Letters to the Editor
-
The worst thing...
for Obama to do would be to give the media clips to play of him discussing this complete non-starter.
No one outside of the political junkie arena and perhaps Chicago itself (which he'll obviously win, so who cares) has any interest in this story. There is no element of it that is anything but boring. There's no illegal behavior from Obama, so it's not a legitimate story, and there's no salacious angle (sexual, fear button, or otherwise) so there's no getting the emotion worked up over it. I mean, people know the words "Whitewater" and "Rose Law firm" have been repeated over and over by bunches of RWAs but how many people do you think were ever interested in any of those stories and could tell you what the hell they were about? They're boring, like this is boring.
The only way this story will ever have any legs is if either A. Obama will give an interview about it himself in which he says things that offer enough context to turn the clip into an explanatory piece because nobody just watching him respond to a question about his lack of involvement with some guy nobody's heard of with a "This is a non-story" doesn't work for a news segment or B. Someone decides to float a story that one of the Obamas had an affair with one of the Rezkos. Since one of the stories had a segment that specified Michelle Obama had actually spent *gasp* alone-time house-looking w/Rezko, I'm surprised Mark Penn hasn't managed to Rove her on that yet. He must not've read that article.
Unless a subject captures the public interest, all responding to it publicly does is create public interest where there was none. The Rezko thing will never, ever function as intended for the opposition.
-
dkissam
C. Hillary Clinton and her "followers" are also waitin' to pull out a white baby out of Barack Obama's closet. That will knock Barack right out of the race (no pun intended) and Hillary Clinton and John McCain will walk into the sunset, hand in hand, and live happliy ever after.
-
Joe
If this is the level of insight we are to expect from now until November, please do us all a favor and recuse yourself, or stop taking checks from the Clinton campaign.
-
@slancio103
Please, please ... tell me you are kidding. If you aren't, then it sounds as if you are suggesting that since Giustra is from Canada and the people Obama's people talked to are from Canada, then there must be some connection between Bill Clinton and the NAFTA mini-scandal. If you believe this, then you must be unaware that there are over 30,000,000 people in Canada, and they don't all know each other. Really. They're social, but not that social.
I'd go easy on the whole fundraising "scandal", if I were you. I just don't see the world getting up in arms because Bill Clinton shakes a few hands in exchange for enough money to pay for AIDS drugs for people in poor countries. This simply does not portray the Clinton's as the selfish, greedy, monsters you like to see them as. http://www.clintonfoundation.org/index.htm
Clinton's legacy isn't in danger of being tarnished. There are millions of people willing to testify as to his character.
-
Critical thinking!!
Keep it up we need all we can get. Voters need to be taught how how to ask questions. They do not need to be told what they already know or believe. Thanks. Refreshing.
Please, can you write an article that compares and contrasts the campaigns:
including the arrogant and sometimes offensive way they have conducted this campaign
I would like to see an experienced political writer cover this issue with a clear explanation why this is an exclusive Clinton tactic. I am not a journalist or political scientist, so maybe I am not looking at or asking the right questions.
Thank you for excellent analysis.
-
@madamfauntleroy
I'm not the adressee, but I can tell you why I found Clinton's comments about McCain and Obama perfectly acceptable. Here is a different, longer, way of saying it:
Hillary Clinton and John McCain have far more experience at the national level than Obama has. People care about experience. If Obama runs his "hope" against McCain's hard experience, he is going to find that American's love hope, but then push comes to shove they want and experienced butt in the oval office chair. Clinton can compete with McCain on experience. Obama can't.
Of course, that isn't as quotable as what Clinton said.
-
Not kidding...
Here's a new link today... with a very interesting comment...
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0562494220080306?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112
In comments section:
"ok.. the AP story says Clark heard from multiple sources, that both campaigns said not to take NAFTA talk seriously.
Which source told clark that Obama'a NAFTA statements were not to be taken seriously?
Which source told clark that Cinton's NAFTA statements were not to be taken seriously?
Were they the same source?
The Canadian Bodie was unavailable for comment, why? They now don't recall being the source for Clark? They recall, supposedly vividly a characteration of a casual conversation with Obama's campaign (that the canadian's instigated), yet don't recall speaking to a reporter (clark) to get the story out? who initiated that call where it was discussed?
Clark claims that both campaigns signalled that NAFTA talk should not be taken seriously, yet CTV runs wth just Obama? Who at CTV decided to focux on Obama and ignore Clinton? This decision requires investigation. What is CTV's relationship with Obama and what is it with Clinton? Did CTV have any discussions with the Clinton campaign to run the story swiftboating Obama? What was CTV's rational for running a swiftboating of Obama, including holding onto "standing by it" until after the OH primary? It appears CTV has some questions to answer.
There are a few more questions to be asked, however Bodie, Clark, CTV and the guy who wrote the mangled memo about the Obama position are the players. One or more of them are lying. Clark points to his sources and says CTV knew of both campaigns saying not to take it seriously. CTV denies it. Bodie leaks a memo that Obama's campaign didn't write that seems to intentionally or unintentionally mistake what was said.
In addition we have the US news organisations running with the story, which turns to vapor after the OH primary. Reuters continues to have stories claiming that "Canada did not misrepresent " Obama, despite overwhelming evidence, and confession from all parties involved that it did indeed do so.
Unfortunately we have the various parties claiming contrary who told who when. Not clear whether it's CTV, Harper's guy Bodie, the guy who wrote the memo, Clark who is lying.
And yes, it's important to get to the bottom of it. Obama has been swiftboated and it's entirely possible that without that swiftboating the few extra delegates would have encouraged a resolution to the democratic primaries.
Reuter's on the otherhand, and other news organisations, and media will benefit from increased advertising in the democratic primaries so there is a vested interest there also."
It is clear to me that something dirty went down. While yes... Canada is a big country with lots of people... not many of them could manipulate CTV and the Prime Minister office.