Hillary's new mudslinging? Attack campaign web sites!

I kid you not! This is getting out of hand! From ABC:

ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of criticizing a rival.

Votingpresent.com and Votingpresent.org are domains hosted by the same IP address as official Clinton Web sites, such TheHillaryIKnow.com, which was launched with much fanfare this week.

For entire story see:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/ story?id=4032659&page=1

Tags: Barack Obama, dirty campaign, Hillary Clinton (all tags)



Re: Hillary's new mudslinging? Attack campaign web

It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of criticizing a rival.

We all know that's not true, right?

by Steve M 2007-12-20 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's new mudslinging? Attack campaign web

Its just a bizarre statement .

What happened to Edwards Plant website.

by lori 2007-12-20 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's new mudslinging? Attack campaign web

Obviously the Edwards people and supporters have a lack of short term memory.

by RJEvans 2007-12-20 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's new mudslinging? Attack campaign web

But, but, I'm the first commenter on the thread!

by Steve M 2007-12-20 10:27AM | 0 recs
there are no such web sites
that I can find. So the ABC claim that web sites have been launched seems inaccurate. Moreover, as Steve M. notes, Edwards launched web sites that were anti-Hillary. Pretty ridiculous piece.
by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-20 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: there are no such web sites

The media's favorite trick regarding Hillary is to pretend like she's the only one who does certain things.

If Hillary has a photo-op, the media makes sure you see every detail of the stage management, to make sure you understand that she's a phony, scripted candidate.  Of course, everyone has photo-ops, but only Hillary gets this treatment.

It's a political reality that is not going away.  They just love this game.

by Steve M 2007-12-20 06:35AM | 0 recs
Of course
For example, Obama's planted question got no coverage at all. For example, Edwards' attack web site was treated as fair play and fun. But the candidate cults are the most hilarious. In this very thread there is an Edwards supporter, I think, who is calling having an attack web site an old Clinton trick, apparently oblivious to the fact that Edwards is the only candidate I know of who has ACTUALLY had such a site in this cycle.
by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-20 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course

What about my site?

by wahoopaul 2007-12-20 08:37AM | 0 recs
What are you running for?
And who is your opponent so I can throw him/her some coin?
by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-20 08:52AM | 0 recs
More Old Clinton Tricks

As mentioned last night and earlier today, NBC/NJ's Carrie Dann reported on a flier by the pro-Clinton labor union AFSCME that hits Obama on his health-care plan. The catch, however, is that the flier appears disguised as an Edwards attack -- since he is the only candidate mentioned in it criticizing Obama.

Now the Edwards campaign weighs in on the flier. Jennifer O'Malley Dillon, the Edwards campaign's Iowa state director, says in a statement: "There have been a lot of misleading tactics and tricks in the last few weeks, but we've just never seen anything like this before. Either they are trying to trick people, or they've realized that on health care, John Edwards is the candidate who speaks honestly about what it really costs and what will be required to have truly universal coverage. He has led the debate on health care with the strongest, boldest plan that covers everyone and is paid for by repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy."

She continues, "It's fine to have an honest debate about policy, but Iowans deserve better than planted questions and campaign fliers designed to fool them."

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign sent First Read past congressional testimony from AFSCME head Gerry McEntee criticizing Massachusetts' health-care plan, which -- drum roll, please -- mandates health insurance.

by CardBoard 2007-12-20 06:32AM | 0 recs
Actually an old Edwards trick
Actually not a trick at all. Having a web site about your opponents is well, pretty up front. But the funny thing is there is no web site, unlike Edwards' site against Hillary. There is however a domain registration Administrative Contact : Hillary Clinton for President info@hillaryclinton.com 4420 North Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203 US Phone: 703-469-2008 Fax: 703-962-8600 Technical Contact : Hostmaster hostmaster@cpoint.net Counterpoint Networking 3023 N. Clark St. #328 Chicago, IL 60657-5200 US Phone: 888-627-6468 Record expires on 04-Dec-2008 Record created on 04-Dec-2007 Database last updated on 04-Dec-2007 So you ready to bash Edwards now? Ah the joys of the primary season.
by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-20 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: More Old Clinton Tricks

How can a flyer be disguised as a John Edwards mailing when it has a large block of text saying:

Paid for by American Federation of State, County, and Municple Employees PEOPLE Committee and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Here's the flyer:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sectio ns/news/071220_AFSCME.pdf

by hwc 2007-12-20 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's new mudslinging? Attack campaign web

You go girl. Hit em again, harder, harder. Its "fun."

Two days after kicking off a much ballyhooed effort to "humanize" Hillary, her campaign can't help itself and sets itself up for another round of "Hillary goes negative" stories. As if Billy Shaheen, Bob Kerrey, the AFSCME mailer weren't enough.

I've felt all along that Clinton could not help herself from imploding -- there's just too many people with too much ego and too much aggression at the top of her campaign and not enough belief in any vision to fall back on when it gets to crunch time. Edwards has his passion for progress to fall back on, OBama has his vision of national unity...Hilary has "deck em."

By the way, you didn't really mean that stuff about "mudslinging" in November, did you? Didn't think so.

by desmoulins 2007-12-20 06:35AM | 0 recs
You've been p0wned

Techpresident has the details. This is another Novak style smear: "Let's you and him fight." And yet again Obama supporters fall for it.

by souvarine 2007-12-20 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: You've been p0wned

That's a completely separate issue from what this diary is about, but yeah, it was an interesting attempt at a smear.

by Steve M 2007-12-20 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: You've been p0wned

Ack, you are right, I'm an idiot for skimming.

by souvarine 2007-12-20 06:51AM | 0 recs
Are they working sites?

Or are they just putting these names out there to jerk Obama's chain given the NYT's story today about his history of ducking votes by voting 'present'?

by dpANDREWS 2007-12-20 06:49AM | 0 recs
this is a lie

It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of criticizing a rival.

by MollieBradford 2007-12-20 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's new mudslinging? Attack campaign web

I think it says a lot about the press to note the evolution of this story.

Originally, as quoted in the diary, it said

It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of criticizing a rival.

Then it was silently edited to say, instead

It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.

And way down at the bottom of the page we find the basis for that change:

The Clinton campaign disputed the notion that its pending attack websites will be the first, noting that after it was revealed that Clinton had taken questions from supporters at events, Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, in November launched the short-lived website PlantsForHillary.com, purporting to be from various forms of flora supporting the New York senator, though that website was taken down after a day.

So basically, rather than admit that they made a false statement, they simply declare the Edwards site "non-serious" and go about their business.  I'm not sure how they make the determination that that site was "non-serious" and Hillary's site is "serious" given that Hillary's site isn't even up yet.

by Steve M 2007-12-20 08:51AM | 0 recs
by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-20 08:53AM | 0 recs

When was the rule passed that says everyone can attack Hillary, but she can't say anything about anyone else?  There is such a double standard when it comes to Hillary!

by nascardem 2007-12-20 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: What?

That rule only applies in the media.  You need to ask them.

by Steve M 2007-12-20 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's new mudslinging? Attack campaign web

Yep folks this is a Presidential campaign...
Clinton it knows so does Edwards they have both been a part of them. Don't know about Obama.
There is going to be distortion as a means of negativity from all corners.
Wait for the time before Super Tuesday.This is probably a good move on Penn/Hrc's part.
But again Edwards led.
It seems what Edwards did was a tiptoe to the line without crossing it. The Plant thing was ridicule only because of the timing with the HLS thing.
But then he backed away. If and when HRC launches these they are not "dirty tricks"...

I figure all sides will be using professionally done stuff on youtube as surrogate attackers.
That is when it might get slimy...

JRE by six points...in IA as the sun rises on 1/4

by nogo war 2007-12-20 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's new mudslinging?

Well the article is not accurate but regardless, I think more people should be aware of Obama and his 'present' votes because I don't think people really know about them- he's not a leader.

by reasonwarrior 2007-12-20 10:22AM | 0 recs
Link to alledged sites puh-lease

by dpANDREWS 2007-12-20 10:50AM | 0 recs
Attack site?

How is a website highlighting Barry's "present" votes an attack site? I'd call it an informational site.

by lonnette33 2007-12-20 10:56AM | 0 recs
Philosophical question

Can you have an attack website without having a website?

by hwc 2007-12-20 09:01PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads