... From a Chicago pol.  Surpirse Surprise.  Obama isn't different from any of them.  The Obama many here support is a myth, an illusion.

has been posted:

Obama Plays Hardball to Win 96 Primary

by Curt Matlock, Sat Jun 02, 2007

I would be much obliged if the readers can visit and read the rebuttal, and consider recommending that diary. Thank you!

I wish Vox hadn't posted it..

following the law seems okay with me..

I thought she was running on Experience ... experience in the dirty tricks of the old politics would seem to be a natural extension of that.

I am just pointing out that there is nothing "different" about Obama and that his "new" politics is just a bunch of scripted BS fed to him by his handlers because they think people will eat it up.

Is Obama's old state senate district heavily African American?

They are rules that Obama allegedly opposes because they are restrictions on ballot access and voter choice.  In Indiana, which is a much less progressive state than Obama's, I can run for office without a petition.

If it wasn't 'dirty,' then Obama wouldn't have taken issue with it at the time.  Recall that he expressed concern with using legal challenges to eliminate ALL of his opponents, but did it nonetheless.

This isn't about hit pieces, which I believe is an over-used phrase.  This is about showing the man behind the mask, the real Obama.  The ambitious, "unconventional" man of the people who uses conventional means to elminate opposition.

What I find interesting is that Republicans are the ones who use legal challenges to intimidate and supress voter intent.  That's why we now have ID laws and the like, because if you can't win at the ballot box you use the rules to prevent yourself from having competition.

I would feel more confident if Obama had to run against Palmer and won than I do now, knowing he used supression tactics.

I can't agree with you, Curt.  It would be one thing if it was a Republican he was facing, but he was facing other Democrats, and he didn't only do it to the outgoing incumbent, but he made it so that he ran unopposed-

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Now, I can definitely see why what he did was legitimate.  However, this sounds like Obama's promise to not take money from lobbyists, but soliciting their wives.  It doesn't make me less likely to support him, however, and he's still my choice if Edwards loses Iowa.

about Gore "folding" in 2000. I was very impressed with how you've rebutted this lame-ass diary (and I was going to REC your comment), but then you've  placed a lame-ass smear of Gore in closing.

Facts about FL'2000

1. Gore fought for 35 days: link
   
2. After the verdict, DNC Chair Rendell called Gore to concede: link
   
3. 79% of Americans wanted Gore to concede should the SC ruling go against him: link
   
4. The urban myth "The Gore was cherry picking districts to get more votes." is false. They asked the Bush campaign to join them to request a statewide recount, and the Bush campaign refused. This link explains in detail.

5. Daschle and other senate Democrats had a power sharing agreement with senate Republicans, which was the reason that no Democratic senator supported the protests by the CBS regarding the certification of the election, contrary to the impression left by Fahrenheit 9/11 movie's opening scene. link.

Gore fought until no recourse was left and did so despite waning support from the party leadership in later weeks.

See also: 2000 Election synopsis

There is a right place for tough and a wrong place for tough.

Everyone wants a candidate to be tough.

If you are so inclined you imply that Obama will do as you say:

"Here's my question: When you are facing a hostile Congress or are trying to get some foreign policy done, do you want someone who will be a bare-knuckles fighter who uses every legal lever available to him?"

Then why didn't he employ that "bare-knuckles fighter" instinct to stand up to Bush on the last bill for Iraq?

Thing is, Obama didn't do this to "a hostile Congress" - he did it to members of his own party. And he didn't just do it to the incumbent, who's the only one who actually did him wrong. He did it to every other candidate in the race. It's one thing to screw with somebody who screws with you - it's another thing entirely to screw with people who've done you no harm just to make it easier for you to get ahead. Sure, it was technically legal - but, to make an extreme example, so were poll taxes once upon a time. And like poll taxes, if not to the same degree, this had the effect of limiting voter choice through an unjust legal technicality. Obama's said he opposes petition requirements for candidates; so why, when push came to shove, didn't Mr. "New kind of politics" put his money where his mouth is? That's my question about this whole business.

Actually I'm from Indiana.  We don't do petition drives.  And the legal challenges to get Nader off the ballot, while positive to our efforts (as he was funded by Republicans) was at least somewhat immoral.

Voters should have their choice.

Exactly.  Politics is not for the faint of heart and as long as you are following the rules I don't have one bit of a problem with what Obama did.  And I wouldn't if Edwards, Hillary or anyone else had done it.  Ballot access rules are ballot access rules and only an idiot wouldn't use them to his/her advantage.

They are with the nominating petitions.  Candidates who take the high road, and who like Obama oppose petitions in theory, could have chosen not to challenge and allowed the election to take place.

...mainly because it was painfully obvious that Fattah didn't stand a chance after trying to criticize Nutter for "having to remind himself that he's black". It was also bad form to try and monkey around in a local political race he knew nothing about and it shows an arrogance that flies in the face of his "new politics" rhetoric (which sounds an awful lot like blowing smoke up my rear, but what do I know?).

But- while Fattah is certainly a machine Dem, and a legacy at that, I'm curious in what sense you believe he's corrupt. If you mean morally corrupt than I might agree, mainly because of his attempts to strip Philly of its rights to regulate campaign donations. But, if you mean actually corrupt, than I think you should provide more than a link to a three sentence post by Will Bunch.

Either way, I really, really hope that Gore makes the jump (and I'm fairly certain that he will)- we cannot risk our nation's future on all of these unknowns (or even worse, the ones we know).

Corrupt?  That's nonsense.  Machine?  Not that either.  Are you confusing Cong. Fattah with one of his opponents in the race?

If no one expected a challenge they might have gotten the minimum number needed and there are always names that can be eliminated.  That is one of the questions I have.  Did the competitors know the petitions were going to be challenged?  If this was not a regular practice in the primaries it might be legal but I questions its appropriateness.

It would be unusual for all candidates but one to have problems with their petitions.

pretty easy to through out petitions if your lawyers are good enough.  Ask Nader about that.

Do you have a link to back that up? Here in Philly people get thrown off for all sorts of reasons- the petitions weren't notarized correctly, the person didn't list their last name, there was a problem with the person who took the signature, the person put their address where their signature should go, etc.

Who/What is Gary Boatwright?

And what's the purpose of your list?

And why would we want to weed out people?  the Obama supporters seem to whine alot and I guess it works since they got a front page poster.

Nothing in this diary was untrue or slanted.  It pointed out how he got into politics.  

And these are the bloggers that recommended the anti Edwards diary Edwards Says He read the NIE but he didn't  
which just rehashes old stuff and and plays gotcha with RW points.  But it is an open blog.

kevin22262
aiko
Donna Z
whodat527
jen
jj32
westcott
KnightRider
pelican
sybil disobedience
mihan
OsoDelMar
SusanCLE
mdiogu
Transplanted Texan
idea list
Phyl
ObamaEdwards2008
Mystylplx
JaeHood
r k sooz
parahammer

I'm not sure what any of it proves other than we have a point of view.  And I see your name on the list too.  
I think you are being just a little hypocritical.

What is important to me may not be important to you, that is the difference in us being human.

I Have never been one to complain about trivia of uprated post, but I have complained about those who will slink into a diary and troll rate post, and not even have the courage to post a comment themselves.

Sorry your view and mine of importance is different! That's the way it is. I will continue to uprate what is important to me, as you can also.

This diary asks legitimate questions about whether a candidate who bases his whole campaign around himself practicing a higher, nobler form of politics is hypocritical if he in fact engages in some of the uglier (if technically legal) sides of politics. Sure, it's presented rather combatively, and I might have refrained from recc'ing it for civility's sake - if this unmitigated turd of a diary hadn't just been pushed onto the recc list by the Edwards-haters, yourself prominently among them. But since I didn't, I guess you might as well go ahead and add me to that Nixonian enemies list you appear to be compiling.

oh sweet sweet irony.

Of course it is.  Do you know how hard it is to unseat an incumbent Democrat state legislator in a heavily Democratic urban district?  His first election is extremely important.

Nothing in the article suggests they were illegal voters.  Voters are often thrown off a list because of technical reasons, such as how things are placed on a line, some information put on the wrong line, and so on.  Some of the lists may have had duplicates or ineligible voters but nothing suggests that the candidates had tried to do anything illegal.  Their petition collectors may have done a poor job.  But this is not a usual strategy for Democratic primary.

They aren't necessarily illegal voters.  Having voters sign petitions is along the same lines as requiring a poll tax.

All it takes to get an otherwise valid signature taken off the petition is for one side to say "I can't read that name."  That's it.  The name is taken off.

The indications are that nobody was there challenging Obama's signatures, otherwise I think you would have found a similar number of "faulty" signatures.  Which is why the petitions are bullshit.

Only idiots ever called him that... and nearly all of them didn't support Obama.  Those who did just like him and his message.

and that's why this diary is so incredibly stupid.  

Obama used the rules to help defeat an incompetent opponent.  Why is this a bad thing?

As has been posted MANY times, she was running for a different race and had committed to Obama that she would step out of the way, but then lost badly in her other race.  So, at the 11th hour she got back in the race and had to collect the signatures over just a couple days.

I'll post what I want, when I want, and if you're not fond of it don't comment.  How difficult is that?  Rather than whine and cry, MOVE ON.

Because they aren't "our" candidates.  I have "my" candidate, you have "your" candidate, there is no consensus candidate.

I want someone who can get down in the gutter and do the wet work.  I am warming to Obama.