Clinton Team Kept Pushing Coke Story, Says Edwards Camp
EmailABC News’ Teddy Davis and Raelyn Johnson report: Edwards strategist Joe Trippi called Mark Penn, his counterpart on the Clinton campaign, "unconscionable" on Saturday for dropping the word "cocaine" during a Thursday television appearance.
"On Thursday, as many of you know, on ‘Hardball,’ I was there when I thought [Clinton strategist] Mark [Penn] raised it again in a way that I thought was unconscionable and makes you wonder," Trippi told ABC News.
"We believe," he continued, "that that has no place and we have continued to try to make any differences we talk about be . . . differences on philosophy . . . and differences on policies, like health care. We’ll continue to do that. . . To raise these other issues, many of them have no place and we’re not going to participate other than, like I said, when I was there with Mark Penn, we are going to, when we can, call it out, and say, ‘stop,’ which is what I did on that show."
Penn used the word "cocaine" while he, Trippi, and Obama strategist David Axelrod were being jointly interviewed on MSNBC’s "Hardball." The cocaine reference came as Penn was arguing that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., was not interested in raising Sen. Barack Obama’s, D-Ill., high-school drug use.
"The issue related to cocaine use is not something the campaign is in any way raising," said Penn on "Hardball."
Trippi, who was standing next to Penn, seized on the use of the word "cocaine" as evidence that the Clinton team was intentionally trying to associate Obama with his past drug use even after the campaign had accepted the resignation of Bill Shaheen, the New Hampshire campaign co-chairman who first raised Obama’s past drug use during a Wednesday interview with The Washington Post.
"I think he just did it again," said Trippi. "He just did it again."
"Unbelievable," he continued. "He just said cocaine again."
Watch the "Hardball" exchange.
In his first book, "Dreams From My Father," Obama acknowledges that he used marijuana and cocaine as a high school student while rejecting heroin.
"Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though," wrote Obama.
The Edwards campaign is hoping to benefit from the increasing acrimony.
During a Saturday conference call with reporters, Edwards’ communications director and Iowa state director promoted the former North Carolina senator as an appealing alternative to "the back-and-forth" between Clinton and Obama.
When asked to explain how the Obama campaign is contributing to an unattractive "back-and-forth," the Edwards campaign demurred.
"You’re going to have to ask the Obama campaign for the litany of the back-and-forth that’s been going on between them and Hillary’s campaign," Edwards communications director Chris Kofinis told ABC News. "But everybody knows it’s been going on for a while and it’s not our focus."
Jonathan Prince, Edwards’ deputy campaign manager, added, "We can’t speak for all of you who consistently portray it as a back-and-forth. Don’t ask us what makes it a back-and-forth. The press makes it a back-and-forth all day long."
Edwards will be interviewed Sunday morning on ABC News’ "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
Santorum Clarifies Concerns on Women in Combat 
Gulf of Mexico to Become Gulf of America?
Obama should let the Clintons __who had been living for so long in vice to the extent that they complete forgot what the word morality had ever meant __ continue to show the People of America their true faces. Their attacks will let Americans see by themselves how electing Obama will avoid them the disaster that the election of Siamese Clinton couple would provoke. Their attacks constitute the best arguments for a judgement of the Americans for never vote for such a couple and for Obama supporters to move ahead. There is of course unenviable experience that the Clintons excel in, that Obama needs not to possess nor long for: the contempt and vice. These attacks would let caucus goers who are still hesitating about Hillary Clinton, finally make Obama their genuine candidate for the White House.
Posted by: TETE LAWSON | December 15, 2007, 7:38 pm 7:38 pm
TO MUCH. Clinton should be the last person in the world to have anyone working for her to say anything negative about anyone. I was on the fence until this. This is more like what this country has lived through durning the Bush years. Our country needs someone who will not keep the same old things going on for more years. America lets move on. Obama for President.
Posted by: Glenn Jolla | December 15, 2007, 7:50 pm 7:50 pm
Obama is no angel. he stirs the pot and watched the fireworks after lighting the fuse. He has defaced and demoralized Hillary Clinton time and again. He has distorted the truth, lied about the issues and has consistantly used the media to do his dirty work. His hands are not clean. At least with Hillary there is no hypocricy. Shes no saint and does’nt pretend to be one. If people would see through the smoke and mirrors and listen to her platform they would see that she truely is the most qualified and gifted politician running for president. Here’s hopeing that America is smarter than what the media and Obamas campaign hope they are.
Posted by: robertincharlotte | December 15, 2007, 8:38 pm 8:38 pm
Robert in charlotte…………I wonder who you are. Your comments lack rational and simply does not reflect the truth as it relates to this campaign. From your comment I gleam that you are a “Clinton” supporter. Let me be clear I am not, but I am a undecided “Democrat”, who is totally disgusted with the “Clinton” campaign and the dirt that they have injected into the process. Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards have conducted a positive campaign based on facts. The “Clintons” have continued the behavior that gave us GWB, the lie and they play the blame game. If the Senator from NY win the nomination this is one “Democrat” who will support the Republicanscome the general election. We deserve better than what the “Clintons” are doing and saying. Enough of the dirty politics, lies, blaming and decit. They (Clintons) are not good for America.
Posted by: murl41 | December 15, 2007, 9:14 pm 9:14 pm
The only dirt on John Edwards is his $400 haircut. I think he would make a great President! If he is the nominee I’m voting for him. I would love to see an Edwards/Biden ticket. If Hillary is the nominee, I’m voting Republican just like you murl41. If Obama is the nominee, I’ll voter for him. If he doesn’t get it, he would be a great Supreme Court Justice.
Posted by: steve | December 15, 2007, 9:38 pm 9:38 pm
When is the press going to raise Bill Clinton’s past cocaine abuse? All the coke traffickers he pardoned? Obama only did a little coke here and there, while Bill did mountains of the stuff.
Too bad you media folks are Clinton owned. If you were professionals, these questions would be raised, especially when Hillary’s people are raising the coke use against Barack.
Posted by: squeenter squillo | December 15, 2007, 9:40 pm 9:40 pm
“He has defaced and demoralized Hillary Clinton time and again.”
LOL. Please learn English.
Posted by: JFM | December 15, 2007, 9:50 pm 9:50 pm
What’s wrong with Obama’s past cocaine addiction being brought up again? That is the truth and people have the right to know the truth about this man. This speaks of his character or the lack thereof. It is funny that one blogger mentioned that Obama and Edwards are running positive campaigns, she’s got to be kidding me! They are the ones slinging all these mud on Hillary for fear that she’s going to get the Democratic nomination. Hillary’s fighting back and she’s going to win. Obama and Edwards are losers and all they do is plain politicking. They have no plans of making our lives better. They are overly ambitious simpletons and their pretext of serving this great nation is pure hypocrisy and idiotic. The are just so pathetic. Hillary 08!!!
Posted by: Troy | December 16, 2007, 12:17 am 12:17 am
Obama is a sanctimonious and phony presidential wanna -be whose candidacy is nothing but full of political absurdity. He is a peabrained bozo, a halfwit dum-dum with a thickead shmuck character. America deserves better than this Mr. Dopey!
Posted by: swissdiver | December 16, 2007, 12:58 am 12:58 am
Hillary Clinton’s campaign has generated hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from some of the poorest neighborhoods in New York City’s Chinatown. The Los Angeles Times reports an April fundraiser in an area known for its gritty urban poverty churned out a whopping $380,000 dollars.
The Times says at least one Chinatown donor has denied making a $1,000 contribution recorded in his name. Another who donated $2,500 appears to be ineligible to do so under federal election law. And many donors could not be tracked down using property, telephone or business records.
Posted by: Greg | December 16, 2007, 1:24 am 1:24 am
Clear. Obama= CLASS; INTEGRITY.
Hillary= SLIME TACTICS. PHONINESS.
Have you noticed that where the polls are most strongly moving TOWARD BARACK and AWAY FROM HILLARY just happen to be in the first 2 states to vote (Iowa and NH) — WHERE THE VOTERS HAVE MOST HAD A CHANCE TO REALLY, GENUINELY KNOW the candidates and see and “sense” UP CLOSE what each one’s CORE is really about……… — Janet (an involved mom and grandmother)
Posted by: Janet | December 16, 2007, 5:12 am 5:12 am
Troy:
u dont see anything wrong with Obama’s youthful indiscretions being brought up again?
Good! Do you want the Clintons’ indicretions also brought up?
Is that what u want? Want a can of worms opened?
Posted by: TITIBERG | December 16, 2007, 5:55 am 5:55 am
I’m sure Obama’s youthful drug use will be brought up in a general election. As will Bill Clinton’s affairs, (Lewinsky, Gennifer with a “G” Flowers, Paula Jones). Whitewater, campaign fundraising scandals, Hillary’s paranoia and persecution complex, “A vast right wing conspiracy”. Its my guess that her stance that she was instrumental in the running of the Whitehouse under Bill, while disassociating herself from anything negative. Notice how its, “’I’ introduced national healthcare”, but its “’We’ made some mistakes, and special interests made us fail.” How involved was she as Clinton’s advisor?
Posted by: Joe Fish | December 16, 2007, 6:45 am 6:45 am
This blameing Hillary for his affairs has been bugging me for a while. I don’t think it is fair. I don’t like the drug issue either BUT the guy was right. The republicans will smear it all over and dem’s need to be ready for it.
Posted by: del | December 16, 2007, 7:16 am 7:16 am
Kathryn: It seems to me that you are willing to accept the lies and deception going on in the Hillery campaign. And it’s finding. Please keep them within the confines of the lies and deception department. I was once like you, until I began to dig for the truth myself. It wasn’t hard to do either. With the use of the WWW, I was able to find the info needed to make a constructive decision. My advice to those willing to believe the unfounded truths on the net, dig a little deeper, before you come to these sites with the untruths, as they say! “The truth will set you free”.
OOOBBBAAAMMMAAA 000888!!!
Posted by: Bywill | December 16, 2007, 7:19 am 7:19 am
I wouldn’t vote for either Obama or Clinton but antone who admits to past Cocaine use shouldn’t even be considered to lead this nation.
Posted by: motney098765 | December 16, 2007, 9:40 am 9:40 am
I love how the Clinton’s throw mud and than use “the VRWC” as cover. I am reminded of Hillary saying her husband was a good man and would never sleep around on her and that it was the “VRWC”, all over the morning shows and than lo and behold he told us the American public it was true. Hillary needs to find another boogy man the “VRWC” doesn’t hold water anymore.
Posted by: Jaded | December 16, 2007, 9:52 am 9:52 am
Bottom line.. I don’t know if Obama is right for this country…. But I do believe that Hillary is wrong for it… Destructively and criminally wrong for it.
Posted by: givemeabreak | December 16, 2007, 10:45 am 10:45 am
The conventional wisdom today is candidates who can give the best speeches, media savvy answers or are the best talking heads on television is somehow equivalent to leadership in which no historical record of actions and results are required for qualifications. I think our electronic-media generation is confusing great media public relations with leadership. In the end, leadership is the sum of a candidate’s record of actions and achievements to date, that include both wins and losses to define the candidates’s ability, character, and moral compass to lead and elevation of stature. No wonder Harry Truman despised certain types of politicians.
Senator Clinton and Obama and the rest of the Roman Senate club should pay better attention to the Governors of our nation, because they simply get things done. Congress gets very little done based on performance relative to pay. This is why Congress is called the broken branch of government. And the Democrats want to nominate someone from this institution? I cannot remember when Congress did something for the American people other than the best interest of their political parties. How about reforming Congress?
Posted by: threeriverscrossing | December 16, 2007, 11:14 am 11:14 am
Hillary would be a great president.. for Venezuela.
Posted by: Mamie | December 16, 2007, 11:47 am 11:47 am
Hillary for President of Venezuala ’08!
Posted by: Etam... | December 16, 2007, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm
I would never vote for a cocaine user. Pot ok, coke, no way. It doesn’t matter how old he was. What if he killed someone at 16? That ok with you liberals. ABC – anyone but Ckinton, but not Dumbo ears
Posted by: joe g | December 16, 2007, 7:53 pm 7:53 pm
Titeberg: The can of “worms” that you speak of have been dug deep a long time ago by people obsessed with discrediting the Clintons. Each time the Clintons have faced these ludicrous accusations and come out stronger. When you speak of the Presidency, indiscretions are not just petty youthful foolhardiness, but it speaks of the man’s lack of character, impropriety, crucial mistake, and unequivocal recklessness. Obama, an es dopey is nothing but a good-for- nothing
spineless, wishy-washy political wasp!
Posted by: Troy | December 16, 2007, 9:42 pm 9:42 pm
If I may add, Obama’s “Peter Pan-ish” illusion of becoming a president confirms that the man is a knucklehead doofus who deserves to be dunced. He is a dubious, phony, decietful, witless dummy pretending to be “experienced” enough for the big job. Obama is a Pinnochio character
Posted by: swissdiver | December 16, 2007, 10:02 pm 10:02 pm
I see Hillary trying to get back to the White House and think about all the lying, police-state tactics, use of private investigators to gather dirt and wipe out her political opponents, abuse of power, Whitewater, Travelgate, and other scandals of the Clinton White House too numerous to mention. The thought of her at the helm is scary–very scary.
Before you cast your vote, please consider the following about the first Clinton co-presidency:
• The Clintons were more concerned about what they could get from the presidency instead of honoring their responsibilities to this country. At the end of their term they were multi-millionaires. Ever wonder how they got so wealthy?
• Think about how they sold our military secrets, how they exchanged pardons for Puerto Rican votes in New York, freeing some of the worst criminals just so Hillary could have what she thinks she is entitled to. Will our democracy survive another four years of them?
• Hillary loves to play the victim–of Bill, of the Republican vast right-wing conspiracy, of all the Bimbos who sleep with Bill, etc. Can a victim be an effective president?
• Hillary’s long-suffering marriage to Bill, enabling him to have numerous sexual trysts — not just a one-time dalliance with Monica — results in her sense of entitlement. Do we want a president who feels the job is rightfully hers just because she’s suffered through 35 years of marriage to Bill?
• Hillary claims to be tough enough to play with the boys when, in fact, she is unable to leave a cheating husband. How will she stand up to other men who walk all over her?
• Hillary attacks her opponents with lies and innuendo far more than she talks about how she would attempt to cure America’s ills. What is her plan…does she even have one?
• Hillary has no experience. Being married to a president does not make one qualified to be president. As a married woman, I cannot relate to a woman who stays in a sick marriage so she can capitalize on her husband’s success, then pretend she did it on her own. She gives no specifics about her experience. More dodging accountability.
• Fact: She’s held elected office for one Senate term and has introduced no major legislation during that time. Is this the kind of experience we want in the Oval Office?
Hillary is not what she pretends to be. She is spinning her image — the same tactics Bill used on an unsuspecting American people the first time around. We should be smarter than that now. Do we really want them in the White House again?
Cast your vote wisely in 2008.
Posted by: Denise | December 16, 2007, 10:03 pm 10:03 pm
I just find these comments about Sen. Clinton so sickening. She is being judged rather harshly and unfairly, and for reasons that will have in no way shape or form reflect upon her capability or experience to be a leader for this country. Frankly, it is not for us to judge her or to unfairly speculate why she decided to stay with Bill despite his indiscretions. And to blame her for it, and raise it as a reason underlying her inability to lead is just plain moronic. What goes on in their marriage is their business, just as I’m sure all the married people here would opt to keep their’s. And furthermore, we should not forget that they also had a daughter – and maybe, in the spirit of fairness, we should consider that she stayed to save the family, and to be there for Chelsea especially given her early treatment by the media. For all the unfair criticisms she gets for “staying” with Bill as a an indication of either shameless opportunism or un-presidential weakness, I think it is a demonstration of her values, of her resolve, her courage, her commitment, and her ability to look past herself.
And as her her so-called “attacks” to her opponents, I take issue with that, as her opponents had been engaging in said tactics since late summer. Her responses to criticisms against her are being judged and analyzed under a different standard than her opponents. Ironically, it was the media this summer – from TV shows to a plethora of newspaper editorials – that was urging her opponents to go on the offensive against her. When was responding to criticisms and raising some of your own against your opponents “playing dirty”, and moreover, why is it this way with Sen. Clinton and not with her opponents?
You may have your opinions about Bill Clinton, his affairs, his policies, his character, his tenure. That’s all fair. Just remember, this is HILLARY’s campaign. This will be Hillary’s presidency. And in regards to the 2-for-1 deal, I could care less. Again, this will be Hillary’s presidency. And marriage – the last time I checked – was a partnership of equals.
And to dispel any further conspiracy theorizing, I’m a liberal Democrat from Nevada and I support Hillary.
Posted by: RGBC | December 20, 2007, 2:05 pm 2:05 pm