Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Not Exactly
NYT Editorial today:
NYT report very early in the campaign:
Also from last June:
For more on the negative campaigning that Clinton supposedly started, read this and take the time to follow some of the links. Eriposte does stack the deck somewhat, but no more than Obama supporters. To me, the biggest mystery of the 2008 election has been the eagerness of liberals, especially liberal bloggers and blog readers, to embrace the campaign season's dominant media narrative. I'm not attacking Obama; to be elected president, a politician has to play to win.
Update: James Wolcott:
It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
NYT report very early in the campaign:
Mr. Obama’s aides circulated the memorandum to news organizations on the condition that news organizations not say where they obtained the information.
...
These documents – with their bold type and grabby headlines, including one that referred to Mrs. Clinton as (D-Punjab) – are text-book examples of old-school opposition research practices. Second, the documents include what could be construed as attacks on Mr. Clinton, who is probably the most popular person among Democrats these days.
Also from last June:
Drudge has been touting his latest Clinton “scandal,” this time accusing the former president of giving a for-profit speech for Asian investors on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Like far too many Drudge “scoops,” this one’s false.
Drudge told readers:
FORMS REVEAL: Bill Clinton commemorated the 5th anniversary of 9/11with a paid $100,000 speech [via satellite] to a group of investors in Hong Kong attending a forum about personal wealth….
...
Greg Sargent explains.
We’ve just obtained an email that shows that the Obama campaign yesterday circulated a negative, and ultimately false, story about Bill Clinton — that he allegedly made money giving a speech on September 11, 2006.
For more on the negative campaigning that Clinton supposedly started, read this and take the time to follow some of the links. Eriposte does stack the deck somewhat, but no more than Obama supporters. To me, the biggest mystery of the 2008 election has been the eagerness of liberals, especially liberal bloggers and blog readers, to embrace the campaign season's dominant media narrative. I'm not attacking Obama; to be elected president, a politician has to play to win.
Update: James Wolcott:
Shorter New York Times editorial:
Hillary Clinton's ruthless insistence on winning big-state primaries with traditional Democratic voters only hastens and strengthens the case that she drop out of the race and let Barack Obama finish his waffle.
