Obama Precinct Captain's Mailer Urges Republicans To Switch Parties To Stop Hillary

Comments (154)

katie wrote on January 14, 2008 5:13 PM:

Woohoo! Politics of hope!

Sounds more like Republican talking points to me.

David wrote on January 14, 2008 5:15 PM:

You can't really be comparing this to Clinton volunteers Muslim smears...

Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 5:16 PM:

Does this count as one of the 99 problems?

MIKE IN RENO wrote on January 14, 2008 5:17 PM:

Ugh, as an Obama precinct captain in Reno, I would like to say that I don't support this crap.

On the bright side, at least there weren't any personal attacks listed in this one.

DRinOH wrote on January 14, 2008 5:18 PM:

I don't understand why this is supposed to be controversial. It's called strategic voting and in primary elections, it's the name of the game.

Is there anyone here who doesn't think Republicans hate Hillary? Is there anyone here who doesn't want a democrat to win in November?

Daniel wrote on January 14, 2008 5:19 PM:

Not directly related to this at all, but make sure to check Campaign Diaries's latest Senate rankings with analysis of all the races that was just released yesterday. GOP prospects have improved but Democrats are still in the driver's seat.

Dawn wrote on January 14, 2008 5:19 PM:

Great slogan for Obama going forward : Republicans love me!!!

seanh wrote on January 14, 2008 5:19 PM:

Like it or not, many Obama supporters I know are extremely -- sometimes irrationally -- opposed to Hillary Clinton. It's inevitable that some of that frustration bottled into many Obama supporters will seep out from time to time.

That said, most Obama supporters are also committed to the positivity the official campaign espouses. Every public Obama event I've attended -- and this is in New York of all places -- has made a point of staying positive, and specifically avoiding off-color criticism of competitors.

I'd like to see the Obama campaign ask the volunteer to step down, but I doubt that'll happen. Thankfully, it seems the precinct captain has at least clued into the campaign's generally positive message.

Jeremy wrote on January 14, 2008 5:20 PM:

I've got no problem with Obama's campaign putting out the word to attract Reps and independents. We need more than %50 + 1 or any hope we have is false. The execution in this case was flawed.

Phillips wrote on January 14, 2008 5:20 PM:

...and the problem is what exactly??

Is this a silly attempt at "evenhandedness?"

I'm trying to figure out why this is important to report??

...and don't you LOVE the campaign's honesty about the whole deal???

how refreshing...

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 14, 2008 5:20 PM:

Karl Rove is a Nevada precinct captain? Who knew?

Tom wrote on January 14, 2008 5:20 PM:

Looks like some random Obama supporter urging Republicans to switch parties and vote for Obama to stop Hillary.

Controversial? No. Non-story? Yes.

David wrote on January 14, 2008 5:20 PM:

Brilliant (and completely above board) move by the Obama campaign. Take that you race-baiting scumbags!

Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 5:22 PM:

I know what I'm getting when I vote Clinton. It's becoming more and more clear what I'd get for voting Obama...more of 'politics as usual' without the experience.

Dawn wrote on January 14, 2008 5:23 PM:

Aren't personal attacks build in to the Republican hatred of Hillary? Their hatred surely isn't based on the issues, where she is not all that far from a lot of them. Talk about your dog whistle politics. I mean, fair is fair and all that, but really.

DRinOH wrote on January 14, 2008 5:23 PM:

Dawn,

Agreed. That would be a great slogan as the objective is to win in November.

Seanh,

It's not Obama supporters, but Republicans who are "extremely -- sometimes irrationally -- opposed to Hillary Clinton."

Scientific wrote on January 14, 2008 5:24 PM:

katie, please. How does mocking Obama's slogan accomplish anything? Is a candidate that you have to smear others to elect really worth electing? (Yes, that applies to all candidates, and this NV precinct captain should be reprimanded harshly.)

GET IT TOGETHER, DEMOCRATS! We're fighting amongst ourselves, and for what? Choose the best candidate on his or her merits, and get on with it. So sick of this shit.

Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 5:24 PM:

Let's see...calling your opponent a Muslim, a drug dealer or employing racist undertones vs. telling Republicans to vote Democratic. Hmmm...I think the Clintons may actually have a case here. Good for Obama! The only way we (Edwards and Obama fans) are going to win is to fight them back sharply and honestly. And the truth is that nearly 70% of the country can't stand Hillary.

What a great move by the Obama campaign to further expose the truth.

athyrio wrote on January 14, 2008 5:24 PM:

How on earth does this benefit the democratic party or our values....Just seems like Obama is out to win no matter what...

DRinOH wrote on January 14, 2008 5:25 PM:

Dawn,

Come again - how is this a personal attack?

Greg wrote on January 14, 2008 5:25 PM:

I think it's a fair point that this isn't comparable in degree to the Muslim smear email, though the Hillary volunteer forwarded it and didn't write it.

My point is really more that the campaigns are being held accountable across the board for the actions of volunteers.

willyjsimmons wrote on January 14, 2008 5:25 PM:

Pure Comedy.

markg8 wrote on January 14, 2008 5:26 PM:

It's not just Republicans who are sick of Hillary. Indies don't like her and she's alienating increasing numbers of Dems too.

Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 5:26 PM:

Hey Greh Sargent - Maybe John Solomon will hire you over at the Washington Times. I hear he's looking for some more honest, balanced and ethical writers like himself.

Dawn wrote on January 14, 2008 5:26 PM:

It is very interesting, and refreshing actually, that the primary logic has been thrown out the window this year. Used to be candidates played to the base of the party during the primary, then went to the middle. It is all over the map this time, at least on the Dem side.

BJ wrote on January 14, 2008 5:27 PM:

Obama goes for the Republican nomination! That's one way to become president, since their other candidates suck.

Dawn wrote on January 14, 2008 5:27 PM:

Nothing personal about hatred I guess.

DRinOH wrote on January 14, 2008 5:30 PM:

Not only is this practice legal, according to the Supreme Court states are constitutionally forbidden to prevent a party from opening its primary to independents. As to members of other parties, if the party wants to open the door to allow members of other parties, the state cannot "protect the party from itself."

Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208.

texasdem wrote on January 14, 2008 5:30 PM:

I know it's wrong; I know, I know! But I still have to smirk when Hillary gets beat at her own game.

ignroance wrote on January 14, 2008 5:30 PM:

ugh... this bothers me.. I'm still upset over the Bob Johnson remark as well.. Don't get me wrong, when he said that while Hillary was helpin civil rights when Barack was doing coke, I didn't have a problem with that because it was true.

What the media curiously has not focused on is the fact that the Sidney Poitier comment come to dinner line was blatantly RAICST.

ARM wrote on January 14, 2008 5:30 PM:

Does this need to be one of your leading stories, including a picture of a pensive Obama? Clearly, this is not how any of the campaigns should comport themselves but I'm not sure if a rogue precinct captain acting without the approval of the campaign deserves this kind of attention. For what it's worth, ABC News had this story up a while ago.

By the way, I hope folks have had a chance to read Bai's article today in the Times.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/the-clintons-and-history/index.html?hp

seanh wrote on January 14, 2008 5:31 PM:

DRinOH,
Republicans moreso.

I've heard a-plenty of Obama supporters who claim they'd rather vote John "Hundred Years In Iraq" McCain before Hillary. To some extent, I think it's sour grapes. If Hillary's nominated, I imagine those sorts will swallow their pride and vote with the Democrats in the end, regardless of nominee.

nisleib wrote on January 14, 2008 5:33 PM:

What is the big deal?

I want as many Republicans and independents to vote in the Democratic primary as possible. If they vote in the primary they are more likely to vote in the General Election.

Not only is this not an attack, it is a good idea. Drain the Republican party of its "Reagan Republicans" and all it has is its loonatic fringe.

Dawn wrote on January 14, 2008 5:33 PM:

I'll elaborate...you never see these type of appeals based on the issues. For example, it is not 'Republicans should Vote for Obama because Hillary's health care plan is socialized medicine' or something like that. They can't do that because Hillary's positions on issues may be actually to the right of Obama's. So they play on the Republican personal hatred of her. That's what makes it personal - the focus on what she in particular symbolizes to the Republicans. Bet it never occured to him to make the same sign against Edwards.

denisep wrote on January 14, 2008 5:34 PM:

YAWN

I'm 99% sure that if the Clintons could get away with posting fliers saying "Calling All Racist Republicans and Independents! If you hate negros and don't want a negro president in your lifetime switch parties for a day and vote against Barack "Hussein" Obama!! Yes, that's right, he is also a terrorist!! Come help whitey win!!!"

A little over the top? Perhaps, but after the dirty crap they have pulled over the last few weeks, especially concerning race, I think they will try anything they can get away with to win this election and get back in power. This is only a little over the top because it doesn't fall under the "they can get away with" heading. I think Bill would run around in black face to rally white voters if he thought it would give them a boost.

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 5:36 PM:

David: "You can't really be comparing this to Clinton volunteers Muslim smears..."

No, it's worse because Clinton volunteers didn't author the "Muslim smears" and there is little evidence they passed in on (to a handful of people instead of being placed in wide public distribution) for smear purposes, but Obama supporters did author this one and they did publish it for wide public distribution.

One expects this sort of dishonest intellectual rationalization from Obama supporters.

And one gets it.

So, LOL with your Obama and his supporters are Mother Theresas meme.

Tom wrote on January 14, 2008 5:36 PM:

"My point is really more that the campaigns are being held accountable across the board for the actions of volunteers."

But isn't this story something you alone came up with? So it's really just you who's doing this. I think this confirms my original comment that this was a non-story.

Dawn wrote on January 14, 2008 5:37 PM:

Note I'm not saying it is not fair. It is hardball politics. But don't tell me it's not personal.

DRinOH wrote on January 14, 2008 5:38 PM:

Seanh,
You can count me, and everyone I know, in the group that thinks John McCain would be a better president than Hillary. What's she going to say when they campaign against each other? "I'm more experienced?"

I'll vote for her against McCain b/c I care about the Supreme Court and administrative agency heads, but she's not as good a candidate as Obama, and sure as hell not as good as McCain who will crush her. (To be fair, I think he'd beat Obama too, but at least I could sleep at night knowing we put our best foot forward)

John wrote on January 14, 2008 5:38 PM:

It is deplorable that TPM is reporting on this at all. Precinct Captains are low-level volunteers -- there are over 4000 of them working for Obama in Claifornia -- who have no accountability to the campaign. TPM knows this, along with every other news outlet. This is just standard horse-race BS. Move along. There's nothing to see here.

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 5:38 PM:

denisep: "A little over the top? Perhaps, but after the dirty crap they have pulled over the last few weeks, especially concerning race, I think they will try anything they can get away with to win this election and get back in power."

This from a supporter of the candidate who has pulled dirty misogyny crap since day one and lied about his own positions (plural) on the vote for the AUMF.

Tom wrote on January 14, 2008 5:39 PM:

Greg, this is not comparable to what was happening in Iowa, where it was county chairs and county party officials forwarding the e-mails, and the e-mails were terrible and personal smears against Obama.

The Muslim stigma they pushed stuck. It shouldn't be a stigma, and it was totally false, but it had an impact on the caucuses and it will hurt Obama again if he gets the nomination.

