As you may know, we here at AMERICAblog are now awarding Hillary and her team a special prize every time they cross the line of decency and attack Democratic nominee Obama in a way that could hurt his chances against McCain in the fall. Our award is called a "Monica," and the Hillary team member will earn between one and five Monicas, based on the severity of their sleaze. This morning's Monica goes to former NY Mayor Ed Koch.
Hillary supporter Ed Koch is now claiming that since Obama criticized Hillary for saying that if she becomes president she'll "obliterate" Iran in a nuclear fireball (she actually said she'd nuke 'em), this means Obama isn't a friend of Israel. No, Obama just has a problem with indiscriminately nuking millions of innocent men, women and children for a few votes. (In all fairness to Hillary, she was actually for nuking Iran before she was against it, though now, apparently, since she lost the election and is desperate, nuking Iran is back on the agenda. It's so hard to keep track with a Clinton.)
You'd have thought Hillary would have learned her lesson by now - you don't support going to war simply to prove you're a tough guy in the next election. And don't forget, Hillary didn't just say she'd nuke Iran for Israel, she also said she'd nuke Iran if they attacked Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and other Arab countries in the region. Yes, Hillary is willing to start a nuclear war for Jordan, and for the despots in Saudi Arabia. Think about that. I'm not too sure a nuclear war on Israel's border is the best way to guarantee Israel's long-term survival.
Koch goes on to mention Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Wright, and then says that we can't trust Obama to defend America against Islamic terrorists. Way to go, Hillary, that should help our party a lot in the fall against McCain when our nominee, Barack Obama, has to take on John McCain. But then again, you don't really care about the fall election, do you? Oh, and just a few days ago, Koch said outright that Obama will lose in the fall to McCain. Nice, very nice, Hillary.
So, we award Hillary supporter Ed Koch, who's obviously doing this at Hillary's request, 4 Monicas for trying to destroy Democratic nominee Obama's support in the Jewish community vis-a-vis McCain in the fall, for dredging up Farrakhan and Rev. Wright, and for outright telling the world that our nominee can't win. Remember, McCain has Lieberman claiming that McCain is better for Israel (and American Jews), so Koch's words, Hillary' strategy, could seriously damage Obama in the fall with a key Democratic constituency (American Jews support Obama over McCain 2-1, but that doesn't mean Hillary won't try to change that). But Hillary doesn't care, and neither do our congressional leaders, the DNC, or the superdelegates. They'll let Hillary's fairy tale drag out for another month in order to keep Hillary happy because, you know, she's very fragile.
Bill and Hillary both just earned four Monicas for this revelation. Yes, for all of you who think Hillary is going to go away after a few weeks of electoral therapy (you know, she's very sensitive and needs a few weeks to process her loss), think again. These people are out to destroy Obama, and now we find out via the media that - surprise - that's exactly what they're doing. CNN is reporting that:
"[T]he Clinton campaign's search for damaging information and its hope that such information exists continues, according to knowledgeable sources."
Wow, so what kind of damaging information are we talking about? Like if Obama were getting oral sex from a kid his daughter's age, at work, while talking on the phone with foreign leaders, with his wife down the hall? Like Obama lying under oath, obstructing justice, and dragging the entire country through the mud for two years? Like hiding files relevant to an investigation until after the statute of limitations ran out? Hey, maybe they mean like Obama flying around the country with his rich friend boinking every bimbo he can find in Vegas and everywhere else?
I'm just trying to understand what kind of "damaging information" the Clintons are trying to get on Obama? Hey, maybe they simply think Obama is a closet racist, and is only out to help "white Americans"? Yeah that must be it. Anyway, congratulations to the Clintons for earning four out of five Monicas for the audacity to continue trying to destroy Obama even after the nomination race is over.
Markos found a Geraldine Ferraro interview from February 27, 2008, on FOX News' John Gibson's radio show, where she said pretty much the exact same thing she said this week about Obama and race. The thing is, it's nearly verbatim the same thing. These are talking points that she rehearsed, and/or was given. The question is by whom?
FERRARO: If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary?
If he were a woman...
GIBSON: You mean if he were John Edwards?
FERRARO: If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he's in, absolutely not.
GIBSON: Geraldine, are you playing the race card?
FERRARO: No, and that's the problem. Every time you say the truth - I'm the first person, John, and you know how honest I am, I am the first person who will say in 1984 if my name were Gerard instead of Geraldine, I would never have been picked as the vice presidential candidate.
"If in 1984 my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for VP."
In politics, those cute little zingers tend to be things you practice in advance. They're intentional, they're talking points. Ferraro planned this entire line of attack over 2 weeks ago. The question is whether Hillary's campaign planned it for her, with her.
"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," [Geraldine] Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.
Now remember, this is not the tenth time, or so, that the Clintons have pulled the race card on Obama. It's NOT. So please don't play the race card in trying to stop their racism. It's racist against European Americans.
More classiness, from one of Clinton's top surrogates, Geraldine Ferraro.
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.
Ferraro isn't some unknown lower-level or obscure advisor, but one of her top fundraisers, member of Clinton's finance committee, and a former Democratic vice presidential nominee.
Better than being the most scandal-prone Senator. It's nice that Hillary's campaign is now using the most vicious of right-wing talking points to not only demonize Obama, but demonize a good portion of the Democratic party as well. For decades the Republicans have used the word "liberal" as a slur in order to hurt Democrats across the board, and now Hillary's doing it too. From Election Geek quoting Hillary's top adviser, Mark Penn:
“Independent and Republican support is diminishing as they find out he’s the most liberal Democratic senator… As they get more of a sense that he’s not ready to be Commander-in-Chief, a lot of Independents who were supporting him are disappearing.”
Funny, because last week, when Penn said this, Hillary floated the idea of Obama being her VP. Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth. If Obama is so "liberal" and so unprepared, then why would Hillary want to put him a heartbeat away from the presidency? Why? Because she's lying. Either about Obama's competence, or about picking him as VP. Probably both. Hillary will say anything in order to become president, and if that means demonizing half the states in the country, half the party, and our probable nominee, then so be it.
You'd think the dynasty that brought us "Monica" would be reticent about going bitterly negative. Not so much. If Obama wanted to do, he could destroy Hillary by reminding everyone of the bad side of a Clinton administration - non-stop scandal, and rather prurient scandal at that. (Does anyone really think it's not going to happen all over again if Hillary and Bill get back in the White House?) But Obama has more class than Hillary - a fact she's proving more and more each day.
It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned.
By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her....
If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.
It's time the media asked Hillary one simple question: Who is more qualified to be president, John McCain or Barack Obama. Ask her. Then let's see if she weasels out of it or defends the Democrat.
TalkingPointsMemo, quoting Hillary Clinton today, again suggesting that John McCain is more qualified to be president than Barack Obama (watch video of Hillary repeatedly praising McCain over Obama here):
“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.
“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.
Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a “distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,” Clinton said, “Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with.”
When exactly did Hillary Clinton demonstrate that she was able to "cross the commander-in-chief threshold"? When she supported Bush by voting for the Iraq War? When she supported Bush (and Lieberman) on the Iran resolution last September (basically a carbon copy of the Iraq war resolution)? When she went to Kosovo with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow? When she was First Lady of Arkansas? When she was planning the White House Christmas Party?
This is getting ridiculous. It's one thing for Clinton to build herself up. But constantly comparing herself to McCain, constantly praising McCain over the man who may be our candidate in the fall, is beyond annoying. Is that supposed to make her appear stronger? If she wants that comparison, we'll make it. On the most important foreign policy decision of this decade, on the biggest foreign policy disaster in recent American history, Hillary Clinton and John McCain made the wrong call - both sided with George Bush and voted for the Iraq war. If this is the judgment they would bring to the threshold of the Oval Office, if these are the decisions Hillary and McCain are going to be making when the phone rings at 3AM, who needs either one of them.
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?
Hillary's campaign also argues that there are 20 years of her tax returns already released to the public. Well, yes - from 1980 to 2000. It's now 2008. We don't get to see the last 8 years? That's an odd standard, and in any case, she didn't demand in 2000 that Rick Lazio only release his returns pre-1992.
One more thing. This of course now means that Hillary was the one acting like Kenn Starr when she demanded that Lazio release his returns.
She said it three more times in the past day. Why the hell is she saying that the Republican candidate is more qualified to be president than our own presumptive nominee? And what the hell does our party plan to do on stopping this train wreck? She can't win, it's over, she doesn't have the delegates and can't get the delegates. She's hoping she can destroy Obama and step in after he's toast. And if she's wrong, she'll simply leave Obama destroyed for the general election campaign against McCain, the guy she has now said four times is more qualified to be president than our presumptive nominee. Here is the first time she endorsed McCain over Obama, and watch her three additional TV appearances below.
2nd time: "[McCain has] never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."
3rd time: "I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
4th time: "Of course, well, you know, I've got a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. And you know, Senator Obama's whole campaign is about one speech he made in 2002."
The Clinton campaign's latest tactic in Ohio is, apparently, a radio ad that tries to make listeners think it's a news report until the very end.
Stuff like this, if it succeeds in fooling voters, fairly seriously pollutes the information environment by trying to steal the credibility of the news media and use it to present a biased, exaggerated set of facts. Why can't we rely on people who want to be president to not engage in the kind of creepy behavior that you teach your kids not to do?
DailyKos has the original scoop. I went and got the original footage from the Clinton ad, and then compared it to 3 different video clips of the same debate from 3 different sources. I did this so as to take into account any editing, or quality issues, that might have accounted for Obama having darker skin in any particular video. None of the 3 video sources I found showed Obama nearly as black as the Hillary ad does. Click the image above to see a larger version. Look at his lips. Look at his eyebrows. Look at how the red MSNBC background has turned more purple. Clearly the image was darkened. The question is "why."
It just keeps happening again and again and again. The Clintons keeps doing things, saying things, that sound awfully racist. And we're to believe that this, the - what? 8th, 10th time? - this has happened is again just a coincidence. The first half a dozen times you launch seemingly racist attacks on your black opponent, maybe - maybe - we can write it off as "boy you're really dumb not to get it." But having a seemingly-racist attack from the Clinton folks on Obama every single week, after a while, you don't get to play the "I had no idea!" card anymore. After that many times, you're race-baiting. You're using racism to win. And you're destroying your legacy and your husband's. Enough already.
Limbaugh has been actively urging his Texas listeners to cross over and vote for Clinton in that state's open primary Tuesday, arguing it helps the Republicans if the Democratic race remains unsettled for weeks to come.
"I want Hillary to stay in this…this is too good a soap opera," Limbaugh told fellow conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham on Fox News Friday. He reiterated the comments on his Monday show and replayed the exchange with Ingram.
He also said Clinton is more willing than the Republican National Committee and John McCain's campaign to criticize Barack Obama.
"We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically. It's obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it, they don't have the stomach for it," Limbaugh continued. "As you probably know we're getting all kinds of memos from the RNC saying we're not going to be critical. Mark McKinnon of McCain's campaign said he'll quit if they get critical over Obama. This is the presidency of the United States we're talking about. I want our party to win I want the Democrats to lose.”
"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002," Clinton says.
