Ask yourself why so many candidates in the Democratic Field are already declared and running .... because each one knows that the Clintonesta Wing of the DemParty has way too much baggage.

Careerist Politicians are not the voters first choice, nor lobbyist, nor trial lawyers .... people are looking for leadership that isn't tainted.

Hillary may be smart. She may even be deserving .... but she's made plenty of compromises in her life .... and one suspects ambition overrides all else.

For sure ... she is POLARIZING ... even within the Democratic Party. That's not a good thing.

From Wikipedia:

Geffen...was financial supporter of President Bill Clinton, but had a falling out with the former President over the decision to pardon Marc Rich and not Leonard Peltier, on whose behalf he had lobbied the President.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

...Wikipedia reports:

In 1977 he was convicted and sentenced to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment for the murders of two FBI Agents who died during a 1975 shoot-out on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.  There has been considerable debate over Peltier's guilt and the fairness of his trial. Some supporters and organizations, including Amnesty International, consider him to be a political prisoner.[1] Numerous appeals have been filed on his behalf; however, none have been ruled in his favor. Peltier is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.

Clinton's past controversies present a wealth of opportunities to the Republicans to completely discredit her candidacy regardless of how much money she can raise and how many "experienced" pundits he can line up.
I don't think any Democratic candidate can honestly beat the Republicans in the political "mud-slinging" and "dirty-tricks" game.
That is really worrisome, and I don't understand why David Geffen a private citizen who has the right to express his own opinion (which in my view does have a valid point) is being attacked and linked to the Obama's campaign.

What is even more worrisome is the campaign strategy of the Clinton camp to outraise the other democratic candidates in campaign funds, drive them out of the competition thus prevent any serious debates on the voters' issues and win the democratic nomination by default but then winding up losing to the Republican candidate in the general election.

The media has nowhere to go...they have been so thoroughly raked over the last 16 years any rehash of them will simply be ignored...

The reason the Swiftboat attacks worked so well was because it was a new charge, the media and Republicans had somewhere to go...kept it in the news day after day...

Combined with Kerry's ineffectual response, it sank him...

What do you think will happen if the media brings up Whitewater, or Vince Foster again?...a big fat yawn...

It also helps inoculate her against any new scurrilous charges from Republicans...the public will assume it is just another unwarranted attack on the Clintons...

Is that Obama has a fantastic rapid-response team.  His people had a retort (and a damn good one at that), within the hour, making it into the same news cyle.

So it wasn't just Hillary bashing Obama, but Obama's response was included in every article.

Think swiftboats 2004, the Dem nominee could use this type of rapid response.

I think there may be 10 people in this world who care about David Geffen's insights on politics--David Geffen, the Clintons, the Clinton's proxies/friends, and perhaps Maureen Dowd.

There are so many things that keep me awake at night.  David Geffen's opinions concerning the Clinton's is not one of them.

I will say that this one DOES worry me about the Clinton campaign. 

Either Hilary is getting some terrible advice, or, if Geffen really DID get under Clinton's skin, then she needs to seriously reconsider her run.  I will not sleep easier knowing that my president can be completely unnerved by some harsh words from some schmuck in the entertainment biz. 

I suspect this may simply be a way of changing the subject away from the 2002 AUMF, which Clinton has been hammered on recently; or it could be her team's first attempt to show Obama that she and her team "mean business".  If these are the types of attacks that we can expect from her in the future, I cannot in good conscience support her candidacy. 

Attacks based on real issues are OK.  I don't mind a vigorous debate.  I just can't stand this unbelievable level of pettiness. 

This was such a petty attack, by one claiming to rise above pettiness and rancor.  Once Hillary blamed Obama for something he had nothing to do with, Obama had every right to reply.  I do hope the cycle ends, though.  And if this is what Hillary thinks we care about, or what's important, she'd be wrong.  She just doesn't get it.  Meanwhile, as of now, I'm sitting this one out.

This is a blip on the political radar...and something that has been going on since the beginning of the Republic...

Look up a man named James Callender for a good example...

And it does serve a useful purpose...do you suppose the Republicans are going to run a campaign on the issues...of course they won't. They will run a campaign that will require the kind of responses we are seeing from Obama and Clinton...

So...

If you are a political junkie, pop a beer and enjoy the show..

If you are not, ignore it until next year....

If Hilary were to run this type of attack during the general election you would be listening to the sound of $500 million dollars worth of her own campaign contributions going down the toilet. 

The net effect of an attack should be to increase your numbers relative to the other contenders.  In this case, Hilary and her team come across as a not-ready-for-prime time campaign with an absolutely bizarre, out-of-touch set of concerns.

Who outside of NYC, Hollywood, and federal DC understands who David Geffen is?  And, unless a person was soliciting campaign donations, why would he or she care about Geffen's political opinions? 

This type of attack inflicts more damage on Clinton than it does on her target.  That's not how these things are supposed to work.  It is the wrong choice on several levels.

Vilsack and Richardson went after Obama using Clinton campaign talking points. Probably because they expect Hillary to win and want to be considered for VP.

http://hotlineblog.n...

"(S)he is among the many smart, dedicated Democrats who may be my choice to be on my ticket as Vice President."

How lame is it to say the Obama campaign should return Geffen's money?  It reminds me of some of Bush's lame brain Iraq comments.

Hillary Clinton and Co. should stop with knuckle ball garbage pitches and mount a campaign.  She can't have it both ways, saying she wants a positive campaign while her hacks are attacking opponents.

This kind of stuff pushes me away from the campaign that engages in it.

It is ridiculously petty.  It is an insult to all of us trying to decide who we want to support.

I say read Obama's book, read Richardson's book, read Clinton's books, compare the websites and lets get this over with so we can end the long nightmare.  Whoever screws this one up, we should in the words of Pat Buchanan (only time I will ever cite Pat), get our pitchforks and run the petty, selfish politicians out of town. Pitchforks belongs to Pat, the rest of it is mine.

I know, I know...he said NO- but any person in sales knows that NO can really mean  "not now". Mark said "no" last year- well, its a new year. I read the WSJ account of the "Clinton-Obama" exchange...and it reads like a gossip column. Its too early for slash and burn.

This is incredibly stupid of Hillary and her handlers. Trying to blame Obama for the whole thing is absurd. There's absolutely no reason he should give back the money. He didn't do anything other that be in the right place at the right time for Geffen to give out the money.

My take on it is that Obama was not supposed to happen, and Hillary is having a complete fit about all the notoriety he is getting. Not to mention the money.

Lynn

I don't care about this stuff - I want to know SPECIFICALLY where they stand on the issues.  I hate that they don't clarify their positions on some of the most important issues.  They speak in abstract terms and really talk in circles when it comes to nailing down where they stand on any specific issue.

That is why I am leaning John Edwards.  He isn't afraid to talk straight.  Hopefully we will see more straight talk and SOON!