This is the first article in a series entitled; "Anatomy of an Anti-Obama  Smear Campaign". The purpose of this series is to explore the history and impact of concerted efforts by Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff to impugn the reputation of Senator Barack Obama and generate doubts about his electability by means of smear and whisper campaigns.

The 2008 Democratic presidential campaign began on such an inspiring note. The candidate field as a whole was the best in years, and included Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who, in particular, were two intelligent, skilled, historic candidates.

Time has come up with a list of the top five strategic mistakes Hillary Clinton made during her unsuccessful bid for the White House, and while in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter why she went from inevitable to also-ran, there is one point in the article that deserves some attention:

As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all.

It should be noted that Penn denies the story, so we'll just have to take him at his word that he isn't that stupid.  But if it's true it does raise the question, was this the stupidest thing said or done by a Clinton surrogate over the course of her campaign?   Because Penn had some stiff competition.  Who could forget:

• Geraldine Ferraro's claim that Obama has an unfair advantage because he was black.
• Bob Kerrey's happiness that Barack Hussein Obama attended a madrassa and had all that experience with Muslims.
• Billy Shaheen's concern over Obama's use of drugs and possible questions on whether he was ever a drug dealer.
• Andrew Cuoma saying that "You can't shuck and jive," in reference to Obama.
• And of course the First Surrogate, Bill Clinton, comparing Obama's win in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's wins in the 1980's, and then being shocked at the suggestion that he was trying to paint Obama as "the black candidate."

Let's throw Mark Penn a lifeline here and prove that he wasn't the worst of the Clinton surrogates. Share your favorite (for lack of a better word) "worst surrogate moment," of the campaign.    

An odious pattern has emerged from Hillary Clinton.

Bill Clinton initially swore under oath that he "did not have sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky - but later admitted that he had misled the American public.

Nothing changes - let's move on America - Obama is the future!

Senator Clinton fired the Iowa staffers. Good. Senator Clinton had Billy Shaheen resign, and personally apologized to Senator Obama. Good. Senator Clinton sent Bob Kerrey packing, and Kerrey apologized to Senator Obama. Good. Andrew Cuomo does not hold any official position within the Clinton campaign. She is no more responsible for his behavior than any of the other candidates are for any of their supporters.

Senator Obama used Donnie McClurkin to raise money for his campaign. McClurkin behaved reprehensibly at the Obama event. Senator Obama has neither condemned McClurkin nor apologized for causing so much pain in the gay community. And I want to emphasize something very important: I do not believe Senator Obama is a homophobic bigot. Unlike some Clinton critics, who inflate everything said or done by one of her surrogates into evidence of racism or race-baiting, I prefer to stick to the facts. The fact is that Senator Obama has been very good on LGBT issues. The fact also is that he used a homophobic bigot to further his presidential aspirations.

Now close your eyes, take another deep breath, and then release it and slowly open your eyes. Go into the kitchen and make yourself a nice steaming mug of herbal tea. Hot tea can be very refreshing this time of year. Go ahead. We'll wait.

Back yet? Good. Now, please pay attention, because this is important.

Campaign surrogates are paid to take the low road. That's their job. In practice, this means they say inflammatory things about other candidates. Many times, what they say is dumb, ridiculous, and offensive.

There is a tendency around here to act like these dumb statements, when made as an attack against a candidate that one happens—coincidentally, I'm sure—to support, are ABSOLUTELY THE WORST THING ANYONE HAS EVER SAID IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE EVER AND THE CANDIDATE WHO EMPLOYS THIS SCUMBAG IS A VILE WORTHLESS HELLBEAST WHO SHOULD JUST DIE. Perhaps you've noticed this tendency.

You're angry right now just thinking about David Axelrod/Evan Bayh/Billy Shaheen/whoever, aren't you? Take another deep breath. Stand up and walk around for a few seconds. Take a sip of tea. Are you back? Good. Now repeat after me:

We're all on the same side here.

I wrote a comment yesterday about whether Bill Shaheen, the co-chair of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign in New Hampshire was acting of his own free will when he questioned Barack Obama's adolescent drug use, or whether he was a tool of the Clinton campaign.

I know I wear my tin-foil hat a lot these days, but whether he just spoke stupidly, or was told what to say, the desired results were achieved today.

More below the fold....

Short on time, so: short diary.

As most political junkies and even a few normal people know by now, Clinton's (former) campaign official Billy Shaheen warned that Obama would be vulnerable in a general election because he'd used cocaine. More than that, he racistly raised the prospect that Obama had sold drugs.

What happened next was a predictable as nightfall.

In the course of a hotly contested primary season, it's natural for the rhetoric to become increasingly heated and the attacks more direct.  And apparently when a campaign is losing ground every day to their opponent, some think that trotting out a Republican line of attack will stop the bleeding.  Such was the case earlier today when the co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign in New Hampshire said of Barack Obama:  

The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year. Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama's openness about his past drug use -- which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire -- with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was "young and irresponsible."

Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

 
It's hard to say which is the most offensive part about this "concern" from Shaheen.  Perhaps that he ignores that it was Obama himself who opened the door when he wrote his autobiography, and that he has used that chapter in his life to convince young people that drugs are a waste of time:

You know, I made some bad decisions.... You know, got into drinking and experimenting with drugs. There was a whole stretch of time where I didn’t apply myself. It wasn’t until I got out of ... high school, and went to college that I started realizing, man, I wasted a lot of time...I realized if I had spent a little more time reading, and studying that I could actually have some influence in the world.

Or perhaps it's that Shaheen talks about Republican dirty tricks as he himself is engaging in them.  Or maybe it's the implication that Obama should follow George Bush's lead and be secretive and dishonest. Does a Clinton co-chair really want to stay that course?

The Clinton campaign issued a statement saying:

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.

So, the comments were not authorized or condoned, but then again, they weren't condemned, were they?  And will Billy Shaheen, who is no political innocent, pay any price for his comments?  Or was this a directed hit from a floundering campaign?    

If any couple in the history of American politics is morally and logically disqualified from throwing mud based on indiscretions in the past, it is Bill and Hillary Clinton.

However, the desperation of possibly losing has caused them to throw away any pretense of running on ideas, principles, or a vision for the American people.

No, they want power, and they'll do anything to get it.

The slime oozes below the fold.