I'm just grateful for Obama's Fact Checker section. I don't think the latest rebuttal to a smear is up yet, though. Clinton attacked Obama's pro-choice record, which led Lorna Brett Howard, former President of Chicago NOW, to not only quit supporting Clinton, but to switch over to the Obama camp and release her own video explaining exactly what Clinton's lies were, and why they were lies.
In Washington, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who endorsed Obama last week, castigated the former president for what he called his "glib cheap shots" at Obama, saying both sides should settle down but placing the blame predominantly on Clinton.
"That's beneath the dignity of a former president," Leahy told reporters, adding: "He is not helping anyone, and certainly not helping the Democratic Party."
That concern was also voiced by some neutral Democrats, who said that the former president's aggressive role, along with the couple's harsh approach recently, threatens to divide the party in the general election.
A few prominent Democrats, including Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have spoken to the former president about the force of his Obama critiques. There is some fear within the party that if Obama becomes the nominee, he could emerge personally battered and politically compromised. And there is concern that a Clinton victory could come at a cost -- particularly a loss of black voters, who could blame her for Obama's defeat and stay home in November.
Friday, January 25, 2008
The Washington Post has a pretty insightful article about the Clinton attacks. Most interesting was something I thought none of the party officials were willing to say aloud: