Barak Obama: Wingnut?

So Barak Obama took all of about 30 seconds in this race to fall back on the most tired, old right-wing attack phrase of the 90s - quoth the (seemingly more junior everyday) Senator:

It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom.

Nice going, Senator - when you sound like Dick Morris, you've scored one for the good guys. As Digby (no Clinton lover) observes, it's "one of the best old wingnut chestnuts around."

Obama's attack was a reaction to the Clinton campaign's consternation over remarks that movie mogul David Geffen made to anti-feminist New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, in a column that had you picturing MoDo poolside at the mansion, with a Sally Fields thought-bubble floating up towards Bel-Air reading "he likes me, he really likes me."

Uh, no he doesn't Maureen - and he hates the Clintons, which is why you called him in the first place - to allow a personal grudge the right-hand column of the paper of record's famed op-ed page. Geffen is a real political animal and clearly believes in democracy, especially our new open-source, netroots-empowered version. After all, he told Dowd this:

I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms.

Back to Digby, who thinks Hillary should'nt have responded but saves the harshest chastisement for my fellow Columbia alum:

Obama should know better than to use that old Lincoln bedroom trope. Does he think the right wing won't use the exact same made-up nonsense against him?

Perhaps someone should tell him about how the Washington Post helped gin up that controversy on behalf of the GOP congressional scumbags, even going so far as to count Chelsea Clinton's slumber party guests in the Lincoln Bedroom controversy.

Jesus. Sometimes I don't think we deserve to win. We can't seem to stop helping the other side, even when they are down and out.

And here's something to cheer you. It's only February. Of 2007.

UPDATE: Bill Richardson agrees that Obama should apologize to Clinton. Meanwhile, some of the long knives on the left are out for Hillary. Markos Moulitsas compares Clinton to George W. Bush, the ultimate obscenity hurled against any Democratic this year. And Arianna Huffington calls the Clintons liars. In comments, my readers suggest I'm auditioning for Clinton - not sure what that means or what they know. She is my strong personal choice at this stage for President of the United States. I can assure these rumor-mongering commenters that my feelings of strong distaste at one Democrat attacking another (especially as clumsily as Obama did) are very strong indeed. As they remain with Digby, who sums this up well as per usual:

Will the press go after Clinton for being a "calculating" bitch? (I think that word's been used more in the past month than ever before in history.) Of course. Will they attack her mercilessly and dredge up every old trope that was used against her back in the day? Undoubtedly. But it is almost impossible to believe they could come up with any real dirt on her because there has never been a more thoroughly vetted candidate in history. Not that the swift-boaters won't just make stuff up like they always do, but it should not be believable to anyone in the mainstream media and it should be greeted with so much skepticism as to be laughable on its face.

I have no dog in this fight and I could not care less if you vote for Hillary Clinton or if you don't. Neither do I care if you think she's a calculating bitch and hate her stance on the war and loathe everything she and her husband did during their administration. Those are fair game. But I will be damned if I'll passively accept this ongoing enabling of character assassination against Democrats, I don't care who they are. If an eight year multi-million dollar federal investigation into every aspect of his or her life isn't enough for the mainstream media to accept that there is no unethical or criminal charges that can credibly be brought against Hillary Clinton then no candidate is safe. If they can believe that "dirt" still exists against her, imagine what they will do with the inevitable swift boat attacks on a candidate who is fairly new on the scene?

This idea that there's "dirt" yet to be unearthed about Clinton is a pernicious rightwing meme designed to stoke the fear that we will be back in tabloid trivia land if Clinton is elected.

UPDATE II: Obama backs off, reprimands his staff, says he never saw the heated response before it went out, and basically tries to return his campaign to the higher level of rhetoric it briefly enjoyed:

“I told my staff that I don’t want us to be a party to these kinds of distractions because I want to make sure that we’re spending time talking about issues. My preference going forward is that we have to be careful not to slip into playing the game as it customarily is played.”

Comments

[Tom K]

The Lincoln Bedroom Scandal: Ah, it brings back memories of a simpler time.

It didn't impress me much, because it just seemed more evidence of the already-well-established fact that both parties are greedy. In fact, anyone who wasn't greedy would, by definition I think, be excluded from the game before we ever heard of 'em.

But I also recall people from both parties noting that the Clinton's behavior in this regard was fresh ground. No one had gotten around to mining the perk of overnight visits yet. And, if you take away Chelsea's classmates from the total, it doesn't make a material difference in the numbers.

I'm not interested in re-arguing an old "scandal" that didn't interest me when it was fresh, but I would like to know what you mean when you say referring to this makes Obama a "Wingnut".

Are you saying that the Lincoln Bedroom scandal (that, in a departure from the practices of previous presidents, Clinton let people who weren't close friends stay in the Lincoln Bedroom because they were big donors) was an anti-Clinton fantasy, roughly akin to the list of all the folks he knew who had died mysterious deaths?

Or are you saying that, while Clinton did more or less what is described above, that should be seen in the context of overall debasement, where the parties balance out (or, maybe you'd say, Republican excesses exceed the Dems.?)

Or are you saying that letting people who aren't close friends stay the Lincoln Bedroom because they're donors isn't a problem in the first place?

Because if it's two or three, you're talking about balances of moral judgment that are arguable, and calling someone a "wingnut" over it doesn't seem to make any sense. If your answer is "one", then the "wingnut" charge makes sense, and only your factual understanding is mistaken.

So, which is it?

[Slappy]

Or are you saying that Obama sounds like a wingnut because he is using "one of the best old wingnut chestnuts around?"

[Slappy]

;)

[Jason Chervokas]

Wait a second, Clinton really did "sell" nights in the Lincoln bedroom to platinum level donors.

Not the most earth-shattering scandal. Hardly the worst use of public property for personal political gain I've ever seen. Kind of like a glorified version of using the Oval Office phone to make fundraising calls. But it did happen. And it was distasteful. And if Rudy Giuliani did the same thing you in particularly would be all over him almost as fast as Wayne Barrett would. And the whole Clinton camp loved David Geffin when his wallet was open to them. And Obama and Clinton are running AGAINST one another and not WITH one another. You may be shocked to discover that he really doesn't want her to win the nomination and he's trying to get people to feel the same way.

It's a ludicrous piece of hyperbolic sophistry to suggest that any mention of the Lincoln bedroom in this context is part of or fall out from that vast right wing conspiracy we used to hear so much about but which seemed less like a conspiracy and more like DC biz as usual to anyone watching from outside.

No one this side of OJ has more apologists than Bill Clinton. Like fat Jerry Nadler and the rest of them posing for a group hug around Bill in the Rose Garden and going on Larry King to explain that Bill's lying under oath wasn't TECHNICALLY perjury. Blech.

If Hillary supporters want to go down that same path of demonizing people who raise the specter of legitmate things their candidate has done wrong, if they want to follow the "my candidate right or wrong" path, count me out. I never could cotton to that. Better just to fess up when you're wrong than to hide behind rhetorical constructions or reflexively calling someone a "wingnut."

[Tom W.]

Jason, I know you like Barak (as do I, in many ways) but what was distasteful was his pathetic attack today on Clinton. He was perfectly baited into it, and in defense of freaking David Geffen, who remains angry that Clinton didn't pardon his buddy.

It was a horrid rookie error, and he's getting truly awful advice. It would be difficult to believe David Axelrod approved his response.

Bill Clinton didn't "sell" or "rent" the Lincoln bedroom - he rewarded people with a night there. More than 900 people slept over the White House during his administration, and many were friends and heads of state and governors - but yeah, many were also political donors whose stay was explicitly included in their level of giving. It was a practice pioneered by a fellow by the name of George Bush, who took the Reagan playbook of a guaranteed private White House dinner with Ronnie and Nancy in exchange for cash a step further.

To quote Marlin Fitzwater defending Reagan over his fundraising calls from the Oval Office and his private WH dinners for big donors:

"It's buying access to the system, yes. That's what the political parties and the political operation is all about."

It's a practice this administration has continued, by the way. Do I think it's a good practice - nope. But I'm not doe-eyed about how politics works either.

Further, Obama is merely parroting one of a collection of attack talking points of the right - literally, the playbook of the crowd who came to power after Clinton. The medium-sized right-wing conspiracy. It's foolish. He looks foolish doing it. At the time, you actually had Republicans calling for a special prosecutor over Clinton's overnight guests - it's funny if it weren't so damned sad in comparison to this administration's crimes.

Finally, am I an apologist for Bill Clinton. Quite possibly. I wasn't a big fan at the time, but more and more he appears to have been the most capable president of our lifetimes.

[Jason Chervokas]

Don't buy it. Dowd takes Geffen's bait (or, more likely vice versa--I'm sure Geffen is infinitely brighter than Dowd).

Clinton's people throw a hard ball--Obama should return the money and distance himself from a guy who just held a $1mill fundraiser. (Yeah, right!)

Obama fights fires with fire w/ a crack that's in no way inappropriate. In fact, I think it was effective (if redundant since Dowd already used it as her kicker).

All in the game--and right now the game is all about money, esp. if CA and NY move up their primaries. Much ado about nothing.

You wanna say Obama's inability to keep his big ticket donors from embarssassing him in the NYT shows that he's too green, I'll buy that. (Then again, maybe Geffen's rant is crazy like a fox, a way for the Obama camp to scare off donors w/o getting the candidate's hands dirty. I doubt it, but maybe.) But Lincoln bedroom? Nah, fair game and on target.

You seem to be saying that the only reasons it should be off limits are because a) everybody does it; and b) the right wing started it.

Well, "everybody does it" is always a lousy excuse, for all the reasons your mother told you when you were a kid.

And just because the right tried to make a mountain out of a mole hill a decade ago doesn't make it false or off limits now. We're not talking swift boat here.

Both Obama and all the other opponents are gonna say a lot worse about Hillary before it's over, and some of it is gonna be the same stuff Republicans have said before. Big deal.

She's a big girl. She can take it. She can dish it out.

The last thing she needs, if she wants the electorate to like her (and that is the crux of her electability issue), is supporters echoing tired old shouts of "vast right wing conspiracy."

And for the record, it's true, I like Obama, but I haven't cut a check yet. Of course I'm not sitting in front of my Jasper Johns painting before a roaring fire in my Hollywood mansion. I actually have to think long and hard before cutting a check. But more than that, I'm unconvinced so far about any of the Dems. Truth be told I kinda like Bill Richardson...super capable, right mix of experience to actually deal w/ the nation's problems. Too bad he has as much chance of being president as Don Mattingly. (Great VP ticket balancer tho.)

[COLORADO BOB]

This all happened on the day West Clark rolled out an online petition to stop the upcoming war with Iran.

A pox on their houses.

[Fitz]

Bill Clinton didn't "sell" or "rent" the Lincoln bedroom - he rewarded people with a night there.

Uh-huh.

And Honda didn’t “sell” or “rent” me a new truck last fall – they just rewarded me with one after I made a donation to their corporation.

Yes – technically, you could argue that Clinton didn’t “sell” the Lincoln bedroom; he was selling the same thing all politicians peddle – access. The Lincoln bedroom was just a nice premium – a better quality hat and T-Shirt. Frankly, I’m surprised that a President hasn’t auctioned weekends at Camp David or free round trips on Air Force One. Though, I’m willing to bet that a close check of records will reveal activity that could easily be construed as that type of reward.

It’s ludicrous to argue that it’s not fair game or some “right wing chestnut”. Geffen is a big money guy who used to back the Clintons and for whatever reason, has decided to switch horses and was vocal about it. So what? The response was typically Clintonian – attack the attacker. Again, so what? We’ve all seen that play before as well.

BTW: “Finally, am I an apologist for Bill Clinton? Quite possibly. ” Are you a paid flogger for the Hillary campaign yet or just still auditioning?

[Slappy]

I think this whole "fight" is silly. Will change nobody's vote in either direction. Means nothing. But it shows me one thing about Obama that I like to see in a candidate. Clinton tried to put Geffen's words in Obama's mouth and he basically said, "Go to hell." Kerry would have won had he done the same. Good for Obama.

At least we know who slept in the Lincoln bedroom. How about a list of those who met with Cheney to tell him how to conduct this countries energy policies. Who is pretending money has never bought influence? Like blow jobs, a sleep over makes for easy headlines. More cud for the public to chew on as they spend $75 filling their Hummer's gas tank.

[Tom Watson]

Slappy - the way I see it, a callow, inexperienced Obama let his fledgling campaign be used to settle a Geffen-Clinton grudge. And he came out looking really, really weak.

And Jason, the point is that Democrats shouldn't be attacking Democrats when we're fighting against what has emerged as real evil in government. Indeed, your guy pledged not to - until he did.

[Tom K]

"ludicrous piece of hyperbolic sophistry "

"Are you a paid flogger for the Hillary campaign yet or just still auditioning?"

Thank you both, gentlemen, for these contributions of exceptional value. Knowing that you both are longtime friends of Tom, and have radically different political perspectives from each other, I think your reactions say a lot about how far off base he is here.

Bottom line, he's acting as an apologist re: a scandal he should recognize as distasteful, and unworthy of his defense ten years later when there are far more important things to talk about. Why? So he can attack Obama for attacking Hillary. Bizzare, unless he is in fact auditioning.

The manner of the defense is insincere enough to suggest Hillary might be impressed. He argues that Reagan did the same thing (as if he considers Reagan a moral barometer); as if having a drink (or occassional overnight guests who are donors and also friends) is the same as being a drunk (or having people stay over merely because they are donors).

He avoids the questions I have asked, and speaks in generalities to make things that are significantly different appear alike to the causual or uninformed reader.

He does various things he has rightly condemned in others, and the sorts of things bloggers generally are respected for debunking.

I don't know if he'd do all that just to audition for Hillary. Maybe he's already in the bag.

[fumes]

say tom, i'm new here and frankly was hoping you could fix my slice. but i'm also glad to see a pro hillary site, with reasonable things to say. arianna has her knife in hill's back every chance she can get, i don't know why. so thanks for being out here. now about my slice....

[bruce]

I loved that last comment: "I'm new here and was hoping you could fix my slice."

Maybe we all missed the key point in the Geffen remarks, and what set the Hillary team off. "Does anybody think Bill Clinton has changed in the last six years?" In other words, it is entirely possible that Geffen knows something the rest of us don't. Would you be surprised if there is something Bill has been doing recently that won't look too nice when it comes out in October 2008?

I picked this angle up from the McLaughlin Group Sunday 2/25. But it makes sense.

[B Tween]

Hell, I'll take David Geffen over male prostitute/Right Wingnut journalist Jeff Gannon any day.
Of course, we don't know whose bedroom Mr. Gannon was sleeping in. Maybe he slept in the Lincoln Bathtub - he reportedly has incontinence issues.
Naturally, this isn't a bad thing, because Mr. Gannon didn't buy his access with campaign money, I suspect he bought it in trade.
It's a pity Obama brought this up, but to suggest the GOP will be able to make hay with this is a stretch. Hopefully the Dems will flog this Gannon bit, if you'll pardon the expression, relentlessly. And hopefully when President Clinton's lying from the oval office is used as fodder, the Dems will come back hard with "lying about a blowjob is much less serious than lying us into a trillion dollar war".