I think has name is Peter Daou.

tHE FIRST DAY OF THE REAL CAMPAIGN rOBERT gIBBS AND A SURRGATE SAID THE cLITONS WERE LIARS AND HAD "SOLD OT THE  LINCOLN BEDROOM".  

aND ITS BEEN DOWNHILL SINCE THEN.

It think its obvious to anyone with a brain that the Obama campaign has been run from WITHIN the DNC party itself witn the main goal to destroy the Clinton's.  Obama is the means to an end .. he will be on the receiving end some time very soon.

Anyone who has followed his campaign and reads a headline can see that anything to do with Hillary is negative and anything to do with Obama is positive.

His credibility is not high among Obama supporters. I don't know what the point is with these broad generalizations anyway.

that Novak article that wrongly claimed a leak from her campaign that she was about to go negative, he was so outraged, but it wasn't true. She mentioned the truth, he has no foreign policy experience and he's retorts that her experience is being married. He spins her in any which way, claims to be her victim and then share his outrage. He says he shares hope, but from my vantage points seems more like outrage. He's good at sharing outrage. It appeals to misogynists and Hillary haters.  He's not running a very bright campaign, with this he had to wrap it  up before it got obviously old.  Searching out the dumb Gerry remark no one heard about and holding it until right before a primary and then playing the victim over it really exposed him.  

something we can all see, even Obama supporters, some of whom probably think she deserves it for being uppity and some of whom want him to win and like that he can play the media so effectively. Admit it, you see it too, but you like what you see?  

I'm not going to go through the entire post to try and refute every charge - that is for people who are much better writers than I could ever hope to be.

But I would point to the idea that 1) Obama had not passed the mythical "commander in chief" threshold, but for some reason would apparently be considered for VP in a Clinton presidency. That my friends, is disingenuous.

I've got even less respect for Dauo than I do Taylor Marsh.

We hear you Peter and we're on board.  

I'm pretty sanguine about the fact that politics is politics.  I wish everyone would accept this, and drop the "holier than thou" narrative that Obama has tried to take the high road all along, while that awful Hillary has been running the gutter campaign to end all gutter campaigns.  In fact, way back in Iowa, it was the other candidates who mounted an all-out attack on Hillary's integrity while she focused on staying positive and emphasizing how the overriding goal was to beat the Republicans in November.

But sometimes, even though politics is politics, there are things that you just can't quite get past.  Here is one of them:

Today, as Axelrod basks in his profession's highest glory -- shaping a historical presidential campaign -- he is experiencing one of its nastiest turns: in a tiny and ideologically promiscuous world, you often need to go to war with your friends. (If Obama hadn't run, Axelrod says, he would have sat out this presidential race, and he says he told all of his other former clients that early on; he hasn't had much interaction with them since.) There is Dodd, and there is Edwards, but perhaps most poignantly, there is Hillary Clinton. It's a matter of epilepsy. David and Susan Axelrod have three children in their late teens and early 20s. Their eldest, Lauren, has developmental disabilities associated with chronic epileptic seizures and now lives in a group home in Chicago. But for years her illness required enough of her parents' time that it kept Susan Axelrod out of the work force and kept David from moving to Little Rock during the 1992 presidential campaign. Susan and two other mothers of children with epilepsy started a foundation, Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy (CURE), which Susan runs, to promote research and raise funds for a cure. Because of David's political work, they have had political celebrities do fund-raisers: Bill Clinton, Tim Russert, Obama. But few have done as much for the foundation as Hillary Clinton.

It was January 1999, President Clinton's impeachment trial was just beginning in the Senate and Hillary Clinton was scheduled to speak at the foundation's fund-raiser in Chicago. Despite all the fuss back in Washington, Clinton kept the appointment. She spent hours that day in the epilepsy ward at Rush Presbyterian hospital, visiting children hooked up to machines by electrodes so that doctors might diagram their seizure activity and decide which portion of the brain to remove. At the hospital, a local reporter pressed her about the trial in Washington, asked her about that woman. At the organization's reception at the Drake Hotel that evening, Clinton stood backstage looking over her remarks, figuring out where to insert anecdotes about the kids. "She couldn't stop talking about what she had seen," Susan Axelrod recalled. Later, at Hillary Clinton's behest, the National Institutes of Health convened a conference on finding a cure for epilepsy. Susan Axelrod told me it was "one of the most important things anyone has done for epilepsy." And this is how politics works: David Axelrod is now dedicated to derailing this woman's career.

I just can't manage to get my head around the fact that, after all Hillary Clinton has done for David Axelrod's wife and daughter, Axelrod is now dedicated to portraying her as an unprincipled, dishonest, race-baiting bitch in order to win an election.  Oh well, I hope he gets a good job in the Obama administration.

Clinton supporters do seem very angry these days.

I think both campaigns are guilty of these "character" attacks.  

Great work.

I thought one of the central rationales for Hillary Clinton's candidacy was that she would be ready to handle the inevitable Republican attacks on "day one."

So if Peter Daou is now complaining about the Obama campaign's supposed attacks, what does that say about Clinton's ability to do battle against Republicans in the general election? Is there any logic here, or is the Clinton campaign trying to have it both ways? Shouldn't the Democratic nomination process be a contest to identify candidates who are politically tough enough to do battle against the opposition party?

jonathan singer should publish a link to daou's letter in breaking blue.

she really needs to get a coordinated set of surrogates and herself to confront his news conference.

And they need to remind everyone that he's going after her simply because facts about his own life have come out via ABC and FOX.

Why doesn't he concentrate on charges on himself, instead of trying to deflect?

I mean-------does he have something ELSE to hide?  

By the way, Chris Wallace on Fox just started an "Obama watch."  For over 700 days he's been welching on his promise to go on the show and answer questions.  Hilarious.

It's so nice to see reality based diaries, with a message supported by facts. (As opposed to the usual Hit & Hate pieced at the-orange-site-that-must-not-be-named.)

Rec'd indeed.

Nice post.

Excellent diary.

The Obama campaign has done a great job in getting the media to totally overlook the hypocrisy and shallowness of Obama's campaign.

Obama claims to be offering a new kind of politics, he isn't.

Hillary Clinton doesn't pretend to be something she's not. She's a tough, smart fighter who'll work day and night to solve America's problems. All Obama's ever done is make speeches that promise the earth, but what does he deliver?

Peter is spot on with this.  I wish we had a way to really push it to all of the media pundits.

Oh wow! This really unsettled me. The commentary about what she did on behalf of his daughter. i guess if he can look at himself in the mirror each day, so can we. Oh wow!

I can only speak for what I see. In Ohio; Hillary blurring the lines, encouraging Nafta protesters outside of Obama campaign office. Constant blurring of Clinton opinion re Obama and if he was a Muslim. Attacks that made my sister (volunteering for Obama after volunteering forKerry) flashback to 2004 when everything about Ohio was dirty ang gross. And by the way, many of Obamas church members from Chicago, so proud of him and of what the Lord had brought..their candidate AND the GOOD Senator for New York. It was Hillary that muddied this, not Obama. Her Lady Macbeth lust for power...her willingness to destroy for the sake of power, it was an eye-opener and disgusting.

Some of us have been saying the same thing. I wish Daou and others had made these points forcefully much earlier.

Re Axelrod- it is not just Axelrod. Susan Rice and Deval patrick are two other beneficiaries of Clintons and are now trashing them with delight.

Oh dear. The kitchen sink is about to come from Obama and the Clinton's are quaking in their boots. I thought they could take as good as they give?

Smackdown is gonna hurt.

The links make a great diary fantastic. Excellent job!

As my friend has been saying for weeks "it is not okay to challenge "the anointed one". Apparently any challenge is considered negative campaigning. As if we are not choosing the next president of these United States! Hello??!!!

1) First all attacking Clinton on being too close to lobbyists is not a character attack. Okay?

3) Obviously the Obama campaign has been attacking Clinton. Duh.

2) It's transparently ridiculous to claim that the Clinton campaign has not also been attempting to attack Obama with whatever material is available. Which is perfectly fine, but I hope this memo and its manufactured outrage (because Peter Daou is a professional, not an idiot) doesn't actually sound convincing to anyone.

and April 22 - the vitriol of the BO campaign is going to burn out like newspaper on fire but the HRC bloggers will burn like oak ....

We must take everything this paid propagandist says with the utmost seriousness.

Barack Obama does not speak for me. He claims to be a different kind of politician but he is not. Pull back the curtain and you see that he is coldly calculating and deceptive. He is very good at it -but he does not offer a new kind of politics. From the lies and attacks he has put forth against Clinton from the begining of his campaign, to his shifting stance on Rezko and Wright, to his denials about NAFTA and even the cornerstone of his campaign- IRAQ, this man speaks with a silver forked tongue. He tells everyone one what they want to hear- in beautiful rhetorical language while doing exactly what he accuses others of behind the scenes. He won his first election to the state senate by having his opponent's name taken off the ballot by contesting the nominating signatures. He won his senate seat by revealling his opponents divorce records. All the while financed by the slum landlord Rezko- I guess that's his idea of community organizing.

Who the hell is he to point a finger at Hillary Clinton?  Where is the media? Why is SNL the ONLY outlet to see the transparent idiocy and comedy in this?  Why is the media treating Hillary Clinton the way they treated Al Gore in 2000 and WHY is everyone buying it? Once again, the experienced knowledgable, tested candidate is deemed too boring, too nerdy, too unlikable.

Hillary is not perfect. BUT, unlike Obama, Hillary does not pretend to be someone that she isn't. She doesn't put on airs as the new messiah. She doesn't say change and hope and hope for change. She specifically explains what she has done, what she will do and why.

The kids dont get it. Im not a believer, Im a thinking adult.

Hillary Clinton speaks for me.

Russert brought up Wright, the person representing Clinton said, "lets move on, lets talk about issues".

final comments.

the person representing Clinton, "the people care most about how we are going to solve these problems.  my candidate has the experience and plans to solve these issues."

the person representign Obama:  "hillary clinton is divisive."

I recall indignation online at the suggestion that Senator Obama has not made the case that he is ready to be Commander in Chief -- the concern being that this would be terribly detrimental to him in a general election. As I blogged recently, and as many of you know, I spent 2004 in the Kerry-Edwards war room, and I understand full well that national security will be front and center in the general election. It's not a matter of choice. And the reality is that the public views Hillary as better prepared to take on Senator McCain when it comes to national security. Democrats must factor that in as they nominate a candidate to win in November.

The folks in the war room, along with the Democrats who voted for Kerry in the primaries, seem to have concluded that the way to win the election was to portray our nominee as a tough soldier - ready for duty - rather than attack the very notion that Republicans in general and this administration in particular know what the hell they are doing when it comes to defense policy. So Kerry stood on the stage with Bush and politely called him "Sir" instead of calling him out as the worst excuse for a Commander-in-Chief in the history of our nation.  I truly hope we don't make the mistake of perpetuating the false view that Republicans/conservatives are savvy about all things military.  We should be extinguishing that false view.  Saying that McCain has "passed the Commander-in-Chief threshold", while suggesting Obama hasn't, is exactly the wrong thing to do.

If that suggestion is potentially harmful to Senator Obama in a general election, how exactly do the personal attacks against Hillary (which echo and reinforce rightwing talking points) help her in the event she wins the nomination?

If Daou is acknowledging that A is wrong and suggesting that B is equally wrong, then Daou should also acknowledge that two wrongs don't make a right.  But Daou is explicitly arguing in the preceding paragraph that A is not wrong - so his argument here seems especially meaningless.  

I recall no similar outrage at those harsh attacks on her character, many of which were directed at her when she was the clear frontrunner and seen as the likely nominee.

Does he really not recall outrage from Hillary's supporters when Edwards questioned whether she would be the best agent for progressive change given her relative receptiveness to corporate lobbyist funding, and when Obama and Edwards were "ganging up" on her in a debate because (in their view) some of her responses weren't straightforward?

Seriously... what the hell is the point of any of this?

I really believe there is a concerted effort to infiltrate the blogs and post anti - Hilllary negative campaign and drive Hillary's negatives up.

Pro-Hillary posts, comments and diaries usually are about how good Hillary is, how more electable etc---Obama diaries and comments in Dkos-- is more about Hillary hatred instead of how good Obama is.

"Disingenuous"
"Too polarizing to win"
'Divisive'
"Untruthful"
"Dishonest"
'Calculating'
"Saying and doing whatever it takes to win"
"Attempting to deceive the American people"
"One of the most secretive politicians in America"
"Literally willing to do anything to win"
"Playing politics with war"

My question is this: which of these things is not true?  Are any of these things lies?

Are they lies in the same way that "Obama is weak on choice" is a lie?  Or in the same way that "[Obama] said in the 90s the good ideas came out from the Republicans" is a lie?  Or in the same way as "all Obama has is one speech from 2002" is a lie?

Did Obama make a false radio ad in the same way as "Senator Obama was telling one story to Ohio, his campaign was telling a very different story to Canada" is a false radio ad?

I acknowledge your list of "character attacks" and I have heard other HRC supporters complain about O characterizing HRC in this way, but I don't see a rebuttal.  I've looked on other pro-HRC sites but all I find is more evidence that the items on this list are true.  If you have evidence to the contrary I hope you will post it.

This is really amazing. The Clinton side was jumping up and down just a few weeks ago talking about how weak Obama was, how he just couldn't take it, how he'd fold under attack. And they were talking about how tough, what a fighter, Clinton is. How tough her campaign is. How there's nothing the nasty Republicans could do to her, because she's been through it all.

And now they're playing the "poor us, we're the victims, big bad Obama is beating up on us" card???

Oh my, the hypocrisy. The nerve. And the irony.

Yes, Mr. Daou. Let's talk about [quote To top it off, they have blanketed big states with false radio ads and negative mailers -- ads and mailers that experts have debunked time and time again. They have distributed health care brochures using Republican framing. They have tried to draw a nexus between Hillary's votes and the death of her friend Benazir Bhutto. And one of Senator Obama's top advisers (who has since left the campaign) recently called Hillary "a monster."]

Let's talk about those false radio ads about NAFTAgate run by the Clinton campaign. Let's talk about those false mailers about Obama's stand on NAFTA and health care. Let's talk about that fear-mongering 3AM ad with Republican framing. Let's talk about Benazir Bhutto -- show me where the Obama campaign ever made such a claim. And let's not talk about "monsters" when a top Clinton surrogate essentially called Obama the "Affirmative Action candidate". Both resigned, and surely the tough, we-can-take-anything candidate could handle one little instance of name-calling.

Within the week the Clinton campaign attacked Obama for being "secretive" about Rezko, and called on him to release the documents. As it turns out, the documents had already been released and Obama's openness and honesty praised. If it's fine for the Clinton campaign to accuse Obama of secretiveness, why is it not fair for the Obama campaign to do the same in return?

Let's see:

[quote "Disingenuous"

"Too polarizing to win"

'Divisive'

"Untruthful"

"Dishonest"

'Calculating']

Every one of those has been said about Obama too, from the top levels of the Clinton campaign, again and again. Ready to dish it out, but unable to take it? The tough, battle-tested candidate? "Just Words" is all it takes for the things to go beyond the pale? Mere opinions?

The irony is astounding.

The Clinton campaign runs memos talking about how Obama is unelectable, how he doesn't care about Democrats, how he ignores the concern of women. Those are just fine, but let Obama suggest that it might be a wee bit suspicious that someone won't reveal their earmarks -- the actual content of their job, a job that the American people care for, and that's an unconscionable attack?

