Home › Blogs › Soren Dayton's blog ›

Obama's dishonest surrogates

Submitted by Soren Dayton on Sun, 09/07/2008 - 23:36
in

Regarding the recent statements by Howard Gutman, making the kinds of attacks that Barack Obama has personally disavowed, Obama broke his word. Typically, there has been no consequences. In fact, as Jim Geraghy notes, this has been a pattern:

No sign that Gutman has departed the Obama campaign. In fact, we're getting a rerun of something we saw earlier this year. Whenever we saw an Obama surrogate — say, Wes Clark, George McGovern, Jay Rockefeller, Tom Harkin, Democratic congressional candidate Bill Gillespie, Ed Schultz or Tony McPeak — attacking John McCain's war record, the response was always the same - a short, curt, pro forma "we disapprove" statement from a spokesman, with no real consequences for the surrogate who stepped out of line.

We really have to start pressuring this guy to keep his word on this stuff. There is something profoundly fraudulent about his claims of a new kind of politics, pre-emptively denouncing this stuff, and then doing nothing when it acually happens.

In the case of Gutman, the appropriate response is clear. Minimally, he should remove Gutman from the Finance Committee and from any formal role in the campaign. If he were serious about any of this, he would give back some or all of Gutman's money.

But Obama isn't serious about his commitments. So it won't happen.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

dishonest blogger misrepresents campaign statements

Submitted by mnmod on Mon, 09/08/2008 - 00:54.

Gutman was questioning Sarah Palin's judgement and priorities and not attacking her children.  Several nonpolitical moms in my neighborhood are also quite critical of Palin's decision to take on the demanding schedule of a presidential campaign considering  her family circumstances.  They think she should wait some years for a more appropriate time to take on the grueling schedule of a national campaign and possibly VP duties. 

As for Obama's statement about how he would fire staff for smears of  Palin's family, that was in response to a question re the babygate rumors from last weekend,  the ones speculating the that Bristol was really Trig's mother.  I read daily kos much of that weekend and  majority opinion there was back off the story, (mixed in with some criticism of the risks Palin took with her 20 hour journey  home to Wasilla after her water broke rather than straight to the hospital as most doctors advise in such cases.)

Anyhoo, I don't see how Gutman comment is a firing offence, as it is not a smear  (facts  of special needs infant and pregant daughter are well known)  nor is it directed at Palin's children. Personally I think Obama has exactly the right focus which is  to contrast the partyline differences on the issues. I keep reading various blogs in hopes of getting a clue of what changes in policy Mccain is proposing.

Nice try, mnmod. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Mon, 09/08/2008 - 02:26.

. . .but, what Obama said was:

"How a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics, and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off-limits."

And:

"Our people were not involved in any way in this, and they will not be. And if I ever thought that there was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they'd be fired."

This clearly falls under Obama's definition of a firing offense.

Sure...

Submitted by elle loco on Mon, 09/08/2008 - 11:10.

 ...because the Democrats are always supposed to fight elections with one hand tied behind their back, while Karl Rove bashes their face in (from behind). 

This is all ridiculous posturing: Don't waste your time lecturing anyone about campaign politesse. This is a streetfight, and your guys can take care of themselves on that score.

Just words. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Mon, 09/08/2008 - 18:37.

. . .I guess.  But, it seems to me that Obama was unequivocal in what he said.

I guess he was just "makin' stuff up" as he went along.