Hillary Clinton Campaign Connection to Drudge Report Detailed by International Herald Tribune (NYT) in October of 2007
THE BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
An International Herald Tribune story of October 22, 2007, covers the irony of the Clinton campaign feeding stories to the Drudge Report as part of its strategy. (It was a repost from the New York Times, which owns the IHT.)
And the Clinton campaign wasn't hiding their new found interest in using Drudge to get attention for stories. They had [and may still have] a designated "liaison" according to the International Herald Tribune:
Clinton's communications team, led by Howard Wolfson, is not leaving Drudge to the Republicans. Five current and former Democratic officials said Clinton has on her side the closest thing her party has ever had to Rhoades [a GOP leaker to Drudge] in Tracy Sefl, a former Democratic National Committee official. The officials said that Sefl had established a friendly relationship with Drudge and that Clinton's campaign often worked quietly through her to open a line of communication with Drudge.
Though liberals say Drudge's ideological imbalance remains plain, Republicans, who viewed the site as theirs in campaigns past, say they are noticing what they believe to be more Democratic driven, often Clinton driven, items on it.
And, as New York magazine reported recently, it has escaped no one that Drudge has sometimes mentioned Clinton favorably on his syndicated radio program, even if no one really knows whether his comments reflect admiration for her or simply a recognition that keeping her in the news is good for his business.
The International Herald Tribune story begins with a telling anecdote:
As Senator Barack Obama prepared to give a major speech on Iraq one morning a few weeks ago, a flashing-red siren alert went up on the Drudge Report Web site. It read, "Queen of the Quarter: Hillary Crushes Obama in Surprise Fund-Raising Surge," and, "$27 Million, Sources Tell Drudge Report."Within minutes, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's fund-raising success was injected via Drudge into the day's political news on the Internet and cable television. It did not halt coverage of Obama's speech or his criticism of her vote to authorize the war in 2002, but along the front lines of the campaign - the hourly, intensely fought effort to capture the news cycle or deny ownership of it to the other side - it was a telling assault.
Clinton's aides declined to discuss how the Drudge Report got access to her latest fund-raising figures nearly 20 minutes before the official announcement went to supporters. But it was a prime example of a development that has surprised much of the political world: Clinton is learning to play nice with the Drudge Report and the powerful, elusive and conservative-leaning man behind it.
So, today's non-denials from the Clinton camp notwithstanding, it is clear that the campaign has cozied up to Drudge -- even if he trashes the senator from time to time -- in an effort to make use of his vast audience, and to use them to their advantage to the extent that they can.
That's not coming from BuzzFlash; that's directly from the International Herald Tribune, in an article reposted from the New York Times.
The author is the respected NYT journalist Jim Rutenberg.
THE BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash.com
BuzzFlash: Editorials | Interviews | News Analysis | Alerts | Perspectives | Radio Ads | Reviews: Books, Movies, Music | Television | Books, DVDs, CDs, Hats, T-shirts
Community: BuzzFlash Mailbag | Reader and Guest Contributions | News Releases
Columns: Wings of Justice | GOP Hypocrite of the Week | Last Chance Democracy Cafe | Libby Defense Fund | Jeffrey Feldman's Frameshop | The Daily Buzz | Independent Thinker of the Month | World Media Watch | Blue State Jukebox | Verse-Case Scenario | Ms. Smith Goes to Washington | Caption This
Columnists: P.M. Carpenter | David Lindorff | Barbara's Daily Buzz | Ann Davidow | Thom Hartmann | Steven C. Day | Steven Jonas | Tony Peyser | Shirley Smith
Cartoonists: Kirk Anderson | Steve Bradenton | Tony Peyser | Andrew Wahl
Poets: Tony Peyser
Other: About | Frequently Asked Questions | Headlines | Search BuzzFlash | Put BuzzFlash Headlines on Your Web Site | Get BuzzFlash Alerts | Contact | Home
Support Independent Media: Click Here to See How
Unless otherwise noted, all original content
and headlines are © BuzzFlash.
Contact BuzzFlash for reprint rights.
General Disclaimer: Guest and Reader Contributions, News Releases and Mailbag Letters posted on BuzzFlash are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of BuzzFlash or its editors.
Hillary Supporters
"The Obama supporters are be-boppin and scattin all over the place and I'm losing it"
HAHAHAHAHAHA
More race baiting from Clinton's top aide
Unbelieveable! Despite evidence that race-baiting is hurting Hillary Clinton, her top surrogates still insist on trying to get voters to focus on Sen. Obama's blackness.
Yesterday, Clinton's top aide Harold Ickes once again slipped the race card from the bottom of his deck. Speaking to reporters, he was asked whether stretching the Democratic primary on for three more months will hurt the Democrats in a general election.
Instead of answering the reporter's actual question, Ickes once again reminded the press that Barack Obama is a black man running for President of the United States:
“We have two really strong and very good candidates. This party has been blessed … to have a woman who, I think will be the next president of the United States [and] to have a powerful spokesman in the form of Sen. Obama and he is, that’s one of the reasons I supported Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988, I thought we needed a strong, powerful candidate, a black candidate, running for president,” Ickes said.
So, a long, drawn out primary battle will not hurt the Democrat's chance to win in the general election - because Obama is a strong, powerful black man like Jesse Jackson?
Wow! Talk about shameless use of racist code words aimed at the many white voters who still grab in their women and lock the doors at the first hint of a "strong, powerful black man" walking about.
So we now see Clinton's campaign end game strategy:
When asked any question, answer:
"We are blessed to have Sen. Obama as a strong, powerful black candidate like Jesse Jackson."
And if there's time, throw in his middle name Hussein and remind everybody that his folks back in Africa are Muslims.
Read report: Washington Wire
The Nation criticizes Clinton "bizarre non-denial denial"
The Nation published an excellent commentary yesterday, criticizing the Clinton camp for one "one of the most bizarre non-denial denials in recent political history":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080225/cm_thenation/45290136
Barack Obama has had to spend hours on the campaign trail debunking the lie that he is Muslim. This story first circulated via a right-wing email smear campaign, as my colleague Chris Hayes documented, but has since taken on a life of its own, spawning more and more fantastic conspiracies about Obama.
Today the story took an even more bizarre turn, when Drudge posted a picture of Obama dressed as a traditional Somali elder on a trip back to Kenya in 2006. The photo of Obama, in a white sash and white turban, was clearly meant to stoke the "Obama is a Muslim" flames. More worrisome, Drudge says he received the photo from "Clinton staffers."
That revelation prompted one of the most bizarre non-denial denials in recent political history. "There are 700 people in our organization," the Clinton campaign told blogger Marc Ambinder. "We can't be sure that it didn't come from us. It is not the intent of the campaign to release this picture to tarnish Senator Obama in any way, but if someone in the campaign thinks the Obama camp gets treated differently by the media, well, they're right."
So essentially camp Clinton is saying: it may or may not have been us, but even if it was us, that's fine, because the media is biased in favor of Barack Obama. Does the end always justify the means? A stunt like this is almost guaranteed to backfire on Clinton, like so many of the campaign's previous attacks. It was in poor taste to begin with, and the spin thereafter was clumsy and incoherent, reinforcing the fears among many Democrats that Clinton may attempt to tear apart Obama on the road to defeat.
Is Clinton taking campaign advice from Bill Kristol?
Goebbels-wannabe Billy Kristol is advising Hillary Clinton on how best to defeat Sen. Obama.
Far more distressing, she appears to be listening. On last Sunday morning's Fox News broadcast, neo-con Kristol gave Clinton this advice:
"[Obama’s] riding a wave of euphoria. She [Clinton] needs to puncture it. The way you puncture euphoria is reality, or to be more blunt, fear. I recommend to Senator Clinton the politics of fear."
It appears Kristol and Clinton may now see eye-to-eye on this. Kristol urged Clinton to smear Obama as being too friendly with the nuclear bomb-building Muslims of Iran. Lo and behold, that's just what she's now claiming, while her campaign nudges Drudge to publish a photo of Obama with a Somalian turban on his head.
(I'm just a little surprised Clinton's dirty tricksters didn't first Photoshop an explosive belt onto Obama before emailing it to Drudge.)
We have the making a new campaign slogan:
The Politics of Fear —
End the Republican monopoly.
Vote Hilllary '08.
NYT and Drudge
I don't believe Hillarys group had anything to do with those pics of Obama. There are a lot of people out there who are sexist and would hate to see a woman in the chair of the President and would go to any lengths to smear her, BUT Not not her own Campaign People! Get some smarts people and you too BuzzFlash!
Remember BuzzFlash one of your mottos is "Fight Ignorance" read BuzzFlash!
Belief in Witches
Your post is absolutely medieval. You don't "believe" Hillary was responsible for these smears? What has belief to do with it? We try to find evidence and base our opinions on that. Sure, there may be people who are sexist, but to believe that they are so devious as to smear Obama in order to express their sexist opposition to Hillary is as commonsensical as proving the existence of witches by seeing if they float in pure water. My prescription is: take a little truth and call us in the morning.
belief in witches LOL
commonsense? You should change your name to coma-sense.
Like, Wow
You've really gotten past that argument. Wait, I've just awakened from my coma, seen the magic of your "LOL" and realize that you deserve intelligent attention. NOT. It all makes little difference. The Klinton Kampaign will not get any traction from this latest maneuver, so I guess it's back to tears for Hillary. The next time maybe those tears will be accompanying a concession speech.
Like WOW
commonse? There is and was No, let me reiterate that word for you, NO, argument. You posed none to begin with.
Because you haven't shown me one iota of proof that the Clinton campaign ran that ad that wasn't even any resemblence of a smear. He did wear the costume, he was there, the whole world knows he was there and wore the garb, and he's not even denying it. So please tell me how could it be a smear ad?
"Evidence"? Where is this "evidence"?
I can't believe you're keeping this crap up, nonsense. Where is this damn "evidence" that you refer to? There isn't any! You're taking e-tabloid twisting smear sources as legitimate? And call it "truth"? And insinuate that you beleive that to be evidence?
Well, why don't you take a look at what REAL journalists are calling that:
Columbia Journalism Review
Mountain, Meet Molehill: Why is the Obama photo a story?
"It started, as so many Incendiary Internet Stories do, with Matt Drudge. ... (T)he fact that the Obama photo even became A Story deserves at least a moment of pause. Because, really, it shouldn’t have. The only reason it did was because Matt Drudge put it out there with a banner headline.
And the Story’s cause was helped, ironically, by the Obama campaign itself."
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/mountain_meet_molehill.php
As for this comment from you: "We try to find evidence" - does the "we" refer to buzzflash, and insinuate that you are part of it? If that's the case, I will definitely cease my support for buzzflash - I won't tolerate giving my money to smarta$$ juveniles like you.
In fact, I'd already like to cancel my last transaction - not just because of hte crappy way that they're processed and packaged and delivered in parts and stages and without ever telling the people who paid for them that their orders got screwed up, either - but that went in last week, dammit.
Attention buzzflash staff: I need you to confirm that no commonsense is NOT part of your enterprise. If it is, then the presence of that argumentive idiot will be the last straw, and will end my support.
Shut up and take it like a Kerry...
The International Herald is hardly an "e-tabloid twisting smear source." You need to calm down and get a grip. The truth of the Drudge Report is NOT being questioned by Clinton's campaign staff. They've all but confirmed its truth by refusing to deny it.
Your citation of a column written by an assistant editor in Columbia Journalism Review does nothing to refute the facts. The author was simply whining about all the press the story got - she obviously thinks it doesn't deserve any.
She, like you, appears to think that Obama should ignore Clinton's attempt to swiftboat him as a "secret Muslim" who "befriends terrorists."
No doubt, she agreed with Sen. Kerry when he chose to ignore the swiftboating campaign, which falsely made him out to be a phony war hero and liar. Kerry chose not to respond to these sleazeball attacks.
We all know how much good that did him - and us.
Only a Republican would argue that democratic candidates shouldn't draw attention to swiftboating by objecting to it. They should treat these attacks as Kerry did: Ignore them and hope no one pays them any attention.
Being able to learn from previous blunders, progressive democrats expect Obama to respond immediately and identify the nature and source of these sleaze campaigns.
Clinton camp did deny it...
But they weren't going to be bogged down by the media on this stupid story, the same as McCain dismissed that "affair" story quickly- and he got a big boost in contributions and endorsements.
We all have to stop playing the "media entrapment" game.
You're buying it, too?
You really think that this was Clinton's campaign? That Clinton's campaign organized this? Sent an idiot like Drudge w/ a stupid photo of absolutely no relevance, inviting Drudge to post it, and with purpose of degradation upon Obama? "Here, Matt! Take this photo and put it up for us! Don't tell anybody we gave it you, though!"
ANYBODY WHO BELIEVES THAT IS AN IDIOT.
this was nothign more than a ploy to try to divide the democratic candidates and voters, orchestrated by Drudge. And Obama's campaign fell for it, those idiots. And you're buying it, too?
Groce Stupidity
No one here is buying any more Groce stupidity.
If there were an atom of truth to Groce's accusation, the Clinton camp would have immediately demanded that Drudge show the email. The email, with its tracking data, would reveal where it came from.
(We already know from the International Herald Tribune report that the Clinton campaign has been secretly sending dirt to Drudge for him to publish on her opponents.)
The only reason Clinton didn't demand it is because she knows to whom it would point.
Instead, the Clinton camp has dispatched its flying monkeys to buzz and disrupt forums where people are speaking out against her campaign's use of sleazy Rovian tactics.
Now we *KNOW* you're full of crap
you and your pal nonsense are the only ones buying this crap, nick.
And no - asking Drudge to show the email was exactly what Drudge wanted them to do. It would put CLinton on the defense, and no campaign manager of any brains would ever allow themselves to put on the defense by media that is established to be on the other party's side. That's why her campaign didn't request that.
And hte IHT report that you refer to DOES NOT say "Clinton campaign has been secretly sending dirt to Drudge for him to publish on her opponents" - that's crap, and which anyone can check by reading that article. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/22/america/drudge.1-156891.php)
The only established contact by Clinton's campaign with Drudge was providing him with the same info that other press got regarding her fundraising. "That people in Clinton's campaign orbit would tip off the Drudge Report to its fund-raising numbers is in part a reflection of her pragmatic approach to dealing with potential enemies like Newt Gingrich or Rupert Murdoch."
Again, just you and nonsense, that I can see - some appear to question it, unsure what to think - but after reading your flat out LIES, I'm sure they no know better than to believe any damn word you say.
Your blatant falsities are defeating your cause, you repug jackass. No go back to the drudge report to play with your repug friends. Idiot.
Damn right!!!
And who's to say the Obama camp isn't sending Drudge information? After all, it was Drudge who first "uncovered" the story about McCain and this lobbyist. No one asked where that story came from?
Think people, think!!!! Obama is not innocent- He's Elmer Gantry in a nice suit.
Whoa! Run Out of Oxycontin, Did We?
Use a tiny little pronoun and "we" go to pieces? It was MY impression that bloggers on the Buzzflash site were not necessarily representing anything but their own opinion, which of course might not be accurate in your case. This story has legs only because of the apparent involvement of the Klinton Kampaign in putting it out there. It continues to have legs because the Klinton Kampaign has been ham-handed in separating itself from it. To me, Drudge is a rumor-monger who is used by a host of political operatives to float sludge. However, Drudge himself confirms that it was someone in the Klinton Kampaign who fed the information to him. Now that the attempt to smear Obama has again blown up in Hillary's face, her gremlins are scampering about the countryside attempting to perform damage control. WE are not amused.
you continue to defeat your own argument
now you claim "apparent involvement" - not CONFIRMED, now only "apparent" - keep up this slide and by Friday, maybe, will you acknowledge it to be "rumored" - that's the first way you're defeating your argument.
You are still, however, relying on idiotic references on which you rest the platform of your argument: "Drudge himself confirms" - that's the second way you're defeating your argument.
Drudge! Himself! Confirms! Well, he must be the Jesus Christ of reputable sources, right? We *must* believe it if DRUDGE HIMSELF CONFIRMS! Yeah, that's getting you LOTS of support.
This is a ploy by Drudge. Release something that once made the tabloids, claim Hillary is spreading it, see who has a hissy fit. Divide and Conquer attempt at the Democratic Paryt.
And it was Obama who fell for it. Any other type of response from the CLinton campaign would have made that campaign fall just as low. Clinton's campaign responded correctly.
Not only are you dumb enough to fall for this Drudge-ry, but now you're actually claiming Drudge to be a reputable source?
Idiot. Without doubt. Idiot.
The Groce Idiot
First, the Drudge report is NOT a rumor. It is a report. If you have a dictionary, look up "rumor." It means an unsubstantiated story or report usually originating from an anonymous source.
The report that Clinton's campaign emailed the photo of Obama wearing a turban to Drudge urging him to publish it is NOT a rumor. True or not, it is a published news report with attribution to one of the two primary sources (email sender and email receiver).
Furthermore, it is largely substantiated by a report last year in the International Herald Tribune, which shows the Clinton Campaign has been leaking stuff to Drudge hoping to harm her opponents.
Last but not least, were Drudge's report false, Clinton could have easily demanded that he produce the email to prove it came from her campaign. The reason she didn't do that is because the email tracking record would show that it came from her camp.
Unlike a rumor, email is very easy to trace. Only a Groce idiot can't understand the difference.
continue drowning, nick - i'm not tossing you a rope anymore
"largely substantiated" that Clinton leaked stuff to harm her opponents? READ THE ARTICLE, STUPID
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/22/america/drudge.1-156891.php?page=1
It makes no mention of "leaking stuff...to harm her opponents", as you continue to imply - you're desperate! And you're lying again, as usual.
All it says is that CLinton campaign gave Drudge Report same information that it gave others regarding fundraising. "That people in Clinton's campaign orbit would tip off the Drudge Report to its fund-raising numbers is in part a reflection of her pragmatic approach to dealing with potential enemies like Newt Gingrich or Rupert Murdoch. ... Clinton's communications team, led by Howard Wolfson, is not leaving Drudge to the Republicans."
"The report that Clinton's campaign emailed the photo of Obama wearing a turban to Drudge urging him to publish it is NOT a rumor." Are you claiming that to be a FACT? *IF IT ISN'T TRUE, IT ISN'T FACT.* It is a RUMOR that drudge is spreading - this claim that Clinton's campaign emailed it to him, asking him to publish it....IS NOTHING MORE THAN RUMOR. Now you're trying to miscontrue definitions and apply your own in desperate attempt to justify your claims. Ain't working, nick.
And I know emails can be easy to trace - so why didn't Drudge trace it? Like other media do to verify claims? And with all the questions about their validity, why doesn't he do it now? Why doesn't he produce the results that prove his source is who he says it is? Is it because....HE CAN'T? THAT HE WON'T DO IT BECAUSE IT'LL PROVE HIS STORY IS BS? SOunds like it to me.
And Clinton staff DID rquest for backup of this claim. Remember when they said the weren't going to look through the computers of 700 staff, and that Drudge should produce it for them? And Drudge hasn't responded, has he? And because he can't. And because it never happened.
Go back to your repug blogs, nick - nobody here is believing a damn thing you're saying aside from your sidekick, nonsense.
Drudge is not working for Clinton- HE'S WORKING FOR ROVE
How many times have we seen this???
The same way Drudge fed the NYTimes the story about McCain that made the NYTimes and the rest of the Mainstream Media look like idiots, this non story about a stupid picture is another example of Rove using Drudge to do the dirty work and PLANT the story to make it look like it came from the opposing team.
This has been Rove's plan all along people!!!
Take out the real competition, Hillary Clinton, to get a candidate (Obama) who they can discredit so badly that the Democratic party will be left reeling for decades to come. Rove and his operatives have all the dirty on Obama, including this little story that the Brits are looking at:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/26/the-odd-triple/
Obama as the nominee will totally destroy the Democratic Party, that is the tool Rove is using.
Stop Karl Rove! VOTE HILLARY NOW!!!
Warning: Elephant Crossing
You know, it's very difficult to stick an elephant into a donkey costume and make him look convincing.
Especially when they emit as much peanut gas as this.
Agent Provocateur
This will be a reality-based post. Polls show Obama beating Hillary and Obama beating McCain. Hillary does neither. Boosting Hillary improves Republican chances. Who would want to do this? 1) Hillary because she has no shame; 2) Rovians who want to see the U.S. continue in destruction mode. Re-read stefystef post above and attempt to find logic or common sense. If you can, you are Karl Rove.
Wow, some of you folks are denser than I though
If the Obama supporters on this blog are an example of his followers, then the whole damn world is in alot of trouble.
If you are supporting Obama, you are NOT based in any reality.
Just Blown Away
With the brilliance of your argument,although I doubt whether there is any campaign actively seeking you as its spokesperson. Half of your replies are either elementary school taunts - the other half are unintelligible rants. Just who do you imagine that you are supporting? Not Obama - we've gathered that. The Clintons? McCain? Did you skip your philosophy class when they covered logic? Did you skip all your classes or are you just classless and clueless?
here we go again....
...more change-the-subject diverson.
You introduce a topic.
Others refute that topic and prove it wrong.
You reply with insults instead of answering the questions about the topic you introduced.
Get Over It
The Dems need to get over using a bit of "dirty" tactics. If Dems want to compete with the Rep., you need to be able to play their game. Quit being so polly-anna.
RON PAUL............
RON PAUL............
ELMER FUDD..............
ELMER FUDD..........
The Clintonista
The Clintonista instant response machine is highly effective at smearing those who turn a light on their despicable tactics. I heard several go nuts on Ed Schultz & Thom Hartmann's shows today. A couple were totally irrational.
To cooperate with Sludge just proves the validity of Schuster's pimping comment - only they'll pimp honesty, values, and integrity doing business with that piece of bovine manure.
I am pleased the pictures and other attacks have occurred early and are preparing the Obama team for real SLIME BOATING. But if the Obama camp has any more 'embarrassing' items, it would behoove them to get them into circulation ASAP in a more favorable manner.
I am embarrassed for the Clintons and their supporters, but I am more embarrassed for my party. I am personally offended. My values have been violated.
Educate - Motivate - Agitate or piss 'em off
I don't think so
The reality is what it is Obama is a phony! and who knows what else.
We need to know, and I saw his picture all dress up as a muslim last summer in the National Iquiery and thought who cares.
Apparently he cares more and I wonder why???
Does he have something to hide???
Who knows but why risk it!
The bottom line it is him there and no one would care if he cares is more of the issue
Like his full name, no one cares but why is it made such a big issue.
I say why risk it and not vote for this man that may be a made up package
Phew...
The only phony I see right now is you VoteResponsibly08. Please take your fifth columnist butt out of this forum and go back to your elephant preserve. The stench of your digested peanut posts is becoming overwhelming.
Phew
askolnick.... I'm still trying to figure what you are. Are you a Republican wanting to get
Obama the nomination, A Troll, or a paid staffer for Buzzfash?? You & commonsense post & post
your childish Rhetoric & mean spirited comments to people looking for honest answers. You talked about "swiftboating" a lot in your previous posts, yet that is exactly what you are doing to anyone that brings up intelligent questions.
Buzzflash has made a once pretty respected Blog into a "cult" following of Obama. Those of us
who have been around for a long time & have donated deserve to know why Buzzflash has sold out
their integrity. This is a Democratic "party", not a Democratic "cult". The divisive comments you make only hurt the party in the long run. You have no respect for others opinions, so you are the one that should leave the Blog. And take commonsense with you. Or go get a room together,
so Adults can have a legitimate conversation about the future of America.
You Can't Ignore Commonsense That Easily, Although You Try
You are precious, wanting the whole blogosphere to yourself. Which of the various political operations would inspire that kind of totalitarianism? Smells a bit like Rove or maybe a dash of Klinton #5. You see, you are entitled to spread your smears and innuendo and disinformation all you like. That's what we call freedom of expression, if you haven't run into it before. But the inconvenient side of it is that Commonsense is likely to intervene. Askolnick hang in there!
He's no Diogenes
Tom, I seriously doubt that you are "looking for honest answers" anymore than you are "bringing up intelligent questions" by denouncing BuzzFlash's editor as a "follower of Obama's cult" and "selling out his integrity."
If you really don't want to see "childish Rhetoric & mean spirited comments," posted here, stop making such attacks.
He's no Diogenes
askolnick......You said...If you really don't want to see "childish Rhetoric & mean spirited comments," posted here, stop making such attacks.
That statement alone tells me you belong in a mental institution. You & commoncrap have done
nothing but attack everyone here. You two sound like two 12 year olds. Like I said before you guys are either Trolls, Obama cult worshipers or on the Buzzflash payroll. Go back & look at the amount of posts you two have made. Is that part of Obama's play book. Put a couple of idiots on blogs & spend the day trying to make him a Messiah.
You guys have never let anyone post a opinion that doesn't agree with you, without attacking them. Lighten up on the hate Rhetoric, we know you love Obama. Let other people express their views without attacking them.
Please Take a Deep Breath
Please get a grip... The Clinton campaign puts a little mild heat on Obama and you go ballistic. Just wait until the echo chamber gets in high gear - I fear our man will be toast.
First, I supported Gravel, then Kucinich, then Edwards. When they were all gone, I turned to Obama as the other candidate of "real change"... and I will still support him if he gets the nomination - we've got to get the right-wingers out!
However, I have to admit that after doing some real research on the two remaining candidates, Obama appears to come up somewhat short. Just the fact that he is a Joe Lieberman supporter gives me a great deal of pause. And frankly, he hasn't shown much backbone in facing down attacks from the right. As we all know, those attacks are going to quickly escalate as soon as he gets the nomination (to put it mildly).
For the life of me, I can't understand why Buzz has become so hysterical about this campaign. For heavens sake, this is a nomination fight - it's not a tea party. If we are going to go to the mat for Obama, he needs to be tested now, not later - Hillary is running a tough campaign - good!
I will gladly support Obama when he gets nominated (guess I still should be saying "if") but if Hillary pulls it out, I'll be behind her too. We know she's a fighter - we need to find out if Obama has what it takes too.
Once again, please get some perspective and... get a grip!
bf the new fox news
your making it easier and easier to vote repuke in nov. with the bash hillary at any cost,keep up the good work,the way your going half the blue states will vote mccain
Buzzflash joins the ranks of the bottom feeding right wing.
You have become a bottom feeder instead of a reputable website that we all respected
and encouraged others to read and support. You are so caught up in your "cult" of
Obama and your hate of all things Clinton, that we barely recognize you any more. You will
do anything, say anything to win for your candiate, the same thing you accuse the
Clintons of all the time. There is a an old saying you ought to post in your offices....."Be careful what you wish for." Some wounds you put out there are so deep that not only will people who have been loyal to you never forget but you are also hurting the candidate you are trying to get elected. Your desire to win is blinding you to the fact that you are really losing big time.
Hey, Pot!
"Hey, Pot! You're black!"
-- Kettle
Hey, Pot!
askolnick.......Each day you get a little sicker!!!!
You got that right...
Your right Tom, every day I do get a little sicker of Republicans and their fellow Fascirati.
It's That Bad?
You know, I've seen you and a couple others who post like you continuing to post in here, day after day, obviously reading everything, but bashing BF, threatening to leave, claiming you ARE leaving, saying you're gone now -- and yet you're still here. Posting over and over. I wonder why?
Yeah its that bad
Maybe we are still here because we have invested financially in this website to keep them going and we are disappointed that they have become this one sided political machine.
They have claimed since they started that were even handed but they have become so
partisian that they throw unsupported stories out there. There have been stories in
well respected publications about Obama and the political machine he built when he went to
Washington, how other countries view his experience, his own PACT (something he rails against on the trial) that gave contributions to candidates that are superdelegates,
his total ignoring of the subprime market problems, his connections with Rezko and on and on, but you have not seen them here. Just let a picture of him appear that shows him in African garb and it's a two day event bashing Hillary with no proof the story even came from her campaign. Buzzflash is not been bashed, they are being held accoutable to the people who supported them.
Term of the day
Can you say "fifth columnist"?
Can't you detect the odor of Republican elephant dung wafting from their posts?
Nose for News
Askolnick - you speak the truth. These GOP elephants are rampaging, stampeding - it's panic time among the wing nuts on the right. You use the word "odor." Let's bump it up, as my favorite chef says. The American people are recoiling from the stench of failed policies, not only of these past eight years, but of the past twenty years. Any more time in this mode, and our nation may never recover. The economic issues we face are daunting, let alone all the foreign policy calamities that have been nurtured in this garden of weeds. Watch out, the elephants are loudly blowing their trumpets and trampling everything in their path.
Quoting the International Herald Tribune
makes Buzzflash a bottom-feeder? Rather, I suppose, Buzzflash should take their marching orders from Frau Klinton, font of all that is right and good?
Where is the proof of connection
How does this prove the story above the picture being from the Clintons... throwing around innuendos without proof of direct connection is a right wing trick. I though left
wingers were more honest....guess not.
... Right in Front of Your Eyes
Try to follow:
1) The Drudge Report said the photo of Obama wearing a Somalian turban was emailed to them by a Clinton campaigner along with a snide comment urging them to publish it.
2) The respected International Herald Tribune previously published how the Clinton campaign has been feeding stuff to Drudge.
3) Asked whether the Drudge report lied about its source of the photo, the Clinton campaign issued a no comment.
It's interesting that you choose to believe a "no comment" from the Clinton campaign over incriminating reports from the International Herald Tribune and the Drudge Report.
Clinton's campaign managers know if they accused Drudge of publishing a false report, it could give Drudge an excuse to publish the email -- which would further expose Clintonistas as woefully incompetent Karl Rove imitators.
You should also look up the word "innuendo." When a news organization says a source sent them a photo, whether true or false, that's not an "innuendo."
(Does anyone else smell the odor of digested peanuts here?)
thank god you're no attorney...
because your pi$$poor arguments would wind up getting innocent people in jail, and criminals back on the street.
This is not evidence. You're drawing false conclusions from unrelated statements.
Using your same method of argument:
1) You work with a whore, who spreads rumors about the two of you meeting on the sly
2) Your boss has told many how you are such a good worker with that whore
3) When questioned if you're having an affair with the whore, you tell the questioner to go stuff himself
Can your wife's attorney use that against you in divorce court?
Another FALSE statement you're using: Clinton's staff did not issue a "no comment" response - they redirected the stupid topic back to the only part of it that's worth discussing: how the hell can Obama's campaign staff fall for this crap from Matt Drudge?
And that's the only subject worth discussing, too, as many REAL journalists are now wondering: http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/mountain_meet_molehill.php
Columbia Journalism Review
"The fact that the Obama photo even became A Story deserves at least a moment of pause. Because, really, it shouldn’t have. The only reason it did was because Matt Drudge put it out there with a banner headline.
And the Story’s cause was helped, ironically, by the Obama campaign itself."
All of you folks supporting this stupid claim are costing Obama votes - like mine, for instance. A former Edwards supporter who remained undecided to date, I know damn well I would never want to be associated or affiliated with jackasses like you.