Ooops, Yet Another Obama Adviser Steps into It

by Deb Cupples  | Barack Obama seems surrounded by people with a penchant for making political trouble for him.  In February, economic adviser Austan Goolsbee reportedly told Canadian officials that Obama's actual stance on NAFTA wasn't as negative as his campaign rhetoric.  'Not a good move before the primary in Ohio, whose voters truly dislike NAFTA.

In March, Obama' now-ex-foreign policy adviser Samantha Power told the BBC that Obama wasn't committed to his campaign statements about ending the Iraq war within 16 months after he takes office (if elected).  That was before Ms. Power ever so professionally (and publicly) called Hillary Clinton a "Monster."

In short, due to various advisers' statements, many voters have wondered about Obama's sincerity  and the spirit of his campaign. Yesterday, the American Thinker reported:

"A foreign policy adviser of presidential candidate Barack Obama, Zbigniew Brzezinski, accused members of the American Jewish establishment of "McCarthyism" in its attitude towards critics of Israel. He called the pro-Israel lobby "too powerful" and accused American supporters of Israel as being too ready to use the slur of "anti-Semitism" against critics of Israel.

"He also misrepresented the facts, stating that AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee has "consistently opposed a two-state solution and a lot of members of Congress have been intimidated and I don't think that is healthy."

"In fact, AIPAC does indeed support a two state solution. Congressmen Artur Davis (a Democrat) and Eric Cantor ( a Republican) are just two critics who have refuted the allegation that Congress is intimidated or pressured by the 'Israel Lobby.'"

What better time to risk offending America's Jewish community?  Many Jewish voters already have trouble with Obama, and the Democratic party is already intensely divided.

I know, it wasn't Obama who used the phrase "McCarthyism," but the Republicans likely won't focus on that distinction when creating campaign ads.

Comments

[Adam]

My guess is that, if McCain names Lieberman to the ticket, a several people in my family are going to vote for them, including some that have voted consistently Democratic for a long time. The odd thing about it is that support of Israel is one of the (relatively few) areas where there's not a whole lot of difference between Obama's and McCain's stances. The differences in their policies about Iran are far more relevant to Israel's security. (For what it's worth, I think my grandparents would probably vote for Lieberman against any ticket that doesn't have a Jew on it. That's just a guess; I haven't asked them.)

According to wikipedia, Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Advisor and has a list of foreign policy credentials as long as my arm (and my arm is pretty long). It's not exactly shocking that a serious Democratic candidate for president would have spoken with him and/or sought his opinion on matters. It doesn't mean he speaks for Obama on ALL foreign policy, of course. As far as I know he has no formal association with the campaign, not even "co-chair" of some side committee. He's a private citizen and free to speak his mind and endorse any candidate he likes. He's allowed to have a different opinion on Israel than Obama.

That said, when I read his opinions on Iran I find them fairly reasonable:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052601740.html

Your source is a right-wing blog, but you probably knew that. Sitting next to this post are gems like this one:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/punditry_and_the_reality_of_en.html

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

Off topic: I stopped liking Lieberman when I learned that he had threatened FASB because that body wanted greater corporate accountability in the form of either auditor independence or stock-options accounting (I forget which).

I know, Adam. All of Obama's advisers are allowed to have different opinions from his (like Brennan, who wants Telecom Amnesty).

There's a different standard in the media for Hillary. When Ferraro was giving a small talk that had nothing to do with the campaign and pointed out that Obama's political success story has something to do with race (like her political notoriety related to gender), Hillary's campaign gets slammed with images like David Duke.

I'm really disappointed in our media.

Did you notice that I did NOT attack the substance of what Brzezinski had said? When I refer to the notion of stepping into it (title), I was referring to the McCarthy image.

Actually, I didn't know that American Thinker was right wing. I found a link into that particular story and didn't browse around.

Did AT get the quote wrong?

[freadom]

You know that talk of ending the Iraq war is all politics. No president would risk the backlash of ending that war. Right???

Nice blog. I'm adding you to my blogroll.

[Adam]

Well, you can read the original here:
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/obama-adviser-accuses-jews-of-mccarthyism-1388136.html

FWIW, I have a big issue with that article's title. Last I checked, AIPAC and "Jews" are not the same thing. That said, I generally agree with AIPAC and substantively disagree Brzezinski's criticisms.

It's actually unclear whether the McCarthyism line was recent or a year old, dating back to his defense of the Mearsheimer/Walt book. That's what it seems like, but I'm not sure.

The issue with Ferarro was that she touched a major hot button issue in the campaign, did it very publicly, and refused to back down. I didn't like the way the story was covered - I would have preferred less focus on her association with Hillary and more on the flaws in the comments themselves. But that it became an issue, given Ferarro's profile, was pretty much inevitable.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

"The issue with Ferarro was that she touched a major hot button issue in the campaign, did it very publicly, and refused to back down. I didn't like the way the story was covered - I would have preferred less focus on her association with Hillary and more on the flaws in the comments themselves. But that it became an issue, given Ferarro's profile, was pretty much inevitable."

No, she didn't do it VERY PUBLICLY. She said it at a Q&A after a talk that wasn't connected to or about the campaign.

She answered a question, and a tiny CA newspaper picked it up. WEEKS LATER someone from Obama's camp found it.

I don't even think Ferraro was wrong. Part of her importance stemmed from her gender, and part of Obama's stems from his race. It wouldn't be a "historic" race if Obama were white or Hillary were a man.

That's all Ferraro was saying. She WASN'T saying that Obama had nothing but race on his side.

Even at the 2004 convention, why did Barack Obama get so much praise? I asked my mother that then.

Tons of politicians do a good job of delivering written speeches, look good, and have ivy league degrees.

That's actually pretty common for people high in our fed gov. [Remember, I didn't even start distrusting or disliking Obama until late January or early FEb of this year.]

But none of it matters now. We are where we are.

[Deb Cupples]

Freadom,

Yes, I do know that our government has committed too many resources to Iraq and has too much interest in that nation's resources to simply leave Iraq cold.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

you are right, of course. Many Jewish people agree with the substance of what Brzezinski said.

I don't feel comfy publicly commenting on these issues, because I'm not Jewish.

[Adam]

The reason Ferarro's statement was wrong was that she was claiming that his race was a benefit, which is as ridiculous at first glance as claiming that Hillary's gender is an advantage. Sure, it makes the race "historic" and they are both "trailblazers", but that doesn't make them winners. The fact that every major presidential candidate, to say nothing of every winner, has been a white man, says far more than Ferarro's comments can.

Now, there's no question that Obama has benefitted from the story of his life, just as Hillary has, or as Edwards used the story of being the son of a mill worker. Being black HAS opened some doors for him, no doubt. But to argue that it's an advantage, when there's clearly a significant slice of society that still won't vote for a black guy, is absurd.

Racism is far more taboo than sexism, so it creeps below the surface, but in some ways it's even more pernicious. It's easy to find the not-so-subtle jabs at Hillary, and the exceptionally unsubtle ones like C.U.N.T. or the nutcracker. With Obama, we see the racism in the form of persistent rumors that ride on his foreign-ness, or in the way the Wright controversy was used as a Trojan horse to attack black culture and, by extension, Obama.

There was a subtle prejudice in Ferarro's comments. It's the same thought process that led some classmates of mine in college or grad school to instinctively think less of any black students they came across. It's the assumption that any successful black person is a case of affirmative action.

That Obama has benefitted from being black in certain, specific ways is clear. That he's only in the place he is BECAUSE he is black? That, frankly, is ridiculous. He's faced enormous obstacles in certain areas that are pretty plainly related to his race. He's not quite where he is DESPITE being black, either, but to draw a causative link the other way makes no sense.

Similarly, again, I would never argue that Hillary is where she is BECAUSE she is a woman. It's rallied certain constituencies to her cause, but it's also created obstacles, and I would argue that the obstacles outweigh the advantages. Now, to a large degree Hillary is where she is because she was married to Bill Clinton, but that's really neither here nor there. We're all products of our personal circumstances.

---

Ferarro's initial statements weren't very public, but when the story got picked up (by Obama's people? Really? You're telling me that it was Obama's campaign that intially broke this on a national level? Are you sure? Totally positive on that one?) she very publicly defended and reinforced her comments.

For the record, I thought both the Obama campaign's and Clinton campaign's responses to Ferraro's remarks were basically pitch perfect. The Clinton campaign's initial comment ("we disagree") gave Ferarro's remarks the exact amount of time, attention, and regard which they deserved.

Ferarro's second set of comments, accusing Obama's campaign of ("reverse") racism, were absurd and over the top. If her first comments established her as ill-considered or perhaps mildly prejudiced, the second set of comments established her as hotheaded, illogical, and offensive.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

The 1st sentence of your 5th paragraph contradicts the 1st sentence of your 1st para.

I notice that you're arguing against Ferraro's points without actually quoting her statements.

I'm going on memory, too, BUT I'm going on my memory of interviews with her -- as opposed to some media person's take on what she'd said.

That said, I remember Ferraro explaining the context of her comment (about Obama's race and Ferraro's own gender) in the context of a HISTORIC RACE (i.e., someone in the audience asked a question about it or something).

Some Obama staffers (or media supporters) turned it into the nastily intended comment that floated around the media: at least, that was Ferraro's argument.

No, I'm not totally positive that Obama's campaign found the story.

I know nothing about "reverse racisim." But I do know that TWICE Obama's camapign has tacitly approved of BIG supporters' falsely accusing Hillary of racism -- or the campaign even encouraged it.

If Ferraro pointed that out re: the South Carolina's primary, then I think she was right.

[Adam]

I have a real problem with you casually assuming Obama campaign was the source of the Ferarro story. This is the same thing I called you out for in the RFK piece. If you insist on conflating the media and the Obama campaign, it's no wonder you accuse the Obama campaign of being so negative.

"The 1st sentence of your 5th paragraph contradicts the 1st sentence of your 1st para."

I completely disagree. Ferarro said Obama was would not be in the position he was were he not black. Stating that there were some benefits to being black in no way establishes a causative link, which was what Ferarro was trying to do.

If Ferarro had said "while subtle racism has hurt Barack in a variety of ways, he's also managed to play his race as a positive in other ways", then I would have agreed with her. But that is in no way, shape, or form, what Ferarro was driving at.

"I know nothing about "reverse racisim." "

Nor should you. "Reverse racism" is a really stupid term. There's no such thing. Irrational hatred directed at white people because they are white is simply RACISM, not reverse racism. That's my semantic opinion, anyway.

Ferarro's comments would have been worthy of ridicule if she were black, white, or green. The criticism of her comments had NOTHING to do with her race, and it's baldly absurd to imply they did. Hence, her accusation of "reverse" racism (which was directed at the Obama campaign's response to her comments) was even less reasonable than her initial comments.

I don't see how falsely accusing someone of racism would be racism, reverse or otherwise. It would be defamation, but not "reverse racism". You can talk about "tacit support" all you like, but the bottom line is that Obama's campaign never accused anyone of racism at any point in this campaign.

The racism accusations after SC were unfounded, but it's not the Obama campaign's responsibility to police the message of every supporter, or to get out in front to defend Hillary from attacks. In the case of the post-SC comments from Bill Clinton, I think it's clear the Obama campaign felt they were being disrespected; i.e. they were being told that their victory was irrelevant. They were not inclined to defend the Clintons from attacks, and I don't really blame them.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

You're right: I don't know that Obama's campaign was the first to get a hold of the Ferraro story.

Re RFK: I backed down on the point of origin and re-worded my statement.

I also showed EVIDENCE that an Obama staffer was fanning the flames of the RFK story (email to media) even WHILE Obama, himself, "graciously" claimed that it was a non-story.

Once again, that's evidence of intent that counters words.

Obama did the same thing that Saturday in Indiana re: Bosnia: graciously telling the press it's nothing -- while his campaign staff brought the issue up with media during conference calls.

I can't see that as anything but hypocrisy meant to make Obama's hands look clean while his staffers knead the mud. The mud was still getting kneaded and by people he paid.

Your (or certain media's) interp of what Ferraro said and the context WOULD be deserving of ridicule if that's what she said and in that context.

My memory of what she said she said is different.

If we're going to debate this, let's find the FULL quotes and evidence of the context. Anything else is a senseless debate about other people's interp or spin.

That said, I remember Ferraro (in an interview) actually accusing Obama's campaign of playing the race card against Hillary.

You remember her accusing them of reverse racism.

"Obama's campaign never accused anyone of racism at any point in this campaign."

Correct. Big Obama supporters (like Clyburn and Robinson) made the accusations instead. And they got media play. Also, some small supporters made the accusations and got media attention.

I don't know if media play helped shape public opinion or if those smaller supporters were just looking for signs that Hillary was a racist. Chickens and eggs.

You often talk of Obama as the innocent victim of negative campaigning from the Clintons. I see it differently.

I saw Obama, even in January, repeatedly (and falsely, it turns out) imply that he and his money were clean, while Hillary and hers were dirty.

THAT's negative -- but it's not direct, so it's hard to actually counter it.

I've repeatedly shown evidence that Obama's negative tactics early on were passive-aggressive.

You don't buy it. What can I say?

[Adam]

Ferarro:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept"

Her followup comment:

"I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

For the record, this is nothing new from her. In 1988 she said, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

That's a good start. What question was she answering?

Also, I just heard on the Wolfson conference call that Ferraro put out an op-ed today.

It isn't necessarily relevant to our debate yesterday, BUT it might open up a new debate.

[Adam]

Your "EVIDENCE that an Obama staffer was fanning the flames of the RFK story", as far as I know, is just the one line from George Stephanopoulos. For all we know this was a random volunteer or low-level staffer forwarding him a link. Meanwhile, we have Obama defending her the same day it happened. Your argument is tenuous at best. I really can't imagine how anyone could see this as an Obama-driven story.

---

As I've said out many times, I find an enormous difference between attacks that come from the mouth of the candidate, orattacks that are broadcast or printed in the media (by advertisement or by direct appearance of campaign members), and attacks in a conference call or low-level memo.

When it came to bitter-gate and other attack issues, the Clinton campaign not only mentioned the issues in conference calls and press releases, but they used them in Hillary's stump speeches and put them in campaign ads. I think the Pennsylvania ad from Hillary talking about Obama's "elitist" comments was FAR AND AWAY the most negative ad of the primary campaign.

Even if we focus on the low level communication, the Clinton campaign appears to be the more negative one. As the link I provided in the other thread shows, Hillary's campaign has brought up Obama in press releases on nearly a daily basis since he became the clear second contender. Obama's staff, on the other hand, almost never attacks Clinton in this fashion.

As I've said before, I think it takes a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance to think that the Obama campaign has been more negative than the Clinton campaign since this became a two-way race.

(I've never denied that Obama attacked Hillary more than the other way around early on, when Hillary was the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination.)

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

I call that bending over backward to defend -- and I don't understand why you do it, given that Obama isn't a relative of yours (I assume, anyway).

Here's what CNN had:

"The program's host, George Stephanopoulos, noted that a member of Obama's staff sent to the media Saturday a "searing commentary" by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann slamming Clinton for her remark."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/campaign.wrap/index.html

Stephanopoulos said it TO Axelrod, who DID NOT deny it when he had the opportunity.

I think that's evidence enough, as it would have been easy to say: "we did not ask paid staffers to send the email."

That and I think Stephanopoulos (or his staff) know when an email comes from an actual campaign staffer -- as opposed to a mere supporter.

Because I'm talking about Obama's CAMPAIGN TACTICS, you can't view RFK without also considering his staffers' talking to the media about Bosnia days after the debate at which Obama pretended to gave Clinton a pass on Bosnia.

I know that you see "an enormous difference." THat's why you don't see that Obama says one thing publicly (to LOOK honorable), while his campaign does the same, dishonorable stuff that Obama claims he doesn't do.

Again, I don't care if candidates go negative on each other. I care that Obama does it in a stealthy, passive-aggressive way -- simply in order to avoid owning his actions and suffering the consequences.

That's hypocrisy and pretense, which have been two of my big problems with Obama. It makes me not know him and wonder how he would communicate with the public IF he were president.

After 7 years of seeing Bush BS the media and the public, I don't seeing evidence that Obama doesn't mind similarly manipulating the media and public simply in order to win.

"(I've never denied that Obama attacked Hillary more than the other way around early on, when Hillary was the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination.)"

The racism (however stealthy) and dirtiness accusations are about as negative as one can get in a political campaign -- beyond sexual perversion.

And as you indirectly acknowledged, Obama's campaign went more negative FIRST. The START tends to set tones and tends to provoke responses, which just enhance the tone.

I wouldn't debate you so much on this if your contention were that Obama is just as much of an old-style campaigner as Clinton -- thus, he BS'd potential supporters when claiming that he was new and clean and above the fray.

You don't. You still seem to think that he's pure and sweet and not given to low tactics.

I disagree -- and I'm not even talking about the misleading statements about where he really gets his $.

[Adam]

Hillary was in a position where it was hard to go negative in December/January, because she would have had to go negative on five or more candidates at once. Once it became a two-way race, going negative became an option, and go negative she did.

"Axelrod, who DID NOT deny it when he had the opportunity.

I think that's evidence enough, as it would have been easy to say: "we did not ask paid staffers to send the email." "

That wouldn't be a denial, would it? That would, in fact, be almost a textbook non-denial denial. So why bother saying it? It sounds worse than saying nothing.

He hasn't checked every staffer's out box, so he can't offer a categorical denial. So he said what he could - that the Obama campaign did not consider it an issue. The idea that the Obama campaign contributed to the propogation of that story in any significant way is unsupportable.

"you can't view RFK without also considering his staffers' talking to the media about Bosnia days after the debate at which Obama pretended to gave Clinton a pass on Bosnia."

Firstly - sure you can. Just because the Obama campaign did or didn't do this or that earlier, doesn't mean they are guilty until proven innocent on the RFK story.

Secondly - your unwillingness to see a distinction between Obama's comments at the debate and a single line in a conference call is, to me, a sign that you are looking at this issue with a specific agenda. To me, the distinction is very clear.

Obama's defense of Hillary at the debate was watched by millions, and prevented any followup. In stead of twisting the knife, Obama chose to stanch the bleeding.

The mentioning of the story by *a* staffer in *a* conference call days later does not mean Obama was "pretending" when he defended Hillary in the debate. The IMPACT of those two statements are not equal, and in fact the impact of the conference call comment is infinitesimal compared to the comment by the candidate at a nationally telivised debate.

Moreover, as important as what Obama said is all the things Obama and his campaign did NOT do. Obama never brought up Bosnia in his stump speeches. Obama's campaign never released a press release mentioning the Tuzla story. Obama never produced an ad in print or for TV that mentioned the story.

By comparison, Hillary did all three of these things when it came to the "bitter" comment. For further comparison, Hillary specifically reinforced attacks on Obama in debates about the line from the Patrick speech and the Jerimiah Wright controversy. Again, there's an obvious asymmetry in the way the two campaigns have addressed negative stories about the other campaign.

"I care that Obama does it in a stealthy, passive-aggressive way -- simply in order to avoid owning his actions and suffering the consequences."

I think you are largely blaming Obama for negative coverage that Hillary gets in the media. There's almost no evidence that Obama's campaign has in any meaningful way reinforced embarrasing stories about Hillary, or attacked her character.

If somebody else attacks Hillary Clinton about Bosnia, that's not a "stealth" attack from Obama. That's a attack from somebody else. If a staffer makes a negative comment about Hillary on a conference call, that's not a "passive agressive" attack from Obama. That's a small negative peep from an Obama campaign that is positive most of the time, but is not a perfect monolithic message machine.

"The racism (however stealthy) and dirtiness accusations"

Again, the racism accusations DID NOT come from the campaign, and there is no reason to think that Obama's campaign had any control over the comments by the people who said those things. You may as well blame Obama for comments by Keith Olbermann or Markos.

The only attack that you bring up that Obama absolutely IS guilty of is the comments about connections to lobbyists. However, in that case, there's nothing "stealthy" about it. He's out there on the stump talking about lobbyist connections. So the "stealth" or "passive agressive" accusations are, as I see them, basically unfounded. He's attacked Hillary about lobbyist connections openly and with his own voice.

Now, how you finance your campaign and connections to lobbyists are legitimate issues to raise. You disagree with how Obama has presented himself. There's actually been a fairly extensive discussion of this issue in various print media. The general consensus is that Obama makes himself out to be a bit cleaner than he might be, but he HAS placed significant fundraising restrictions on himself, and he has taken a lot of serious steps that do reduce the impact of large money contributions.

Again, it's a perfectly valid topic for debate. The telling thing to me is that Hillary's campaign, which is so adept at shaping the media narrative, has largely avoided hitting Obama back on this issue. It seems to me that they think this issue is a loser for them.

"he BS'd potential supporters when claiming that he was new and clean and above the fray.

You don't. You still seem to think that he's pure and sweet and not given to low tactics."

Well, he ain't perfect, or pure or sweet. He's a politician, and a damned skilled one at that.

That said, I do think that overall he's avoided the worst sorts of negative attacks, and moreover he's been the far less negative one in the head-to-head contest. I know I'm not going to convince you of that, but nearly every outside source, including international ones, tend to agree with me on this point. This is not about "stealth". Obama's message has been more positive, period.

I don't think that's really what "a new kind of politics" was intended to represent. It's more about reducing special interest influence, and about not dividing along partisan lines on issues which aren't necessarily partisan in nature.

[Deb Cupples]

Adam,

"Hillary was in a position where it was hard to go negative in December/January, because she would have had to go negative on five or more candidates at once. Once it became a two-way race, going negative became an option, and go negative she did."

Fact is that Obama was proclaiming himself to be newer, cleaner, and not as entrenched in old-style politics back in Dec/Jan. That (false) implication was a negative against ALL candidates -- not just Hillary.

Both Hillary and Edwards called him out on that in a debate -- as did Gravel. Most media IGNORED it.

"The idea that the Obama campaign contributed to the propogation of that story in any significant way is unsupportable."

You're flat wrong in saying it's "unsupportable." ABC gave you support for that argument (though not proof).

You can accurately say that you overlook or don't believe the support -- different story.

Yes, I definitely view Obama's campaigning through a lens of suspicion. I'm sensitive. I DIDN'T start out that way.

I became that way after I saw too many instances of negativity (usually implied or stated by someone else).

We just disagree about the negativity.

Again, Obama "honorably" stood up and defended Hillary, while campaign staffe(s) twisted the knife for him. Knife still got twisted -- and most media IGNORED it.

Yes, Hillary went straight out negative. I prefer that approach to skulking around in shadows while trying to appear clean.

When an Obama staffer speaks to the press, stories or sound bites are usually generated. As a media specialist, Axelrod knows this.

"Again, it's a perfectly valid topic for debate. The telling thing to me is that Hillary's campaign, which is so adept at shaping the media narrative, has largely avoided hitting Obama back on this issue. It seems to me that they think this issue is a loser for them."

For the final time (I hope): Hillary DID bring it up during at least one debate. I said this to you before. Most media IGNORED it.

We've already been over how I think the Obama campaign was involved in the racism accusations. Let's just stop debating that one, because we disagree.

About lobbyists: you're right. Obama came right out and attacked Hillary. And he used misleading (i.e., FALSE) statements when doing it. Most media IGNORED it.

"nearly every outside source, including international ones, tend to agree with me on this point. "

Of course they do. Most media have IGNORED Obama's campaign's negativity (and false statements). Where do many international media get their U.S. political news from? U.S. media.

OFF TOPIC: it turns out you may be wrong about the DNC's having asked candidates to remove their names from MI's and FL's ballots.

Wolfson said today during the conference call that the 4 early states' party chairs asked candidates to do this.

[Adam]

" "The idea that the Obama campaign contributed to the propogation of that story in any significant way is unsupportable."

You're flat wrong in saying it's "unsupportable." ABC gave you support for that argument (though not proof). "

No, that support is insufficient to make an argument. Even if we grant that a staffer forwarded that to Stephanopoulos, you then have to imagine that an e-mail, containing a link to something that was broadcast on NATIONAL NEWS the day before, was the deciding factor in Stephanopoulos asking Axelrod about the story. I think that flies in the face of common sense, but that's the only way you can use that tidbit to claim that "the Obama campaign contributed to the propogation of that story in [a] significant way".

"When an Obama staffer speaks to the press, stories or sound bites are usually generated."

"Usually" is a huge stretch, at least when it comes to widely broadcast media.

Changes to a stump speech nearly always produce a soundbite on national TV that night. Press releases very often end up as fodder for lines in newspapers around the country. Conference calls are consumed by far fewer people and end up producing much less attention. That's why I say there is a vast difference.

"): Hillary DID bring it up during at least one debate. I said this to you before. Most media IGNORED it."

Hillary chose to attack Obama on many issues consistently over days or weeks. Such attacks always, without fail, generated media attention. She CHOSE, consciously, to not make lobbyists and campaign finance an issue.

"OFF TOPIC: it turns out you may be wrong about the DNC's having asked candidates to remove their names from MI's and FL's ballots.

Wolfson said today during the conference call that the 4 early states' party chairs asked candidates to do this."

They all signed an agreement to not participate. A reasonable understanding of participating in a primary would include whether or not one's name is on the ballot.

Interesting side note: Michigan tried to pull this exact stunt back in 2000. Both Bradley AND Gore pulled their names from the ballot. Michigan acquiesced and rescheduled the primary.

If Hillary had pulled her name like Bradley and Gore did, we probably wouldn't have been in this mess.

[Deb Cupples]

ADam,

You're making counter assertions -- not stating facts.

I disagree with you, and I can't effectively argue when you pull "facts" out of the air or ignore stuff we've already covered.

How are you today?