For those who doubt the Clinton campaign leaked the Obama questionnaire to Politico . . .

[undercoverduer]

. . .why would they hold a conference call to talk about the questionnaire?

Hmmmmmmm

Sounds like the Clinton camp continues to be desparate:

-snip-
On Tuesday, an article by Mike Allen and Ben Smith on Politico.com, based on the 1996 IVI-IPO questionnaire that they obtained, they said, "from political sources opposed" to Obama's White House bid, "raises questions of whether Obama can be painted as too liberal and whether he is insufficiently consistent."

A poll of Democrats by the New York Times and CBS News published Tuesday concluded Clinton "is viewed by Democrats as a far more electable nominee" than Obama or Edwards.

During a conference call with reporters, Obama said polls asking about electability that include Republicans and independents were more important.

"Republicans and independents are more open to my message of change than they are to any other candidate out there, and that's what is going to be required in terms of bringing people together to get things done," Obama said.

Following on the Politico article, the Clinton campaign offered backers who raised questions about Obama's liberal roots during a press call. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas), referring to Obama's strong anti-gun positions reflected in the 1996 IVI-IPO questionnaire, said she was baffled over how Obama could be "talking about banning all guns" and then "all of a sudden" alter that position.
-snip-

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/692594,CST-NWS-sweet12.article

So some on DU feel Obama is too moderate for their tastes and now the Clinton camp feels he may be too liberal. What's it going to folks. . .maybe he is just right.

Question to the undecideds, what do you think of the Clinton camp as trying to paint Obama as too liberal?

[enough already]

1. The Clinton camp is clearly desperate

A funny thing happened on the way to the coronation...

[Uben]

2. I agree with them

A little too liberal for me, but still a great candidate. I think Clinton has a better chance of bringing in moderates than Obama, but that is just my opinion. I would have no problem voting for either in the GE.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. "leaked?" It is a public document, sent out by Obama. Why is it not something voters should

consider? Aren't you all considering positions and statements that Clinton made years and years ago? Aren't you all considering e-mails that were never sent by Clinton, as reasons not to vote for her? Why is this not fair game? I don't understand it.

And, it does say something about Obama's character: does anyone really believe this:

"The Obama campaign Tuesday disavowed a questionnaire he submitted to the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization in 1996 to support his state Senate candidacy.

"Obama never saw the '96 IVI-IPO state Senate questionnaire -- it was filled out by a staffer who unintentionally mischaracterized his views on a number of issues," said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt. LaBolt said the staffer was then-Obama state Senate campaign manager Carol Harwell, who could not be reached Tuesday for comment."

If he did not know what was being sent out on his behalf, he is not a good leader.

[madrchsod]

6. i really love lynn sweet....

she runs a story that leaves out one key fact "LaBolt said the staffer was then-Obama state Senate campaign manager Carol Harwell, who could not be reached Tuesday for comment."

so why did lynn run the story without first verifying this key assertion? lynn`s bias is showing but as long as she meets her deadline it`s ok with her

[wyldwolf]

4. "Three weeks before fight night, we find one contender training hard...

... still hitting the gym, still looking for her opponent's weakness and ways to exploit them. What say you, Stu?"

"Hillary Clinton, in actually training for this fight, doing all the things normal contenders do, is clearly desperate. Did Ali train for his match against Frazier? Foreman? No. Did Leonard prepare for his epic battles with Thomas Hearns? Not on your life. Doing so would've been seen as desperate for them. Frank?"

"Well, Stu, if you recall, there was a rumor some months back that Clinton might skip the 'thrilla in Iowa' because many felt she wouldn't be competitive. Wouldn't you agree that she HAS been competitive and, indeed, has been predicted to win by some prognosticators?"

"No, Frank. Hillary, if she is to remain a credible contender, must NOT do what all contenders do, namely, prepare for this fight. To do so is clearly a desperate move."

[madrchsod]

5. ..is obama to liberal......where have i heard this before?

"Next came Sean Wilentz, a Princeton professor who is also advising the Clinton campaign. Interviewed at TIME.Com, Professor Wilentz said that Clinton's opponents represented a Democratic tradition of "beautiful loserdom," a belief that politics itself is tawdy and beneath them.----> He compared Obama to Adlai Stevenson".<-----


"Then I began to wonder: In a campaign as well-known for message discipline as this one, could this represent a deliberate theme? ---->Could the Clinton team be telling primary voters that idealism itself is a weakness, a threat to the party that must be rooted out and eliminated?"<-----


http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11498
Does the Clinton Campaign Think Idealism is for Suckers? - The Smirking Chimp

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. That's easy

Do you really think that Clinton was going to allow all of her to opponents define the "electability issue" as a negative confined to her only? Didn't Obama just say something about how she was too "divisive" for example? Haven't her opponents been arguing that she is "too polarizing" and that she would hurt other Democrats running on the ticket below her? This is a safe way for Clinton to raise the "electability issue" against Obama safely, which I will discuss more below.

And of course Clinton isn't stupid enough to ever say that Obama is "too liberal", those were your words, not hers. Her camp pointed to certain positions (which you or I can call "liberal")that Obama took on that questionnaire, then said those positions might be hard for him to explain and defend to voters today, which of course is a double edged sword being used against him, but one that was handed to them by Obama's own prior campaign. Personally I have no problem with those positions Obama took in 1996 - except that now he says it wasn't him taking them then in his name, it was his campaign manager claiming Obama took those positions. But since Obama submitted that questionnaire under his own name, and never corrected any answers later that he claims were not really his, he is in an uncomfortable position regarding it now.

Obama is intentionally trying to appeal to moderates as well as Liberals this time around, which is not a sin; that is something which most of our candidates would like to pull off if they could. But he has softened his edge considerably on some hot button issues, with gun ownership being one of them. Having his prior "liberal" stands on issues like that thrown out there now might cost him some more conservative votes he has busily been courting. That is the First level. The Second level is this slightly muddies Obama's image as Mr. Clean because he is disavowing the words that were filed in his own name back in 1996 even though he made no such effort to disavow them at the time. At the time they were probably politically helpful for the position he was running for. Now they may be less so. The appearance is that he is blaming someone else (his manager) for allowing positions he doesn't want to stand behind now to have been stated then. It can look like that dreaded word frequently used against Clinton: "triangulation".

Now the Third level is pointing out that Obama hasn't been vetted as closely as Clinton has throughout her long career in the public spotlight. More "surprises" like this one may still be out there that will also be awkward for Obama to deal with, it is possible there are other things from his past that might make voters uncomfortable when they come up in the General Election etc. One thing that Clinton can claim stronger than anyone else is that her life has been gone over with a fine tooth comb for a decade by the Republicans, she has already had everything anyone can find that can be used as a weapon thrown against her, but not necessarily so with Obama.

The Fourth level is this type of thing provides a socially acceptable way for Clinton to raise the fact that Obama may have some trouble getting elected, without having to pin that concern on racism. Everyone and his or her brother realizes that racism is a wild card in a Presidential election, we talk about it here among ourselves, but none of Obama's opponents can come right out and say "Don't you think it would be safer if we ran a white person?" Hell Hillary can't even suggest "wouldn't it be safer to run a white man" for obvious reasons. But it remains an officially unspoken concern to some degree. Obama gets to play the race card in a positive way when he talks about how he will energize minority voters but no one gets to come back at him and say, "yeah sure, but what about energizing racists to vote against you?" With her opponents constantly finding ways to argue that Clinton might hurt our chances in the General Election she can't afford not to find a way to reverse that argument against her opponents. Each of these folks are looking for ways to win.

And I don't know if you consider digging up that old questionnaire, or even passing it on to reporters to be dirty politics, but I don't. That was a document in the public domain, one that Obama used in a prior political campaign. As such it is as much a part of his political record as Kucinich's prior pro-life stance. It is legitimate fodder for public discussion, and whether it reflects well or poorly on Obama now is a big part of that discussion.

[Renew Deal]

8. I don't understand why the questionnaire is a big deal.

In fact, I find it reassuring about Obama. (I am not a supporter).

[wndycty]

9. Kick

:kick: