Comments on: Smear Politics Reaches A New Low

By: Grewgills

Grewgills — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:47:13 +0000

Those, at least, were formally done by identified people who could be directly challenged rather than via a backdoor whispering campaign.

It sounds like you are accepting as true the contention that this is being done by the Clinton campaign. What reason do you have for taking anything Novak says at face value, particularly about someone he considers a political opponent?
Once again the gutter politics are being played by Novak. He is the one who should be called on this rather than the 2 campaigns he is smearing.
As far as new lows go, he has gone lower before and likely will again.

By: Dodd

Dodd — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:26:30 +0000

Even accepting, arguendo, that all of those are legitimate examples of "gutter politics," this is still a new low. Those, at least, were formally done by identified people who could be directly challenged rather than via a backdoor whispering campaign.

By: Anjin-san

Anjin-san — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 04:03:13 +0000

To me, this is the worst sort of gutter politics

This is certainly gutter stuff, but if you want "the worst sort", I refer you to Bush's slime job on Vietnam Vet Sen. McCain, yet another slime job on triple amputee combat vet Sen. Cleland, or the swiftboating of Vietnam Vet John Kerry.

By: ConservativeKicks.com

ConservativeKicks.com — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:41:22 +0000

Smear Politics Reaches A New Low ...

You've been kicked (a good thing) - Trackback from ConservativeKicks.com...

By: Grewgills

Grewgills — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:43:32 +0000

Novak has now admitted on Fox "News" that he did not get it from someone in the Clinton campaign rather he says that someone told him that they got it from someone in the Clinton campaign. And on a related note a friend of a friend of mine is a nurse and she said...

By: Bret

Bret — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:00:47 +0000

I'm rather inclined to disbelief on this story. The PoD has become rather detached from his usual "inside" Republican sources and I highly, highly doubt anyone with a tangential attachment to Hillary! would be speaking to him. My guess is his source is someone with, at maximum, 4 degrees of separation from the Clinton camp, and therefore a not-too-reliable source.

I'm back.

By: Steven Donegal

Steven Donegal — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:42:05 +0000

I'm not sure why you think this is a new low. JJ reported the other day receiving a "I have a dirt on another candidate" email from the campaign of a Republican "first tier" candidate (as JJ characterized the mongering party). JJ chose to show some ethics and not publicize it. With Novak, ethics went out the window a long time ago.

By: Scott_T

Scott_T — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:11:38 +0000

This sucks if this becomes status-quo for politicians.

This reaks of the Mark Foley humiliation in Florida, and it being kept quiet/secret until too late in the political season for a suitable replacement to be put on the ballot and a Democrat running practically unopposed.

By: Scott Swank

Scott Swank — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:47:59 +0000

I'll believe this when I hear it from someone other than Novak. It's sad to say, but I believe him capable of exaggerating or entirely constructing almost anything to make a Democratic candidate look bad.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:46:29 +0000

Presumably, such "scandalous" information would utterly preclude Senator Obama from being on Hillary's ticket next year as a candidate for vice president. Oh, I'm sorry, were you expecting consistency from political operatives?