Signs of Bush Tactics in Another Campaign Email?

by D. Cupples |   In March, I objected to a fund raising email (signed by Barack Obama), which claimed that Hillary Clinton was attacking Obama's supporters.  The implication: she's coming after you, personally, the way Darth Vader went after Luke.  Fostering a bellicose, with-us-or-against-us mentality worked for President Bush after 9/11, and Obama's use of that tactic is as factually questionable as it is divisive. 

Yesterday, I found another Obama campaign email (signed by David Plouffe), a double whammy that includes: 1) a similar line about Hillary's so-called "attacks" on Obama's supporters; and 2) the oft-repeated message that Hillary and McCain have taken special-interest money, while Obama hasn't.  In part, the email states:

"We've built the broadest campaign of ordinary people in the history of presidential politics -- and more people across this country have voted for Barack Obama than either one of them.

"And we've done it the right way: our campaign is funded by everyday people giving $5 or more. That's distinctly different from Senator McCain and Senator Clinton, who both rely on money from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs….

“The attacks from the Clinton campaign -- on Barack Obama himself, and on supporters like you -- can be expected to increase as her chances of winning dwindle further.

"A few weeks ago, one of her top aides tried to diminish our success by referring to the places we've won as "boutique" states and to our supporters as the "latte-sipping crowd."

First, Barack Obama certainly has taken special-interest-connected money, just as Hillary and McCain have.  Yesterday, my co-blogger Damozel covered this very issue:

"State lobbyists and non-wage-earning spouses of lobbyists and lobbying firm employees have contributed $115,163 to Obama's campaign through March 20, according to the center [for Responsive Politics]....

"People in the oil and gas industries have given $222,309 to Obama. He received $528,765 from the pharmaceutical and health industry, making him the largest recipient of the sector's largesse." (Newhouse News Service citing Center for Responsive Politics)

Technically, Obama wasn't lying: he didn't take money directly from corporations, but neither did Hillary or McCain -- because that's illegal (see Tillman Act of 1907).  Instead, candidates take money from corporate executives, employees, and PACs (which tend to be comprised of corporate employees). 

Taking money from the spouses of lobbyists and corporate players is an old trick that people have used to get around donation limits.  Obama seems to have used the spouses so he could take money from lobbyists without having to list lobbyists as the direct donors.

Furthermore, as Sourcewatch points out, Obama "used campaign donations generated by PACS and Lobbyists to bankroll the birth of his White House bid"; the donations totaled about $1 million (citing Chicago Sun-Times).

In other words, Obama was for taking lobbyist/PAC money before he was against it. If you want more details, The Hill covered Obama's under-the-table ties to lobbyists last year -- issues of which many other media outlets still seem unaware.

About the alleged "attacks": the phrase "latte-sipping crowd" is a way of saying people who can afford to pay $5 for a cup of coffee.  Since when is it an insult -- in this of all nations -- to be referred to as having money?

That and Hillary Clinton did not claim that the states Obama won don't count.  She just recognized that the ones who had small caucuses may not be as representative of the greater population as the states that had primaries with large voter turn out.

Fact: caucuses often include far fewer voters than primaries (usually voters who are politically active and have accommodating schedules).  Compare these few primary and caucus states for example:

....................................Delegates................#Voters

Wyoming (caucus) ..........12.........................8,753

Georgia (primary).............12..................1,046,485

Hawaii (caucus)................17.......................37,247

Rhode Islandr(primary).....18.....................184,904

Iowa (caucus)....................45.........................2,501

Oklahoma (primary)..........38.....................401,230

Less than 50,000 people voted in caucuses to decide who got Wyoming's, Hawaii's and Rhode Island's combined 74 delegates.

More than 1.6 million people voted in primaries to give out Georgia's, Rhode Island's and Oklahoma's combined 68 delegates.

The term "boutique states" certainly is not an insult or attack on the caucus states that Obama won.  It's a very pleasant way of pointing out the obvious: far fewer voters participated in most caucus states than in most primary states.

In short, Hillary Clinton has not attacked Obama's supporters -- and yet, Obama (or his campaign staff) seem obsessed with convincing their supporters that Hillary has attacked them.

Trying to make Hillary out to be a personal enemy of Obama's supporters is not the way to promote the party unity.   It's also hypocritical, coming from a candidate who has billed himself as a "unifier."

We've seen this tactic before.  With help from Mr. Rove and Mr. Limbaugh, President Bush managed to get many Americans getting riled -- as though criticizing Bush equated to calling his supporters' mamas ugly. 

If Sen. Obama continues to craft images and make statements that clash with his actions, how will voters ever know who he really is?  I'll be happy to foward the Plouffe email to anyone who emails me.

Related BN-Politics Posts:

* Technically, Obama Didn't Fib re: Campaign Donations

* Obama Took Oil Money but Said He Didn't

* Obama Took Credit for Others' Legislative Work, Media Ignored it

Comments

[Danny]

Montana!

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2008/04/15/state/101st_080415_kennedy.txt

[D. Cupples]

Danny,

thanks for sharing the article.

[danny]

"Less than 50,000 people voted in caucuses to decide who got Wyoming's, Hawaii's and Rhode Island's combined 74 delegates."

D. Cupples, Did you mean Iowa's caucus? In the next paragragh you mention RI again as a primary.

Great Article!

Only 2,501 voters in Iowa's caucus? That's it?! Christ Florida should move right to the front with million voting.

I like the idea of a nationwide primary all in the same week with early voting.

[Adam]

Danny,

The issue with nationwide primary voting on one day is it removes the possibility of a poorly funded or relatively unknown candidate emerging and getting more support. A 1-day national primary will be won by the candidate with the most name recognition and/or the most money.

That said, I agree that having Iowa and NH first every year is crazy - it should rotate around. Also, there shouldn't be any late straggler primaries. It should start small but build to a big finish where all the remaining states vote.

[Adam]

DC,

If I were looking to accuse a campaign of Bush-style tactics, I would probably look first to the campaign that has been running the exact same attack strategy that Karl Rove drew up for Al Gore and John Kerry. I can find you a dozen articles from the last few days talking about how Hillary is running the Republican attack playbook against Barack Obama.

Given the current "elitist" epithet coming out of Hillary's mouth, it doesn't take a semiotics professor to figure out why "latte-sipping crowd" might be an insult.

Oh, and Bill made a speech yesterday where he said Obama voters support him because they lack wisdom.

As I said before, it requires a big dose of cognitive dissonance to come to the conclusion that Obama is running a more negative campaign than Hillary.

[Adam]

On the money thing, there's no need for me to respond at length again. You admit that they're not lying. You don't see refusing PAC and lobbyist money as making a difference, but the proof is self-evident. If it were easy, than campaign finance cover boy John McCain would certainly do it, and Hillary would probably do it as well to take away Obama's talking point. They don't do this precisely because it is hard and forces you to completely shift the focus of your fundraising.

For the Obama campaign to claim that their funding sources are "distinctly different from Senator McCain and Senator Clinton" is empirically true. The base of their funding support, and the source of the majority of their funds, is uniquely broad-based. It's not even a half-truth or a slight distortion, it is a statement that means exactly what it appears to mean. Nobody has ever received as many small contributions as Obama has.

[expatriot]

David Axelrove strikes again.

[d. cupples]

Adam,

As I've said many times, Obama created a higher standard for himself by claiming that he is above things like Rovian tactics. A large plank in his platform is to clean up "politics as usual" (which includes the Rovian stuff).

That aside, when did the Bush-type stuff start in this race? When Obama surrogates implied (or stated) that Hillary (and Bill) were racists (before SC).

Obama's campaign opened the door. The media played along for a while (some outlets still are playing).

As for media accusing Hillary of Bush-style tactics: consider the sources. Are they some of the same media that have ignored substantive "negatives" about Obama or have gone after Hillary over non-substance?

If so, what do their opinions matter now? Of course they're accusing Hillary of bad things: they've done that all along

Again, I don't mind anyone's attacking Hillary on stuff like Bosnia or her issue positions or credentials.

But much of the MSM un-objectively campaigned for Obama or against Hillary at least during most of January, Feb and March. Some are still doing it.

[d. cupples]

Adam,

About the money: Obama is faking out the public with technicalities, pure and simple. Damozel just did a good post based on today's USA TODAY article.

http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/2008/04/more-on-obama-1.html

And my post yesterday that mentioned CRP also shows that Obama most certainly has special-interest-tied money, just like the other candidates.

The only reason it matters is that Obama has sold himself as NOT connected to S-Is.

Perhaps he's the only one making misleading claims is that Hillary and McCain knew that such claims would ultimately cost them some credibility -- as it will likely cause Obama, given that USA Today has finally picked up the story.

[Adam]

"As for media accusing Hillary of Bush-style tactics: consider the sources. Are they some of the same media that have ignored substantive "negatives" about Obama or have gone after Hillary over non-substance?

If so, what do their opinions matter now? Of course they're accusing Hillary of bad things: they've done that all along"

No, it's not those people. It's people from across the spectrum. Here's former Clinton secretary of labor Robert Reich:

"I saw the ads" — the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago — "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It's the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we've developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn't possibly believe and doesn't possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I've seen growing in Hillary's campaign. And I've come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can't in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past 20 years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst — and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical."

While we're on Reich,
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html

He claims HRC was going negative before you claim Obama first was. And this is emphatically NOT a guy with an ax to grind against the Clintons.