Why is it that Obama is accused of throwing mud while Senator

[hedgehog]

Clinton is lauded for her ability to get down and dirty?

[Catherine Vincent]

1. quit yer whining n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. When Has Either Clinton Publicly Attacked Another Democrat?

DSB

[MH1]

8. Around Oct 31 2006

I may not have the exact date right. She jumped the Rove bandwagon and attacked John Kerry as if she was too stupid to know better, or too mean not to take an opportunity to hurt a rival.

That is why you see very few Kerry supporters getting behind Clinton. She owes an apology big time but she will not do it. And in any case she already revealed her low character - an apology would only be a sign of recognition of it.

FWIW, I was seriously considering supporting her until then. I guess if I'd done my homework I would have decided against it anyway, but I would have supported her as the nominee. Now it is unlikely she'll get more than my vote and my bare minimum duties in my party roles.

[BeyondGeography]

12. What a naive and irresponsible thing to ask

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Then Post A Link

Hearsay and innuendo isn't how we roll in America...

[BeyondGeography]

20. Here it is...and, by the way, there is a presidential campaign going on

you may have heard...There's, like, debates, punches, counter-punches and everything.

From ABC News (and a million other places):

Clinton: Obama 'Irresponsible and Naive'

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said today that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, her chief rival for the Democratic nomination, made comments that were "irresponsible and frankly naive" when he said in Monday night's debate that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations during his first year in office.

Clinton's response, made in an interview with an Iowa newspaper, marks the sharpest exchange to date between the top two Democratic candidates for president — and the first time Clinton has explicitly attacked another Democratic candidate.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3409544&page=1

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. You Got Me

One time in a thirty five year public career...

[beachmom]

34. Normally she stabs in the back behind the scenes. But watch her

knife Kerry, joining in with others -- John McCain and George Bush. There's nothing like seeing this montage to understand the character of Hillary Clinton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. You Got Me

One time in a thirty five year public career...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. You Got Me

One time in a thirty five year public career...

[cuke]

30. To be technical

Clinton is attacking what he said, and not Obama himself. There's nothing "dirty" about criticizing an opponents postitions or statements.

However, I'm not naive, and I understand why she made her comment. And besides, Hillary has never claimed to be a pure ray of sunshine. She's the one who said if you want someone who can take on the right wing and win then "I'm your girl!!"

She's not promising puppies and buttercups

[BeyondGeography]

32. Of course; she's allowed to attack every now and then

I don't care.

[FlaxieB]

13. Naive rings a bell anyone? That was a personal attack.

[Nedsdag]

29. Does the word, "naive" ring any bells?

n/t

[beachmom]

35. Everyone watch the video of Hillary attacking another Democrat here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[PurityOfEssence]

37. On Brown: "Jerry's tax" is "the most reactionary proposal in a presidential campaign in my lifetime"

When Brown accused Bill of having steered Arkansas government contracts to Hillary's law firm, it wasn't enough to just dismiss the charges as false, he had to say that it was a "...typical thing to say a person who doesn't respect the fact that women can have their own world and do their own jobs." They're rather adept at playing the gender card, aren't they? Suddenly, a tussle about fiscal impropriety gets flipped to being some kind of proof of Jerry Brown's misogyny. (Sounds far-fetched, doesn't it: Jerry Brown a misogynist?) Remember: if you rebuke Hillary Clinton's actions, you're a misogynist.

When Brown repeated the allegation at a "debate" in Chicago, Clinton shot back: "How dare you jump on my wife like that! You're not fit to stand on the same stage with her." I'd call that an attack. Hell, that's a dismissal as a person.

Here's an interesting bit of history from an article by Steve Kornacki. I wanted to provide some quotes, but haven't found them yet. "Indeed, Hillary Clinton was among the most persistent voices in February 1992 urging her husband to go after the ascendant former Senator. And Mr. Clinton did—in a lavish, ugly and utterly dishonest series of public attacks and negative ads that absurdly portrayed Tsongas, who still resided on Mansur Street in Lowell, as a tool of Wall Street interests and a foe of Social Security, Medicare and Israel." These ads were SPECIFICALLY for Florida, mind you, completely distorting Tsongas' plans for Social Security and questioning his support of Israel, two hot-button issues down there if there ever were any. Real above-board and high-tone there, Clintons.

Do you forget Senator Clinton's attacks on Obama regarding the commitment to negotiate with hostile foreign leaders? She accused him of being "irresponsible and frankly naive" in agreeing to meet the "world's worst dictators". There was more; it went on for awhile.

Bill Clinton had the advantage of being in a muddled group of second-tier candidates in 1992 because many of the heavy-hitters felt Bush was unstoppable. He emerged fairly quickly as the front-runner and kept the high-ground, so he was able to not have to really take on the other Democrats. By being the one to beat, he was able to rise above the fray, fending off issues of his character and speaking out against the conservatives. Still, when in trouble, he proved himself perfectly willing to assassinate character. His second national campaign didn't have a serious primary challenge.

Hillary Clinton is fighting a general election campaign right now. As such, she's not attacking the Democratic opponents who are quite far behind her in the polls. This is the luxury of the front-runner, but to intimate that she's above it or more moral and decent because of her tactical advantage is hogwash.

[wyldwolf]

3. it may be because...

#1. Senator Clinton didn't hasn't run a campaign based on NOT throwing mud.
#2. Senator Clinton throws mud at Republicans (unless she's returning fire against Democrats - see #1) I can think of maybe one occasion where she threw the first bomb at another Dem.

[phen43]

4. yeh really!!

what you got to say about this Hillary supporters?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. We Answered It

Now riddle me this ...

When has either Clinton publicly attacked another Democrat?

[napi21]

5. Because he made a BIG deal about running a different kind of

campaign. Remember the "campaign of hope and not personal attacks"?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. That And The Clintons Don't Publicly Attack Other Democrats

Even in 92 when Tsongas, Kerrey, and Brown were attacking him...

[itsrobert]

10. Keyword "Publicly"

You're catching on. They do it behind the scenes.

[dflprincess]

21. That was what jumped out at me in the question

And the thought that they have can always have one of their henchmen do the attacking for them.

[cuke]

38. Which raises the question

Why didn't Obama have one his "henchmen" make this attack?

Politicians have their "henchmen" do this because they believe it will affect their image negatively.

Obama is making this attack directly, when he could have someone else do it. Why? Is he trying to change his image? How does this help him change his image?

[MH1]

11. Not true. See my response to your post above. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Post A Link Then

DSB

[FlaxieB]

14. The hell they don't

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Post A Link

Post a link where the Clintons publicly attacked another Democrat...Hearsay and innuendo isn't how we roll in America...

[beachmom]

36. And again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[MBS]

40. a very revealing snippet

. . and a deal-breaker for me, with respect to a primary vote for her. It's a question of character. When John McCain takes Kerry's side, and Hillary takes W.'s, well, like I said, it's a very revealing moment. Note also Kerry's steely response to this nonsense. Excellent snippet, highly recommended.

[Nedsdag]

31. What about the story going around about Brown

and a private fund raiser where reported cocaine was passed around? How did that story get out? Who's camp started that story?

[cuke]

18. Yep, Hillary hasn't promised anyone "New Politics" or "Unity"

She made it clear - If you want someone who can take on the right wing, she's your girl!!!

[emilyg]

25. Yeah - sure. Didn't last long.

[itsrobert]

7. Because Hillary doesn't throw mud. The media does that job for her

and her supporters don't mind getting in the hog pen.

[jmp]

15. Because it's Clinton folks doing the accusing and the lauding.

...

[tekisui]

26. Obama made his name vowing to be positive and campaign on hope.

Clinton never claimed that high road. So, it's a story when Obama comes down from his high horse and tries to get dirty.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. That's one hell of an implicit assumption you've got there...

I would ask the question "Is it the case that...", instead, to which the answer appears to be "no more so than the reverse".

[Bluebear]

28. Because Obama touted the "Audacity of hope". Great book title.

[phen43]

33. Senator Obama ROCKS!!!!

:yourock:

[Bluebear]

39. Whichever campaign office sent you, tell them he's embarrassing himself.

[phen43]

42. actually I'm a covert homophobe on secret mission from the Rev Don

B-)

[ljm2002]

41. Because he set himself up...

...as a candidate who would not stoop to such things.

Which of course, is very hard to do during the primaries, when you are trying to differentiate yourself from the other candidates.

Another example of political naivete. Looks like he knows now, that a presidential run is a bruising affair, and you won't win without getting into the fray.