Pro-Hillary Third Party Group Preparing Anti-Obama Web Site?

Comments (29)

hwc wrote on December 23, 2007 1:14 PM:

When you guys are just re-posting oppo research from one of the campaigns, would you please identify the source?

Jeremy wrote on December 23, 2007 1:15 PM:

This is the "fun part" right?

Keith wrote on December 23, 2007 1:17 PM:

hwc:

The information comes from the FEC. Don't think that qualifies as "oppo research".

Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 1:23 PM:

Since when did Unions start acting like 527s against democratic candidates? I find this somewhat troubling.

john wrote on December 23, 2007 1:30 PM:

this is just getting UGLY. It's precisely this kind of "ends justify the means" politics that brought us Bush Inc.

If Hillary wins because of these tactics, Americans will have exactly the leader they deserve.

Think, America. Think.

K K wrote on December 23, 2007 1:38 PM:

How can they think this will help Hillary after all of her recent pitfall attacks? (I know, she didn't authorize them or know anything about them.) I agree with John above. If this is who we as a nation elect as the next President of the United States ( and the first woman of the US--I am a woman btw) than we are getting exactly what we deserve. However, I'm hopeful that more and more citizens of this country are beginning to see the truth. We do not need to go back to the Clinton days, we need to go forward into a new direction, together...

dee-moyne wrote on December 23, 2007 1:56 PM:

To tag on to what anonymous (at 1:23) wrote, Union 527s attacking other Democrats does seem somewhat absurd. Wouldn't they want to save the money, let the Dems battle it it themselves, and then use ALL the saved money to attack the Republican nominee and/or Bloomberg/Hagel when the time is right? Bloomberg's gonna bring $1,000,000,000 ("B" as in BILLION) into the race and he ain't exactly pro-union. Unions blowing cash now seems fairly short-sighted to me.

Its about the future stupid wrote on December 23, 2007 1:59 PM:

Hill is attempting Murder, suicide!

The campaign must be thinking that killing Obama in Iowa, even if it means commiting suicide for their own is the way to go. Its a don't let Obama win at any cost, campaign there. At this rate I would not be suprised to see Edwards win by a fairly large number in iowa. Hill may also drop to forth.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 23, 2007 2:10 PM:

We're seeing the proliferation of these "attack" Web sites, but who knows what kind of traffic they command or whether they're at all effective beyond getting "free media" by getting stories written about them.

That is what I am wondering. It seems a strange way to spend money. If you buy ad space in a newspaper or air time on a radio, your message goes to people effortlessly. If you put that money into a web site, you are counting on folks to check it out, and the folks most likely do that are the folks most likely to vote for your candidate already.

Bejebus wrote on December 23, 2007 2:23 PM:

Who would Jesus hate?

Peggy McGilligan wrote on December 23, 2007 2:28 PM:

The Clintons do whatever they want, whenever they want, all in the name of vested self-interest: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Peggy McGilligan wrote on December 23, 2007 2:30 PM:

The Clintons do whatever they want, whenever they want, all in the name of vested self-interest: http://theseedsof9-11.com

roo_P wrote on December 23, 2007 2:40 PM:

It's ... said:

The campaign must be thinking that killing Obama in Iowa, even if it means commiting suicide for their own is the way to go. Its a don't let Obama win at any cost, campaign there. At this rate I would not be suprised to see Edwards win by a fairly large number in iowa. Hill may also drop to forth.

Yes, this is exactly what the current strategy is for Clinton.

Her campaign likely recognises that it is hard (though not impossible, certainly) for her to win in Iowa. The best outcome for her outside an actual win is for Obama to not win.

Importantly, it needs to be Edwards who wins because he is the least likely of her rivals to benefit from the "Iowa bounce" or "momentum" if my assessment is correct. If a "dark horse" such as Biden were to give a strong showing, it would be far more jeopardising to her prospects, oddly enough.

It is definitely their best option. Whether it will be effective, I am not certain.

I AM absolutely certain that it is not a strategy that I enjoy or expect to see from a Democratic campaign. And rest assured, if any of the other campaigns starts playing the same kind of politics as Clinton's does, I will harp on them in a heartbeat. We are better than that.

Apart from the last statement, this is just my conjecture based on my reading of the voting population at this point in time, of course, not to be mistaken with hard facts. Unless something very drastic happens, Clinton or Obama will win the race. Edwards is absolutely competitive against Obama but the problem is that he will lose out to Clinton.

Iowa is not an absolute make-or-break for Obama. Edwards and Obama's people are unfortunately nearly the same demographic which helps Clinton immensely. Either of the two dropping out or faltering is excellent news for the other but the problem I see is that to me it seems that only Obama will ultimately be able to win against Clinton.

But, it is early. A lot could happen--we could even have a brokered Convention :)

Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 2:41 PM:

Endorsements matter.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 23, 2007 4:38 PM:

I can readily understand dumping on Obama . . . I can't understand being Pro-Clinton and dumping on Obama . . . It smacks of Cain and Abel . . . And seems strange that that two wingers to be shooting at one another. What would Ron-dog Reagan say?

Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 5:17 PM:

The AFSCME website is discouraging. Why should the dues of the thousands of members who support Obama be used to attack their candidate in a primary? The union had no process for endorsment. The president just strong armed the board and too few were willing to stand up.

Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 5:21 PM:

The AFSCME website is discouraging. Why should the dues money of the members be used to attack a candidate many of them support. The union had no endorsement process. The president simply strongarmed the executive board and too few of them were willing to stand up.

ulla wrote on December 23, 2007 5:48 PM:

Time will show that Hillary lost because she followed the tactics described in the Karl Rove play book.
This is not 2000 nor 2004. The voters are sick and discusted with Karl Rove's Rule 1: Make your opponents strengths his weaknesses.
Like usual, Hillary is uppety and under estimating the voters ability to learn from previous mistakes.
When will Hillary learn from her mistakes?
It's only when she shows that she has learned from her mistakes we can start talking about her experience.

CalD wrote on December 23, 2007 5:56 PM:

What's with the all the "Hillary" headlines all of a sudden? Is TPM on a first name basis with the Senator now? Are we also going to start referring to Senator Obama as "Barack"?

Just curious. I mean, if we even can't show a little common courtesy and respect for our own presidential candidates, can we really expect anyone else to?

roo_P wrote on December 23, 2007 6:04 PM:

CalD:

What's with the all the "Hillary" headlines all of a sudden? Is TPM on a first name basis with the Senator now? Are we also going to start referring to Senator Obama as "Barack"?

Using "Hillary" instead of "Clinton" has been a preferred nomenclature of the Clinton camp for some time because, I assume, it seems more personable and distances her from just being Mrs. Bill Clinton.

CalD wrote on December 23, 2007 7:11 PM:

I guess you're right. I just went to her web site and it says "Hillary for President" right on the splash page, before you even get to the home page. I'll stand corrected. Still seems weird though.

kjoe wrote on December 23, 2007 9:23 PM:

What's with the all the "Hillary" headlines all of a sudden? Is TPM on a first name basis with the Senator now? Are we also going to start referring to Senator Obama as "Barack"?

Calling him Barack---it would not be long until other candidates' advisers and their media friends would be making freudian slips calling him maraca---in an obvious attempt to cause confusion about whether he is some sort of central american drug kingpin. For Mark Penn---the "fun" could continue.

Mary, Iowa voter wrote on December 23, 2007 9:40 PM:

I can tell you all, that no matter how much money they put into web sites, extremely few caucus goers in Iowa is going to go look there. I'm absolutely shocked at what Jerry Macatee has allowing his union to become, and I wonder if he's afraid Illinois' AFSCME might just vote to cede and join another union all together! They promised no negative campaigning.

hettie wrote on December 24, 2007 12:08 AM:

Obama started the mudslinging. Hillary asked several times at the debates for Dems to attack Bush and Republicans and not each other. But Obama was the first and he has been the loudest in his mudslinging against Clinton and Edwards. Why should he get a pass while the bloggers attack Hillary and sometimes Edwards when Obama is the one slinging the most mud. Oh, that's right, some people give a free pass to blacks because they don't want to be mistaken for racists. Obama hope to ride that to the White House.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 24, 2007 12:20 AM:

What's with the all the "Hillary" headlines all of a sudden? Is TPM on a first name basis with the Senator now? Are we also going to start referring to Senator Obama as "Barack"?

I think that Roo_P's answer to your question is fine and sound (if Sen Clinton wants us to call her "Hillary" then it is presumably not disrespectful to do so) but I still agree with the broad thrust of your post, dear CalD. I think that these three folks are all worthy public servants and have earned the right to be referred to by the honorific "Sen _____." A more civil political discourse begins at home, as they say.

Greg wrote on December 24, 2007 8:12 AM:

this was not based on oppo research. I check the FEC reports every day during the closing stretch of a campaign because there are always daily expenditures such as these.

Desider wrote on December 25, 2007 12:29 PM:

Sometimes the silliness is too much. "I Like Hillary" or "I Like Ike" is a lot better for a campaign than "I Like Sen. Rodham-Clinton and General Eisenhower". As for respect, I think they can better respect her hard-earned position by not accepting "bitch" or "rhymes with rich" as appropriate in their Op-Ed columns. If it had something to do with the election perhaps, but it's simply name calling passing as political analysis.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 25, 2007 2:18 PM:

As for respect, I think they can better respect her hard-earned position by not accepting "bitch" or "rhymes with rich" as appropriate in their Op-Ed columns.

Sure, no argument there. Wouldn't it be nice if we argued these points on the merits, instead of resorting to childish name calling?

Sharry wrote on January 10, 2008 9:38 PM:

Barack Obama mentioned his church during his appearance with Oprah. It's the
Trinity Church of Christ. I found this interesting.

Please take the time to go to this church's website and read what is written
there.
web site is www.tucc.org/about.htm

I was not familiar with the word DIASPORIA as used in the church's "10 Point Vision" so I looked it up:

The African Union has defined the African diaspora as "[consisting] of people of African origin living outside the continent, irrespective of their citizenship and nationality and who are willing to contribute to the development of the continent and the building of the African Union." Its constitutive act declares that it shall "invite and encourage the full participation of the African Diaspora as an important part of our Continent, in the building of the African Union."

Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S.; perhaps someone should ask him if he adheres to the written doctrine of his church???

And I am called a racist?

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)