New Pro-Hillary Group's Ad: Obama Has No Specifics On The Economy
Here's the new attack ad against Barack Obama coming from the American Leadership Project, the independent group set up by some big pro-Hillary Clinton donors and unions, hitting Barack Obama on jobs and the economy in the Indiana primary:
As we reported yesterday, a total of $700,000 is being put down on this ad, a sign that the Clinton campaign and its allies know that the Indiana primary will be make or break.
Advertisement
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/27/827873.aspx
April 29, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our top progressive economist calls Obama's economic plans "Republican"
Hillary Clinton trumps him on both health and economic plans.
May 1, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary lies lies lies lies lies
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
Or they are just really lazy.
April 29, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ju-Ju Economics
Barry understands economics. He's just being shy. Don't let the PA debate fool you. He kinda gets it.
Now excuse me while I dodge this heat seeking scandal missle.
D. Axelrod
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE
NOT YOUR WHITH GUILT CONSCIENCE
April 29, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gov. Easley's endorsement of Hillary was powerful, enthusiastic, and focused on the specifics of Hillary's economic and education plan. Hillary is buoyant.
April 29, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Buoyant? Is she a boat? Or perhaps a life raft?
April 29, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I bet this is why two Nobel-prize winning economists endorsed him. Ummmhrmmm...
April 29, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, an economics debate between Stiglitz vs the American Leadership Project, bring it on!
April 29, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indiana is not make or break anymore than Ohio was or Pennsylvania. The Clintons wish! Winning one state does not override a delegate lead.
April 29, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I would hope that we could bring them all home," he said on MSNBC. "I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."
Guess the speaker? McCain in 2005.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/mccain-strongly-rejected_n_99082.html
Imagine a Clinton/McCain race. Someone who was for it before she was against versus someone who was against it before he was for it.
April 29, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just love the fact that we are perpetuating this fantasy about Clinton and attacking our candidate from our own party while the Republicans attack our candidate from the Republican Party.
Thank you, Hillary, for allowing the Republicans short funds to go even further.
April 29, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tena,
You have a no photo.
Yep. It's time for her to get out. Actually it has been time for her to get out for awhile now; but she won't.
We'll still have to deal with racists against Obama; but everything else, to me, is distraction. What does Wright have to do with Obama other than teaching him RELIGIOUS information. How come no one has delved into the sermons of Clinton's various pastors besides the fact that their way of sermonizing is more boring and less biblical in nature.
I AM a retired pastor; and the idea that Wright turned Obama (son of a white woman, whom he loved) into a racist is laughable.
May 1, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
While it could be "break" in that a Hillary loss should convince some more supers that Hillary can't win, it can't be "make" as Hillary already can't win.
I fail to see why a union group is sponsoring Hillary when it is Obama that has spent a lifetime working for labor, and Hillary who lobbied for NAFTA.
April 29, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, another one of those. Why is it always that states where Clinton leads around 10 % are such "make or break"-states? Isn't this the fourth or fifth of them? And why did nobody care when she lost her "make or break"-state of Wisconsin?
April 29, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Hillary has moved those goalposts repeatedly since this was supposed to be all over on Feb 5.
If she loses, who really believes she'll bow out? I don't. She'll move those goalposts again.
April 29, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, she probably will and the DNC doesn't seem able to stop her. By sitting on the fence, they're giving the election to McCain. At that point, is it worth being a Democrat anymore?
April 29, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an independent...why don't I feel any better?
April 29, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me too, and I feel just as dour.
April 29, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I ask myself that daily.
But I'm waiting to see if we regain sanity before I totally bail.
If we don't regain sanity - I'm gone.
:)
April 29, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unlike Clinton's spefics on the economy:
1. Remember how it was under Bill Clinton?
2. Oooo . . . Grampy McCain's gas tax thingy sounds good.
3. Corporations are THE best!
April 29, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, what are Clinton's specifics, exactly? By negative implication, this ad suggests that she has some. I haven't heard any -- oh, that $25 discount on gas for a whole three months. Yeah, that's just what a family of four needs to save themselves from foreclosure.
I don't know what I'll do if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, just that it won't involve any additional money or time on my part. I've had it. If the super dels want Clinton as the nominee and hope to get her elected as a D president, they're going to have to go door to door and work the phones without me this time around.
April 29, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The gas tax moratorium is absurd. Clinton plans a windfall tax on oil companies to pay for it? The same companies whose product you want to cut prices on!? I guess the oil companies will just say, "Oh well, I guess we'll just let this eat into our profits for the good of the US." BS, the oil companies will just raise their prices to pay for it, and we'll be right where we began. Hell, that's better than McCain's proposal..."we'll just add it to the deficit and let our kids pay for it....with interest!" And that's not even considering the shitload of jobs that will be lost by delaying or cancelling construction projects throughout the US. What a moronic proposal. Another reason to vote Obama, he's acting like a President should in this situation.
April 29, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The gas tax holiday is the stupidest proposal ever!!!! This was an issue Bob Dole was behind. Bob freaking Dole- if there isn't a better indicator of a lameass idea that's bad for the economy.
And Hillary is for this shit.... Come on, she knows better! I simply do not understand why she keeps siding with McCain. Trying to prove she's a centrist or what?
Pandering, that's what.
April 29, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a load of shit. Plus this organization is illegal.
April 29, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tip Eric - Rep. Ben Chandler endorses Obama:
http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=8242385&nav=0RZF
April 29, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
drip, drip, drip...
April 29, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
These guys are so going to jail when the FEC is back in business.
April 29, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Eric, how about TPM Election Central does a story on the "evil shennanigans" of the Clinton supporter who set up Rev. Wrights National Press Club speech?
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/louis/index.html
Or how about a story on how Hillary has asked for three times as many earmarks (2.3 Billion) as any other Senator this year?
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-2.3b-in-earmarks-2008-04-28.html
Thanks!
April 29, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or that when she ran for Senator of New York her mantra was also "jobs, jobs, jobs," which she has utterly failed to deliver.
April 29, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, she PROMISED 200,000 new jobs to upstate New York. What did she deliver? A loss of 30,000 jobs. Now that is "making change."
Both of those articles in my earlier post were on drudge report. I hate drudge, but it seems to be more "fair and balanced" than TPM these days, and it has more substantive reporting.
Maybe I'm just getting tired of this constant horse race bs.
April 29, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
3 times?
Whoa!
April 29, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know Tena, you have to hand it to the Clintons, when it comes to pandering and pork they are the kings.
April 29, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as someone who works a few blocks from Ground Zero, I think you should spell out what you mean Hillary's "earmarks". They are directed spending for homeland security, emergency response and health projects throughout New York. NYers pay far more out in taxes than we receive back in benefits. NYers are more at risk of terrorist attack (seeing as we've been hit twice already) and the funding allocations by DHS has been nonsensical. Hillary is fighting for NY's fair share of funding based on actual need versus Homeland security allocations based on pork to protect some clown college in West Noweheresville.
And if you want to talk about earmarks to curry favor, why don't you tale a look at this stunner from Obama for his wife's employer University of Chicago hospitals: Obama Requested $1 Million For Construction Of A New Hospital Pavilion At The University Of Chicago. In 2006, Obama requested that the University of Chicago receive $1 million to support its Construction of New Hospital Pavilion. [Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, 4/7/06] Ms. Obama got a hefty raise and promotion after he became senator and he's doing earmarks to get them more funding in hidden earmarks? SHADY.
And in terms of Reverend Wright, it was Obama supporters not only defending reverend Wright saying his quotes were distorted, but there were plenty of people in the liberal blogosphere claiming Reverend Wright was CORRECT when he said 9-11 was america's chickens coming home to roost and had nothing to apologize for. Now you want to criticize Hillary because Obama can't hide the hate preacher away? Please.
April 29, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you don't think Michelle Obama could have earned a promotion on her own merit? Clearly you're a misogynist.
April 29, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as someone in Human Resources, an almost $200,000 dollar 160% raise is UNHEARD of. Yes this does merit scrutiny not in whether she deserved the raise, but why is he doing an effing earmark to an organization that he clearly derives financial benefit from. Has that large raise ever been given to anyone at the organization who was not married to a senator directing earmarks to the hospital?
Given the scrutiny senator clinton was subjected to in her tax returns with the "WHAT'S SHE HIDING" memos coming from Obama's campaign, the earmark demands an explanation.
April 29, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Pork to protect some clown college in west nowheresville."
Good to know the insult 40 states strategy is alive and well.
April 29, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your stupid ass comment about insulting other states would only make sense had I chose a real place or state to make my point, but I didn't (and believe me there are examples of ridiculous pork projects being funded as part of himeland security that are truly applling). I chose West Nowheresville (a fictional place unless you can show me an atlas where it exists) because it is intended to not attack a smaller state that requests Homeland security funding but has less need for it than new york. Every state can use more fundign for cops, emergency responders etc etc etc, but there is limited funding available for Homeland security and common sense would demand that we direct to where the threats are highest.
April 29, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some discussion of that:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/221458,CST-NWS-mich21.article
April 29, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
First - The issue is less about the raise and more about the earmark to benefit an organization that employs your wife which you haven't addressed because it is just shady. period. If it was Hillary all you Obama folks would be grabbing your pitchforks, but because it's Obama you let it slide without scrutiny.
Second - if one year your work is valued at 112,000 and the next your work is valued at 300,000, that is an astronomical increase. Has the hospital demonstrated that this was not an unusual occurence? Have they had given increases like this in the past to other people who's husbands had not been recently elected to the Senate and were giving earmarks to the organization? No - they simply put out a statement with no backup. Not very convincing to me.
How many people can raise their hands and say they've received an increase of that size regardless of the increase in duties at their jobs? Not many. As the VP of external affairs and community relations she is made more valuable and powerful to the job by her association with sneator obama and was compensated as such. To try to pretend that the increased connections and access to high gov't figures that could influence the budget had no impact on that HUMONGOUS increase is to be quite frank BS. They paid for her access and it paid off for them - directly from Senator Obama's earmark and who knows what else. SHADY.
April 29, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The earmark in fact didn't pass, and was just one of many earmarks for hospitals that Obama supported.
April 29, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not about whether the earmark passed. It's about a clear conflict of interest and it was inappropriate to even make an earmark request like that. I'm assuming they still teach ethics classes at Harvard Law School - how could he possibly think the attempted earmark for his wife's employer was appropriate?