The mind absolutely boggles.

Clinton -- personally, and her campaign as well -- tell us that entire states "do not matter", that we're "irrelevent", that we are "unimportant". That's just fine, nothing wrong with that. But, my gosh, no one could ever consider her campaign to be divisive or calculating.

The Clinton campaign sends out mailings that insult the intelligence of anyone who even vaguely think about things, that hold that no one can win a state in the GE without winning it in a primary, that some states are "special" and only a person who wins them in the primary could possibly be elected. All fine and good. But claiming she would say anything to win? No, no, horrible.

The campaign of the tough fighter reduced to wailing about how they're the victims of the political neophyte lightweight who can't take a hit. The campaign who could take anything, and just wait until the right-wing 527's hit Obama because he'd be toast, screaming about the victimization they've suffered at the hands of what are ridiculously mild attacks.

Pity the poor Clinton campaign. They're a bunch of helpless victims. Big bad Obama is beating them up. You have to support them now, because they're the victims here. Really.

Pay no attention to the lies and attack ads about NAFTAgate, something that turns out to have had no substance.

Pay no attention to the blatant fear-mongering right-wing-echoing 3AM ad.

Pay no attention to attacks about "Just Words", "Change You Can Xerox", and "Celestial Choirs".

Pay no attention to comments about a magna cum laude Harvard Law grad, president of the law review, who taught Constitutional Law at U Chicago, with a highly distinguished resume, a United States Senator, being an "empty suit".

Pay no attention to statements that John McCain and Hillary Clinton are qualified, but not the Democratic front-runner.

Pay no attention to claims that he's just the "affirmative action candidate", that he's there because of all the wonderful special breaks that blacks get in America.

Pay no attention to our pandering for votes on right-wing talk radio, trying to knock out a Democratic candidate by appealing to Republicans who do not want any Democrat to win to vote for Clinton.

Pay no attention to our surrogates saying that "Latinos will never vote for blacks", surrogates we didn't even denounce.

Pay no attention to our ads claiming that Ann Richards, who was well-known for her sometimes contrarian views, would have endorsed Clinton, despite the objections of most her children to that view.

Pay no attention to the whining about being in the privileged position at the debates.

Pay no attention to the waffling non-denial denial of the claim that Obama's a Muslim, a question that should've been answered with a simple straightforward answer instead of a long complicated series of statements that can be parsed any way anyone wants to.

Pay no attention to our not releasing tax returns, claiming confidential agreements preclude all sorts of disclosures, refusing to release records, even though Obama's done all of those things, and then calling Obama secretive and untruthful.

Pay no attention to Clinton talking one day about how honored she is to be on the same stage with Obama, and what a good president he would be, and then, before any attacks came from the Obama campaign, turning around and immediately running the 3AM ad and talking about the CiC threshold.

Don't pay any attention to any of that, any of those false and ridiculous allegations, lies, and slanders, the two-faced-ness of it all. No, no. This is all one sided. It all started with Obama's campaign and we poor Clinton-campaign staffers are the victims.

Absolutely, mind-blowingly unbelievable.

I'm calling this "full assault" exactly what it is. Politics. Not even nasty politics; not one of the accusations or claims seems to be outside the scope of the facts. These aren't charges made in a vacuum, they're in response to specific actions taken by the Clinton campaign. The Clinton campaign has lied. Repeatedly. The Clinton campaign has run lying attack ads, fear-mongering attack ads. It has resorted to name-calling. It has distorted the facts, It has been divisive, calculating, and dishonest. It has been remarkably secretive.

This is not to say that the Obama campaign is pure as the driven snow. They've been fierce, pointed, snarky, and in some cases probably gone too far as well. In one of the few things Daou says that's actually reasonable, yes, surrogates of both campaigns have gone to far, and that's to their discredit. There are ample examples on both sides; for every Jesse Jackson Jr. you can bring up a Geraldine Ferraro, and so forth.

But the Clinton campaign, the tough, strong, vetted, experienced, vast-right-wing-conspiracy-tested, right-wing-media-hate-machine experienced, ready for absolutely anything they can dish out campaign, tough as nails, take no prisoners, we can take it and they'll wilt... that campaign is playing the victim card? Over a series of relatively mild political comments and positions, in which no one is accused of anything illegal and there are no smears not justified by their context (i.e. it's no smear to claim someone is dishonest when they are)?

Again... it absolutely boggles the mind.

Mind you, and I say this clearly and strongly: I am not blaming the Clinton campaign for every negative thing. I am not saying the Obama campaign is perfect. I am not saying that everything Clinton's campaign says is false or everything Obama's campaign is true. There's room for blame on both sides; both campaigns have gone negative, and we'll never settle the back-and-forth of who started what first. And it doesn't matter.

So, my challenge goes back to Peter Daou, who I know not at all, and's who's probably a really decent guy with a horrible job to do, due entirely to the fault of others in his campaign:

1) Don't insult the intelligence of everyone who reads your memo by pretending for one minute that your own campaign hasn't indulged in character attacks, dishonesty, fraudulent ads and mailings, and divisiveness.

2) Don't claim to be the experienced candidate who can take on anyone, anytime, then play the victim card over a bunch of very mild attacks. You work for the campaign of a woman who has literally been accused (falsely!) of murder! Who's been accused of massive ethics violations, illegal fundraising, misuse of government authority, and who knows what all else. Don't pretend for one minute that everything Obama's campaign has said up until now amounts to a fraction of the much more personal and virulent attacks that Hillary Clinton has undergone.

3) If your campaign is going to make statements about how the other guys haven't been exposed to the level and ferocity of attacks you have, and will be eaten up when the real guns come out, don't go whining off to your supporters about the nasty attacks you're taking less than a month later. Just a hint: it makes you look really, really bad.

4) Try to put out messages telling us something positive about your candidate. Once in a while. Please. Don't just put out a string of "Obama can't win" messages with the occasional "Obama's nasty" one thrown in. It doesn't make you look like you believe in your candidate very much.

I expect Peter Daou doesn't have the authority to do any of those things, and I doubt the people who do are at all interested in doing them. But I can ask.

And in the meantime, I can get a really, really good laugh from this. It's seldom that you see anyone looking quite this incompetent and ridiculous, doing something quite this ironic, especially at this level.

Hillary is in a tough spot.  She trails Obama in nearly every metric-- pledged delegates, states won, popular vote, fundraising totals.  She still has a slim lead in superdelegates, but that's because she had a whole bunch of them in her pocket before Obama even got into the race.

So, given her predicament, there is no way for her to close the gap by making nice and talking about her wonderful health care plan.  HRC and her advisors have no choice but to get down and dirty, but Obama has already proved he can take whatever they throw at him.  I expect her campaign to get so ugly in the coming weeks that the party elders will come to the realization that it's time to put the cows in the barn and wrap this thing up.

What a sad end for HRC; she began this contest with every conceivable advantage: $100 million in the bank, a famous husband who is the most popular and influential Democrat in the Party, a bunch of superdelegates and Party officials on board with her, and major name recognition after two terms as First Lady.  But she went out and hired a bunch of DLC stiffs to run her campaign, and look at the results-- Obama's populist campaign has outclassed her at every turn.  The only thing that has kept her in the race is that the media keeps moving the goalposts for Hillary; I can't recall how many 'firewall' states she has lost, yet we keep hearing that the next primary is the critical one for her.  If she was a loyal Democrat she would do the right thing for the Party and the nation and exit graciously right now.  I'm one of her NY state constituents, and I'm concerned that before this is over she will have diminished her ability to serve effectively as our Senator.

that Obama has run a better campaign?  He's built a better ground game.  He's built a better internet infrastructure (Peter Daou, are you listening?) and built better message control.  

I am sorry but Hill's team sucks and no amount of protestation is going to change that.  

I know a deceptive campaign when I see.  I have loved Hillary for a long time...but her campaign has been ridiculous.  You can spin it however you want.  I know what I have seen.  I have worked on several campaigns.  You'll never convince me that Obama is running the dirty campaign.  It is just laughable.  I switched to him from Hillary a while ago, and I am so glad I did.

  These "attacks", as you deem them, are legitimate points. I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about "going negative". If I were to consider off-limits all of the points you mention, I'd have very little to say about Sen. Clinton. It plainly is not issue-based, as their positions on the issues differ very little. Your argument seems to come down to "Obama was mean to her first". Objective reality, and an active internet connection will dispel this argument in about 4 seconds. Sun-Tzu says "Those who fling feces must expect return fire".

"Disingenuous"
"Too polarizing to win"
'Divisive'
"Untruthful"
"Dishonest"
'Calculating'
"Saying and doing whatever it takes to win"
"Attempting to deceive the American people"
"One of the most secretive politicians in America"
"Literally willing to do anything to win"
"Playing politics with war"

There is a certain amount of duplication of the above.  For instance, if you accept the last premise, that she played politics with war during the 2002 AUMF vote (and justification can be made for that statement) then everything in the list above that can be logically derived as a necessary consequence.  Well, except for maybe "Do anything to win," which is a different matter.

So at the center of this is a question of policy, rather than unfair personal attacks.  If Hillary could or would address the issue of the 2002 AUMF vote in an acceptable and believable manner, it would blunt all this.  But this continues to be an ongoing toothache.

But all this is too little, too late.  Slate's article, "Hillary's Sorry Non-Apology," from Feb of last year, pretty much predicted what would doom her.  So add "Hubris" to the list of assaults on her integrity which can be derived from Daou's last point.

http://www.slate.com/id/2160238/

Now, from campaign insiders quoted in the New York Times, comes the answer: never. As she told voters a few days ago: "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from."

This is an amazingly stupid and arrogant position. If she sticks to it, it will probably kill her candidacy. And it should.

Telling people to vote for another candidate than yourself is pretty ballsy.  Not a good way to get more votes.  Most people want candidates to ask for their votes.

"she's worked harder crap." you know, sipping lattes in the white house and singing duets with sheryl crowe and sinbad, while Obama schlepped around on the south side. clleeeeearly harder working.

unlike those who were unaware of a texas caucus?

the idea that someone who is on the campaign staff has done his homework shouldn't be quite this surprising.

unfortunately, it also means that he just handed obama her playbook. this is EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

"Full Assault" is asking for the release of financial records?

Of course those should be released now so that we don't nominate someone with a hidden fatal flaws.

I thought all Dems were for financial transparency?

I'm amazed that some Hillary supporters have so lost their bearings that they are arguing for financial secrecy.

I clicked on Daou's first two links: 'disingenuous' and 'too polarizing to win.'

The language "too polarizing to win" wasn't Obama's, but a headline writer's.  Obama isn't quoted in the article as saying anything like it.

Obama did call Clinton 'disingenuous' for wanting to have it both ways with respect to her husband's Administration - taking credit for the good, distancing herself from the bad - and without any sort of documentary support either way.

I'd say Obama's point was a strong one, and I thank Daou for bringing this poor judgment on his candidate's part to my attention.

If the rest of Daou's links make his case anywhere near as poorly - and one must suspect they will, these were the first two, the ones he had to expect would be looked at and scrutinized - then Daou must've been hoping that no one would check his homework.

Team Hillary's apparently throwing anything they can at the wall, hoping something will stick.  This piece of crap's sliding straight down.

Why are you 9 months too late with this?

Why was there not a more effective push back each and every time that Obama slid under the radar and placed this crap out in the MSM?

And, why did Hillary not take my advice back months ago and issue an edict from her campaign that all mention of Obama was forbidden?  If she had, there would have been nothing , absolutely not one word out there that the Obama folks could claim was 'racist'.  Not even a 'fairy tale'.  Could you not see on dKos what a train wreck was in the making and take that back to the campaign?

Ok, my bad: four questions.