Obama Files FEC Complaint Over 527 Group's Hillary Ad

Barack Obama's campaign filed a complaint with the FEC today over a 527 group's ad attacking Obama's economic plan for having no specifics.

He didn't always feel that way about 527 ads. When a group supporting John Edwards aired one in Iowa he was critical, saying:

You can't just talk the talk. The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during election time."

But when a 527 group aired a shameful ad on Spanish radio stations in Nevada that re-injected ethnicity into the campaign, an ad that supported him and attacked Hillary in Nevada,

A spokesman for Obama, Bill Burton, did not condemn the ad or the independent spending specifically, but instead attacked Clinton.


On a related note, Move-On tomorrow will launch an ad against McCain.

The 30-second ad, funded by the group’s donors and its political action committee, marks the start of the liberal advocacy group’s million dollar, month-long ad campaign aimed at the Arizona senator.

MoveOn will spend $160,000 to air the new ad — titled “Candles” — on cable as well as on broadcast networks in Iowa and New Mexico, where the McCain campaign is currently on the air without competition from either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

The RNC calls the Move-On ad a smear campaign:

“At nearly every event, Obama bemoans the ‘negative tone’ of politics, even while groups that support him are now running negative ads. Now, Obama should prove his rhetoric is more than ‘just words’ and stand up to MoveOn.org.”

< Will CAP's John Podesta Be Attacked Too? | How Dare You Register Women To Vote? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    They're calling them (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:24:50 PM EST
    Swift Boaters...LOL!!

    What does this ad say? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:16:56 PM EST
    Besides suggesting that Hillary Clinton would make a better president, that is....

    Check it out - Militarytracy posted it. (none / 0) (#28)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:20:28 PM EST
    What's the 527 supposed to do? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:24:27 PM EST
    Gather any newspaper articles that say that Obama's plan is chock full of details -- assuming there are any -- and include them in the ad?

    Good ad. (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:49:32 PM EST
    I can see why Obama is complaining about it.  :)

    Shorter Obama: (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:26:23 PM EST

    A little consistency on this issue would have given him more credibility. :-p

    Seriously! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MMW on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:48:41 PM EST
    Is he consistent on ANYTHING? And I'm not talking about his "Vote for me" Schtick.

    He's consistently (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:56:24 PM EST

    He consistently raises more money than HRC.

    He consistently takes his supporters for granted and, when politically expedient, throws them under the bus.

    He consistently refuses to make the campaign about issues, not bumper sticker slogans.

    Other than that, I'm not seeing much consistency from Senator Obama.


    So he is consistently for himself. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MMW on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:46:17 PM EST
    obama Consistently Says Me Too! He Has (none / 0) (#115)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:34:54 PM EST
    consistently stolen Sen. Clinton's ideas and never appears to have an original thought.  I have said from the get-go that this guy has no substance and he is now doing all he can to prove me right!

    Trying to shift the focus from Wright to (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:28:24 PM EST
    Clinton. "Hey everyone look over there!"

    A welcome change (none / 0) (#36)
    by manys on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:27:08 PM EST
    Since the Wright story is completely stupid while it ignores race in favor of personalities, Obama's focussing on HRC is a step in the right direction toward addressing the issues that the country and its citizens face.

    527's that support Clinton are a major issue? (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:38:59 PM EST
    I'm not sure that Obama's focus is very good if he thinks that 527's are more important than a very bloody month in Iraq, skyrocketing foreclosures and fuel prices and anemic national growth. If Obama wants to win this election, perhaps he should stop attacking Clinton and start showing people that he actually cares about the real issues facing this nation.

    Sure. (none / 0) (#53)
    by manys on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:42:43 PM EST
    ...and my point is that going after 527's or Clinton is closer to the real issues than Wright's personality.

    And I think it is all the same. (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by alexei on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:51:01 PM EST
    It shows a serious lack of judgment on the part of Obama and his campaign.  Do another debate and take Clinton's offer without a moderator ala Lincoln-Douglass (he is from the land of Lincoln) from the back of a flat bed truck.  Will reach real voters and talk about real issues.  Instead, Obama is going in the studio (that was one of his complaints about debates; they are in a studio and not out on the trail) for a full hour on MTP.  Obama, thy name is the Artless Dodger.

    I'd rather he talk about his actual (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:54:47 PM EST
    plans and the substance of said plans rather than have him going after the 527 running an ad asserting that his plans have no substance.

    As it stands, the complaint seems to be that the ad is attacking him. To that end, the "personalities" factor is still in play (e.g. "They're picking on me.").

    You can be critical of a person's plan without "picking on" the person.


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by miriam on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:55:29 PM EST
    Personal character is a prime issue when voters chose a leader. So you are saying the twenty-year-long lack of judgment exhibited by Barack Obama in his choice of pastor and church should not be considered?  Sorry, but you are simply less discerning than many of us.  

    Not so sure (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:50:43 PM EST
    you're corrent on the Wright story being completely stupid. It allows us to get a peek into who Obama is as a man, and how he relates to all the people in this country.

    Obama wouldn't listen or respond to the levels of concern his relationship with Wright raised with the people. He played his hand by throwing out that giant race card in his speech about why we were wrong, and he wasn't.  But, the problem with Wright isn't a race issue.

    Obama continued to ignore the problems with Wright until it became a detriment to his campaign that he couldn't make disappear with a follow-up speech on race.

    Why wasn't Michelle on stage with Obama for his scolding of Wright yesterday? They made the decision to "distance" themselves further from him, but still they are NOT "detaching". Obama refused to listen to what the public wanted to know about his relationship with Wright.

    I saw several occasions where Rev Wright's "signature" showed up in Obama's choices, and Michelle's. I don't want Wright to disappear until I get those questions I have answered.


    Obviously.. (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by JustJennifer on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:30:09 PM EST
    they are very desperate to divert attention away from the Rev. Wright situation.  

    MoveOn (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:33:01 PM EST
    Does that count like a 527 that has given him all that support on the Web, users etc?   How does that get looked upon?  Not to mention DKOs etc, the free 527s.  

    Used the link (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:33:14 PM EST
    to the CNN site.  That was painful.  The commentors over there are a little whigged out.

    I really disliked the NV ad.

    The NV ad that called Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:56:12 PM EST
    a f**king wh*re in the Spanish colloquialism, that one?

    Shameful (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:21:27 PM EST
    Many Latinos (such as myself) were simply aghast by it.  Those words are especially foul for women.  And then there's the whole "Clinton doesn't respect Latinos" smear.

    Edwards, thank God, provided a shining moment of integrity when he attacked the ad and called Obama out for his stunning hypocrisy.  All Obama had to do was condemn it (since it's illegal for campaigns to coordinate with 527s in any way), but instead his staff applauded it repeating the smear about "disrespect."


    Edwards is the highlight of the primary. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:45:57 PM EST
    in retrospect his integrity shines.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#26)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:17:44 PM EST
    What did the add say? Where is it found?  

    Shameless (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:26:44 PM EST
    To call a woman shameless in Spanish ("ella no tiene verguenza" or "es una sinverguenza") is on par with the slurs Cream cited.  Even young, American-raised Latinos know that it's foul, especially against women, an elder, and the wife of the former president of the US.

    I worry about the GOP citing that ad and his campaign's support of its use to paint Obama as someone who doesn't respect Latino culture, values.


    Used the comments search (none / 0) (#34)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:24:29 PM EST
    and found this by....

    Cream City


    Hmmmph (none / 0) (#37)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:27:09 PM EST
    "No tiene verguenza" does mean a little bit more than shameless.  I'm not sure it quite means "effing w**" but it certainly implies, especially with respect to a woman, a person of extremely low, ahem, morals.

    I'm going with what Latinos/as tell me (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:34:48 PM EST
    it means colloquially, as I noted.  (My years of Spanish classes give me some fluency -- but also gave me few insights into colloquialisms, avoided by my teachers, plus one taught Castilian Spanish.:-)

    Mi abuela used to use (none / 0) (#124)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:59:11 PM EST
    "sin verguenza" all the time!  I thought she was calling them sleazy. I always knew it was worse to call a woman that. But I didn't know that my sweet, rosary-carrying abuelita was calling all those women wh*res!

    I've gotta call my mother.


    obama "the do as I say, not as I do candidate (none / 0) (#118)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:47:30 PM EST
    His hypocrisy is frightening, his whining disgusting and his standing as a compassionate human being doesn't even register.

    Obama will get taken apart (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:41:59 PM EST
    On an issue like this in the General Election.

    I mean.  The RNC has a point.  You can't claim to be a "new and improved" politician and refuse to comment on the tactics used by MoveOn.org.

    Yes. (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:45:42 PM EST
    Do you think he's finally learning the difference between HRC's gentle slaps and the RNC's howitzers?

    Not yet... (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Leisa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:50:01 PM EST
    he has yet to feel the earth move...  He is not in complete hiding yet.  His bunker is just getting strapped together.

    The GOP have about 8 (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:13:27 PM EST
    Thermobarric bombs aimed at him. And Obama's Concrete tunneling has not set--It's still wet.

    Hasn't McCain already (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:50:39 PM EST
    Been able to get one of their 527s to take ads off the air?

    They will point that out.  McCain condemns and even gets them to pull ads.  Obama avoids the issue.

    Hey.  Even if I didn't agree because Republican ads are clearly race baiting and Moveon ads are based on real issues, the argument will still be very powerful for them.


    Especially since (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:54:02 PM EST
    they allow McCain to get away with the "I am so shocked by this ad that I want it repealed! Let me repeat it 3000 times on CNN!" tactic.

    The true media darling beats out the fake one every time.


    I thought he was just TRYING (none / 0) (#27)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:20:22 PM EST
    to get the DNC ad off the air -- the one that "unfairly" uses video of him saying that he is willing to keep US troops in Iraq for a hundred years.  Because, you know, the truth hurts.

    Which ad did he actually succeed taking down?


    I think there was one (none / 0) (#30)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:21:41 PM EST
    much earlier in the campaign that he got the RNC to retract.

    Will go check The Google.


    Hmmm...gotta get back to work... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:28:48 PM EST
    but here's a good article about this type of tactic and Obama's hypocrisy regarding 527's and proxies in general.

    One can hope... (none / 0) (#89)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    then, maybe he'll make the decision to withdraw from the campaign.

    The Sooner obama Leaves The Race, (none / 0) (#120)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:50:37 PM EST
    the better.  I don't want to lose the WH because voters learned too late it wasn't a good idea to make obama the nominee.

    Ok, I just have one question... (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:43:44 PM EST
    How can he complain about an ad..
    Barack Obama's campaign filed a complaint with the FEC today over a 527 group's ad attacking Obama's economic plan for having no specifics.
    that tells the truth?? His plan doesn't have any specifics. He can't come up with any. Since when can you sue someone for telling the truth???

    Meant file complaint about truth, not sue..nt. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:44:28 PM EST
    By using the reverse logic (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:27:26 PM EST
    in play when he stood on stage with McPeak and allowed him to compare Bill Clinton to McCarthy just because President Clinton created an image that had Hillary vs. McCain in the GE.

    I keep a list of these things in case I find myself faultering in my assessment of Obama's judgment.


    Rove and Roland Martin...the 'helpful' advice tour (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Cate on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:01:13 PM EST
    Forgive this slightly 'off-topic' post: I just read Roland Martin's article over at CNN.com on what Obama needs to do to get his campaign back on track. In response, a commenter, "Joey" made an interesting observation: "...I dont know why people have to constantly write letters telling him what he should and should not do to win the nomination. Don't you think he should know all of this? Its amazing that someone who is running for a Presidential nomination has to have his peers and constituents tell him how he is going to do better. If you think about it, when Obama comes up with his speeches, I wonder who is really telling him what to say?"

    So we're (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:01:52 PM EST
    going to get more whining from Obama? What else is new? And filing a complaint with the FEC just looks legalistic and wimpy. Where's the respons to this ad? Crickets chirping I guess just like the response to the Wright ads.

    Aaaaawe. Poor baby. The big bad (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:02:16 PM EST
    527 is picking on him! I'm sorry, but Barack isn't ready for Prime Time politics. This stuff is nothing when compared to what the republicans are going to throw at him during the GE...should he be the nominee.

    Pointing out the flaws in his plans is not an attack ad. Sheesh. Just wait and see what's in store by the republicans.

    Reminds me of Liar Liar (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Chisoxy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:10:06 PM EST
    When Jim Carrey objects on the grounds that "its incredibly damaging to my case!"

    Love it!! (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:29:11 PM EST
    Would it be "negative" if someone threw a clip of that line into an ad?

    Will this backfire? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:29:14 PM EST
    I wonder if the TV news (local, national) will then start replaying the ad (think: the 3 AM ad "controversy") and then ask those newspapers cited for their response, which I doubt will be beneficial to Obama.

    From what I wiki'd on the American (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:30:05 PM EST
    Leadership Project, the bulk of the money comes from the AFSCME and not Clinton donors so Ploufe is just spinning. What is the basis of O's complaint?

    It Didn't Say That Obama That (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:39:45 PM EST
    "No One Has Done More For The Economy Than Obama."

    2 for 1 day (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by smott on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:33:43 PM EST
    at hillaryclinton.com  FYI everybody....

    Contributions double before midnight, you can turn 50 bucks into 100.

    Awesome, (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:40:03 PM EST
    I was hoping to wait on donating more until the first, but that's too good to pass up. TY :)

    Can a Canadian citizen donate to a primary (none / 0) (#56)
    by feet on earth on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:46:35 PM EST
    campaign in the USA?
    After all, isn't the USA President called "the leader of the free world? (mostly by US citizens, not by us citizen of the free world - most times I cringe at that)

    Anyway, seriously, can I?


    No. (none / 0) (#57)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:47:02 PM EST
    Not monetarily. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Radix on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:37:36 PM EST
    But you may speak harshly about their opponents.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    not unless you are (none / 0) (#102)
    by angie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:43:51 PM EST
    a legal resident of the US.  If you are not, then you can't donate.

    Emily's List (none / 0) (#114)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:58:35 PM EST
    is a really good organization that supports women candidates all over the US. They helped out Senator Clinton in PA and would be an awesome donation if you'd like.  :)

    Done. Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by feet on earth on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:11:53 PM EST
    Who's putting in the match? (none / 0) (#92)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:31:26 PM EST
    I have that email from Clinton, but can't figure out who's contributing the matching donation.

    I got an email asking me to (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by katiebird on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:55:13 PM EST
    Match a 1st timer's donation.  And to write a short message if I wanted.

    So, the idea seems to be to ask current contributors to match new donations....


    That ad in Nevada (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:36:12 PM EST
    which I heard when I was there working for Edwards marks the moment I broke with Obama and why I will never vote for Obama. In Spanish, he used a sexual slur to describe Clinton and when he was told of the Hispanic cultural context, the Obama campaign laughed it off. To get me on the warpath, all you have to do is remind me of that episode. So I guess today I am on the warpath. Time to make a donation to Clinton.

    I don't think Obama "bemoans," (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:41:02 PM EST
    I think he "bewhines"  - and does it a little too frequently for someone who thinks he wants a job where pretty much all people do from the moment you're elected is say negative things about you and everything in your orbit.

    For a guy who purports to be a different kind of candidate, who wants to change the tone and get beyond partisanship, he seems to have more positions on an issue than he has fingers and toes, for crying out loud.

    Obama may only be able to bowl a 37, but he can bamboozle like nobody else; pretty sure that's something I don't want in a president.

    He certainly bemuses me (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:36:36 PM EST
    He Just Makes Me Want To Throw Up! (none / 0) (#121)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:54:23 PM EST
    Flip Flopper of the Year 2008!! (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:42:00 PM EST
    That's what I have come to know about Obama in the past few months during his campaign.

    Flip flops on 527's when it favored him.. favored him NOT.. favored him.. and now again favored him NOT..

    Flip Flops on Rev Wright.. NOT denounce and NOT reject.. denounce and NOT reject.. denounce and reject.

    Flip Flops on Will meet dictators without pre-conditions.. meet with conditions.. meet with pre-preparations.. meet with and without conditions.. will meet .. will NOT meet.

    Flip Flop's on troops pull out.. will pull out.. will NOT pullout.. depends on ground situation.. does NOT depend on ground situation.

    Flip flops on mortgage interest concessions.. no concessions .. More concessions

    Flip Flops on Hillary used Race card.. did NOT use race card.. did use race card.. did not use race card.

    Flip Flops on would have voted against Iraq war resolution if were to vote.. don't know how would have voted.. would have voted against it..

    Flip flops on 1990's .. economy was bad policies were bad, economy was good policies were bad, was good for people, was bad for democrats, ...


    HUGE Issue for me, I take it personally (none / 0) (#80)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:03:03 PM EST
    Now if all of what you just said was just navigating difficult issues, I'd be OK with this, but Campaign Obama was dead in the water without tearing Clinton down as a double-talking flip flopper.  They were done.  Even Kos pronounced his campaign DOA.  Then Clinton said some things that could be twisted into some form of self-contradiction.

    The crux of the matter is this, and this is a HUGE issue for me.  HUGE.  

    Pretend you and I are both sitting in a diner and I said "I like ketchup on my french fies," and then a moment later I said "I don't like ketchup on my hamburger," then someone somewhere with an axe to grind spliced those statements together with some omninous music.

    Narrator:  "Edgar says he likes ketchup."

    Image of me saying "I like ketchup."

    And then, narrator again, "but is Edgar telling the truth?"

    Image of me saying "I don't like ketchup."


    This issue transcends my loyalty to the Clintons.  Totally.  Obama says we can never solve our problems with partisanship.  Fine.  That's his case.

    My point is this, as long as what I'm describing here is accepted as legitimate political discourse we will never solve our problems.

    And we know for a fact that Obama embraced what I'm describing here as legitimate political discourse because we all know that without doing so he never would have had a chance.

    I'm not saying any Clinton folks never made the same sort of attack on Obama.  No one's pure.

    But it doesn't bug me that pre-conditions might be more advantageous in some situations than in others.  And if Obama can articulate a situation in which pre-conditions are not required, that's AWESOME!!!

    What bugged me is that Obama said JFK's and Reagan's policy was that it was a good idea to meet with other leaders without preconditions.  

    And that's not flip flopping or double talk.

    That's just WRONG!


    now you know why (none / 0) (#110)
    by janarchy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:46:32 PM EST
    he loves him some waffles. He's the ultimate waffler (it reminds me of Gary Trudeau's depiction of Clinton in Doonesbury only bigger and more syrupy...).

    Obama Could Fight the Ad (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:50:26 PM EST
    and its claims that he lacks specifics by, you know, agreeing to debate Hillary and explaining his specifics.

    Instead, he chooses to whine.  Does he think McCain is right to challenge the DNC ad against him (that ad is a lot harder hitting than this one)?

    Heh (none / 0) (#100)
    by chrisvee on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:39:38 PM EST
    That's his reasonable remedy -- debate and provide some specifics. :-)

    Annoying (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by nell on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:52:41 PM EST
    Honestly, instead of complaining about 527 advertisements and trying to paint them as swiftboaters, why doesn't he just prove the ad wrong and actually talk specifics about the economy?

    It's this kind of stupid ploy on the part of his campaign that makes him like immature and not ready for primetime. He has no right to complain about outside spending, didn't SEIU spend nearly 1 million in PA on television ads on his behalf?

    It takes more than that (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:38:25 PM EST
    for Obama. First he has to find out exactly what Hillary would say on the subject, then he has to allow enough time to pass so he can present it as though it was HIS plan all along.  The day of "what Hillary said" debates are over.

