Michael,

Quoting Clinton is hardly a valid way to make a case against Obama. You are under the mistaken impression that this statement from Clinton about Obama is true. In reality, it is Clinton, not Obama, who has been engaging in Rove style attacks. At worst Obama’s mailers confuse a third party description of Clinton’s views for an exact quote, but otherwise they are factual, in contast to many Clinton mailers:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2955

And you are a bad journalist? Fox News and CNN producers do the same thing where they make any outrageous claim and put a question mark at the end of it.  Jon Stewart has already hammered them for it.

it’s no big deal.

Clinton just needs another "real" moment, shed a few tears and win Ohio.

Hillary Clinton playing the aggrieved damsel in super important Ohio while the state’s governor stands behind her, nodding piously?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             I wonder how long they rehearsed this. It’s a desperation hail mary. Call in the markers, get the important state machine loyalists up on stage, and then have them hit the ground across the state throwing mud at Obama for lying about poor virtuous little hill-hill. It won’t play. Sorry Hillary, people don’t like you.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   I think she may hold on in Ohio, in part on the legs of this blatant stunt. It’s a big machine state, and thus a Clinton stronghold. But she needs Ohio _and_ Texas, and she’s looking down the barrel of a bad poll trend in Texas.

Tsk, tsk, tsk…dontcha know Michael, the Messiah doesn’t lie, he’s a "new" *cough,cough* "type" of politician.  A new breed if you will, that will take us into the leftist utopian promised land (course he and his followers missed how well *that* delusion has worked out for us Canadians and Europeans…oh right, shhhhh).  He represents "change", "hope" and all that bullshit that his self-delusional acolytes are swallowing.  Please, Obama doing the typical shit that *all* politicans do.   Whatevah… 

Although most politicians have far more substance than him.  Oh wait, "change", "hope", "new" style of politics, poneys, rainbows, peace on Earth, yadda yadda yadda…My bad. 

Hmmmm I don’t like it. It’s the tactic I object to, not the content itself. So far as I’ve read up on the subject the charge that Clinton supported NAFTA until it very recently became inconvenient of her to do so is true, so I don’t think the Obama campaign has lied.

However they have gone negative, which I do disapprove of. It’s not only about telling the truth, it’s also about using a different campaign and ruling style than your opponent. This is no different from what the Clinton camp often does (which makes her outrage a little hollow) and therefore I must condemn it. I think it’s the responsibility of a candidates supporters to remain consistent. If the Obama campaign is going to be a different sort of politics, it must walk the walk. This isn’t a mortal blow to my confidence in Obama, not by a long shot, but I’m not about to defend it either.

I predict though that the story will not last long, since the Clinton camp knows that the longer they keep the story out there, the longer her support of NAFTA through the years will ALSO stay out there. This story hurts both candidates, so they’re going to have to measure who it hurts more and who can afford to take the heat longer.

Billary streches the truth on NAFTA ferself. She’s flip-flopped on NAFTA now that the US economy is heading towards a recession. Her husband didn’t sign NAFTA, but was a supporter and layed claim to NAFTA as part of his legacy. From the NYT’s article:

Mrs. Clinton strenuously distanced herself from that Saturday. She said “the agreement was negotiated” during the administration of her husband’s predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, and “passed in the Clinton administration.”

From Wiki:

There was considerable opposition in all three countries. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC.

What I find striking is that every single time she gets any form of criticism, Hillary and her backers deem it to be intolerably unfair.

What would that translate into once she was in office?

What I find striking is that every single time she gets any form of criticism, Hillary and her backers deem it to be intolerably unfair.What would that translate into once she was in office?

Not only would it be terribly divisive and distracting from the true issues we face, I think it’s exactly what we DON’T need from our first female president.  What a blow to feminism, to have a sniveling woman who responds to every criticism in such a weak way. More Maggie Thatcher, less Hillary/Diana/Oprah, please. What’s ironic is that Hillary probably COULD have been a Thatcher but she mistakenly thought she had to show a ’softer’ side, and she seems to have a fatal flaw of falling into the victim role when under pressure.

Michael: I don’t see where anyone here has defended Obama on the basis of the idea that he’s too virtuous to lie. Instead, they’re pointing out that (inconveniently for you) the facts show that the mailers are pretty consistent with the truth. Unless you start showing why you believe otherwise, it’s you who is defending your candidate on a very flimsy basis-not the Obama supporters. Why not discuss the facts, if you believe they’re wrong and Hillary is right about this?

What newspaper was that? And did THEY provide any evidence for that assertion? (do you have a link?)

I found the Newsday piece and it looks like what they are saying is that Obama quoted their statement which had characterized Clinton’s position on NAFTA as a positive one, and now they’re distancing themselves from their own statements- but they’re also pointing out that Clinton never bothered to correct the record if they were wrong to characterize her statements and positions that way.

All of your criticisms seem to revolve around a central premise, Michael. You assert that Obama is uniquely open to criticism because his campaign is based ONLY on the claim that he is new/different/special.

For those who support him for other reasons, your criticisms ring completely hollow.

EEK! Regular politicians eat chicken! Obama eats chicken! That proves Obama is a liar when he says he is different! :rolleyes:

Michael, until you actually substantiate how exactly the mailers were dishonest, I think you do all of your readers a disservice.  If any and all forms of contrast are "negative," than we are simply obfuscating over what truly negative campaiging looks like.

Look up Jesse Helms.  That’s negative campaigning.  The Schwartz and Moyers "daisy" ad was negative campaigning.  It’s kind of like when someone uses the word Nazi or fascist too much.  Well, Nazis actually did really bad stuff.  Comparing this to the real deal is not only weak, but it waters down the significance of genuinely mean spirited campaiging.  

Drawing a contrast on issues is not that, Michael.   

Critiquing Obama and shilling for Clinton are two different things.