Unions Spending Big For Obama In Texas And Ohio
Barack Obama's recent gains in big union endorsements are bringing him some serious organizational muscle. SEIU alone has reported that they have spent $1.4 million on Obama's behalf in Texas and Ohio.
With that support, though, comes an accusation of hypocrisy from the Clinton camp, which noted Obama's condemnation of outside spending on behalf of John Edwards in the Iowa caucus. "When it was in Obama’s interest to criticize Edwards over outside spending, he did so," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told reporters yesterday. "Now when it is in his interest to remain silent, he is."
The Obama campaign responded in a statement: "Senator Obama has long said that he would prefer those who want to support him to do it directly through the campaign."
And AFSCME is working pretty hard to help Clinton. Union endorsements are sought for just such reasons.
I'm completely missing the point of why this should be a problem to anyone.
February 26, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This coming from the group that is skirting campaign finance laws by organizing swiftboating groups. Yeaaahh...no dice.
February 26, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lame, pathetic... but that seems to be the best the Clinton campaign can come up with these days. Texas doesn't count!!
February 26, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Obama ever complained about unions or their spending. What I remember is the very different criticism of skirting election finance laws by having former staffers leave a campaign to run these supposedly independent groups. Big, important difference and ignoring the distinction is basically dishonest and deceptive.
February 26, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure if this makes much of a difference overall ... but I'm pretty sure the Obama campaign took issue with a 527, not a PAC, which was run by Edwards former campaign manager.
February 26, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
We need a knock otu blow in OHio and Texas.
Otheriwse, any ambiguous result will only encourage Hillary on her hopeless and destructive campaign.
She is getting to ugly and nasty, and will only hurt the party.
So everyone who can, campaign, phonebank, etc. to finish her off and end this thing in Texas and Ohio.
February 26, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the union setup a 527 or something like that?
February 26, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Clinton benefited from outside spending in New Hampshire...but I guess because she is NOT the candidate of hope, that's OK.
February 26, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with observer2. A TX-VT (Obama) and OH-RI (Clinton) split on election night just won't do the trick. The expectations for Obama are now stratospheric, and any win by Clinton will give her plausible grounds to continue the race into PA. Believe me, if she goes on after March 4 she will become increasingly destructive. Her tone has become decidedly vindictive: "If I can't win this, it won't be worth having." She is now expressing raw contempt for Obama and his supporters. She has to b stopped March 4, or else....
Oh, and it's also true that Obama hasn't won Texas yet! If she were to win both TX and OH and RI, even by small margins...-- but I don't want to go there! Cork the damn champaign and get busy!!!!
February 26, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure if this makes much of a difference overall ... but I'm pretty sure the Obama campaign took issue with a 527, not a PAC, which was run by Edwards former campaign manager.
Posted by dlmcchesney
You're right it was a 527 that sprung up just before the Iowa caucus. So that is different from a PAC that's been around for quite a number of years, but the pro-Edwards 527 was funded by various SEIUs (California and Oregon to name a couple).
To me, what seems to matter is what's being done with the money. According to the article:
"Over the weekend, the union reported spending the money in Texas and Ohio to pay for door-to-door canvassers, a direct-mail campaign and a phone bank. The expenses are independent and not coordinated with the Obama campaign, which would be illegal."
And that's exactly the reason you want these type of endorsements--GOTV. The unions are involved in their various local communities and the support of the unions mean (ideally) that they believe the candidate in question will be responsive to their members needs. In contrast, the 527's that spring up and then disappear after buying airtime for commercials aren't necessarily looking out for a community's best interests.
Overall, it just seems to highlight one of the fundamental differences between the two campaigns: Barack's is grassroots and ground-up, while Hillary's is topdown.
February 26, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
HILLARY to Barack during the last CNN Debate:
Hillary: Barrack you have run a better campaign then myself and are a much better person. Please accept my failure as a Presidential Candidate and I throw my support fully behind you after March 4.
Barack: Thanks Hill.
February 26, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink