Obama Labor Ally Spending Nearly $14,000 On New TV Ad In Nevada

Comments (47)

laura b wrote on January 18, 2008 11:17 AM:

There goes the Obama campaign!

He just CAN"T go negative considering all his lofty BS rhetoric. This is gonna backfire big time, but it also shows how desperate Obama is to win NV. He knows he needs both SC and NV to even have a prayer on Feb 5.

Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 11:19 AM:

$14,000? What kind of tv spot do you get for $14,000? 15 seconds on Univision? 5 seconds on NBC? Seriously, whatever the ad is, it's probably going to be seen by so few people that it is immaterial. Hell, I bet they'll reach more Nevadans today with the coverage of the ad than they will with the actual ad.

Looks like it's going to be another slow news day.

Common Sense wrote on January 18, 2008 11:21 AM:

Laura B:

Can you point me to the part of Greg's post that says Obama's campaign is running an ad? Perhaps I missed something, but it looks like Unite is running an ad supportive of Obama. But maybe there's some special crypto-language in Greg's post that supports your reading.

Tom wrote on January 18, 2008 11:22 AM:

I don't think that's true laura b. Obama will have a good chance on Feb 5 if he wins South Carolina convincingly, even if he loses Nevada.

I do think his reliance on these union ads reflect the fact that he's behind in Nevada and needs to make a late impact if he's going to pull off the upset.

awrbb wrote on January 18, 2008 11:23 AM:

laura b: chill. we don't know what the ad looks like yet.

grover_rover wrote on January 18, 2008 11:24 AM:

At least it is just a labor union that supports Obama and not Obama himself. It is just like when Emily's List went after Obama in Iowa and NH. At least these unions aren't just supporting him because he is black, or male. That is my big problem with Emily's List and like organizations, while I'm a huge proponent of women's rights and representation in government/academics/business/etc, I think supporting a candidate just because they are a woman is pretty pathetic. There is a lot at stake here and it shouldn't be all about gender, or all about race, or anything of the sort. Not to mention the fact that the only reason Hillary is where she is today is because she rode in on Bill's coattails, and everyone knows it, which really should be repugnant to serious feminists. I for one would hate for the first woman president to get there by marrying into it. Seriously, what does that say about women? Of course Emily's List doesn't think about this, they just see woman and want woman as president, that is all they consider. Pretty sad.

Anyway, it appears that unions are taking this fight personally now, which probably wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the Clinton-backed disenfranchisement attempt. What goes around comes around I suppose!

Greg wrote on January 18, 2008 11:26 AM:

re the size of the buy, keep in mind that it's one day and it's on spanish lang TV.

diogu wrote on January 18, 2008 11:34 AM:

Because Greg says it negative does not make it so.

What is negative is Hillary intentionally lying about Obama's record on social security and Yucca Mountain.

How is an ad that Hillary does not respect our people negative? She filed the law suit and she has to live with consequence.

Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 11:35 AM:

Greg:

The title on the front page SERIOUSLY exaggerates UNITE's buy. SERIOUSLY.

Also, the San Francisco Chronicle has an interesting interview with Obama that may generate some news:

Asked his reaction to an angry outburst by the former president - who in Oakland Wednesday suggested the at-large system was "rigged" - Obama laughed.

"This caucus process was designed by the Democratic Party of Nevada in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee," said Obama. "I, as somebody who's not part of the establishment of the Democratic Party, had no say in the rules ... (but) individuals like Harold Ickes, Clinton's key adviser, were a part of making these rules. And some of the people who filed the lawsuit were a part of making these rules.

"President Clinton now suggests they didn't understand the rules that they designed," Obama said. "This is coming from the campaign of extraordinary detail and thoroughness and experience.

"But somehow, they didn't know what these rules were," Obama said. "Six days before the caucus - two days after I received the endorsement of the Culinary Workers (Union), suddenly these rules are grossly unfair and a violation of 'one person, one vote.' And a lawsuit is filed that would disenfranchise mostly Latino maids, dishwashers and bellhops."

Obama said that was "an implausible argument before the court rules. I am glad the court bought none of it. I think it took about an hour for the court to decide that this lawsuit had no merit.

"And I think at this point we should go out and persuade the caucus-goers of Nevada who the best candidate is," he said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH7GC.DTL

Angry Vet wrote on January 18, 2008 11:36 AM:

How do you connect with Latinos?

