home

Obama Backers File Complaint With FEC to Block Hillary Ads

I guess Obama supporters don't support the right of other groups to get a message out to voters. (Background here.) Via the Wall St. Journal:

Three supporters of the Illinois Democrat mailed a complaint to the Federal Election Commission today charging that the pro-Clinton organization is violating election laws.

This is designed to create negative press for Hillary. How do we know that?

It is highly unlikely that the Obama supporters will get what they want from the FEC any time soon. For one, the FEC is notoriously slow. It took three years to settle similar complaints lodged against independent political entities that ran advertisements in the 2004 election.

For another: [More...]

A dozen current and former FEC officials interviewed by the Wall Street Journal in the last few days don't agree on whether the organization is violating the law. The Obama complaint doesn't cite any firm evidence to prove that the Clinton organization is acting improperly.

There are two requirements for a 527:

They can't run advertisements directly calling for the election or defeat of candidate; and they can't solicit large donations by saying that the purpose of the organization is to elect or defeat a specific candidate.

As to the ads the Obama backers are trying to block:

In the FEC complaint, the Obama backers don't cite any firm evidence of the Clinton group running afoul of either condition. The one television advertisement released to the media by the pro-Clinton group doesn't mention Mr. Obama's name or call on people to vote for Mrs. Clinton. Instead, it tells voters to "tell Hillary to keep working on those solutions for the middle class."

The pro-Obama group speculates the ad sponsors are telling potential contributors the ads are for the purpose of aiding Hillary's campaign.

However, the printed materials that the founders of the organization say they send to prospective contributors don't mention Mrs. Clinton's name. The fundraising materials sent to the Wall Street Journal by the organization say the purpose of the group is to "raise issues that may influence voters in the 2008 presidential election."

The Journal says Jason Kinney, one of the founders of the group sponsoring the ads said last week it was "very careful to adhere to the laws and rules as we understand them."

The group is the American Leadership Project. It says,

We want to shine a light on issues that matter most to the nation's middle class _ health care, freezing foreclosures, those sorts of thing..."Obviously Senator Clinton is a recognized champion on these issues."

The group registered as a 527 on Feb. 15:

Under Internal Revenue Service and Federal Election Commission regulations, 527 organizations can raise unlimited amounts of money to advocate issues to voters. The name 527 refers to the section of the IRS code that authorizes their existence. The ads from such a group cannot specifically call for Clinton's election or Obama's defeat.

Here's the kicker:

A 527 group financed by Obama supporters spent more than $1 million assisting Obama going into Super Tuesday and a union-backed 527 ran ads on behalf of Edwards in Iowa.

< Obama "Defends" Liberalism | Tweety's Clinton Rules >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    You are on your own this time Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:39:27 PM EST


    Hmmm (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by tek on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:41:25 PM EST
    judging from the comments in The Swamp, this may backfire on Obama. (:-)

    Parent
    Obama looks more like Bush/Rove everyday. (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:27:45 PM EST
    He has turned me off completely.

    Parent
    Some speech (none / 0) (#77)
    by hvs on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:16:24 PM EST
    is freer than other $peech.

    Parent
    The real kicker is that Obama trashed Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by LatinoVoter on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:41:48 PM EST
    up and down in Iowa over the 527s that were running positive ads about him.

    the Obama campaign (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by OldCoastie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:42:37 PM EST
    wants, more than anything, for Clinton (and her surrogates) to SHUT UP!

    Last Tuesday, when he stepped on her speech, that seemed to be the message.

    No congratulation (none / 0) (#6)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:46:42 PM EST
    No air time.

    Parent
    No congratulations in NH or Nevada (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:51:20 PM EST
    and leaving the state to avoid it . . . and yet, he got air time.  He has been behaving badly for so long.  But it's the Obama Rules.

    Parent
    thank you (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:10:49 PM EST
    I thought no else remembered that.

    Parent
    This has nothing to do (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:16:02 AM EST
    with what I said about NH, Nevada, etc.

    Parent
    I didn't see her speech (none / 0) (#58)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:16:51 PM EST
    But I read that she called him to congratulate him. Does he need a public congratulations? How big is his ego?

    And even if what I read was incorrect and she didn't call him, it would be nice if he would stop being a big baby about it.

    Parent

    No matter who wins the primary (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:45:55 PM EST
    No matter who wins the primary, you're going to have to live with yourself afterwards.

    Living is sure better than the alternative (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:18:37 PM EST
    Oooooh. Whine, whine, whine... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:46:18 PM EST
    They just want some headlines and to underline their anti-Hillary theme:  Girls don't fight fair!

    When will they learn (none / 0) (#8)
    by mg7505 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:56:19 PM EST
    it's wrong to hit girls? This election has turned into the boys ganging up and pulling the smart girl's braids. When will they grow up?

    Parent
    never (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Turkana on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:04:47 PM EST
    they're winning.

    Parent
    For now.... (none / 0) (#82)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:26:19 PM EST
    but they have to sleep sometime.

    Oh....and, ummmm...don't eat the mushrooms.

    Parent

    They sure don't like to be criticized even (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:03:01 PM EST
    when there is no criticism. I wonder if McCain will play by these rules?

    We're about to see (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:06:03 PM EST
    an epic match between the McCain rules and the Obama  rules. If this weren't so serious, it would be fun.

    Parent
    absolutely (none / 0) (#30)
    by Nasarius on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:46:10 PM EST
    Though there's a third option, I'll call it the Jon Stewart Princple, that they'll both be gushed over as the sensible moderate and the nonpartisan uniter. Frankly, McCain's experience and war hero status will trump such a tie. I don't really see the media becoming overtly hostile to either candidate, unlike Gore or Kerry or both Clintons.

    Parent
    Hahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by blogtopus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:12:30 PM EST
    I'm going to watching the next couple weeks with glee as Obama Rules meet Reality.

    Has anyone postulated what would have happened to Obama under Clinton rules? HAHAHA How many minutes would have passed before he was caught beating a subordinate with a table leg in the middle of the street?

    I'm bitter, yes I am. Sour Grapes taste better when delivered with squeals of indignant "That's Not FAIR" filling the air.

    Gdolden Boy (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Sunshine on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:15:21 PM EST
    Obama has had special treatment from the press from the beginning and I think he now believes it's his birth right...  I don't think he deserves any votes until he has had the test that most politicians get...  I don't think he could stand up to the negative press that Hillary or even John McCain have been getting...  He has been treated like the golden boy and now he think he deserves special treatment..

    Here's the thing... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by AmyinSC on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:54:48 PM EST
    Obama is the recipient of a 527 - and has been for MUCH longer than Clinton has.  For anyone (his lawyer?) to suggest that they need to go after Clinton's 527, which JUST formed last week, is incredibly hypocritical.

    But it just goes along with his other dirty tricks, like the 2 mailers he has sent out in OH (and other states, I migt add), misrepresenting Clinton's positions on NAFTA and her universal health care plan, the latter of which is REMARKABLY similar to the one used by the insurance companies back in the '90's to discredit President Clinton's health care initiative.  He has been doing this ALL CAMPAIGN LONG, though the MSM sure isn't reporting it.  Can you IMAGINE the hew and cry if CLINTON was doing that?!?  Holy Toledo, people would be going NUTS!!!!!  But Obama smiles, gets all folksy, and everyone swoons.  Pathetic.

    Obama plays dirty - much dirtier than anyone seems to acknowledge, and attacks Clinton MUCH, MUCH more than she ever attacks him (in almost every speech for him - so much for being a UNITER).  His recent attack on her after the debate, for using a phrase he CLAIMED Edwards coined (because no one in the history of the world has EVER said, "Whatever happens, we'll be fine" before John Edwards), when there are videos of him on YouTube.com parroting Edwards AND Deval Patrick, is just more of the same.  He sat there, smiling at Clinton, and shaking her hand - by the next morning, he is stabbing her in the back.

    He is arrogant, condescending, patronizing, sexist, and MOST DEFINITELY a Washington insider.  Just like his self-proclaimed mentor, Joe Lieberman, he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.  IMHO, that is.

    The fact that the group was just formed last week (none / 0) (#47)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:06:29 PM EST
    actually supports the conclusion that they were formed specifically for the purpose of supporting her candidacy, and therefore are committees under FECA that are subject to contribution limitations.  This is just the type of conduct that got 527s big fines in the 2004 election

    http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20061213murs.html


    Parent

    Um, No... (none / 0) (#48)
    by AmyinSC on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:26:44 PM EST
    Those two don't follow.  It is perfectly LEGAL for a 527 to run an ad on behalf of a candidate, and spend as much money as they want, AS LONG AS the candidate is NOT Involved with it.  That is to say, as long as the organization conceives of, pays, for, and districutes the ad without coordination with the actual campaign.  AND, the ad cannot attack the opponent directly (it does actually help to read the whole article - just sayin').

    So, the fact that this organization was legally formed last week doesn't mean one thing or the other in terms of the charges by the Obama people - they are just putting up a smoke screen.  

    Parent

    No, that's a PAC. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:42:22 PM EST
    Different animal than a 527. PACs have to disclose funding.

    Parent
    If the committee was formed for the purpose (none / 0) (#56)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:10:46 PM EST
    of supporting Senator Clinton's campaign, it is subject to the $5000 contribution limit that the FEC enforced in 2004.

    The committee may be able to convince a court someday that the FEC cannot constitutionally enforce the rule, and maybe they can get the far right justices to save them.  But for now, the committee should expect to be hearing from the FEC.

    p.s.,  I dont need to read news articles, I am very familiar with election law

    Parent

    gotta prove the purpose of the committee (none / 0) (#57)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:12:54 PM EST
    if what i read is true and she isn't mentioned in their documents or fundraising info, good luck with that.


    Parent
    Again, given that the committee (none / 0) (#59)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:26:22 PM EST
    was formed just before two key primaries she needs to have any chance to win the nomination, and is limited to talking about the qualifications of Senator Clinton, it won't be that hard to say its purpose is to support her candidacy.  Go look at some of the FEC enforcement decisions from the 2004 election.

    And the committees supporting Obama may have the same problem

    Parent

    not limited to talking about the (none / 0) (#68)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:50:27 PM EST
    qualifications of Clinton.  supposedly, raising issues of interest to voters.  if these people are smart?

    in 3 or 4 years when the FEC gets around to ruling on it, i suspect we will no longer care.


    Parent

    The Clinton campaign seems (none / 0) (#87)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:59:01 AM EST
    to care that someone is calling them on it now

    Parent
    Here's a good discussion (none / 0) (#62)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:30:08 PM EST
    of the FECA and constitutional issues if you are interested

    http://electionlawblog.org/archives/010302.html


    Parent

    how come it is (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:24:26 PM EST
    when Obama supporters do something stupid, Mr Unity can't "control" them, but when anyone remotely connected with Clinton in any way does something stupid, it's all her fault--or part of her evil plan for world domination and cat murdering?

    I mean, come on!  The guy has used legal maneuverings to try to defeat his opponents from the get-go.  Ask Alice Palmer and all the other people Obama got kicked off the ballot so he could run for the IL senate unopposed.  This is just more of his "Chicago Style" crap.

    Anyone who knows what Obama's surrogate, JJ, Jr, has done to John Lewis should be absolutely disgusted.

    what has been done to Lewis is a (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by athyrio on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:38:28 PM EST
    total disgrace and I am shamed of the African
    Americans that forget that this man literally put his butt on the line many times for their civil rights and this is the thanks that they give him...a bunch of whiney babies all of them

    Lewis was nearly beaten to death (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:47:03 PM EST
    fighting for the right of all aa's to vote.  He stood on that bridge and would not back down, so they raised their fists, then used their boots, to beat him.

    And now, a new set of thugs are trying to drum Lewis out of office for not voting the way they tell him to.

    Parent

    John Lewis has always been a true hero (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:53:08 PM EST
    and what's been done to him should turn the stomachs of people of good will everywhere.  It's a horrible consequence the way Obama's campaign has been run.

    Parent
    my goodness! (1.00 / 0) (#65)
    by A DC Wonk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:42:28 PM EST
    Imagine that!  An elected representative is doing something that his constituents didn't like, and so one of his constituents is now running against him.

    Ummm, isn't that democracy?

    From a news report:

    Markel Hutchins, the 30 year old minister and social activist, says he will mount a challenge to the 5th District congressman.

    Hutchins, who is also a democrat, says he's been considering a run for weeks, but Lewis' "flip flopping" over whether to support Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama sealed his decision.

    Hutchins says Lewis's continued support of Clinton, despite overwhelming support for Obama in the district, was the deciding factor.

    So this makes Hutchins a "thug" ?  Or were you calling Omaba a thug?  It's hard to tell.

    Is Ned Lamont a "thug" too, because he didn't think Lieberman was liberal enough, so he mounted a campaign against him?

    Parent

    It is one thing... (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:16:51 PM EST
    ...when you intentionally do something your constituents don't like.  It's another thing when you're trying to do the job you're given as a Super Delegate when your constituents don't understand what your job as a SD is (or rather, that knowledge that your constituents have is MUDDIED by the rhetoric of a campaign bent on rewriting the rules in their favor).

    Parent
    Hutchins is not one of his constituents (none / 0) (#86)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:27:17 AM EST
    he is the type of lawyer that gives good lawyers bad names; an ambulance chaser and a race-baiter.  He makes Cynthia McKinney look like a rational human being.  

    I live in Atlanta--in Lewis's district, as a matter of fact--and I have seen Hutchins posturing on the news, seeking to destroy the reputation of one of the finest civil rights advocates Atlanta has given this nation (and we have given them quite a few).

    When Chelsea calls super delegates, she's being "pimped out."  When JJ, Jr handpicks a nutjob the threaten a member of the black caucus, that's politics as usual.

    I'm glad I understand where you're coming from now.

    Parent

    Can You Please... (none / 0) (#49)
    by AmyinSC on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:31:46 PM EST
    Fill in the gaps here?  Are you talking abt the Obama camp trying to get Lewis to switch from Clinton?  I think I missed something, and would really appreciate an update!

    Parent
    Because Lewise refused to switch his (none / 0) (#61)
    by athyrio on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:28:16 PM EST
    support from long time friend Hillary, they told him they would run a candidate against him in this years election and now they have and the other candidate has filed his intention to run against Rep. Lewis...A disgrace!!!

    Parent
    oh, please (none / 0) (#67)
    by A DC Wonk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:48:04 PM EST
    Obama did't get a guy to run against him.  The guy thought of it all on his own.  In case you missed it, Obama is also friends with Lewis.

    Parent
    I'm sorry, but did you miss (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:18:19 PM EST
    the direct threats from Jesse Jackson Jr. towards the Black Caucus members regarding their Super Delegate support?  It's a bit hard to miss when it's printed everywhere.

    Parent
    time for mass protest? (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:55:34 PM EST
    I read in a previous thread here (yesterday?) so many angry and frustrated voices and it made me think about something. I am wondering about the possibility of someone organizing a mass response to the DNC from those of us who feel so disenfranchised and angry at the supposed `progressive' party who engaged in so much race-baiting and sexism in their zeal to annoint one candidate at the expense of destroying another.

    What if a million or so of us could be convinced to quit the Democratic Party all at once in mass protest via a petition or announcement or something? Is this just a crazy idea?

    Just among my own friends and colleagues, I know at least 20-30 people who plan to resign as democrats this year so it made think about the potential statement of doing so en masse.

    if I hadn't already left the party (none / 0) (#54)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:09:40 PM EST
    I would sure be for it.  It's the only way to get attention unfortunately.

    I'd also sign any petition or announcement as a former democrat.


    Parent

    Ways to fight back (none / 0) (#69)
    by sumac on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:54:01 PM EST
    Million woman march? I like it.

    I don't know if I will do anything with them yet...but I purchased writeinhillary.com, .org and .info today (hillarywritin.com was already taken).

    Hopefully, I will be able to let the domains expire...should Hillary win on March 4.

    I was merely thinking of supporting a write in campaign for the GE when all those Dems for a Day will have to really make a choice...

    Parent

    Hope you enjoy (none / 0) (#70)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:58:43 PM EST
    the next 20 years of the Scalia Majority

    Parent
    Great, then Hillary can be the new Nader (none / 0) (#73)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:03:00 PM EST
    The Clinton "attacks" have been mild, (4.00 / 0) (#42)
    by kenosharick on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:48:44 PM EST
    incredibly mild compared to what is on the way from the 527's.  If Obama is already whining, get prepared for a lot more- any criticism against him sends the obamamaniacs into fits. It brings to mind the wacked out reaction of many Muslims when Mohammed gets any criticism they do not like.

    For folks on this thread (none / 0) (#46)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:03:08 PM EST
    to take someone to task for whining is, at a minimum, amusing

    Parent
    1.7 million democrats (4.00 / 0) (#76)
    by glennmcgahee on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:14:41 PM EST
    in the State of Florida are absolutely thinking about sitting out this election as democratic voters if our voices continue to be ignored.
    We went to the polls, only democrats participated unlike other states that allow republicans to somehow caucus or vote in their primaries/caucus. We are truly representative of "the Democratic will" than a hell of a lot of other states. We will not accept the DNC's stupid decision when other states also moved their primary dates but went "unpunished". And if they care about rules so much, then why the upset about the purpose of Superdelegates. They are there for a reason. To bring a rational view to the process.

    I was reading about that, actually... (4.00 / 0) (#81)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:24:13 PM EST
    earlier when I was trying to find out more about the process that got FL and MI to where they are right now.  Some guy on my blog is spilling the same old tired line about how "Democrats did this to themselves" in Florida and that "Obama isn't trying to disenfranchise them".

    What I read was that New Hampshire also moved up their primary but didn't get penalized.  Is that true?  Anyone?

    Parent

    It's my understanding (none / 0) (#83)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:52:58 PM EST
    that Iowa and New Hampshire were approved by the party to keep moving their dates up to stay "First in the Nation" by tradition when other states moved theirs up...or threatened to.  Nevada and South Carolina were sanctioned to move theirs up....but no one else.  When Fla and Michigan did, they were penalized.

    Do I have this right?

    Anyone?

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#15)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:20:33 PM EST
    Ever since the Torricelli-supported 527 that attacked my man Dean in 2003, I don't like them. They're gaming the system, IMO, with less accountability than a campaign. And let's not forget the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They were (are?) a 527, I believe.

    It seems to me that many voters think that political advertising is like product advertising in that no one would be allowed to air an ad that simply wasn't true. The mud sticks. I think we should be careful about allowing it to be flung.

     

    I agree with what you say but Jeralyn is (none / 0) (#16)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:25:06 PM EST
    pointing out Obama's inconsistency. That's the problem.

    Parent
    What inconsistency? (none / 0) (#18)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:26:49 PM EST
    3 Obama supporters are filing a complaint.  What exactly is the inconsistency?  Did Obama argue that people shouldn't complain to the FEC?

    Parent
    Do you people not pay attention to (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by LatinoVoter on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:31:03 PM EST
    what your candidate does?

    "Obama lawyer warns of 'reckoning' for Clinton 527 donors and staff"

    So it is a coincidence that three supporters filed a complaint after the "warning" by Obama supporters?

    Please.

    Parent

    Read the last paragraph. That is not (none / 0) (#19)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:30:14 PM EST
    consistent.

    Parent
    I read... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:36:52 PM EST
    ... the last paragraph.

    Unfortunately the last paragraph leaves something important out.  The fact that Obama renounced the work of the 527 tied to him.

    Parent

    I don't see any evidence (none / 0) (#23)
    by A DC Wonk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:32:13 PM EST
    that Obama himself had anything to do with either.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by cal1942 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:34:48 PM EST
    I assume then that your candidate has a halo.

    So an Obama lawyer issues a warning and then, by an incredible coincidence, three "supporters" lodge a complaint.

    Parent

    We've been over this (none / 0) (#24)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:34:13 PM EST
    I don't know what the 527 is that they are referring to but Obama has repeatedly said he opposes them.

    He has no way to stop them.  

    But this diary is about 3 guys protesting a Hillary 527.  It has nothing to do with Obama, as much as Jeralyn wishes to make it.

    Parent

    Though like you say, I don't know Obama's (none / 0) (#21)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:31:02 PM EST
    position on what his supporters are doing.

    Parent
    x (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:41:13 PM EST
    Well, it's getting into late innings now and the pitchers are beginning to throw hard.

    Post #22 downthread points out something much more disturbing than what Jeralyn posted.

    Parent

    Too (none / 0) (#28)
    by tek on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:43:44 PM EST
    bad Obama used them first.  And Howard Dean shouldn't have given in so easily. But then, considering how he is behaving now that he has a little power, it's probably a good thing he wasn't elected president.

    Parent
    x (none / 0) (#31)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:48:17 PM EST
    I really don't want to test the capacity of a single blog to withstand the energy blast of the 2003/4 battles combined with 2007/8. So out of concern for Talk Left, this is the only response I shall give to your post.

    Parent
    That would be... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Shawn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:02:07 PM EST
    the one that Obama's man Robert Gibbs was involved in?

    Parent
    x (none / 0) (#39)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:30:03 PM EST
    Oh my goodness! THANK YOU for pointing that out.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#17)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:25:53 PM EST
    So 3 Obama supporters are causing a ruckus and that warrants another Obama bashing thread?

    I'm pretty sure Obama is not responsible for the 10 million people that voted for him.

    Yes, I noticed that (none / 0) (#20)
    by A DC Wonk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:30:32 PM EST
    The article said "Three Obama supporters", but on this blog it was introduced with "I guess Obama supporters...." as if the actions of three can be extrapolated to the entire group.

    Not exactly fair, imho

    Parent

    Anyone can file a complaint (none / 0) (#33)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:59:49 PM EST
    I tried to in 1996 against Chris Matthews.  I wrote to every commissioner and I received several replies on how to do it and about my plight. lol

    One thing someone stated was the number of emails the show received that would validate my claim of indecency. I also needed specific dates and a video or audio would be helpful, so they said.

    I know indecency was a little strong but I was frustrated.

    I did not complete the complaint as it was very time consuming and I couldn't give it the time.

    But, I found out that I could file a complaint.

    Wrong agency (none / 0) (#35)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:05:00 PM EST
    I was filing a complaint with the FCC not the FEC.

    Sorry.  

    Parent

    It Seems... (none / 0) (#36)
    by AmyinSC on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:05:21 PM EST
    The point is pretty much what you said - ANYONE can file a complaint, and in this case, they are doing it to bring bad press to Clinton, evidence of which is that they cited no one infraction.

    I can't help but wonder just how much brighter our world could have been had you pursued the complaint against Matthews!!  :-)

    Parent

    are you sure (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by myed2x on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:09:58 PM EST
    they're really Obama supporters? Could equally be a Clinton black-op, seems suspicious.

    Parent
    Excuse me? (none / 0) (#43)
    by chemoelectric on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:51:17 PM EST
    I guess Obama supporters don't support the right of other groups to get a message out to voters.

    Excuse me?

    Hasty generalization, Straw Man, innuendo, poisoning the well, and need I go on listing the types of fallacies that may apply to this? Even changing the statement to "some Obama supporters" won't fix it, but would make it a lot better.

    Heaven forbid anyone should ever have to defend himself in court against a prosecution that uses such statements.

    It is interesting, because here we have the supporter of Barack Obama taking a very critical look at his own candidate. Would that whoever supports Hillary Clinton would do the same.

    I'm not certain that Hillary Clinton would really welcome that, given the way she blew her top when Obama pointed out that it doesn't matter what your healthcare plan is if you can't get it passed, and then pointed out that Hillary Clinton's experience was of spectacularly not getting a healthcare plan passed. What is there to blow your top over in that? It is simply the truth. She can argue she learned from the mistake, certainly, but she should have been able to take the criticism with a controlled affect; and the blow-up implies she hasn't fully learned from her mistake, so I think it reasonable to suppose she would fail again.

    Obama is so much better at seeing whole pictures than I am used to encountering; even Paul Krugman hasn't been able to think that fully, and has largely wasted his time examining plans instead of examining how to get them passed, which is Obama's focus.

    I didn't like either of these candidates for a long while, but I am coming to like Obama as a politician--not merely to prefer him, but to like him.

    Obama didn't point out a problem in (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:56:06 PM EST
    getting it passes.  He basically lied and said his plan did the same, or better, than hers without a mandate.  That's a bald faced lie.

    If you like that in your politicians, it seems you've found your man.

    Parent

    Strawman (none / 0) (#52)
    by cal1942 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:50:19 PM EST
    "It is interesting, because here we have the supporter of Barack Obama taking a very critical look at his own candidate. Would that whoever supports Hillary Clinton would do the same."

    What was that about strawman again?

    Parent

    Yes, it is Limbaugh, Hannity, Scalia (none / 0) (#63)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:35:50 PM EST
    approach to campaign finance regulation:  any regulation violates the ability of groups (and in particular groups that can raise massive amounts of money) to communicate freely.  Absent a Dem winning this election, it will become the prevailing rule

    Parent
    The Whole Picture (none / 0) (#66)
    by cal1942 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:42:32 PM EST
    "Paul Krugman hasn't been able to think that fully, and has largely wasted his time examining plans instead of examining how to get them passed, which is Obama's focus."

    I've yet to hear an Obamna supporter explain exactly how they believe that Obama will be able to get legislation passed. And don't hand me terms like 'reconciliation,' 'reach across the aisle,' 'change theory' or any other empty word or phrase.

    Examining plans is important to understand how the candidate thinks.  The policy people he's hired are a major clue to the direction his administration would take.  

    So how's this for a little exercise in "to think that fully"

    The way Obama would get bills passed is to trade in and/or bend legislation to suit Republicans.

    This is clear from the make-up of his team of right-of-center economic advisors:

    David Cutler: Wants to keep the profits of the health care industry at a very high level (A major GOP goal)

    Austen Goolsbee: Wants to resist any new regulation of the finance industry, was the author of Obama's anemic $500 tax credit as a "solution" to the nation's mortgage/housing crisis (another major GOP goal)

    Jeffrey Liebman: Favors privatization of Social Security (a long standing right-wing GOP wet dream)

    Obama's health care plan does not contain a government provided insurance plan to compete with private plans. (another prize for the GOP)

    Obama's plan unlike Clinton's (and Edwards)offers no possible path to single payer.

    Obama's first proposal to counter a possible serious recession was at first only a middle class tax cut (sound familiar?). Clinton produced a very comprehensive big time plan to counter a serious recession.

    Briefly that's the plan.  Simply offer very watered down, ineffective legislation and place legacy progressive programs at risk.

    Bet also that an Obama administration would do nothing to get rid of contractors and nothing to correct the undermining of civil service in the Justice Dept. and DHS. Clinton has zeroed in on this very important if not very sexy isssue.  Obama's been silent. His seeming reluctance to move in this extremely important area is a major aid to the GOP.

    Karl Rove wanted to take us back to the time of William McKinley.  It appears that Obama may want to take us back to the time of Grover Cleveland.

    Parent

    I've yet to hear ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by tree on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:24:07 AM EST
    "I've yet to hear an Obama supporter explain exactly how they believe that Obama will be able to get legislation passed."

     I believe it involves ponies.

    Parent

    How do you know that Obama (none / 0) (#80)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:23:59 PM EST
     instead of examining how to get them passed, which is Obama's focus.

    How do you know that Obama is focusing on getting them passed? Is he sharing that thought with you?

    I haven't heard him say that he does not want to talk about it much because he wants to focus on getting them passed.

    Parent

    This site no longer seems reasonable to me... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Siguy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:59:52 PM EST
    I understand the sites members and writers prefer Hillary. That's fine. I totally get it.

    But this drumbeat against Obama is getting ridiculous. I get it. You don't like him. You think he gets special treatment. Every post the last week has been basically "Hillary says this, which is absolutely right; Obama says that, which is absolute bullswat and racist and misogynist and he's destroying the party."

    The Obama mailers are the same as the Hillary mailers. This 527 is clearly, obviously started by Hillary supporters for the express purpose of helping Hillary. Now that may be legal for a variety of reasons, but it's clearly against the spirit of the law. Now you can keep saying Obama did this too, but you have to actually make an argument and demonstrate that. Show me some facts or some details that what happened earlier wasn't some Union just supporting the candidate they liked instead of this, which is clearly a group started specifically to help Hillary.

    It's getting out of hand around here. I think you guys could seriously use some more writers to balance things out.

    I agree totally (none / 0) (#75)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:05:13 PM EST
    Plus, when Hillary tries to get the MI and Fl delegates seated its all good tough politics.  But when Obama supporters, not even Obama himself, does some perfectly legitimate good tough politics its all so unfair.  

    Parent