Hillary Campaign Aborts 'No Negative Campaign' Promise

If you'd taken the 'under' on yesterday's line on when Hillary's campaign would break it's brand-new 'No Negative Campaigning' pledge, you'd've been correct.

The pledge came on the heels of Hillary's Campaign co-chairman, Bill Shaheen, raising the 'innocent' question as to whether or not Barack Obama may have not only been a drug user but also a drug dealer in his youth. Clinton's campaign, of course, said that the comments were 'not authorized' and Shaheen has since resigned his position.

Last night, Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, used an appearance on MSNBC's Hardball to once again point out that Obama had been a drug user.

"The issue related to cocaine use is not something the campaign is in any way
raising."

In other words, "We're not raising it, but remember that he's a former cocaine user and may've sold drugs ..."

Hillary campaigner asks if Obama ever sold drugs, then backtracks.

As the Iowa caucus draws nearer, those seeking political office continue to ramp up the dirty politicking. Huckabee's 'innocent question' on Mormom doctrine is, of course, getting a lot of play in the media. However, Huckabee isn't alone in his mud-slinging.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that Bill Shaheen, a national co-charman of the Hillary Clinton campaign asked a few 'innocent questions' of his own about Barack Obama's admitted use of illegal drugs in an interview with the Washington Post.

Saying that Obama's background is unknown and could be problematic for the Democrat party if Obama gets their nomination, Clinton's campaign co-chair went on to put his own allegations and 'questions' into the mouths of Republicans.

"It’ll be, ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’ There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It’s hard to overcome."

Catch that?

Clinton's campaign person got to pitch a few mudballs at Obama -- to the point of actually raising the question of whether or not he might have been not just a drug user but also a drug dealer -- and then, of course, pose it as something that he himself doesn't believe, but just something that someone more interested in 'dirty tricks' might eventually throw at candidate Obama.

Clinton's campaign spokeswoman, Kathleen Strand, then said that Hillary didn't have anything to do with the comments.

"Senator Clinton is out every day talking about the issues that matter to the American people. These comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way."

And Shaheen later apologized for them.

"I deeply regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the campaign in any way."

You'll note, I'm sure, that neither of Clinton's spokespeople actually withdrew any of the comments or the 'concerns' that they raised about them. The comments just were 'not authorized'.

Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, shot back, noting that this isn't the first time that Hillary has 'raised questions' about Obama's younger years.

Hillary Clinton said attacking other Democrats is the fun part of this campaign, and now she’s moved from Barack Obama’s kindergarten years to his teenage years in an increasingly desperate effort to slow her slide in the polls. Senator Clinton’s campaign is recycling old news that Barack Obama has been candid about in a book he wrote years ago, and he’s talked about the lessons he’s learned from these mistakes with young people all across the country. He plans on winning this campaign by focusing on the issues that actually matter to the American people.

According to a CNN Poll, Clinton and Obama are in a statistical tie in Iowa, with Obama erasing what had been a 20 percentage point Clinton lead as late as September.

On Thursday, Time Magazine reported that Hillary herself has now made a point of apologizing to Obama -- though, it would be interesting to see the actual text of her 'apology' to see how she'd parsed her words -- and the Drudge Report is stating that Clinton has promised no more negative campaigning 'going forward'.

Perhaps Clinton's new 'no negative campaigning' promise is because the one time 'inevitability' of another Clinton presidency is increasingly in question, and she's starting to realize that she might want to be the undercard on someone else's Presidential ticket. Either way, we give the lifespan of that promise an over/under of 6.5 days.

Huckabee's Apologizes for Mormon Remarks

Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee has issued an apology for the 'innocent question' that he had asked New York Times Magazine journalist Zev Chafets.

According to Huckabee's campaign, the discussion with the reporter had lasted several hours and the reporter seemed to be somewhat knowledgable about the topic of Mormonism.

"He was saying, 'But there are some different things about Mormonism.' He obviously knew more about it than I did. In the course of the conversation, honestly, I raised the question.

"But no one believed it was an innocent question; they thought I was trying to throw something out there.

"I just wanted to make sure that he heard directly from me, face-to-face, eyeball-to-eyeball, that I truly was sorry that that had come out. And it looked like I had taken some shot at his faith, and I absolutely do not, and I would not do that, and I apologized, because I felt like I owed him that."

Romney, for his part, has apparently rather graciously accepted Huck's apology, calling Huckabee 'a good man trying to do the best he can.'

The Politico says Huckabee told CNN's Wolf Blitzer how the interview had gone.

"Actually, if you’ll talk to the reporter, because he was shocked that that was characterized out of an 8,100-word story, as we were, we thought, good heavens. We were having a conversation. It was over several hours, and the conversation was about religion, and he was trying to press me on my thoughts of Mitt Romney’s religion.

"And I said I don’t want to go there. I don’t know that much about it. I barely know enough about being a Baptist. And I really didn’t know ...

"[Chafets] frankly is fairly well-schooled on comparative religions. And so as a part of that conversation, I asked the question, because I had heard that, and I asked it not to create something — I never thought it would make the story."

Unfortunately for Huckabee, the editor who handled the story for New York Times Magazine said that she specifically addressed that quote with Huck's campaign press secretary, Alice Stewart, prior to the publication of the article.

Huckabee, Romney, and the Question of Religion

"Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

This question was asked by Mike Huckabee, and will apparently soon be a cover story in the New York Times Magazine. Many people, perhaps rightfully so, see this as an attempted slam against Romney's Mormon faith.

To figure out just exactly where Huckabee might've been coming from, or what his motives might have been, let's give him the benefit of looking at the quote in the context of the story:

I asked Huckabee, who describes himself as the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology, if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. ‘‘I think it’s a religion,’’ he said. ‘‘I really don’t know much about it.’’

I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own: ‘‘Don’t Mormons,’’ he asked in an innocent voice, ‘‘believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?’’

Now, it is entirely possible that Huckabee's question truly was innocent. It could be that he genuinely was trying to determine some of the underlying tenets of Mormonism. And, it certainly appears that author of the article, Zev Chafetz, was trying to walk Huckabee into a trap by asking, in his words, if Mormonism were 'a religion or a cult'.

That said, Huckabee's response(s) still speak volumes about his suitability for the Presidency.

First, Huckabee has previously said that he doesn't believe that evaluating someone else's religious beliefs or doctrines is the business of the President. As the Associated Press article points out, Huckabee has also previously resisted giving his opinion about why many evangelicals don't consider Mormonism a Christian denomination. So, why is he suddenly so careless in doing so?

Second, if he were asking an honest question or seeking an honest answer about Romney's doctrinal beliefs, he should have asked someone who actually holds those beliefs. I doubt Huckabee would find it suitable that some other candidate asked a reporter, 'innocently' or otherwise, if Southern Baptists believe that anyone who plays cards, dances, drinks alcohol, or smokes is going to be doomed to an eternity in Hell.

( As an aside, it would appear that what Huckabee is gossiping -- which, if I'm not mistaken, is also one of the many things that Baptists say that you shouldn't do. )

Third, as the 'only Republican candidate with a degree in Theology', Huckabee would also know that the question he raised is one of several that are used by evangelicals to discredit Mormonism.

And, fourth, it seems to me that his question is calculated to hit below the belt without seeming to be as 'dirty' as he likely intended it. If he wanted to take a real cheap shot, he could've tossed out there something along the lines of "Well, don't Mormons believe that Jesus preached to the Native Americans because some salamander gave Joseph Smith -- who was, you know, once convicted of Fraud -- some magic goggles that allowed him to read tablets that disappeared right after he'd transcribed them ... ?"

That, too, is an paraphrased encapsulation of many of the common attacks on Mormonism but that would've been too blatant to pass muster, and would've likely turned public opinion against Huckabee.

Rather, what Huckabee seems to be attempting to do by raising the question in this 'innocent' manner is start a 'whisper campaign'. He's starting a rumor about Romney and Romney's religion -- which he prefaces his question by stating that he doesn't know much about -- while leaving himself the 'out' of "I didn't say that Mormons think Jesus and Satan are brothers ..."

But, politicians tend to do this sort of thing a lot. For example, on the Diane Rehm Show on WAMU (Public) Radio on Dec. 1st, 2003, Howard Dean 'pitched' the idea that the Bush Administration knew ahead of time about he 9/11 Terrorist attacks.

There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can't—think it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis.

Dean had enough foresight to make his statements about this 'conspiracy theory' simply an interesting theory that he had heard. It was simply something that "can't be proved" about why President Bush, at that time, wasn't cooperating with the Kean Commission's investigation of the 9/11 attacks. At the New Hampshire debates, Dean pretended that the statement was a fabrication made by FoxNews.

I was asked on Fox "fair and balanced" News that -- I was asked why I thought the president was withholding information, I think it was, or 9/11 or something like that. And I said, well, the most interesting theory that I heard, which I did not believe, was that the Saudis had tipped him off. ... I did not believe, and I made it clear on the Fox News show that I didn't believe that theory, but I had heard that.

Why did Dean back off of the comments, and try to make them seem like simply something that FoxNews was 'making up' about him? Because his campaign was beginning to implode and he realized that the conspiracy theory comments made him seem like a kook.

Similarly, we expect that Huckabee will back off his comments about Mormonism as simply 'something he had heard' and not actually something he himself believes as soon as the public opinion about his comments appear unfavorable.

Before endorsing a candidate, we think that you should look at the person's core. Evaluate their values and their record, and see how closely the claims that the make on the campaign trail match up with how they live their lives. With this article, and the 'innocent' question therein, I believe that voters have been given a glimpse into the type of man they might be voting for in choosing Huckabee.

'Huck' is beginning to appear more and more like another former Arkansas Governor who sought the presidency more than a decade age, and voters should ask themselves if they really want to deal with that sort of calculation and triangulation again.

They should also ask themselves whether or not they want to cast their ballots for the type of candidate who would attempt to decide how 'Christian' is 'Christian enough' or if they'd prefer to leave that type of divisive, theocratic nonsense to the leaders of Iran.