According to the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary Rulebook written by some of the great "progressive" blogs, portions of the so-called "netroots", and their friends in the media and the Obama campaign, Sen. Obama's advisors and staff only speak for him when he approves what they say and don't speak for him when he doesn't. It's that simple, and we have all been witness to it right here in Obamaville, the DK!
A few examples of statements spouted by Obama staff, but not equivocated to Mr Obama himself, in stark contrast to what the KOSacks have held Sen Clinton responsible for regarding statements made by her staff:
The Obama campaign aide who urged the press to look into Bill Clinton's "post-presidential sex life"
The Obama superdelegate who had similar concerns about Bill Clinton
The Obama campaign aide(s) who circulated the race-baiting "D-Punjab" memo
Jesse Jackson Jr. and aides/advisors who accused the Clintons of race-baiting
Samantha Power who referred to Sen. Clinton as a "monster"
This mystical phenomenon of Sen. Obama's advisors evidently not speaking for him took on a life of its own this week on the policy side as well.
First, a top Obama economic policy advisor and DLCer Austan Goolsbee got exposed for his wink, wink downplaying of Obama's pandering rhetoric on NAFTA by reassuring Canadians otherwise (yes, I know the Obama camp denied this just as they denied the original story that there had been any such contact).
Second, a top Obama foreign policy advisor Samantha Power made the case on British television that Obama's pandering rhetoric on a withdrawal of troops from Iraq was just that:
The host, Stephen Sackur, challenged her... "So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out in 16 months isn't a commitment isn't it?"
"You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"
"It’s a best-case scenario," she said
Now imagine the "impassioned" responses on this Obama sponsered blog (grin) if Senator Clinton had made these same remarks or if any of her staff had made these remarks. There was a Diary posted the morning entitled "Why I Will Vote For McCain Over Clinton" that was written by some deranged diarist who used quotes from Clinton staff to deride Clinton herself. Imagine any democrat, given the war(s), economy and state of the Supreme Court saying they would vote for McCain over Clinton. Lunacy! Now imagine if Clinton supporters behaved the same as the Obama supporters around here and posted diaries such as the aforementioned one, based on Obama staff and advisor quotes. What would the reaction be around here? The screams would be heard around the world, no doubt, because many of the Obama supporters around here are major hypocrites who care more about him than they do about their country, which reminds me quite succinctly how the Bush supporters defend their Bush and to hell with the country. Now let the Obama supporter attacks against me and this diary begin, because heaven forbid, somebody had the gall to point out their hypocrisy and childishness. Now we all know that there are numerous Clinton supporters who post to this site, yet can anybody here remember when one single pro Clinton diary made it to the recommended list?
Comments are closed on this story.