TNR BLOGS

Michael Tomasky on the Unity Ticket
May 09, 2008 | 9:33 AM
Come Back will.i.am, All Is Forgiven
May 08, 2008 | 8:55 PM
Mark Schmitt on the Unity Ticket
May 08, 2008 | 6:06 PM

Headline of the Day
May 09, 2008 | 10:10 AM
Should Hillary Have Played Wright Differently?
May 09, 2008 | 12:12 AM
Dept of What Ifs
May 08, 2008 | 5:13 PM

Hillary's Either / Or
May 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
Krugman's Misleading Attack on Barack Obama
May 02, 2008 | 5:26 PM
Mugabe's Last Flight
May 02, 2008 | 2:40 PM

Good for Bush
May 08, 2008 | 9:12 PM
The Supply-Side Century
May 08, 2008 | 3:26 PM
The Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name
May 08, 2008 | 2:38 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
Blog Home | Contact |
28.03.2008
More on That Pelosi Letter

Noam, for what it's worth: I don't have exact quotes but when the letter came up in yesterday's conference call, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer seemed to imply that the campaign had not coordinated or officially signed off on it. I believe he said they'd gotten "a heads-up." Now, there may well be more to it than that. But it's at least possible that those donors acted mostly or entirely on their own--perhaps to give Hillary plausible deniability if confronted with a backlash.

--Michael Crowley 

Posted: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:14 AM with 6 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Rhubarbs said:

Except plausible deniability works with the prosecutor's office. It doesn't work with public opinion. Does Hillary really think that the games that fended off several perjury indictments back in the day will work with the general public? If so, what a disaster she would be as president. When mud is thrown at the other guy, people don't wait to look for the mud on your hands to blame you for the mud-slinging.

March 28, 2008 10:36 AM

miceelf said:

I agree Rhubarbs. If there truly was no coordination here, the donors owe Hillary an incredibly huge apology.

March 28, 2008 11:35 AM

blackton said:

As rhub says, plausible deniability? Shouldn't she be formulated a campaign strategy that doesn't require plausible deniability, ie. a campaign strategy designed to get votes, from both the regular voters (by way of the ballot) and superdelegates (by way of winning the remaining ballots, and not by extortion). So far in this campaign I can think of only a few things she has done right; cry in NH, the 3:00 Am ad, strong debates, against countless blunders. At this point her only hope is an Obama implosion (but one that can't be laid at her doorstep), in which case I recommend she just run pleasant, uplifting ads from here on out.

March 28, 2008 11:40 AM

peter1943 said:

"When mud is thrown at the other guy, people don't wait to look for the mud on your hands to blame you for the mud-slinging."

This metaphor makes no sense. If they don't wait to see if you have mud on your hands, what do they wait for? If you get blamed for mud-slinging without proofe, isn't that just mud slinging in itself?

March 28, 2008 11:50 AM

hrlngrv said:

So the Clinton the letter writers may have given the Clinton campaign team a heads-up. Did the Clinton campaign respond by telling them not to do this?

March 28, 2008 11:52 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

I'm glad they did it.  Thank you team Hillary!  

What better way to remind voters of the top-down, politically tim-eared manner in which Hillary operates AND how Obama's campaign is financed, which is entirely by small donations. It's standard operating procedure for him: politely rebellious and reminding everyone of exactly whose country this is: ours.  

After the plutocratic plundering Bush era, big shots with money threatening people just set themselves up to be perfect villians.  

These people are so out of touch I almost pity them.

March 28, 2008 2:32 PM

Double click this space to insert your ad.