Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rule #1: Never give rightwing smear mongering columnists any credibility whatsoever

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:01 PM
Original message
Rule #1: Never give rightwing smear mongering columnists any credibility whatsoever
Never.

Senator Obama should fire whichever strategist orchestrated his official response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Ooookeeeee.... Do you have a clue you'd like to share with the rest of us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Maybe he's talking about this....


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

This was a RW smear and an outright lie but that didn't stop the smearers from finding news cameras to push the lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glimmer of Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
27. I totally forgot about that. It still pisses me off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. Who let Obama talk with Novak without telling Obama who Novak was?
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 06:03 PM by MethuenProgressive
Obama got played.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. The Clinton campaign managed to swiftboat him nonetheless.
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 03:54 PM by ClarkUSA
"Once again Senator Obama is echoing Republican talking points"???

F*ck Phil Singer and the Clinton campaign for their attacks hidden as non-denial denials!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. and fuck the Clinton campaign for calling Obama "Bush lite..." wait... uh...
...should be the other way around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Obama stopped saying that long ago because he felt he went too far.
Obviously, Hillaryworld hypocrites have no such ethical compass. F*ck them for swfitboating a good Democrat!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
28. so, you have a link where he said that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Giving credence to Right Wing hack Robert Novak...and trying to smear Hillary
by Association

Straight out of the Republican playbook...smear by association...and Obama fell right into like the righties wanted him too...

Probably didn't count on Hillary slapping him down so hard and effectively...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. Clinton accepts money from Murdoch, feeds stories to Drudge; why not plant a rumor with Novak?
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 04:23 PM by ClarkUSA
Hillary will do anything with anybody if it helped her be the Democratic nominee. And Chris Lehane, Mark Penn, and
Harold Wolfson know damn well that Novak is an inveterate gossipmonger par excellence who will spread maliciious
stories in the blink of an eye without question (see Valerie Plame).

F*ck them for trying to swiftboat a good Democrat!! Kudos to Obama for calling her out on it immediately and forcing
a tellingly ingracious, nasty non-denial swiftboating denial.

"Politics is a blood sport." ~ Bill Clinton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Pathetic...
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 04:28 PM by SaveElmer
Lets see Hillary along with Barbara Boxer, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy among others have received money from Murdoch...guess they are all hacks too eh?

And you repeat the familiar Republican tactic of equating two events that are not analogous...

Assuming Hillary's campaign did give Drudge a heads up on her fundraising numbers...which is not proven...they didn't provide false or incorrect information did they? No..they didn't help Drudge plant smears against Obama did they ? No...

Obama is using a completely false smear by Plame outer and Swift Boat promoter Robert Novak and trying to make Hillary responsible for it...

A pathetic, amateurish and desperate maneuver that shows Obama's claim to be a uniter and to be above this kind of thing to be a complete sham...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. What's pathetic is Clinton will do anything with anybody to become the nominee.
They planted a story with Drudge the day after the Philly debate accusing Russert of bias and unfair attacks (whine,
whine), too. I fully believe that Hillaryworld tried to spread a swiftboat rumor via Bob Novak that backfired when
Obama forced them to recant in a public manner, thus quelching any further whisper campaign.

Checkmate. The queen is dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. This is simply the latest in the litany of Obama slime tactics...
He has been trying them for months...and they continue to backfire...


Obama/Novak '08
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. The only slimy Democratic party machine belongs to the Clintons
With able assists from Chris Lehane, Mark Penn, Harold Wolfson and Paul Singer.

Clinton/Murdoch 08 with Drudge as official spokesperson, Novak as stenographer,
and Scaife as fundraiser.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. "backfired when Obama forced them to recant in a public
manner"
What planet did this occur on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Hillaryworld had to issue a non-denial denial that swiftboated Obama inartfully
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 06:03 PM by ClarkUSA
I'll bet they won't try planting a malicious rumor about Obama again. Because unlike
most Democrats facing down ugly rumors, Obama fights back hard - at the source.
And I have no doubt Novak told the Obama campaign where or who he heard the rumor
from and the Obama campaign followed up and did their due diligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. Dumb
Your thinking needs to evolve. Here's a more sophisticated take:

==Obamas fast and aggressive response statement is a truly striking move. Instead of ignoring a weekend item by a conservative columnist, the campaign decided to create another moment in which it forcefully challenges Clinton and her association with the old politics of Washington. It is a tough call-to-arms for his supporters.

The campaigns response also whether intended or not just might insulate Obama from any actual revelations, allowing his campaign to claim that anything that comes out is the product of the politics of personal destruction engineered by the Clinton political machine. It would be the very tactic employed by Bill Clinton in 1992 a catch-all defense which moves the focus from the candidates past to the timing of disclosures and the motives of those disclosing (or those accused of disclosing).==

http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-on-bob-novaks-cl...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. He shot himself in the foot...again...
Trying to smear Hillary by getting in bed with Robert Novak of all people...

Definitely amateur hour in the Obama campaign...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Hilly's the one in bed with Novak
only a matter of time before he confirms it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:11 PM
Original message
Dream on...
Obama/Novak '08

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
13. Hillary/Sludge/Novak '08...
A particularly seemy threesome... Ack!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Replace Hillary's name with Obama's and you have three peas in a pod....
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. Rule #1A: Unless it helps your campaign
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Considering your posting the stuff I've already pointed out from right-wing sources.
I have to believe that your answer here is serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
29. Who's campaign am I running?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. How does that make any difference to my point?
Are you saying that it's ok for people here to do it but not the campaigns?

Or do you think it's wrong for anyone, either the candidates or their supporters, to use such sources to slam or praise other Dems?

Or is there a third option?

Not trying to get into one of our patented flamewars here, so I apologize for my first post attacking you. But I would honestly like to know where you stand on this, and to explain your first post here.

Here's where I stand on the topic. I don't mind right wing sources being posted if they are to critique what they are saying about our choices and to find ways to counter said charges (which is usually pretty damn easy to do), or if they are being made fun of (also very easy to do). I do have a problem with using them to attack or praise one of our choices.Using such a source for an attack implies to me the OP would agree with the source, which is just sad.Using them for praise is equally sad, because what the hell does the right know about anything other than greed, hate, and manipulation? :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. how was your point relevant to the post of mine you replied to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Gee, thanks for the attempt at a serious and honest conversation.
I tried in good faith with you, even apologized for that post of mine, and you still can't give an honest answer. Don't even know why I tried or expected anything remotely resembling an honest give and take from you.

You should take some lessons from SaveELmer, who can give an honest answer to honest questions, even when we disagree. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. gee, thanks for demonstrating you know how to stay on topic
I mean, what if I veered the conversation to what brand of salsa you buy then demanded an answer? :shrug:

It was obvious to me Obama thought acknowledging the Novack piece then pointing to Clinton would gain him points with certain folks. What I personally post has nada to do with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. I did stay on topic though.
It wasn't off topic at all.Both your post and my reply, and the OP, are about right wing sources, so how is that off topic? You said something about right wing sources, I remembered you using them yourself, so I made my post.I also apologized for it and then asked for your own opinion on the use of right wing sources minus the attack I used at first.I figured maybe we could bury the hatchet a bit, and not in one another's head.So I apologize again for my first post.

I don't get why you're so hesitant so often to just answer simple questions, at least ones asked in good faith as I just did (I can understand the snark at leading or just dumb questions, though). Anytime you ask me an honest question I'll give you an honest answer.

What I personally post has nada to do with it.

That goes for all of us on almost all topics, if you think about it.Doesn't mean we can't ask one another our opinions on the topic at hand, which is right wing sources and the use of them on DU.

I'm honestly not trying to pull a "gotcha" on you, though I can imagine why you think I am considering our past here.But I am curious what you think on the topic, which is why I asked, and shared my own thinking on the subject.You certainly don't owe me any answers, but I don't understand why you wouldn't anyways. :shrug:

It was obvious to me Obama thought acknowledging the Novack piece then pointing to Clinton would gain him points with certain folks.

I agree.He got played.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. no you didn't. The topic was Obama's "campaign." In post 12, you made it personal.
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 08:57 PM by wyldwolf
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. It is on topic.
The headline of the the thread is "Rule #1: Never give rightwing smear mongering columnists any credibility whatsoever."

So right wing sources ARE the topic, which my post #12 brought up, albeit in the wrong way, along with Obama's campaign believing them.We're both right here, but you're only acknowledging your side.

Now I'm trying to have an honest conversation with you and you don't seem to want to, and instead want to keep trying to focus on something I've apologized twice for. If you don't want to accept that apology I guess there's not much left to say here, so I'll wish you a good night and move on.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 05:37 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. It is not on topic
The OP reads: "Rule #1: Never give rightwing smear mongering columnists any credibility whatsoever Never. Senator Obama should fire whichever strategist orchestrated his official response.

It's clearly about a presidential campaign. Further, any attempts to make it anything is else (like saying I've quoted rightwing sources) falls way flat. Not only am I not running a campaign, I've never (nor has a stategist of mine) given an official response. In fact, anytime I posted an article from anyone perceived to be rightwing by DU, I've never given ANY response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. how was your point relevant to the post of mine you replied to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
9. Perhaps Hillary should fire whichever sleaze merchant was trying to peddle the smear instead...
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Perhaps the smear is just that... a smear...
But hey, if Obama supporters think making common cause with Robert Novak is the way to go...sounds good to me...

Obama/Novak '08

Obama cannot even decide what will satisfy him...

Hillary categorically denied it as Obama asked her too...and his supporters are still whining...apparently trying to bluster their way out of a monumental and amateurish mistake...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Try to spin it away as you like...
Sad to say it but I don't trust Hillary any more than I trust Novak on this one. At this point, it's a "he said, she said."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Obama has shown a willingness to lie about Hillary in this campaign...
What would stop him from continuing that pattern...?

It's like shooting at a robber and hitting your dog instead...

He slapped down the wrong person, and now looks like a hack politician...played like a fiddle by Robert Novak and the Republicans


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. OK...you said "Obama has shown a willingness to lie about Hillary in this campaign"
Would you care to give specific examples, quotes and links?

You can disagree with Obama all you want. But to call him a liar is a personal mud-slinging attack.

I do find it interesting that Hillary supporters are nervous and worried about the outcome. They aren't dumbshits, after all. They are intelligent, savvy people. So everyone knows a front runner doesn't go around slinging mud. Unless they are very worried, that is....

So I will take your mud slinging as evidence that your intelligence detects a need to go the low route.

I wish I was an Obama fan. i would be overjoyed to read your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
30. You answer charges, regardless, immediately. That is rule #1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. You answer to the person that
made them. Rule # 2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
35. Man who needs to go to the right wing hate sites, you guys beat them at it ..hands down, give
it a break will ya. Neither argument has been proven or dis-proven but hey what does that matter!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 31st 2014, 05:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC