Pro-Hillary Group Spending $700,000 On New Indiana Ad Targeting Obama On Economy
The American Leadership Project -- the 527 that was put together by Hillary-supporting unions and major donors -- is spending $700,000 on a new ad in Indiana targeting Obama on the economy, the ALP's spokesperson just confirmed to me.
The spokesperson, Jason Kinney, says that the new ad will be "similar in content and tone" to a recent ALP spot hitting Obama hard on health care -- only this time, the ad "will be focused on jobs."
Kinney, who happens to be an Indiana native, says that this will be the "largest ad buy we've done to date," adding that this is something they had long expected, because Indiana has been hit so hard by job loss.
"Indiana has long been ground zero for economic anxiety," Kinney said.
Kinney confirms that the money will pay for the ad to be shown on "broadcast and cable in nearly every market" between tomorrow and next Monday or Tuesday.
Kinney confirms that the group is also likely to add more money to air a version of the health-care spot in Indiana, although the details of that buy aren't yet available. He also says that the group is thinking about funding ads in North Carolina.
Kinney declined to share details of the new spot on jobs. We'll bring it to you as soon as we can get it.
North Carolina Governor endorses Hillary Clinton.
She wins the general easily if we unite like the gop.
Lets win this time.
April 28, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary WOULD unite the GOP
Obama would get a lot of disheartened GOP and Ron Paul supporters.
April 28, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
REV WRIGHT IS OUT TO STOP OBAMA
Obama is the "rich white peoples" candidate. Not representitive of AA's. He used AA's to get their vote's in rcord #'s. Now Wright is feeling alienated and exploited. Obama losing fits his theory that "no black man can win the presidency". If he does win then Wright is silenced and out of a job.
Just needed to get this off my chest.
D. Axelrod
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE
NOT YOUR GUILTY CONSCIENCE
April 28, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! One whole superdelegate? That is... That is, kinda sucky.
http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/74213/Superdelegate-Update:-Obama-Gains-3,-Clinton-Gains-1.htm
So my overall superdelegate count now has Clinton leading Obama 264 to 244, a lead of 20. This is the closest Obama has been as he continues to eat into Clinton's superdelegate lead basically daily. At this point, assuming things play out as expected in the remaining states, Hillary Clinton will need 76% of the remaining undecided superdelegates to endorse her to win. Since February 5th, she has gotten less than 5% of the undecided superdelegates, so she has some hard work ahead of her.
April 28, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've done some editing and such.
April 28, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife, how can you support a person who has called for the obliteration of 70 million people by nuke? Is this where you want to steer dem foreign policy? This is a grossly irresponsible threat for a sitting Senator, much less a president. It's the bloodiest rhetoric we've heard yet from either side. Even McCain's 100 Years didn't contain any nuke threats, just the garden variety killing and maiming.
One cannot even get to the pathalogical lying. The nuke threat really ends all consideration.
So why do you continue to support her? "Winning" doesn't count, and is really sick. You cannot win any war begin with nukes, a vile threat of likes of Ahmidinijhad [sp?].
Nukes!
Pax,
M.
April 28, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her rhetoric is a deterrent like nukes and it worked.
He wants to talk and that is the goal.
April 28, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her rhetoric is illegal and immoral.
April 28, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shouldn't she, instead of thew Whitehouse, be going to jail?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/breaking-news-hillary-clinton.php
April 29, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
$700,000?? The Obama campaign pisses 700 grand... lol
April 28, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
true. except the clinton campaign wins!
April 28, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and such victories too!
Why, if you add the vote swing she gained from Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, that's 9 delegates plus 10 delegates plus negative five delegates!
So yeah, 14 delegates from her three big victories! That's almost as much as the 25 delegates that Obama won in Virginia!
Oh, wait. No it's not. Sorry.
So yeah, keep winning like that! Go Clinton! A few more wins like that and we've got this election nailed down!
April 28, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the general it's winner take all. That's what she does - wins. And in a general all your delegate math won't amount to nothing. Obama will have a much harder time, I believe, to win in the general. We should really start thinking long and hard about our prospects and what is best for our party.
April 28, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Earth to Mike:
This is not the general election. You need to win THIS election... and you're not.
Barack Obama will be glad to accept Hillary Clinton's endorsement at the Democratic National Convention, and will welcome her help in unifying this party again when the time comes.
And everyone else who will never vote for Obama, no matter what, even if Clinton is out there stumping for him, and even if he and Hillary share many of the same policies?! They're called Repubicans.
April 28, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"That's what she does - wins."
This offer not eligible in Iowa, South Carolina, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Deleware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah, Louisiana, U.S. Virgin Islands, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi,North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, or for any Democrats abroad.
May not be eligible in Texas, Indiana, and West Virginia.
April 28, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and don't forget Guam!
April 28, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"except the clinton campaign wins!"
Wins what? The hearts and minds of octogenarians, maybe.
April 28, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how much of this 527s money comes from Hillary's good friends Richard Mellon Scaife and Rupert Murdoch.
April 28, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the Murdoch family that's hosting a fundraiser for Obama, isn't it? I'm sure that's the case.
April 28, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh bore, more lies from Mike. It's Murdoch's daughter who is hosting a fundraiser for Dems. abroad and from what I've read, she's actually a Democrat.
It was Murdoch himself who hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton and from what I've read, he's actually not a Democrat.
April 28, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary WOULD unite the GOP
Obama would get a lot of disheartened GOP and Ron Paul supporters.
April 28, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's running on jobs?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/28/12049/2577/655/504812
April 28, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on.
No one has done more for the creation of jobs than Barack Obama.
April 28, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come where?
No one has done more to trivialize the discussion on this board than commenter.
Well maybe.....
April 28, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
These ads will help Democrats to unite...
...behind Obama.
You've lost, Republican.
April 28, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least she won't be able to keep whining about how she has been outspent on ads. I do wonder about this group, though--don't they care about their party at all, or are they secret Republicans?
April 28, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of the people in ALP are consigners of the extortion letters to Pelosi and Dean. Just an FYI...so, I'm going to out on a twig and say that the Party doesn't matter to these people much.
April 28, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it's probably an illegal use of funds, because 527 groups are not supposed to form solely for the purpose of affecting the outcome of an election, and are not supposed to air ads that are candidate specific. That's why this group has not been able to raise more money from donors, who don't want to have to pay fines and such, which many did after 2004.
April 28, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it called a "pro-Hillary" group if the adverts ares "anti-Obama"? It seems ambiguous to me as to whether this helps Hillary or McCain. At the very least, the correct categorization would be to call this an anti-Obama group. If they want to run positive adverts supporting Hillary then they can be called pro-Hillary. As it stands, they are running attack adverts on the likely Dem nominee and that disgusts me.
April 28, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
IIRC, because of their tax status, they can not openly advocate for one candidate. I had thought that loophole was closed, which is why MoveOn can now actively advocate for one candidate, but I guess not.
April 28, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's campaign is a train wreck and the Clinton machine is closing the deal.
Poor guy should drop out and save his career.
April 28, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
...because if he doesn't, Hillary's going to sick Rush Limbaugh, Richard Mellon Scaife, and Joe Lieberman on him?!
Face it, getalife... your candidate has gone over to the dark side.
April 28, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonder if Obama is re-thinking the perfectly reasonable offer from Hillary to be her Veep a while back. He should have listened. Now he looks unelectable.
April 28, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt he will be on her ticket.
That ship has sailed.
April 28, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
How's she going to have a ticket if she can't "close the deal"? Is she magically going to get 70-80% of all remaining votes? When she couldn't even break 55% in PA?
April 29, 2008 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, that position is already filled, by her husband; no sane politician would want the job.
And on a different subject, why does everyone keep bashing Greg? All he does is report the news; he can't help it if we don't like it.
April 28, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is this not reported?
"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."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/obamas-seiu-boost-in-pennsylvania/
Certainly it's more newsworthy.
April 28, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's almost like you're a child. Like somewhere between my two year old and my five year old...I'll use simple words so you can understand:
The difference between what SEIU is doing and what ALP does (which apparently, you're okay with) is huge. Here is goes real s l o w:
SEIU, has their members talking about issues and using their members to organize.
ALP is running attack ads on a fellow Democrat.
What you (and the twits at NYT) both managed to do is conflate two separate things. Back in Iowa, Obama decried outside groups attacking other Dems. When some pro-Obama group did it to Clinton last summer, he immediately said he wanted them to stop.
April 28, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a very short memory. Do you recall that SEIU pro-Obama radio ad in nevada in spanish saying Hillary does not respect Latinos? That's a real personnal attack, not based on issues, and one that was not effective given Hillary's strong support within the Hispanic community and the fact that she still won Nevada despite that ad promoting racial divisions.
The ALP ad is based on actual ISSUES. Obama's half-assed economic plans versus Hillary's far more detailed thought out economic plans that are far more progressive in terms of health care, foreclosure prevention etc. The ALP ad is relevant on actual issues, not a personal attack piece.
April 29, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting thing...whining doesn't change numbers. Wishful thinking doesn't alter the laws of mathematics. Grousing doesn't make 2 greater than 3.
April 28, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grousing doesn't make 2 greater than 3.
No, but it can make pi = 3 !!
Which, practically, works just fine.
Until you need to make something based around "wheel" technology.
April 28, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
By these tactics, how does Hillary think she is going to get the Obama vote is somehow she actually gets the nomination?
She is alienating 51% of the democratic party.
Anyone wonder WHY Obama isn't using the same tactic? Maybe so the party might unite when he is the nominee.
Keep it up Hillary and we all lose.
April 28, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sure Greg is just giddy over the 527 - but when all is said and done, Barack will still hold the upper hand.
April 28, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, the Clinton campaign is attempting to steal, claw, every which way they can scheme, Hillary's way to a tarnished legacy for her and Bill. Sad.
When Repugs-lite like Hillary, Lieberman, Bill, and the DLC are purged through natural attrition (i.e losing elections), perhaps the Democratic Party can again live up to its promise for lower to middle class folks.
April 28, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
For Hillary to prove that Obama is unelectable and she should be handed the nomination, Hillary would have to win the upcoming primaries by 60%. Anything less, her argument doesn't hold water and the superdelegates will not overturn the electorate lead. Winning by a small margin is not enough to demonstrate that Obama can't win with the establishment support behind him instead of against him. The governors of Pennsylvania and Ohio both stated that Obama will win those states in November. It's not if she wins the upcoming states, it still remains by how much.
April 28, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yeah, but that was the case with PA too, and yet...she's still here. She needed 26 points on him, minimum, in PA and all of the remaining primaries to catch up on pledged delegates. She got 9 points. And she's still here. Her argument is already in tatters, and...SHE'S STILL HERE.
People talk about how that proves she's a "fighter" and she's "resilient". Well, sure. But you know what? There's a difference between being a fighter and being delusional about your chances - and reckless in your pursuit of an increasingly unlikely goal. She's kind of at that pitiful point. You know, it would be like the loser in the presidential race showing up demanding to be inaugurated, or hiring a van to move their stuff into the White House.
April 28, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The superdelegates are not stupid, they know Hillary is being given a free ride by the GOP and the media right now. I'm sure they are very aware that Obama is getting hit on two sides, three if you count the corporate media. If she was handed the nomination, the GOP would smear her as a corrupt, communist lesbian who thinks she is royalty, and she and Bill are a threat to America's democracy by seeking a 3rd term. And what would her negatives rise to then? 70% or more. Obama is staying cool and classy, and that's all he can do right now with McCain and Clinton tag-teaming him.
April 28, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
These people are so going to jail when the FEC is back up and running.
April 28, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The FEC rules are funny in some ways. One is that an independent group can spend all they want campaigning against someone, with no mention about who they favor. But, they can't spend more than $2300 in support of someone. My question to the FEC, if we still had one, is in a two person race, how can an expenditure against one of those persons, not be an expenditure for the other one. I do realize that they stay within the letter of the rules because they could be supporting McCain or Clinton, so that part is ambiguous.
April 28, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey get a life...
How does the saying go?...When you stop lying about my record...I'll stop telling the truth about yours.
I think it's time for the Clintons to just go away!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/clinton-criticizing-closu_b_98972.html
April 28, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tide is turning.
April 28, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
When she said the tide has turned she was not lying.
She is going to win.
April 28, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you describe a possible scenario in which she can win?
April 29, 2008 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see.
Very interesting.
Thank you for that possible scenario. Impressive.
April 29, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah like my stomach
April 28, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to its initial 8872 filed with the IRS, American Leadership Project raised $1.2 million and spent $800k as of 3/31/2008.
$1 million of the contributions came from AFSME.
AFSME is the American Federation of State Municipal Employees.
Most of the $800k was spent before mid-March so ALP must have raised more money after 3/31/08 to fund this latest ad campaign.
April 28, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think its long past time that pro-clinton groups/people and sen clinton start giving us pro-clinton ads and reasons why we should vote for her instead of just why we shouldnt vote for the candidate who has won more votes.
April 28, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
when will candidates start telling the truth:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/mccain-strongly-rejected_n_99082.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/clinton-criticizing-closu_b_98972.html
April 28, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
the anti Hillary internet blitz continues.
Obama is outspending Hillary Clinton something like 3-1, 4-1 maybe even 5-1, yet this story is about somebody else spending money on Hillary's behalf as if this concept means Obama has an uphill fight.
April 29, 2008 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know that the lazy media and unintelligent regurgitators of the TV like to say throw up those numbers like it's fact, but in PA, Obama outspent Hillary almost 3:1. That was money well spent,IMO; he went from a 30pt. deficit to a 9pt. deficit. That's impressive for a "big state" that Hillary definitely needed a wide margin.
April 29, 2008 10:02 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.
April 29, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink