Congratulations, Senator Clinton.
At long last, after much complaining from you, the media is launching rightwing smear attacks against Barack Obama, the likely Democratic nominee in the fall.
Senator Clinton's great contribution to our chances in the fall below the fold:
Greg Sargent, a frequent critic of media coverage of all Democrats--including Hillary Clinton--provides the context:
Yesterday I argued that Hillary's new strategy -- attacking the press as rooting for her defeat -- ran the risk of making things worse for her by making the campaign look frustrated and in search of a scapegoat, something that spooks supporters and donors.
But now I think it's fair to ask whether the strategy is also bearing at least a bit of fruit.
What kind of fruit would that be?
The full force of Camp Hillary's assault on the media really became public yesterday morning. Since then, CNN ran a lengthy segment on the Hillary campaign's gripe that Obama is getting largely "rock star" treatment from the press.
Okay. That's perfectly fair. As an Obama supporter, I have no problem with that at all.
But, of course, Clinton didn't want just that. They didn't want the media to be kinder to Clinton. They wanted the media to smear Obama too.
Wish granted.
Just a few minutes ago, CNN ran another lengthy segment, this one about Jeremiah Wright, the recently retired pastor at Obama's church who lavishly praised Louis Farrakhan. The piece had a pretty tough chyron:
What Obama's Pastor Said
Jewish-American Concerns
During the segment, Wolf Blitzer noted that Obama "faces questions about his level of support for israel from some American Jews." These are precisely the kind of questions the Hillary campaign has been trying to get major news orgs to air, of course.
Now, here is where people jump up and say "Hillary is NOT asking for the media to smear Obama."
To which I respond: bullsh-t.
The Hillary Clinton campaign pushed to reporters today stories about Barack Obama and his ties to former members of a radical domestic terrorist group -- but did not note that as president, Clinton's husband pardoned more than a dozen convicted violent radicals, including a member of the same group mentioned in the Obama stories.
"Wonder what the Republicans will do with this issue," mused Clinton spokesman Phil Singer in one e-mail to the media, containing a New York Sun article reporting a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the Weather Underground, to Obama in 2001. (Obama's ties to the radical group first surfaced last week in a Bloomberg News article.)
In a separate e-mail, Singer forwarded an article from Politico.com reporting on a 1995 event at a private home that brought Obama together with Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, another former member of the radical group.
You see, Clinton has no problem with the media hurting the Democratic party or helping Republicans--so long as it helps advance her ambitions.
As Jesus's General points out, Clinton was pushing a smear against not only Obama, but also Ayers and Dohrn:
It was despicable act of swiftboating. What Singer failed to note was that Ayers was never convicted of a crime, and Dorn had served her time. Both had reached a certain level of respectability--Ayres as Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Dorn as an Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law and the Director of Northwestern's Children and Family Justice Center) by the time Obama attended the event at their home which Singer so excitedly touted as a contact with terrorists.
And, of course, it wouldn't be the Clinton campaign without a healthy dose of hypocrisy to go along with the Swiftboating:
Singer's excuse that he was merely pointing out an electability problem--one that the Republicans will use to smear Obama--is disingenuous. It overlooks an important fact: Bill Clinton's pardon of Weather Underground member Susan L. Rosenberg and 16 members of the FALN makes Sen. Clinton just as vulnerable to the same charges.
But, wait, you say, where's the evidence that Clinton has been pushing THIS story?
Well, there was the proof on live television last night. Thankfully for Obama, Clinton's attempt at her version of 'piling on' was as tone-deaf and oafish as it was crass and classless.
Still think it's not a story being pushed by a coordinated, pro-Clinton effort? As Josh Marshall notes
As a separate matter, the covert campaign to smear Obama with the Jewish community is a topic of great importance that I've been meaning to hit on and haven't done enough on it yet. At least we know now that Russert's enlisted with the cause.
Indeed, this smear effort has been the subject of attention in the press and
pushback from the Obama campaign and responsible Jewish leaders.
But, you still ask, where is the proof that it's pro-Clinton folks as opposed to merely anti-Obama folks pushing this?
Well, let's look at the pro-Clinton blogs that most regularly regurgitate her campaign's talking points. Have they been pushing the Farrakhan smear?
Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft does so not
once, but
twice.
Taylor Marsh, of course,
goes there.
But, the prize winner for defamation is our very own Susan Hu, posting at Larry Johnson's blog. She takes it one step further and spreads a lie--that
Obama employs Nation of Islam staffers--a lie invented by the infamous and repulsive bigot Debbie "Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always A Muslim" Schlussel.
(Note: This piece of racist defamation made the Recommended List over at Jerome Armstrong's MyHRC before it got deleted by an embarrassed admin. Otherwise, Mydd would also make this honor roll).
Ignore that smoke--there is no fire, other than that coming from Senator Clinton's pants.
Update: As DrSteveB notes, Clinton's campaign has not been pushing
John McCain's anti-semitic problem, which the ADL has judged to be of serious concern.
Update II: The Clinton campaign continues to push the guilt of bigotry-by-association charge hard.
If there were any doubt that the pastor issue isn't going away, the Clinton campaign continued to make an issue of Wright.
"He did not reject what his minister said about Farrakhan," Mark Penn, a top Clinton adviser, was quoted by National Review as saying after the debate. "He never responded to the fact that his minister, if I have it right, said that Farrakhan was a person of greatness."
h/t Ben Smith