    Worked great for Kerry in 2004 n/t (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by angie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:54:51 PM EST

    it's how dems lose. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    If someone had challenged Kerry on his split 60s political-personality as a decorated warrior/peace protester we may have prepped him for the swiftboating and we may have found a better candidate instead.

    At root, Kerry lost 3% because he was on both sides of the Vietnam war. His direct crew loved him but other politically conservative elements in the Navy decided that he was apostate and that fueled the fury of the SBVFT.

    No one in the primary had the guts to air the issue.


    Judgment, Judgment and judgment. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by alexei on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:02:11 PM EST
    Campaign slogan, right on Day 1 because I have the better judgment ring a bell?  He has nothing else to offer and now we know he certainly does not have this, good judgment.

    And to think some of you felt sorry for BHO (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:31:53 PM EST
    Yeah, he might have looked sad and in pain, but ht was getting ready to go for the jugular. This guy is not ready for the big show.

    I got over it! (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    I've been feeling sorry for him (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:44:53 PM EST
    and still kind of feel sorry for him. But this BS about the voter suppression today is really wearing thin.

    Over at HuffPo (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by ChrisO on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:02:15 PM EST
    they are going predictably crazy over this 527 ad. Apparently, the most scurrilous thing you can say about a candidate in this election is that his economic policy has no substance. I don't know when I've heard anything so underhanded and disgusting. How can Hillary stoop so low?

    Sure, the Republicans will come after him with more Muslim smears and 24 hours a day of Rev. Wright, but apparently criticism of his economic plan is going over the line. I swear, Obama supporters are a bunch of softies. Except, of course, for the people in his campaign who know exactly what they're doing, and know they can trigger an avalnche of blog outrage simply by complaining about something.

    Really, I think what it comes down to is that a lot of Obama supporters really think that anyone who runs against Obama is doing a disservice to the nation. Hillarey must be only in it for herself, otherwise she would recognize Obama 's natural superiority and drop out. I'm telling you, if Obama doesn't get the nomination, the crash landing is going to be pretty traumatic for a lot of those people.

    I Guess Obama Claiming That Bill Clinton's Economy (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:51:06 PM EST
    was exactly like that of BushII (i.e. had no substance) could also be described as the most scurrilous thing imaginable.

    You got it (none / 0) (#111)
    by janarchy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:52:27 PM EST
    Really, I think what it comes down to is that a lot of Obama supporters really think that anyone who runs against Obama is doing a disservice to the nation. Hillarey must be only in it for herself, otherwise she would recognize Obama 's natural superiority and drop out. I'm telling you, if Obama doesn't get the nomination, the crash landing is going to be pretty traumatic for a lot of those people.

    I'm wondering if we should start setting up support hotlines and crisis centers to help them through the trauma. /snark

    In all seriousness, I don't know how these people are going to cope if he doesn't win. Currently, it seems to me that either a) he will going to lose the nom to HRC in spite of everything or b) he will lose to McCain in the GE or c) he will win and then show his true colours as an empty suit with a lot of rhetoric and no actual ideas. In every case, the Obama supporters are in for a rude awakening. Reality and their world view don't seem to intersect anywhere.


    Balance? (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:49:10 PM EST
    Balance between what?  The ardent Hillary supporters and the rabid Hillary supporters?

    I thinks you have this site confused with another. (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by alexei on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    BTD is for Obama and Jeralyn is for Clinton. I have seen Clinton criticized here by the bloggers and by  posters.  Granted, overall, I will say this is a pro-Clinton site, but, their is fairness in the coverage and from most of the posters.  Posters for the main part are pro-Clinton, but I haven't seen the rabid, vitriolic or cultish like that you may say is here.  One reason is Jeralyn won't allow that here. Actually, sometimes I thought this went overboard when at first Wright was unmentionable.

    Why feel sorry (1.00 / 4) (#108)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:04:31 PM EST
    he is beating your candidate in pop vote, electoral votes and will soon be the nominee.  No need to feel sorry for him, perhaps you can take some of that negative energy and put it to good use, like getting to Indiana or NC to campaign for your candidate.  