How about speaking spanish? I was waiting for a a direct Latino "pander" during the debate by actually using some sort of spanish phrase or sentence.

Or are the debates "English only?"

So what if Obama attacks? I haven't seen anything that could possibly be described as "below the belt" from him in this campaign. Well, except a few distortions and misrepresentations.

Again, so what? I'd like to see someone who has been "turned off" of Obama's attacks and gone over to Clinton.

Angry Vet wrote on January 18, 2008 11:39 AM:

Ugh. Keith, as a law student and an interested observer, I absolutely love Obama's comments.

Unfortunately, I think they fly over the heads of the electorate.

Kind of reminds me of the Franken vs. Ciresi campaign for the DFL spot in the MN Senate race. Ciresi connects with me, an unfortunately very small segment of the Democratic base. Franken, on the other hand, has Stuart Smalley and SNL.

Unfortunately, law reviews do not have the audience of NBC.

diogu wrote on January 18, 2008 11:43 AM:

Title:

Obama Labor Ally Spending Nearly $14,000 On New TV (Attack?) Ad In Nevada

Subject:

So it's fair to ask whether the new TV spot will do the same -- combine praise of Obama with a negative slam on Hillary. If so, look for it to become an issue today.

There is a great disparity between your title and the subject of the text.

Greg, you are intentionally misleading your readers. Please correct the title. Because "Attack" does not belong there. We are smart enough to decide.

bob wrote on January 18, 2008 11:47 AM:

I'm glad to see Obama's supporters running this ad. They hit her substantively for trying to disenfranchise many minority casino workers, which may cut into Hillary's margins among Latinos.

That said, given the recent polling trends (with the NH caveat), it looks like it may be too little too late. I don't know if SC will be enough of a bump for us to do what we need to do on Feb. 5.

sue wrote on January 18, 2008 11:49 AM:

It think it's great that Obama (and his supporters) are being more direct in their criticism of Hillary's actions. That's above the belt, within bounds, and not negative.

But, he needs to have someone help them with the TONE of he ad. A TV ad in the spirit of the tone of that radio ad my come across as very negative.

The truth isn't negative. It's how you say it.

Michael A wrote on January 18, 2008 11:56 AM:

Here is some good news from cali. Clinton only ahead by 5% in a recent poll. I was expecting a 10 to 20 percent spread.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080118/pl_rasmussen/calidem20080118;_ylt=ApRerCj9P4KmYXmJIG4i0Fms0NUE

Bupalos wrote on January 18, 2008 12:03 PM:

I think the union is genuinely pissed at Clinton. So yes, the ad is probably going to be pretty harsh. But the union has pretty good reason to be pissed here. They negotiated the terms of the precincts in good faith, and were supposedly being empowered. This was practically the Dem party's whole reason for bumping up Nevada, to include a union state, with hard Clinton support because she assumed this would be controlable.

But when it turned out the union was only being empowered if they used that in a certain direction, and that direction being to support a union-buster (Penn is the wildcard here), they revolted and the Clintons tried to slap them. So yes, this is ugly, and in this case I don't think you can neccessarily extend it fully to Obama. The union is genuinely pissed and it shows. Obama wins in the breach, but it is primarily a fight between Penn and Unite.

john mccutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 12:04 PM:

Greg can spin this to his HillHeart's content, but I was first to the post with the cut n paste steal from Ben Smith yesterday.

I am delighted the ad is running and I hope that the Obama campaign reminds California hispanics just what Mr. and Mrs. Clinton's true colors are.

Their microtargeted BS works fine up until one micro message runs into another.

I have copied the ad and am going to give it to an Hispanic family in my precinct who had earlier declared their support for the Clintons in my canvass

The truth will set us free

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 12:05 PM:

Ugh. Keith, as a law student and an interested observer, I absolutely love Obama's comments.

Unfortunately, I think they fly over the heads of the electorate.

Hm, really? I am neither a lawyer nor a law student, but I still thought that Obama's remarks sounded very cogent and convincing. Of course, I am already one of his supporters, so I am perhaps not entirely objective, but evidently that spiel can appeal not a non-lawyer.

Meanwhile, dear Michael A, those are not good news; those are great news. If we can ensure that CA is as close as that, then our campaign is positioned exactly where we want to be on Feb 6. It makes a fellow feel downright fired up and ready to go to read that link. :-)

Matt A wrote on January 18, 2008 12:05 PM:

It is understandable that the Obama campaign is concerned about going negative but Clinton sends out a hit piece on Obama days before each of these primaries and caucuses and he doesn't counter them fast enough or strong enough. It is too close to John Kerry for my comfort -- he needs more agression. And pointing out Hillary's inconsistencies and poor judgement would be a fine thing to point out.

For Nevada tomorrow, I have no idea what'll happen!

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 12:08 PM:

Well, I hope that Ms B feels comforted in light of the update. The ad is not negative in the least. To paraphrase another Missourian, the rumors of death by negativity have been greatly exagerated.

john mccutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 12:13 PM:

Si Se Puede!

Linda Sanchez (D-CA -Orange County)Breaks for Obama
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/11512/8263/472/438882

Angry Vet wrote on January 18, 2008 12:19 PM:

Greg D-

Perhaps my writing was not clear. The "law student" part wasn't meant to be specific to MY current outlook and rigor, but instead to denote that Barack's comments pasted over by Keith require a depth of understanding and attention detail not held by the majority of people pulling levers in the electoral booth.

My point, is, that the comments by Barack, especially the ones made on Reagan, require more than an 8 second soundbyte to explain. His comments can be easily parsed out by opponents and used against him, even if those parsings end up making a point that is the exact opposite of what Obama is saying.

Again, look at how the MSM plays the Reagan comments, and how Clinton used them against him.

Which is worrisome, to say the very least.

Trust me, we agree on this point. I'm counting you in my group, as well as most others around here that post good commentary, no matter who they support.

Clinton lost my vote in the beginning because she doesn't, or chooses not to, speak my language and provide some depth of understanding in a reasoned debate. Instead, it is more of the same pandering to the lowest common denominator.

The effect of this pandering may wins votes, but it loses the engagement of the intellectual class, gradually turning them into "realists" and, generally, conservatives, because of their fear of the consolidation of too much power.

Thanks for your comment, though, because it provided me with the opportunity to develop this thinking and thesis a bit more.

CyclingLeft wrote on January 18, 2008 12:19 PM:

Isn't this a 527 ad? I seem to recall Obama condemning John Edwards in Iowa for the 527 Union ads that ran in favor of Edwards. Bit of a double standard here if Obama doesn't condemn the Unite ad as well. Oh, I forgot we're suppose to give him a complete pass because he's so honest and pure. This will be rationalized away just like his Reagan comment.

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 12:22 PM:

juntos podemos!

Angry Vet wrote on January 18, 2008 12:22 PM:

CyclingLeft-

As I recall, Obama was not condemning 527 ads, per se. Instead, he was condemning the substance of those ads.

Of course, most would probably condemn me as "parsing" the truth, when in fast it is only detailed reiteration of the facts. I wish I had the articles to back that assertion up.

Wow, Greg D, I'm really in a negative mood right now...

john mccutchen wrote on January 18, 2008 12:25 PM:

Bit of a double standard here if Obama doesn't condemn the Unite ad as well.

Condemn?

Embrace! Si se puede. La verdad libertará California y Nevada

Keith wrote on January 18, 2008 12:26 PM:

Cycling Left:

No, it's not a 527 ad. It's an ad buy by the Union.

Angry Vet:

I understand where you are going, but unfortunately, you are always going to have low information voters. Getting this stuff into the hands of editorial boards, reporters, etc., helps filter it down to the low information voter. Probably not as quickly as some would like, but it eventually filters down.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 12:29 PM:

Isn't this a 527 ad?

No, it is not. Glad to have the opportunity to clear that up.

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 12:31 PM:

"Fair to ask?" In hindsight, it might have been even fairer to wait and see rather than putting the speculation into the Googlesphere. Just sayin.

That Rasmussen Cali poll is eye-popping. Good catch. California has been my biggest worry. If he holds her under 40% there, this thing really could go all the way to the convention. Since Iowa, my take has been that Johnny's hoping for an epic but inconclusive Clinton-Obama floor fight at the convention that leaves him as the compromise candidate. The problem with that theory is that after the first ballot, he doesn't control his delegates.

Okay, at this point its still all crazy-talk, but the prospect of two open conventions is more real than it has been at any point up to now. Most years, the network executives would be gnashing their teeth at the prospect. They've been on a two decade campaign to eliminate convention coverage altogether and have pared it down to a disgraceful amount already by claiming that they're just boring four day commercials due to the lack of suspense. That excuse would be gone with two open conventions and they'd be hard-pressed to ignore demands that they cover them gavel to gavel like they did in the old days.

This year, however, is not ordinary. This year, we have both a writer's strike which is going to lead to a new programming deficit that will take months to clear plus a vast relatively new appetite for reality TV and a degree of interest in politics that's going to be at a three decade high.

My guess is that this year, if there are two open conventions, CBS, NBC, ABC and FOX they'll fall over themselves to cover them for hour after hour.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 12:33 PM:

My point, is, that the comments by Barack, especially the ones made on Reagan, require more than an 8 second soundbyte to explain. His comments can be easily parsed out by opponents and used against him, even if those parsings end up making a point that is the exact opposite of what Obama is saying.

I see the sense of what you are saying here, but I am not sure that there is much to worry about in the comments that Keith posted on this thread. How could you selectively quote 8 seconds from that and come up with something that reflects poorly on Obama? At best they will change someone's mind. At worst they will fly over folks' heads and do no harm.

NCSteve wrote on January 18, 2008 12:34 PM:

Doh! Anonymous at 12:31 is me.

Angry Vet wrote on January 18, 2008 12:35 PM:

CyclingLeft-

You are probably a troll, but I will respond to another part of your comments anyway, since you make my point of what I had said in earlier comments.

You said: "This will be rationalized away just like his Reagan comment."

Actually, Obama supporters reaction to the "Reagan comment"s were not mere "rationalizations," but were instead based on his entire interview, or at least the two paragraphs of his interview in question.

In it, he noted appreciation of what Reagan did --> built a large, conservative coalition that exists, in a way, to this day. He also noted he would like to do the same thing, but instead of a conservative coalition, a "progressive" coalition.

You see, CL's kind of argument is taking the whole of the interview, parsing a couple of pieces out of the interview, and applying those few words to the whole. Now that more than accords for a rationalization, as defined (look it up, don't feel like posting).

Obama supporters instead take the whole interview and look at the meaning of all of the comments taken together, which is much closer to the truth of the statements. Of course, this is also a rationalization, by definition, but a much smaller one that is more in accord with the speaker's wishes as opposed to anyone elses less than objective opinion.

But this kind of analysis, I am sure, is for not. I'm sure no one will read it, because I am unable to cut all of this logical reasoning down to a nice, cogent soundbyte.

Believe it or not, everything cannot be explained in 8 seconds. But many of us out there seem to forget that fact. What else are you supposed to do when you are confronted with SO MUCH information in this world?

Angry Vet wrote on January 18, 2008 12:39 PM:

Greg D-

I'm not worried about those comments posted by Keith. I AM worried about the meme running around the net by various Edwards/CLinton supporters: "Obama likes Reagan."

Yes, it's completely untrue. But the explanation of discounting that untruth, as evidenced in Keith's comments, takes more than 8 seconds to provide. And, they'll probably go over most voters heads. But, the meme that "Obama likes Reagan" is simple, to the point, and easy for anyone to understand.

Trust me, I had this problem with my mom last night.

Angry Vet wrote on January 18, 2008 12:40 PM:

Anonymous-

I wish you posted your name, because those were very good comments. I hadn't thought about the convergence of all of those issues... Makes for drama...

You also improved my mood a bit, which I appreciate.

Angry Vet wrote on January 18, 2008 12:41 PM:

Oops. Okay, NCS. I actually suspected it was you.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 12:43 PM:

Incidentally, I am not even sure that the misconstrual of the Reagan comments will really do Obama any net harm. It is clear to anyone who actually follows the course of the dialogue (as opposed to responding to just one or two words out of context) what he was saying, but among those who hear the synopsis without understanding the full significance, it is not obvious to me that the majority will say "if he like Reagan, I hate him." There were, after all, an awful lot of people who liked Reagan (much to my great chagrin, given that I was not one of them).

eorse wrote on January 18, 2008 12:46 PM:

TPM, the Irony is this:

First see this essay:
"The only reason I mark Hillary a "possible" winner is that Monicagate is the last thing she wants to hear about, especially now. Which probably helps explain why its anniversary has gone ignored in the press. The whole subject is a source-killer for any journalist who wants to cover Hillary's presidential campaign."
http://slate.com/id/2182345

The monicagate allowed HRC to criticize women like Tripp (white trash), etc. Now, in NH, these women gave her the victory. These women will put her in WH.

What fun? Voters who were butt of jokes by Clintons are now helping them get to the WH again. It is true: Americans are the biggest suckers on this planet.

stlounick wrote on January 18, 2008 12:51 PM:

Obama's use of transformative presidencies is certainly not a new concept. Although I never understood Reagan's appeal, I certainly recognized that it existed. The same sort of appeal exists with Obama--and I'm feelin' it.

Obama grabbed my attention with the notion (apparently radical in today's toxic environment) that Americans should not just rest in their little slots as red or blue or whatever, but declare themselves as one people and grab back their government. My support was sealed with his oppostion to the Iraq War and what I view as a foreign policy that actually will be post Cold War.

That said, does anyone have an explanation for my read "somewhere" in the past few days that a Dem candidate would "win" with 40% of the primary or caucus delegates. I don't think there's enough super delegates to make up the difference. Help me understand this.

mojobol wrote on January 18, 2008 12:53 PM:

Greg, do you get side money from the Clinton campaign for your work on their behalf?

If you don't and you're just posting their distorions unchecked, maybe this instance where they misled you (again) will teach you to not post it, cause you'll post, it'll be wrong, you'll have to waste time finding out that it's wrong.

In the meantime you'll spread Clinton's false garbage around.

Can't we get someone on tpmelectioncentral whose first impulse isn't "Clinton right, all others wrong?"

boffo wrote on January 18, 2008 12:54 PM:

In response to CyclingLeft and others who have raised the question since the news of the union's Obama ads.

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.

Sorry, I should have engaged in more snark and candidate bashing in keeping with the times, but sometimes the truth is more important.

SLKRR wrote on January 18, 2008 2:07 PM:

@stlounick:

Superdelegates make up just under 20% of the total number of delegates (798 out of 4051). So, someone could win with 40% of the pledged delegates if he/she had most of the superdelegates (and as long as the other 60% of pledged delegates were split between 2 or more candidates, of course).

A. Waldron wrote on January 18, 2008 2:14 PM:

I know Clinton says she has experience and Sen. Obama's response is that he has something more, good judgment. An article in Forbes magazine suggests that Obama is right. The article is: http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/16/commentary/birger_clinton.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008011617

The article explains how Sen. Clinton's plan on the mortgage mess would only hurt the economy worse. I had suspected that her new plan was pandering to voters caught in the housing mess, but it seems that her plan would also undermine the housing market further!

Bupalos wrote on January 18, 2008 2:26 PM:

"Wow, Greg D, I'm really in a negative mood right now..."

Cheer it up, angryvet. Obama is scoring some nice points these days. He seems to be winning every round to me. It's pretty clear that the longer he hangs around, the better he does. And since that big gap in California is just about gone, I can't see him getting knocked out on the 5th.

We had a big down blip when NH decided it didn't want to end the primary, but the campaign has it's legs back under it and ultimately I think we'll be all the better for it.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 2:47 PM:

I confidently predicted three years ago that there was no way that Cardinal Ratzinger could be elected pope, so nobody should lay much stock by anything that I predict. That said, I feel pretty good about Obama's chances tomorrow. The polls mean nothing, because no one really knows how to sample honest-to-goodness likely voters in NV. As such, I think that we could win this, but have it come out an even more significant victory because we will be perceived as having achieved an upset, given Clinton's late lead in the polls.

Just my two cents, for what little they are worth...

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 4:21 PM:

SLKRR, thanks for the explanation. I'm laughing a bit about how much effort will be on display publicly (not much) versus how much will be on display behind closed doors (frantic bargaining and yelling). It will certainly be interesting if we come out of the February 5th primaries with no clear (51%) frontrunner.

Thanks, again.

TexModDem wrote on January 18, 2008 8:44 PM:

I guess the Obama camp believes there are no Hispanic teachers in Nevada - now, how racist is that!

LOL.

BTW, Obama supporters continue to lie that the lawsuit by the teachers would have disenfranchised the casino workers and denied them the right to vote - which is pretty sad for a group of people who claim to be above politics as usual and who insist that they don't stoop to dirty tricks and dishonesty.

Again, LOL, you sad group of hypocrites and liars.

George Washington wrote on January 19, 2008 1:29 PM:

Obama will do a HIP HOP song. And make a staement the blacks are running things now. BIG DEAL they have been running a cesspool in Africa. Now they will turn rest of America into a cesspool like they already did to the cities

Post a comment

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