About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

A Look at Clinton's Surrogates

Make sure you read Peter Baker and Anne E. Kornblut's report in today's Post about the squabbling between advisers to Hillary Clinton.

Baker and Kornblut report that "the internal problems endured by the Clinton team have been especially corrosive."

"They fought over [Mark] Penn's strategy of presenting Clinton as a strong commander in chief rather than trying to humanize her, as aides such as admaker Mandy Grunwald and chief spokesman Howard Wolfson wanted to do. They fought over deployment of assets and dwindling resources, pointing fingers over the failure to field organizations in many states. They fought over how to handle former president Bill Clinton and his habit of drifting away from his talking points into provocative territory."

Here's your chance to see some Clinton surrogates in action.

Mark Penn spoke with washingtonpost.com on April 26, 2007, at the first Democratic presidential debate in Orangeburg, S.C.:

Howard Wolfson is a frequent guest on television programs, including this Feb. 17 appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation":

So, after reading Baker and Kornblut's report, what do you think? Did Clinton win on Tuesday "despite" her aides, as one source suggested, or because of her aides? Or is Clinton's current political status due to other reasons? Leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

-- Ed O'Keefe

By Ed O'Keefe |  March 6, 2008; 11:38 AM ET Hillary Rodham Clinton
Previous: Weekend Funnies Addendum:Clinton on The Daily Show | Next: Man in the Arena

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Poll Refreshes Every Tuesday Evening
See The Results As They Progress through the week!
Thanks for Voting!

Posted by: votenic | March 6, 2008 6:40 PM

Why haven't the media asked for Clintons' tax returns?

Also:


Is this true?


WND Exclusive RODHAM WATCH
Lawsuit: Clinton scheme
cost donor millions

Peter Paul's amended complaint seeks damages for loss of internet company
Posted: August 25, 2006
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

A $2 million Hollywood bash that honored President Bill Clinton and raised buckets of money for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign in 2000 was bankrolled by business mogul Peter Franklin Paul, and he says that was because Bill Clinton told him he'd work with Paul's company once he left the White House.


Peter Paul and Sen. Hillary Clinton (Courtesy Hillcap.org)

But that plan failed when, Paul alleges, the former president's agent diverted a key investment away from Paul's company and it failed in the dot-com meltdown several years ago. Now his lawsuit against Clinton and others for allegedly conspiring to destroy his $200 million Internet business is moving forward, with a motion to file a second amended complaint.

A hearing on that motion, submitted to the court today, is scheduled Sept. 25, officials with the United States Justice Foundation told WorldNetDaily.

Paul alleges after he donated $1.9 million of cash and in-kind contributions for Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign, Bill Clinton's agent used proprietary information obtained from Paul to convince Paul's Japanese partner to incorporate Venture Soft USA with him, not invest another $5 million with Paul.

Posted by: Lee O. Cherry | March 6, 2008 7:43 PM

There is one Clinton surrogate who has kept his mouth shut for a while now. He feels there is some slight chance that if Obama wins the nomination, he has to side with him. That is becuase he likes to fight the republicans more than support the Clintons at this point. He is the infamous James Carville. By his facial expressions I used to think that he is from outer space or the product of some strange copulation between a human and a hairless cat. But he will surface his face again in favor of Hillary if Hillary can catch up within 20 to 30 points of Obama.

Posted by: Bryan Corwin | March 7, 2008 6:11 AM

The MSNBC debate Hillary was asked when she would produce the income tax returns
She told Tim Russert "soon". Clintons have since announced April 15.

It seems apparent that there are questions concerning her 5 million dollar campaign loan, and should be required to produce all documents as soon as possible. Was the money borrowed from Bills foundation, where is the source of the money?

Yes the media is giving the Clintons a big pass. Just as they tried to pin the Obama NAFTA memo blame only on Obama. While the Clintons were the ones massaging the Canadians. Please see the Globe and Mail Article. Pretty pathetic.

Posted by: Louis | March 7, 2008 3:15 PM

Chill Everyone! We're going to get a great nominee and CRUSH THE

REPUBLIC-SCUMS!

My Dad had told me something that I will never forget when I left home

for the first time. He said,"Don't ever forget where you come from and Don't crap where you eat."

Can you hear me now? :)

Jack Asses UniteO8

Posted by: Randy | March 7, 2008 8:49 PM

Hilarious discussion between Hillary and obama. Must watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7150u9sfCo

Posted by: smita | March 7, 2008 10:19 PM

From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

"Saturday, March 08, 2008
How Obama Can Win and Win Strong

I am aware of the delegate math.

I know that, unless the Clinton team runs roughshod with regard to superdelegates, the numbers are unassailable.

However, for Obama to not only win, but to win strong, and thus to be in the best position for the general, he must step outside of the box created when Clinton tactics were applied to his own admirable stance.

By declaring himself the candidate of the new politics, putting the politics of Rove et al. aside for a politics of honesty, straight-forward decency, and strength, he has putatively left the field open for Clinton et al. to lob innuendo after innuendo. If he responds, he is in violation of his commitment to the new; if he continues with his current path of non-response, he will be taken down by a series of attacks, that however false or fantastic, will eventually raises doubts in the mind of the electorate as to the validity of his new politics, and will, in the great viscera of the electorate, so responsive and so easily changed, appear "weak."

If he attacks, it is said, he betrays himself; if he continues on the same path, he is whittled down by rumor and insinuation.

Clinton's current strength is her ability to attack, however true the nature and content of the attacks. Obama must turn this very behavior into its own negative. To do so, Obama must relentlessly name what she is doing and anchor it--calling for an "end to the era of 'kitchen sink' politics, i.e.:

"It's about time that we left the era of "kitchen sink" politics, of distortion and insinuation, behind us. We have all seen it before this--a period where it was often difficult to tell falsehood, rumor, and misinformation from truth. It was this type of politics that contributed to a war in which we have lost the best of our national treasure, our nation's men and women. It is this type of politics that our opponents not so long ago decried. And it is this type of politics that, more than anything else, signals weakness--the inability to base one's statements and actions on the firm ground of truth, on our collective and honest dedication to the construction of a new and positive future--and instead, on a retreat into the politics of personal destruction.

It's time to take out the dirty dishes; It's time to empty the kitchen sink. After an era where it was often difficult to distinguish fantasy from truth, it's time to put that era behind us, to base our future efforts on strong and honest desire to build a new and better future."

What Obama can create is his own "There you go again" moment--one that will both define Clinton (someone, after all, has to do it), and place the Clinton camp in their very own box, of their own making: Where any attack will be immediately associated in the voter's mind, and will be accompanied by a roll of the voter's eyes, as another example of Clinton's "kitchen sink" politics--of the chaotic, inconsistent, contradictory and frantic willingness to say or do anything to be elected, be it the changing of one's personality, tone, degree of honesty--or one's degree of tolerance or gusto for the politics of personal destruction.

Without a single attack, this demonstrates the nature of the Clinton camp: when presented with crisis or in danger of loss, rather than respond with strength, principle and authority, they throw the "kitchen sink" at the issue, abandoning principles and frantically strewing innuendo as they do so.

With powerful moral force, it names exactly what the Clinton camp is doing, and anchors it both to the politics of the past Administration, and to the very political tactics that Clinton herself has denounced and disavowed. It provides direct evidence--thus far, the only direct evidence--of how a Clinton Administration would likely govern in times of chaos, crisis, and other "3 a.m. moments"(thus disempowering her already shaky claims to superior foreign policy judgment): With a "kitchen sink" approach of tumultuous, changing, disorganized and contradictory attack, rather than with consistent purpose and moral authority.

Obama must persistently name what the Clinton camp is doing rather than complain, and he must then link it to the very essence of the old politics that has been lived through by all of us, and denigrated by most, over the past 8 years.

Thus named, and thus defined, Obama can then invite Clinton up to the higher ground--to a debate based on policy and principle--or she can choose to stay in the box that she and her camp have created.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

Posted by: Robert Hewson | March 9, 2008 5:41 AM

I really don't think Obama can be nice if he is nominated to run for President against McCain.

Look, I have seen this before. Anyone remember the Hart-Mondale race in the 80's.
Same thing. Hart was this "change and Hope" thing and it was close and he lost.

Then, some of the Dems were dispointed. Mainly the youth. They were upset that Hart did not make it, so it turned out that the Dem candidate running against the Republicans lost.

I like that so many people are involved in this whole Dem campaign. What I fear is the thought process that goes with some of Obama supporters. "If my candidate is not nominated, then I won't vote".

Then I hear all this "crook" kind of stuff. Does anyone realize that this has been done to almost every Dem candidate? The Clinton's especially. But even Starr couldn't get them on anything after spending over 50 million on trying to.

So, are we Dems as a Whole going to do ourselves in as the Rush Limbaugh suggests?
You know him: The one that get's paid for being an idiot.

This is history repeating itself I am afraid. I hear all kinds of really bad so called "issues" that people bring up. Not one of them valid.

Hillary is more experienced. Whether people like to hear that or not, it is true. You can read about people who are supporting the conservitive side try to say otherwise.

I don't believe either party is up to all this mischief. What I believe in, is what I have seen and experienced. I have been around and this so called "nasty" politics thing is really lite.

Posted by: cyberaim | March 9, 2008 11:52 AM

About that Peter Paul issue.

You can read up on that. Mr. Paul tried to bring charges, but the claims were seen false by many legal courts.

Peter Paul basically tried to screw and did actually succeed in doing so to some in his business dealings.

I am really glad he was stopped before he caused anymore harm to many celebs and other unsupecting investors.

Posted by: cyberaim | March 9, 2008 12:36 PM

With all her roles, all her policies, all her talk and all her years of experience, what has Hillary Clinton accomplished for the American people? Answer: Like Rush Limbaugh, Hillary has delivered nothing but division and hot air! She has no leadership qualifications.

Judging from the public's experience, the public should know by now that without any legal, ethical or moral compass to guide the Clintons, the America's experience with the Clintons may be likened to a rudderless ship trying to steer through rocky straits in a hurricane.

The Clintons would have us believe that Hillary and Bill have been thoroughly vetted. If this were true, then why don't we have answers for:

FOREIGN CLIENTS: How will Hillary know whether Bill's advice serves U.S. interests or the interests of his Russian, Chinese, Indian, Kazakhstan, Dubai, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman or Brunei clients?

MONEY: Do the tax records for the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation, Clinton Library and Clinton campaign show a proper accounting for the funds received for the Clintons' private purposes versus charitable, public and political purposes?

PARDONS: Will Hillary "reject" contributions or compensation from persons she pardons unlike her husband Bill who accepted contributions from Marc Rich the partner of Viktor Bout (the merchant of death), and her brother Hugh Rodham who accepted compensation from drug lords who were pardoned by Bill?

The only thing between a landslide victory for the Democratic Party and Barack Obama in November are the Clintons and Party bigwigs.

As a Republican leaning independent voter, I will support John McCain if Hillary Clinton is on the Democratic ticket.


Posted by: John Patrick Smith | March 10, 2008 6:48 AM

NEWS FLASH: OBAMA WINNING, CLINTON LOSING:
Senator Obama is kicking *** in number of wins, delegates and popular votes. He has won 28 states to Clinton''s 17. And he got more delegates in three of her wins than she did. Thats more than twice as many wins. She has been attacking him with lies since he won Iowa! He answers her attacks with truth. He has maintained his integrity, she just goes lower and lower! He is winning, she is losing. He will bring honor, intelligence and judgment to the White House.

Posted by: Katy7540 | March 11, 2008 12:32 AM

Hillary and Bill Clinton have made a significant issue about how the press is treating Hillary unfairly in their hyper-critical reporting on her and their "softball" reporting on Barak Obama. Hillary maintains she has been fully investigated by the media and Barak hasn't!

As the Tony Rezko trial begins in Chicago, Clinton and her surrogates are linking Obama to Rezko and the media is speculating about whether Obama will be called to testify as a witness in the case. Obama has always admitted he received $85,000 in contributions from Rezko which Obama has now donated to charity rather than keep.

Yet the civil fraud trial of Bill Clinton for defrauduing Hillary's largest donor in 2000 into giving her campaign more than $1.2 million, pending in Los Angeles courts since 2003, is now preparing for a November, 2008 trial. The discovery that is now proceeding after a February 21 hearing, and the pending trial, have NEVER been announced by the mainstream media.

Hillary was able to extricate herself as a co-defendant in the case in January, 2008 after years of appeals to be protected by the First Amendment from tort claims arising out of federal campaign solicitations she made. Her abuse of the intent of California's anti-SLAPP law after the California Supreme Court refused to dismiss her from the case in 2004 is emblematic of her contempt for the Rule of Law.

Hillary will be called as a witness in both discovery and the trial according to the trial court Judge who so-advised Hillary's attorney David Kendall when he dismissed Hillary as a co-defendant in 2007. A subpoena is being prepared this month and will be served personally on Hillary, along with Chelsea, Pa Gov. Ed Rendell, Al Gore and other well known political and media figures.

Yet the media has refused to report about this landmark civil fraud case- brought by Hillary's biggest 2000 donor to her Senate race, regarding allegations that were corroborated by the Department of Justice in the criminal trial of Hillary's finance director David Rosen in May, 2005. That indictment and trial was credited as resulting from the civil suit's allegations by Peter Paul, the Hollywood dot com millionaire Bill Clinton convinced to donate more than $1.2 million (according to the DOJ prosecutors and the FBI) to Hillary's Senate campaign as part of a post White House business deal with Bill.

The media - except for World Net Daily- has also suspiciously refused to report on Hillary's last FEC report regarding her 2000 Senate campaign, filed in January 30, 2006. In a secret settlement of an FEC complaint by the plaintiff in Paul v Clinton, Peter Paul, the FEC fined Hillary's campaign $35,000 for hiding more than $720,000 in donations from Paul, and it required Hillary's campaign to file a 4th amended FEC report.

In that report Hillary and her campaign again hid Paul's $1.2 million contribution to her campaign and falsely attributed $250,000 as being donated by Paul's partner, Spider Man creator Stan Lee, who swore in a video taped deposition he never gave Hillary or her campaign any money.

Lee did testify to trading $100,000 checks with Paul to make it appear he gave $100,000 to Hillary's campaign (admission of a felony) but none of that has been reported by the "overly critical" media!

Where is the outrage from Obama that the press is engaging in a double standard relating to his possible role in the Rezko trial and his refunding the $85,000 contributed to his campaign by Rezko- which Obama has always admitted taking. The media makes no mention of Hillary's role as a witness in Bill's fraud trial for defrauding Hillary's largest donor- and Hillary's refusal to refund the $1.2 million she illegally received from Paul, which she has denied taking from Paul ever since the Washington Post asked her about Paul and his felony convictions from the 1970's before her first Senate election in 2000?

visit hillcap.org for more info

Posted by: pedromatos11368 | March 12, 2008 12:10 PM

Posted by: MsRita | March 12, 2008 1:24 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company