Clinton Loses Supporter to Obama In Response To Clinton Smear Campaign

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs]

The Democratic primary campaign might come down to whether voters believe the lies and smears being spread by the Clinton campaign or whether there is a backlash against such activity. Here is an example of one person who has switched her support from Clinton to Obama as a consequence of the Clinton smear campaign. Lorna Brett Howard, the former President of Chicago NOW (National Organization of Women), supported Clinton until she found that Hillary Clinton was lying about Obama’s record on choice.

In a second video, Howard describes how Obama is one hundred percent pro-choice and one hundred percent honest.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQVt8krY7SU]

In the third video below, Lorna Brett Howard describes how Obama has been a critical advocate in the fight to preserve choice.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILVLzbBcs8A]

Related Stories:

Robert Reich on Bill Clinton’s Smear Campaign
The Clinton Circus Act

Slick Willie Rides Again

The Clintons, Race, And Smearing Obama

Hillary Clinton, The Republican Democrat
There She Goes Again (Hillary Clinton vs. the Truth)
Eric Zorn Exposes Clinton Lies

Why Bill Clinton Has Spent The Last Several Days Spreading Lies

Factcheck.org Verifies Obama Side of the Reagan Controversy
Fact Checking The South Carolina Debate

Be Sociable, Share!

22 Comments

  1. 1
    Lisa Galarneau says:

    backlash from the clinton smear campaign on obama: http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2772

  2. 2
    lisaga says:

    backlash from the clinton smear campaign on obama: http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2772

  3. 3
    Christopher says:

    Ron,

    I have a piece up today that clarifies Hillary Clinton’s Rovian-style debate smear that Barack Obama had worked for a “Chicago slumlord.”

    If you have a chance to stop by to read it, please do.

    Later,

    Christopher

  4. 4
    natthedem says:

    Just in case anyone doubts her sincerity, Lorna Brett Howard has hosted fundraisers for Hillary Clinton in the past at her house across from Gramercy Park and donated $4,200 to the Clinton campaign.

  5. 5
    But in Reality Land... says:

    in any case, Obama can’t/won’t win this year.

    time to smarten up before another un-necessary lost of the White House to a Republican.

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    Can’t win? Sounds like you are just reverting to the old “Hillary is inevitable” campaign. The problem with that campaign meme is that it hasn’t held up so far.

    Obama beat Clinton in Iowa.
    Obama tied Clinton for delegates in New Hampshire
    Obama beat Clinton for delegates in Nevada
    Obama appears likely to beat Clinton in South Carolina

    Maybe Clinton will still win. After all, good does not always triumph over evil. In that case you are right. There will be an unnecessary loss of the White House to a Republican because in a battle between two Republicans a Republican is bound to win.

    The way to keep a Republican out of the White House is to vote for Barack Obama in the primaries. That way we will have a choice in the general election beyond two Republicans.

  7. 7
    Ron Pulliam says:

    Gee…with Obama beating Hillary EVERYwhere, how is it she has 100 more delegates in her pocket than he does?

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    Looks like you better do a little check on your facts.

    Clinton’s lead is now under 100 for delegates. Her lead is among super delegates who are free to change their minds. These are not delegates “in her pocket.” Obama has beaten or tied Clinton so far in every race for committed delegates.

    Clinton received her support from super delegates before she began this smear campaign. Don’t count on her holding on to them as a growing number of Democrats are now seeing the Clintons as acting contrary to the interests of the party.

  9. 9
    Hal Maksid says:

    Clinton has a delegate lead because of the superdelegates, who are comprised almost exclusively of establishment Democrats. Surprise, surprise, they’re going with the establishment candidate.

    What I can’t understand is the number of Clinton supporters who are not only sticking with her, but vehemently backing her throughout all these Rovian-style attacks. I think it says a lot about her character that she’s willing to lower our country and the Democratic party to win an election. For the first time I can remember, the Republicans (with the exception of Mitt) are actually running a cleaner primary than the Democrats.

  10. 10
    SO says:

    The clintons are “dirty politica” no doubt in my mind……. They say that they are for the African American but when it comes to the white house they will do and say anything to smear a promising new
    African American that can change
    History!!!!!!!!!
    That is what I don’t understand about the clintons…………………

  11. 11
    M Lund says:

    these people don’t even exist. This entire site is part of the smear campaign that Barack Hussein Obama is using in an attempt to villify members of his own party. Something is very wrong when individuals such as those using this site are eager and willing to discredit another human being just to gain power. Sick.

  12. 12
    Ron Chusid says:

    M Lund,

    Losing your grip on reality? What people don’t exist? What about all the journalists, and the people at Factcheck.org which I’ve also linked to on this topic who agree that Clinton has launched a dishonest smear campaign against Obama.

    The only ones who are “eager and willing to discredit another human being just to gain power” are the Clintons.

    Any particular reason you included Obama’s middle name? As he has not used it during campaigning those who do use it are generally those concerned with launching smears, such as claiming he’s a Muslim.

  13. 13
    Madison C says:

    The very smear campaign this article states will be exactly what the Republican candidate will endure and that’s just fine with me.

    I would rather they face against the ball-buster called Hillary than the whimpy Obama.

    After 7 years of fiasco under the Bush administration, I am ready to ditch the idea of having another inexperience, born-again Christian, recovery-alcoholic ushered into the White House.

    So Hillary is not likeable.
    I could hardly be bothered.

    By all accounts, a lot of people liked Bush for his goofiness, whatever that means.
    So much for popularity doing anything constructive.

    Hillary has a solid track record behind her.
    Her experience in economics, security and the White House will ensure she is no learning-on-the-job President.
    She’s someone with Plan A. B, C, up to Z.
    She knows how to win the fight.

    She’s the one to win the Presidency and the respect of the world.
    Do not make America into the laughing stock of the world again.

  14. 14
    platypus says:

    M Lund,

    We don’t exist? Hmmmm…

    If you think competing for the presidency is sick, perhaps you should stay out of it and be healthy. It is all very depressing. Good luck to you.

    Obama ’08!

  15. 15
    Cornelius says:

    Obama is very honest and determined to bring a change.What I don’t like is how he’s been unnecessarily attacked by the Clintons just to win the White house.It is unfair.Before,I used to respect and admire the Clintons but their smear campaign attitude in the primaries has put me off. America needs Obama now more than ever.

  16. 16
    Ron Chusid says:

    Madison,

    Resorting to such smear campaigns would make the Democratic candidate become just like the Republican. We don’t beat the Republicans by being like them. There’s no need to resort to a smear campaign when Obama could campaign on the real differences.

    Someone who lies like Hillary during the campaign will lie once in office, and will not win the respect of the world.

    Obama has better plans than Clinton to solve our problems without bringing this type of dishonesty to the White House.

    Clinton’s experience doesn’t say much for her as she has been wrong so often. She has been wrong in her approach to health care, wrong in her support for the war, wrong in her pandering to the right wing, and wrong in her nanny state philosophy of government.

    Besides, how do you know what she will do once in office? She’s shown herself to be a liar, and therefore we cannot trust what she says. We don’t really know what she will do once in office.

  17. 17
    Kingsley Lington says:

    I have always respected both Clinton and Obama and I really do think either of them would be great at the White House. However, somehow, and not unconnected with the Clinton-style campaign, I feel Obama is a better candidate. A Clinton presidency would reopen old wounds and sharpen the divisions among Americans.

    Be smart; go for one who can bring Americans together.

  18. 18
    Michael Schaeffer says:

    There was a time I felt i could have voted for Hillary if she won the nomination. My thoughts were always with Edwards and Obama, the most honest and electable of the Democrats. I did believe that even if they lost to Hillary I could support her, but no longer. Looking at how she runs her campaign its like another round of Bush and Rove. On top of that she is the least likley to beat any republican candidate. Guess i will be staying home for the election.

  19. 19
    Sean C Higgins says:

    I Hear Senator Clinton say she has 35 Years experience. Where is this experience? The last time I checked Sen. Clinton has only held public office less than 5 years. How is it that Sen. Clinton tries to take credit for things accomplished under her husbands adminstration? As for the former president who states Sen. Obama is a fairy tale. I respond in his own statement. “I smoked it but I did not inhale”. NOW WHOSE LIVING IN A FAIRY TALE!!! The Clinton’s played the race card because they are the only ones that can benefit from seeing Sen. Obama as ONLY A Black Candidate. In essence VOTER SURPRESSION is what they seek to accomplish. In simple terms they think that black people will possibly see that Sen. Obama cannot not win as a Black man seeking the presidency and not VOTE!!!

    The former president should not campaign for his wife. There is a code of conduct that former presidents should adhere to. The former president Bush watched his son run for office and yet we got no campaigning or no ill words. Former president Clinton over stepped his boundaries.
    Lastly, Black America should WAKE UP!!! Bill Clinton the last time I checked Was A WHITE MALE!!! Who during his time in office never really did anything extraordinary to help black people. So why is it that some in leadership think He was the first black president. Absolutely CRAZY!!!

  20. 20
    Damozel says:

    Here are Clinton’s 35 years of experience:

    Link

    I remain completely baffled by the passion for Obama. A mediocre young candidate with a rather cobbled together record gift for impassioned rhetoric—i.e., an ideal candidate (maybe) for the VP spot, but with no background, connections, or special knowledge to fit him for the highest office. Not to mention a clique of advisers who include some with what I’d call strongly non-progressive values.

    So many bloggers I like and respect are pro-Obama that I feel there must be something behind the image. I just don’t see it. I must add that I don’t loooooove Hillary, but I respect her.

    I don’t think she’s running a ‘smear’ campaign, so much as pointing out the obvious. Obviously those who love Obama will find this difficult to swallow. But if he gets the nomination—as it looks as if he might—they had best get hardened to it. The campaign is already starting to self-destruct internally, with his advisers going off the reservation.

  21. 21
    Damozel says:

    PS. I don’t know about disparagement of his voting record, but the reality is that he has little Washington experience, and there’s just no way to turn this into an advantage. The president has got to do a better job than Bush at understanding the system The Rezko thing is going to be more of a worry as time advances, as well.

  22. 22
    Ron Chusid says:

    Obama has little Washington experience–but almost as much as Clinton. Beyond Washington Obama has far more experience than Clinton. This includes more total years of legislative experience, experience teaching Constitutional law, and experience as a community organizer.

    Thanks to his experience teaching Constitutional law, we don’t see Obama supporting a ban on flag burning or waging a campaign to censor video games. There are also distinct differences between the two on issues regarding presidential power and secrecy.

    His experience as a community organizer is largely responsible for Obama being able to beat the supposedly invulnerable Clinton machine. In addition, this is probably responsible for him not taking the same top-down approach to solving problems.

    Clinton has been outright lying about Obama’s positions in her mailers and campaign speeches. This is certainly a smear campaign–not “pointing out the obvious.”

    As for why so many bloggers support Obama, its largely because he’s the only acceptable non-Clinton candidate. He is the only option which isn’t essentially a third term for George Bush’s style of government.

7 Trackbacks

Leave a comment