It was Axelrod who stirred up the pot

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ 05/25/clinton-defends-rfk-remarks/

George Stephanopoulos, the host of ABC's "This Week," asked David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's top strategist, about the e-mail:

Mr. Stephanopoulos: You say you're not trying to stir the issue up. But a member of your press staff yesterday was sending around to an entire press list -- I have the e-mail here -- Keith Olbermann's searing commentary against Hillary Clinton. So that is stirring this up, isn't it?"

Mr. Axelrod: "Well, Mr. Olbermann did his commentary and he had his opinion. But as far as we're concerned."

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But your campaign was sending it around."

Mr. Axelrod: "As far as we're concerned, George, as far as we're concerned, this issue is done. It was an unfortunate statement, as we said, as she's acknowledged. She has apologized. The apology, you know, is accepted. Let's move forward."

Mr. Axelrod: "There's so many important things going on in this country right now, George, that people are interested in that we're not going to spend days dwelling on this."

---------------------------------------- -

Yeah, as far as we're concerned, as far as we're concerned, this issue is done - AFTER the damage has been done!

Typical Chicago smear politics. Change and Hope, my ass.



Display:


Bad news for Hillay in Puerto Rico (1.33 / 3)

Local politician predicts low turnout for the primary

http://www.elnuevodia.com/diario/noticia /politica/noticias/vaticinan_poca_partic ipacion_en_primarias/409842


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:39:14 PM EST

*Hillary (1.00 / 2)


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:39:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad news for Hillay in Puerto Rico (none / 0)

A politician makes a prediction.

I guess we can bet the house on it then, can't we?

Really, I'm not going to pretend to know who is going to be favored in terms of margin, because I don't know Puerto Rican politics well enough to do so.

But I'd be simply astonished if the turnout weren't high. It's only human nature to want to play a role in a major election contest, most especially when all these political celebrities are turning up, and I can't imagine Puerto Ricans won't want to take advantage.


by frankly0 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad news for Hillay in Puerto Rico (1.33 / 3)

I didn't want to go through the motions of explaining everything.

(that's called a diary)

This "local politician" is one of the more influential ones.

Maybe you might want to look at the link and then get back to me.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:57:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad news for Hillay in Puerto Rico (1.00 / 2)

I'll ignore the condescending and elitist attitude in your last paragraph.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:58:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's not a muslim (1.25 / 4)

as far as I know.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:40:37 PM EST

You (2.00 / 2)

are defining troll...


by linc on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:42:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Coming from you (1.00 / 5)

that shouldn't mean much.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:45:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Coming from you (2.00 / 1)

heh heh


I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support... NY Governor Paterson
by obamaovermccain on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:46:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well (2.00 / 2)

I don't think I have ever posted three, completely off topic comments at the top of someone else's diary... yep. never done that.  Its rude, its unnecessary, its counter productive even.  And, it just makes the troll look like an ass.


by linc on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:48:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was Axelrod who stirred up the pot (2.00 / 2)

Hey classy Obama and his team didn't touch it , they even defended her .


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:41:38 PM EST

Compare that (2.00 / 4)

to this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZO4ktKHf RQ

Hillary's Pennsylvania "Bitter" ad.

The hypocrisy in this place reeks.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:44:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Compare that (2.00 / 1)

I am actually given him credit for not touching it.

Didn't you read what I said lol


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:45:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Compare that (none / 0)

Judging by past comments.

I guessed it was snark.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That just might be a reflection of paranoia (none / 0)


by lombard on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:02:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I still think it's snark (none / 0)


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:04:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's take a breather (none / 0)

I don't suppose in your own face-to-face life that you responded "What's that supposed to mean?" if someone who you didn't particularly trust said "Good morning" to you.  


by lombard on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:14:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I still think it's snark (none / 0)

No it's not. Lori is a hardcore Hillary supporter but not an anti-Obama commenter.


by elrod on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:39:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Compare that (none / 0)

Thanks Lori.  Uprating both your comments.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:53:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good for Stephanopolis (2.00 / 5)

This is a classic Axelrode tactic.


by catfish2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:42:21 PM EST

Re: Good for Stephanopolis (2.00 / 2)

yes, and he 'showed' his campaign for him, if he is our nom. He says Barack isn't McCain and that's why we will vote for him.  Barack has a chance to win us, by inviting Hillary onto his ticket if he's the nom, but Axlerod says he doesn't have to because when he's the only game in town we'll all have to fall in line or it'll be our fault if he loses the GE, not his.  According to Axelrod Barack owes us nothing. This is the bottom up kind of leadership that's the point of him or so he once said, more than 70 percent of voters want them both on the ticket but he won't listen. And if he loses it's our fault.  This is not a natural disaster, it's man made.  I see a train wreck in the fall, and a John and Mitt presidency because Barack won't listen, cause, hey he's ahead in the pledged delegates, and he thinks Mickey Mouse can beat John McCain so he needs me not.  


what a relief
by anna shane on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:58:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To be fair, Obama shouldn't have to (none / 0)

During my personal political lifetime, only Ronald Reagan and John Kerry placed their political rivals on the ticket.  Neither of those had the size of Hillary Clinton's constituency, but neither had been as much of a threat to their nominee's candidacy and neither's campaign generated as much partisanship.  

Now, the Obama team will have to ask whether placating Clinton's constituency is worth subverting their own judgment and preferences.  If they refuse, they may have to accept the risk of any consequences (although there are undoubtedly risks if she is given the spot, too) but I will respect their decision either way.


by lombard on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To be fair, Obama shouldn't have to (2.00 / 1)

his problem is that he's going against his 'reason.' If it's that important to win the GE, if it's the urgency of now because of McCain and he picks his own personal comfort over that, he's lost his 'reason.'  What's the point of him if he uses poor judgement and if he can't bring himself to unite? He's willing to take that risk? I think it's us who take the risk, as she says, and as Edwards also said, they'll be fine, it's the rest of us that needs a president.  He's painted himself into a corner, it's put up or shut up.  


what a relief
by anna shane on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:46:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To be fair, Obama shouldn't have to (none / 0)

Lombard, JFK and Lyndon Johnson HATED each other but still managed to kiss and make up in Los Angeles.


by handsomegent on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:39:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right. I forgot about them. (none / 0)


by lombard on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:43:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was Axelrod who stirred up the pot (2.00 / 2)

Oh, my, the Obama campaign noticed that Hillary Clinton said something dumb and they issued a statement about it!

What will those people stoop to next?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:42:33 PM EST

Re: It was Axelrod who stirred up the pot (2.00 / 3)

No. The Obama campaign is actively and aggressively mailing out links to Keith Oberman's YouTube performance piece about the issue. You are being feckless, at best.


by Jeter on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was Axelrod who stirred up the pot (none / 0)

actively and aggressively

You're going to need to back that up with some facts. I think you are using some mighty strong rhetoric there if all you can show is that they sent one email to reporters on their mailing list.


Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:01:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was Axelrod who stirred up the pot (none / 0)

Oh, it's a matter of degree and proportionality now? Just to a few reporters?


by Jeter on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:09:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was Axelrod who stirred up the pot (none / 0)

Post your proof to back up your rhetoric.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama said it is time to move PAST (none / 0)

this and I say it is time to move PAST THIS.


by puma on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:42:33 PM EST

Re: Obama said it is time to move PAST (2.00 / 1)

Unfortunately, that's not what David Axelrod said.


by Jeter on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:55:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See the clip (none / 0)

Get back to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZO4ktKHf RQ


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:00:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See the clip (none / 0)

Just did. If you're going to dump your load on a thread, do it at the end. Absolutely everyone has already heard everything you have to say, however.


by Jeter on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama said it is time to move PAST (none / 0)

Did you even actually read the diary, or just the title?


by letterc on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:02:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

After the Hillary campaign (none / 0)

went on and on about Obama's bitter comments.  I just think that the Obama campaign was VERY RESTRAINT in Hillary's gaffe comparing to how the Hillary campaign reacted to Obama's gaffe with the bitter comments.

There is NO COMPARISON folks.


by puma on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:45:06 PM EST

Re: After the Hillary campaign (none / 0)

I don't think Hillary made a gaffe at all.  I think the whole thing is nonsense.


by handsomegent on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:41:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was Axelrod who stirred up the pot (2.00 / 2)

Hey, you left this out:

Friday might have been one of the worst days of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's political career. Her campaign, as everyone knows, was already struggling. But on Friday, she made a reference to Bobby Kennedy's assassination -- a terrible choice of phrase in a presidential campaign that features an African-American candidate.

....................

After a day like Friday, it is hard to imagine how she keeps going, not just with her campaign, but emotionally. Even if she wanted to let off steam, she can't, at least in public. She may have little heart for carrying her race forward, but she has committed many times to doing so, at least through June 3. She told her audiences in South Dakota that she and her husband and daughter would be back before the primary.

But the day obliterated the arguments she had made in an earlier part of her interview with the editorial board -- that she was "more progressive" than Mr. Obama and would be a stronger candidate in the fall.

And it may have shattered any strategy for trying to win over superdelegates. The question is, did this episode alienate those who would have helped her to find a graceful way out.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ 05/24/on-the-road-clintons-very-bad-day/ #more-5219


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:45:16 PM EST

GFY (1.66 / 3)


by PD1769 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:46:44 PM EST

Re: It was Axelrod who stirred up the pot (1.20 / 5)

Axelrod is not the issue. What Hillary did was so sick, so demented, and so twisted, that anything Axelrod did in response pails in comaprison.  Honestly the reason Axelrod wants to drop the issue is because it's too ghoulish to touch with a ten foot pole. Hillary is in need of very serious professional help.


by greenboy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:48:16 PM EST

Let's Get One Thing Straight Pal (2.00 / 1)

She did nothing wrong.  Your sudden ginned up outrage over something that's been said in the past - your assertion that she did somethign "sick", "demented", "twisted" is what's actually sick.

FOr you to sit there ant tap away at your keyboard, claiming what you're claiming about a woman who's spent more years than I'm guessing you've been alive to help the impoverished, the underprivileged and those of color is beyond pathetic.  Are you really that desperate to trash a good and decent public servant with these lies of yours?

Seriously - the desperation hardly paints you as a guy who's backing a candidate who's supposedly locked this thing up.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:56:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Odd of the Obama campaign (2.00 / 2)

if he is so far ahead as they say, and he is the presumptive nominee as they say, how is this bringing Hillary's supporters to Obama's side in the name of party unity?


by catfish2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:52:36 PM EST

Re: It was Axelrod who stirred up the pot (2.00 / 3)

I watched that. Axelrod threw any movement towards the Obama camp by Clinton supporters out the window. It would appear that the man is a Mark Penn wannabee. How sad is that?


by Jeter on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:53:15 PM EST

Ah Kettle meet pot (2.00 / 1)

Wasn't it Clinton who said "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen .. Just speaking for myself, I'm very comfortable in the kitchen."

Wasn't the Clinton campaign the one pushing the "I am not bitter" buttons.

Axelrods response was tame compared to the rubbish that was spewed on bittergate and fingergate.

Not that this post will make any difference in your march to self-righteous indignation but why keep bringing up this crap when we have multiple posts asking that this issue die a natural death .... let it  go.

You aren't doing your candidate any favors.


by v2r1 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:53:49 PM EST

I did remember Hillary saying (none / 0)

that.

However, I still think we ALL need to MOVE PAST THIS.


by puma on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:58:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I did remember Hillary saying (none / 0)

So say we all?


by Jeter on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:11:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It wasn't an unfortunate statement, Axelrod. (2.00 / 2)

It was a totally legitimate statement that you twisted into something it wasn't, and then shoved down everyone's throats via your surrogates in the media, including Keith Olbermann.


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:17:53 PM EST

It wasn't an unfortunate statement, Axelrod. (2.00 / 1)

It was a totally legitimate statement that you twisted into something it wasn't, and then shoved down everyone's throats via your surrogates in the media, including Keith Olbermann.


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:18:03 PM EST

Yeah, what that guy just said! /snark (none / 0)


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:18:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was Axelrod who stirred up the pot (none / 0)

So wait its ok for Hillary to play up the bitter comments and her supporters eat it up, but not ok for obamas people to send an email about this?


by Bobby Obama on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:20:03 PM EST

This is only partly a media-generated controversy (none / 0)

Half of this is media-generated. When the NY Post jumped all over the original quote and suggested that Clinton was hanging around in case Obama got assassinated, it sent the incident into a tizzy. But then millions of people - and yes, I mean millions - watched the video for themselves. Some were convinced that Hillary's reference was totally innocent. But most either felt it was a bit inappropriate though hardly worthy of the massive outrage, or felt it was, in fact, outrageous.

The reason so many people believe the worst intent here is because of a pre-existing frame of "Hillary will do ANYTHING to get elected." Without that reputation - deserved or not - nobody would jump to any onerous conclusions.  A LOT of Obama supporters loathe Hillary Clinton as a person and so they naturally concluded the worst here. I don't particularly like Hillary Clinton as a person either, but I believe she was merely using an emotionally resonant example of an extended primary (I argued in another diary that the example of 1968 was inappropriate altogether).

It's like Tuzla then. Soft Hillary supporters who never particularly liked her personally will interpret this nefariously. And it won't be just because the media jumped on it. It will be because they've seen the video and decided themselves that something's just wrong with the RFK reference.


by elrod on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:49:53 PM EST

Obama generated (none / 0)

Now we know that not only did Bill Burton circulate the NY Post story, but the campaign went on to circulate that disgusting Olberman piece. I cannot vote for a man who is willing to use the assassination of Robert Kennedy for character assassination. So far Barack Obama refuses to even apologize.


by souvarine on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:01:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama... (2.00 / 1)

... is a lying hypocrite.

On the very day he said that Clinton's statement was a harmless mistake and it was time to move on, his campaign sent around an email that fanned the flames even more, including Keith Olbermann's unhinged rant.

Same as with the Tuzla issue--at a debate he says it meant nothing, but then his campaign organized a conference call bashing Hillary about it.

His campaign wallows in the mud with the worst of them, and pretends to be above them. If he thinks we're going to be with him in November, he has another thing coming.


by OrangeFur on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:11:11 PM EST

Axelrod Blamed Hillary for Bhutto Assassination (2.00 / 1)

When Benazir Bhutto was assassinated at beginning of this campaign, David Axelrod accused Hillary of being at fault.  Before her body was even put into a casket, Axelrod made remarks that should have gotten him fired.

After Obama's universally panned clumsy remarks about Benazir Bhutto's death Axelrod started blaming Hillary Clinton for her assassination!

The whole Muslim and Arab worlds were in shock and horror.  Bhutto was the first and only woman leader, and now she was shot dead in the hospital.

This is Axelrod, he's stirred assassination pots since beginning of campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson .cooper.360/blog/2007/12/did-hillary-cli nton-kill-benazir-bhutto.html

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/28 /121258/60

When your campaign accuses Hillary Clinton of causing the death of the Only female leader of the Arab and Muslim world when they are in shock from the event, when the casket has not even left the hospital, is it really that surprising that you would hope you could force her out like that too?

Axelrod accused Hillary of Causing Bhutto's death, and he never apologized.  He was not fired.  Hillary Clinton went on Meet the Press saying she fired anybody who got out of line and yet Axelrod was still there after accusing her of being responsible for Bhutto's death during the Muslim and Arab's world's darkest hours.  

Why did Axelrod never apologize, why did he never get fired?

This is the campaign that thinks we'll drop out before the Convention and get behind their candidate?

See you at the Convention.


by chieflytrue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:25:22 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.