    Does anyone have a link (none / 0) (#8)
    by Lena on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:39:35 PM EST
    for the ad? I'd love to see it.

    I think this is it (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:50:13 PM EST
    That's it? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:58:35 PM EST
    They're quoting newspaper articles about Obama's economic plan, and they specifically state that HRC's campaign did not authorize or pay for the ad.

    Talk about much ado about nothing. Obama is acting like a horse's patootie.

    IACF indeed.


    That's it? (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:22:39 PM EST
    It quotes two newspapers -- accurately, I assume.

    What's the beef?


    my only beef (none / 0) (#86)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    is that the only black people in the ad appear to be unemployed people walking down a sidewalk looking like younger kids in hoods n such while all the white folk are dealing with prices and homes and putting up for sale signs.  

    puhleeze take your stereotypes back lol.  i suppose it's a regional market, but last i checked a lot of the foreclosure issues were hitting AAs and low income communities.  I wonder if there's been a comparison to where there used to be red-lining



    boredmpa, I got some info... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:34:26 PM EST
    I've been researching this a bit because disparities in access to credit because of race is, for me, stupid and against what I thought being a liberal, he11, being a decent human being, was about.

    One link It's Official: Voluntary Housing Foreclosure Relief Isn't Working.

    And another. Blacks and Latinos pay higher mortgage rates than whites, even when they are equally qualified, according to a new study. The study came out in 2004, but I think it makes some salient points.

    The study, called "Unfair Lending: The Effect of Race and Ethnicity on the Price of Subprime Mortgages," looked at government and industry data on 50,000 high-cost or "subprime'' home loans made in 2004. Unlike most other research, the study released on Wednesday compared loans made to black, white and Latino borrowers nationwide who have similar credit scores....
    Debbie Bocian, one of the study's authors, said the study did not draw conclusions on the reasons behind the disparities.

    The study found that blacks were 34 percent more likely to be charged higher rates than similarly qualified whites on fixed-rate refinance loans.

    Blacks were 31 percent more likely to pay more for fixed-rate home purchase loans.

    Latinos were 142 percent more likely to pay higher rates than whites for fixed-rate home purchase loans with no prepayment penalties, according to the study. On other types of purchase loans, Latinos were 29 percent to 45 percent more likely to pay more than whites...

    The study affirms that blacks and Latinos "are paying a premium for home loans because of the color of their skin and for no other reason," said Hilary Shelton, director of the Washington Bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

    The impact of lending discrimination has far-reaching effects within the minority community because home equity is such an important ingredient in household wealth in America, said Natalie Williams, head of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's civil rights bureau.

    yeah (none / 0) (#117)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:43:36 PM EST
    so it would follow that with documented higher rates vs whites they would also have a higher incidence of foreclosure.  I also seem to recall specific city regions having high foreclosure rates, and that at least one city was suing because the potential fraud and foreclosures have a huge impact on taxes and crime.

    do you know the rate of black unemployment? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Klio on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:39:41 PM EST
    hmmm?  I'm gonna guess that this is an issue of real salience to the community, and not a racist stereotype.  YMMV.

    ummm (none / 0) (#122)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:01:29 PM EST
    your point is off topic because I wasn't commenting on the salience of unemployment.  I was commenting on the whitewashing of home ownership and financial management.

    I stated that all the white people were dealing with finances/housing.  That is a stereotype because, as others have pointed out, minorities receive higher cost loans regardless of their credit score.  In addition, it is documented that minorities are disproportionately impacted by the foreclosure crisis.

    Blacks are homeowners, blacks are concerned about their bills, and blacks are more likely to have that for sale sign go up.  That was my point, so I'm not sure why you needed to make yours in opposition to it instead of as a complement.


    How is that the basis of (none / 0) (#88)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:21:47 PM EST
    an FEC complaint?

    sorry, i wasn't commenting on the complaint (none / 0) (#116)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:40:11 PM EST
    I was commenting on the ad itself

    Typical Obama (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:32:01 PM EST
    He really believes that he should not have to tell us who he is, what he plans to do for us, or the details of his policy plans.  Makes me wonder what he plans to do TO us.

    That is a fair ad, kind of pushes people to think maybe he had better rethink a debate before Indiana.

    It is NOT negative for the people to ask exactly those kinds of questions of their candidates. Obama's thinking on what constitutes "negative" goes to his judgment.

    Put this guy in the Whitehouse and we'll see an abrupt end to the annual "State of the Union" speeches, the daily press briefings will disappear, and he'll make sure he never gets interrupted while on vacation, or during breakfast.


    So the FEC Controls ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:22:41 PM EST
    content for reasons that someone simply doesn't like what's being said?

    Who controls false statements in mailers? Postmaster General of the US get a complaint filed when Obama's camp sent out false information on her policies?

    He just keeps on showing us he isn't mature enough to handle this.

    I cannot believe he can complain about that ad (none / 0) (#45)
    by smott on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:36:09 PM EST
    Honestly. Grow some for Godsakes.

    I think it's hysterical (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:50:29 PM EST
    shows a certain level of maturity  ;)

    wonder if anyone at his campaign offices there will be able to answer any questions if put to the test by the voters?



    Obama's going to get slaughtered... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:51:20 PM EST
    ...with this stuff. Ignore it at your peril.

    The only difference between Mccain and Obama on the war is going be be:

    McCain 100,000 troops v Obama 80,000 troops in Iraq.

    The only difference on Healthcare will be:

    McCain $5,000 tax credit for Healthcare v  nebulous "affordable healthcare" with Obama.

    That's not a contrast.

    On the rituals of Patriotism it will be like high contrast.

    please stop posting links (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:12:53 PM EST
    to right wing propoganda sites. And urls must be in html format or they skew the site and will result in the entire comment being deleted.

    Also, you can express your disagreement with Obama without name-calling and personal attacks. We don't do that here.


    sure! (none / 0) (#87)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:16:56 PM EST
    That certainly worked before Iowa didn't it?

    I won't do it a third time though.  Your site your rules.


    Anyway, (none / 0) (#67)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:52:41 PM EST
    since the FEC can't drum up enough members to rule on McCain's campaign funding, the odds of them making a ruling here seem slim to none.

    The TRUTH hurts for Obama! (none / 0) (#68)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:53:20 PM EST

    I urge civility (none / 0) (#69)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:53:21 PM EST
    There is no need for this kind of name calling, is there? I would like to think of this blog participants as the heaven from the rest of the wilderness.

    Then again I am so delusional I think Hillary will win! :)

    not delusion, it's spidey sense! (none / 0) (#73)
    by angie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:55:47 PM EST
    Potato, potato (none / 0) (#82)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:11:41 PM EST
    Hey, can't do that one while writing, no difference in pronunciation! ;)

    potato, potahto (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by angie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:46:24 PM EST
    tomato, tomahto

    potayto, potahto (none / 0) (#112)
    by jackyt on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:04:33 PM EST
    hopefully I deleted (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:13:58 PM EST
    it. No name calling and personal attacks please.

    Not sure specifically (none / 0) (#93)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:31:29 PM EST
    sure what you are refering to. But it must relate to a post of mine that got deleted!

    A right wing propaganda site, that tells you where the next reverandgate eruption is going to spring from. In the summer of 07 similar posts about Wright were probabaly deleted on various left wing websites. Those deletions saved us a lot of heartache I hear.

    Obama hasn't been treated with civility. He's the beneficiary of a criminally censorious press and a core of loyal bloggers. Even his direct rivals gave him a free pass on his background and concealed it from the Democratic base.  The GOP will attack with everything they have on these theological issues.

    He's been treated with kid gloves by everyone.


    We Love Us Some Deluded People :) (none / 0) (#123)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:01:46 PM EST
    FEC (none / 0) (#81)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:11:14 PM EST
    Is it even active right now?