AFSCME, Emily's List Deny Any Role In Anti-Obama 527 Scheme

Comments (76)

Michael A wrote on January 8, 2008 4:54 PM:

I really find it hard to believe that the clintons could get some big time donors to fund a 527 to try, and I emphasize try, to swiftboat obama. That would really be devastating for the party and a true dem wouldn''t want to harm the party for the greater glory of the clintons, which was what her campaign was all about anyway. I just have a hard time seeing this. It's possible, but I would say not probable.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 8, 2008 4:56 PM:

Well, good to see that these groups have their eyes open wide enough to tell what time it is when the noonday sun is straight above them. They are all perfectly free still to back Sen Clinton if such is their wont, but fueling a negative campaign against Sen Obama is in no one's best interests, including these groups'.

KathyF wrote on January 8, 2008 4:56 PM:

I seem to remember AFSCME dis-endorsing Dean not long after the third round of primaries. Probably won't be long now.

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 5:00 PM:

There seems to be a lot more to this story than what is being posted here.

bridoc wrote on January 8, 2008 5:01 PM:

We'll see. I definitely wouldn't be surprised if the Clintons were at least floating the idea around as a possible strategy. It is her MO to get progressively more negative and hostile as things keep not going her way.

How far will you go Ahab?

Desider wrote on January 8, 2008 5:07 PM:

Greg, couldn't this be a bunch of FUD just to discredit the Clintons?

Its about the future stupid wrote on January 8, 2008 5:08 PM:

The only thing i have seen is the AFT has put down 95k for radio ads in nevada in support of hill. But anything can happen and she would lose some friends if she went too negative.

Kucinich for Prez wrote on January 8, 2008 5:08 PM:

What's wrong with attacking a candidate? If you think he/she would be bad for the country, you should campaign against them, not just choose one you like. What if you like 3 candidates, but fear another will win. Someone should have campaigned against Hitler.

Kucinich for Prez wrote on January 8, 2008 5:09 PM:

Not all negative campaigns are lies.

TheraP wrote on January 8, 2008 5:09 PM:

To me this is another example of how the "top-down" method of running a campaign (or the country!) will not work anymore. The foot soldiers are on the march and woe unto those who do not follow the troops!

Same thing is happening to the repubs with Huckabee.

It's really funny to see people power in action again. I'm loving it!

JR wrote on January 8, 2008 5:09 PM:

Having heard the garbage flying out of the Clintons' mouths in the last 48 hours, nothing would surprise me. Sadly, they're reinforcing my gut feeling about her campaign - that despite their good intentions, the Clintons' welfare will always trump the country.

Their desperate need to move back into the White House is resulting in dual political suicide. If this pattern continues, they'll be pariahs.

Sand wrote on January 8, 2008 5:11 PM:

Wow! Emily's List has certainly given her alot of money. If Hillary fails big time in NH I wonder how Emily's List will justify giving even more money to a declining campaign? That's a lot of money to just one person. As a member I would hope that the organization tries from now on to be a little more careful about spreading the money around to help other women wanting to get into politics. Women that aren't going to attack other Democratic candidates that we need on our time to bolster our fight for choice.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

Ondioline wrote on January 8, 2008 5:11 PM:

Let's not be naive enough to dismiss this as a possibility...

We've all seen Clinton supporters around these parts suggesting that if Obama wins the nomination, they won't support him, won't vote for him, will pray for a McCain/Bloomberg/Nader candidacy to get behind. None of this would be much different, other than the scale. A dashed sense of entitlement always leads to some ugly behavior. That said, this isn't over by a long shot, and I was heartened to hear Obama's reminder to his NH supporters that the GOTV element of the campaign was still vital. Regardless of who gets the nom, that will be even more true in November.

junebug wrote on January 8, 2008 5:12 PM:

It's worth noting that any such 527's can certainly sharpen any distinctions between these candidates, while raising questions about Obama's record & rhetoric, without necessarily resorting to anything like Swift-boating. To be sure, it's a fine line to walk, but you'd expect them to be invested in their candidate. Likewise, you'd expect Clinton -- or any candidate -- to fight for what she believes in. Among the things she believes, as she explained rather eloquently yesterday, is that she's the best person for the job. Maybe she's right, and maybe she's not, but I'm guessing there are a lot of Democrats outside of Iowa & New Hampshire who would appreciate a chance to weigh in on the issue. I think it's only fair to let it get to that point without automatically ascribing Rovian tactics & motivations to the Clinton camp. I say this as an Obama supporter, but one with a lot of respect for Clinton. She's done nothing to deserve anything less from me.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 8, 2008 5:13 PM:

couldn't this be a bunch of FUD just to discredit the Clintons?

I suppose that is a possibility. If so, then AFSCME and Emily's List did their candidate a great favor in rushing to put a stop to such rumors by making it quite clear that there is nothing to them. One way or another, that this is not going to happen is best for all parties, so we all have a reason to smile from reading this thread.

Lookingforhome wrote on January 8, 2008 5:14 PM:

I think the main story here is that the "protective instincts" of Obama's biggest supporter -- the HuffPo Buffoons -- is in overdrive. They'll rake muck like this just to cause a further anti-Hillary reaction, and they've been doing it for months.

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 5:14 PM:

JR wrote on January 8, 2008 5:09 PM:
Having heard the garbage flying out of the Clintons' mouths in the last 48 hours, nothing would surprise me.

YOU CAN SAY THAT AGAIN! Can you say desperation and sour grapes? Go home already, Clintons!

The Clintons Have No Shame wrote on January 8, 2008 5:15 PM:

Chris Matthews today:

"There's a battle in the Democratic Party between the idealists and the interest groups," Matthews began. "And in the beginning of every Democratic campaign for president, there's an idealist who comes forward ... and they do very well in the first offing. ... And then the interest groups get all called in, the meal tickets, all the people that get something out of the party are bussed in, trucked in from out of town ... and they blow away the idealist."

"It has been done so many times," he continued. "Kill the fire of insurgency. And when that's killed, then you go back to the same old interest group politics."

"Once in a while, someone comes along and shakes things up," Matthews acknowledged. "It's a phenomenal thing. And it's going on now. It'll go on through tonight. But at some time, it's going to be really challenged by the forces of the establishment, by the status quo, by the interest groups and the big-money contributors, and they're going to try to put this fire out."

"They will find some way to counter this power. You watch it. It's scorched earth, but the establishment in American politics almost always wins. ... All the people around the Clintons ... are getting together to try to figure out how to stop this. These are pros, who win year after year.

"They are under threat right now, because if Obama wins, they lose," Matthews went on, turning aside Scarborough's suggestions that this year the dynamics might be different. "If you think it's going to happen, then you are definitely a dreamer. Maybe I am too. But I've seen this dream die so many times."

"They'll play on every heartstring. They'll make Hillary a more sympathetic figure," Matthews predicted, saying that between now and Super Tuesday on February 5, the newspapers will fall over themselves to give us "the new Hillary, the softer Hillary, the humble Hillary."

"The fawning journalism is yet to come," concluded Matthews. "It's absolutely predictable. ... Oh, it's coming!"

gary n wrote on January 8, 2008 5:16 PM:

@Ondioline

What, are you nuts? I know a lot of HRC supporters, am myself one of her young supporters, and now a lot of people working for her. If Obama becomes the nominee, myself and many of these people are literally ready to go to war for him against the Republicans. So please don't count some moderate lunatics in with the hard-core democrats that work for her campaign, and most of her supporters.

Either way, 2008 will be a historic election. And note, the coulmn that Josh Marshall linked to last night by Alter in Newsweek I think said it best, and at least is something I feel strongly about. If Obama wins, it is not a rejection of Clintonism government, or the Clintonism governing philosophy, don't kid yourself his best staffers worked in the Clinton White House, but it would be a rejection of who gets to lead that mantle.

I've long said to friends it's great to have the debate between the two like this, because win or lose, I know what I am getting, and I like what I get, I can't say that from a lot of the other Primaries.

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 8, 2008 5:16 PM:

Edsall wrote another piece today saying that the Clinton campaign was "said to be" considering skipping SC and Nevada. Then he cited Clinton campaign staffers saying NO WAY would they do that, for a bunch of reasons. Edsall did not cite anyone from the campaign actually saying they were thinking of skipping.

So my question is this - who said this? Edsell? If so, well, his point is technically true. He's sinking to Drudgico levels.

I agree with Michael A., I have a really hard time believing the Clintons would do this.

But I have no problem believing that Edsell (or someone) is making this crap up. Seems like he's doing a little pre-emptive swiftboating of Hillary.

GMFORD wrote on January 8, 2008 5:17 PM:

Response to Kucinich for Prez:

ALL of our candidates would be good for this country and they all know it. There's no good reason for candidates to try to swiftboat each other in the primary - it hurts the party.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 8, 2008 5:17 PM:

the HuffPo Buffoons... rake muck like this just to cause a further anti-Hillary reaction, and they've been doing it for months.

Ah, sour grapes and nothing more. The Clinton team have Taylor Marsh doing the same thing for her - HuffPo just does it better and with more class.

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 8, 2008 5:18 PM:

@ GMFORD: Word!

Anon wrote on January 8, 2008 5:19 PM:

I am sick of all the Obamaniacs proclaiming piety and demanding party unity, then bashing President and Senator Clinton. Michael A, you're a little too quick to bash the Clintons when you are claiming to be worried about going negative on Senator Obama.

brianb99c wrote on January 8, 2008 5:20 PM:

I do not believe anything I read on the Huffpo regarding HRC. They have a pathological hatred for HRC and it is sickening. I am an Edwards supporter. But it sickens me to see the bile heaped on the Clinton campaign daily by the MSM. I have disagreed with many of her stands regarding Iraq and national security. This should be discussed intelligently and in context. I get the sense that Josh is wrestling with the urge to join in the piling on of Hillary Clinton. Stop linking to posts on the Huffington site. When you do you cheapen yourself. Don't get caught up in the MSM echo chamber. When you do that you are no better then the people who claimed HRC had a rold in Vince Foster's death.

David_F wrote on January 8, 2008 5:20 PM:

For Clinton to subject Obama's record and character to public scrutiny would be fair, appropriate and perhaps helpful. She has endured more than a decade of criticism from the right (as she's fond of pointing out in grandiose terms). The GOP will go after Obama if he wins the nomination, so it would be a shame for the Dems to nominate someone without understanding the substance of such attacks as well as how the candidate would respond.

On the other hand, it's unclear to me how using a 527 to this end serves anybody's interests, especially if the group's donors, sponsorship, etc. is so transparent. Why not simply use standard opposition research, run 'contrast' ads or provide info to the press?

Or could it be that she fears that the press is giving Obama a free ride for some reason, e.g. neglecting to follow up on her camp's reasonable suggestions for Obama-negative stories? In that case, her choice is between ads paid for directly by her committe or ads paid for through a 527. There are tactical pro's and con's for each.

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 5:23 PM:

Boy the Clinton campaign staff is out today. Think they're worried about getting another paycheck?

Mary wrote on January 8, 2008 5:26 PM:

One of your better pieces recently Greg. Very clear reporting - non biased. Great Job.

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 8, 2008 5:28 PM:

Ondioline: We've all seen Clinton supporters around these parts suggesting that if Obama wins the nomination, they won't support him, won't vote for him, will pray for a McCain/Bloomberg/Nader candidacy to get behind.

Really? are you sure? I've NEVER read anything by a Clinton supporter saying this. Never. That's not hyperbole. In fact, if anything, Clinton supporters often go out of their way to say that they will solidly get behind WHOEVER wins the Democratic nomination (I sure will). However, I've read hundreds of posts by Dem, liberal and progessives (allegedly) decrying Clinton as GOP-lite and saying they would never vote for her. It's astounding.

If Hillary wins - granted, slim chances at this point, but not impossible -- if she wins, will you vote for her?

As I expected.

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 5:30 PM:

I think Chris Matthews has it exactly right. You can just feel it coming with posts like Greg's above. It is the same establishment that crucified McCain in South Carolina for Bush, the same folks behind the Swift Boats against Kerry and now the same interests that realize that a Dem will win and they will lose their interest and power in Washington if Obama (or Edwards) is that Dem. They are predominantly GOP interests but money is money. And the Clintons are part of that establishment. Hold tight and don't let them get the best of us. It is an historic time and the climate may just be right to defeat them.

RR18 wrote on January 8, 2008 5:36 PM:

Don't know if this is significant, but the McEntee quote does not seem to actually deny that AFSCME has explored the possibility of setting up the 527, which is all Edsall's story claimed.

He just said that they are not doing it and would not do it (present and future tenses).

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 5:39 PM:

Huffington post is drudge (smudge) report of the left..and Arianna really hates Hillary. May be Arianna tried to sleep with Bill and Bill rejected her because she is so ugly..

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 5:41 PM:

I have gotta say that I think AFSCME was completely inappropriate in funding anti-Obama ads while using Edwards' quotes to deceive. And frankly I don't think they (or Ellen Malcolm of Emily's List) can truly be trusted to not put Hillary's interests above those of their organization's and their own.

colonpowwow wrote on January 8, 2008 5:43 PM:

I would be real surprised if Clinton adopted this tactic, though I agree that "going negative" (whatever that means - criticizing your opponent, is it?) is a fair but risky tactic.

The risk is that if she loses anyway, instead of getting a plum assignment on the Obama bandwagon, and a high-profile Senate or administration position in 2009, she's through for any shot again in 2012 or 2016.

I don't see her torpedoing her party or her political future re the rumor advanced in this post. It's not like it's all over for her even if she loses this nomination cycle. She should finish as strong as she can, reasses her chances after Super Tuesday and leave no doubt that she was a strong fighter who finished a strong second.

When she throws her complete support to Obama (if he wins it, as is looking more likely), there should be zero strings attached and she's savvy enough to know it - though her recent campaign gaffes leaves one wondering.

zonk wrote on January 8, 2008 5:43 PM:

Good enough.

FWIW, I figured it was probably just idle chitchat anyway. I really cannot see a Democratic interest group that opposed to any of the 3 front-runners. I mean -there's none of the 3 have anything even close to approaching unacceptable track records or views to any of these groups.

Sooo... buncha nothing. Whoever engaged in the idle chitchat oughta step up and admit it was stupid idle chitchat born of frustration, though.

BernieO wrote on January 8, 2008 5:48 PM:

The Huffington Post has been rabidly anti-Clinton which has been a huge disappointment. I think it is a grave disservice to readers to be so biased. They seem to love Obama, but give short shrift to Edwards. If I want this kind of bias, I would just watch Fox News.

NCSteve wrote on January 8, 2008 5:51 PM:

Yeah, especially those HRC-hating, Obama loving Huffpo posters Taylor Marsh and Earl Ofari Johnson.

The dynamic of this story is pretty easy to discern. Hillary is down to 10-11 million and her donor base is maxed out. She squeezed the last of juice out of them to generate that "I outraised Obama by a million" headline in October that she very adroitly leaked a few days early to steal Obama's Big Serious Policy Speech headline. There's not a chance in hell that any new donors are coming onboard while she's in a tailspin.

Emily's list and her other big interest group donors are among the maxed out. They've already gone waaay out on the limb for her. The only way they can put more money into the race is through a 527.

Then the blowback started and, worse, Emily's List reconsidered whether it really wanted to turn itself into President Obama's Shit List.

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 5:55 PM:

Colin -

I have disagreed with most of your postings to date but I agree with you that what you describe is the best strategy for Hilllary and I commend you for recognizing it.

In this climate, if the Clintons sink deep into the gutter it will only ensure (a) that John McCain is our nest President and (b) that Hillary will never be Senate majority leader. They've got to understand it. Unfortunately, ego and power are difficult things to predict.

One thing us for sure, when Obama was down 20 points this summer, he was not going negative. He stayed positive all the way and look where he is now.

Kucinich for Prez wrote on January 8, 2008 5:57 PM:

I expect all the Dems to fight each other. As long as they don't lie. That's what an election is about. Obama and Clinton are getting far too thin-skinned.

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 5:57 PM:

NCSteve _ I think you are right on the money (no pun intended).

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 5:59 PM:

Another campaign did this, they all do it.

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 6:01 PM:

Actually, judging from the muslim and cocaine slanders thus far, I think the Clinton campaign definitely takes the cake in terms of nasty.

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 6:04 PM:

It was big mistake for Hillary to run in Iowa. She could have come in 3rd without competing there. Obama could have finished Edwards in Iowa and in the meantime she could have gone negative on Obama in New Hampshire. New Hampshire loves negative stuff..

willyjsimmons wrote on January 8, 2008 6:05 PM:

'HuffPo just does it better and with more class.'

This entire piece is based on an anonymous source(s)...

s-h-o-d-d-y.

Kucinich for Prez wrote on January 8, 2008 6:06 PM:

If candidates don't point out their opponents's shortcomings, who will? Our ass-kissing media?

anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 6:07 PM:

Nothing would surprise me about McEntee. For years he has put his own interests ahead of AFSCME's. He probably has reached the point of being unable to seperate his interests from AFSCME's. This is a tragedy. He is destroying the reputation of an important labor institution for personal perks he might get from Clinton. What would Clinton do for AFSCME members that Obama would not? It is all about McEntee. But if he proceeds with anything that even smells like an anybody but Obama the members of AFSCME will take him out.

Kucinich for Prez wrote on January 8, 2008 6:09 PM:

I'm still waiting for Obama to get a hard question.

colonpowwow wrote on January 8, 2008 6:13 PM:

Anonymous:

Why thank you. The reason you've disagreed with most of my posts is that one of us has been so blinded by an irrational hatred of a certain candidate that they couldn't see straight.

Here's something new for you to disagree with. Hillary needs to seriously consider her run against President McCain in 2012.

Oh, I'll vote for Obama. I'll even continue with my plan to ferry first time voters to the polls in November. I like him just fine and I've supported progressive Democrats (like Hillary Clinton, etc.) for a long time now.

I just don't think Obama has as good a chance to beat a Republican "moderate" if they're smart enough to nominate one. That was the basis of my preference for Clinton in the first place - that and the gleeful thought of sticking another Clinton in the eye of our right wing tormenters.

But we'll see. I'm glad we'll be working together now to win the White House in November. My problem with a lot of the posters on this site (you?), was their immature threats to vote for my guy or I'll pee on the party.

That, and their (your?) mindless trashing of a good person who's been a political advocate for liberal causes for 35 years - and that's a fact. Look it up.

F64club wrote on January 8, 2008 6:21 PM:

Gerald McEntee is for supporting the strongest Democratic candidate? Who would that be? By the latest figures, it's not Hillary. I am a dues paying union member (by choice--it's an open shop) and this is the first time I've heard of this. I don't like my union dues being spent this way.

colonpowwow wrote on January 8, 2008 6:23 PM:

Oh, and one more thing.

Does anyone else find this ironic? - That the posters here whose baseless, hateful attacks on Clinton and her record don't even rise to the level of a well-thought-out, 527 swiftboat ad, and who would have no problem fornicating the Democratic Party if she would be the winner of the nomination, now are so indignant at the thought of the shoe being picked up by the smaller foot?

chigger wrote on January 8, 2008 6:26 PM:

Sorry if this is a repeat, but isn't AFSME the entity responsible for a mailing in Iowa using a quote of Edwards in order to wing Obama, making it look like it was an Edwards mailer, when in fact it was an AFSME-for-Clinton mailer? Not sure that I would trust AFSME to be honest about their plans.

whoframedrudy wrote on January 8, 2008 6:30 PM:

To me, the biggest lesson of this campaign is that negative campaigning works. Hillary has been viciously attacked by 'progressives' for months. Now people try to dress it up as idealism--that stinks.

If Obama represents any real threat to the Establishment, why isn't the Establishment mobilizing against him? Not a peep from the powers that be. The Establishment is more than happy to let the masses have their 'feel good' symbolic leader, while they hold on to the real power. He's all talk, no action.

How does it go? 'Let them eat rhetoric.'

Obama in a Landslide wrote on January 8, 2008 6:31 PM:

That was the basis of my preference for Clinton in the first place - that and the gleeful thought of sticking another Clinton in the eye of our right wing tormenters.

By what logic does Hillary win a general against a Republican with her high negatives? Did you have a scenario in mind that gives Hillary an advantage that the other Democratic candidates don't have?

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 6:43 PM:

Colin-

Haven't you learned yet? The country does not like Hillary. She is not electable. And she represents the past, not the future. If Obama is not the nominee now, he has best the chance of anyone in 2012. Get over it, already. No one with negatives above 50% can ever win the Presidency.

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 6:45 PM:

And Colin...

Supporting the Iraq war Kyl-Lieberman are not progressive in interests.

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 6:47 PM:

And one final point, admittedly, I would still vote for Bloomberg over Clinton (sorry). In my mind, he has more progressive viewpoints than Hill without the baggage, with much deeper leadership abilities, and with an opportunity, like Obama, to heal the deep rifts in the country.. That's just the truth, Colin.

DonnaG wrote on January 8, 2008 6:55 PM:

Stop to consider the enormity of what Obama has organizationally accomplished in one year as a candidate........extrapolate that into the future of an Obama presidency, especially one that is able to ignite the support and energy of masses of ordinary citizens, whatever their politics. That would be what any 527 group would be tasked with destroying......I doubt any upstanding patriotic group would do so, but perhaps some narrow ideological fringe group would enjoy taking on the destruction.

It is awfully hard for me to think about the challenges of a fast changing world and then credit Hillary's claim of 'ready on day one' when I simply contrast their campaign accomplishments in the past year.

Hillary activated and called in chits from existing power structures tied to Bill Clinton [including media connections], while Obama built a new and huge citizen-based power structure from scratch [and got media attention from his sheer charisma and crowd sizes].

Hillary used old divisive rhetoric to lambast Republicans and win applause, while Obama spoke of needing to explore what could bring sides together.

Lastly, in seems to me that just as Obama had unusual judgment and boldness--proving correct and prescient about Iraq in 2002, he has in the past year demonstrated unusual judgment and boldness-- proving correct and prescient about what citizens most want and to which voters are proving most responsive.

borussky wrote on January 8, 2008 6:57 PM:

From what I saw in my fifteen years of Democratic Party activism, the struggle for the nomination will be much nastier than the general election.

The hacks would prefer Hillary but accept Obama. The people who own both parties have still not given up on electing a Republican. They would love to see Hillary cut up Obama before the general election the way Ted Kennedy did to Jimmy Carter.

But if it looks like Edwards might get the nomination you will see a firestorm of hate like you never saw before.

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 6:59 PM:

Huffington Post has been into trashing Hillary with even more zeal than Arianna showed Gore in 2000 when she assured us that Gore and Bush were alike and to please run and vote for Nader. Or else.

No matter what the outcome of these primaries and the ultimate nominee, the Huffington Post's mean spirited and often misleading,misquoted, rants against Hillary have lost me as a site viewer.

It isn't that HuffPo is a pro Obama website, it's about the dishonest shut out of honest and fair reporting that has been most disturbing.

Mike c. wrote on January 8, 2008 6:59 PM:

For all those Clinton supporters who so badly want Obama's record to be subjected to more "scrutiny", I sure hope you don't mind that being done to the Clintons as well.

The clinton's think all their scandals are "old news"? Lets see how they feel about that if commercials dominate the airwaves with the graveyard of dirt the republicans have on them. The public would have the chance to answer the question - Do you really want these scum bags back in the Oval Office? They already had their chance in the white house, so why the hell won't they just leave us all alone?

David wrote on January 8, 2008 7:01 PM:

Hey Emily's List - Fuck you! Now you're on my list, my SHIT list. Forever. How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history?

sabatia wrote on January 8, 2008 7:08 PM:

Please Please don't do this! It will cause bad feelings in the party and with the independents. I used to be an AFSCME member: Please keep your eyes on the target. Obama doesn't deserve it, but there are other lovely people(and I'm not limiting this characterization just to Mitt, but to almost all Rs)who are far more deserving.

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 7:20 PM:

"Obama doesn't deserve it, but there are other lovely people(and I'm not limiting this characterization just to Mitt, but to almost all Rs)who are far more deserving"

Is this a joke?

Jim H wrote on January 8, 2008 7:31 PM:

When I worked in journalism, my daddy always told me that unsourced "scoops" were full of crap, or they'd source them. But Edsall has become a tool of the ObamaPost, so nothing is surprising. Are you surprised to see them using the old ratfucker routine that Nixon tried? And then, of course, when they deny, you look to see if they're crying or something. Like Muskie.
Doesn't matter if it's true or not. They're voting today. Tomorrow, you deny you planted it.

jImh wrote on January 8, 2008 7:35 PM:

I hawever have seen thousands suggest, in the ObamaPost, that if Hillary wins, they won't vote.

colonpowwow wrote on January 8, 2008 7:55 PM:

Obama in a Landslide wrote on January 8, 2008 6:31 PM:

"By what logic does Hillary win a general against a Republican with her high negatives?"

I know that even you are not unaware that most reliable polls showed her beating everyone most handily with the exception of McCain (with whom Hillary is competitive and whom Obama does worse against).

And I have my idealistic dream as well. I dream that people who call themselves Democrats, progressives, and liberals would actually vote for a party candidate with a lifetime 95% progressive voting record in the Senate.

Yes, her votes to authorize Iraq War and others are detestable (and this blatant political calculation likely cost her the nomination, ironically), but I see Senator Obama and his high-falutin' ideals voting for funding the War ever since he's had the chance to distinguish himself by his Senate votes. That's the fact, Jack.

Show me an establishment politician and holdover from the Bush-Clinton years and I'll show you Al Gore in 2000.

colonpowwow wrote on January 8, 2008 8:07 PM:

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 6:43 PM:

"Colin-

Haven't you learned yet? The country does not like Hillary."

First of all, let me congratulate you and the other Clinton-bashers here on your efforts to further that meme.

Mission accomplished, I guess. Can't blame her for shedding a tear over it either.

Also, to you and the Obama supporters - Clinton supporters comprise a large part of "the country" as well. Maybe not enough this time.

So, if Obama loses the GE, does that mean that you just didn't get it? That "the country" just didn't like him?

Poor John Kerry, for Jah's sake!

corinne wrote on January 8, 2008 8:14 PM:

Consider the source.

The "blockbuster scoop" was written by Thomas Edsall, who is a former political reporter for The Washington Post has also written for The New Republic. Edsall has had some credibility issues in the past:

In his August 10 [2006] New Republic Online article titled "Losing Strategy," New Republic special correspondent Thomas B. Edsall wrote that the "Democratic presidential primary electorates continue to be dominated by an upscale, socially (and culturally) liberal elite." Edsall, a former political writer for The Washington Post, asserted "that liberal elites are disproportionately powerful in primaries" in which they "have nominated a succession of losers, including [1972 Democratic presidential nominee] George McGovern, [1988 Democratic presidential nominee] Michael Dukakis and [2004 Democratic presidential nominee and current Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA]." (MediaMatters.org)

And this:

Poor Tom Edsall. He writes a book about how Republicans will always retain a majority.

Then Democrats win.

And yet, he continues to peddle his bullshit, apparently not realizing that, well, Democrats won. (DailyKos)

And the title of his book is a big honking clue:

I read some of his book 'Building Red America', and it was an analytically useless description of why the Republicans will always maintain a narrow majority. His book was uninformed by economics, and featured glib observations like 'The Republicans are the coalition of the dominant'. Just looking at the acknowledgments, where he thanks his sources and friends, should give you an indication that this guy doesn't have a connection to non-Beltway denizens.(Jerome Armstrong, MyDD)

W Action wrote on January 8, 2008 8:28 PM:

The point of creating a 527 is not ONLY to Swift Boat. Read Edsall again--he's saying its THE ONLY WAY for wealthy Clintonites to give six figure donations, reframing HRC more quickly than if she had to wait for campaign donations to accumulate. They need money now. Carville's not joining the "campaign?" That doesn't mean he (or another similarly positioned loyalist) is unavailable to head up an "unaffiliated" 527. Think of a 527 as a route to circumvent campaign finance limits and I think you better understand its appeal to a campaign burning through money at an astounding rate.

bnb wrote on January 8, 2008 8:32 PM:

Edwards is the strongest Dem candidate. He has a strong, clear message. If the press doesn't kill him like they did Dean, no Republican can touch him. But most likely they will slant Republican anyway, like they did against Gore and Kerry.

Obama in a Landslide wrote on January 8, 2008 8:35 PM:

I know that even you are not unaware that most reliable polls showed her beating everyone most handily with the exception of McCain (with whom Hillary is competitive and whom Obama does worse against).

Didn't the latest of these mythical matchup polls have Obama beating Republicans with the largest margin?

Even so, you didn't give me an advantage that Hillary has over the other Democrats. You just told me Republicans suck. We know that. Republicans sucking and your burning desire for "sticking another Clinton in the eye of our right wing tormenters" is pretty flimsy stuff to base a Presidential campaign on.

This is EXACTLY what the current Obama phenomenon is rejecting so it's no surprise you're not on board. Good luck with your spite crusade.

MedallionOfFerret wrote on January 8, 2008 10:20 PM:

The Huffington Post "blockbuster scoop today" provided exactly zero evidence that any group or even that an individual had suggested or attempted to initiate a 527 anti-Obama campaign.

One could just as easily say that the Huffington Post was attempting to swift-boat Hillary. TPM may have missed a "blockbuster scoop" of its own (except it wouldn't exactly be a blockbuster).

In any case, repeating totally unsupported allegations is more often found in neo-con blogs--usually even TPM has some sense of ethics. Not this time.

MedallionOfFerret wrote on January 8, 2008 10:27 PM:

Did Greg Sargent, or anyone else, actually read the Huffington posting? It provides ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL HAD SUGGESTED A 527 ANTI-OBAMA GROUP.

Usually, it's the neo-con blogs that invent & run rumors through the usual suspects. Huffington's post could just as easily be seen as a swift-boating aimed at Hillary. TPM may have missed the real "blockbuster scoop"--except that, with the Clintons, it's business as usual, not a blockbuster.

Jim Martin wrote on January 8, 2008 10:31 PM:

The Clintons Have No Shame wrote on January 8, 2008 5:15 PM: Chris Matthews today:

I gotta say, I would normally agree with a lot of this. Except... except... Tweety said it.

Pervez Musharraf would probably agree with me that the Earth is round. Nonetheless, he's not the guy I'd like to quote to defend that proposition.

It's scorched earth, but the establishment in American politics almost always wins.

Again, true, unfortunately. And Matthews, as a card-carrying member of that selfsame establishment, probably knows that as well as anybody.

colonpowwow wrote on January 9, 2008 12:22 AM:

Say, Obama in a Backsli . . . uh . . . I mean . . . Landslide:

Hahahahahahaha!

Now THAT was the joy that spite brings. I know you didn't feel any such thing after Saint Barry beat the Evil One in Iowa, but you really ought to try it sometime!

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 9, 2008 12:36 AM:

Woohoo! Dewey defeats Truman!

And thanks Corinne for your background info on Edsall. TPM needs to move away from the gutter.

Post a comment

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