And with all the begging and pleading for the Clinton's donor lists for the Library and the Clinton Global Initiative, why no interest in the donations solicited by Ms. Obama on behalf of the U of C Hospital system. To give the Obamas a pass and harp on the Clintons for financial disclosure is HYPOCRITICAL.
April 29, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does matter if it passed when you say "it paid off for them."
The idea of making earmarks public is so that they can be evaluated. I look at a $1 million earmark to the a public institution that has a BILLION dollar annual budget, that is a major employer in Chicago, that is one of many similar (and much larger) earmarks which Obama supported, and it doesn't bother me. Do you think U. Chicago couldn't have gotten Dick Durbin to do the earmark if Obama didn't do it?
I don't really see the comparison in Michelle's job soliciting on behalf of this same huge public institution and Bill soliciting for two institutions that he basically controls, but, fine, let's make them all public. Just as with Obama's earmark, then we can all decide whether there is anything to them.
April 29, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bernadette Sargeant, a former counsel for the House ethics committee, questioned whether Obama should have put his name on a request that would have sent funds to his wife's employer. "It is not like her salary is going to change because of this benefit," she said. "But, given her title and the stature of her position, it is a prestige enhancement, or could be perceived as a prestige enhancement."
Sargeant said Obama's decision to co-sponsor the earmark raises concerns under two provisions of the Senate ethics code. The first requires senators to avoid performing official acts that can directly benefit a spouse, and the second more broadly tells senators to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
"There should be a protective wall between benefits directed to her employer and her husband's official acts," Sargeant said. "I would have said, 'Stay away from it.'
April 29, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or that when she ran for Senator of New York her mantra was also "jobs, jobs, jobs," which she has utterly failed to deliver.
April 29, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Russert actually called her out on that in one of the debates (he's from Buffalo if memory serves) but she just blamed the job loss on Bush. Maybe when she's President, she'll appoint an Upstate New York job czar!
April 29, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually she blamed it on Gore. She said that she couldn't deliver those jobs because Gore lost the Presidency.
Funny, I don't recall her promising, at the time, to make those jobs only if Gore got ellected. It was a nice little bit of misderection, but totally bogus.
Just another Clinton lie.
April 29, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's go through Civics 101. One senator does not make economic policy or create jobs alone. She blamed it on not having a continuation of the sound economic policies of the Clinton administration carried on by President Gore that would have continued job growth and economic expansion.
April 29, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Economics 101 would tell us that government has only a minimal effect on the economy, though, as we saw when the bubble burst and government could only stand and watch. So promising jobs when there is little one could do about it, is making promises one doesn't intend or is knowingly unable to keep.
April 29, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
History 101 (if you look at Bill Clinton's administration) will tell you that we can drive job growth. Government does have an impact on job growth and the economy. If you believe GWBs irresponsible spennding policy while reducing taxes has played no part in where we are today, then you need serious help.
April 29, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a generalized way, yes, but specific, targeted job creation is not usually the result of broad federal policies and fiscal restraint. The President can do very little to turn the economy one way or another, there are millions upon millions of individual decisions made everyday that affect the economy and the President has only a broad power to attempt to steer those decisions. (By the way, I do think Clinton's administration did very well in this respect). And yes, W's idiotic fiscal policies are a disaster.
A Senator can, in fact, create jobs through aggressive economic development initiatives, but that stuff is never a given. Lesson: never promise something you cannot deliver.
April 29, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for some good news this morning, Rep. Chandler. What does that make the post-PA super race, 7-2 Obama? Priceless.
Bill Clinton is speaking in my hometown tomorrow morning. I'd like to go so I can tell him how embarrassed I am to have voted for him twice. I can't wait to max out for Hillary's 2012 primary challenger, too.
There can be no argument anymnore - Hillary and the Republicans are on the same team now. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Guess that's the line of thinking.
April 29, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
As is pointed out in the article I linked to above Hillary is loading up on earmarks for New York. Why?
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-2.3b-in-earmarks-2008-04-28.html
April 29, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is officially fighting a two front war. Is it any wonder he's faltered a bit? He's having to hold off the entire Republican Party along with the Clinton lemmings, and these days the media as well.
April 29, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
April 29, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
And still he remains cool as ice. I like this guy.
April 29, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
That cost $700,000? Inflation is really eating the dollar away, isn't it?
April 29, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to drop out.
He is hurting the party.
April 29, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stop smoking crack.
April 29, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
sigh. You aren't even trying anymore!
Come on, where is your Passion for Loser... I mean Hillary!
April 29, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hahahaha
April 29, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
How? Has he started feeding talking points to McCain too?
April 29, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Several points:
The phone number at the end goes to Obama's Senate office; what kind of horseshit is that? I just called and talked to them. They can't be involved in the campaign, so all they can do is give out the campaign's number.
The ad says "The Washington Post wrote" but refers to an op-ed by David Ignatius:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502962.html
Op-eds aren't "written by" the paper.
As to the referenced AP story, MediaMatters has torn up that one:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703270004
April 29, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops, that's a March 27, 2007 idiotic AP article. I'll keep looking for the 2008 piece.
April 29, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the 3/27/08 AP article:
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/03/27/news/doc47ebdcf351aa1153461308.txt
Here's the Post's coverage of that same speech:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/27/obama_outlines_economic_plan.html
April 29, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doesn't matter.
The media only fact checks Obama's ads, not Hillary's.
She is expected to lie.
April 29, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the info on the number. I didn't want to dial it because I figured it was a hit job on his staff. Fuckers. What kind of jerks do something like this? Clinton-supporting jerks, that's who.
April 29, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I told the guy he could expect some calls and he said they've already received several.
April 29, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
NO ONE HAS DONE MORE FOR NAFTA AND JOB OUTSOURCING THAN LATE SHIFT HILLARY!!!
April 29, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should one be proud of bouyancy based on dessimating the truth?? Is that legitimate leadership? I don't think so. Although she is a bright and resourceful woman, there is a shamefulness in her lack of ethics--a feminist, a womanist, and a humanist is forced to discount her ardency and tenacity because of her lack of ethics.
April 29, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Obama has more problems than a Hillary ad.
I realize TPM and progressive blog sites don't want to touch the REV so the MSM is taking care of that.
Time for Obama to get the dropout strategy ready since he obviously has no gonads to stand up to anyone especially his own African American community or the AA Church that is Rev. Jerry Wright. I assume BO will cut a deal with Hillary for the VP position (I prefer Bayh but Obama is the unity ticket).
Now go back to bitching about the ad, it will take your minds away from reality.
April 29, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's top of the ticket or nothing. Obama doesn't need the Clinton bullshit dragging around behind him for the rest of his life.
April 29, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's more to that than just dragging Bill and Hillary around.
You cannot tell this front runner that he is going to have to accept the also-ran position.
Not if the Democratic Party wants to keep breathing. Boss.
(please note the irony of that "boss" and think about what you are suggesting.)
April 29, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah...uh sure. The person who is winning should drop out and take the VP gig. It amazes me how many times I've heard rabid Clinton followers suggest this. The guy who has (and will continue to have) more delegates---the ONLY measure that really matters--should drop out.
April 29, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least they realize that is the only way for Clinton to win. She can't win if he's still running that pesky campaign.
April 29, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry the veep will be Richardson with Obama on top. A guaranteed winner. The grassroots and minorities are gonna win it for us this year and it's gonna send a message across the whole country. Frankly, I'm excited!
Now if Clinton can just drop the albatross routine...
April 29, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what happens if he picks Richardson as VP?
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/louis/index.html
It's funny, I'll give it that...
April 29, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, not sure what that's a link to, as far as Richardson is concerned. Or am I just not getting the joke here?
April 29, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm wondering whose phone rings when you dial that number. Are they just trying to flood his staff with extra work?
April 29, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Teach your kitty to use the phone, call the number, report back.
:)
April 29, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have all heard tales of Obamabots stealing votes in Caucuses but now why isn't the Media covering this story?
Obama's campaign - including members who are on the school board in Hammond, Indiana - used school buses to bus hundreds of high school students, who were told to vote for Obama, to the early voting places in Indiana last week. After they voted, they were treated to a steak dinner at Ponderosa for voting the way they were supposed to vote -- for Obama. The principal said this was "a civics lesson". The mayor of Hammond, a Hillary supporter, complained about the principal of this high school doing this, and the typical Obama supporters promptly called the man a racist. It's classic Chicago vote-buying and busing a captive audience to vote for one candidate.
April 29, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you provide any documentation on this please?
April 29, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Schmedley, everyone should be asking why the National Media is not covering this-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-in-hammondmayor-obam,0,4516469.story
April 29, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. A couple of questions:
Isn't the Chicago Trib considered to be a major newspaper anymore?
I didn't see the part about the steak dinner reward - can you point it out for me?
Also, is there any evidence that the students all voted for Obama? Isn't it possible that some of them voted for Clinton?
From the article, it sounds to me like the school district thought having the kids register and vote would be a good exercise in civics. You apparently disagree. Why?
Thanks again.
April 29, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, what a load of happy horse shit. Are all Republicans this dishonest, or just you and the Clintons?
April 29, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, horrible that kids were actually taking a civics field trip! We don't want to teach them to, you know, participate in the political process!
April 29, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
dumbellic says:
The story says:
dumbellic says:
The story says:
Hammond has a separate school district.
Dumbellic, please try harder. I'm sure there's a story on Newsmax that backs you up completely.
April 29, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another story:
http://nwitimes.com/articles/2008/04/24/news/top_news/docfd54d825008dfa8586257435000a6c51.txt
April 29, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So giving high school students a hands-on lesson in civics and political participation is a bad thing now?
And of course, there's absolutely no evidence that the students were told to vote for Obama. Just the Republicanesque "I don't know that it happened, but it certainly could happen," the mayor said.
Well, I don't know that Bill and Hillary Clinton sold their souls to the devil, but it certainly could happen.
April 29, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just love any comment or anything in the MSM that begins:
"We all have heard..."
Yep. Love it. My all time favorite introduction to a big fat lie.
April 29, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or, "Some people say"...i.e. a couple guys at the water cooler.
April 29, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know whether this story of yours is true or not, but assuming it is, it clearly would be a misuse of school equipment and authority IF the students were forced to vote for Obama. Of course, those students would be free to choose any candidate once they had the registration papers in front of them. Further, even if this particular incident took place as you describe, doesn't mean that it is a widespread practice.
Now, as to your assertion that Obama supporters have stolen votes in caucuses, this is just sour grapes. Just because the Obama campaign is far better at grassroots organizing and thought ahead enough to do said orgaizing all over the place does not mean fraud took place.
April 29, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
In Hillaryland, having more Obama supporters than Hillary supporters show up at caucuses counts as stealing votes.
At our caucus, we were really sneaky. There were twice as many of us Obama supporters as Clinton supporters, which means were able to get twice as many delegates! See how totally unfair that is to Hillary!
April 29, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
O my god - you're telling on us.
At mine, it was 1/3 - 2/3s.
We out-sneaked you. :)
April 29, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, Tena, isn't that the same thing as Phoebe described?
April 29, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was a poor ad, because it sets the bar low to beat it. It doesn't say his plans are bad which is a matter of opinion and would certainly have a lot of gray area; but instead it states a "fact" that Obama can easily prove wrong.
All Obama has to do is say:
"no specifics, huh ... what do you call these"?
And then he just rolls out the highlights of his economic plans which obviously contains plenty of specifics.
April 29, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
He actually laid out quite a number of specifics about his middle class tax cuts and how he wants to fund them in the Chris Wallace interview which everyone on earth wants to spin into something totally different from what I saw.
Anyway - yeah, he's got a lot of specifics. You are right and he can counter this ad so easily that it's plain to me this ad is one cheap ad.
April 29, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Marginal Player,
Clinton's blow-job counselor, Reverand Wright, is saner than Reverand Hagee.
Obama's expressed opinions on econmics has nothing to do with communism . . . He is not the fascist plutocrat that Clinton is or the meat-puppet for money launders that McCain is . . . Sooth be told he is a bit too Mitt Rommeny for my tastes but he is better than the other two losers.
Obama is a raging corporate capitalist.
April 29, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, "raging corporate capitalist" never sounded so good.
April 29, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody know whether this is the group that Emily's List is involved with? I heard that Emily's List planned to participate in this group, but I don't know if it actually decided to -- given that, you know, it probably is illegal. Anyway, just trying to figure out whether they are going to be on my shit list the next time they call seeking a donation.
April 29, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
slightly OT, but -
NARAL called me a week or so ago looking for money - I've never given them money, I don't know why I'm still on the list, but anyway - I told the woman I was broke cause I was giving all I had to get Barack Obama elected.
She couldn't hang up fast enough.
I'm very disappointed in the sisterhood, frankly.
April 29, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Tena. Totatally off topic but nice picture. I just read your profile and I see you spend time in taos. My partner and I are thinking of moving to santa fe/taos among other southwest locations. Would you recommmend taos or santa fe? austin, tx? Ps. We are a late twenty something gay couple. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks!
April 29, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Taos.
I have 50 reasons why, starting with Taos is still about $100k cheaper than Santa Fe. It's also about $1 million less snooty and that is a big factor for me. Taos is Taos and it's the only place like it.
I don't live in Weimar with the Californians or on Blueberry Hill with the New Yorkers, or in the ski village with the skiers.
I live on an unmaintained dead end dirt road just across the highway from the road to Taos Pueblo - most beautiful pueblo in the world. I'm tucked back behind Guadalajara Grill norte.
I can't tell you how much I love Taos -
I love Santa Fe dearly - I've spent quite a bit of time there.
But I couldn't be happier than I am in Taos.
and thanks for the compliment - I just found out after a year about photobooth - I took that picture last night sitting right here in front of the computer. I takes pictures! How lame am I that I didn't open that app until now?
April 29, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as being a same sex couple goes - Santa Fe and Taos are equal in not giving a damn.
Did you know that depending on who is reporting the numbers, Dallas, Texas, is either the 2d or 3d most openly gay and gay friendly city in the nation?
I knew that - since I live here - but so many people almost die of shock when you say that, it's kind of worth it to say it.
;)
April 29, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taos rules.
Doc Martin's in the most pleasant dinner atmosphere (not the best food, though it's quite good) in NM.
April 29, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ever been to Orlando's in El Prado? Best New Mexican style Mexican food I've ever had.
I live in what I call El Taos Prado. I'm in Taos, but googlemaps refuses to believe that as do about half the Taosenos I run into. In fact, my road is the edge of the county and I'm on El Prado water, sewer, power and trash - and let me tell you - I am so glad.
Taos is not the U.S. I hope that you know that. You are not living in America as you have come to expect it to be. And since it's bigger than El Prado, the bureaucracy is correspondingly larger. And El Prado is unbelievable.
It drives some people crazy - and there's a saying about that common in Taos - the mountain always wins. You can't change Taos - you can't change losing electricity for whole weekends cause somebody shot out a transformer in El Prado on Friday night, while drunk. That's Taos. And the post office? Have you ever imagined what the mail must have been like in Spanish Colonial times? Kinda like that.
April 29, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much, we are trying to build a consensus. Oh, and we would definitely be the dirt road type too!
April 29, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you get serious - I have the person to talk to. I don't always appreciate realtors, but I found the most incredible person I've ever met who also sells real estate. Because she knew my husband couldn't help me, (he still works, so he's here all the time,) she rented a van in Taos and drove up to Lake City, Co, where I was moving from, and moved me.
I could not recommend her more highly.
There is a lot of real estate for sale there now and the market is soft - it is a buyers' market in Taos.
April 29, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks again! We will be renting for the time being, but ya never know. We'll be moving into fall, so it'll be a while. I'm sure I'll be commenting at you here on TPM, so I'll let you know how it progresses.
April 29, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just FYI -- Kate Michaelman, the longtime director of NARAL endorsed Obama some time ago and has been getting crap for it ever since.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-michelman/why-im-endorsing-barack-_b_84658.html
April 30, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Obama is going to waive taxes on Social Security for any senior making less than 50,000 a year.
Senator Obama is going to provide a middle class tax cut for all Americans uo 1,000 a year. Senator Obama isn't talking about a tax rebate or a temporary gas tax holiday.
Senator Obama wants to give each and evey child a 4,000 a year tax credit for school.
When you son or daughter gets out of school they will have a job, because Senator Obama is going to stop giving tax breaks to companies to ship jobs overseas. He is going to give tax breaks to companies who provide good paying jobs for Americans.
Senator Obama is committed to bringing broadband to rual communities.
Senator Obama is committed to increas funding for federal workforce training program to teach American Workers green collar jobs. The type of jobs that can't be outsourced and helps stop global worming.
Senator Obama is committed to passing the Employee Free Choice Act and giving workers the right to organize and demand better pay, benefits, and pensions from employees.
Senator Obama is committed to raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation.
Senator Obama will provide each and every homeowner a 10% mortgage tax credit even if you don't itemize.
Time for a real plan for the economy. Time for Democrats to lead and not run and hide.
April 29, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't 527 ads which explicitly promote or target a candidate illegal according to campaign laws? If so, under whose jurisdiction does such a violation fall, and why in the hell isn't an appropriate judge being brought in to stop such crap?
April 29, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
They were originally promoted to be issue oriented, but no more... and they fall under the FEC and IRS jurisdictions.
From the IRS website:
"The exempt function of a political organization is influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of an individual to a federal, state, or local public office or office in a political organization."
The FEC is paralyzed and crippled at the moment and the IRS is well the IRS, they will only look into the matter and revoke 527 status if the FEC investigates the case and reccomends such an action.
Here's a link to the IRS website on 527s:
http://www.irs.gov/charities/political/index.html
April 29, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's probably why they did the horseshit thing posting Obama's Senate office phone number; they're pretending that they're lobbying on legislation.
April 29, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're violating the spirit of the law certainly. I don't know enough to say if they're violating the letter.
But, regardless, the FEC can't do anything until it's operational again, and even if they do find the ads in violation, the worst that will probably happen is they'll levy a fine.
April 29, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the pro-Obama SEIU ads? I assume you are requesting the FEC to investigate those as well (and they've spent far more on Obama's behalf)
April 29, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who has ever said they are illegal?
April 29, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, all partisan ads should stop. We have donation limits in place for a reason -- if such limits can so easily be bypassed through 527s, then those limits aren't being effective.
I'm curious, dijamo, what figures do you have comparing the expenditures of the 527 groups on partisan ads?
April 29, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Money will always find a way. It was the compromise needed to pass McCain-Feingold.
April 29, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're a union, not a 527.
April 29, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
SEIU is a union that runs 527 ads. Just as the funders for alp includes unions supporting hillary. Obama condemned the SEIU health care 527 ad promoting John Edwards in Iowa and has now turned a blind eye when they do 527s for him.
There is nothing illegal about the 527 ad for Hillary. Your comments requesting an FEC investigation of pro-Hillary 527s are 1. based on no evidence of wrongdoing (unless you can cite FEC regs that are allegedly being broken) 2. hypocritical since your candidate only condemns them when they favor his opponents. Hillary never whined about 527 ads in Obama's favor needing to be investigated by the FEC - her complaint was that on substance the SEIU radio ad in Nevada was race baiting by saying Hillary does not respect Latinos.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
April 29, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo, if, as I understand it, 527s are only allowed to have expenditures for issue advocacy while prohibited from directly endorsing or opposing specific candidates, then yes, those ads are illegal. If the organization is promoting a specific candidate, then it should be registered as a PAC and be subject to the limits of such organizations.
April 29, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
PACs are 527s; so are political parties. The only way a 527 is not subject to FEC jurisdiction if it's an advocacy-only entity. They must file reports with the FEC and IRS if they specifically target a political opponent. Then they are subject to the same limitations as PACs. There is, of course, an argument over what specifically is meant by "targeting a politiccal opponent" or "attempting to influence an election." The Swift Boaters claimed they were just doing a public service...but I think it was obvious they were a bunch of shitheads pissed that Kerry didn't tow the Republican line and were trying to influence the election.
April 29, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
That makes them a 501(c)(5) organization. So unless I'm mistaken, and I don't think I am, they're "electioneering" activities can undertake no more than 50 percent of their total activities. And I doubt that electioneering takes up more than 50 percent of their activities.
April 29, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Designated as a "527 organization" (so named in reference to Section 527 of the U.S. tax code), SEIU is not required to register as a "political organization" with the Federal Election Commission, and consequently may collect as much "soft money" as it wishes, with no limits on how much it may receive from individuals or corporations. This money, in turn, is funneled to Democratic candidates, political action committees, and other "527" groups pursuing similar agendas.
OK can we NOW stop questioning if SEIU is exactly the same as ALP the 527 group doing the Hillary ads? Now what was your rationale again about why this should be investigated by Pro-bama 527 ads should not?
April 29, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, I'm arguing in your favor!! If the SEIU ran ads targeting Clinton then your argument holds, but you say they funnel money to other organizations, not run political ads. This ad specifically targets an opponent, thus it is subject to FEC regulations and spending limits. Sheesh, sometimes you just can't win. And when did I say it should be investigated?
April 29, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry - the response was not intended towards you, it was just supposed to be in the regular thread. But I'm glad we can agree that 527s are the same whether they are pro or anti your candidate.
April 29, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, agreed.
April 29, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way, organizations can have separate 527 groups specifically for this purpose, while still retaining their tax-exempt status as a 501 (c)3,4,5, or 6 group.
I think we got our wires crossed here, I'm arguing there's nothing wrong with these ads as long as they're subject to the smae limits imposed on all other 527s with the same purpose. You picking up what I'm putting down here?
April 29, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
From a Washington Post story about the Nevada ad:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/17/unite_here_to_air_radio_ads_fo.html
April 29, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
the Unite Here is not a 527 GROUP but it is still a 527 AD. Does it really matter that the pro-527 ad for hillary is from a consortium of unions and donors rather than just representing one union? No - not according to the regulations.
April 29, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the Unite Here is not a 527 GROUP but it is still a 527 AD"
What the hell does that mean?
April 29, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And here's the evidence of Obama's 527 advantage: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/obamas-seiu-boost-in-pennsylvania/
During the campaign ahead of the Iowa caucuses, Mr. Obama decried such outside support. He called it an “underhanded” effort that benefited his rivals, who were benefiting from strong support from outside, mainly union, groups.
But Mr. Obama, flush with campaign cash, has remained silent about the help he has gotten from the politically active S.E.I.U. To date, the S.E.I.U. has spent $5.2 million on behalf of Mr. Obama in a number of states, while S.E.I.U.’s 1199 hospital affiliates have kicked in another $513,000 to support his primary bid.
By comparison, since Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her presidential bid, the American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees Union has spent $2.3 million on pro-Clinton efforts, while the American Federation of Teachers spent $1.7 million on her behalf, Federal Election Commission records show.
As measured by independent expenditures, Mrs. Clinton appears behind Mr. Obama in Pennsylvania. Federal election commission reports show Emily’s List has just spent $70,000 in a direct mail and phone bank campaign on her behalf, while the painters union just spent $16,000 printing up Hillary T-shirts.
The types of 527 independent advocacy groups supporting Obama are THE SAME as those supporting Senator Clinton. The difference is Hillary is not claiming holier-than-thou campaign finance. Obama just double talks about limiting 527s and pro-public financing as a campaign talking point, but when it comes down to it, he'll turn his back on his public financing pledge and now that the SEIU is supporting him instead of Edwards, their 527 ads are A-OK by him.
Please tell me even as an Obama supporter you are not blind to such hypocrisy - do as I say, not as I do.
April 29, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know the law on those since they're a union not a 527, but if there's a legal problem with them, then sure, let the FEC investigate.
I want legal and fair on both sides of this deal.
April 29, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just got this on about the American Leadership Project on wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Leadership_ProjectApril 29, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this same loophole applies to ALL 527s not the ones supporting Hillary. Also the ones that support Obama and McCain and every other candidate out there. For Obama supporters to criticize Hillary's 527s while being silent on their own is the deifnition of hypocrisy.
April 29, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you missed this where I said:
I'm still waiting on figures showing that SEIU have spent more on pro-Obama ads as the 527s have spent on Clinton ads.
And though I certainly find partisan ads by unions questionable (though apparently they're not illegal, since they aren't the raison d'etre of these organizations), do you seriously consider them equal to the ads by a billionaires club simply trying to do a runaround of the campaign donation limits?
April 29, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have exact figures and I don't know if they are publicly available, but Obama has had the benefit of 527 as has Senator Clinton. But it should be clear that BOTH sides are benefiting from 527 ads. The difference is Senator Clinton did not start the campaign criticizing 527s who were supporting John Edwards and calling on Edwards to denounce pro-Edwards 527s. That is what I call hypocrisy - it's wrong when it's in your favor, but perfectly fine in mine.
Your argument that 527 ads SHOULD be against FEC regs is different from saying they should be investigated which implies that there is a question of legality under current law. There clearly is not. The ads are within the law as it stands currently.
April 29, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still don't understand what you mean by a 527 ad, distinguished from an ad run by a 527 group.
April 29, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it hinges on the amount an ad is worth, then let's face it, dijamo, these ads on this website aren't worth that much.
In terms of what you pay for them as opposed to any other media out there, these ads are dirt cheap.
Do they have a big multi-media campaign? Lots of TV ads? I've only seen them online.
April 29, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Obama is going to waive taxes on Social Security for any senior making less than 50,000 a year.
Senator Obama is going to provide a middle class tax cut for all Americans uo 1,000 a year. Senator Obama isn't talking about a tax rebate or a temporary gas tax holiday.
Senator Obama wants to give each and evey child a 4,000 a year tax credit for school.
When you son or daughter gets out of school they will have a job, because Senator Obama is going to stop giving tax breaks to companies to ship jobs overseas. He is going to give tax breaks to companies who provide good paying jobs for Americans.
Senator Obama is committed to bringing broadband to rual communities.
Senator Obama is committed to increas funding for federal workforce training program to teach American Workers green collar jobs. The type of jobs that can't be outsourced and helps stop global worming.
Senator Obama is committed to passing the Employee Free Choice Act and giving workers the right to organize and demand better pay, benefits, and pensions from employees.
Senator Obama is committed to raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation.
Senator Obama will provide each and every homeowner a 10% mortgage tax credit even if you don't itemize.
Time for a real plan for the economy. Time for Democrats to lead and not run and hide.
April 29, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to *educate* the voters via ads about Hillary's obvious inability to research and understand basic economics regarding her Health *Corporate Insurance* Health Plan.
He needs to come across stronger with all this HRC bull...
April 29, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is brilliant. He's deliberate! Obama's a thinker. He doesn't just throw out stupid ideas to get him through the election cycle. Hillary's Gas tax is the dumbest idea ever!!!Hillary, you will be taking money out of the infrastructure budget. We have roads & bridges falling down and you want to take money from the infrastructure budget. Hillary, do you even understand that hillary's new gas tax plan will give you a 1/2 a tax of gas. Another band aide. She isn't addressing problems. She's putting bandaides on the issues. There is nothing different between Hillary, GW BUSH and John Mc Cain. All are just old politicans who will say and promise anything to get elected. It's so sick. The middle class needs help and real answers not hillary bandaides!
We need real solutions. Gas tax another Clinton stupid idea. Like don't ask don't tell. Wake up people. Hillary and McCain are the same people with the same old Ideas!
April 29, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you gotten to the part where the profits from a windfall profits tax on the oil & gas industry will make up the profits from the gas tax? That's the difference between Hillary and McCain's plan for the suspension of the gas tax is that she actually pays for it. Obama just sits back and and offers no solutions... as usual.
April 29, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"These guys are so going to jail when the FEC is back in business."
Sadly Steve that's wrong. Even at full strength the
FEC is a toothless agency. Just the way Republicans like it. They repeatedly break the rules, the FEC opens a case and years after the election they get slapped with a fine that is either a relative pittance or blatant joke. It's just another cost of doing business to Repubs and sadly the ruling won't even make the papers.
April 29, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the Unite Here is not a 527 GROUP but it is still a 527 AD"
What the hell does that mean?
April 29, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, my memory failed. The UNITE HERE ad was actually by the Culinary Workers Union (not SEIU) as part of get-out-the-vote and funded by union dues so it was fully dislosed. [still doesn't excuse their appalling race baiting technique that was never publicly denounced by the obama campaign] That particular ad in Nevada was not a 527.
The SEIU union has run massive $$$ in 527 ads supporting Obama throughout OH, TX, PA, etc etc etc. If you criticize Hillary's 527s, how can you have no issues with Obama's? And as noted above as of 4/7 Obama's 527 had spent more supporting him as sourced by the NYT.
In terms of a 527 ad vs group, I use that distinction to mean if one group (say a union) is fully funding the ad effort, then that is a 527 ad from a union. Sometimes unions, private donors, etc come together to form a joint 527 advocacy group. I call that a 527 group since it is more than one group involved with more than one constituency. I think there's a huge difference between a 527 ad identified with an individual organization (SEIU, AARP, etc) vs. a 527 organization representing a variety of interests coming together (american leadership project, move On.org, Freedom Watch, etc.) Being affiliated with one larger union (or issue) group makes the point of view more easily idenitfiable to the voter viewing the ad.
April 29, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the union directly funds an ad (like the UNITE HERE ad in Nevada), the term "527" does not apply. Organizations that are 527s (including the one that SEIU funded that did the Edwards ad in Iowa) are subject to specific restrictions (although there are huge loopholes) requiring them to only do issue advertising, not ads supporting a particular candidate. Unions don't have the same restrictions.
So, there is a distinction in the law (riddled though it is with loopholes) and in philosophy (at least comparing union ads with those run by groups of wealthy supporters, a la Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth") that can be the basis for attacking this latest Hillary-supporting ad.
I get the feeling you are using "527 ads" to mean ads than are done by anyone that's not the campaign, and saying that if some are okay then all are okay. That's a valid position, I'm just thrown off by the terminology you are using.
April 30, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as someone who works a few blocks from Ground Zero, I think you should spell out what you mean Hillary's "earmarks". They are directed spending for homeland security, emergency response and health projects throughout New York.
Whoa... cut the crap right there. I've been living in New York for the past 17 years and what you just said is bullshit. Homeland security? This city is no safer then it's ever been. While a lot of corporations have installed ridiculous rfid tag systems and so on (yeah those terrorists sure would love to infiltrate an ad agency), I can still walk around grand central station with a big box in my hands without so much as getting a glance from security.
Health projects, emergency services? Both have gotten worse over the years...
If you think you can get away with these lies by virtue of slipping past other new yorkers you are sadly mistaken. You definitely do Clinton proud.
April 30, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink