[UPDATED] Kossack Nails Clinton Camp for More Lies

FULL DISCLOSURE:  I'm a Dodd supporter.

From TPM:

Hillary Campaign Acknowledges That County Chair Backing Hillary Passed Along Obama Muslim Smear Email

By Greg Sargent - December 5, 2007, 1:31PM

A day after the Hillary campaign hit the Obama camp for bullying voters in nasty phone calls, the Hillary crew has just acknowledged that an Iowa county chair volunteering for the campaign passed along the now-notorious email that smears Obama as a Muslim by repeating the false claim that he attended a madrassa as a child.

To her "credit"...............

The Hillary campaign confirms that they are asking the county chair to step down from the campaign.

DKos's Geekesque mentioned down in the article........

The charge was made by a Daily Kos diarist who identified himself as planning to "caucus" for Chris Dodd, suggesting that this happened in Iowa. In his diary he reported receiving the email:

Over the past week or so, I have received two of the most hateful hit pieces on Obama parroting right wing talking points. One was forwarded to me from a Clinton county chair. The other was from a person who claimed to be a former Obama supporter, but a little work with Google revealed she had been posting pro-Clinton comments for several months on websites covering the campaign.

They both repeat the Obama/Osama crap, andand the "madrassa" charges. And there is the conclusion that Obama is a mole whose intention is to make a Muslim revolution in the US.

The next thing for us to do is tie this rogue county chair to directions from campaign leaders.  If it exists.

The Hillary campaign confirmed to me that the statement is genuine.

The identity of the "Clinton county chair" -- or, as the Hillary camp prefers it, "volunteer county coordinator" -- is not yet known.

More soon.

UPDATE 12-05-07   3:09 ET  -  From Dallasdoc, very interesting context..........

Was wondering about that this morning (2+ / 0-)

CNN's crappy morning show promised to look at the "rumors" about Obama.  There were multiple teasers, each featuring a woman saying "I heard he was a Muslim."  Never saw the piece touted, but the message got out there multiple times.

I'd always assumed the Republicans were behind this smear, but its recent reappearance everywhere is awfully coincidental, considering Clinton's recent aggressive attacks against Obama.

Whatever happened to the Clinton camp's former Kumbaya attitude that Democrats shouldn't criticize each other?

So, if it was intentional by the Clinton camp, it worked..........

UPDATE II 3:15pm   -   Perhaps a tie to a Clinton staffer (from WisconsinJessica):

This update still being ferreted out.  Ties to campaign not confirmed.

It looks like it was a little more than (0 / 0)

a volunteer a staffer is involved too.

But the email thread indicates that along with hart, a Clinton staffer named Ryan Callanan received the email back on November 21. Filings confirm that Callanan is a staffer, though I wasn't able immediately to confirm his role on the Clinton campaign, and he didn't respond to an email.

Clinton staffer on anti-Obama email chain

Also..................

The Clinton campaign forwards Callanan's immediate response to the email which, though he didn't pass it on to the campaign, reflected his disgust at it:

From: Ryan Callanan
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:49 AM
To: 'Judy'
Subject: RE: Meet Barack Obama]

I’ve gotten this forward before. It’s racist and ignorant. I can’t believe that people believe this stuff.

Ryan

UPDATE: The email address for the sender is associated online with the name "Judy Rose," and there's a Judy Rose as one of 250 members of Clinton's Iowa Women's Leadership Council.

So, he's gotten it before?  From who, Ryan?

UPDATE III -   4:34pm  -  Good point by a TPM commenter, which is a good argument against comments here that claim the Clinton campaign responded appropriately:

joejoejoe wrote on December 5, 2007 2:02 PM:

Notice the official repsonse from the Clinton campaign doesn't knock down the false rumor, it only rejects "this kind of politics". It's "out there" and it will stay "out there." Why doesn't the Clinton camaign repeat what CNN found - the charges are a lie? Because refuting the "politics" but not the lie serves the Clinton campaign.

A stronger rejection from Patti Solis Doyle please. One that includes the facts, this rumor is a bigoted lie.

•  So, it's a dirty trick if someone from

  Obama's campaign is surly with a voter, but an isolated incident if Clinton operatives get caught red-handed.

  Talk about having it both ways.

  by Geekesque on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:42:31 AM PDT

  •  Clinton camp in full meltdown...............

    news at eleven.

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:43:23 AM PDT

    •  Post a tip jar

      The bad week continues.

      by turneresq on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:44:58 AM PDT

      •  Is Staffer Ryan Callanan?

        Posted Deeper in Thread

        by irishamerican on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:57:31 PM PDT

        •  Sorry

          Link Here

          by irishamerican on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:01:59 PM PDT

    •  Welcome to the runup to Iowa

      This stuff is going to fly all over the place until January and probably after.

      That was a pretty stupid thing for two volunteers to pass along a smear e-mail.

      But.. All right, what is this about?  Two people forwarding a right wing e-mail.  Which everyone agrees is a right wing e-mail and they shouldn't have done that.  And...?  

      Gee.. What if I told you that hundreds of supporters of every candidate post smears, lies, attacks and distortions about other candidates on a Web site that gets hundreds of thousands of readers a day?

      by daria g on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:31:41 PM PDT

      •  point well taken ... n/t

        by papicek on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:53:50 PM PDT

      •  By the way, so long as I've got attention..

        The Clinton campaign saw the comment and handled the matter immediately.

        Clearly they're following what happens here and took appropriate action the instant they found out about it.

        "There is no place in our campaign, or any campaign, for this kind of politics. A volunteer county coordinator made the mistake of forwarding an outrageous and offensive chain e-mail. This was wholly unauthorized and we were totally unaware of it. Let me be clear: No one should be engaging in this. We are asking this volunteer county coordinator to step down and are making it clear to every person involved in our campaign that this will not be tolerated."

        by daria g on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:04:51 PM PDT

        •  Look at te update.

          Nothing team Clinton does will satisfy these people.

          I feel like I am at Blogs for Bush.

          by Mike S on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:13:32 PM PDT

          •  Actually, you're at a blog

            for the progressive wing of the Democratic party.   We don't care much for the DLC Democrats like HIllary here.  

            by Sardanicas on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:37:00 PM PDT

            •  Umm...a little full of ourselves? Speak only for

              yourself unless given permission, here or anywhere.  This is Kos' website and only he speaks for it.

              This is a Democratic site for all people who are trying to elect Democrats...

              (And don't use the editorial/imperial 'we' unless it applies to you).

              by oldpro on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:46:28 PM PDT

              •  seen the latest Kos polls?

                Hill ain't doin' so well.

                by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:25:48 PM PDT

                •  Meaningless. Kosville is not the real world

                  and Kos polls evidently don't reinforce the idea that the bloggers of Kostown are serious about being 'the reality community.'

                  Polls are only a snapshot in time -- unscientific polls by people who poll one another are not even that!  Ever take a bad photo or have one taken?  'Nuff said.

                  Candidates have their good days and bad.  It's a bumpy road, running for office...and so much of it depends on what other people say and do.  So risky and uncontrollable...it's always a highwire act, as they say in the political circus.

                  While most people look at polls, few live or die by them...and no candidate 'believes' a poll.  If ahead, they know it won't last...if behind, they believe they can change it and win anyway.  Either way, ahead or behind, polls tend to make the campaign and the candidate redouble their efforts!  Still, they know the only poll that counts is on election day...in some states, caucus day/night.  And experienced campaigners know that many, if not most, voters make up their minds as late as the last week before the election.

                  Polltalk...pollwatch...an odd hobby and a waste of time for activists.

                  by oldpro on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:54:06 PM PDT

                  •  He stated

                    kossacks are mostly anti-clinton/dlc. You stated he couldnt speak for kossacks. he proved his point using data. You say now that DK isnt the reality based community???

                    Why is it you dlcers have such a problem with logic... ans Democrats??

                    by cdreid on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:26:14 PM PDT

                •  that 9% for Hill has as much a right to be here

                  as the rest.

                  by heartofblue on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:55:16 PM PDT

            •  Which is why we backed Casey, right?

              The fact that people attack Democrats, this is a DEMOCRATIC blog, is pathetic.

              And don't try to tell me what kind of blog this. I think I have been here long enough, about two and a half years longer than you, to know what type it is.

              by Mike S on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:52:00 PM PDT

              •  Numbers sometimes lie.

                I was lurking long before I joined, although I didn't check out your number until after I posted.  I did feel a little silly then, I admit.

                However, there is a reason Edwards and Obama are at the top of the Dkos Pres. polls and Hillary ain't.   And Hillary's  corporatism is a large part of it.

                And today, Edwards nails her on it in his new ad:
                http://www.youtube.com/...

                I will continue to "attack" Hillary on the issues this primary season until the last of my choices is standing.  

                And the worst attackers here these days are the HIllary Bots, anyway.

                by Sardanicas on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:38:48 PM PDT

              •  I know you're used to

                a place where questioning "dear leader" is punished harshly Mike. And that by bringing your chosen authority figure you hope to force the serfs to a more proper understanding of our place. Unfortunately for you, we're democrats.

                by cdreid on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:31:19 PM PDT

                •  Get bent.

                  Unfortunately for you, we're democrats.

                  Unfortunately for me, and the rest of the party, some here are assholes. Your comment proves that beyond any doubt..

                  by Mike S on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:39:23 AM PDT

            •  Actually

              unless I'm mistaken, this blog is open to all Democrats, with the goal of reforming the party in a more progressive mold.

              I don't think we're supposed to be about excluding Democrats, even DLCers. I think we're here to convince them of the need for reform, and try to persuade them to abandon their counterproductive approach to campaigning and governing.

              The ones we're actively excluding from this site are Republican Party supporters. And I'm not buying into the line that DLC = Republican Party. They're Democrats who just need to come home.

              by BobzCat on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:38:01 PM PDT

          •  This poster likes to throw around allegations ...

            accusing everyone and their grandmothers of being republican trolls.

            His paranoia has been noted elsewhere.

            by lenzkrafterz on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:50:21 PM PDT

            •  The shoe fits

              troll boy.

              by Mike S on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 01:10:51 PM PDT

              •  Thanks for proving my case, troll.

                by lenzkrafterz on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 05:40:00 PM PDT

                •  You truely are

                  a sad little troll. Why aren't you in Iraq by now?

                  by Mike S on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 05:49:01 PM PDT

                  •  troll

                    you're the worst kind of troll, because you're oblivious enough to actually believe you're not one. Ignorance like that is scary.

                    by lenzkrafterz on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 01:35:14 AM PDT

                    •  Boy, you just won't give up little one.

                      Sell stupid to your friends at Freeperville. That's where they welcome your type.

                      by Mike S on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 10:46:23 AM PDT

                      •  you really need to wake up

                        the fact that you think you're doing something righteous in calling people like me a troll is frightening on many levels

                        by lenzkrafterz on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 02:09:33 PM PDT

                        •  You can keep troll rating me into perpetuity . .

                          but it will do nothing to secure your precarious mental health.

                          by lenzkrafterz on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 03:03:17 PM PDT

                      •  Please take note of my concern . . .

                        for your mental health, and the fate of those who care about you.

                        by lenzkrafterz on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 03:53:00 PM PDT

                        •  Your conxcern has

                          already been noted little one. Head back to freeperville where somewone actually gives a fuck what you think.

                          by Mike S on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 03:59:57 PM PDT

                          •  I will have my concern noted elsewhere as well.

                            Like with the site administrators.

                            by lenzkrafterz on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 04:09:02 PM PDT

                            •  Take your best shot troll boy.

                              You can contact Markos by clicking on the "Contact Us" link. Meteor Blades has his address on his profile as does Hunter, Plutonium Page, McJoan and DHinMI.

                              I know because I have communicated with all of them dozens of times over the last five years.

                              You on the other hand have been here what, a week?

                              Enjoy yourself little one.

                              by Mike S on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 04:15:25 PM PDT

                              •  Let's just say . . .

                                my concern about you is increasing exponentially with every new comment you post.

                                by lenzkrafterz on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 04:54:28 PM PDT

                                •  That's the great thing about trolls.

                                  They have nothing but concern. You're too stupid to have anything else.

                                  by Mike S on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 05:24:41 PM PDT

                        •  btw

                          The recruiters are calling. Why be such a typical chickenshit chickenhawk and instead join up?

                          by Mike S on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 04:01:54 PM PDT

        •  they didn't "handle the matter immediately"

          Ryan Callanan admits that he's gotten these emails before.  As early as 11-21-07,  Anyone sacked then?  

          Judy Rose sacked?

          Nope.

          The county chair sacked AFTER it became public.

          Handled immediately, indeed.

          by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:44:54 PM PDT

          •  yes, he may have seen it before

            Righwingers (and sometimes misguided Dems) send me slime emails and when I get them I usually delete them, but sometimes I forward them on to campaign staff to let them know what's being sent around out there. So when he says he has seen it before, it doesn't mean he (A) condones it or (B) condones forwarding it. Get real.

            by silversprings on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:10:03 PM PDT

          •  Everybody has gotten this email. For months.

            Usually from rightwing sources.

            MIllions of 'em.

            What's different in this case? It was received and forwarded by an isolated Clinton volunteer in Iowa. (If you know Iowa, you know Cherokee County is about as isolated -- and as far right -- as you can get.)

            No place for that in the campaign.

            No place in any campaign for some of the crap that's trotted out in diaries and comments at dkos either, by every camp against every other camp.

            No place for Paul Krugman's sleight-of-hand slam at Obama's health plan on the front page of the NYT.

            No place for David Corn's pathetically self-sourcing "uppity" smear.

            And no place for the Obama campaign's off-the-deep-end persuasion script and obnoxious callers in NH either. (In that case, the campaign's grown-ups could have assisted by exposing the offending script and call list, but -- to my latest knowledge -- they simply refused.)

            Every campaign has enthusiasts. And every campaign that has enthusiasts has its share of toxic enthusiasts.

            The best you can do is quarantine 'em, and hope the fever doesn't get loose in the rest of the herd.

            by RonK Seattle on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:38:17 PM PDT

            •  I haven't received one...

              Maybe it just happens to be passed around among Clinton supporters?

              by Yoshimi on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:19:05 PM PDT

              •  You probably have, and deleted it reflexively

                ... as most of us did.

                You've almost certainly seen mainstream media coverage about it.

                And don't tell me you haven't read -- and commented in -- earlier dkos diaries on the subject?

                Tens of millions of copies have made the rounds ... all that makes this incident extra-juicy is the fact that a Clinton volunteer out on the rim of the political universe forwarded it.

                by RonK Seattle on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:44:21 PM PDT

              •  This email has been circulated widely since Jan.

                or Feb.

                I have received the email about 3 times, each version slightly different.  (The latest was written in bullet points to make it a quick easy read.)

                Some people in my office (Chicago area) contacted me after they received it, knowing I was an Obama supporter, to "warn" me about this "scary news."

                Even if some Clinton supporters helped send it around, I'm certain that the majority of it has been originated and perpetuated by bigoted wingers.

                by Happy Days on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:35:31 PM PDT

      •  Title could just as well have been

        "Clinton campaign dumps county chair for spreading smears"

        This kind of bullshit framing is really starting to get on my fucking nerves.  Full disclosure:  I made a contribution to Dodd after his stand in the Senate last month, and Hillary is still a few spots below favorite on my list.  But I hate seeing this kind of tripe on the top of the rec list.

        February can't come soon enough.

        by lineatus on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:09:51 PM PDT

        •  so, you mean the frame could have been

          accurate, like mine was?

          "nails" isn't any worse than "dumps"

          "lies" isn't any worse than "smears"

          You tell me how my title is inaccurate, and I'll change it to yours.  Then I'll send you a crisp one dollar bill on top of that.

          Your proposed title is framing just like mine is.

          Admit THAT, and I'll send you TWO dollar bills.

          Bullshit comments about accurate titles are getting on MY fucking nerves.

          by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:34:10 PM PDT

      •  bullshit

        "This stuff is going to fly all over the place until January ..."

        sounds like a promise from the clinton camp. desperation is not becoming on hillary.

        the kindergarden thing: a silly attack? or something to ensure that all the heartland folk remember that obama spent part of his childhood in - wait ... for ... it ... Indonesia!? looks like howard wolfson's worse than mudcat, didn't think that was possible in a democratic primary.

        oh, and if you're just going to dismiss me as a hillary hater, you might want to take a look at my page, including the third one from the top.

        by blueterp on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 03:59:17 PM PDT

    •  UPDATE: Judy Rose Clinton's Iowa Women's

      It appears the sender of the email is part of Hillary's women leadership council;

      From the Politico.

      UPDATE: The email address for the sender is associated online with the name "Judy Rose," and there's a Judy Rose as one of 250 members of Clinton's Iowa Women's Leadership Council.

      Disgusting.

      by smartdemmg on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:20:41 PM PDT

    •  hil-pugs=so sleazy desperate disgustin: 'its out

      there.' [read: mission accomplished] never thought we'd see em stoop to such total desperate illegal sleazebag tactics. pugs indeed. ick. disgusting.  

      by concerned on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:21:37 PM PDT

  •  Yep.

    See my comment below. This makes the Clinton attacks inoperative.

    by turneresq on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:43:41 AM PDT

  •  The campaign is getting rid of this volunteer

    What else is the campaign supposed to do? Fold up because one volunteer did something so stupid and ugly?

    by FischFry on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:47:31 AM PDT

    •  No

      No, no campaign can control all of their staffers and volunteers.  This kind of thing will happen.

      But, come-on, just yesterday she was ripping on Obama because supposedly some overzealous volunteer was pushy on the phone.  This is way worst than that, this is making up blatant lies to try to smear an opponent in a racist manner.

      by nisleib on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:51:39 AM PDT

      •  So, what's your point?

        Honestly, I don't follow this kind of stupid stuff, so I don't know what the Obama story is. However, if some volunteer or volunteers were going beyond the pale, it's fair to point it out. That's how these things are, hopefully, brought under control.

