people seemed surprised by Obama's response,

I kept thinking "didn't Obama's spokesperson run a shadow 527 funded by the "Torch" who took down dean?"

surprised more people did n't think about this

He's a media darling now, and he doesn't want to become some kind of insurgent candidate who would draw the ire of the beltway journalists. So he's hiring insiders to help run his campaign.

Using the Lincoln bedroom talking point is really stupid, though. He should cut that out.

and effective as I think they are..  they actually will bring up this post Jerome - which is unknown outside of the blogosphere and do their crocodile tear ask Gibbs to resign...

create a fake wedge between deaniacs (who aren't supporting Hillary anyway) and Obama.. purely for MSM consumption

Maybe he's training Obama how to quit and accept defeat good. kerry did it.........even though 2 election workers were fired in Cleveland, Ohio and the Election Chief was fired.

Election Chief's name was Michael Vu. He claimed to be a Democrat, then we find out that he was actually a registered Republican imported from Utah.

Do your homework, people. Last 2 elections were lost by 2 guys that pretended to be Patriotic by not fighting for election integrity.

I never saw nor heard of that advertisement, but replace "Howard Dean" with "Barack Obama" and "George Bush" with "John McCain" and you suddenly have a compelling argument against Obama... I hope he fires that guy.

This shows a really serious problem for anyone running the type of "rise above the muck" campaign like Obama's. It sets a very, very high standard of conduct for the campaign. But, if you're Obama, you're building a campaign of professionals schooled and skilled in the same politics you are supposedly setting out to end. It's an inherent contradiction that I've never really seen overcome.

And, as another point, "I'm in to win" vs "I'm going to change our politics" is so fact-free and meta that it's bound to degenerate into quite nasty name calling. When you're basing campaigns on such subjective, amorphous foundations, the attacks are, almost by definition, personal and need to be rhetorically vicious to bite.

Look guys, we can all criticize every candidate's staffers, but I think this has got to stop. Our politics has become so inside-the-beltway, even in the blogosphere and we tend to live in a bubble where the staffs of all of these candidates are somehow important. Let's remember that most voters will never know who these staffers are and frankly, don't care. They care about where the candidate's heart is, and the candidate almost never vets staffers before hiring them, that's the job of the campaign manager. So let's judge candidates by their records, their views, and their rhetoric, not by the past experiences of their staffs.

The problem is that Obama frames his campaign as transformational. Hes been making teh rightt noises though we are still waiting for actual substance; Obama's been saying what we want to hear about Iraq, about campaign finance reform, about universal healthcare, etc. Obama's basic premise is that he can achieve transformative politics by embracing inclusive politics; he implicitly is arguing that the old politics of personal destruction and partisan polarization are the impediments to transformative change.

A more pragmatic observer might disagree by saying that the real impediment is that the partisan attacks were largely one-sided, and the better way to enact transforative change is to go on offense. That's a valid opinion but its counter to the animating thesis of Obama's campaign - and his career. (FWIW I don't buy into either narrative. I think transformative change comes from a single thing: the balls to make it happen, and screw you if you aren't aboard).

So, in a nutshell, Obama has someone on his team whose basic approach to politics is directly at odds with his own. Obama may realize this and not care; that woudl make me question his sincerity. Obama may simply not have been aware of this; that makes me question his leadership. If Obama intends to run a Section31 in the basement of his high-falutin' campaign, then he better take a look at himself in the mirror and ask himself what use are his principles if they are so easily set aside when there's Real Work to Get Done. And just what shape his transformative vision will take if built upon such foundations.

The right response to Hillary's attacks is not silence, nor is it scorched earth. A simple factual response - Geffen isnt our finance chair, he's a private citizen, go get your facts straight - would have been far more devastating.

Extremely insightful piece, thanks Jerome

I had also forgotten about Ford apoligizing and Clinton accepting that, convienient how Gibbs leaves that part out, and that's the key.

At first I was impressed by Obama's rapid and decisive response although disturbed by the reverse racism tone.  Your analysis gives useful insight into Obama's possible strategy.  
I like Obama, but sense that something will go wrong, not like there is some big skeleton in the closet or something but that a slugfest will ensue between Clinton and Obama, or Obama will be too cautious and stop his momentum, I don't know, I can't put my finger on it.

My first choice is still Edwards.  I just wish we didn't have to do this for a whole F'in year.

Thanks, Jerome.  I've been beating this drum over at DKos ever since the announcement of Obama's campaign team.  

They know that we will show up to vote when needed--kind of like African Americans--we are taken for granted and NOT pandered to.

It's off topic, but it looks like Governor Rick Perry (R)Texas took a $5,000 bribe and is going to allow Merck to inject children with an untested drug:

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/re gion/legislature/stories/02/22/22perry.h tml

$5,000.........my oh my

This post reminds me of the netroots version of the Washington Post Ellen Tauscher piece the other day. At the end of the day - who gives a rat's ass who the spokesman happens to be. Gibbs earlier work was as an insider hitman. So was Wolfson's. That's the world we live in - most spokespeople are professional assholes.

Clinton and Obama speak for themselves with voters. I think voters are finally wising up to the use of surrogates and are focused on the candidates themselves and these insider wankers like Gibbs AND Wolfson don't amount to a bucket of spit in the long run.

If Gibbs steps in it - it's Obama's fault.
If Wolfson steps in it - it's Hillary Clinton's fault.
If Palmieri steps in it - it's Edwards fault.

But absent some disasterous statement I think it's cutting it far too fine to focus on frames by spokesman a year out from the first ballots.

CHENEY PRSONALLY ATTACKS NANCY PELOSI ON THE VERY DAY HER BROTHER DIES:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/ cheney-personally-attacks-pelosi-day.htm l

Guess he figures we should be numb in the face of death.

I'm sure it's nothing.

C'mon!

Edwards is a nutjob hawk on Iran, who needs to be reigned in.
Obama has an a$$hold for a spokesman.
Vilsack is an anti-war opportunist now that he's no longer with the DLC.
Hillary is a dirtytrickster who won't admit that she was wrong on the war.
Kucinich can't win.
Gravel can't win.
No one wants Biden.

I haven't heard any complaints about Dodd and Richardson, except that no one really takes Dodd seriously.

So, what does that f'ing (I'm frustrated) leave the netroots? Are we going to cling to the hope that Richardson can win the nomination by sweeping some western states? Are we hoping that Clark is finally going to join the race? Or Gore, for that matter?

What I wanna know is does the Netroots have a perfect presidential candidate? Due respect to Jerome and Matt and Kos and Atrios (I really really like and respect you all) is there a candidate that is perfect, or are we going to have to decide that we're going to make the best of someone who is far from worst.

At the end of the day -- with or without Gibbs -- isn't Obama preferable to Hillary?  Isn't Edwards -- with his early missteps -- preferable to Hillary?

which major Democratic candidate's staff is plugged into the Dean machine?  

Any of them?  Is there any candidate who is on good terms with Dean?
.

I'm not convinced that Gibbs is all that bad. You fight for the side you're on when you're working a primary -- and last time around it got pretty nasty. if anything, I"m pleased that Obama is willing to hire the guy that would come after him in the primaries, and turn those big guns on Hillary, and then, the Republican nominee.

So much for a transformational presidential campaign, eh?

Obama missed the boat here...You can't expect that statements made by someone who is gathering or donating money on your behalf has nothing to do with you.  Further, he hasn't defined himself and this is once again noise that distracts people from focusing on his message.  I mean what have we been discussing about Obama:  There was the is he Black enough discussion, followed by the Madrassa (non) scandal, then the uppity issue(Salon), then is he too Black (SC), now there is the Obama's is fighting with Hillary thing.  This is what the MSM is covering about Obama, so this is what the average voter hears. I truly have no idea what Obama stands for, other than he was against the war and he is hopeful about the future.  That's a good start, but who is listening when all the other stuff surrounds it. What is he hopeful about, and how will he translate his hopefulness into concrete ideas. For better or worse, people think they KNOW Hillary. Finally, one of Hillary's thing is how the Right Wing always made personal attacks against her; if this continues, all she has to do is to compile a list of Gibbs and Obama ally "Right Wing" talking points along with similar comments from real right wingers,  put it in commercial and say the Republicans play the politics of personal destruction, apparently so does Obama.  The final take is that she is the victim of meanie men, who want to hurt her.  Go Hillary.

It is a question of internalizing Republican talking points. Any candidate who wins the Dem nomination by using Republican talking points sets us up for defeat in November. That is part of what happened to Kerry.

I'll be banned for this but this diary sounds like sour grapes.

Obama is fighting back for crying out loud.  Why would you be so upset with that?  Hilary still hasn't apologized to America for her Iraq vote.  What's up with that?  Is she, perish the thought, like Bu$hCo? (Can't think of a mistake she made?)  Anyway, keep up the good work.  I'll be reading.

Coincidentally, Chuck Todd of the Hotline made a point similar to this a few weeks ago. Obama's rhetoric is heavy with suggestions that he intends to run an unconventional Dean-style campaign, but if you look at the people who are his senior staffers and advisors they are very good, but very good at running very conventional top-down traditional campaigns. Todd predicts that "something will give" and it will happen "soon."

I think Jerome has a great point here, and I think that there is a tremendous need for Senator Obama to make sure that he has people doing rapid response who can communicate his message the way he would communicate himself.

IMO, this response would have been far better if he had used it as a teaching moment about the incredible triviality of the media, and particularly the trashy Maureen Dowd.

Rapid response has to have its meta themes ready, and not just reach for the first club at hand.

Look how both campaigns have been sucked into Maureen Dowd's game.

jerome- i think your response here is way off the mark- clinton's camp says some stupid stuff and obama's responds in a legitimate way and all of a sudden obama is on the bad side? i don't get it. if you want edwards to win just say it. you don't have to like obama but i think the readers deserve better justifications than this. come on, hillary acts like the nomination is already gift wrapped for her and you want obama to roll over. i don't get it.

J.S.

Why isn't this cross posted at DailyKos.com anyway??

Hmmmmm???

Interesting background material on the 'people' behind the people.

It's a shame that the candidates have to use the same OLD 'expensive' consultants that are used to dealing with this type of recycled sleeze, but I guess this is the way it is.

I'm hoping, just hoping that maybe Obama has the strength of character to put his foot down occasionally on Gibbs before he really starts dragging for dirt in the gutter.

Time will tell...

Saw Wolfson on Hardball last night, did he fall for it or what... not only about the campaign finance manager screwup, but with Chris harping on about -- so sometimes you speak for Hillary and sometimes you don't -- kept on at him... to the extent that any dumbo could grasp the fact ... that basically Geffen was speaking for himself on this one.  Ha!

Can't believe Richardson stuck his mouth in the mess, was that a Clinton debt repaid?  yuck!

I profoundly disagree with those who believe that the actions of Geffen and Senator Obama's staffer hurts Senator Clinton.  

Quite the opposite is true:  Senator Obama's sheen is quickly fading, and he is proving himself to be a very green amateur on a national stage, as many of us had sadly suspected.

Whereas Senator Clinton is a very well known commodity on an international stage, in which there are of course all manner of vociferous detractors, Senator Obama was baited by the national press as a "fresh face with a fresh approach," seemingly because he had not been long in the Senate and long in the national debate.  The ruthlessless of his own staffer merely underscores that he is certainly not above the fray.

As to Senator Clinton, Geffen's remarks on the Clintons simply proves that their detractors remain most potent.  One should also note that Maureen Dowd detested them as well.  The current ORDER, which restored the Bush OLD ORDER, sees the return of the Clintons as anathema, and it is they who goaded Senator Obama into running.

For my remaining points, I duplicate here my post with DailyKos:

While I am proud of the passion of the "purist" bloggers, and believe all current Democratic candidates to be a most worthy lot (I am particularly honored by the fine qualities of Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards), I punctuate the fact that many of the bloggers are largely misdirected.  

Their frustration with the reactionary course our government has taken since the outset of the Bush 43 presidency has led them to seek after scapegoats, and Senator Clinton is an easy target.

Were such bloggers able to pull away long enough from their obvious dislike of Senator Clinton, they might ask why Ralph Nader would only run assuredly as an independent were Senator Clinton the nominee of the party; or they might ask why only a Republican pollster, Rasmussen, finds Senator Obama currently competitive with her, or why FOX and its acolytes salivate when they can report that Senator Obama can siphon away Hollywood money from Senator Clinton.

These are not coincidences; they are by design.  There was a time, of course, when the reactionaries assumed that a woman presidential candidate with progressive credentials, even moderate or "centrist" credentials, wouldn't have a chance.  And they assumed that the large number of potential voters with an intense dislike for Hillary Clinton would also be an insurmountable obstacle.

But then came the ever more tragic news from President GWB's Iraq War quagmire; his plummeting ratings, and, of course, the results of the 2006 Midterm Elections.  

And, for all the impressive Vietnam War credentials of Senator John McCain, his ceaseless pandering and vacillating has made him appear, indeed, tired and confused, if not addlepated--truly lethal attributes when considering a septuagenarian nominee for the United States presidency.

As for former Mayor Giuliani, the patina of his 9/11 imagery, which explains his current popularity, falls away rapidly when his many faults are magnified by a national campaign.  The more one learns about the actual former Mayor Giuliani, the less palatable he becomes.

Likewise, former Governor Mitt Romney has many more landmines ahead, aside from a general public's skewered thinking about Mormonism.

And the remaining crop of GOP candidates are far greener on a national scene than is our own Senator Obama.

Now, this presented a dilemma to the "keep a Republican in the White House" establishment Fourth Estaters and pundits.  

Their own internal assessment revealed that not only could Senator Clinton actually win, she would in fact likely win against such a group.  She had the money, organization, regional and political understanding, was investigated as no other First Lady has ever been, and, best of all for even moderately progressive forces--she would have the most admired political figure in the world today at her side.

It is then that the reactionary machine began to promote the candidacy of Senator Obama.  He would be the wedge-driver, with purist bloggers, Nader, elements of Hollywood, and inveterate Clinton bashers from the Left.  Thus, their mantra became: "Look, Senator Obama, you may be inexperienced, but you will never be as fresh as you are now, as appealing as you are now--so run, Senator Obama, run!"

Naturally, Senator Obama, as any ambitious politician would, took that bait, basking in the glow of the praise.

Sadly, what neither he nor his most vociferous proponents understood, is that he alone now stood between a return to a Clinton White House and another period of a GOP presidency.  

For, in spite of their own impressive credentials, former Senator Edwards and former Vice-president Gore are also-rans.  I am second to none in the belief that Albert Gore was in fact actually elected President in 2000.  But the sad fact remains that he could not carry his own state of Tennessee--and that alone would have carried him over, without any shenanigans from Florida mis-counting.  Likewise, former Senator Edwards had difficulty with his home state in the 2004 Kerry/Edwards run.

Which is what makes Senator Clinton unique.  With eight years as Arkansas First Lady, eight years as United States First Lady, six years and counting as New York Senator; an unbringing in Park Ridge, Illinois, and a keen comprehension of the politics of the West--particularly the Hollywood contingent--and with a battle-tested triumph over reactionary forces all along the way--she alone can take on all comers in this presidential cycle.

But it is futile to argue with the progressive purists, or those who inveterately dislike the Clintons, both Left and Right.

There are those who would post, "It's not about winning."  Alas, when it comes to any measure of social progress, even minimal, it is most certainly all about winning.  One cannot call for any social change if one is in the political wilderness.  And before Bill Clinton, it was in the political wilderness that the Democrats on a presidential level found themselves.

I am exceedingly proud of the triumph of progress by way of Howard Dean and others to return the Congress to Democratic control (however limited that control is currently in the Senate).

But, to effect any change, that Congress must have a Chief Executive who will freely sign progressive legislation.  And, of course, that means a Democrat winning the 44th presidency.

Purist bloggers will argue ceaselessly for the candidacies of Senator Obama, former Senator Edwards, even Governor Richardson.  But that will not change the reality--in the current field, Senator Clinton may not be just the best chance at winning, but, with former President Clinton at her side, she can easily become a likely winner.

Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of this post, does anyone else find it to be incredibly poor writing? Near incomprehensible. I could be alone here, but this really stuns me coming from Armstrong. How something so shoddy can get posted on the front page of a respectable blog like this is beyond me. Command of basic syntax and punctuation is something that normally aids in successfully making one's point, no?

How can any of them mention Health Care and not address NAFTA? It all went downhill from there. We're not dumbasses.

Thank you for posting this.  I always swore that I would try to find some way to punish whoever was responsible for that ad.  My cousin went to the Obama rally in LA and was getting me to warm up to Obama.  No more.  I'll vote for him if he's the nominee.  That's it.

Obama has plenty of competition. hillary is going to get hammered by FOX. They'll sink her. How's she going to explain to Brit Hume that she didn't know a huge drug dealer would be pardoned by her husband after taking a $200,000 contribution?

http://www.realchange.org/hillary.htm

She's finished.

The Rebunglecan media net is having a field day with this Democratic circular firing squad.  After 6 years of misbegotten Rebunglecan rule, there aren't enough targets to go after without hitting each other?

Really?  

Who is to say this isn't completely his style?  He was not tested in his Senate run so he didn't need to get tough.  So we don't really know how he will react to the type of fight he will get from Edwards and Clinton.

There may very well be a reason that Obama reminds me a bit of Joe Lieberman.  Maybe that is why he doesn't mind hiring a guy like Gibbs.

this is a really important post and I'm grateful you did it - thank you!

This is unfair.

They Kerry Campaign was the Kerry Campaign.  Whatever Advertisements and themes used by the Kerry Campaign to attack Howard Dean rests ultimately with the Kerry himself -- it's his Campaign.

Now, your second attack was that poor Hillary Clinton was criticized for supporting racist Sen. Robert Ford.  Well, maybe he isn't really a racist but he declared that Obama can't win solely because he is black.  This is, if not racist, very small-minded politics and I think it does deserve to be criticized.  Hillary Clinton appeared with him and accepted Ford's support so the Obama campaign has ever goddamn right in the world to point that out and question Clinton about her close association with somebody who wishes to disqualify a black candidate.

Finally, this Diary is nothing more than a smear attack on Obama.  Because of something that happened way back in 2003 under the administration of John Kerry - we are supposed to then transfer that anger on to Barack Obama-??

What nonsense.
Has Obama attacked Howard Dean-??

Of course not.

This Diary should be deleted.  It is the type of low-bellied garbage that makes bloggers look bad.

Why don't you just do what Fox News tried haplessly to do,  conflate Obama and Osama.

The facts are that the right-wing noisemakers are very nervous about Obama.    They recognize his power and appeal as a candidate and know that they will have a very tough time trying to bring him down.  And if they stoop so low as to play the race card, as Robert Ford did, that it will only backfire on them.  

This Diarist prbably works for the Fox News staff.
What a bunch of pointless garbage.  

Barack Obama had absolutely nothing to do with John Kerry's choice of Advertisments in 2003. And he has every right to express displeasure at Hillary's embrace of racist Robert Ford.

Delete this Diary.  It's garbage!

Ummmm I think the diarist owns this site.

What was Obama thinking hiring a guy like this?

Tired of slick war-mongers and inexperienced front-runners?

Well, Al Gore is the answer. Gore has his global cocert on climate crisis on July 7th. Let's work to persuade him to enter the race after that (if not before; but timing is crucial).

I am very glad Robert Gibbs is working for Obama. He's a hard hitter with balls. I'm tired of republican campaigns running us over time and time again. As the spokesperson for the campaign, his language can be more verbose than the candidates.

I know as democrats we like to hold hands and sing songs but we are at a crucial period, and when you have Rudy beating every democratic candidate in the face, we need some hard hitters out there.

Keep up the great work Gibbs!

right into the Clinton camp's goal! Don't ya get it!

See, for support, http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

Two things of note, Jerome

1) First we ask our candidates to be bar brawlers
than we ask that they distance themselves from things? You can't have both.

I don't get it. Wasn't the blogosphere up in arms demanding that Edwards defend his bloggers and not back down? Here, Obama didn't back down and you fault him?

Here are the basics (albeit from Joe Klein):

The Clinton camp's initial reaction was over the top: Do they really expect Obama to censor his campaign contributors? The Obama camp's response was swift, brutal and elegant, another signal--after Obama's take-down of the Australian Prime Minister--that he's not going to take guff from anyone. And Hillary raising the "politics of personal destruction" at the AFSCME candidate forum because a Hollywood mogul leveled on her seemed rote and oh so ten years ago.

That sums it up.

Clinton wants to push people around with both money and attacks. If you say nothing you lose. If you stay completely above the fray they will keep coming after you and not get punished.

I doubt you will ever see Obama go negative in T.V. adds or on the stump but you have to allow his campaign to fight back somehow.

2) Reality Check, Obama said he would run
a positive camapign. And wait for it: he has!

The fact that Gibbs is on his staff doesn't mean Obama is not running the "change the tone" campaign he promised. Al Gore hired Chris Lehane, who is an asshole, does that mean Al Gore would not run a agood campaign if Lehane was on board again.

Both Jerome and Kos are conflating Gibbs' past mudslinging for Kerry with Obama's new campaign (in line with the Clinton's false approach from yesterday) implying Obama is not living up to his tone. But he hasn't changed it at all.

His campaign spokesperson, fired back because Obama was attacked but he didn't bring up anything dirty or false. People seem to be a little upset at the Lincoln Bedroom comment but David Geffen did, by his own admission, sleep there twice because he was a big fundraiser for Clinton before. The point being that the CLintons' are being hypocrites.

When Geffen made these comments the response from Wolfson was swift and aggressive.  There were two press releases completely ignoring Geffen but directly attacking Senator Obama and attributing a 'vicious' attack to his campaign along with a ridiculous demand.  In both of these attacks it is clear that the target is Obama's stated position on 'a new kind of politics' as evidenced by links to these statements by the Senator in both the Wolfson releases.  And, indeed, the second press release includes the interesting statement:

"When one of Senator Clinton's supporters made an inappropriate statement, her campaign disavowed it immediately and the supporter apologized for his words. Why won't Senator Obama do the same?"

This is no doubt in reference to State Senator Robert Ford's attack on Obama on 13 February, on the occasion of his endorsement of Hillary, with which we are all familiar.  A truly vicious attack in which a powerful black Democratic State Senator basically says Obama would 'doom' the ticket for every other Democrat, which one infers was based on Senator Obama's race as much as anything.  He apologises on the same day and the Clinton campaign accepts the endorsement and refutes the statement.  Later Hillary says:

"Senator Ford has apologized and I appreciate him doing so because I'm all about breaking barriers. I think this presidential election has the opportunity to break a lot of barriers. And I'm the candidate with the experience to get to the White House."

OK, they got their story out there and were immediately poised for the damage control, rejected the statement and had their candidate distance herself from the remark.  This looked intentional to me and quite nasty.  The subsequent disclosure of the $200k consulting contract was a bit of collateral damage.

This is the incident Wolfson chose to use to butress his position that Obama should 'fire' Geffen and return his contribution?  No wonder Gibbs was pissed.  So back comes the response which led to this diary.  This response, incidentally, was themed on the the basic flaw of the attack, ie that Geffen was part of the Obama campaign staff and spoke for them:

We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters.

He goes on to make the comments which have aroused Jerome's criticisms.  The comments about the Lincoln Bedroom, which I think is what has triggered the 'Republican talking point' criticism more than anything, were unfortunate but if you read the original Maureen Dowd piece you will notice that that was her contribution in a question to Geffen.  It would have been preferable it they had been omitted, to be sure.

But let's have a look at the nature of the attack, it is not what it appears to be on the surface.  It is an attempt to unseat Obama from the high ground and join Hillary in the mud and in this it has at least partially succeeded.  This explains Wolfson's painful and ubiquitous appearances on every television interview he could yesterday, painfully but stoicly enduring the endless repetition of the negative Geffen comments to reinforce the theme that Obama is no better than Hillary.  In fact it is an admission on the part of the Hillary campaign that her negatives are unlikely to be affected by these comments and that her campaign strategists accept this perception in the effort to bring Obama down to their level.  And this was always the intention of this response from them.  

So what was Hillary's actual comment on the subject but a restatement of this exact theme from on high, an attack on the Senator and his campaign:

I want to run a positive campaign and I sure don't want Democrats or supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction.

Whereas Senator Obama responded the way one would expect of someone attempting to keep to his message and stay above the fray without giving an inch on the superficial theme of the attack:

"It's not clear to me why I would be apologizing for someone else's remarks," Mr. Obama said, responding to the first question by Radio Iowa's O'Kay Henderson. "My sense is that Mr. Geffen may have differences with the Clintons, but that doesn't really have anything to do with our campaign."

"I can't be responsible for the statements of every single individual who contributes to our campaign," Mr. Obama continued. "We have thousands of people who have differences with the other candidates. It doesn't reflect the views that come from me or my staff.

"My suspicion is that the voters of Iowa are probably more concerned about what both myself and Senator Clinton think about Iraq, health care, jobs and issues," he said.

OK, so where does Jerome's thesis fit into this?  Well, pretty much exactly in line with the Hillary campaign attack, frankly.  A direct criticism of Obama for being dishonest based on the performance and past history of his communications director.  In fact it is not lacking anything in resentment and bitterness from the original Geffen remarks about Hillary.  

Admitedly Obama has to take responsibility for the remarks of his staff and in this the attack from Jerome consequently has some leverage, but it is an attack nonetheless.  And it is perfectly aligned with Hillary's.  As if we are trying to prove that it isn't possible to have a new kind of politics in this country.  Careful, Jerome, you just might succeed.  Most peolpe are all too prepared to believe that.  What is the netroots equivalent to inside the Beltway?  Behind the firewall?

There has been a lot of criticism here about Obama for being too weak, I remember reading endless bar-room brawl analogies some time ago.  And now when he is up against a tough and aggressive opponent, and facing a subtle and contrived attack, the slightest misstep is used as grounds to attempt to invalidate the whole positive theme of his campaign.  This post isn't about Robert Gibbs, it is about Barack Obama and you know it.  What institution, values or ethics are being upheld by the kind of attack being made here?

I don't mind the anti-Clinton talking point so much. Fuck Bill and Hill.

Hillary is playing the thin-skinned joe-lieberman game of bullshit attacks and demands for apologies. Fuck her.

The person above who wrote "F Bill and Hill" is a disgraceful fool.  You have no idea of the good thingts that the Clinton Administration did and though you think that your opinion is smart and maybe even witty (hah!)- it shows that you dont know your history and that you buy into the media's whole idea of politics as a stupid popularity contest.  Its a team sporto bucko.  The Clintons brought into power the only Democratic WH in more than a generation.  Im a lefty, we fought to get there, we won, I saw, I know.  FU back.

Thanks to Jerome who actually SEES what this "fight' is about.  Right away the Obama press office has presented and supported the Republic "scripts' most dangerous to all of us Democrats.  I mean come on, the Lincoln bedroom?  That mythos of Democrat avarice was proven to be bogus when investigated.  The numbers of overnight Guest in the Bush administration (and their make up) had been consistant with the Clinton record.  This was a BS meme created by our enemies to hurt the Democratic chances in 2000.  It was part of the attacks on the Democratice fundraising that the GOP used to draw first blood against Al Gore.  (The GOP accusing the Dems of bad fundraising practices was a joke - Abramhoff anyone? - these attacks were unproved - and false - but led to many months of news stories and a developed nationwide CW.)

God bless Jerome for being wise enough to see the dangers of this kind of vile attacking being hurtful to all Democrats.  It has been very disappointing to read people repeating the lamest defences to an act that was so stupid and dangerous at the same time.

I truly suggest that everyone read the Daily howlers posting about this today. www.dailyhowler.com  It is the only other place, besides here, that I read any sane understanding of REALLY what happened yesterday.

BTW, I went to college with Obama and have always liked him very much.  I can only hope that someone, who is not a political cheerleader... will point out to him the dangers of providing our enemies with the gold pass to once again use the lies that helped cause us to lose the White House once before. The Dowd, Geffen and the Obama Press team have reintroduced much of the entire lineup of the MSMs scripting against Dems that has been developing since the birth of the cable shows and the political takeover of media- Gop meme idiocy.  Good day huh?

BTW, I HATED that ad against Dean.  Now I know who did it and it makes me ill. Tricia was way right, this guy should crawl back under his Rock.

This is a tangled web...

First off, I agree with Jerome on Robert Gibbs. If you were a supporter of Howard Dean in 2003 and 2004, Robert Gibbs is essentially the devil incarnate, whether you choose to understand that fact, or not. There are no two ways about it:  Gibbs was a key leader in maliciously strangling the Dean movement in the crib of Iowa, 2004.  

And yes, I am well aware of the fact that there are millions of former Dean supporters out there who are pretty fuzzy about what happened in Iowa back in 2004.  Wasn't Iowa all about that scream or something?  Nope.  If you think so, you weren't paying attention.

Did you watch the televised debate from Iowa? Did you see the ads that Gibbs ran against Howard Dean day in and day out? For those of us who experienced what ACTUALLY happened in 2004, we know that Gibbs assasinated Dean through some of the basest, most vile ads ever seen by a Democrat against another Democrat.  You tell me what justice demands...

Now...as far as the details of this Geffen thing, it seems to me that Dowd and Geffen had a long conversation in which Geffen (much like a blogger) explained why he thought the Clinton campaign was bad news.  I do not see anything wrong with that.  Dowd decided his criticisms would make for a nice snarky Dowd column, so she hand picked a few of the more scandalous comments and crafted another one of her "substantive" columns.  (Huh?)

As is apparently the requisite style now, ala the apparent romance of the war room, the Clinton people felt they had to hammer Geffen.  An honest response would have required them to address Geffen himself, and his comments in particular. But apparently "Wolfson politics" are not about honest debate.  Instead, in their press releases, and on TV, Clinton Inc. lied repeatedly about Geffen being Obama's campaign finance chair.  And they decided to smear Obama. Obviously, for Wolfson, truth is not the stuff of victory.  Victory is to be built upon spin.  Hooray for spinning and misleading people!

And, because apparently speed earns the greatest respect in politics, less than an hour and a half later, Gibbs dumped a hastily produced load of sewage in the direction of Clinton, Inc.  That sewage included reference to one of the hundreds of old Clinton scandals (so many to choose from), the infamous selling of the Lincoln bedroom, and also a new scandal, one started by someone still on the Clinton payroll, someone who rang the bell of racism against Obama, then said he was sorry for ringing the bell.

Can you really unring the bell of such a blatent racist comment?  I do not think so.

Once Obama himself was asked about this stuff, his comments were thoughtful and correct.  

I can't be responsible for the statements of every single individual who contributes to our campaign....We have thousands of people who have differences with the other candidates. It doesn't reflect the views that come from me or my staff.

Bottom line: I do think that Gibbs has to go, not because of this sewage leak (which was really the product of a very hasty movement) but because of his prior toxic dump, the one that poisoned the Dean movement in 2004, a murder most foul. And, the South Carolina politician, still on the Clinton payroll, the one who uttered the racist attack on Obama, then tried to unring that racist bell, he should also be taken off the payroll.

a tangled web...oh my... the hundreds of clinton scandals you speak of - do you mean ....Whitewater (bogus) Travelgate (bogus) Missing Ws, Air force One, hair cuts, the 30 murders, c linton the rapist, vince foster...which of these bogus scandals, brought to you by the crazed right and the chris matthews of the world is your fav?

Yes, the guy got oral sex from a staffer a few times and they put him in a perjury trap in order to bring down OUR goverment and I m supposed to blame him?

F that!  I know who my real enemies are...do you?

read www.dailyhowler.com  - learn about the past...stop buyin and using GOP-Media Whore PR!

If you ask me like it or not that ad goes right to the heart of any argument against Dean in 2004. It's not surprising a Dem, any Dem, would use it against him in IA. If he had won the nomination you can be sure the Repubs would have used it against him in the general. It's all about electability for the our voters in IA and NH.

BTW Dean wasn't right about Iraq after the invasion when he kept saying "we're in Iraq now, we can't just leave" anymore than Kerry and every other Dem candidate except for Kucinich. Go back and look. Only Kucinich among the nominees back then had it right.

Gibbs worked for Obama in 2004. He apparently didn't do anything to embarrass the candidate then. Obama won by a landslide, even in Republican DuPage County. Granted Gibbs probably wouldn't have been heard anyway if he did make boneheaded comments over the sound of Alan Keyes detonating verbal IEDs under his own campaign.

Gibbs may or may not be a drag on Obama in the coming year but I doubt it's as bad a move as hiring a blogger who regularly uses the term "cunt" in her posts. You don't have ot be a wingnut Christian to be put off by that. Be my guess 90% of American women find that word offensive.

Jeeze Markg8...look I like barrack, I was in college with him, but dont you recall who he ran against in his Senate race?  Ambassador Crazy Fella remember.  Nothing agaisnt Obama there - but no bragging rights either.  Look, Id be happy with either candidate really.  (I wish for Big Al - but that aint happening, so...) but Demo 37, let me tell ya friend, I was there, all those tales were lies, Hillary really is a nice lady, the Repubs made just about everything up and you think that we should dump the Clintons over the side even though they fought them tooth and nail and suffered and got whacked over and over and still kept fighting?!  Jeeze, I truly just dont understand that idea.  The net is fukll of people who say they HATE the MSM and the GOP, but boyo are they sure willing to do their bidding.  Its the repubs who have sent out the script into Dem land that Hillary cant win.  (It sure is hell aint the Internal polling which quite clearly shows the opposite.  Do you actually think Bill and Hill would run if they didnt KNOW that they could win this thing?  Come on!)

Look I didnt expect her to run.  But now that she is, its clear they see a way to victory.  If it wasnt Hillary the same GOP-MSM machine that developed the CW that Al Gore is aliar and John Kerry was a French Flip Flopper would develop a comparative script about Osama or Edwards or whoever.  Its whistlin past the graveyard and a serious misjudgement to think any other way.  remember, this is a fight for control of the most powerful Nation that ever was.  They will do anything.  One thing for the Clintons, theyve beaten em before.  Number two, we know what their gameplan will be.  They threw all the weapons they had against em in 98 and they still left with both of their approval ratings in the 60s.  Personally, Id like a Hillary/Obama ticket, but thats mostly cause I dont quite think anyone in my class is ready to have their own helicopter, let alone armies...not just yet.

Boy did you turn out to be right about this guy. Obama has been communicating consistently worse and worse and is starting to sound like he has no idea what to say and I'm pointing the finger squarely at Gibbs. Here is a diary I just wrote about this topic:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=2425