April 08, 2008
Hillary's Hoosier Chair: Obama Running "Negative" In IN
During the Clinton campaign's call with reporters, Hoosiers for Hillary co-chair Joe Hogsett, who is a former secretary of state of IN, said Clinton had run a "very positive campaign" in the state and that in just the last three weeks, she or her husband had made 35 appearances in 19 cities. (State director Robby Mook later said it was all three Clintons who together had made 35 campaign stops.) Hogsett said Obama's campaign had only visited the state twice and that his campaign had gone negative.
"In contrast to Sen. Clinton's positive, forward-thinking, visionary campaign directed at Indiana concerns and Indiana problems, the only real effort the Obama campaign seems to be making in Indiana is to launch negative attacks against Sen. Clinton," Hogsett said. "Just a week or so ago, one of their first big announcements was the creation of a negative attack truth squad. Again today apparently there was another such effort."
HRC Communications Director Howard Wolfson was asked a series of questions about the effects of Mark Penn's decision to step down as chief strategist, while continuing to play a role in the campaign. He likened the change to a newspaper's editor-in-chief stepping down from that position but continuing to help produce the paper. Woflson refused to answer whether Penn was still taking part in "intracampaign" conference calls.
Mook said the state campaign is opening three offices today, bringing its total statewide to 17. He said that while Clinton's campaign was about "jobs, jobs, jobs," Obama's campaign seemed to be about "attack, attack, attack."
"We also think it's unfortunate that Sen. Obama would attack Sen. Bayh and the recent endorsement ad that he put up when independent sources are reporting today that the ad that he has been running here on oil and accepting, or not accepting contributions from oil companies, is misleading," Mook said. "We would hope that Sen. Obama and his attack squad would take this advertisement down, make sure it is corrected and not continue to mislead voters here."
Mook said that on the Obama campaign call, Teamsters President James P. Hoffa, an Obama supporter, brought up the issue of Austan Goolsbee, the advisor who met with the Canadian government about Obama's NAFTA position was raised and a suggestion made that Goolsbee needed to clarify what went on in that meeting. Mook and Wolfson called on Obama to do just that.
(NBC/NJ's ATHENA JONES)
Posted at 02:31 PM
Comments
That's Hilarious for the HRC to be branding Obama's ads "negative" since her whole campaign wallow in negativity.There's nothing positive about those folks. They simply rely on ignorant Americans to vote for them.They assume no one is smart enough to see how manipulative and under the board they are.
joseph pierre | 04.08.08 04:22 PM
 |
Yeah, I can see how the truth might seem negative to the Clintons...unbelievable.
Geoff Lane | 04.08.08 04:34 PM
|
Update on Hoffa:
UPDATE, 2:27pm -- Hoffa released this written statement: "To clear up any misunderstanding about my statements, the Obama campaign and Austan Goolsbee have already clarified Professor Goolsbee's meeting with representatives from the Canadian government, and as confirmed by the Canadian government, Sen. Obama's position on NAFTA has not changed. As I said on a conference call with reporters earlier today, Sen. Clinton has a credibility problem with the working men and women across this country on the issue of trade. This problem is only underscored by Mark Penn's continued role in her campaign."
Don Hannaford | 04.08.08 04:39 PM
|
I think the quote says it all "Truth squad" = a "negative attack" to HRC and her campaign. Truth = negative. Not surprising given the many lies she has told.
Howard | 04.08.08 04:55 PM
|
Leave it to Joe Hoggnutts to pipe up about negative ads. This guys whole political career was established by running a negative campaign when he got elected Secretary of State.
He peaked about 20 years ago as well.
RiverRed | 04.08.08 09:47 PM
|
I can't speak for anyone else, but I live in Indiana. I haven't heard anything negative from the Obama camp. I can't say that of Clinton...
Jerry Gordon | 04.08.08 10:02 PM
|
This article leaves the mistaken impression that Obama isn't active in Indiana. If Clinton only has 17 offices statewide she's way behind. I live in Elkhart county in which Obama already has at least 2 offices. The state has 92 counties, you do the math. In contrast to the complete lack of any local organization by the Clintons in Goshen (the county seat) there is a strong Obama group here. He may not have come here often himself, but his people are very much at work here.
John Buschert | 04.08.08 11:16 PM
|
As an Indiana resident, I call false on the reports of Obama negativity. His TV ads talk about him, and his history of organizing in Chicago, and his energy policy.
Hillary's endorsement ad by Bayh is okay, but Bayh is not a beloved figure in Indiana politics. He's okay, but that's all.
However, this primary in Indiana is energizing voters, and attracting media attention to the Democratic candidates. Losing the primary doesn't mean the Democrat can't / won't win the general in Indiana or other states. You add the Democratic primary votes together in the general. Indiana may not vote Democratic in the presidential election, but this primary has energized the party in important ways, with important implications for all Democratic candidates in the fall.
David Schrock-Shenk | 04.09.08 07:51 AM
|
My mother lives in small-town Indiana. Only thing she's heard about either campaign is one non-partisan robocall reminding her to vote, and heard her dentist and hygenists saying they were planning to close the office to go to an Obama rally the next day. Nothing negative from either campaign.
Seth | 04.09.08 10:22 AM
|
Obama negative! Obama has not BARKED from the stump as Hillary did over the NAFTA 'wink wink' Canadian ordeal in Ohio, which cost him the state.
Which later the country finds out, her campaign also talked to Canada. And from her White House Notes...she supported NAFTA, her husbands own POLICY deal. Now CAFTA, with the Colombians and Penn, Obama himself, speaks nothing, yet let it be known, that the CLINTONS themselves have been in favor of this CAFTA since 2000. INDIANA DO YOUR RESEARCH. ASK HOFFA!
lee | 04.09.08 11:13 AM
|
What is more negative than Clinton's calling Obama an elitist when his income is 1% of Clintons and he grew up with street kids!!
Bill | 04.16.08 03:21 PM
|
What is more negative than Clinton's calling Obama an elitist when his income is 1% of Clintons and he grew up with street kids!!
Bill | 04.16.08 03:21 PM
|
What is more negative than Clinton's calling Obama an elitist when his income is 1% of Clintons and he grew up with street kids!!
Bill | 04.16.08 03:21 PM
|
What is more negative than Clinton's calling Obama an elitist when his income is 1% of Clintons and he grew up with street kids!!
Bill | 04.16.08 03:22 PM
|
Check out the Roland Report dated April 21, 2008
about Ed Randell of PA. Specifically, April 14,
1997.
Joe | 04.25.08 07:48 PM
|
I find it unbelievable that Hilary would leave her church if her pastor made comments like Reverend Wright. This is the same woman who couldn't leave her husband after many many public adultrous affairs. LIES!!!!
Michelle | 04.30.08 11:36 PM
|
I don't see how so much negativity in the US media against Obama campaign can go unnoticed. It's obvious that the voters truly connect with Obama's words and really believe in his campaign. Also from the "mistakes" Clinton made durign her campaign, one can say that she is difficult to trust after lying about sniper fire in bosnia which never happened and repeating it 3 or more times in her speeches. When the only thing you see repeating about Obama's campaign are the scenes of Rev. Wright who (is really just a silly guy and) knows nothing about politics.
In my opinion, Obama is a much stronger candidate against McCain and can easily beat him. When Clinton(s) wouldn't because they and McCain play the same game..
dl | 05.04.08 11:56 PM
|
I don't see how so much negativity in the US media against Obama campaign can go unnoticed. It's obvious that the voters truly connect with Obama's words and really believe in his campaign. Also from the "mistakes" Clinton made durign her campaign, one can say that she is difficult to trust after lying about sniper fire in bosnia which never happened and repeating it 3 or more times in her speeches. When the only thing you see repeating about Obama's campaign are the scenes of Rev. Wright who (is really just a silly guy and) knows nothing about politics.
In my opinion, Obama is a much stronger candidate against McCain and can easily beat him. When Clinton(s) wouldn't because they and McCain play the same game..
dl | 05.05.08 12:00 AM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
