy part of my post. A correction of what? I asked. That went nowhere. Then he told me in a long explanation that I was included in the ad buy but the ad was rejected because my ad strips were full. Excuse me and with all due respect to Peter, because the ad buy was supposedly placed through someone else in the Clinton camp, but that just isn't credible. However, I am checking it out (see update below).

It's time to move on from this ad buy bs. However, I'm filing it under PROGRESSIVES BEWARE. Radio hosts, fuhghettaboutit.

Call the Clinton camp anytime for a clarification if you need one, I was told. Well, I've got a phone and they can reach out to me as well. But they won't. Ask Ed Schultz. It's the Queen Bee syndrome. The people must go to Hillary's hive. Because she's not coming to us. Clinton's inevitability campaign has already gone to her head.


More from Marsh: Blog P.I., Peter Daou and More HRC Ad Buy Bull

More on the incident that ticked Marsh off: "Why do people like HRC, no matter how often it becomes clear that wingnuts hate us, seek approval from wingnuts?"

After the paycheck, Taylor Marsh resorts to swiftboating anyone who represents an obstacle to "Queen Bee" Hillary's "inevitability" campaign:

Ted Kennedy endorses Obama so what does Hillary hack Taylor Marsh do: Write a post about how JFK would have voted on Iraq

Taylor Marsh's despicable dishonesty in smearing Obama

Lying Clinton hack, Taylor Marsh, exposed by Las Vegas Sun

Taylor Marsh's own words contradict her current swiftboating lies

Taylor Marsh smears Obama, praises McCain's character


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. I think the key points here is that BO has not been vetted....
If folks really read some of the pieces in their entirety, especially Larry Johnson's, the concern is that the MSM has largely ignored getting any issues out, allowing them as fodder for the right wing to use them ( swift boat Obama ) after the nominee has been chosen. That is the real point, for me. I think it is a really valid one. I am an Obama supporter but I really do see a disparity in how he has been treated with the press and I think it really can lose us the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Oh please
Larry Johnson wrote a hate filled bigoted piece that was inexcusable. The thing is there is some truth to the statement that Obama has not been fully vetted, but neither has Clinton. There's tons of new stuff on her that's gotten short shrift. Obama is beginning to take some real incoming, and we'll see how he handles it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Clinton hasn't been vetted ?
:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. um, Kazakhstan and Giustra
and Gupta and a few more items of interest. Do try and keep up. Did you really think that the Clintons have been living in a time capsule since 2001? Clue: 7 years is plenty of time for new scandals. And yes, that includes new sex scandals for the new dog along with three or four juicy financial scandals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. There is still a lot more vetting to do, everything since Clinton left office will be brought up n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. Nothing has happened since 2000?
Please. Bill has been hanging out with, and collecting giant fees from, some pretty shady characters since he left office. Also, I hear his pee pee has been wandering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. if people can't see that then they are deliberately blind. If Max Cleland
could be swiftboated, and Kerry could have his election stolen with the help of swiftboating..Obama doesn't have a chance unless we all get in front of his flaws..and vet him now!..but to put blinders on..loses us another election!

then start practicing ..pres McCain!

wake the hell up people..these Obama followers are either the most naive people on earth ..or they are not dems ..and have no sense of modern day history!

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. oh please, I 'm fully cognizant of the coming swiftboating
but Obama and his campaign appear to have studied it in depth and planned for it. We'll soon find out if I'm right. And I suspect they're willing to attack McCain in every vital spot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #16
44. They haven't been able to stop the radical Muslim smear
So I don't put too much faith in his campaign's ability to prevent a swiftboating. On the other hand the Clintons have successfully fought the rethug swiftboats for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #44
53. Hillary's campaign is helping to perpetuate it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kid a Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
59. exactly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. No, it's smear: "Barack Obama's Willie Horton" is not designed to help vet his campaign. This is
not helpful, Singer's comment: "Wonder what the Republicans will do with this issue," after floating a story loaded with innuendo and spin, and without noting the Clinton's involvement.

Claiming this is concern on the part of these despicable characters is nonsense. What was Taylor Marsh's excuse for smearing Kerry and Kennedy?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #7
45. We need to know this now. It is scary the msm didn't report this for a year
Only when Obama became the front-runner did the msm finally publish this and even then only a few outlets have. The msm has been promoting Obama for a while and will take him down easily in the general...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. Hillary is showing her true colors. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
20. That's a chance we'll have to take.
The alternative is to nominate Hillary, and that will both cost us votes and re-energize the Republican base to come out and vote against her. She has demonstrated that she cannot run an effective campaign! If she were to be the nominee, I'd expect to see another close election that we might lose.

This election is Obama's to lose. He's getting out there now, introducing himself to voters and getting his credibility with them established. He's got great ground organization and a great response team. We know he'll get slimed, as would any of our candidates, and he knows it, too. The result will be determined by the campaign's response to it, and whether it will have any effect on people once they've gotten to know and trust him. The money is there, too. The Obama campaign has a lot more money than McCain, and has the potential to raise a lot more.

I'm a small donor, but I will be contributing every month. Everyone should do the same. A little bit from everyone will get the job done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #20
36. Excellent point! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMatt Donating Member (523 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #20
42. Exactly
I'll take unvetted yet competent over incompetant anyday. And it really isn't like he hasn't been vetted either. Everything they've been able to dig up on him, and they've been digging for a year, has been rather small.

Having some very loose connections to a few leftist radicals, which quite frankly, could be dug up on anyone who has spent time as a professor. Having one prominent corrupt fund raiser, though I would note, there appears to be absolutely no links between Obama and the law breaking which can't be said of many candidates and their slimey donors. Having his wife say one thing in all her thousands of speeches that was worded a bit unfortunately perhaps.

They are going to take him to task for being un-American and he will turn it around and show the millions of Americans who are rallying behind him. What is more patriotic than that?! They will talk about being unfit for commander-in-chief and he will throw it right back at them about their gross incompetance running the military and authorizing the disasterous war. This isn't 2002 or 2004 - that card no longer works, especially against a candidate who opposed the war from the beginning.

Obama is going to be formidable, dare I say, the most formidable candidate we've had since Hillary's husband, who also ran a change message against a war hero presiding over a bad economy and without the advantage of a foreign policy mess on the incumbant party's hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RDANGELO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
2. Is this really necessary?
The Clinton campaign is hanging by a thread. It's time to start thinking about unity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. yes it is nessesary..vetting is nessesary..are you really that naive? or are you
really a dem with no idea of swiftboating? and media manipulation? and stolen elections?

wake up.

or get ready to lose another election!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RDANGELO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Do you think the Clintons haven't investigated Obama?
If there was really anything out there the Clintons would have found it and come out with it. They have already tried all the guilt by association angles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #11
46. They just did come out with Ayrers (Obama's Horton) and a few others
Gore tried Willie Horton against Dukakis in the primaries and it didn't work. Guess what happened in the general...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
24. This isn't vetting... it's slime.
Some guy that met Obama 8 years ago gave him $200 and that proves that Obama is in bed with terrorists? Why hasn't the FBI arrested this guy? Oh, maybe he isn't a "terrorist" anymore. As for the "Willie Horton" reference, that's just a load of horse hockey... what, exactly, did Obama DO for this person? OR alleged to have done? What? Oh wait, NOTHING! No pardons (unlike the Clintons), no early release from prison (like Dukakis and the real Willie Horton), no nothing.

I suspect that if one starts a large project to examine each and every Obama donor of $50 or more, given that there will be more than a million, you are going to find quite a number of former felons.

You can start at $100,000 for Hillary and find quite a number of current felons. Norman Hsu for starters.

The poo flinging flying monkeys have their orders... keep flinging poo until something sticks... too bad you just haven't found the right piece of poo yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #24
41. Yeah, vetting, as if Hillary's campaign is performing a public service. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. Yes it is! She has is still in the game, and doing her best to tear Obama down.
She plans to fight this to the end, and she does not get a pass.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UALRBSofL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. Why do people blame Hillary for an independent blogger's Op-Ed about Obama?
Marsh doesn't work for Clinton. Marsh, a previous radio talk show hose the past 10 years, a full time blogger. Has been critical of Obama the past year. Hillary gets the blame. I get the impression any negative publicity of Obama is all Clinton's fault. Hillary is guilty until proven innocent by many people. The flaming of Hillary is unnecessary nor warranted. I hope people will cease this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Did you read the OP? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Anonymous Slackivism Syndrome.
Those that suffer from ASS display Touretts-like posting behavior.
Thankfully, on DU a proactive treatment has cut them down to three episodes a day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. "ASS" Is that clever? JERK, people who sit around making up lame acronyms because
they can't deal with the reality that the candidate they support is running a lame campaign.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. "lame" is an insensitive term many disabilities find very offensive,
I Hope someday DU clamps down on such Hate Speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Lame is your response! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #18
34. Is Marsh really an "independent blogger?" There's suggestion that there's coordination between
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 04:40 PM by Garbo 2004
the Clinton campaign and Marsh's blog, or at the very least that the Clinton campaign uses Marsh as an outlet to get info/stories in the media.

For one example, here the Clinton campaign provides info to Marsh who then publishes info as a "scoop" with advance copy of Clinton campaign email. Then the Clinton campaign distributes and cites Marsh's blog post to other media which then in turn cites Marsh's blog as the source.

Taylor Marsh, Feb 6, 2008: "BREAKING.....IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS...

Clinton had a MASSIVE day of online fundraising blowing past the $3 million dollar - 3 day goal.

There's an email appeal going out tomorrow for $6 million in 72 hours." http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26964


Politico, Feb 7 cites Marsh: "Meanwhile, Clinton's campaign is set to announce she raised $3 million yesterday, acccording to Taylor Marsh, who has pretty good Clinton sources.

"Hillary's loan to be paid back by supporters in 48 hours after Super Tuesday," Marsh says." http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:8bD62iq4hAYJ:www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/On_the_money.html+taylor+marsh+paid+blogger&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=108&gl=us&client=opera


Feb 7, MSNBC blog cites Clinton campaign's distribution of Marsh's "scoop" blog post: "The Clinton campaign, meanwhile, sent around a dispatch from pro-Clinton blogger Taylor Marsh, who reports that the Clinton camp met its three-day goal of raising $3 million, and will issue a challenge of raising $6 million over the next 72 hours." http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/07/645486.aspx


Clinton campaign "leaks" to blogger, blogger publishes the info provided by campaign, then campaign points media to the blog post. Seems somewhat unneccessarily circuitous, since the campaign is the original source of the info.

But perhaps that's an established routine: Campaign provides info/story to outlet(s) which publishes and gets "picked up" by MSM (with a little help behind the scenes from campaign that emails the third party published info/report to them). Then campaign publicly proceeds to cite the media reports and claims that the campaign isn't behind the story or raising the issue, the media is. Sound familiar?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #34
47. Thanks for the links! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemGa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
5. Oh good Lord
Spend time digging up obscure opinion pieces much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. It's more than opinion dearie....we need to face facts here...
can you say < JIMMY CARTER > ?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. "Spend time digging up obscure opinion pieces much?" Whose Marsh and Johnson's n/t
Edited on Sat Feb-23-08 11:32 AM by ProSense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
15. Nominated.
A number of the people associated with the Clinton campaign have resorted to dirty tactics. This includes a few journalists who have, for the most part, done some pretty good work over the years. It is disappointing to see them participating in such disgusting attempts to win at any cost.

There are other people who are not democrats, and have never shared our values, who have been able to convince some democrats that now that they are "retired," they are liberals or progressives. They are not. They are simply working in another capacity, to disrupt progressives and democrats. They will resort to any lie or any low blow, such as appeals to racism, fear, and hatreds. Just because they post on a liberal blog, does not mean you should trust them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sundancekid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. thank you for the sanity and the inconvenient truths you bring to us ...
personally, I have begun to see spots on leopards that were previously subsumed into something almost noble - until all the rabid fascination by these folks with the specious and gratuitous clintonista machine smears -- and, all of a sudden, previously seemingly objective people turn into rabid, uncontrollable, despicable extremists, usually relegated to foaming right wingers ... so sad for our democracy, but so valuable for truth seekers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #15
48. Thanks!
"They are simply working in another capacity, to disrupt progressives and democrats."

That's becoming more clear as her campaign falters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #15
58. I have learned that very well.
Verify before trust or they will hit you from behind when you least expect it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
21. swiftboating by hillary-the terrorists--->
"Bill Ayers (born 1944) is a former member of the Weather Underground who is now a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago."

"From 1984 to 1988, Dohrn was employed by the law firm Sidley Austin, although her criminal record has prevented her from being admitted to either the New York or Illinois bar.<7> In 1991, she became a Clinical Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University in Chicago. She now serves on the board of numerous human rights committees and teaches comparative law. Since 2002, she has served as Visiting Law Faculty at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam."

why do we care about the right wing swift boating obama when hillary does the same thing...

first it was rezko and now this..so what`s next from hillary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMatt Donating Member (523 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #21
43. Obama was a professor at the University of Chicago
There are radical leftists at a university... wow... I'm shocked. They really are digging and coming up empty aren't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
51. None of this matters to Hillary, including her and Bill's own connection to the group. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
22. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
28. The only radicals Hilly's ever seen
are the rabid right wingers backing her campaign. K/R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #28
55. No, the Clintons
experience with them doesn't count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoodleyAppendage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
30. THANK YOU. I know you're being innundated by idiotic HillBot posts, but THANK YOU.
DU is not the DU of 1 year ago...before the DINO/DLC-loving, pro-corporate, brainless, HillBot invaded in an attempt to steer the grassroots towards their faux Democrat candidate.

J
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
33. Thank you mods, for cleaning up this thread!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. LOL! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. It's against DU rules to call other members liars, Pro. "LOL" that.
You should attempt to at least pretend to respect the website that allows you to post your pap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. It's wonderful that you are willing to contribute to giving this exposure.
Thanks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
38. NoodleyAppendage endorsed your thread. That tells me all I need to know about your slime tactics n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-23-08 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Speaking of Rovian! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
49. It's bizarre to watch Hillary's campaign in damage control
Edited on Mon Feb-25-08 01:42 PM by ProSense
Hillary Clinton woos man who nearly ruined her husband

Earlier this month, Ms Clinton's staff leaked campaign fundraising data to the website just as her rival for the nomination, Barack Obama, was to deliver a policy speech on Iraq - and a crucial 20 minutes before the official release of the information. The story on Ms Clinton's fundraising prowess dominated the news cycle.


Mark Penn is in bed with Drudge.

Obama's campaign would not connect Hillary to the latest attack story without validation.

It has happened before and Axelrod denounced the attempts to link Hillary's campaign to an attack:

The article further reported that Obama strategist David Axelrod said he did not "believe ... for a second" the allegation that Clinton's camp was behind the story.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
52. Hillary's horde of creeps exposed.
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GalleryGod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #52
56. Taylor Marsh & Ann Coulter ?
Apparently.:spank: :wow: :spank:

"JACC" :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. Amazing! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-27-08 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
54. Lower and lower: Taylor Marsh and Farrakhan
Taylor Marsh Obama Blows his 'Sister Soujah' Moment

And now a word from normal people:

Russert's Lowest Moment (and that's saying a lot)

02.26.08 -- 11:29PM By Josh Marshall

I discussed this in the live debate blog. But I think it's worth going back and watching Russert's run of shame here. I would say it was borderline to bring up the issue of Farrakhan at all. But perhaps since it's getting some media play you bring it up just for the record, for Obama to address.

That's not what Russert did. He launches into it, gets into a parsing issue over word choices, then tries to find reasons to read into the record some of Farrakhan's vilest quotes after Obama has just said he denounces all of them. Then he launches into a bizarre series of logical fallacies that had Obama needing to assure Jews that he didn't believe that Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness".

As a Jew and perhaps more importantly simply as a sentient being I found it disgusting. It was a nationwide, televised, MSM version of one of those noxious Obama smear emails.

Late Update: TPM Reader RMS does some close analysis ...

I think that breaking down Russert's Wright/Farrakhan questioning helps illuminate how truly bizarre it is:

1. The title of Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope," came from a sermon delivered by Jeremiah Wright. Wright is Obama's pastor.

2. Wright is the "head" of United Trinity Church.

3. Wright said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness."

4. Wright went with Farrakhan in 1984 to visit Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

5. Farrakhan has said that Judaism is a "gutter religion."

6. Wright said that when Obama's political opponents found out about the Libya visit, Obama's Jewish support would dry up "faster than a snowball in Hell."

Russert's question is then "What do you do to assure Jewish Americans... you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness."

The first question about Farrakhan—and Russert's insistence on mentioning Farrakhan's views regarding Judaism after Obama had already denounced Farrakhan's bigotry—was all foreplay leading up to this masterstroke in which Russert synthesizes the six discrete facts into a knockout punch of innuendo and guilt by association: perhaps Obama thinks that Louis Farrakhan, the man Obama explicitly denounced not one minute before, is the very epitome of greatness.

All of the stuff about going to Libya, Farrakhan's "gutter religion" comment, and Jewish supporting drying up like a snowball in hell—that was all totally unnecessary to reach the ultimate question, but wasn't it fun?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 04:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC