Obama to start hitting back!

Workout notes 1800 yard swim (ok), 1 hour yoga class (Cathy is pretty easy), then 5 miles outside in the brisk air. The redwing blackbirds are back but it isn’t dive bombing season yet. I may look into buying a hard hat for my early summer walks.

The Democratic Primary Obama has had to take a hard look at his campaign. He is doing that; maybe he will start hitting back.

Barack Obama’s campaign up to this point has been refreshing. He seems almost too nice to be running for political office. His message has been about hope and change and a future filled with the hard work of restoring the greatest nation on earth to its rightful place as a beacon of hope for the rest of the world.

And it’s a strategy that has propelled him to the front of the race for the Democratic nomination. But his failure to seal the deal this week in Ohio and Texas may bring change.

Hillary Clinton landed some body blows in the hours leading up to Tuesday’s voting. An ad about a 3am phone call that preys on women’s fears for the safety of their children. Questions about indicted real-estate developer Tony Rezko and Obama’s position on NAFTA didn’t help either.

Now Obama is starting to reciprocate, questioning what kind of foreign policy experience Hillary Clinton actually has and pointing out that she wasn’t negotiating treaties or handling crises.

Obama has dubbed Clinton the “most secretive politician in America today.” He’s criticizing her for not releasing her income tax returns after saying she would do so “earlier,” and calling on her to release records about her years as First Lady. She hasn’t done that either, and Obama says that voters deserve to know why Clinton is hiding information.

The Clinton campaign doesn’t seem too happy that Obama is starting to fight back. Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson was whining that Obama is acting like Kenneth Starr, the special prosecutor who investigated the Clintons.

KEN STARR?????

Thereisnospoon at the Daily Kos sets the record straight:

Ms. Clinton, you are not a victim–nor are you a champion of beleaguered women’s rights.

When you jumped ahead of far more deserving women like Barbara Boxer to run for president, simply on the basis of having been First Lady, you were not a victim, but rather a setback for the millions of deserving women who make their way on their own names rather than those of their husbands. [...]

When you elbowed out other deserving Democrats to run for New York Senate despite not being from New York, and used your influence with your husband to trade four corrupt pardons for votes in a community where women are to be unseen and unheard, you were not a victim, nor a proponent of women’s rights in chauvinist, fundamentalist communities.

When you chose to use your position of influence within the Democratic Party to vote to allow Bush to send thousands of young women and men to die in the sands of Iraq and create widows and orphans of countless Iraqi mothers and children, simply so that you could look “tougher” on national security, you were not a victim.

When you inexplicably voted for Kyl-Lieberman to allow Dick Cheney to create even more widows and orphans by bombing Iran, you were not a victim. [...]

When you used fearmongering and potentially racist coding by accusing your opponent of not having been “vetted”, in spite of your campaign having raked him over the coals for anything and everything you could, you were not a victim.

When you reserve the right to overturn the will of the majority of voters and pledged delegates to steal the nomination with insider superdelegates, you are not a victim.

And now that you are lying by saying that you’re just too busy to release your tax records before April 15, all while claiming that your opponent isn’t sufficiently vetted, you are NOT a victim.

You and your husband are masters of making vicious attacks and engaging in scurrilous behavior, all while painting yourselves as victims of an anti-Clinton bias or even conspiracy. You are not victims; you are perpetrators. You are not advocates for the battered and under-represented; you are the batterers. You are not the ones standing up for the oppressed; you are the oppressors.

Bill Bradley (the former Senator, Rhodes Scholar and former NBA star) jumped into the fray as well.

Starting with you, Senator Bradley, do you believe that both Clinton and Obama are viable candidates and both should go on from this point on?

BILL BRADLEY: I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband’s unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library.

And the reason that is important — you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed.

These are important questions. The people deserve to know. And we deserve, as Democrats, to know before a nominee is selected, because we don’t want things to explode in a general election against John McCain.

JIM LEHRER: But as a practical matter, based on what happened yesterday, winning three out of four and where the delegate count rests right now, do you think she still has a really good — there’s a real good possibility she could win the nomination, Senator?

BILL BRADLEY: No, I really don’t…

JIM LEHRER: You don’t?

BILL BRADLEY: … because, mathematically, even if she won 60 percent of the rest of the races, she’d still be behind in pledged delegates. And that would mean that the super-delegates would end up making the decision.

And I think increasingly super-delegates are going to go with Barack Obama, particularly in districts that he won substantially.

I don’t think you’re going to find congressmen, even congresspeople that are behind Hillary early, go against their district, because if they go against their district, they’re going to find that they could very well have a primary challenge the next time

Oh yes, the Obama campaign isn’t exactly going to let itself be used for a punching bag either:

As we know the Hillary campaign has said some derogatory things about Mississippi and Red states in general. As a result, in the ad former Governor Mabus explains why Obama is the better of the two Democratic candidates because he can unite the nation and win in November.

Here is the ad:

“You know, now that Hillary Clinton is campaigning here in Mississippi, she likes to say how important we are,” Mabus says in the ad. “But just a few months ago when she was campaigning in Iowa, she told them she was shocked Iowa could be ranked with Mississippi on anything. And her campaign even called voters in states like Mississippi ’second class’.

“Obama will unite not divide”, Mabus continues. “He’ll take on special interest and not take their money. And he’ll practice his Christian faith by respecting us.”

Wow, this is one very tough ad.

Original source: here.

Hey Pennsylvania: don’t fall for this “I am going to make invisible people visible” line.

Oh the line sounds wonderful:

Sounds good, right? But what is she like, in real life?

Different story. If her campaign owes you money, you might be very invisible:

More on this by icebergslim:

Yes, Hillary, instead of screaming about, “Shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s not what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio — let’s have a debate about your tactics.”

Why not, shame on you for bailing and not paying for services, Hillary? Yes, we will see you in Ohio, with your new Mark Penn attitude.

* icebergslim’s diary :: ::
*

It was just $2,492.63, a pittance, really, alongside million-dollar television buys and direct mail drops.

But with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination enduring a rough patch, Peter Semetis, the owner of a deli and catering business in Lower Manhattan, had been following the news and growing increasingly worried that he was not going to be paid for the assorted breakfast trays, coffee, tea and orange juice he had provided the campaign for an event in mid-December.

“I’m afraid of her dropping out of the campaign and me becoming a casualty,” Mr. Semetis said.

Yes, I would be concerned, TOO. She can drop out, walk away and straight up STIFF Mr. Semetis. And if it is happening to him, do you think he is the only one?

So on Thursday, he went to small claims court and filed suit.

Do you think that anyone want to deal with going to court, filing fees, for 2K? This man has more and better things to do, but if you keep contacting a campaign and get the run around, what do you expect? [...]

p.s. Here is a list of unpaid bills, thanks to leevank.

p.s.s Another list of unpaid bills, thanks to cookedchicken08.

Of course, there is this wonderful incident in New Hampshire:

A Portsmouth, N.H., landlord says he finally received his check for $500 for a five-day stay by volunteers for Hillary Clinton’s campaign in January.

But the ordeal — which included leaving his warehouse property trashed with campaign signs – left him sore, so he’s donating the cash to Barack Obama’s campaign.

“It was the last straw for Hillary Clinton for me,” Terry Bennett told the Portsmouth Herald.

Click here to read the full report in the Portsmouth Herald.

Bennett’s missing reimbursement wasn’t the only one, the Herald found. An Iowa businessman told the paper he’s owed more than $7,000 by the campaign.

The campaign — which recently revealed it was strapped for cash in January but has since made fundraising strides — told the paper all money owed will be paid, but there have been a few “isolated delays,” and the New Hampshire campaign director said she regretted the condition in which Bennett’s property was left.

So, you in Pennsylvania: if you want to rent to the Clinton campaign, get a big deposit first. When it is over and the bills come due, you might be plenty invisible to them.

Of course, if you still have money to give the Clintons, then you’ll be very visible indeed!

The former wife of the fugitive financier controversially pardoned by President Clinton on his last day in office had donated $450,000 to his presidential library fund, according to reports in Washington.

Citing “sources familiar with the contribution”, the Washington Post said Denise Rich made three donations from July 1998 to May 2000, before she became active late last year in the successful lobbying campaign for Marc Rich.

The pardon freed one of the world’s richest men from prosecution on more than 50 counts of racketeering, wire fraud, income tax evasion and illegal oil trading with Iran.

Her lawyer had told a house committee probing the pardon that Denise Rich donated an “enormous sum of money” to the fund.

Politics as usual.