The best Camp Clinton can come up with is “we have 700 staffers with email accounts, we can’t keep track of them all.” So yeah, it did come from one of them, although you gotta love Obama brushing it all aside with typical aplomb as, and I quote, “as staff-level dustup.”
Had he said “I pardon you”, he couldn’t have gouged Hillary any more effectively.
Clinton’s people were asked immediately, on CNN, MSNBC, etc. if they had crossed the line by sending that picture out to the media. In the CNN piece, it appeared they had also received the photo. The Clinton camp did not deny they sent it out, which would be the normal response if they had not - instead, Clinton’s new campaign head said “We are disappointed that Obama is embarrassed to be seen in native Somalian garb, as Senator Clinton has often appeared in the clothing… blah blah blah” and “This is typical of Senator Obama to try to make an issue of something as silly as this… blah blah blah.” The interviewer on CNN point blank asked her (campaign manager) something like, OK, so you don’t deny your campaign sent this out, and instead of “I never saw this” or “No we did not send this out” she side stepped by saying, again, “We are disapointed in Obama’s reaction to being seen in a photo… etc.”
That has been the response of the Clinton camp since it came out, and only in the last day or so has there even been an attempt by the Clinton’s to distance themselves, and even then a very weak one, as if they know that a flat denial would be discovered to be a lie.
So yeah - nobody is questioning that HRC’s campaign did it, since they have people in the campaign who’s specific job is feeding Drudge items, and they never attempted to deny it.
Actually, it does make a certain kind of sense for the Clinton camp to leak these photos to Drudge. There’s already known animosity between Drudge & the Clintons, so it would help distance the Clintons from these photos & make it look like the photos “just appeared”. Obviously, the Clintons didn’t think their cunning plan all the way through.
But you’re right… the source does make the photos more questionable. But I think Clinton’s repeated non-denials go a long way towards adding credibility.
When the “Hillary Campaign Autopsy” thead is started (hopefully on March 5) how badly her attacks on Obama have backfired will have to be a bullet point.
The kindergarten thing, the drug thing, the plagarism, the photo, Bills Fairytale ect ect, have all just made her look desperate and small and allowed him to score points by rising above it.
From her point of view she may have felt she had no other choice, she needed to try and bruise him, she was losing. She may well have lost anyway without going negative, he is a more attractive and better organized candidate, but she could have done it without damaging herself, Bill and the Democratic party as much.
Bullet point? More like the thesis statement :-).
Interestingly enough, McCain seems to have learned the lesson Clinton hasn’t. A conservative radio host announcing him at a campaign stop the other day made repeated disparaging remarks about Barrack Hussein Obama and McCain, learning about this after the fact from a staffer, called a press conference to repudiate the comments and to say that he has nothing but respect for his opponants who are fine Americans and that if any responsibility for the comments could be seen as falling on him, he apologizes sincerely.
Yeah, that was kind of great actually. Hopefully it bodes well for a civil General Election.
I don’t think McCain’s learned a lesson. He’s just a classier person than the Clintons and always has been.
A couple weeks back, I saw an interview with McCain where he said that both of his opponents are intelligent, principled, dedicated public servants for whom he had genuine respect and that he therefore looked forward to a campaign of issues, not personal attacks. Of course, given what we know about Clinton, he was only half right, but I was still pleased to hear him say it.
This is just further proof that McCain will lie his way into office!
I’m incredulous. I’m expecting that McCain will be making these “apologies” over and over again as he sends out his surrogates to do the dirty work.
McCain’s entire MO is to work his “maverick straight shooter” image with the press, no matter how different his actual record may be.
This does seem likely; McCain knows that not just against Obama but in general, attacking one’s opponent directly is ineffective in democratic elections. McCain and Obama also had that bit a couple of years ago where McCain had criticized Obama, Obama came back with a “I respect McCain, I’ve worked hard on this issue and I don’t understand why a respected friend and colleague would say that,” and later they were in public kissing and making up. (Almost literally.) I think McCain has seen from Hillary’s campaign that even indirect attacks backfire against Obama, and is going to have to take the high road to have a shot; criticize the policies, don’t create straw men, and definitely do not attack the man. As such, I think we’re going to have a very civil campaign with Obama and McCain, and those who try to support their candidates with low blows are going to find themselves denounced by both sides.
Well, the thing is, the right wing smear machine has such a well-built out system of bastards that aren’t even related to the candidate himself, plus that media/people don’t actually care when such connections exist, so I have no doubt that John McCain will be perceived to be “above it,” as the sleaze will continue month after month and people will start feeling strangely uncomfortable with the Democratic candidate, leading to another depressing victory for the anti-choice, anti-poor, pro-war, Republicans.
The modern approach is to keep your candidate’s hands clean, and let your 527s do the dirty work.
Bush didn’t have to criticize Kerry’s war record - he had others do the dirty work for him.
True, but McCain seems to be actively discouraging the dirty work. Bush didn’t criticize Kerry’s war record… but he sure as hell didn’t defend Kerry. He remained mute. McCain, on the other hand, seems to actually try to fight such sleaze. It’s possible that he initiates the sleaze just so he can fight it, but so far that doesn’t look like it’s the case.
His association with lobbyists, on the other hand, is a much larger concern.
When your opponent needs only ignore and rise above material you put out in order to score points, perhaps it was a mistake to release said data? :)
If you’re leaning towards supporting Candy Dat for president, and I tell you that Mrs. Dat is a lying scheming whore, then it’s not likely to make you think less of Candy; you’re going to think less of me. As someone who’s leaning towards her side, you may even start thinking of counter-arguments to my attack. You’ll become even further entrenched as a supporter of Candy Dat. The only people likely to nod their heads in agreement are those who already agree with me and are entrenched in their point of view. What this shows is how smear campaigns don’t work.
Outside of the Swift Boat Veterans and like Coulter and Limbaugh, it was very rare to hear anything truly negative about Kerry in 2004; criticism of Bush in 2004 was ubiquitous, deafening, and far more strident than anything said about Kerry. Bush was compared as often to the most horrible dictators of the 20th century as often as Swift Boat accusations were levied.
Kerry’s campaign was Godwin’d.
Agreed, on all counts.
Show me where in the press those accusations about Bush were reported.
It’s not just what was being said, it was who said it, and where it was reported.
I can only assume you’re basing the observation on the big internet forum/blog echo chamber, not on the real world of campaign ads and traditional media. It’s an accurate statement about the former, but certainly not about the latter.
I really think his comments here are genuine. I also think it’s a sure thing Cunningham is not surrogate (based on the subsequent remarks from him attacking McCain and saying he’s “had it” with him).
I’m not a big fan of McCain, and I don’t think he’s nearly the “straight talker” he pretends to be… but I still think he’s sincere in wanting to avoid that kind of politics.