A hardworking former First Lady known for her world travels and tireless championship of the sick and poor runs for president against a Republican war hero. 2008? Try 1952. HillBuzz hasn’t read this book yet, but it certainly sounds interesting. And, it apparently has a cameo by a “precocious 5-year old Hillary Rodham”. The first break HillBuzz gets, we’re going to check this out. Maybe on the drive to Pennsylvania one of these coming Voluntourism Weekends.
If anyone has read this, please send us a review to HillBuzz@gmail.com – we’d like to see how this story turns out!
UPDATE: The author of this book, Robin Gerber, contacted HillBuzz via email (on the internets, that series of pipes and tubes), and told us HillBuzz readers would definitely enjoy the book. Sounds like a great first candidate for a HillBuzz book club. Checkout Robin’s website: www.robingerber.com
It is a time of turmoil, with the nation mired in an unpopular war in Korea and with Senator Joseph McCarthy stirring up fear of a lurking Communist “menace.” Racial discrimination is rampant. A woman’s place is in the home. And when a shocking act of God eliminates the Democratic presidential nominee, the party throws its support to an unlikely standard bearer: former First Lady and goodwill ambassador to the world Eleanor Roosevelt.
Captivating and fast-paced, Eleanor vs. Ike pits the unforgettable Eleanor against the enormously popular war hero Gen. Dwight David (“Ike”) Eisenhower. But while the opponents promise “an honest campaign,” their strategists mire the race in scandal and bitter innuendo. Suddenly Eleanor finds herself a target of powerful insiders who mean to destroy her good name—and Ku Klux Klan assassins dedicated to her death—as she gets caught up in a mad whirl of appearances and political maneuvering . . . and a chance encounter with a precocious five-year-old named Hillary Rodham.
We at HillBuzz have noticed Obama has a problem with the truth (or, as one Clinton supporter would phrase it, “He can’t handle the truth”. Thanks, Jack). His surrogates claim Clinton is the negative one, and their candidate is a saint or, more apt, the “Pope of Hope”. HillBuzz found some research on this subject, detailing all the rotten things His Hopefullness has done to Clinton in the past year or so. These facts are inconvenient to Obama’s arguments, to be sure.
For those of you not from Chicago, Obama is really playing by the Daly Playbook here (where you Tonya Harding someone in the kneecaps and pretend you have no idea what happened).
The fact is that Sen. Obama and his campaign have used numerous, often false, talking points and negative attacks against Sen. Clinton for many months. Some of these attacks easily cross the line that Hart has drawn and some are exactly along the lines of what Markos and Aravosis claim the Obama campaign has not done. I simply don’t have the time to chronicle it all (one could easily write an entire book about it) – so here’s just a sample list and an approximate timeline of such attacks – with URLs added to the dates providing backup details. These are clear examples illustrating the fundamental driving force that has characterized the Obama campaign since at least late Fall 2007: say or do anything to get elected. In some of these cases, Obama subsequently withdrew, apologized for or distanced himself from the attacks, but I don’t have time to note all the details in this post (you can find such details in my previous coverage).
I. A few examples of attacks that John Aravosis claims the Obama campaign never indulged in
“Past or Present Scandals”
Summer 2007: Obama campaign urges press to look into Bill Clinton’s “post-presidential” sex life (a favorite topic of Republicans)
August 2007: I’m not sure if Aravosis considers this a “present scandal” (I don’t), but the Obama campaign contacted the press to tie Norman Hsu to Sen. Clinton – even though Hsu was a donor and fundraiser to/for Sen. Obama as well
December 2007: Obama surrogate once again raises Bill Clinton’s sex life and ties it to Sen. Clinton’s electability
December 2007: Sen. Obama explicitly questions Sen. Clinton’s electability using approval ratings and her negatives (he’s of course done this on many occasions)
January 2008: Sen. Obama paints Sen. Clinton as divisive and questions whether people who vote for him will vote for her in the general election
February 2008: Sen. Obama talks up Sen. Clinton’s negatives by falsely caricaturing her as a person whose “natural inclination is to draw a picture of Republicans as people who need to be crushed and defeated” and then adds about himself “I’m not a person who believes any one party has a monopoly on wisdom”.
“What a Clinton run for the presidency will do to Democratic congressional races and governor races across the country”
December 2007: Sen. Obama unfavorably compares Clinton and Bush eras
February 2008: Obama campaign repeatedly attacks Clinton Presidency and paints Clintons as harbingers of Congressional losses in elections (The latter was a particularly deceptive and amusing attack – almost like they were asking for George Bush to remain in office since Bush was instrumental in Democrats taking over Congress in 2006).
Needless to say, the above list is not comprehensive by any means.
II. A few examples of attacks that Gary Hart described as providing “ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party’s nominee”
February 2007 onwards: Obama repeatedly claims Sen. Clinton lacks judgment when it comes to national security and foreign policy (this is really no different from Clinton claiming he is short on experience).
June 2007: Obama campaign peddles false story that the Clintons were trying to profit from 9/11
June 2007: Obama campaign circulates borderline racist “D-Punjab” attack against Sen. Clinton
October 2007: Due to a flagging campaign, Sen. Obama and his campaign/surrogates falsely paint Sen. Clinton as a liar, basically adopting the fraudulent words that Bill Bradley used to trash Al Gore in 2000 – words that were subsequently picked up by George Bush and the GOP and used very effectively against Al Gore in the 2000 general election. This is one of the classic examples of “providing ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party’s nominee” – after all, these words were used by Bush and the GOP to significantly tarnish Gore. Even more audacious, if you will: Sen. Obama’s character attack on Sen. Clinton was over a stance she took that was essentially identical to the stance Sen. Obama took in his own book.
November 2007: Sen. Obama uses GOP “crisis” rhetoric on social security to bolster his false attacks on Clinton and gets called on it by Paul Krugman and many in the blogosphere. His response? “So the notion that somehow because George Bush was trying to drum up fear in order to execute [his] agenda means that Democrats shouldn’t talk about it at all I think is a mistake.” (I expect that this argument or defense will likely never be offered by Sen. Obama or his surrogates as a defense of Sen. Clinton’s positions).
November/December 2007: Obama campaign uncritically pushes baseless smear story by right-wing fraudster Bob Novak alleging that the Clinton campaign was about to peddle some below-the-belt story about Sen. Obama
December 2007: Obama campaign mimicks media’s (and GOP’s) fraudulent attacks on Al Gore (in 2000) – in order to attack Sen. Clinton.
December 2007 onwards: Obama campaign launches false attacks on Sen. Clinton’s healthcare plan using the worst kind of Republican talking points – and by borrowing Harry and Louise type ads from the 1990s. This is another one of the many classic examples of “providing ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party’s nominee”. In using this tactic yet again, the Obama campaign effectively borrowed the tactics used by the GOP that helped defeat the Clinton healthcare plan and partly led to the defeat of Democrats in Congress in 1994.
January 2008: Sen. Obama accummulates an extensive record of using often false, right-wing/GOP talking points to criticize progressives and fellow Democrats including Sen. Clinton.
January 2008: Sen. Obama paints Sen. Clinton as divisive and questions whether people who vote for him will vote for her in the general election. This is another one of the many classic examples of “providing ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party’s nominee”. In using this tactic yet again, Sen. Obama effectively adopted a longtime Republican talking point used against Sen. Clinton by the GOP – one that will be particularly damaging to her in a general election setting, coming from a fellow Democrat.
January/February 2008: Obama campaign and surrogates break Gary Hart’s cardinal rule yet again by participating in one of the ugliest smear campaigns against a fellow Democrat ever – by falsely painting the Clintons as race-baiters or racists (NOTE: Also see this post about whether Sen. Obama’s advisors and surrogates speak for him).
November 2007: Obama mocks and minimizes Clinton’s experience as First Lady – a standard right-wing attack that we can expect even more now if Clinton becomes the nominee.
November 2007/ January/February 2008: Sen. Obama paints Sen. Clinton as being unprincipled, poll-driven and calculating (very effective lines of attack used by the GOP) while he himself out-spent Clinton on polling and demonstrated enough “calculatio
n” and “lack of principle” to keep us busy.
January / February 2008: Obama campaign paints Sen. Clinton as someone who would say or do anything to get elected – another one of the many classic examples of “providing ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party’s nominee”. Indeed, Sen. Obama’s positions and claims (some of which are linked to here) have made it clear he was very much guilty of exactly what he accused Sen. Clinton of.
February 2008: Sen. Obama falsely caricatures Sen. Clinton as a person whose “natural inclination is to draw a picture of Republicans as people who need to be crushed and defeated” and then adds about himself “I’m not a person who believes any one party has a monopoly on wisdom”.
March 2008: Sen. Obama claims that although he does not measure experience using longevity, if longevity is the metric to judge experience McCain would win on experience (undermining Sen. Clinton’s statements about her years of experience). Obama campaign also puts out a memo in which they refer to McCain’s history of “straight talk and independent thinking”, which, along with Obama’s character attacks on Clinton, will no doubt be used by McCain and the GOP against Clinton if she becomes the nominee.
March 2008: An Obama advisor refers to Sen. Clinton as a “monster” and is forced to resign.
(If the above list is not enough to show that Markos’ statement was also false and delusional, then nothing is.)
Suggestion to Markos, Aravosis and Hart – I’m happy to see you passionately defend the candidate you are supporting but please don’t continue to propagate deeply offensive myths about this campaign.
P.S. The above list is only partial due to time limitations and I am not focusing on numerous other incidents and examples, including the many occasions where Sen. Obama repeatedly distorted Sen. Clinton’s claims or made false statements about her positions, and his borderline sexist comments about Sen. Clinton. As an aside, one of the things that I find ridiculous is the sentiment of some Obama supporters who believe that the Democrats are bound to lose in Nov 2008 if he is not crowned king, er, nominee, even before everyone who wants to vote has voted in the close Democratic primary. That is simply anti-Democratic and anti-progressive, is opposed by a majority of the Democratic voting population and is largely no different from the Republican efforts to shut down the Florida recount in 2000 and the Ohio recount in 2004.
Chelsea Clinton says, “If we work hard, we will win.” She’s right.
There is a very good chance we can stop Obama and win the nomination for Hillary if we do the following things:
(1) Win Pennsylvania on April 22nd
(2) Win Indiana on May 6
(3) Win NORTH CAROLINA on May 6
(4) Prepare for revotes in Michigan and Florida (and win those for Hillary in June)
If we take North Carolina from Obama, this race is over. If Hillary holds all the states she is favored to win, and also snags North Carolina from Obama’s column, then we win.
RCP poll average for North Carolina: BHO: 47.3 HRC 38.5 (difference of 8.8 points)
Rasmussen: BHO: 47 HRC: 40 (difference of 7 points)
PPP: BHO: 47 HRC: 43 (difference of 4 points)
This means we have a shot at North Carolina.
Let’s prove Chelsea right. Let’s work hard, and let’s win.
Rezko Watch is a great resource to learn more about the relationship between Obama and Antoin "Big Tony" Rezko
HillBuzz has heard a lot of people say “Who’s Rezko?” or “What’s with that Rezko business?”. We’re working on a YouTube video this week to show you exactly what Obama was doing in his state senate district, and how this connects to Antoin “Big Tony” Rezko, an indicted political fixer here in Chicago.
Until we get this Rezko Video up, Rezko Watch is a great site to read up on the “boneheaded” decision Obama made, many years ago, to link himself inextricably to “Big Tony” Rezko.
Tell your friends about Rezko Watch. They need to know what we in Chicago know: that Barack Obama is not the man he claims to be (and his real Hope is that no one ever looks for the real man behind the Obamania curtains).
Fox News, surprisingly, is doing the journalistic job the other networks have seemingly abdicated. Sean Hannity is not drinking the kool-aid (which leaves more for Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, apparently).
Obama repeatedly says that, despite his lack of experience, his advisors and coterie will make up for his shortcomings should he become president. Well, Samantha Power proved how ill-equipped his foreign policy advisors are to be involved in a presidential campaign – now Tom Daschle has proved on Meet the Press how weak Obama’s supporters are compared to Clinton’s.
If I was in a fight, I’d want Ed Rendell at my side any day. He’s worth Daschle, Kerry, Kennedy, and foul-mouthed Power combined.
This little film illustrates, humorously, how dangerous the world we live in really is. In January 2009, we need someone in the Oval Office who can take everything that is thrown at her, because the world isn’t going to shower the next president with sunshine, hugs, and rainbows.
Who knows what will be thrown at the next president?
Hillary Clinton will be able to handle anything that’s thrown at her…I know that for sure.
The shirt is awesome, and features Hillary’s official portrait, with an American flag pin as well. Because Hillary is proud of this country and wears the American flag pin (unlike some people who will remain nameless. Obama).
In Chicago, you can get this tee shirt from Marc Jacobs, but you have to order it special.
Here’s how to get one in Chicago:
(1) Call the Marc by Marc Jacobs store on Damen at (773) 276-2998 and ask the manager to order one for you
(2) The shirts are only in New York, but they will be shipped to Chicago for free for you
(3) The Marc by Marc Jacobs store is at 1714 N Damen
(4) The tee shirt is $38, and proceeds go to Hillary’s campaign!
The shirts are limited-edition collectors’ items, so please hurry and get one while you can!
Clinton got Newsweek and Time this week (Click for the article):
It all comes down to one thing, as Hillary Clinton made clear in her last press conference before the Tuesday primaries: “Winning. Winning. Winning. Winning. That’s my measurement of success,” She said, “Winning.”