Edwards Demands Obama Repudiate His Ally's Ad Hitting Hillary

Comments (57)

Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 4:57 PM:

Given these two attacks today, my guess is that the candidates internal polling shows Obama surging.

Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 4:58 PM:

Greg:

Typo alert: LAS Vegas, not Los Vegas.

Angry Vet wrote on January 18, 2008 4:59 PM:

Keith-

One can only hope.

Angry Vet wrote on January 18, 2008 5:00 PM:

Off-topic:

Just who the hell are these 34% of Americans that approve of Bush? I see them all the time on TV, but never in the real world.....

wwjb wrote on January 18, 2008 5:01 PM:

Ridiculous. At least when Hillary is lashing out at Obama she is doing it to win (not that that doesn't make me want to vomit all over her), but Edwards doesn't even have an ice cube's chance in hell of winning so what the hell is he trying to do? He already established that it is "change" vs Hillary, but apparently he wants change to lose this one.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 5:02 PM:

Now Edwards is hitting Obama for politics as usual, perhaps a belated recognition that Obama is his real competitor, in that he's sopping up much of the "change" vote.

Indeed. I was dumbfounded when he went after Clinton after IA and could not understand what he was doing, except that perhaps he was running for the VP slot on Obama's ticket. After he repeatedly denied that he would accept a VP slot (and proved it by going after Obama) it became clear that the attempt to target Clinton was simply a strategic miscalculation on his part. She was never really as vulnerable as all that. Now he has evidently seen that if he has a chance of knocking one of the two front-runners out, it will be Obama. I guess that we will see whether he is any more successful with that than he was with Clinton.

cris wrote on January 18, 2008 5:05 PM:

edwards is just trying to appear relevant.

Jane wrote on January 18, 2008 5:05 PM:

I support Obama but I also support Obama disassociating himself from this ad. I have been hoping he would do so since I heard about it. His strategists are no doubt advising him to ignore it given the overwhelming anti-Obama attacks coming from Clinton campaign materials, the former President himself and Edwards. They probably think a little dirt-throwing by a 3rd party on Obama's behalf might counteract the damage of the Obama attacks. But I still think he should come out against them and highlight what he believes the issues were in the ad - mainly that the Clinton campaign wanted to deny the Culinary Union members the opportunity their state party gave them a year ago to caucus at their work place.

john mccutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 5:08 PM:

Politicians Need to Stop Telling People What They Think We Want to Hear and Start Telling Us What We Need to Hear

Obama Attacks Clinton for Shifting With Tides

The American people don’t want a president whose plans change with the politics of the moment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/us/politics/18cnd-campaign.html?ex=1358398800&en=acec39b3d451164f&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

Tom wrote on January 18, 2008 5:10 PM:

Seriously, I'm dumbfounded as to why Obama didn't dissociate himself from this. He could have scored some major points. Instead, he's getting hit for it.

Just like in New Hampshire, his campaign is getting outplayed down the stretch. They seem to shut down and hide instead of realizing its the most important time.

john mccutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 5:14 PM:

Hillary Clinton and Villaraigosa are desperately trying to convince California hispanics to fall in line even as she brazenly tries to suppress the Latino vote a scant 5 hour drive across the desert

Yes John Edwards is desperate...been running for President since 2003 while Mr. and Mrs Bill have since the day he left office...

Better luck next time John. He pulled his field organization from Nevada because he was banking on 527 labor TV and union endorsements from SEIU and the Hotel/Culinary workers

Si Se Puede Juan

Unite Here Endorses Barack Obama
http://www.unitehere.org/frontpagedetail.php?ID=3053

http://www.unitehere.org/frontpagedetail.php?ID=3053

john mccutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 5:16 PM:

Tom...

Ever been to East LA?

CLinton Tries to Suppress Latino Vote

john mccutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 5:17 PM:

I've known for a while that Craig Bowers was a bought and paid for HillShill

Only just now have I realized just what a bad bargain the Clinton machine made

The man's a moron

Nathan Avinbl wrote on January 18, 2008 5:21 PM:

Is there a more pathetic excuse for a presidential candidate than Edwards? He has nothing to saw about the lawsuit that sought to bar workers from caucusing on the strip, but now he's up in arms about an ad hitting Hillary on that law suit.

WHAT A LOSER

This guy is the Mitt Romney of our side. He latches onto anything that gives him a temporary advantage and tells people only what they want to hear.

WHAT A LOSER

factcheck wrote on January 18, 2008 5:22 PM:

hey john mccutchen

re: that NYT article. Obama says Hillary was cribbing tax rebates from his economic stimulus plan. That's wrong. She was the first one to introduce hers and she talked about including $40 b in tax rebates if the economy worsens.

Steve wrote on January 18, 2008 5:25 PM:

I'm not sure why Obama hasn't condemned the ad. He could do so pretty much for free, since the union isn't going to stop running it anyway, I assume.

eric wrote on January 18, 2008 5:25 PM:

This guy is the Mitt Romney of our side.

What side is that?

Nathan Avinbl wrote on January 18, 2008 5:27 PM:

eric:

"our side" = Democratic presidential field

john mccutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 5:28 PM:

Yo pendejos!

How many of you bozos are from the Left Coast?

Yesterday Hillary went to Compton to apologize to blacks for race-baiting

Next stop - Soto St

What is UNITE HERE?
UNITE (formerly the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees) and HERE (Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union) merged on July 8, 2004 forming UNITE HERE. The union represents more than 450,000 active members and more than 400,000 retirees throughout North America.

UNITE HERE boasts a diverse membership, comprised largely of immigrants and including high percentages of African-American, Latino, and Asian-American workers. The majority of UNITE HERE members are women.
Our top priority

Organizing the unorganized in our industries is the top priority for UNITE HERE. Over 50% of the new Union’s national budget will go toward organizing. Current major organizing campaigns are underway at Cintas, Hilton, H&M, and the gaming industry. In the past five years, the two unions have organized more than 100,000 new members.
UNITE HERE represents workers in the
following major sectors:

* apparel and textile manufacturing, apparel distribution centers, and apparel retail
* industrial laundries
* hotels
* casinos
* foodservice
* airport concessions
* restaurants

Major UNITE HERE Employers:

* ALSCO
* Aramark
* Boyd Gaming
* Brooks Brothers
* Caesars Entertainment
* Harrah's Entertainment
* Hartmarx
* Hilton
* Hyatt
* Levi Strauss
* Liz Claiborne
* Mandalay Resorts
* MGM-Mirage
* National Linen
* Starwood
* TJX
* Walt Disney World Company
* Wynn Resorts
* Xerox
An Organizing History
UNITE and HERE have proud histories of improving working conditions, wages, and benefits across the U.S. and Canada through successful organizing. Both unions are known throughout the labor movement for innovative and effective campaigns utilizing corporate campaign strategies and impressive grassroots mobilization of workers and community allies. Through organizing, UNITE HERE members have made apparel jobs in the South, hotel housekeeping jobs in Las Vegas, and hundreds of thousands of other traditionally low-wage jobs into good, family-sustaining, middle class jobs.
Some highlights for both Unions include:
* UNITE organized the JP Stevens campaign, which resulted in victory in 1980 after a 17 year struggle and was depicted in the Oscar winning film "Norma Rae."
* HERE boasts one of the fastest growing private sector Local Unions in the US " Local 226 in Las Vegas which has grown through an effective organizing program from 10,000 members in 1987 to 50,000 today. HERE also won the Frontier strike in Las Vegas , one of the longest strikes in U.S. history l asting six and a half years; no one crossed the line and all strikers got their jobs back with seniority and back pension service credits.
* UNITE created the "Behind the Label" campaign as part of its efforts in the global anti-sweatshop movement.
* HERE organized the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride in 2003, a historic, nationwide event that mobilized tens of thousands of immigrant workers and their allies to educate Americans about the contributions and struggles of immigrant workers in the United States.
Finally, UNITE HERE leaders have participated in groundbreaking labor-management partnerships, working together with employers to resolve issues in the workplace and in the relevant industry more broadly. Both Unions can boast excellent working relationships with several major companies.

Guy Fawkes wrote on January 18, 2008 5:32 PM:

Obama supporter here, and yes, Obama should repudiate the ad just as he asked Edwards to do.

(Cynical Rovian take on the situation: Besides, if it really is the work of a 527 not coordinated with the Obama camp, repudiating it draws just as much attention to it as not. Which makes me wonder why the opposition wants to call attention to this embarrassing issue for the Clintons--their attempt at vote suppression--in the first place.)

hypocrisy wrote on January 18, 2008 5:32 PM:

Hmm, I'm waiting to hear the merits of Edward's point but I'm hearing attacks on Edwards instead. Interesting...

hello_world wrote on January 18, 2008 5:34 PM:

Why would he disassociate himself from the ad? People like to characterize Obama as "not having killer instinct" and "being too nice to stand up to smears". So now you want him to disavow a 3rd party ad run by a justifiably pissed off organization that criticizes his chief rival that's been going to town with their own criticisms? You've got to be kidding. What do you want him to do, whisper sweet nothings in Clinton's ear, and send her a post-it?

Of course he's not going to disavow the union's ads. They're based of fact, involve an issue that means alot to them, and are targeted to help him out. I'd expect to say something if they are lies, but they're not at all. I'm not sure why Edwards chose to get involved here, except it's now his only way to stay relevant.

john mccutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 5:35 PM:

Greg Sargent

Bienvenido a California. Ahora vaya regreso a Nueva York

Jane wrote on January 18, 2008 5:40 PM:

Cynical Rovian take on the situation: Besides, if it really is the work of a 527 not coordinated with the Obama camp, repudiating it draws just as much attention to it as not.

Agreed. I think it becomes a bit difficult to repudiate the ad at this stage without drawing attention to it, but I think the attention could hurt Obama more than Hillary among those who haven't heard the ad. They will just think "Obama's dirty politics".

Everything done in these final hours will stick and leave impressions in the minds of voters, which is why all the candidates and their supporters can make unfair or baseless allegations at this stage and get away with it.

john mccutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 5:41 PM:

Eric

Mi casa, su casa esse

john mccutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 5:43 PM:

It's Edwards and The Clintons against the working poor and the Hispanic Americans...

Don't look now...Obama has over 2000 volunteers on the ground in NV

JO wrote on January 18, 2008 5:45 PM:

If there is a scenario, however unlikely, that shows how Edwards could win the nomination, perhaps someone would be kind enough to point me to it.

I liked Edwards, I like what he stands for, I like his oh-so-accurate identification of corporate interests as the enemy of the working people of this country.

BUT. It's the second half of January, the campaign is months old, and I fail to see any possibility that Edwards will be elected. If he isn't getting support of unions--which he is not--where does he turn? Now, by attacking someone who stands an excellent chance of being nominated, and of appealing to the key Independent bloc, Edwards's role is reduced to hurting his own party's chances to win in November.

I have shifted from feeling slightly sorry and sympathetic to him, haircut and all, to wishing fervently that he would STHU and go back to his law practice in NC.

DonnaG wrote on January 18, 2008 5:45 PM:

Are Edwards' third party union allies doing ads for him in Nevada? Cannot his union allies then make such a statement more effectively than Edwards?

unless......

Edwards truly needs to get some media coverage in the face of the blackout of his candidancy.

and unless....

Those Edwards backing union members themselves are actually sympathetic to the exact point of UniteHere's ad, i.e., that the teachers' union and Hillary allies tried to suppress the voting rights of fellow/sister blue collar union members in the ranks of the Culinary union.

Bupalos wrote on January 18, 2008 5:46 PM:

What's there to condemn in this ad? The union thinks Hillary tried to go back on the deal and disenfranchise them. That's pretty much what they say. I guess Obama could say it was "over the top."

If I was him, I'd take the opportunity to say that he understands their anger at Clinton supporters trying to change the game and make it harder for them to vote, but they should be a little nicer about it. And that even though Bill angrily defended it, he prefers to "take the Clintons at their word" that they were neutral.

noexpert wrote on January 18, 2008 5:48 PM:

This is a fair hit on Clinton's (who wouldn't denounce the lawsuit filed by supporters) and has no ties to Obama campaign.

Jane wrote on January 18, 2008 5:50 PM:

So now you want him to disavow a 3rd party ad run by a justifiably pissed off organization that criticizes his chief rival that's been going to town with their own criticisms?....They're based of fact, involve an issue that means alot to them, and are targeted to help him out. I'd expect to say something if they are lies, but they're not at all.

Good point come to think about it. Obama does encourage all Americans to get involved in the political process. This union is justifiably pissed about the lawsuit and feels that Hillary doesn't care about the Latino vote. I suppose they should be allowed to share their views on the matter - including who they endorse. They are speaking directly to her campaigns undeniable support of the lawsuit. And anyone who has seen Bill Clinton this week or Hillary's statement about the suit's result cannot deny they supported the lawsuit.

For Obama to come out and say "I don't agree with my supporters about Hillary's contempt for the Latino vote" (if it is not for her) might be asking a lot of any candidate. After all, she doesn't seem to care! And the ad is expressing a legitimate opinion based on her actions, not a fact. It's not like distorting Obama's policies and comments in Clinton campaign materials.

john mccutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 5:51 PM:

Donna G

That's just my point.

Edwards HAS NO union allies in NV and other than the hacks at the NEA, the working men and women of NV are where they should be..

Barack Obama

I only hope that the truth of what the Clinton's tried to pull on the Hispanic Americans of Nevada is not lost on those here in California.

As the Clintons did with African Americans, they tried to buy off the political establishment power brokers..hopefully the people will take back the Democratic party from the hacks

As a gay democrat, I learned this lesson in 1993...If you ask, I'll tell
Si se puede!

DancingBear wrote on January 18, 2008 5:53 PM:

Greg, you say in the post "The Obama camp has replied that this is only one ad and is dwarfed by the third-party spending on behalf of his rivals."

Can you post or link us to the actual statement from the Obama camp?

I understood that the Edwards ads in Iowa that the Obama campaign complained about were from 527s, and that was the basis for the complaint, and that these ads in Nevada are not from a 527.

rm wrote on January 18, 2008 5:54 PM:

Interesting that rather than answer the question of hyprocrisy in the 527 ad stance of Obama, that people are choosing to attack Edwards. So what he doesn't have a chance. Does this make the argument any less valid?

markg8 wrote on January 18, 2008 5:56 PM:

Russ Feingold filets John Edwards. Talk about a man who has gotten a free ride:

http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/APC06/801170560/1036

"The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on."

boffo wrote on January 18, 2008 6:04 PM:

Clearly, almost no one commenting here has any idea how the campaign finance system works. The pro-Edwards ad campaign in Iowa was by a 527 run by a close associate of Edwards. The pro-Obama ad campaign in Nevada is an independent expenditure by a union PAC that has endorsed Obama. I'll copy the text from an earlier comment I made which explains the distinction and why Obama is not inconsistent on this point:

"There is an important difference between 527s and independent expenditures. A 527 is NOT subject to federal campaign finance regulation. The term refers to a section of the federal tax code delineating what kinds of organizations can run political ads and remain tax exempt. A 527 can receive unlimited donations, which was Obama's complaint: A handful of millionaires or well-financed organizations or corporations can create a 527 to run quick hits against a candidate, who is limited by campaign finance law in how he or she can respond.

"The union ads being run in Nevada are independent expenditures subject to FEC regulation. That means all contributions are limited by law and publicly disclosed. Now, that's not to say independent expenditures don't have problems of their own. A common complaint is that often they are not all that independent of the campaign they support. But 527s are victim to the very same problem. At least with independent expenditures the contributions are transparent and on a level playing field."

The crucial point is that the union ad buys WERE REPORTED TO THE FEC, whereas 527 ads need not be, not to mention the source of the contributions.

So, criticize the ad campaign if you want, just know what the hell you're talking about.

boffo wrote on January 18, 2008 6:06 PM:

And a postscript to my comment above: People who have been around the game as long as Clinton and Edwards certainly know the distinction. The fact that they lump 527s and federally regulated independent expenditures together as though synonymous is intellectually dishonest.

Sandi wrote on January 18, 2008 6:19 PM:

Why criticize Edwards' record but not Clinton's?? And have you seen Obama's? All of them deserve the same condemnation for some of the votes they've made (their voting records are actually very similar).

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 6:56 PM:

Angry Vet wrote on January 18, 2008 5:00 PM:
Off-topic:

Just who the hell are these 34% of Americans that approve of Bush? I see them all the time on TV, but never in the real world.....

--- Really? You live in the real world? don't you and your fellow obama lovers live here? You guys don't have an ounce of decency. John Edwards was hit by your master for allowing third party to run ads against your master in Iowa. Now he rightly points out the hypocrsiy. You don't see any irony? You choose instead to attack Edwards? Get a life and grow up!!!

doinaheckuvajob wrote on January 18, 2008 7:08 PM:

The reason Edwards did this is not politics, it's part of the truce that just occurred between the candidates to stop racial and sexist attacks.

Edwards rightly recognizes that going down that road is very destructive. He's asking Obama to curb any racial tinged attacks from his campaign, for the good of the Party.

That's what this is really about.

conway wrote on January 18, 2008 7:26 PM:

Just shows: Obama and his supporters are no better than Hill's and John's. They are all opportunists. I am disappointed with Obama. I thought he was above the fray. But he seems to be the same old same old. He is just another pol like Hill and John. And he is relying on the unifying Reagan? Give me a break!

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 7:32 PM:

You choose instead to attack Edwards? Get a life and grow up!!!

When did Angry Vet attack Edwards? Are you referring to something he said on a different thread, dear Anonymous at 18h56? Otherwise I am completely lost as to the significance of your post, because Angry Vet has not said a word against Sen Edwards here.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 7:33 PM:

Incidentally, "grow up" is a piece of advice that could be aptly given to all sorts of folks on this thread. It is strange, however, to single out Angry Vet for this particular admonition, as his posts are far, far from the least mature to be found in these parts.

Disgusted By Obamafans wrote on January 18, 2008 8:23 PM:

The more I read about Obama's record and listen to his increasingly vicious supporters the more disgusted I am with Obama, his hypocrisy, and his vapid talk of 'change'.

"Change" coming from a sitting Senator that's shown no leadership on the Republican's Iraq War, the pending telecom amnesty, or any other Democratic issues all the while sucking up to Republicans and Independents while trashing core constituencies of the Democratic Party.

Then for Obama's supporters to trash Edwards and Clinton simultaneously... seriously both Clinton and Edwards are looking better and better. Obamafanatics may rue the day should Edwards leave the race because more and more Edwards supporters are looking at Clinton and seeing someone who at least might stand up to Republicans instead of sucking up to Republicans like Obama has and is.

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 8:43 PM:

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 7:33 PM:
Incidentally, "grow up" is a piece of advice that could be aptly given to all sorts of folks on this thread. It is strange, however, to single out Angry Vet for this particular admonition, as his posts are far, far from the least mature to be found in these parts.

--- This is not about Angry vet. that post was about all you hypocrtical Obama supporters. You have no sense of proportionality and deem your master as savior that cannot do no wrong!

facta non verba wrote on January 18, 2008 8:53 PM:

Calling some "shameless" in English despite being an affront doesn't carry much of a punch. In Spanish, it is a whole different story. Languages have nuances not readily translated. Calling someone "una sinverguenza" is more akin to calling her a word that starts with c and rhymes with punt. It carries a very sexual punch in Spanish.

Mr. Obama likely did not understand the nuance but the damage has been done. As I have long said, Mr. Obama is at best naive and at worst a dangerous tool of unspecified special interests. His votes, or lack thereof at times, show either cowardice to take a definitive stand or cold political calculation. Unlike Senator Dodd, he failed to show for the FISA vote in December and mark my words, he'll skip it this time. Either way neither cowardice nor cold political calculation count for anything in my book.

John McCutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 9:15 PM:

Obama Interview With SF Chronicle Editors

Sen. Obama was interviewed by the SF Chronicle editorial board yesterday - the one hour interview can be seen here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH7GC.DTL&o=0&type=politics MKyleM wrote on January 18, 2008 9:56 PM:

Very interesting, facta. My bet is that they knew exactly what they were doing, calling Hillary shameless in Spanish.

In my humble opinion, Obama has run the most negative campaign, on the Dem side, this cycle.

You also make a good point on FISA and Obama's tendency to be nowhere around when difficult decisions are to be made.

Love her or hate her, Hillary has b*lls and is willing to take a stand. I disagreed with her vote on Kyl-Lieberman. However, if Obama is going to act as if she's declared WWIII by casting that vote, it would have been nice to see he cared enough to even show up and be counted. Yeah, some courageous warrior!

He also talks a great deal about Clinton's Iraq war vote, which I too was against. But I now find myself wondering if he would have even shown up for that one.

Such a shame. Many months ago, I was inspired by Obama. I find myself now very disappointed in his candidacy.

MKyleM wrote on January 18, 2008 9:57 PM:

Very interesting, facta. My bet is that they knew exactly what they were doing, calling Hillary shameless in Spanish.

In my humble opinion, Obama has run the most negative campaign, on the Dem side, this cycle.

You also make a good point on FISA and Obama's tendency to be nowhere around when difficult decisions are to be made.

Love her or hate her, Hillary has b*lls and is willing to take a stand. I disagreed with her vote on Kyl-Lieberman. However, if Obama is going to act as if she's declared WWIII by casting that vote, it would have been nice to see he cared enough to even show up and be counted. Yeah, some courageous warrior!

He also talks a great deal about Clinton's Iraq war vote, which I too was against. But I now find myself wondering if he would have even shown up for that one.

Such a shame. Many months ago, I was inspired by Obama. I find myself now very disappointed in his candidacy.

hello_world wrote on January 18, 2008 10:59 PM:

In my humble opinion, Obama has run the most negative campaign, on the Dem side, this cycle.

You have got to be kidding.

I'll say this for him. He's learned from what happened in NH to respond to negative attacks quickly and with more force. Unfortunately for him, there's no way to compete with the Clinton's when they're determined to set the agenda for a news cycle. But he's conducting a solid campaign in the face of the full blown tsunami that is Bill and Hillary, threatened.

CalD wrote on January 18, 2008 11:25 PM:

The UNITE HERE ad is disgusting. But anyone expecting Barack Obama to denounce it hasn't been paying much attention to Barack Obama lately. Barack Obama has already proven beyond any reasonable doubt in the last week that he's not above starting a race riot to distract attention from a political rival's expectation-shattering win in New Hampshire. Why would anyone imagine Barack Obama would mind someone else playing the race card on his behalf?

MKyleM wrote on January 19, 2008 2:12 AM:

Hi, hello_world,

I just wanted to respectfully respond to your post: no, I am not kidding, when I say that Obama has run the most negative campaign this cycle.

Both he and Edwards have essentially accused the Clintons of corruption and representing the status-quo (which is the GOP and GW Bush). Not only that, but Obama committed Democratic heresy (again, in my humble opinion) by condemning Edwards for benefiting from the support of labor unions, ridiculing them in the typically disparaging, right-wing, anti-Washington speak: "special interest groups." Mind you, that was when Obama had little to zero support from unions. Of course, now that he has such outside support, he has taken it to an unspeakable, grotesque extreme.

Also, as a proud and unapologetic Democrat, I consider many of his advertisements aimed at GOP voters and independents as being extremely negative and utterly unacceptable. You know, "Be a Democrat for One Day to Stop Hillary!" Clearly, Axelrod et al have determined that Obama cannot win among core Democratic supporters, so they've devised a 'shameless' plan to circumvent the party primary process by wooing outsiders...with 'fairy tales' about Reagan being a 'transformational figure' and the GOP being 'the party of ideas.'

And, of course, we cannot forget the Obama camp desperately accusing the Clintons of racism for the 'fairy tale' and MLK comments. Talk about 'shameless'! And, the latest: Hillary is against Latino/as! I thought the race baiting was over and done with, no? I can only assume that this man's ego is totally out of control and he will say or do anything to be elected.

At the beginning of the campaign, I was an Obama supporter and thought Hillary would be the dirty fighter. As of late, I must say, I've been rather disappointed in what I had assumed to be her ruthlessness. Have you heard or seen a Hillary ad highlighting Obama's middle name or Tony Rezko? Or his pastor who thinks the world of with Farrakhan? Or that he wants to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants (utter poison in the general election)? I haven't. All I've heard are few proxies making snide claims about adolescent drug use.

You also noted Obama's inability to compete with the Clintons in the art of political theatre or, as you put it, "setting the agenda for a news cycle." There's no way for him to compete against the Clintons in their ability to "set the agenda," primarily because he is such a novice at campaigning and they have thirty years on his green a**. Obama has never faced one serious challenger of which that I know, at least from a Republican, in his political lifetime. Yes, Hillary is just that good that she had her 'emotional moment' in New Hampshire.

Certainly, no one can claim with a straight face that the Clintons are not establishment figures. In no uncertain terms, they are, and it goes without saying. However, I must say (and I'm not the only one), the mainstream media has been brutal to Hillary's efforts, while Obama has been given a complete pass in vetting or scrutiny. So, the 'tsunami' you attribute to the power of the Clintons in the media has far less meaning than it would have, say, six or seven months ago.

I hope the media's silence on Obama's shady past and his current hypocritical flip-flopping ends before he clinches the nomination. Because, I want to ask all of you reading this obscure posting, seriously: if Obama wins the nomination, how long do you think this mainstream media silence/honeymoon will last? I give it less than a week, before the GOP attack machine throws him in the back seat and metaphorically tears him apart. Any other guesses?

Jack wrote on January 19, 2008 2:43 AM:

Obamas slash and burn ad is just like him, desperate.

Mary, Iowa voter wrote on January 19, 2008 8:01 AM:

Edwards' 527 ads (and yes, that's what I mean; there is PROOF that he communicated with them, told them what he needed) were NOT NICE! They were full of lies-full of them. This ad seems to be the truth. Teachers all over NV and the country are upset about the law suit; Last I checked teachers weren't even expected to be AT school on Saturday. Why would we not expect the union challenged to be offended???

Edwards has proven again that he's just a beautiful mouthpiece but integrity is not anything he worries about. And we know that Clinton doesn't worry about the truth, over and over again she's proven that. So Barack is supposed to apologize for the union being outraged? I'm a union member and I'm outraged...I just don't have the cash to put out an ad telling her to quit being dishonest; the two of them are daily lying.

nogo war wrote on January 19, 2008 10:46 AM:

Let me get this straight...

First Edwards goes after Clinton stuff
Now he goes after Obama stuff..

Isn't he running against both?

What is wrong with this?

...Mary you talk about PROOF regarding Edwards ad 527's in Iowa..I missed it, would you please link? Thank you..

JaneR wrote on January 19, 2008 2:50 PM:

John Edwards? Who? Is he, like, running for president or something?

It looks like he's being criticized for simply daring to enter the preordained Clinton-Obama contest.

Sad, I think. Edwards is the only one of these three who is actually campaigning on issues, and he's taking the most -- and only -- progressive stance. Obama promises 'change' but if he thinks we're going to have 'change' by reaching out to the Republicans, he's hasn't been paying attention to US politics for the past 8 years. But that's consistent with the apparent fact that he's unfamiliar with the history of the Reagan and Clinton administrations.

Wordie wrote on January 19, 2008 4:07 PM:

Greg: Since I know you're a very political animal, perhaps you should be forgiven for this cynical comment:

Interesting political context: After Iowa, Edwards went after Hillary heavily in the belief that she could be knocked out of the race, leaving only a two-man contest. Now Edwards is hitting Obama for politics as usual, perhaps a belated recognition that Obama is his real competitor, in that he's sopping up much of the "change" vote.

But can't you try for just a moment to at least consider that Edwards made the statement (OK, maybe you need to sit down for this, Greg) because he really believes that the Obama ad is a horrible thing, rather than making the statement as a part of some political ploy. Not typical for a politician, I realize, but OTOH, none of us are mind-readers.

Whatever is going on with Edwards, it appears to have paid off, because he gained 5% in the latest CNN poll. (pdf available for download here: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/01/18/rel2a.pdf)

Of course, you'll never hear about that from Wolf Blitzer...

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)