This is disgusting.  I wonder how long Scaife will stay by Hillary's side once she is the nominee before turning his resources against her in order to get McCain elected?

Where were you when Obama used Novak and drudge to attack Clinton based on baseless information

I hope you didn't run into a moving truck at that time.

Oh, that whole Scaife-Clinton-Vice Foster thing was just a big misunderstanding!

What he meant to say when he was funding a decade's worth of slanderous anti-Clinton attacks was that he likes and respects Hillary and thinks she'll make a fine president.

She meets with Rupert Murdock, Bill goes on Limbaugh's show and now this.....it's like the apocalypse is coming.

What is this?  Bizzaro World?  Dosen't anyone remember the '90s?  If I was a Clinton in a room with Scaife, I'd kick him square in the nuts.

Last November Bill Clinton met with Richard Mellon Scaife--yes, the same conservative who relentlessly attacked Bill Clinton for years--and donated a lot of money to the Clinton's AID foundation work.

Where you been, Bob? So busy drinking the Obama Cool-Aid, you missed it? You need help, Bob; this obsessive hatred of Hillary and Bill Clinton is not healthy.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/69545

The Clinton camp needs a reliable pipeline to pump in its collected baseless smears and attacks on Obama. They have one now. I'm sure the Clintons are holding all sorts of stuff that they've fact-checked and found to be false. They can't push it themselves, but they can try to get an unscrupulous liar like Scaife to push it so that they can get it out without getting dirty hands.

Clinton is setting up to win PA by 20! . . . Latest polls

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conen t/politics/election_20082/2008_presideti al_election/daily_preidential_tracking

Even the Haaretz analysis of the McPeak comment from 2003 is more favorable than what I read on American blogs.

Doesn't matter anyway, that is not gonna make the news cycle.

Hillary fibbing about Chelsea on 9-11 will once the archive video is put on YouTube.

There is something about a Clinton misremembering that captivates the pundits, especially when it involves 9-11.

Personally, I am still waiting to see which candidate will come out against signing statements.

Anyone?

Newspapers meet with candidates.  Off the top of my head, I remember when George Allen of VA met with the Post board.  Did that make him a liberal?  What newspaper owners and boards has Obama met with?

Uh, the Israel story merely says that Gen. McPeak in an interview claimed we don't have a good Middle East policy because Jews in Miami and NYC control American politics. Major gaffe. That's what you get with inexperienced candidates like Obama -- they don't vett their advisers and don't know their histories because they cobble together a team in a short time.

Here's what the Jerusalem Post says:  http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c id=1206446106127&pagename=JPost%2FJP Article%2FShowFull

The freshest controversy, however, may be tougher to douse. [comment: LOL] The American Spectator, a conservative magazine, uncovered a 2003 interview with U.S. Army Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak, currently a co-chairman of the Obama campaign and -- like Obama -- an early and consistent critic of the Iraq war.

In the interview with The Oregonian, McPeak faulted the Bush administration's Iraq policy in part for not being part of a broader Middle East strategy. Asked who is at fault - the White House or the State Department - he answered: "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote - vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."

The reporters pressed McPeak to assign responsibility to a faction within the Bush administration, but he insisted on returning to Israel and its US supporters.

"I think that everybody understands that a settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem would require the Israelis to stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements that've already been put there," he said.

"And nobody wants to take on that problem. It's just too tough politically. So that means we can't... you can't develop a Middle East strategy. It's impossible."

I hardly see a conspiracy between Scaife and the Clintons, but if you do, go ahead.

I trust you are reacting this way because Obama's careful tightrope of being chummy with pro-Palestinian groups and individuals, like Farrakhan, Wright, Edward Said, etc., and saying he is a staunch supporter of Israel is getting shaky.

In fact, if you want to talk about truthiness, I suggest you examine your candidate's Janus-like position on Israel.

in the sand and pretend like this doesn't exist.  Hillary "DLC" Clinton.  How soon we forget.

before she said a word.  Politics makes such strange bedfellows.  This is an odd development - I'll wait and see what this is really all about...

what we think doesn't matter its the superdelegates

and when even Clinton SD's are willing to be named when they say she needs to stop being negative because she is hurting the party's likely nominee

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/03/26/820834.aspx

yeah you know she has problems

Why dont HRC supporters every address the diary? There is an honest question posed here - and I dont understand why people dont think it is odd when HRC meets with Scaife.

WWWD
What Would Wolfson Do.

every = ever

Scaife undoubtedly has minions and money out there hunting for anything he can tie to Obama.  I wonder who gets to play David Brock for this one?

Yep.  Words.  Words matter.  And Obama and McPeak have been saying some bad words.

The HRC team INVENTED and planted the madrassa lie with the wingnuts in the first place.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/o bama.madrassa/

hey what we think doesn't matter

I don't wanna make a new diary but i think this should be pointed

Superdelegates, even her own Super delegates think clinton is being to negative and its hurting her

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/03/26/820834.aspx

... Hillary meeting with Scaife?

That is so inconsequential it is laughable.

Far more serious is Obama's 20 year relationship with Reverend Wright. It is clear the Reverend hates America. It is clear that Barack Obama didn't disassociate himself from the Reverend until Obama knew he would be under scrutiny as a presidential candidate.

I have my own question for the superdelegates. Does the Democratic party want as it's nominee a person who maintained a close, 20 year relationship with the America-hating Reverend Wright?
 

When you lie down with dogs, you will get fleas.

Bill Clinton on Rush Limbaugh?

Hillary Clinton meets with Richard Mellon Scaife?

What's next? Chelsea has tea with Ken Starr?

What is going on here??

Isn't Obama supposed to bring people together? That means that he should meet with Scaife too!

. . .another faux outrage for Obama supporters to get all hot and bothered about, and another hit diary by the tireless Bob Johnson makes the rec. list thanks to the votes of the usual suspects.

Whatever. . .pass the chips. . . .

I think I'm pointing out the obvious here, but it seems like Obama supporters have been returning to MyDD over the past month or so.  Bob Johnson's diaries probably have a lot to do with that.

Or they would have never let her do this. It would have made a little sense in an open primary, but it just looks like she is soliciting GOP money from Rick Santorum's patron. Either nobody in her campaign even cares, or Hillary is intimidating them into bad decisions. Most of all, clearly Bill no longer cares.

(1) Clinton met with Scaife and other representatives of his newspaper, and sat for an interview.

(2) One of Scaife's publications has published a hit-piece on Obama's advisor Tony McPeak.

Bob Johnson apparently wants us to conclude from this that Clinton arranged with Scaife to publish the hit-piece.

Let's look at a couple of other facts.

(1) John O. Brennan is an important foreign policy advisor for Obama.

(2) An employee of the company where Brennan is CEO is the focus of the investigation into the breaches of Obama's, Clinton's, and McCain's passport files.

Presumably, Bob also wants us to conclude that Obama arranged for Brennan to have the passport files examined (including Obama's own file, both to find out what Bush knows about Obama and to throw the hounds off the scent).

My conclusion: Bob is off his rocker in both cases, and we should stick to known facts before making decisions.

So Obama can go to Pat Robertson's CBN and talk about Hillary's negatives and how her supporters will vote for him anyway (yeah think again Barry O) and when Sen. Clinton goes to a conservative newspaper to give an interview and answers one question it is sacrilege!!! Hypocrisy works top-down in the Obama campaign.
For one Obama had it coming because he tries to play politics by trying to link Wright to President Clinton (like Rezko)...that leaves him open to attack on this front. And this 48 hours after his "speech"...talk about hypocrisy. If the people are so concerned they should petition Obama to leave his church and denounce this guy unequivocally.

I have an idea for the author - quit whining.  Seriously.  Have some respect.  This is a Presidential campaign.  Your mock outrage is notably absent when the Obama camp does anything negative, but you're floored when the Clinton camp plays rough?  If that's the attitude of Obama supporters then please, do the democratic party a favor and quit.  And then go blog about it.

But a float tells a million.

Go build a float, Bob.

Drive it around PA all you want and pretend no one's laughing at you.

Even when I dislike Hillary's tactics, which is often, I can still view them within the context of a political campaign and find them reasonable.

But this is hard to swallow.

You posted: "Yesterday, Hillary Clinton met with the very rightwing lunatic who spent millions of dollars trying to bring the Clintons down..."

This is untrue.

Per your own link: "Clinton was meeting with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial board..."

Nowhere in that article does it say that she met with Scaife.  Nowhere.  She is in Pennsylvania, trying to win that primary, and she visited a newspaper in Pittsburgh.

Please refrain from posting wildly inaccurate diaries in the future.

Sincerely,

John Dean

Thanks, Jackie, for that link. Hillary was just brilliant! Meeting with Dick and the gang was a brilliant move.

More, here:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view .php?id=27296

OMG! Clinton sat down with the editorial board of the second largest paper in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania! Surely this can only be a nefarious plot! Why in heavens name would she bother with a big paper in Pennsylvania just before the primary there!?!??!

BTW, why is it that Clinton hit-piece turns into a spam-trap for Obama supporters? What is up with that?

Ten years ago, Hillary was on NBC, calling Scaife and the Arkansas project a "Vast Rightwing Conspiracy," and I and a lot of other people believed it.  For ten years we have vented hate upon this guy.

And now she's all buddy-buddy with him, dishing dirt about Obama like ol' pals.

This is the same guy, right?

http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/

When journalist Karen Rothmyer tried to interview [Scaife] for a Columbia Journalism Review profile in the early 1980s, Scaife avoided her every inquiry. When she finally caught up with him on a Manhattan street...Rothmyer inquired as to why he chose to dedicate his fortune to the cause of conservative politics. Scaife replied in a booming voice, "You fucking Communist cunt, get out of here." He then volunteered his opinion that she was ugly and that her teeth were "terrible" before warning, "don't look behind you."

Eric Alterman
What Liberal Media?
(page 245)

btw,

If you knew your VRWC history, you would know that scaife had a falling out with Kenneth Tyrell and the American Spectator about 5 years ago and yanked ALL OF HIS FUNDING from them, which very nearly drove the mag under.

that connecion is 100% cut and done.

so is your truly stupid "theory".

I think it's touching that Hillary and Bill have kissed and made up with those who sought to destroy them and everything the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for.

Resemble a Scaife operation anyway, I don't get the outrage. There's not a dime's worth of difference.

Oops that already happened.