So You Wanna Fight Dirty?

[babylonsister]

http://www.theroot.com/id/45135

So You Wanna Fight Dirty?
By Mark Q. Sawyer | TheRoot.com


snip//

Senator Clinton has also raised the Rezko land deal. At worst it looks as if Obama bought a portion of a vacant lot next door to his home from a dubious character, so he could have a bigger backyard for his kids. Does it really compare with the Whitewater scandal? The phony "Nafta-Gate" and "Rezko-Gate" don't come anywhere close to Monica Gate, Trooper Gate, Whitewater and the persistent trail of sleaze that follows the Clintons.

Senator Clinton knows how to come at the Republican attack machine, but she's also the one who gives it all the fuel it needs to rev up.

As for experience and being poised to fight for Americans, well Hillary Clinton was given one major policy task as first lady, health care reform. She was so effective at "fighting" for it that it went down in defeat and the Democrats lost the Congress as a result.

Legislation is not passed by fighting. Health Care reform will only be achieved through bringing Democrats, and some Republicans, together.

Clinton's claim of experience and readiness is a mirage. Senator Clinton has no true national security experience. Her vote on the Iraq war was cynical, at best. Embattled during the impeachment scandal, the Clinton administration failed to respond decisively to the threat posed by Osama Bin Laden. Bill Clinton's unwillingness to take out bin Laden, fearing it would create a "wag the dog" scenario in the midst of impeachment, showed a disastrous lack of judgment. McCain will hammer home these weaknesses at every opportunity. And the fight will be messy.

So since Senator Barack Obama won't say it, I will: The Clintons are reckless, back-alley fighters who are willing to destroy the Democratic Party, the country and the institution of the presidency if it will benefit them. Yes, they are "fighters," but not for you or me. They fight hardest and dirtiest on behalf of themselves, and this campaign has proved it. Over the past week Senator Clinton has reminded us how dirty she can play to stay alive. But is that ultimately good for the Democratic Party? Democrats need to exorcise their Clinton demons and do it fast for the sake of the party and the country. Superdelegates and especially Al Gore, can you hear me?


Mark Sawyer is an associate professor of political science and African American studies at UCLA and director of the UCLA Center for the Study of Race, Ethnicity and Politics.

[Perry Logan]

1. What a barefaced insult to the millions of people who like the Clintons.

[babylonsister]

3. I see no such concern when she slings slime at Obama; people

are downright gleeful around here.

[Perry Logan]

6. All the slime comes from the Obama side. Here's some corroboration...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4779500&mesg_id=4779500

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4849238&mesg_id=4849238

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4922044&mesg_id=4922044

[babylonsister]

7. Wow, you found some links! I'm impressed. You're living in a

dream world if you don't think the Clinton campaign and her devotees around here have not been slinging poo for months. So to stretch the truth as you did by insinuating it's not happening and hasn't been happening is pretty disingenuous of you.

[Perry Logan]

8. This has been my observation ever since I came to DU. I will swear to it in any court in the land.

[babylonsister]

11. Hahaha! And your observations wouldn't be colored by your

preferences, would they? :D

[seabeyond]

28. i really dont care what a du person says about obama, or clinton, or edward

or anyone else for that matter. i am concerned about the mud and dirty that is slung around by our candidate. that is who i am voting on for a job. that is my issue. i can handle shit said on internet. hillary and obama effect much much more. the mud slung, the dirty politics, the rove/bushco tactics, swiftboating is being played by clinton, ..... and i refuse to accept it as a common part of our political environment.

[Major Hogwash]

29. Like the 8% of the Republican voters who voted for her in the Texas primary,

Deep in the heart of Texas!! According to one newspaper in Dallas, they said they have credible evidence that almost 8% of the votes in the Texas primary came from Republicans.

Now, why would that be?

So, they can get our weakest candidate nominated? So, they can beat her in the fall?

I think so.

Or, we could talk about nearly 1/3rd of the vote for Hillary in Ohio coming from independents and Republicans.

Those party balloons are losing a lot of air.

[seabeyond]

34. obama kicked ass early vote. kicked ass in caucus. says something

logic would say he kick ass day of election

[Hepburn]

35. What a breath of fresh air to the millions who hate her guts.

Your point?

[blogslut]

2. Ouch

That's gonna leave a mark.

[LeftCoast]

4. As if his surrogates haven't been doing this from day one

Many people who claim to support Obama have been trying to dredge up Whitewater and other anti-clinton slime from the very beginning.

[SoCalDem]

10. You don;t have to scratch the surface much to find them..just ask any republican

They have a list etched into their flesh, so they can recite them at any oppportunity...like a general election..

The republicans have the worst candidate since Bob Dole, and their party is fractured.. the etched flesh hieroglyphs will send out an awakening beam to all the repubozombies and they will all march dutifully to the polls in November to vote for a guy they don't even like...just so they can play Whack-a-Clinton again..

[bigtree]

16. or, they'll play

whack-an-Obama. The idea that the attacks will stop just because Obama's been stroking them is a FANTASY.

[SoCalDem]

19. His past is pristine, compared to their long history

and since republicans have a history of racism, Mccain will be hampered in many ways.. and you can bet the media will be more than ready to pounce on anything untoward..

Look. I WILL vote for her if she's the candidate.. I just think we have a better chance with him..

and in foreign affairs, the countries we have the BIGGEST problems with, women are NOT taken seriously.. We are in a much-weakened position right now, and we need a totally different approach to foreign policy.. she can't/won't do it.

[LeftCoast]

26. So was John Kerry's

They turned a hero into a traitor, or at least did a good job trying. They spent tens of millions trying their best to turn Whitewater into something - all they got was a blow job that had nothing to do with the original investigation. They turned Gore into a liar who 'invented the internet'.

The idea that Obama would be treated any differently seems to be based more on hope than any evidence to the contrary.

BTW, I'll vote for Obama in the GE as well should he get that far.

[SoCalDem]

30. Kerry is old-school & flat-footed.. Obama's not.

He was deliberately showing restraint and bemusement at HRC's antics, but I think she twisted that knife a few too many times this last time, and I think we're going to see him draw some blood..

That's the thing about man v woman..

guy wins..
people say he beat up on the poor woman & "sure..big deal.. you beat a woman"

guy loses...
people say "you let a woman beat you"?"what a wuss"

he tried to play it down the middle.. she's a scrapper and I think he's learned a valuable lesson..

not all women play nice:)

[LeftCoast]

32. Gore was flat-footed too?

And you can't seriously tell me you bought into the Whitewater scam.

There is a LONG history of republicans pulling this. It will happen to Obama should he win the nomination. I just hope he's ready for it.

[SoCalDem]

39. Gore was hobbled by perception..championed by the media

and yes, Gore WAS timid..

republicans are pitbulls..Gore & Kerry were purebred pooches.. Smart well-raised gentlemen who let themselves be bullied by the press & a bunch of rabid nutjobs..and they both had LONG records with many quotes & clips to use against them at every turn./..and they never were able to launch attacks..only ineffective defenses..

and yet, I think BOTH of them "won"..but of course the dodgy voting mechanisms we allow to be used, make it impossible to prove... so we are where we are..

and no.. I never believed the Whitewater stuff or any of the rest of it..but public perception becomes reality, when you do not control the message./

[LeftCoast]

42. I just see no net advantage to Obama on this issue

I want Obama and his supporters to assume it's going to happen, because if you guys win you better expect it. It will come.

[SoCalDem]

44. I'm sure he's pplanning on it.. and I WILL vote for Hillary if she wins legitimately

If there are underhanded shenanigans..I'll have to think long & hard..

[bigtree]

27. we don't know that

and, the Clinton's past has been gone over and over. Obama is a blank slate on which their lies and distortions can be made to stick if he's not careful. Compounding the risk for Obama is the image his supporters and others have of him as someone above the types of insider connection horsetrading which Obama doesn't appear to have been adverse to before he started running for president, especially in the funding of his Senate campaign. And, he still refuses to outline the particulars of the cash Rezko raised for him. It may seem like out of proportion, but the combination of graft and Obama would spike the interest of most Americans, while another story about the Clintons would barely get a glance (mostly because of the dry holes which the right-wing has dug over the years, ending up burying the accusers more than indicting the Clintons for anything)

[SoCalDem]

31. You forget one thing.. A LOT of voters are "new: to the Clinton era

and a LOT more are dumb as dirt and will believe almost anything..

the internet is more sophisticated than it was in their administration (did it even exist for some of it?)..and voters will learn about all the stuff WE know , that was discounted, but to THEM it will be new..

[bigtree]

37. I look at the reaction in the polling

which showed that some 57% thought the Clinton
attacks' were unfair, yet, a majority still came out for her. I wonder if Obama supporters would be as able to hang with him if he develops into a regular street-fighting pol.

[Hepburn]

38. Dredge up???

As in the multiple Clinton scandals and flaws are hidden?

:rofl:

[LeftCoast]

47. I'm glad you admit they've been bringing this up from day one

:hi:

[WVRevy]

40. Complete and utter bull

The ONLY place I've heard mention of Whitewater or Vince Foster has been on this message board. Your comment is a flat out lie.

[LeftCoast]

46. You need to get out more

If you haven't seen it you haven't been paying attention.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Yeah, we wanna fight dirty. Just like Team Obama.

Another Clinton-hater, whelped on the sour milk of the boojie Left of Hitchens, Cockburn, and Counterpunch, who "reaches across the aisle" to FreeRepublic.

--p!

[Perry Logan]

9. The Clinton-haters are a cancer on the party.

[Dogmudgeon]

48. *Haters* are a cancer on the party.

There's just a stronger Hillary-hater presence online. I think it comes from the "Boojy Left" -- that sub-movement of Leftists who have to prove that they're more Left than anyone else, that they are "too hip for the room", and who cop an attitude of offense as a fashion statement. Most of them have computers; Hillary supporters are less likely to, and fewer of us have much online social life.

You have probably noticed that the claims of the Hillary-hater are almost never backed up, and when a citation is provided, it's almost always to a completely unreliable and/or unverifiable source -- conspiracy theories, opinion pieces, ax-grinders, Matt Drudge wannabes, and assorted bile-fermenters.

There are some pro-Hillary haters of Obama, but their presence is much smaller on the Internet, if for no other reason than because there are so many more Obama supporters online. I have yet to meet a pro-Obama hater of Hillary in real life.

But the broad brush is only useful to explain overall trends. There are plenty of non-hateful Obama supporters here, though they do tend to disappear under the noise.

But ... that's Politics!

--p!

[XemaSab]

49. Is "Time" a good source for you?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99302,00.html

How about the BBC?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1171955.stm

Or the Boston Globe?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/26/hsu_raised_big_money_for_clinton_supporters/

NPR?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14432971

CBS?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60II/main551177.shtml

CNN?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/02/26/clinton.lincoln/

I could go on. :shrug:

[LizW]

12. Ohhhhhh. It was for the kids! Why didn't someone say?

I had no idea the land purchase was for a bigger backyard for the Obama kids! That makes it all okay. Never mind, everyone.

Back to talking about bow jobs that happened a twelve years ago.

[bigtree]

13. I think Axelrod projects a weak image.

I listened to him complaining about the tax returns and he sounded timid.

The Clintons are fighters. Bill Clinton gave OUR PARTY a two-term presidency, so it's just nonsense that Hillary's election would destroy the party. It would, however, destroy the over-inflated egos of those folks who act like THEY and their ilk are the only ones in this party.

[izzie]

14. Where does he live any how? What was this land deal?

I just hate to see it that Obama has to step into this dog dodo to get to run for the WH but I guess with the old timers running he will just have to do it. Lets hope he can then leave his shoe on the door step. I think he did pretty well as he was way down on the polls, if you believe them. when he started. After all Clinton sort of thought she had this in her pocket when she started. As a women I wanted some one like a women who had made it on her own to run first not one that used her husbands place in power to do it. The Co-President will be the one she owns a lot to. Bill.

[indimuse]

15. 73 million was spent on an endless investigation, no wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120476965655715585.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



Snip greenwald
No specific allegations of wrongdoing were ever made about the original “Whitewater” transactions by those throwing the term around. And after $73 million was spent

on an endless investigation, no wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons was found.

One could read literally thousands of news accounts about the “Whitewater scandal” and never encounter a single, specific charge of impropriety. The word simply

stood for a series of confusing, complex, boring financial transactions that were combined with dark and vague innuendo which, repeated enough, led to a “where-

there’s-smoke- there’s-fire” presumption of guilt. Slothful journalists could not get enough of the tactic because tossing “Whitewater” around required no real work,

active investigation or critical thought — the mortal enemies of most establishment reporters — but instead was just a cheap and easy way to imply that they were

pursuing some sort of scandal.

[babylonsister]

22. Glad to see you quote Greenwald; he said the same thing about

Rezko yesterday, so you might want to lighten up on the slimey poo you're flinging w/o any facts to support it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2964421&mesg_id=2964421

[indimuse]

24. Will Rezko sit quietly in jail or will he bring Mayor Daley, Governor Blagojevich and Senator Obama

Will Rezko sit quietly in jail or will he bring Mayor Daley, Governor Blagojevich and Senator Obama down with him?

How will Obama repay the “favors” he owes all these people?

I am sure Patrick Fitzgerald will reveal all these connections and much more in Rezko’s upcoming trial at the end of this month.

Time will tell..because your boy has been mum from the beginning.

[WDIM]

23. Whitewater just one out of many!

Point taken on whitewater. Of course they could spend $73 Million investigating Bush's war and they'd come back as no wrong doing on the part of Bush. One of the advantages of being rich and powerful and president.

But thanks for a factual response and not just name calling!

[indimuse]

25. Obama has NOT been through anything like

what the RW and MSM has planned...in denial much?

[Adelante]

43. Rezco is Obama's Whitewater

The only substantive connections Obama and Rezko have is that the latter was a contributor to Obama's campaign and was a partner in a standard residential real-estate purchase which nobody suggests, at least in terms of Obama's conduct, was anything but above-board. But Rezko himself has a sinister-sounding, villain-like last name and is of Syrian origin, which, for multiple reasons, helps build the shallow media drama.

But Obama isn't even accused of -- let alone proven to have engaged in -- any wrongdoing at all. I spent many years litigating all sorts of civil cases involving financial transactions like these. Few things are easier than concocting some nefarious angle to innocuous real estate transactions, yet they can't even do that here. Despite that, the "Rezko" innuendo lurks and grows and clearly isn't going anywhere.

-snip

Early in George Bush's term, it was revealed that one of his closest and most loyal supporters, Enron's Ken Lay, committed one of the most massive frauds in American corporate history. The President's own brother, Neil, has been involved in numerous accusations of serious impropriety and yet continues to be paid by multiple sources for virtually nothing other than being George Bush's brother. The central cog for the GOP fundraising machine, Jack Abramoff, is now imprisoned as a serial felon. Led by his involvement in the Keating Five scandal, John McCain has been linked to some of the sleaziest figures around.

Yet somehow, the standard in those cases is that, in the absence of specific allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the political official, merely being linked -- even intimately -- to thieves and felons won't be held against the political official. By rather stark contrast, the multiple former Clinton associates who were convicted of wrongdoing -- the McDougals and Webster Hubbell -- were constantly used to imply that the Clintons themselves had done something corrupt, and now, Tony Rekzo's conduct is being sloppily and dishonestly cast onto Barack Obama without the slightest attempt to actually make the case that Obama has done anything even arguably wrong at all.

One very simple and self-evidently warranted rule ought to be applied: no reporter should toss around "Rezko" innuendo unless they're able to explain what it means specifically when assessing Obama's conduct, what specific allegations of any substance are being made against Obama when the scary specter of "Rezko" is invoked. If they're incapable of articulating even those basics -- and they are -- then the whole exercise is just deceitful and worthless.

It's precisely the empty nature of the "scandal" that makes it impossible to resolve. The more he addresses it, the more he fuels it; conversely, the more he refuses to address it, the more he will be accused of "stonewalling" and not being forthcoming. It's just illusory innuendo that, by design, can never be satisfactorily addressed because nobody can ever apprehend what the substance of the "scandal" is. Substance-free scandal is the only kind that attracts the intense attention of the media hordes.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/05/rezko/index.html

[Window]

17. ..

[WDIM]

18. Hypocrit Clinton Supporters!

I see article after article on Rezko from Clinton supporters. But somebody dare say anything bad about Clintons and their associates oh no! you're slinging mud! you're hurting the party! You're making me not want to vote! I'm beginning to see the Clinton supports are just like the Clintons they dish it out but when some body throws it back at them they cry and scream unfair!!! And they never debate the issue or give facts to support their stance.

So Clinton supports how do you justify some of the sleaze that is following the clintons right now.
Peter Paul V. Clinton
Norman Hsu
Rupert Murdoch

Oh I'm sure you won't give me any facts just name calling.

I really don't want another 4 years of special investigation into white house dealings. Investigations just follow the Clintons everywhere they go!

[LeftCoast]

45. The special council law expired

The republicans no longer have that cudgel to hang over future Democratic Presidents.

Unfortunately, it also meant we had no easy mechanism to investigate the criminal Bush WH.

[State the Obvious]

20. Hillary Clinton mirrors Republican attack-machine tactics. Is that what we want?

The Obama camp needs to emphasize HER "back-alley" manipulations.

"Over the past week Senator Clinton has reminded us HOW DIRTY SHE CAN PLAY to stay alive. Democrats need to exorcise their Clinton demons and do it fast for the sake of the party AND the country." Clinton fights hardest and dirtiest for HER sake NOT the sake of the party....(i.e...her campaign plants or manufactures a negative story, makes sure the media "give it legs", lets the FALSE story fester, and then... gradually lets the truth come out AFTER the damage has been done.)

Let's get back to TRUTHFUL discussions about the issues.

[greguganus]

21. Can't we all just....get along?

Where's Rodney King when you need him?

[SoCalDem]

33. jail?

:rofl:

[babylonsister]

41. Ha! You could be right. King wasn't such a good example to use! nt

[Liberal Dose]

36. This says it all, and so well, too. Thanks very much for posting!!!! Now if only Hillary would

suddenly start caring about the country more than herself. I know - not gonna happen. :(