Deprecated: mb_convert_encoding(): Handling HTML entities via mbstring is deprecated; use htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or mb_encode_numericentity/mb_decode_numericentity instead in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/super-cool-ad-inserter/inc/scaip-shortcode-inserter.php on line 37

Remarkably, and despite some heartfelt appeals from Team Clinton earlier this week, Barack Obama’s campaign did NOT forswear any further attacks during a conference call with reporters this afternoon. Instead, campaign manager David Plouffe reiterated demands that Clinton furnish her prior year tax information immediately. Clinton, he charges was “one of the most secretive politicians” in office today. And “anything short of a full accounting [of tax information] would raise huge red flags.” (Clinton has pledged to release that information around tax time, and before Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary.)

At the same time, the Obama camp took pains to address lingering questions about where the candidate stood on the NAFTA free trade agreement. In Ohio and Pennsylvania, the US/Mexico/Canada trade pact has been blamed for job losses. Clinton’s recent win in Ohio has been attributed to questions about whether Obama, who has publicly criticized the trade agreement signed by Clinton’s husband, was telegraphing to Canadian officials that he didn’t really mean it. Plouffe reiterated Obama’s position on the deal (you can hear Plouffe reiterating Obama’s stance on NAFA here .) At the same time, Plouffe noted an AP story suggesting Clinton herself may have been winking at the Canadians about her own trade opposition.

Finally, Plouffe seemed to try to diminish expectations for his candidate in Pennsylvania, all but conceding the state to Clinton. A Clinton advisor was quoted by the Washington Post saying Clinton should be “unbeatable” in the state, and Plouffe conceded that she “should be expected to win.” But Obama, he pledged, would camapign hard in the state. (Click here to hear Plouffe speaking about Obama’s plans to campaign in Pennsylvania. For purposes of conserving time and bandwidth, this clip has been edited.)

This article appears in Mar 6-12, 2008.

Latest in Lynn Cullen Live

SLIDESHOWS

RELATED

E-mail Chris Potter about this post.

11 replies on “Obama Strikes Back”

  1. ED RENDELL SAID WHITE VOTERS WILL NOT VOTE FOR A BLACK MAN.
    FELLOW PENNSYLVANIANS LET’S SHOW ED RENDELL AND AMERICA THAT WE CAN RISE ABOVE THIS DISGUSTING, RACIST FILTH.

  2. ED RENDELL SAID WHITE VOTERS WILL NOT VOTE FOR A BLACK MAN.
    FELLOW PENNSYLVANIANS LET’S SHOW ED RENDELL, AMERICA AND THE WORLD THAT WE CAN RISE ABOVE THIS DISGUSTING, RACIST FILTH.

  3. hilary is never going to furnish her tax info until after the race is over. if she is hiding something and she actualy gets the nomination this could come back to bite the democratic party in the behind. of course she can not beat mcCain anyway as americans want a strong leader not a mean one.mike b

  4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/08/ST2008030800051.html

    This idea of a joint ticket keeps coming up. I’m hoping to avoid any inflamatory arguments here but it seems like a good chance to examine the current state of things and what may or may not be probable in the fall. What’s been going through my mind since Wed. is that Bill Clinton quote, “if she wins in Texas and Ohio I believe she will go on to be the nominee, if not I don’t think she can be…” It really doesn’t sound like he’s talking about delegates there, it sounds like an allusion to this prospective agreement that keeps coming up. I was reading yesterday, more about why the superdelegates were put into place. Carter won the nomination that season and during his second year those delegates were unbound because (much as I like him) he was a weak ticket and they say he was a weak candidate against Reagan. Ironically Ted Kennedy had a lot to do with it. Superdelegates were contrived as a sort of protection against the party being chained to a leading candidate whom party veterans saw as a weak contender for the generals. This also is what’s at issue for this year’s convention and I think it’s what B. CLinton was really referring to in the above quote. Regarding Obama, it was heartening to see (for once) an article expressing what I’ve been concerned about all along:

    Quote:
    But Obama’s losses Tuesday in Texas and Ohio — coupled with his Feb. 5 defeats in California, New York and New Jersey — have not only shown the strategy’s downside. They have also given supporters of Clinton an opening for an argument that winning over affluent, educated white voters in small Democratic enclaves, such as Boise, Idaho, and Salt Lake City, and running up the score with African Americans in the Republican South exaggerate his strengths in states that will not vote Democratic in the fall.

    “Winning over affluent, educated white voters in small Democratic enclaves – and running up the score with African Americans in the Republican South – exaggerates his strengths.” This would be a good time not to flame back with any knee-jerk first impressions, please. How to say this without pissing people off… I dont know… anyway:

    It’s a plain fact that Democrats in all states have given the solid majority of their votes to Senator Clinton. The easier it is for conservatives to vote in a Democratic primary, the higher percentage of the total vote Obama gets. This is a fact. That’s why Clinton won Ohio by ten points (where its not as convenient for conservatives to vote Democrat) as opposed to winning by four points in Texas (where it was a free-for-all). (Yes Rush Limbaugh contrived to win Republican votes for Clinton but the exit polls still show Obama had more Republican votes). Wisconsin was a dramatic example – Obama had more non-Democrats voting for him than Democrats. In Wisconsin, 27% of the total Dem primary vote were Democrats who voted for Obama, while 31% of the total vote were Democrats voting for Clinton; 31% of the total vote were Republicans and Independents voting for Obama whereas 11% of the total vote were Republicans and Independents voting for Clinton. Now, we either have to say that 31% of the non-Democrats in Wisconsin are actually converts whom Obama magically “won over” with his glowing aura, or we have to say that a lot of what is reffered to as Obama’s momentum is really just conservatives taking their chance to vote against a Clinton early. You can call that an example of how “divisive” Clinton is if you want to, but most of these crossover voters in question are the conservative base voters that we’ll all be voting against here in November.

    The bottom line is that with Obama you can subtract any one of a number of factors and depict a scenario where he’s pretty much out of the race for the Democratic nomination. In this current race, he’s got the votes that he has got so it makes no difference to the nomination; what we are looking for here is examples of his exaggerated strengths as a candidate. Clinton led Obama among Democrat voters before Ohio by six points (zero margin of error as those votes were already tallied). This margin is increasing. I’m not talking about who wins or doesn’t win the primary I’m talking about being realistic about the situation at hand here.

    1. Basically, you can vaporize Obama’s delegate lead today if you erased all these conservative “November Republican” votes from the tally. It is a true fact that if you take away the conservatives who voted against the possibility of a Clinton on the ticket, Obama wouldn’t make it to the convention. I’m not saying this is what I think should happen; what I’m saying is it’s a realistic way to look at where he stands.

    2. These caucuses award valid points, it’s true, but they are by no means a measure of A. Obama’s real support in those states, B. how he would do in a general election in those states or C. if he could really compete against Clinton in those states if they held a primary (Washington state for instance, he won the caucus 2-1 but the primary by just a small percentage – which suggests that in a contested primary with delegates he probably might have lost).

    He’s going to lose in Pennsylvania because only Democrats can vote. My prediction is that he’ll win about 33% there. If Ohio had been a closed primary, 33% would be being optimistic of his chances. That Clinton won in Texas with 700,000 Republicans voting (to say nothing of independents) is a real testiment of strength. It’s therefore realistic to say that Obama’s coalition is composed of four major parts: well-to-do Dems, African American Dems, Republicans and Independents. Subtract just the conservative double agents and he doesn’t make it to the convention. Now of course he is going to make it to the convention because basically any Dem ticket this year without Obama on it is going to see at least half the black vote either stay home or defect to the other party. And as far as Clinton voters like me go, there’s no way I’m going to vote for either of the candidates (Obama/McCain) that conservatives forced onto my ballot – unless Clinton is on the ticket. So what to do?

    What I hope for is not realistic: that these issues come to bear on Obama’s candidacy to such an extent that he loses the lead and is owed no place on the ticket. For a variety of reasons that have become clear over 5 weeks or so (and I hope they become more and more clear to the voters as the next 7-8 weeks drag on) I wouldn’t want him as a senator, much less a vice president. But it looks like that is what is going to happen. Florida and Michigan will be seated and I expect Clinton to win FL by at least her current margin; and seeing that Michigan is running their caucus like a primary, I think she’ll win that by Texas-like margins; she will win Pennsylvania. He wins Wyoming and Mississippi; she will win P.R. The gap will narrow enough to force the need of some reconcilliation and the ticket will read President Clinton, Vice President Obama (unless something unforseeable should happen between now and June 3). 8 years of Clinton, then 8 years of Obama. Not that bad I guess. John McCain will lose, Bush will move out of the white house and we can all get on with the 21st Century at last. Too early to bet on it but that’s my guess so far.

  5. Unremarkable. Attacks don’t mean unfair attacks. Great move and great honesty by Team Awesome.

  6. I keep waiting for Obama to disclose everything about his relationship with Slum Lord Tony Rezko. Rezko is on trial now and Obama has been mentioned in the trial. Better now then later!
    There are questions about Obama and NAFTA that he needs to answer!

    chicagotribune.com

    Campaign 2008

    Barack Obama takes heat over NAFTA memo, Rezko

    Clinton questions rival Democrat’s credibility

    By Rick Pearson and John McCormick

    TRIBUNE CORRESPONDENTS

    March 4, 2008

    AUSTIN, Texas

    On the eve of critical primary contests that could effectively end the protracted quest for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton focused the presidential race Monday on credibility and whether the Illinois senator’s vow to rework a controversial international trade pact was a politically motivated promise.

    Obama also said he has nothing new to tell reporters about his friend and former fundraiser, political insider and real estate developer Antoin “Tony” Rezko, whose trial on federal corruption charges began in Chicago on Monday.

    With voting Tuesday in the big delegate prize states of Ohio and Texas, as well as in Rhode Island and Vermont, Obama looked to extend a nearly monthlong victory streak. Clinton, who earlier considered Ohio and Texas as must-win states, said she was already looking at the next major contest in Pennsylvania on April 22 and beyond.

    “So, I’m just getting warmed up,” the New York Democrat said.

    But much of the heat didn’t come from a shift from chilly Ohio to last-minute campaigning in humid Texas. Instead, it involved a top Obama adviser’s recent visit with Canadian officials that included a discussion of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a trade pact that President Bill Clinton considered a signature accomplishment, but one that now has been the subject of calls for renegotiation by both candidates.

    Obama and his campaign had initially denied a Canadian television report from late last month that Obama’s top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, had met with Canadian government officials in Chicago and told them Obama’s call for reopening labor and environmental rules in NAFTA was merely campaign rhetoric.

    But on Monday, The Associated Press obtained a Canadian government memo that detailed a meeting Goolsbee held on a variety of issues, including NAFTA.

    What the memo said

    “Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign,” a consulate staffer wrote, according to AP. “He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”

    Obama’s campaign said that Goolsbee described his remarks as being mischaracterized in the Canadian memo. And Stephen Harper, the conservative Canadian prime minister, denied opposition party questioning that accused him of trying to sabotage Obama’s campaign. Harper told the House of Commons that the government, through its embassy in Washington, indicated “its regret at the fact that information has come out that would imply Sen. Obama has been saying different things in public than in private” on NAFTA.

    Since the flap began last week, Goolsbee has not responded to calls from the Tribune for comment, and the campaign did not make him available Monday.

    Clinton had been under fire from Obama in economically troubled Ohio for previously defending NAFTA and then calling for environmental and labor reforms as part of her presidential campaign.

    Speaking to reporters to begin the day in Toledo, Ohio, she accused Obama of pursuing “the old wink-wink — don’t pay any attention, this is all political rhetoric” strategy of saying one thing for political benefit while privately saying another.

    “Apparently, what seems to have occurred is that the Obama campaign had Sen. Obama in Ohio making speeches against NAFTA and having his chief economic adviser making it clear in Canada that he doesn’t really mean it,” she told an Ohio-market TV station. “I think that raises real questions of credibility.”

    Seizing a potential opening in trying to hold on to Ohio support that had been slipping in the polls, Clinton also began airing radio ads hitting Obama on the issue.

    In San Antonio, Obama acknowledged that when he said his campaign had not had contact with Canadian officials on NAFTA it was based on “information I had at the time.” He said the campaign did not “reach out” to the Canadians.

    But Obama noted a portion of the consulate’s memo on the meeting with Goolsbee backed up his campaign position. It said Obama was “less about fundamentally changing the agreement” and more in favor of strengthening and clarifying “labor mobility and environment” as “more ‘core’ principles of the agreement.”

    “So, this notion that Sen. Clinton is peddling that somehow there’s contradictions or winks and nods has been disputed by all the parties involved,” Obama said. “What’s not disputed is that Sen. Clinton and her husband championed NAFTA, worked on behalf of NAFTA, called it a victory, called it good for America, until she started running for president. That’s indisputable. That’s a fact.”

    Rezko friendship scrutinized

    At a news conference, Obama was peppered with questions about his relationship with Rezko, who is accused of pressuring firms seeking state business or investments to pay kickbacks or campaign contributions. He said Clinton’s campaign has pushed the story even though there have been “several hundred” news stories about him and Rezko.

    “The fact pattern remains unchanged,” said Obama, whose campaign has donated to charity more than $150,000 in Rezko-related contributions. “Tony Rezko was a friend and supporter of mine for many years. … He supported not just me but many Democrats and Republicans.”

    Obama, however, wouldn’t disclose how many fundraising events Rezko hosted for him or who attended, saying such requests “can just go on forever.” As his news conference came to an end, reporters continued to shout questions about Rezko but Obama walked out, saying the campaign was “running late.”

    ———-

  7. Rezko keeps coming up in relationship to Obama!

    Obama Kept Contributions From Accused Fixer’s Wife And Others
    ABCNews.com Analysis Shows the Campaign Still Hasn’t Returned More Than $100,000 in Questionable Contributions

    By AVNI PATEL
    Jan. 28, 2008—

    Despite claims over the weekend from Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama that his campaign had given away all the donations connected to accused fixer Antoin “Tony” Rezko, the campaign has not returned more than $100,000 in donations from Rezko’s wife and 20 other Rezko-linked donors, according to an ABCNews.com review.

    “What we’ve done is we’ve traced any funds that we know of that we think were connected to him,” said Obama during an appearance on “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos. “And if there any other funds that were connected to him that we’re not aware of, then we will certainly return them. It is in our interest to do so.”

    On Friday, campaign spokesman Bill Burton dismissed the ABC News findings and others from the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Sun-Times, stating “we think they are casting a wide net and overestimating.”

    The campaign has donated to charity more than $85,000 of Rezko-linked contributions since Rezko was indicted on federal fraud charges in the fall of 2006. Burton said the campaign’s best estimate of what Rezko has raised is $60,000, including contributions from a fundraiser Rezko held for Obama in 2003, but acknowledges that it does not have an exact record of what Rezko raised. “We review our donations, and where there are questions, we make decisions about donating to charity those which, in the circumstances, do not seem appropriate to retain,” said Burton.

    The Obama campaign statements have left some campaign finance watchdogs perplexed. “I don’t understand why they didn’t do a top-to-bottom audit and divest themselves of these funds,” said Cynthia Canary of the Illionois Campaign for Political Reform.

    The revelation that Rezko may have used “straw donors” to funnel tainted money to Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign has further cast a cloud of suspicion over the Rezko-linked contributions. The Chicago Sun-Times reported on Jan. 20 that Obama was the unnamed “political candidate ” referred to in a court document in the Rezko case last month accusing Rezko of directing two associates to contribute to Obama’s campaign, and reimbursing them with money from an kickback scheme.

    Much of the scrutiny surrounding Obama’s relationship with Rezko has centered around a real estate deal involving Obama’s home on the South Side of Chicago. Obama says he approached Rezko for “advice” as he sought to purchase the house in 2005. The owner of the house was trying to sell the a neighboring vacant lot as a part of the deal, Obama later told the Chicago Tribune he could not afford to buy the lot because “it was already a stretch to buy the house.”

    Rezko’s wife, Rita, purchased the vacant lot and later sold a part of it to Obama to expand his yard. Obama has since called his decision to involve Rezko in the deal “a bone-headed mistake.”

  9. First of all, I am not voting for Obama just because of Rendell’s statement. That is a bit fickle for this oh so important job. SECOND, SLICK OBAMA, released the first page of his taxes so he has something to slam hillary on!!! Thirdly, I have friends in Chicago, and Obama is NOT ABOUT CHANGE AT ALL. He is bamboozling his way across the country.

    http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26871

  11. Three Strikes and you are out Obama! First Slum Lord Pal Tony Rezko, Second Louis Farrakahn,Third, Hate- Pastor Jeremiah Wright! You are banned for life Obama!

Comments are closed.