        Are you saying her campaign has to be provably pristine to make any complaint about another campaign?

        That just b.s., and if you're willing to be fair and objective, you'd realize that's so. The way to be fair and objective? Flip the facts on their head, If it had been some Hillary volunteer who'd been over-the-top on the phone, would it be OK for Obama to complain? And would it stop being OK for him to complain, if it came out the next day that some local coordinator of his campaign was sending out false, malicious emails about her -- maybe about her supposed lesbian affairs?

        If the complaint was accurate in the first place, it's fair to make -- and it doesn't become unfair just becaue you find out that someone in your campaign might have done something even worse.

        by FischFry on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:00:02 PM PDT

        •  Have you lost all sense of reallity

          there is a big difference in spreading lies about someone than someone being rude to someone on the phone.  This kind of attack is unspeakable its been out there and  proven untrue.  Is her campaign really that desperate.  She only acknowledge it because it was traced back to her.

          A former Hillary supporter.

          by ronnied on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:20:38 PM PDT

          •  Pay attention

            He "doesn't follow this crap" then spends 4 paragraphs talking about how it's no big deal.

            by Daaaaave on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:37:20 PM PDT

            •  Exactly..sort of

              I don't foolow this sort of crap because it's rarely a big deal. However, I didn't say this "was no big deal." I wrote that it appears that the Clinton campaign did the right thing, when someone presented the evidence that a person within the campaign was sending such ugly email. So, I din't say it was no big deal. I said it was unfair to attack the Clinton campaign.

              by FischFry on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:46:14 PM PDT

          •  Try this out for size

            You're trying to connect 2 completely disconnected events, and so is the diarist.

            If Hillary was wrong about the Obama story, that would be worth discussing, but it's not in the diary.

            If the campaign knew about the wrongdoing ewithin their own ranks and did nothing, that would also be worth writing about, but it's not in the diary.

            Frankly, while there might be worthwhile points to be made about either story, this diary fails to make any. Moreover, they are completely unrelated stories, and it is unfair to try to link them.

            Calling the wrongdoing in her campaign worse is a stupid point. If I understand it, she has taken action against the malefactor. She did what one should expect her to do. If the email hadn't been traced back to her campaign, the campaign would never have know about it -- so I dodn't see what your point is? That the campaign should have somehow known about this? Someone who got the email was in a position to trace it back to the person who was a volunteer within the Clinton campaign. And, having been presented withthe evidence, teh camapgin did the right thing.

            The question to be asked is: Have you lost all sense of reality?

            by FischFry on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:43:43 PM PDT

            •  In fact, her internet director followed up on

              an isolated post on DK that wasn't receiving any particular attention, and in response, the campaign issued a statement disavowing the volunteer's action and asking them to step down from their chair, without any prompting on anyone's part.

              What has Obama done about that joker making abusive phone calls? Anything? Or is taht acceptable behavior in Obama camp?

              What evidence do we have that Obama has taken an equivalent action to Clinton? Has he said that volunteers phone canvassing will be instructed to be polite or did he do the EXACT opposite of what Dauo did and simply ignore the story?

              What is it? do any of the Obama supporters know? Do we have official statement from that campaign anywhere?

              by lorelynn on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:31:07 PM PDT

              •  lorelyinn,

                where is the evidence that anyone from the Obama campaign was actually behind the phone calls that you reference.

                In the case of the emails, there is a trail that leads directly to participants in her campaign. The question you pose would make sense if there were actually evidence that his campaign had something to do with the calls.

                These wild accusations from Hillary and her supporters and becoming tiresome.

                by smartdemmg on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:52:30 PM PDT

                •  There is none

                  No evidence.  To me it sounds like another HRC smear.

                  Obama spokesman Bill Burton was less than pleased.

                  "This flat-out falsehood is the latest attack in a silly season where our opponents have promised to stop at nothing in an effort to tarnish Barack Obama's character," Burton wrote in an e-mail.

                  "Push-polling or tactics of confusion have no place in this campaign and we don't or won't engage in them. Unlike some other campaigns, we want every potential Iowa caucus-goer to participate in the process, no matter who they support."

                  http://blog.washingtonpost.com/...

                  by nisleib on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:56:30 PM PDT

                  •  He called the Clinton campaign liars and denied

                    that it happened. As oppposed to the Clinton campaign who followed up aggressively without prompting.

                    It's the difference between candidates like Clinton who don't rely on dirty tricks to win and campaigns like Obama's who simply deny everything.

                    by lorelynn on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:00:18 PM PDT

                    •  Deny what?

                      Again, if I accuse you of robbing a bank and offer no evidence except that a fried of mine said it was you, what are you to deny? Your argument is empty rhetoric. It makes no sense.

                      In contrast, a Dodd supporter has received an actual email from a Clinton supporter and turned him in. They only had two options, lie and try to refute the email, which could easily be traced or just acknowledge it. Congratulations, here is a cookie but the email should never have been circulated in the first place.

                      by smartdemmg on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:09:00 PM PDT

                      •  Campaigns have phone lists and they make notes

                        after each call so that the campaign knows who to follow up with. It's a very simple matter for the Obama campaign to pull their phone banking records and find out what the volunteer noted and issue a statement accordingly.

                        The Clinton campaign read a random post which was receiving no notice, followed up, had the volunteer step down and issued a statement as to the action taken and deploring the email. The Obama campaign shows no evidence of following up - they just launched into namecalling.

                        And yes, all modern campaigns keep phone banking records. They could simply contact the Clinton campaign, ask for the numbers called and straighten it out from there. They didn't. I

                        by lorelynn on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:23:48 PM PDT

                        •  What we do not know.

                          1. We actually have no idea whether the Obama campaign is investigating the phone calls. The absence of information is not the equivalent of no investigation.

                          2. Your account of events is much more benign than that at The Nation.

                          Yesterday, Gary Hart, the Jones County Chair of the Democratic party in Iowa (and a Dodd supporter) wrote a diary on DailyKos saying he'd been forwarded the infamous email by an unnamed "Clinton county chair."

                          In a comment posted in response, the Clinton campaign's Internet Director Peter Daou, posted a statement from the campaign confirming that the email had indeed been forwarded by a "volunteer county coordinator," but said it was "wholly unauthorized" and that the campaign was "unaware of it."

                          UPDATE: Greg Sargent has talked to Hart and confirmed that he did, indeed, receive the email. Ben Smith at the Politico has acquired a copy of the email itself and discovered that it was also sent to a Clinton campaign staffer. Which means the campaign knew that one of their country chairs was sending this around.

                          by smartdemmg on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:42:07 PM PDT

                          •  Yes, the Clinton campaign aggressively

                            followed up on the story without prompting by anyone - as opposed to the Obama campaign who apparently did no investigation to determine if the charges were true or not.

                            Please - point us to the section in their statement where they say they have investigated. If they don't say that, then reasonable assumption is that they didn't. Because, of course, pointing out that their phone banking records indicate that number was not called on the night in question would lead credence to their denial. As it is, they're just pretending like it didn't happen.

                            The Clinton campaign didn't do that. They wanted to know if it happened and they made a public statement to the effect that it did. One campaigned behaved in a responsible fashion. One campaign engaged in denial.

                            by lorelynn on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:12:23 PM PDT

                      •  If you're accused of a crime, and you can

                        prove to a reasonable degree that you were somewhere else, you will, if you're sane, prove that. Obama campaign proved nothing. They have phone banking records. They could have printed out the record on whatever numbers were called and made a very good case that it didn't happen. It's information that 25 years ago, I could have had within minute (literally) on a city council race. Obama's campaign is in much better financial condition that small races in Santa Cruz were.

                        He made no attempt to determine if the call happened. His campaign handled like a bunch of kids would.

                        by lorelynn on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:28:16 PM PDT

                    •  Huge difference

                      There is evidence that Hillary's campaign chair is behind this.

                      No evidence exists that Obama's camp had anything to do with this.  No evidence exists that this really happened.  This smacks of Rovian tacktics.

                      by nisleib on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:31:30 PM PDT

                      •  How do you know there is no evidence?

                        Why hasn't the campaign used their phone banking records to prove the story isn't true? Every campaign for high office could have debunked a call to a specific number on a specific night within minutes. They didn't even bother to try.

                        Unlike the Clinton campaign, who went out of their way to determine if a little noticed post on DK was true.

                        Clinton's campaign took action and the only reason it turned into a story is that they made a public announcement. That's how adults handle things. And not how the Obama campaign handles things.

                        by lorelynn on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:30:53 PM PDT

                        •  Show us the evidence if there is any.

                          Otherwise STFU.

                          by Yoshimi on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:22:03 PM PDT

                          •  Evidence of what?

                            How childish do you have to be to tell someone to STFU?

                            by lorelynn on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:59:10 PM PDT

                  •  Nixonian tactics by Hillary?

                    Back in '72, the Nixon campaign pulled certain stunts by impersonating Democratic campaigns... Seems they mailed out fake campaign literature in one case, and hired a bunch of hippies to urinate in public while impersonating McGovern campaign workers in another instance.

                    It's not such a leap to suggest that someone making rude "campaign" calls may not actually represent the candidate whom they  claim to represent.  It harks back to classic negative tactics, to alienate voters from your opponents.

                    It wouldn't surprise me one bit for Hillary supporters to be making 'rude calls for Obama,' and then to spread the word about the complaints.

                    There is no low blow which I believe her or her people are incapble of landing.  I suppose she DID learn some things from W. Bush, but they were the WRONG lessons.

                    by John Poet on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:33:46 PM PDT

                •  Why take the risk? Why not simply say that this

                  is not acceptable behavior for our phone canvassers. If anyone has received a such a phone call, please contact us so that we can make certain that our volunteeers are not behaving in such a fashion.

                  All they did was accuse the Clinton campaign of lying. How do you know they are?

                  by lorelynn on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:58:42 PM PDT

                  •  Because their lips are moving?

                    Your arguement makes no sense.  

                    And in case you missed it they did say:

                    Push-polling or tactics of confusion have no place in this campaign and we don't or won't engage in them.

                    by nisleib on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:24:38 PM PDT

                    •  And yet, they did not bother to check

                      their phone banking data to find out if they called. One campaign aggressively followed up  a single response that they found online, and asked the volunteer to step down. The other  campaign did not work to verify or disprove what they were accused of and simply accused the other team.

                      I know how grownups behave. And they don't look the other way.

                      by lorelynn on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:34:11 PM PDT

                      •  this is weird

                        it's a story about a volunteer forwarding something right wing about Obama, not making it up for the Clinton campaign, and then it's reported and HIllary checks it out and fires the volunteer, and the title of this is 'clinton camp caught in lie?'  That's so deceptive. And then you bring up something that can also be fact checked by Obama, and it isn't?  And then you get trashed for asking for a fact check from Obama?  This one is really strange. It was obvious that Bill Clinton was squeaky clean cause they accused him of everything and found nothing, had to subvert a crime for him. If this is all they can find on Hillary, a volunteer forwarding something, I guess this also means she's highly squeaky clean. And why shouldn't she be, she's a professional, she's been in the public eye, she has plenty of substantive things to say about Obama and how they differ, she doesn't need to make up easily discredited bullshit that would reflect poorly on her. and yet, this is a highly recommended story?  Is this weird or what?  

                        by anna shane on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:50:33 PM PDT

                        •  I think a couple people are going to go deaf

                          from the cognitive dissonance provoked by your post. Better have someone walk you to your car tonight.

                          by lorelynn on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:54:05 PM PDT

                          •  You are saying

                            that Anna Shane is in danger?

                            From whom? How?

                            Let's hear this. It ought to be good.

                            by blue vertigo on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 04:43:20 AM PDT

                •  worse than tiresome-----this kind of Republican

                  tactic doesn't belong in a Democratic campaign.  It's the lowest of the low type of smear campaign----spreading fear and lies.  
                   I have lost all respect for Clinton and her campaign.  They are not reacting well under pressure.  They are willing to do anything, no matter how ugly, to slime a fellow Dem.

                  by dotster on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:11:31 PM PDT

                  •  Yeah - I'm sure you have. obama doesn't follow

                    up on stuff like this - he just name calls. If that's the kind of behavior you find acceptable, you are likely to be disappointed.

                    by lorelynn on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:26:02 PM PDT

                    •  Name calls?

                      What name calling?

                      by nisleib on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:29:22 PM PDT

                      •  we must have missed the news report where

                        Obama called Hillary a stupidhead.

                        by dotster on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:45:55 PM PDT

                        •  It's about the level of rhetoric coming out

                          that camp.

                          by lorelynn on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:59:24 PM PDT

                    •  Got evidence of Obama "name-calling", lorelynn?

                      Or is this another case of you just saying whatever the hell you want and hoping no one calls you on your bullshit?

                      by Elise on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:33:37 PM PDT

                      •  LOL - I don't think that's ever happened.

                        And unlike you, who wrote an entire diary on the superiority of Obama's health care plan with NO AWARENESS of a public insurer in Clinton's plan, and how that insurer worked - which is like writing about space travel without knowing that rockets are currently required for lift off - if I state something as a fact, I'm able to verify it.

                        Oh, and here is the Obama campaign simply denying that the calls happened and smearing the Clinton campaign.

                        http://blog.washingtonpost.com/...

                        "This flat-out falsehood is the latest attack in a silly season where our opponents have promised to stop at nothing in an effort to tarnish Barack Obama's character," Burton wrote in an e-mail.

                        "Push-polling or tactics of confusion have no place in this campaign and we don't or won't engage in them. Unlike some other campaigns, we want every potential Iowa caucus-goer to participate in the process, no matter who they support."

                        Now, go ahead and tell me - how do they know it's a falsehood? What evidence is there that they investigated to find out if the numbers in question were called -  a record all campaigns for high office would have - and that there was no documentation of the campaign calling those people that night? It's something would take them all of five minutes to find out.

                        What do you think the Obama campaign is afraid of?  And if they aren't afraid of anything, why don't they issue a statement saying that their phone banking data has no evidence of that number being called.

                        This isn't rocket science. Every campaign since the early eighties has kept very detailed records about who is called and when. There is zero chance they can't access that information withing minutes. Those phone banking records are how they know who to send material to, who needs a ride, who shouldn't be called again, who wants a sign for their yard, who might contribute money or volunteer - all campaigns keep this info. And yet, they didn't even state for the record that their phone banking records give no indication of the number being called.

                        Remember, Dauo followed up on a post to DK that wasn't receiving attention, and issued a statement within hours of the original post deploring the action and announcing that the volunteer had been let go.

                        That's the difference between Obama and Clinton. Obama takes no action to determine if an allegation is true and the Clinton campaign takes aggressive action without prompting and deals with the situation. I know how adults behave, and they certainly don't look the other direction when something can sabotage a dream they're had since kindergarten. Jeez.

                        it's like children are runnning Obama's campaign.

                        by lorelynn on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 03:00:50 PM PDT

                        •  obama's

                          personality is coming out, and while I'm glad he has a personality, and he's not just hope filled rhetoric man, he has a way of discounting that is contemptuous and belittling.  That must be his real personality, so he's probably a very funny friend, but not someone you want against you. He's got some Maureen Dowd in him, for sure. His distain, real or put on, for Hillary's experience is one example. HIs lofty dismissal of charges seems more like someone who's in the white house, although Obama had at least a hundred IQ points on the current inhabitant, and he's not crazy or socially conservative.  I mean, I want Hillary to win, but I wouldn't object to Obama, if I were sure he could win the general and not be taken down by crueler foes than Hillary on his foreign policy 'experience.'  I'd worry he couldn't win with general voters, but if he were guaranteed it would be okay with me.  His campaign, however, is very high on moral superiority and low with dismissive belittling tactics.  It looks like the guy thing to me, dismiss the 'wife' candidate, act superior and righteous, never ask for directions and never ever admit and correct a mistake.  But, he's new, maybe he's on a learning curve. And to give him credit, this isn't him pretending Hillary is behind some racist smear, it's his kos supporters. I'd like to hear him chew them out.  

                          by anna shane on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:08:00 PM PDT

                        •  What evidence is there that they didn't?

                          How would you know they didn't contact the Clinton campaign, unless you're working for them?

                          by jhecht on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:28:45 PM PDT

                          •  It's in their interest to prove their case.

                            They were accused in a partisan campaign. They still need to win voters over in order to win. If clinton has made a false accusation, then the Obama camp wins points with undecided voters by proving it's a false accusation. Without proof, it just sounds like tit for tat - something voters loathe.

                            That's why Daou followed up. This shit happens. You can't stop it. But you can handle it intelligently when it does. Clinton did. Obama didn't.

                            by lorelynn on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:53:57 PM PDT

                  •  yup-its macaca all over again. inexcusable period

                    by concerned on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:26:23 PM PDT

        •  you don't follow this kind of stuff?

          but you're hear making oodles of comments about it?

          my my.

          by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:30:43 PM PDT

      •  Whoa - what I read is the volunteer

        forwarded an e-mail she recieved.  Are you claiming the e-mail originated with the volunteer?

        by Lying eyes on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:19:02 PM PDT

      •  who was it sent to

        And was it from official HRC campaign email?

        Your average Joe volunteer would not get access to the internet, let alone have an email account with the campaign.  Only certain key people would be allowed to email anything.
        Period.  

        Those things should be highly controlled.

        What email address did it go out on and to whom?

        Did this volunteer send out other emails as part of their campaign work?

        by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:38:44 PM PDT

      •  disgustin. h camp actin racist. macaca all over

        by concerned on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:24:34 PM PDT

    •  The point is

      The Clinton campaign itself just tried to use an isolated and pretty unsubstantiated incident about a phone call to smear the Obama campaign.  Her official campaign itself pushed the suggestion that Obama was guilty of push-polling.  In light of that, they have set it up where one of their people getting caught red-handed taking part in the ugliest smear of the campaign deserves to be pointed out.  

      by Sun dog on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:53:12 AM PDT

      •  There are several points here