Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Top Clinton surrogate, Lanny Davis, attacks Obama in right-wing op-ed pages of the WSJ\\n

[bold]In an obvious effort to aid and abet the GOP, top Clinton surrogate, Lanny Davis, attacks Obama in right-wing op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal[/bold]

Let's review the current situation: This thing is over. Clinton lost. I am so ready to move on to the campaign against McCain.

But then, a top Clinton surrogate writes an op-ed that attacks Obama in Wall Street Journal -- and it's pretty clear that the Clinton surrogate is just aiding and abetting John McCain. And, when you know that surrogate is the despicable Lanny Davis, it makes sense. In 2006, Davis, after all, one of Joe Lieberman's most vociferous supporters in 2006. Note again where Davis ran his op-ed: The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages. I guess if Hillary can cozy up to Richard Mellon Scaife, every other right wing venue is acceptable, too.

Reading the feigned concern of Davis about Rev. Wright, it's clear the guy has become a symbol of so much that is wrong with the Clinton campaign. Davis has been around the Clintons for too long -- and is too close to them -- for this op-ed to be anything but a Clinton campaign plant. Davis already wrote the same thing on Huffington Post. And, despite the best efforts of Hillary herself tried to make Rev. Wright the issue. It must drive the Clinton campaign crazy that, despite their best efforts, most Americans aren't caught up in the controversy about Rev. Wright.

Davis spent years defending Bill Clinton during the impeachment years. His act is so 1998. Davis might have done Hillary some good if he actually put his limited talents to use trying to dig her out of the on-going scandals and controversies that have wracked her campaign. But, that's not what the long-time Clintonistas do. They set out to attack and destroy their opponents. It's too late for Davis to stop Obama from getting the nomination, but he's willing to do whatever it takes to undermine Obama's campaign in the fall.

So Lanny Davis is aiding and abetting the GOP while Clinton's campaign is crumbling. He has the audacity to invoke concerns about "the Republican attack machine" while he's providing fodder. Unbelievable. I'd say it's a new low, but it's just a typical low.

After this campaign is finally over, there is a long list of Clinton surrogates who we should never have to see on t.v. again. Lanny Davis is right on the top of that list.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1704/09/2008

Let's review the current situation: This thing is over. Clinton lost. I am so ready to move on to the campaign against McCain.

But then, a top Clinton surrogate writes an op-ed that attacks Obama in Wall Street Journal -- and it's pretty clear that the Clinton surrogate is just aiding and abetting John McCain. And, when you know that surrogate is the despicable Lanny Davis, it makes sense. In 2006, Davis, after all, one of Joe Lieberman's most vociferous supporters in 2006. Note again where Davis ran his op-ed: The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages. I guess if Hillary can cozy up to Richard Mellon Scaife, every other right wing venue is acceptable, too.

Reading the feigned concern of Davis about Rev. Wright, it's clear the guy has become a symbol of so much that is wrong with the Clinton campaign. Davis has been around the Clintons for too long -- and is too close to them -- for this op-ed to be anything but a Clinton campaign plant. Davis already wrote the same thing on Huffington Post. And, despite the best efforts of Hillary herself tried to make Rev. Wright the issue. It must drive the Clinton campaign crazy that, despite their best efforts, most Americans aren't caught up in the controversy about Rev. Wright.

Davis spent years defending Bill Clinton during the impeachment years. His act is so 1998. Davis might have done Hillary some good if he actually put his limited talents to use trying to dig her out of the on-going scandals and controversies that have wracked her campaign. But, that's not what the long-time Clintonistas do. They set out to attack and destroy their opponents. It's too late for Davis to stop Obama from getting the nomination, but he's willing to do whatever it takes to undermine Obama's campaign in the fall.

So Lanny Davis is aiding and abetting the GOP while Clinton's campaign is crumbling. He has the audacity to invoke concerns about "the Republican attack machine" while he's providing fodder. Unbelievable. I'd say it's a new low, but it's just a typical low.

After this campaign is finally over, there is a long list of Clinton surrogates who we should never have to see on t.v. again. Lanny Davis is right on the top of that list.

by Anonymousreply 104/09/2008

Obama's Minister Problem By LANNY J. DAVIS April 9, 2008; Page A15

I have tried to get over my unease surrounding Barack Obama's response to the sermons and writings of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. But the unanswered questions remain.

I am a strong supporter of and a substantial fundraiser for Hillary Clinton for president (though in this column I speak only for myself). I still believe she should and will be the Democratic nominee. But if Sen. Obama wins the nomination, he needs to understand that this issue goes well beyond Clinton partisans. Now is the time to address these questions, not later.

Clearly Mr. Obama does not share the extremist views of Rev. Wright. He is a tolerant and honorable person. But that is not the issue. The questions remain: Why did he stay a member of the congregation? Why didn't he speak up earlier? And why did he reward Rev. Wright with a campaign position even after knowing of his comments?

My concerns were retriggered when I read for the first time three excerpts from Rev. Wright's sermons published several weeks ago in a national news magazine:

- "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost." -- Sept. 16, 2001 (the first Sunday after 9/11)

- "The government . . . wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, no. God damn America; that's in the bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human." -- 2003

- "The United States of White America." -- July 22, 2007

As I read and reread these words, I keep thinking: If my rabbi ever uttered such hateful words from the pulpit about America and declared all Palestinians to be terrorists, I have no doubt I would have withdrawn immediately from his congregation.

In his eloquent Philadelphia speech, Mr. Obama likened Rev. Wright to a beloved, but politically extremist, family member with whom one profoundly disagrees but whose rage one understands.

But this comparison just doesn't work for me. I don't get a chance to choose my family members. I do get a chance to choose my spiritual or religious leader and my congregation. And I do not have to remain silent or, more importantly, expose my children to the spiritual leader of my congregation who spews hate that offends my conscience.

Mr. Obama made a choice to join the church and to ask Rev. Wright to marry him and his bride. He said for the first time a few weeks ago that had Rev. Wright not recently resigned as pastor of the church, he would have withdrawn. But that only reraised the same questions: Why didn't he act before the resignation?

If he did not want to withdraw from the church x96 and I truly try to understand his personal difficulty doing so x96 then why not at least speak out publicly and say, in the famous phrase of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy: "No x96 this is unacceptable."

Furthermore, after knowing about some of these sermons and having serious problems with some of their messages, why did Mr. Obama still decide to appoint Rev. Wright to his official presidential campaign religious advisory committee?

Some have suggested that any Clinton supporters who continue to raise this issue are "playing the race card" or taking the "low" road.

When I said on CNN recently that concerns about the Wright-Obama issue were "appropriate" to continue to be discussed, my friend Joe Klein of Time Magazine said, "Lanny, Lanny, you're spreading the poison right now" and that an "honorable person" would "stay away from this stuff."

Attacking the motives of those who feel this discomfort about Senator Obama's response or nonresponse to Reverend Wright's comments is not just unfair and wrong. It also misses the important electoral point about winning the general election in November: This issue is not going away. If many loyal, progressive Democrats remain troubled by this issue, then there must be even more unease among key swing voters x96 soft "Reagan Democrats," independents and moderate Republicans x96 who will decide the 2008 election.

One thing is for sure: If Mr. Obama doesn't show a willingness to try to answer all the questions now, John McCain and the Republican attack machine will not waste a minute pressuring him to do so if he is the Democratic Party's choice in the fall.

But by then, it may be too late.

Mr. Davis, a Washington, D.C. attorney, is former special counsel to President Clinton.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

by Anonymousreply 204/09/2008

But in our strategy session Scaife said this was a brilliant plan for the "supers"! Rush concurred-he told Bill the same thing before their radio interview!!!

by Anonymousreply 304/09/2008

Only racists would think that Lanny's article is racist. Give it a rest. He raises valid concerns.

by Anonymousreply 404/09/2008

It will show a lot about Barak Obama if he encourages this sort of hysterical reaction to Hillary Clinton's supporters. He cannot win the Presidency without them, and that is what, at some point, he must come to terms with.

What I fear is that this election is turning into a replay of the Eisenhower/Stevenson elections in the 1960s, when a military man faced off against someone who would rather be right than President.

by Anonymousreply 504/09/2008

Uh not for nothing, but the other WSJ opinion was very pro -Obama. Very interesting and very true. It's a good argument as to why Hillary could not beat the Republicans.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 604/09/2008

Oooohhhh! The ever fearful & tremulous Debbie emerges!!!

I'm soooo scared now!!!I might just vote for the wife abuser with evidence of Alzheimer's!!! All Dems should- he won't get rid of Roe v Wade. Surrender Progressives!!! The tummy has spoken!!!

Meanwhile-odd this ongoing symbiotic relationship between the Clinton campaign and Scaife, Murtdoch, Faux News ,Limbaugh....

by Anonymousreply 704/09/2008

The Trouble With Brand Hillary By MICHAEL ZELDIN April 9, 2008

During the general election between Al Gore and George W. Bush, I was a volunteer in the Speakers Bureau of the Democratic National Committee. Among other responsibilities, I appeared regularly on talk radio and occasionally on TV to promote the Gore/Lieberman ticket. I also was called upon to defend President Clinton, as I had done on TV for the previous year, whenever his name was invoked in an attempt to tarnish Vice President Gore.

At the outset of the campaign, the media discussion shows in which I participated principally centered on matters of policy. Global warming, gay marriage, handgun controls, Arctic oil drilling, social security lock boxes, etc. Back and forth the debate went and the polls remained close. That is, until the presidential debates.

AP Hillary Clinton At the debates, Mr. Gore misspoke when he said that he traveled with Mr. James Lee Witt of Federal Emergency Management Agency to visit Texas after the Parker County fires broke out. (He traveled with Mr. Witt to other disaster sites.) Mr. Gore also implied during this same time period that he helped invent the Internet. (He meant only to say that he supported funding for the research that led to its development.)

As small as these errors were, at that moment everything changed. The Bush campaign and its allies systematically started calling Mr. Gore a serial exaggerator at best and, implicitly, a fabricator at worst. The media latched onto it, the label stuck and, thereafter, every word Mr. Gore uttered was scrutinized through the lens of whether he was telling the truth or exaggerating. The cartoonists outfitted him as Pinocchio, and he never could shake the characterization.

I believe that this negative branding, more than the hanging chads, led to his defeat. Four years later, John Kerry fell into the Swift Boat trap, was painted as a liar and a flip-flopper and too lost a campaign he might otherwise have won.

Why is this relevant today? It is clear that how you are branded by your opponent, and whether the media picks up the theme, can be the key to success or failure in a presidential campaign. Frankly, overcoming negative branding may prove an insurmountable election hurdle. (Willie Horton ads and the Michael Dukakis photo in that tank are seared into the DNA of all Democrats).

Hillary Clinton has waged a campaign based, in large measure, on her national security experience. Her so-called "Day One" readiness. Indeed, she says plainly on the campaign trail that "We need a candidate that can go toe-to-toe with John McCain on national security." (Frankly, I think if Democrats join the issue in that way they are fighting on Mr. McCain's home field and going uphill, but that is a discussion for another day.)

Recently the Clinton campaign released a portion Sen. Clinton's White House daily activity logs. These logs provide the first independent means to evaluate her claim that her White House years provided her the relevant national security commander-in-chief experience to be president.

A preliminary analysis of these logs has begun to reveal Mrs. Clinton's claims of experience to be overstated. If these logs continue to bear out that she is less experienced than she has claimed, she will, at best, be branded as an exaggerator. She then will face an onslaught that will make the Gore and Kerry attacks look like a walk in the park.

On a related point, Mrs. Clinton has been arguing to primary voters that she is more electable than Barack Obama because "she has been vetted fully so there will be no general election surprises." Well, the recently released tax returns appear to undermine this argument as well.

Specifically, these returns demonstrate the former President Clinton made tens of millions of dollars on the speaking circuit and by helping to broker business deals or make introductions around the world. This is his prerogative as a private citizen. What the returns do not tell us, however, is who paid for these speeches; who his clients were/are; whether he can unwind his business relationships (he is being sued by one of his clients for fraud in state court in California); what conflicts of interest or appearances of conflict reside in his seven-year, private-sector career. (Remember the difficulty Geraldine Ferraro's husband created for her candidacy?). A lot more openness and transparency will be required by Bill Clinton before it is known just how vulnerable Hillary Clinton is as a general election candidate.

Still, the Clinton Library has yet to provide the list of its largest donors, or explain how their donations were solicited; as well it is not yet known whether Hillary Clinton played a role in President Clinton's pardon decisions including the 11th-hour pardon of Marc Rich. The Republican National Committee and related advocacy groups will surely allege a coverup if all this is not disclosed before the general election.

Unless all this material is released and vetted fully before the primaries come to an end, Mrs. Clinton is asking Democrats to make a leap of faith that nothing will be revealed in the general election campaign that could prove fatal. From what is available presently, Mrs. Clinton may prove to be the most vulnerable Democratic candidate in the last three election cycles.

It has been said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. There are warning signs that Democrats may be walking down that same path with Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Zeldin is the former independent counsel who investigated the tampering with Bill Clinton's passport. He is a part-time volunteer for the Obama campaign in the primary cycle.

by Anonymousreply 804/09/2008

LOL. Hey OP could I get you a napkin for the spittle around your mouth. I hope they close the bridges in SF and NYC on election night. When Obama loses I don't know what these posters are going to do.

by Anonymousreply 904/09/2008

If Obama loses, this country is history.

I can't imagine why you'd celebrate such at thing, R9.

by Anonymousreply 1004/09/2008

LOL Under normal conditions I'd think R10 was being sarcastic.

by Anonymousreply 1104/09/2008

Darling r11(ODD that keeps happening- hmmmm. R11....hmmmm....now why does that seem apropos?) please define "normal" as you would interpret it?

So-WSJ is hard on both Dems-no surprise there.

What's new is the Clinton campaigns ongoing cooperation with the "Vast Right Wing Conspirators".

by Anonymousreply 1204/09/2008

Right, r12. The same "right wing conspirator" that published a pro-Obama piece today. The Wall Street Journal opinion page is not the same as the editorials -- which are right wing. Those are generated in-house. The rest of the page tends to present both liberal and conservative viewpoints. Indeed, it is much more unbiased than that hack at Americablog.

by Anonymousreply 1304/09/2008

"What's new is the Clinton campaigns ongoing cooperation with the "Vast Right Wing Conspirators"."

Really? Did you miss the Op-Ed piece by Obama supporter and contributor Michael Zeldin that r8 posted?

by Anonymousreply 1404/09/2008

No,dear 14. I copied it into the thread.

As I said-I find it odd the ongoing cooperation with the selfsame people she vilified not long ago,and who vilified her.

If you don't-then you're a much more "adaptable" "Dem" than I am. Or...

by Anonymousreply 1504/09/2008

Lanny. 'Nuff said.

by Anonymousreply 1604/09/2008

The Obama spammer is at it again. Go back to sleep, honey.

by Anonymousreply 1704/09/2008
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!