Posted on 11/20/2007 8:59:49 AM PST by ConservativeMajority
Conservative columnist Robert Novak caused quite a stir over the weekend writing that a Democratic operative told him that the Clinton campaign possessed a cache of scandalous information about rival presidential candidate Barack Obama, but had decided not to use it. Before long, the camps of the frontrunner and her closest challenger were trading accusations and denials, much to the delight of bored reporters and pundits looking for something to spice up the dulling march to Mrs. Clinton’s coronation as the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee.
The ensuing discussions about the source, timing and substance of the claims gave rise to myriad conspiracy theories and psy-ops intrigues. Is there a traitor in the Clinton camp? Did Obama’s people float the rumor to make Hillary look bad? Had Robert Novak made it all up to cause a controversy among Democrats or to burnish his reputation as the “Prince of Darkness”? These are so many questions that most Americans could not care less about.
Candidate Clinton will not be required to comment on whether her operatives participated in such things as the campaign sloughed off the whole affair as yet another manifestation of the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Obama on the other hand is left to defend himself against the whispering campaign. Reporters will question him as to what might be contained in the dossier and rampant speculation in the press will drown out any discussion of policy or position from the candidate in the final weeks before the crucial test in Iowa. Obama can rail against the dirty politics, but the noose has already been slipped over his head. What I find interesting is that even the race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have not spoken up for Obama.
However, the incident highlighted a key concept that may resonate in the minds of voters long after Obama and the other pretenders fade into Super Tuesday. It does not seem to be too much of a stretch to think that Hillary Clinton would attempt a “high-tech lynching” of her African-American rival or anyone else who stood in her path back to the White House. Many Americans still recall the smear campaigns the Clinton White House ran against political foes as well as the female victims of Bill’s sexual marauding.
In an environment of anti-incumbency and the desire expressed by voters in 2006 against “politics as usual”, Clinton is most vulnerable since she represents the Washington establishment more than any other candidate. The stain her husband put on the office of the presidency combined with the revival of the pair’s particularly nasty brand of “politics of personal destruction” could undermine her campaign if character becomes an issue.
It does not seem to be too much of a stretch to think that Hillary Clinton would attempt a “high-tech lynching” of her African-American rival or anyone else who stood in her path back to the White House. Many Americans still recall the smear campaigns the Clinton White House ran against political foes as well as the female victims of Bill’s sexual marauding.
::::::::
Their record is clear. They will do ANYTHING to ANYONE for the sake of empowerment.
She is just leaking that out to let him know that it is there.
Rev. Al and Jessah will not come to his aid because he is Irish. Just afrolike.
Character an issue?
I think that the best advice is one Karl Rove gave: namely, to call for change from the insider Washington mentality - go forward, not backward, new faces, new ideas and no Capital Hill folks in the White House. They’ve done nothing to prove they can lead in Congress, why would we vote in someone from that worthless venue to lead the country?
this is her twisted way of assuring (in her backhanded way) that she will always cut the plantation dwellers (talking willing dem types, here) slack............it ties Obamas hands so profoundly that all he can respond with is “I’m not going to tolerate this”, without raising the plantation-used-against-himself part......
FWIW, according to political journal, the “dirt” that Hillary clinton has, involves (please, do not laugh, but do enjoy the irony) Obama and a real estate deal that benifited him, in exchange for legislative favors, when before he was a senator.
I thought I was told about a million times in 1992 that "character doesn't matter". I'm confused.
Actually, the mantra was “sex doesn’t matter”...
Thank you Robert Novak for sticking a firecracker in her shorts!....anything helps!
What’s your point?
“sex doesn’t matter” was during the Lewinski era.
“The candidate’s character is not an issue” was one of the mantras of ‘92 (that, and the lie about “worst economy in 50 years”).
Hadn’t seen Jeff Gannon’s name around in a while. Wonder what he’s up to?
I’m kidding...don’t tell me.
Gotcha. So many things didn’t matter during the Clinton years: the rule of law, military preparedness, national security, intelligence, Osama bin Laden...
Was Novak duped by Clinton operatives or given a real piece of news through the back door?
We will probably never know for sure but it will be interesting to see what happens if Obama seriously threatens Hillary's march to the White House.
But here is a comment from the article that speaks loud and clear:
"....if character becomes an issue."
And therein lies the crux of the matter; with the Clintons character is never a concern and the major media never make it an issue for them. Among Clinton enablers and hangers-on it is just generally accepted that the normal rules of civil conduct do not apply to them.
If the republicans do not succeed in making character a major campaign issue for Hillary no one else will.
Wikipedia...the source of all troofs/sarc
Personally I have trouble taking the guy seriously, but note that I didn't make any comment other than posting a link about background. Others can draw their own conclusions. I have to admit his writing is better than I expected.
Not sure what a troof is. That is a well-referenced article and Mr. Gannon has not denied any of the allegations discussed in it. Wikipedia is a very useful resource. Of course you should take whatever you read in it with a grain of salt, but that is true of everything you read.
Its fun watching Hillary Clinton make rookie mistakes on the campaign trail. All she’s managed to accomplish in the last month is remind Americans of what they dislike about her, and her husbands Administration.
Works for me.
And the best part? Hillary Clinton’s own arrogance won’t allow her to admit the mistakes, therefore she won’t correct them.
Consider it a gift that keeps on giving.
Rush is tearing her up on his show right now.
Probably just a cynical plant by the Clinton camp.
It manages to besmirch Obama just before the Iowa Cauci, while simultaneously making her appear above the fray.
The message to the Dem voters is, “There is something there, and the Republicans will certainly use it.”
Its not hard to do, you just note what she says, compare it to what she’s said previously, then note what she actually DID.
Easy work if you can get it.
As the writer suggests, few would believe Hillary to be above such things, but no one will call her out on it.
He is a very good writer and I think his analysis of issues is rather good. He’s a fag with some questionable behavior in his past which hurts him I admit.
He is a very good writer and I think his analysis of issues is rather good. He’s a fag with some questionable behavior in his past which hurts him I admit.
Sorry, hit the post too soon. I’d rather read his stuff over a whole bunch of other people’s postings though.
I stand corrected.
“She is a BAD candidate and she knows it. If she is so experienced, why didn’t we hear about her before 1992???”
Indeed. She keeps saying “all she’s done for women and children” and never gives details. Apparently during the Clinton tenure in Arkansas, public education-for which she was in charge if I”m not mistaken- was almost last in the nation.
They don't want to jeopardize their walking around money when the Beast gets nominated.
It is very telling since it suggests that some things are more important than black solidarity.
I can’t believe that anyone would think that Jackson/Sharpton would support anyone but Clinton. Hillary is whispering in their ear : “Remember how much money you made when Bill was President? Remember how the ladies were impressed because you got invited to the White House all the time? Remember the prestige you enjoyed? You can have all that again”.
Actual smear information is not necessary. Hilly and her merry clan only need to put the word out that something exist. Such vague claims causes her opponent to divert resources to swat at the smoke. A better defense would be to counterattack with dirt on her. There is certainly plenty of ammo to work with. It helps that so much of it is documented truth.
If the republicans do not succeed in making character a major campaign issue for Hillary no one else will.
:::::::
It is the Repub’s election to lose. If they do not attack the character, the anti-Americanism, ethics, criminality, dishonesty and treason issues that the Clintons are covered with, they are fools and deserve to lose. It is a slam dunk with that, combined with Hitlery’s TOTAL LACK OF PRESIDENTIAL QUALIFICATION, to walk away with the 2008 Presidential seat. And just as a closer, sprinkle on the total incompetence and anti-Americanism of the socialist-controlled Congress whose record and poll ratings are in the pig droppings and mud and fully favored by all of America’s enemies.
You are right. We need a complete purge of all the greedy, worthless “leadership” (using that word lightly) in Washington and then state by state. The people need to make the changes necessary to make a better government for Americans!
Hair on a coke can moment?
What he's up to, who he's into, whatever it is this is backdoor journalism.
His website says he has a book out.
I hear they sell it at 'special' truck stops.
I bet you didn’t hear that. I’ll bet you made it up.
Either way, its not false, there really is something.
And from I have read, what the Clinton camp (while denying it) is alluding to, is a (this is funny) a real estate deal that Obama was involved in, that was lucrative for him, but involved trading legislative favors to get.
The dirt is real, and specific, but its also a longtime thing in Illinois politics, and Obama was no different.
I am actually surprised the media, has not, or won't specify the charge.
In this case, there is real information, and the "dirt" does exist, political diary actually noted what was alluded to.
While in the Illinois legislature, he got involved in a lucrative real estate deal, in return for legislative favors.
THAT is what the clintons have, and at some point, it is going to be used by somebody.
If that is the supposed “real dirt” Klinton has on Obama that whole story has already been spun once in the lame-stream media months ago:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600729.html
If he was duped then the Clintons have reached a new 'heights' in misdirection. They found a way to feed Novak some info through an intermediary without Novak being suspicious about a setup. Usually we can spot a Clinton put-up job by who or what outlet reports the rumor first.
That’s common knowledge, but I guess its not “news” until a Dimocrat says it.
The Clintons do NOT lynch.....they shoot....they sabotage airplanes, they do NOT lynch....as far as I know.
"RULE 3: 'Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.' Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)"
The thing, the story was implied corruption, with Obama denying it, but saying it appeared bad.
The clinton stuff, sounds like real dirt where they can prove stuff, i.e. evidence.
Think smoking gun.
Its not that is news, its that clinton, and others may have the smoking gun, that would prove quid pro quo, thats the key.
Real hard evidence, showing that this wasn't just something that looks bad, but was bad, and that Obama lied about what he did or was doing in return.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.