The Clinton-Obama Dust up

[Cypress]

I get the impression that some are shocked at the level of hardball politics and vitriol between Obama and Clinton.

A little Presidential Campaign History 101:

Bill Bradley, Called Al Gore a liar, and worse in 2000;

...at a crucial point in Campaign 2000, Bradley been reduced to inventing claims about Gore’s troubling “character.” At the final Gore-Bradley debate in New Hampshire, Bradley offered the following attack on Gore’s troubling lack of honesty. Because it came from a high-minded Democrat, the press corps repeated it for the rest of the year—:

--BRADLEY (1/27/00): "If you don't trust the people to tell them the truth in a campaign, then how can the people trust that you're going to tell them the truth when you're president of the United States?"

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh102907.shtml

Bradley was merciless to Gore. Attacking his character, his honesty, his integrity. And in the interest of full disclosure, I was a Gore partisan in 2000. Bradley was the self-styled, post-partisan independent that was a favorite of the leftwing of the Democratic party, psuedo-Naderites, and independents. You know, that crowd that called Gore and Bush tweedle dee and tweedle dum; there wasn't much difference between them....

And guess what? Instead of the media pundits, wringing their hands about this dustup, the media in 2000 instead gleefully went along with Bradley's smears on Gore...they were intent on selling the story of Gore "the serial liar". I don't recall the media questioning, broadly, Bradley's smears. They took the handoff and ran with it. Unfortunately.

 

[uscitizen]

Bradley, I had forgotton all about that dude.

 

[Damocles]

Right... It isn't like there weren't about 5 billion articles on how much Al Gore DIDN'T say he invented the internet (he didn't, I know no need to repeat it) or something...

 

[Onceler]

I remember that. It doesn't make any of it right, or worthy of reward.

The Clintons have effectively dragged the campaign down to the lowest common denominator, and put Obama in a near-impossible position of joining them in the gutter, or ignoring them & being seen as toothless & unable to put up a fight.

I knew they were ruthless, and it has & will serve them well in the world of American politics, but I don't plan on rewarding it with my vote in the fall. I have said a few times that I will not vote for Hillary Clinton, and I feel better about that decision today than ever.

 

[tinfoil]

I remember that. It doesn't make any of it right, or worthy of reward.

The Clintons have effectively dragged the campaign down to the lowest common denominator, and put Obama in a near-impossible position of joining them in the gutter, or ignoring them & being seen as toothless & unable to put up a fight.

I knew they were ruthless, and it has & will serve them well in the world of American politics, but I don't plan on rewarding it with my vote in the fall. I have said a few times that I will not vote for Hillary Clinton, and I feel better about that decision today than ever.

You must be pissed off. But I wanna posit that Obama may actually be gaining support from people like me, ex-republicans, for standing up to the witch. He makes me proud of him for not taking their shit. And since the repubs have assembled a cast of retards and cross dressers, I may have to vote for Obama should he get nominated.

 

[Cypress]

I remember that. It doesn't make any of it right, or worthy of reward.

The Clintons have effectively dragged the campaign down to the lowest common denominator, and put Obama in a near-impossible position of joining them in the gutter, or ignoring them & being seen as toothless & unable to put up a fight.

I knew they were ruthless, and it has & will serve them well in the world of American politics, but I don't plan on rewarding it with my vote in the fall. I have said a few times that I will not vote for Hillary Clinton, and I feel better about that decision today than ever.

I don't like hardball politics, and I think it sucks.

But, primaries are spring training for these candidates. If Obama gets punched in the mouth, he better learn how to punch back. Gore didn't punch back, and the Bradley lies followed him into the general election. And Gore got swamped with lies, and either didn't know how to fight back, or didn't want to. Kerry didn't learn to get a spine, and let Rove walk all over him.

The clinton's play hardball. It sucks on many levels, but it's one reason her husband won two elections. He punched back; and I think she does too.

I'm not rewarding her with my vote. Edwards will still be in it on February 5. But, if it comes down to Clinton versus McCain or Romney, it'll probably be a no brainer for me. I don't think policy wise, or politics wise, Hillary is substantially different than Bill.

 

[Cancel7]

I remember that. It doesn't make any of it right, or worthy of reward.

The Clintons have effectively dragged the campaign down to the lowest common denominator, and put Obama in a near-impossible position of joining them in the gutter, or ignoring them & being seen as toothless & unable to put up a fight.

I knew they were ruthless, and it has & will serve them well in the world of American politics, but I don't plan on rewarding it with my vote in the fall. I have said a few times that I will not vote for Hillary Clinton, and I feel better about that decision today than ever.

Did you see that the Times endorsed Hillary and McCain? They're a liberal rag, you know. Real leftists over there.

Well, I don't really see these ruthless attacks on Obama. Honestly I watched the interviews where he talked about Reagan and about Republicans being the party of ideas, and I walked away from it shaking my head. You can parse what he said, but the implication, to my mind, was clear, and I didn't like it. And a lot of liberals didn't like it.

You should hope Obama toughens up, because you haven't seen ruthless, but if he is the nominee, you and he both will. I think it is naive to believe that the R's are only going to go after Hillary, and if Obama is the nominee we're all going to hold hands, and hey maybe they will greet us as liberators and have flowers? Maybe you don't think that, but you appear to hold out some hope of it, because you think that Clinton is going to divide the country and Obama can bring it together and be bipartisan. My opinion is this country is divided, and if you look to political history you can figure out who has made it that way, and who has benefitted and whether or not they are done benefitting from it.

If Hillary is the candidate we all know what is coming, but what some don't see is that if Obama is the candidate, they are going to initiate the most racially divisive slime fight this country has ever seen. But that won't affect how I vote. And even though I'm not going to vote for Obama in the primary when that fight comes, I'll be on his side of it. Just as, if Hillary is the nominee, I understand what is going to be done to her, and I understand that institutionalized sexism is going to raise its head and roar, and I'll be on her side of that fight.

I want Edwards, but I'm not going to be a sore loser either.

And I don't hate any of the Democratic candidates, though I have little respect for some of them.

 

[Onceler]

"You can parse what he said, but the implication, to my mind, was clear, and I didn't like it. And a lot of liberals didn't like it. "

Well, if they don't like that, what do they think about what Hillary has said re: Reagan in the past? See, SHE has actually praised the man & his policies, like she is now saying Obama did. But the thing is, Obama didn't do that. Not even close.

Obama is fighting back, but it's just about unanimous that this is hurting him. He's down with the Clintons in regular ol' fightclub politics now, and no longer running a campaign of hope. That was their goal, and it worked. Oh, and it was also their goal to make this campaign about race, and to scare white people away from voting for Obama - and that's working, too. Whites are abondoning him in droves, and they're even floating some trial balloons out there to spin Obama's soon-to-be SC victory into a black vs. white contest, to further divide & conquer.

The country is divided because we allow this shit to happen, and we continue to allow it to happen, and we reward people like Lee Atwater, Karl Rove & the Clintons for these kinds of tactics. We say we want a positive campaign, but as soon as someone throws a big ball of mud, we react, and we make it effective. And guess what? We'll be even MORE divided next year & for the next 4-8 years under President (Bill and) Hillary Clinton, because this is what they do. We get fightclub & gridlock for another term or 2, and the GOP gets to have Congress back.

No thanks. The buck stops here with me. If Hillary is nominated, I'm through with the Democrats, at least for awhile. They'll deserve everything they get.

 

[Cancel7]

"You can parse what he said, but the implication, to my mind, was clear, and I didn't like it. And a lot of liberals didn't like it. "

Well, if they don't like that, what do they think about what Hillary has said re: Reagan in the past? See, SHE has actually praised the man & his policies, like she is now saying Obama did. But the thing is, Obama didn't do that. Not even close.

Obama is fighting back, but it's just about unanimous that this is hurting him. He's down with the Clintons in regular ol' fightclub politics now, and no longer running a campaign of hope. That was their goal, and it worked. Oh, and it was also their goal to make this campaign about race, and to scare white people away from voting for Obama - and that's working, too. Whites are abondoning him in droves, and they're even floating some trial balloons out there to spin Obama's soon-to-be SC victory into a black vs. white contest, to further divide & conquer.

The country is divided because we allow this shit to happen, and we continue to allow it to happen, and we reward people like Lee Atwater, Karl Rove & the Clintons for these kinds of tactics. We say we want a positive campaign, but as soon as someone throws a big ball of mud, we react, and we make it effective. And guess what? We'll be even MORE divided next year & for the next 4-8 years under President (Bill and) Hillary Clinton, because this is what they do. We get fightclub & gridlock for another term or 2, and the GOP gets to have Congress back.

No thanks. The buck stops here with me. If Hillary is nominated, I'm through with the Democrats, at least for awhile. They'll deserve everything they get.

I didn't know that Hillary has praised Reagan until Obama brought it up in the debates. It made me sick...I'm voting for Edwards the guy who will let you know that Reagan was a scumbag.

You really think that the Clintons wanted to scare white people into not voting for Obama? Onceler, I didn't feel that, and maybe I missed something there, but what I have seen is pundits saying over and over that Obama better be careful not to mention racism. He is not allowed to say that it even exists, because this will apparently infuriate whites and cause them not to vote for him.

I think that is where we are at in this country. I think you are blaming the Clintons and making them the focus of your anger, but how can you miss it even on this board? Mention sexism and you are playing the sexism card, mention racism and you are playing the racism card. As if, by being black or being a woman, or both, you are holding some kind of winning hand.

I know that people are going to get angry at me for this, but here is my brutal opinion: This country is not going to elect a black man, and it's not going to elect a woman. The Republicans have been pissing themselves with glee, unable to believe their luck; an election they should have had no chance to win and the opposition party decides to go down the "first" road.

And they know John McCain or Mitt Romney is going to be the next President, and the R establishment hates Romney so you are going to see him get slaughtered by his own as they try to do everything they can to make it McCain.

Neither Hillary nor Obama can win a general. It has nothing to do with the Clintons...it has to do with us. It's the people Onceler. That's where we're at. I've accepted all of this, though it took me a while. That's why I'll support Obama if he's the nominee. I understand it's a fight well worth having, and if this country wants John "bomb bomb bomb Iran' McCain, well, they are going to rot in hell for all of the lives it's going to cost. So fuck them.

 

[Onceler]

I agree w/ some of what you're saying, but disagree with the ultimate conclusion. I do think Edwards is the best candidate at this point, not just for Dems, but overall. Obama & Hillary have hurt each other badly in this fight, and there are supporters of each who will not vote for the other if they become the nominee.

I still think a battered Obama or a battered Hillary will win the general. I don't think racism or sexism is so deep in America that it would deny the Democrats the White House given the current climate. You have to remember that, while most of us (well, at least me) are focused on the Dem primaries right now, the GOP is in a state of panic. Not just because this is a loseable election, anyway. They hate all of their candidates. Rush Limbaugh won't vote for McCain, and I saw Tom Delay last night saying that McCain would destroy the current Republican party. And if you think America will not elect a black or a woman, wait until you see what they do with a Mormon. Will they band together behind Romney or McCain for a fight against Hillary? I'm not so sure at this point, but even if they do, it won't be enough.

This is just the Democrats' year; Bush insured that. Which is what makes the whole thing even more tragic to me. I don't know what Obama will bring to a Presidency, and I could be completely wrong about him; I'm sure I'm at least partially wrong. But man, do I know what I get with Bill & Hillary Clinton; as entitled as they feel to the White House, I'm not ready for a flashback to the '90's. That's not what the country needs right now. Like it or not, Hillary will be a very ineffective President. She will absolutely lose Congress, and probably by a wide margin, in the first mid-term, and after that, we get the familiar redux of triangulation & bitter partisan posturing, with legislative victories being measured not by their benefit to Americans, but by who trumped who on capitol hill in the end.

 

[Cypress]

Oncelear: Obama is fighting back, but it's just about unanimous that this is hurting him. He's down with the Clintons in regular ol' fightclub politics now, and no longer running a campaign of hope. That was their goal, and it worked. Oh, and it was also their goal to make this campaign about race, and to scare white people away from voting for Obama - and that's working, too. Whites are abondoning him in droves, and they're even floating some trial balloons out there to spin Obama's soon-to-be SC victory into a black vs. white contest, to further divide & conquer.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I kinda agree with Bill Clinton. You know, when he had that spat with reporters two days ago? I don't think broadly speaking, the general public cares about, or pays attention to this particular spat. It's the media punditocracy and political junkies that are way into it. The media loves this kind of stuff, and they'll bellow it through their megaphone as loud as they can.

I think strategically Obama can keep doing his "change" theme without missing a step. But, I gotta disagree about the general election being about hope. There may indeed be an element of that, but Obama or Clinton, or whoever, better be ready to fight one of the nastiest campaigns in history. They better be prepared to get down in the mud and throw punches at the republicans. Because the smears are coming, and they will be unrelenting. The GOP is already calling Obama a muslim, who attends a racist church. And the primary season is spring training for Obama. He needs to learn how to hit back--and how to take a hit, without letting it get him off his stride. It sucks, but I think that is just reality. I saw two competent Democrats - Kerry and Gore - get sunk by smears, because they were a little too high-minded, and unwilling to kick someone in the balls.

 

[Chapdog]

What im hoping for is a win for obama in South Carolina Saturday (looks like it at this point).. and then a poignant speech prime time Saturday night that drums up the obama love once again and catapults him into super Tuesday.

 

[Onceler]

"Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I kinda agree with Bill Clinton. You know, when he had that spat with reporters two days ago? I don't think broadly speaking, the general public cares about, or pays attention to this particular spat. It's the media punditocracy and political junkies that are way into it. The media loves this kind of stuff, and they'll bellow it through their megaphone as loud as they can. "

Bill Clinton was taking issue with a reporter asking him about comments from the SC Dem Chairman that the campaign of distortion they were running against Obama was reprehensible. And it is. Those comments from him were as disingenuous as any I have seen from a politician; the Clinton campaign created the reaction -which many Dems had - by running a lie of an ad about Obama in SC, implying that Obama was endorsing Reagan's policies.

Then he wants to react with righteous indignation & blame the media when they're called on the lie, and someone dares broach it with him?

 

[Cancel7]

I agree w/ some of what you're saying, but disagree with the ultimate conclusion. I do think Edwards is the best candidate at this point, not just for Dems, but overall. Obama & Hillary have hurt each other badly in this fight, and there are supporters of each who will not vote for the other if they become the nominee.

I still think a battered Obama or a battered Hillary will win the general. I don't think racism or sexism is so deep in America that it would deny the Democrats the White House given the current climate. You have to remember that, while most of us (well, at least me) are focused on the Dem primaries right now, the GOP is in a state of panic. Not just because this is a loseable election, anyway. They hate all of their candidates. Rush Limbaugh won't vote for McCain, and I saw Tom Delay last night saying that McCain would destroy the current Republican party. And if you think America will not elect a black or a woman, wait until you see what they do with a Mormon. Will they band together behind Romney or McCain for a fight against Hillary? I'm not so sure at this point, but even if they do, it won't be enough.

This is just the Democrats' year; Bush insured that. Which is what makes the whole thing even more tragic to me. I don't know what Obama will bring to a Presidency, and I could be completely wrong about him; I'm sure I'm at least partially wrong. But man, do I know what I get with Bill & Hillary Clinton; as entitled as they feel to the White House, I'm not ready for a flashback to the '90's. That's not what the country needs right now. Like it or not, Hillary will be a very ineffective President. She will absolutely lose Congress, and probably by a wide margin, in the first mid-term, and after that, we get the familiar redux of triangulation & bitter partisan posturing, with legislative victories being measured not by their benefit to Americans, but by who trumped who on capitol hill in the end.

Well you make good points here, and I hope so much that you are right about the Republicans. I have prepared myself for a McCain presidency, because I don’t want to be devastated when and if it happens. I was like that in 2004, in complete shock that anyone watched those debates, where I feel that it can fairly be said bush looked like an actual mental defective, a down’s syndrome victim, I mean, for Christ sakes I was embarrassed for him and I hate him. I just could not get over it.

And, I am extremely alarmed over the fissure in the Democratic base I see forming. We cannot have women and African Americans at each other’s throats. That is the base. You don’t win elections as a Democrat without either one of them. And in the meantime I know a guy who has always voted his whole life. This guy caucused for Jesse Jackson back in the day, ok? But he isn’t going to vote for the first time in his life if either Obama or Hillary is the candidate. He says that he just isn’t going to hold his nose because they’re better than the Republican again. Not again. So in the end, in many ways, neither one of them are even liberals. It just kills me. Boy I would have loved to have this fight with a real kick ass, good old fashioned liberal at the top of it. I could have gotten excited about that.

 

[Onceler]

"I was like that in 2004, in complete shock that anyone watched those debates, where I feel that it can fairly be said bush looked like an actual mental defective, a down’s syndrome victim, I mean, for Christ sakes I was embarrassed for him and I hate him. I just could not get over it."

Oh, yeah, do I know that feeling. I remember my wife & I cracking up during one of Bush's 2000 debates with Gore. He was so out-classed. Toward the end, we were genuinely embarassed for him, and it wasn't even a question in our minds that he would get shredded in the post-debate analysis.

What did we get? Peggy Noonan saying that Bush "closed the deal tonight," and a variety of commentary on Gore's sighs & mannerisms. I was slack-jawed.

 

[Cypress]

"Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I kinda agree with Bill Clinton. You know, when he had that spat with reporters two days ago? I don't think broadly speaking, the general public cares about, or pays attention to this particular spat. It's the media punditocracy and political junkies that are way into it. The media loves this kind of stuff, and they'll bellow it through their megaphone as loud as they can. "

Bill Clinton was taking issue with a reporter asking him about comments from the SC Dem Chairman that the campaign of distortion they were running against Obama was reprehensible. And it is. Those comments from him were as disingenuous as any I have seen from a politician; the Clinton campaign created the reaction -which many Dems had - by running a lie of an ad about Obama in SC, implying that Obama was endorsing Reagan's policies.

Then he wants to react with righteous indignation & blame the media when they're called on the lie, and someone dares broach it with him?

I honestly haven't paid a whole lot of attention to it, but I'll take your word and I totally believe that the Clinton's played hardball and said things that weren't true.

I also think the Kerry Campaign said things that weren't true about Howard Dean in 2004, as did the Bradley campaign said about Gore in 2000. It's disgusting, and I hate that kind of politics. And it CAN get pushed over the edge and create fissures in the party, if it goes to far.

That said, I don't think a little hardball politics in the primary is a bad thing, from a purely pragmatic sense. If there's one group of people on this planet who need to be trained how to fight dirty, when the time comes for it, it's Democratic candidates.

 

[blackascoal]

I get the impression that some are shocked at the level of hardball politics and vitriol between Obama and Clinton.

A little Presidential Campaign History 101:

Bill Bradley, Called Al Gore a liar, and worse in 2000;

Bradley was merciless to Gore. Attacking his character, his honesty, his integrity. And in the interest of full disclosure, I was a Gore partisan in 2000. Bradley was the self-styled, post-partisan independent that was a favorite of the leftwing of the Democratic party, psuedo-Naderites, and independents. You know, that crowd that called Gore and Bush tweedle dee and tweedle dum; there wasn't much difference between them....

And guess what? Instead of the media pundits, wringing their hands about this dustup, the media in 2000 instead gleefully went along with Bradley's smears on Gore...they were intent on selling the story of Gore "the serial liar". I don't recall the media questioning, broadly, Bradley's smears. They took the handoff and ran with it. Unfortunately.

Your Gore-love is showing my brother.

The right didn't get their attacks on Gore from the "Bradleyites." It's almost dishonest to even suggest that .. but since you're my brother .. I won't suggest that.

Your love of Gore refuses you to recognize that AL GORE and AL GORE .. alone and all by his goddamn self was responsible for his losing what should have ben the easiest election in human history. Bill Clinton gave Gore the presidency and AL GORE, alone and all by his goddamn self, somehow managed to run the worst campaign in human history .. AND didn't have the balls to fight for the people who voted for his ass in spite of choosing JOE LIEBERMAN as his running mate.

PLEASE tell me .. were Bradleyites, Naderites, meteorites, Greens, the left-wing of the Democratic Party, self-styled partisan independents, the position of the moon, Hip-Hop, Global warming, or anything else you can think of, responsible for Gore picking Lieberman, running away from the success Clinton handed him, losing his own fucking state, or failing to exhibit the intelligence to outthink and out manuever the macinations of the right.

What is happening between Clinton and Obama is historic and has nothing to do with Bradley, a great man, and Gore.

 

[blackascoal]

Did you see that the Times endorsed Hillary and McCain? They're a liberal rag, you know. Real leftists over there.

Well, I don't really see these ruthless attacks on Obama. Honestly I watched the interviews where he talked about Reagan and about Republicans being the party of ideas, and I walked away from it shaking my head. You can parse what he said, but the implication, to my mind, was clear, and I didn't like it. And a lot of liberals didn't like it.

You should hope Obama toughens up, because you haven't seen ruthless, but if he is the nominee, you and he both will. I think it is naive to believe that the R's are only going to go after Hillary, and if Obama is the nominee we're all going to hold hands, and hey maybe they will greet us as liberators and have flowers? Maybe you don't think that, but you appear to hold out some hope of it, because you think that Clinton is going to divide the country and Obama can bring it together and be bipartisan. My opinion is this country is divided, and if you look to political history you can figure out who has made it that way, and who has benefitted and whether or not they are done benefitting from it.

If Hillary is the candidate we all know what is coming, but what some don't see is that if Obama is the candidate, they are going to initiate the most racially divisive slime fight this country has ever seen. But that won't affect how I vote. And even though I'm not going to vote for Obama in the primary when that fight comes, I'll be on his side of it. Just as, if Hillary is the nominee, I understand what is going to be done to her, and I understand that institutionalized sexism is going to raise its head and roar, and I'll be on her side of that fight.

I want Edwards, but I'm not going to be a sore loser either.

And I don't hate any of the Democratic candidates, though I have little respect for some of them.

I think this helps Obama because he's proven that he is tough and will fight back, even against the strongest political machine the Democratic Party has ever had.

Obama is quick of wit and he proved that when the Austrailian PM Howard was dumb enough to challenge his patriotism. Obama got the best of both ends of that exchange as Howard was booted from office over the point of their argument.

 

[Cancel7]

Your Gore-love is showing my brother.

The right didn't get their attacks on Gore from the "Bradleyites." It's almost dishonest to even suggest that .. but since you're my brother .. I won't suggest that.

Your love of Gore refuses you to recognize that AL GORE and AL GORE .. alone and all by his goddamn self was responsible for his losing what should have ben the easiest election in human history. Bill Clinton gave Gore the presidency and AL GORE, alone and all by his goddamn self, somehow managed to run the worst campaign in human history .. AND didn't have the balls to fight for the people who voted for his ass in spite of choosing JOE LIEBERMAN as his running mate.

PLEASE tell me .. were Bradleyites, Naderites, meteorites, Greens, the left-wing of the Democratic Party, self-styled partisan independents, the position of the moon, Hip-Hop, Global warming, or anything else you can think of, responsible for Gore picking Lieberman, running away from the success Clinton handed him, losing his own fucking state, or failing to exhibit the intelligence to outthink and out manuever the macinations of the right.

What is happening between Clinton and Obama is historic and has nothing to do with Bradley, a great man, and Gore.

What do you think is happening between Clinton and Obama? You know that I am an Edwards supporter, but even if I wasn’t, and I supported Hillary, I would still want to hear what you have to say about this. I’d like to hear where you think the Clintons brought race into this. I don’t see it in the Reagan brushup or the Iraqi war attacks, so maybe it is under the wire and I have missed it. I admit I haven’t been paying close attention. I am already firmly settled on Edwards, and I just grimace every time I see a headline about Obama/Clinton because I don’t want to watch this split.

 

[Cypress]

Your Gore-love is showing my brother.

The right didn't get their attacks on Gore from the "Bradleyites." It's almost dishonest to even suggest that .. but since you're my brother .. I won't suggest that.

Your love of Gore refuses you to recognize that AL GORE and AL GORE .. alone and all by his goddamn self was responsible for his losing what should have ben the easiest election in human history. Bill Clinton gave Gore the presidency and AL GORE, alone and all by his goddamn self, somehow managed to run the worst campaign in human history .. AND didn't have the balls to fight for the people who voted for his ass in spite of choosing JOE LIEBERMAN as his running mate.

PLEASE tell me .. were Bradleyites, Naderites, meteorites, Greens, the left-wing of the Democratic Party, self-styled partisan independents, the position of the moon, Hip-Hop, Global warming, or anything else you can think of, responsible for Gore picking Lieberman, running away from the success Clinton handed him, losing his own fucking state, or failing to exhibit the intelligence to outthink and out manuever the macinations of the right.

What is happening between Clinton and Obama is historic and has nothing to do with Bradley, a great man, and Gore.

It's an established fact, that Bradley fed into the narrative of the "dishonest" Gore. And I'm sure Gore's hands weren't clean either. He got hardball on bradley.

The GOP was going to smear Gore no matter what. The point is, my recollection is that the mainstream press narrative about Gore being a serial liar, started mostly within the Democratic primary, as a result of the barbs between bradley and gore. And the GOP picked up that ball and ran with it in the general election....and, from what I can recall, Gore could never effectively rebut those accusation of being a serial liar.

So, I'm saying that hardball politics is pretty normal in primaries. And if Obama is the nominee, crying or whining about unfair attacks isn't going to save him. He needs to fight back as dirty as hell, if the GOP smear machine goes after him. Which it will.