Precinct captains are volunteers, but they really aren't too connected with the campaign's strategies and have not necessarily been given much instruction on how to act, at least not in Nevada where the whole volunteer organization formed quickly. In Iowa, Obama county chairs and precinct captains were instructed not to do anything negative about the other candidates.

But I would also point out that in Iowa there was a serious effort to bring No-party and Republican voters into the Iowa Democratic Caucuses, and it was an incredible benefit to the party. We got tens of thousands of new Democrats. Some of these will switch back, but I bet we increase at least 10% the number of Democrats in Iowa, and even those that switch back still have a better impression of our party than they did before.

So, maybe you should rethink the negative tone of your post, especially equating this legitimate tactic in Nevada with the Muslim smear by county chairs in Iowa.

DRinOH wrote on January 14, 2008 5:40 PM:

Dawn,

I still don't see how it's personal. Republican's don't like Hillary, they're ok with Obama - why not encourage them to vote for the candidate they prefer, especially if they're dissatisfied with their field.

To be personal it would have to be an attack. You know, like "Hillary is a drug dealer," or "Hillary is a muslim." Stuff like that.

goldberry wrote on January 14, 2008 5:40 PM:

Now that's stupid. If I were him, I wouldn't want to tempt Republican women who might think Hillary's looking pretty good right about now. She's making it through her trial by fire and is showing that she has the guts to go the distance.

Well, we'll see. Gender is a pretty powerful bait.

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 5:40 PM:

DRinOH: "You can count me, and everyone I know, in the group that thinks John McCain would be a better president than Hillary."

". . . but she's not as good a candidate as Obama."

Obama isn't as good a candidate as his supporters' delusional belief about what kind of candidate he is.

Delusion is an addiction.

Get help.

awrbb wrote on January 14, 2008 5:41 PM:

Greg, when did you start taking cues from Taylor Marsh?

Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 5:41 PM:

"Sicko" pointed out that Hillary Clinton after failing to pass healthcare reform sold out and accepted huge donations from the insurance companies (over $500K) for her silence on the issue since.

PlumWdhse wrote on January 14, 2008 5:43 PM:

So we have come to this - Make use of the Repubs hatred of Hillary to get the nomination.
So when the Repubs go back in the general, you have a Mad Mac or Crazy Roney or Horrible Huck for President, but hey who gives a fug? Atleast we beat the Clintons.
This is pathetic, coming from a man who claimed to be above it all. He is running a vile campaign, what with throwing the charge of racialism on the Clintons and now this.

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 5:43 PM:

Tom: "The Muslim stigma they pushed stuck."

Bullsh*t.

The "Muslim smear" had been around for months being promoted by wingers and if it had gained any traction at all it was from that not a couple of e-mails sent to a couple of dozen people, e-mails not even authored by Clinton supporters.

What are you smokin'?

nisleib wrote on January 14, 2008 5:45 PM:

Anonymous said:

This from a supporter of the candidate who has pulled dirty misogyny crap since day one and lied about his own positions (plural) on the vote for the AUMF.

Where on earth are you getting that? He never lied about his position on the war. Bill and Hillary Clinton lied about his position on the war, but he didn't.

And what "dirty misogyn crap" did he pull on day one?

As far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with this flyer. We should all want to grow the Democratic party.

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 5:45 PM:

DRinOhio: "Republican's don't like Hillary, they're ok with Obama"

And the delusions just keep on flowing like water over Niagra . . .

DRinOH wrote on January 14, 2008 5:46 PM:

Anonymous,

Obama attracts more independent and cross-over votes, which is what it takes to win a general election. That's a fact. Look at the Iowa and N.H. results. She's got a ton of support from the base, which doesn't win anything in November. Obama gets support across the board, which will win in November.

bvd wrote on January 14, 2008 5:46 PM:

Let me see if I have this straight: Hillary's Nevada campaign Chairman is involved in a lawsuit to block workers from voting. Meanwhile Obama has a lone precinct captain ENCOURAGING people to vote. And the Hillary supporters are sneering at that.

The Democratic Party hasn't sunk this low since 1968. And if Hillary gets the nomination it's going produce the same results: a Republican win.

Desider wrote on January 14, 2008 5:46 PM:

For months it's felt like Obama's great tent of hope was much more open to Republicans than Hillary-supporters. It gets more and more overt.

Considering the last 6 years, especially the last one that's torpedoed the Democratic majority, I would think one would be more careful embracing the other side. You're judged by the friends you keep.

I think the Obama campaign refuted the idea that this was just a precinct captain's crazy idea - it's official policy. Regarding the Clinton workers that sent out the e-mails, they were fired, as was Shaheen. I don't recall anyone in the Obama camp being fired.

Mike in Reno - thanks for disapproving of this, though I would say this turn of events is rather personal. It also doesn't seem like a very bright move. If Hillary wins, are Obama supporters really going to vote Republican or sit this one out? If Obama wins, is he counting on his new Republican friends to help him out and telling Hillary supporters to just stay home? Very strange. I would have hoped for more party loyalty, quite frankly.

Regarding personal, I do see lots of name-calling from the Obama side ("race-baiting scumbags" perhaps is notching it up a slight bit, but not much). If this isn't official campaign policy, why do people do it? Don't supporters somehow reflect the ideals of the campaign?

And I'm also amazed with how many times I've seen the "Hillary's lost my vote" bit. Like she ever had it. Really, is this the worst campaign people have ever seen? All candidates flip-flop on issues, all get their past foibles poked at. We've got a black and a woman running, so both will try to make this work their way as well. "My relatives live in Africa and I understand Moslems from living in Indonesia". "I'm a woman and can relate to female problems better." It's part of politics. If I were a dwarf, I'd be reacting against every mention of "short", "little", "diminutive", and "insignificant" as a slur by my opponent. But let's not be Pollyannas. Where did the "Bradley Effect" and New Hampshire recount bits come from?

Greg wrote on January 14, 2008 5:47 PM:

I guess it won't matter how many times I point this out, but I'll point this out again.

The point isn't that writing this flyer and distributing it is comparable to forwarding the Muslim smear email.

The point of drawing the comparison, rather, is to point out that the campaigns are being held accountable for the actions of low-level volunteers.

I'll add this in an update.

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 14, 2008 5:48 PM:

Greg: "An Obama precinct captain in Nevada has circulated a flyer that urges Republicans (and independents) to become Democrats just for a day in order to stop Hillary."

Did he also ask that they bring the Kool-Aid?

Tom wrote on January 14, 2008 5:48 PM:

I guess we will never know who was the initial instigator of the Muslim e-mail that was circulated by Clinton county chairs. But between that e-mail and the Bob Kerrey false comments about Obama's heritage, it did have an impact. I heard it from many Iowans, mostly Republicans, but also Independents.

Whoever you are, you either have been smokin something or you weren't in Iowa for the caucuses.

Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 5:48 PM:

I think we should set up At-Large precincts at the site of the Republican Caucuses to make it easier for Republicans to vote for Obama. If they did it for the Culinary workers, they could at least do the same for the Republicans.

onceler wrote on January 14, 2008 5:49 PM:

asking people to caucus for your candidate? will the insanity never cease? I'm sorry, but there is nothing even wrong with this. what with all of the bullshit stories going around (like the bogus NYPost report cited above by some idiot saying that Obama played Jay-Z's "99 Problems" at an event (a lie - never happened) about Obama, can we focus on calling out candidates who lie and spread untruths? I would prefer that, because as an Obama supporter, doing so helps my candidate and hurts Clinton. who has made a campaign out of smears and lies.

nice try... wrote on January 14, 2008 5:50 PM:

you've got to be kidding me! Give me a break. There's nothing "controversial" in that flyer whatsoever. It may not have been the smartest move, but it's certainly not "controversial" and doesn't warrent the headline photo box above the fold.

Last time I checked, it was still legit to vote against someone by casting your ballot for someone else. Happens all the time.

Sorry, Greg, but you're being played for a sucker on this one.

How can you possibly equivocate "stop Hillary" with these latest chart-topping hits from the official Clinton campaign?

1) The bogus Social Security mailer
2) The blatantly untruthful reproductive rights mailer
3) The voter suppression lie on MTP.
4)The MLK was nothing without a (white) president
5)The Fairy Tale
6) The False Hope
7) The Shuck and Jive
8) The Drug dealer
9) The Madrassa
10) The Hip Black Friend
11) Doin' something in the neighborhood.
12) Secret Muslim Man (sung to the tune of Secret Agent Man)

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 5:50 PM:

nisleib: "He never lied about his position on the war."

Then he lied about being above politics as usual (and he lied when he said he wasn't certain how he would have voted), since he willingly supported Kerry and Edwards in order to not derail their campaign and give the GOP ammunition but he refuses to do so for Clinton which shows that its because she's a woman and there you have the misogyny.

Obama: okay to not criticize "proponents" of the war in Iraq when they are men but way okay to do so when it is a woman.

Ovid wrote on January 14, 2008 5:51 PM:

I've got no problem with this at all anymore. A month ago it would have been bad manners. Now I say let's let it all hang out. The fact is, a lot of people hate hillary, and it's a good idea to tap into that rational hatred. She participated in the smears of all the women creepy Bill accosted and then lied about. She knew the truth and opted to destroy people rather than admit what an adolescent clown her husband was. She's lied about her own name, for god sakes, claiming she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary.

A lot of people in this country would pretty much do anything to keep "the creep" and his serial enabler out of the white house-- just as they would obviously do anything to get back there. Including making deals with a bamboozling "death tax" scumbag like Johnson.

katie wrote on January 14, 2008 5:52 PM:

The flyer isnt about growing the democratic party, its about growing the cult of Obama.

awrbb wrote on January 14, 2008 5:52 PM:

What's next, a front page post on the "99 Problems" scandal?

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 5:52 PM:

DRinOhio: "Obama attracts more independent and cross-over votes, which is what it takes to win a general election."

No, Obama attracts far left independents (e.g., former Green Party supporters) who left the Democratic Party because it wasn't extreme enough for them and Republicans who want to vote against Hillary not for Obama.

That doesn't translate into Republican or useful independent votes for Obama in November 2008.

blackstar wrote on January 14, 2008 5:53 PM:

maybe someone could explain to us why telling people to change their party affiliation to vote against a particular candidate is wrong?

there is no comparison between this and the Muslim smear e-mails (both being the work of individuals rather than campaign policy and without campaign approval).

onceler wrote on January 14, 2008 5:53 PM:

Greg - "The point of drawing the comparison, rather, is to point out that the campaigns are being held accountable for the actions of low-level volunteers."

are you saying that's good or bad? I don't think either campaign should be held accountable for the actions of low-level volunteers. if you think it's good I disagree. if you think it's bad, then, well why are you doing it yourself here?

DonnaG wrote on January 14, 2008 5:56 PM:

I agree with appealing to Republicans to cross over and vote for Obama, but I disagree with the idea of doing so by utilizing the dislike of Hillary among Republicans.

So, I for one appreciate that the precinct fellow re-wrote the flyer after considering Obama's overall message.

DRinOH wrote on January 14, 2008 5:56 PM:

Greg,

I don't think this post equivocates the two, and, with the exception of a few morons above, I don't think anyone else is.

My point is, there's nothing questionable about this flyer. It's not news. Republicans don't like Hillary, that's an objective fact, nothing personal. That said, I guess my real problem is with Bill Burton for calling it into question by pulling it - that's not your fault. He should have just said, "yea, so..."

Spectator Consumer wrote on January 14, 2008 5:56 PM:

I'm an Obama fan and more than interested in mudslinging if the Clinton campaign wants to. She failed the DC Bar and wouldn't be anywhere without her last name. Obama, well he's an author, law professor, community organizer, civil rights lawyer, likable, self-made, President of the Harvard Law Review and all this by age 46. The fact this race is even close just shows you what a challenge race is in this country. Hillary shouldn't be on the same stage with Obama, and if he wasn't such a nice guy he'd make her look like the incompetent health care ruining, war voter she is.

Bring it on Billy. Your fat ass is patholgoical and crooked. I'd like to see an audit of how the Clintons got to be worth 50 million dollars when they weren't worth jack cheese in the White House. Go back to Arkansas you faux Democrat sleazebags. Take Carvel with you please.

Angry Vet wrote on January 14, 2008 5:57 PM:

Personally, this is along the line's of Kos's call for Michigan Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney. If that call is wrong, so it this one.

Yes, Obama is playing off a viceral hatred of Clinton that exists out there. Is that such a bad thing? Isn's this, then, an example of why Hillary CLinton is not really that electable?

And don't give me poll results. All of that math will change once the Republicans have a nominee, even if that doesn't happen until September 4th right here in Saint Paul.

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 5:57 PM:

Tom: "I heard it from many Iowans, mostly Republicans, but also Independents."

Yeah, imagine that, two groups filled with Hillary Haters confirming that it was e-mails forwarded by her campaign to a couple of dozen people that turned the tide, especially when you consider that Obama and his supporters gave those e-mails 10,000 time wider public exposure than would have existed had they just kept their mouths shut.

If Obama supporters want to blame anyone for this so-called "impact" (it's still a bullsh*t claim no matter how many independents and Republicans "confirm" your suspicions) it would be themselves.

Adam wrote on January 14, 2008 5:58 PM:

I personally think this is hilarious. Why shouldn't Obama use Republicans and Independent hatred of her for his benefit? Shouldn't we consider electability in picking a nominee? There is a big group of people who are "Anyone but Hillary" people. Why shouldn't I take this into consideration?

Spectator Consumer wrote on January 14, 2008 5:58 PM:

Hillary is always the victim. Lots of incompetent boobs fall back on that.

Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA wrote on January 14, 2008 5:59 PM:

Republicans love the Unity Pony!

DRinOH wrote on January 14, 2008 5:59 PM:

Anonymous @ 5:52:

What the hell are you talking about? Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Can you at least make an argument to support it? Because I can show you exit polls and myriad youtube clips of voter interviews that say the opposite.

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 6:00 PM:

Spectator Consumer: "I'm an Obama fan and more than interested in mudslinging if the Clinton campaign wants to. She failed the DC Bar and wouldn't be anywhere without her last name. Obama, well he's an author, law professor, community organizer, civil rights lawyer, likable, self-made, President of the Harvard Law Review and all this by age 46. The fact this race is even close just shows you what a challenge race is in this country. Hillary shouldn't be on the same stage with Obama, and if he wasn't such a nice guy he'd make her look like the incompetent health care ruining, war voter she is."

Yeah, no Hillary Hatred from the Obama camp.

None at all.

Nothing to see here, move along.

She's just somebody's wife.

No misogyny here, just move along.

Tom wrote on January 14, 2008 6:01 PM:

Good point onceler.

If this post was about the media holding campaigns accountable for the actions of volunteers, then why not write something about that in the piece? This is currently linked to from the front page as if it were some major news story.

nisleib wrote on January 14, 2008 6:02 PM:

Anonymous said:

Then he lied about being above politics as usual (and he lied when he said he wasn't certain how he would have voted), since he willingly supported Kerry and Edwards in order to not derail their campaign and give the GOP ammunition but he refuses to do so for Clinton which shows that its because she's a woman and there you have the misogyny.

A) if that is your case for misogyny you are reaching.

B) in 2004 he said he thought that the case to go to war hadn't been made. He was the keynot speaker at the convention for Kerry and Edwards, he was being diplomatic, but he was not lying.

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 6:02 PM:

Spectator Consumer: "Hillary is always the victim. Lots of incompetent boobs fall back on that."

Boo, hoo, they're attacking me (or attacking my candidate) because he's black (or he's young, or he's not "Washington", even though he is), but I'm not playing the victim card or anything!

Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 6:03 PM:

http://www.obamaflorida2008.com/plugins/p2_news/printarticle.php?p2_articleid=17

lambert strether wrote on January 14, 2008 6:03 PM:

Ah! The old "overzealous volunteer" ploy.
Glad that's sorted.

Keith wrote on January 14, 2008 6:04 PM:

He should be gone, just on principal for distributing unauthorized materials.

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 6:05 PM:

nisleib: "he was being diplomatic"

So that's what they're calling "lying" these days!

(You know, I think Bush was simply being "diplomatic" when he said Saddam had WMDs!)

Where's his diplomacy with regard to Hillary?

Oops!

Alan wrote on January 14, 2008 6:06 PM:

You get to know about integrity at this time. Both Clinton and Obama have bozos who are damaging their efforts to seek election on a rational basis. The Clintonistas put out guff on Obama. The Obamists do the same stuff. Neither leader is being helped. Frankly, my dear, both sides are despicable. Clinton and Obama had better kick ass. We don't need crap from supporters in both camps.

Jeff wrote on January 14, 2008 6:06 PM:

Greg,

As a volunteer for the Barack Obama campaign, I was very disappointed to read about the precinct captain in NV distributing leaflets containing an "anti-Hillary" message. That is not the kind of campaign Barack Obama is running. In fact, more so than any campaign I've ever been a part of, the Obama campaign goes to great lengths to ensure volunteers do not engage in these kinds of tactics.

As disappointed as I am about this volunteer's actions, I am equally disappointed by yours. You have certainly been around long enough to know that precinct captains are not accountable to the campaigns they serve, and are much lower in the pecking order, and less influential, than County Chairs.

The Obama campaign has more active volunteers than any democratic primary campaign in history -- a fact that should be celebrated by ALL Americans. It is simply unreasonable to even mention the actions of a lone volunteer in Reno, NV, in the context of such a hugely important national race.

As a fan of your writing, I urge you to provide your readers with a more thorough examination of this matter. If you don't, I can only assume you are turning in your journalistic credentials in favor of joining the rank and file, horse-race obsessed, punditry. You can do -- and have done -- much better than that.

Matt A wrote on January 14, 2008 6:11 PM:

Obama is attracting supporters who rarely get behind the same candidate; anti-establishment liberal Dems , moderate Dems, independants and even some moderate Republicans. This is a GOOD thing! It means he has a broader base of support for the general election. Appealing for the support of indies and repos is a wise strategy -- especially when Clinton is playing the insider game against him.

DRinOH wrote on January 14, 2008 6:11 PM:

Anonymous @ 6:05: Lying? "From my vantage point, the case has not been made." What the hell are you talking about...

As for everyone accusing Obama of playing the victim card, how about the headline below this one on the front page?
Obama: Clintons' attacks not racial.

Money quote: "Did Obama feel dissed? He laughed and shook his head. But, again, Obama looked past the racial controversy."

michellecasabas@yahoo.com wrote on January 14, 2008 6:13 PM:

Hmm.. the rules are the rules.. from what I have read, it seems like this caucus should be called the Culinary Workers Union Caucus, but with that said.. the teachers union and other unions should have known about this when they agreed to the set up. If the setup called for special caucusing sites for Culinary workers, but not for Teachers, etc., than they should have objected when it was created. The fact they are crying about it now just makes them look like whiners.

I still don't understand how Caucuses are constitutional, and why primaries aren't mandatory. Indicating your preference in public seems so Stalinesque. .

Donald from Hawaii wrote on January 14, 2008 6:15 PM:

DRinOH: "Obama attracts more independent and cross-over votes, which is what it takes to win a general election. That's a fact."

I would be very cautious in my analysis about the motives of those independent and cross-over Republican voters who choose to participate in Democratic caucuses and primaries, before hazarding to assume that such motives are all that collectively altruistic.

California GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon also attracted a massive cross-over vote from Democrats in the 2002 Republican primary, which proved decisive in his successful bid to upset the popular former mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Reardon.

But then, having thus succeeded in saddling California Republicans with a classic foot-in-mouth, far-right ideologue for their party's nominee, the vast majority of those same Democrats promptly crossed right back over the aisle for the general election, easily handing it gift-wrapped to an otherwise-unpopular incumbent, Gov. Gray Davis.

Of course, Davis crashed and burned one year later, but then, that's a whole 'nother story.

Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 6:15 PM:

nisleib-
You claim Obama only questioned how he would have voted on Iraq to be polite at the 2004 convention. That might be plausible except he said this in a 2006 interview:
Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton, politically?

You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she’s the most disciplined—one of the most disciplined people—I’ve ever met. She’s one of the toughest. She’s got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons. She’s passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children. So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/30/061030on_onlineonly04?currentPage=3

Another Obama lie. But as we have learned from the Republicans if you keep repeating it enough people will believe you. So please keep passing on Obama's whoppers.

Redstocking wrote on January 14, 2008 6:18 PM:

I desperately want a Democrat to win in November, and I have seen very little evidence that Obama is a Democratic.

Mike wrote on January 14, 2008 6:19 PM:

I was wondering what 'CHANGE' looked like.

"The new dog looks like the old dog."

Maybe after these two fools self-distruct, Edwards will surface as the candidate of change.

Are we going to hand this election to John McCain? Call a truce now!

Kevin wrote on January 14, 2008 6:20 PM:

exit polls showed that 44% if the votes Obama earned were from Republicans. These republicans will vote for a republican in the general election, and know that Obama will be ripped to pieces in the general election.

It makes me want to support clinton even more.

I do not like it when one party deliberately sabotages the other party's primary.

--Kevin

acf wrote on January 14, 2008 6:21 PM:

I think the time has come to put to rest the idea that Obama is a different kind of politician, or lives the 'change' he talks about. He is just like the rest of them, and will resort to the tactics it will take to win. In fact, he may be worse, at least they don't pretend to be better.

lampwick wrote on January 14, 2008 6:23 PM:

I support Obama and I once accidentally ran over a dog that ran out into the street.

Why does Obama hate dogs?

Neo wrote on January 14, 2008 6:25 PM:

Former DNC head and now Governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell did just the opposite when Alen Specter was running against conservative Pat Toomey in the PA primaries.

Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 6:27 PM:

Wow, you guys really are shills for the Clinton campaign.

I'm sorry for you.

bvd wrote on January 14, 2008 6:32 PM:

This is great - we have people disparaging Obama because he appeals more to Republicans and people disparaging Obama because he appeals more to leftist-Green Party type.

So maybe... he has GREATER widespread appeal in general? Maybe that's something the Democratic Party hasn't had in decades? Maybe that's the way to win a majority vote for a change?

But no, of course, not, that couldn't be. Because Hillary is pre-ordained. And Dems and "progressives" would rather lose than work with anyone else.

And that's why the pro-war Dem is preffered. And the anti-war Dem is disparaged. What a mess.

Menelek wrote on January 14, 2008 6:33 PM:

Now it's clear:

Whatever Obama does = good.

What ever Clinton does = bad.

Whatever an Obama supporter says = true.

Whatever a Clinton supporter says = false.

If this had been explained to us earlier, it would saved so much trouble and pain. Then we pitiable skeptics would have grasped that anyone who doesn't admire Obama without reservation is a racist thug, is a tool (knowing or unknowing) of Republicans, and doesn't believe in goodness, the future, unity (unity!!) and the noble dream of America.

The sound you hear is my smiting my forehead in enlightenment. Of course! Clinton is a monster, Obama is a saint. Clinton swims in slime, Obama walks on water. The nation is saved!

Ain't life easy?

Anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 6:40 PM:

any dem generating higher republican turn-out should be fired

Don wrote on January 14, 2008 6:41 PM:

"It is deplorable that TPM is reporting on this at all. Precinct Captains are low-level volunteers -- there are over 4000 of them working for Obama in Claifornia -- who have no accountability to the campaign. TPM knows this, along with every other news outlet. This is just standard horse-race BS. Move along. There's nothing to see here."

So I guess the campaigns are not about getting more accountability into government!

roo_P wrote on January 14, 2008 6:48 PM:

Huh.. actually I think the first one was much more appropriate and the second one is quite iffy.

john mccutchen wrote on January 14, 2008 7:04 PM:

TRUE CONFESSION

I've been a Yellow Dog Democrat in every election since 1972

EXCEPT

For the one day I registered republican so that I could vote for Poppy against Ronald Raygun in the 1980 CA Primary

That's the strength and weakness of the Obama campaign ie it truly is a grassroots movement with very little top down management.

This independent expenditure doesn't bother me nearly as much as the woman who's flooding my email box to enlist volunteers so that she can paper Mission Dist utility polls with flyers

What a colossal waste of time!

wyorange wrote on January 14, 2008 7:04 PM:

As a life-long registered republican, I really enjoy seeing the democrats eat their own.

More than likely will end up having to vote for McCain (think he will get the nomination) because of the international situation. As for your race, because of my middle class upbringing, I would be happy to vote for Edwards or Clinton. I do not see where Obama has been in the trenches fighting for the middle class, civil rights, or for equality.

As for Clinton, I disagree with a lot of her stands, but I certainly do not hate her. Guess I am not a typical republican. But I doubt very seriously that you will have very many republicans cross over voting in the general election. Sitting out very possibily, cross over voting I don't think so.

rosignol wrote on January 14, 2008 7:12 PM:

Republican's don't like Hillary, they're ok with Obama - why not encourage them to vote for the candidate they prefer, especially if they're dissatisfied with their field. -DRinOH

This is disingenuous.

Republicans aren't going to vote for Obama in the general. He's a liberal Democrat, and people who agree with liberal Democrats on the issues are pretty much by definition not Republicans.

If it comes down to Obama and whoever the Republican nominee is, Republicans will disagree with the Republican nominee on a few issues, and will disagree with Obama on more than a few issues. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even Dick Morris) to figure out how we'll vote.

I'm not going to vote for the Democrat in the general, but I hope Hillary isn't the nominee. It's long past time to put an end to the rancid, bitter partisanship of the last ~15 years, and that means getting the Clintons off the stage*.

But don't think I want to be rid of the Clintons so much that I'll vote for Obama in the general. Given a choice between a liberal democrat I have many policy disagreements with and a new england RINO I have some policy disagreents with, I'll take the RINO.

*Yeah, I know. You want Bush out, too. Fair enough, Bush will be out 1 year and 1 week from now.

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 7:15 PM:

So, Obama makes a politically-calculated statement in furtherance of the candidacy of members of his party and he's "diplomatic" but . . .

Clinton makes a politically-calculated vote in furtherance of the candidacy of members of her party and she's a "war promoter?"

Got it.

Not to mention that Obama himself has said it's not racial.

So, is he lying or are his supporters?

Or should we apply this new definition of "lying" and say he's being "diplomatic?"

Chris Brown wrote on January 14, 2008 7:23 PM:

I see nothing at all with the brochure. It's all true and it is an attempt to tap into the significant anti-Clinton sentiment.

What's the problem?

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 7:29 PM:

BTW, if Obama is such an inspirational and positive guy, and he's such a consensus builder why can't he get his supporters, the people he has the MOST influence over (presumably) to stop calling Clinton "Hitlery", to stop calling her a racist or race-baiter, to stop calling her a "war promoter" and "pro-torture" candidate and stop the hate-baiting that his TPM commenter supporters engage in?

Not much of an influencer as he proclaims.

The proof is right here in these threads.

And when did he build consensus in the Senate on his one major issue, Iraq?

When did he come up with compromise legislation or consensus legislation to end the war?

When did he do anything in the Senate to prove his mettle in using consensus on the single most important issue (according to his supporters) of the day?

And why didn't he run in 2004 if he was the only one who was right and experience, in the Senate or anywhere in Washington, is meaningless - why did he allow our soldiers to continue to die all through the last 3 years when he could have run and won in 2004?

And since that is all he brings to the table, other than being black, and he's utterly failed to accomplish anything in the last 3 years that he claims he is capable of, what reason is there left to vote for him?

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 7:31 PM:

Chris Brown Redux

"I don't see anything wrong with pointing out Obama is black. It is all true and it is an attempt to tap into the significant anti-black sentiment.

What's the problem?"

Nice to know Chris's moral center is spot on.

wes2 wrote on January 14, 2008 7:34 PM:

Wow. Logic seems to have deserted this thread.

There's a difference between motivating independents and Republicans to turnout based on their support for you, and motivating them to do so based on animosity for another Democratic candidate. In other words, Iowa=good, this flier=not good. We think higher turnout is desirable because (as a number of commenters said upthread), these people are more likely to vote in the general. The problem with getting them to turnout based on animosity is quite simply, what if Clinton does get the nomination? Congratulations -- now you've motivated a group of voters who are likely to vote AGAINST the Democratic candidate. How hard is that to see? If you think increased turnout is good because it makes achieving a real majority in the GE more likely, you've also got to accept the corollary that increased turnout based on anti-Clinton sentiment has the potential to backfire if she's the nominee.

Also, it's similarly ridiculous to argue that precinct captains are somehow independent operators for whom the campaign bears no responsibility. I was a precinct captain. I'm still trying to figure out what to do with the reams of scripts I was given by the campaign -- scripts for phone calls, scripts for canvassing, scripts for caucusing. Precinct captains may not be employees, but the campaigns are VERY MUCH invested in their messages.

BTW, not a Clinton supporter.

slb wrote on January 14, 2008 7:44 PM:

Menelek: See, doesn't the Kool-Aid taste good?

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 7:47 PM:

Let me see if I get this straight ...

Obama in a politically-calculated manner postpones his candidacy for the presidency 3 years in order to get a higher national profile so he has a better chance at the presidency, despite the fact that he's done nothing to enhance his consensus-building skills (or demonstrate them) during that time and he claims that any experience is irrelevant and he's a "fresh breath of air" in politics, but

Clinton votes in a politically-calculated manner for the nationally-favored position on the AUMF to preserve her and her party's credibility with the voting public at a critical time when they need to get a majority to build upon but she's just "the same stale air" in politics.

Got it.

blackstar wrote on January 14, 2008 8:12 PM:

Let me see if i get this straight ...

people posting anonymously into the internet have as much credibility as unnamed sources not corroborated by the person reporting them.

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 8:21 PM:

Note to "blackstar":

"blackstar" is anonymous, just like "publius" was anonymous and just like "anonymous" is anonymous.

Must mean you have no credibility, at least according to your own standard.

And you are a hypocrite to boot!

anonymous wrote on January 14, 2008 8:23 PM:

BTW, blackstar that's also an ad hominem attack and I thought Obama supporters were above that (well, not really; I know they are perfectly capable of ignoble attacks, no less so than any other politician's supporters.

LL Skip wrote on January 14, 2008 8:24 PM:

What is so wrong with this? Unhappy with the GOP field but don't like Hillary, then vote for Obama. This is not a smear at all

blackstar wrote on January 14, 2008 8:26 PM:

if anyone could appropriate this name the way anyone can post as "anonymous", then yes, it would be. this is the internet, some amount of anonymity is inevitable. however, using the same name consistently adds a measure of ACCOUNTABILITY.

stlounick wrote on January 14, 2008 8:31 PM:

"Clinton votes in a politically-calculated manner for the nationally-favored position on the AUMF to preserve her and her party's credibility with the voting public at a critical time when they need to get a majority to build upon but she's just "the same stale air" in politics."

The majority of Congressional Democrats voted AGAINST the Iraqi War in October 2002. Hillary voted WITH the Republicans. This is leadership?

TexModDem (fka, "anonymous") wrote on January 14, 2008 8:35 PM:

This "accountability" you speak of is a delusion, as is much of your inane rantings.

And in any event, "accountability" is not the same as "credibility."

You can look it up.

But if providing a handle such as "TexModDem" rather than "anonymous" will lend me instant credibility (or "accountability" in your demented world), let it be so!

BTW, "accountability" would maybe be applicable if I were making "predictions," but I'm not, or with respect to factual matters that only I can attest to, which is not the case, so there is nothing to impose "accountability" on.

But go ahead and rant like a buffoon and assert that anonymity is inevitable but it can't exist without a loss of accountability and its okay for you to be anonymous but not anyone else.

LOL.

blackstar wrote on January 14, 2008 8:42 PM:

BTW, blackstar that's also an ad hominem attack and I thought Obama supporters were above that (well, not really; I know they are perfectly capable of ignoble attacks, no less so than any other politician's supporters.

----------------

if a prosecutor attacks a testimony given by a an unnamed, unverifiable "expert" provided by the defense, this isn't ad hominem. if a person calls your house and begins to argue with you about an issue, but doesnt tell you his name or purpose for calling, you're not engaging in ad hominem by hanging up on him.

similarly, if you don't take the time to let us know who you are, why should we consider what you say with any seriousness?

1950democrat wrote on January 14, 2008 8:43 PM:

A kid in NV got caught distributing paper flyers for the idea of Republilcans registering Demo just long enough to vote for Obama in the Demo primary. Will Obama disavow all knowledge -- of this Florida Obama site pushing the same project since April 24, 2007?

Quoting from the Google cache "as retrieved on Nov 30, 2007 02:11:00 GMT"
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:MVQ9FvgfVwoJ:www.obamaflorida2008.com/plugins/p2_news/printarticle.php%3Fp2_articleid%3D17+St.+Johns+voters+are+already+re-registering+in+the+%22Democrat+for+a+Day%22+program.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=opera

WANNA BECOME AN OBAMACRAT?!!!
By Obama Florida 2008
Published: April 24, 2007
....
That's why "Democrat for a Day" was launched this spring by ObamaFlorida2008. Using the official forms provided by all Supervisors of Elections offices, you may re-register as a Democrat for that one day -- when the primary is likely to be held -- on February 5, 2008. You must do so before the end of 2007, to make sure it is done 30 days before the primary.

But this is not about some "hard sell" to recruit voters to become permanent Democrats. Not at all. After the primary, you may re-register back to the
Republican or Libertarian parties, or revert to your previous status as an Independent! There will be plenty of time before the general election in November 2008.
....
But we're finding that up to 20 percent of Obama supporters are registered Republicans.

In fact, during the first couple of weeks in April, some 150 Republicans indeed became "Democrats for a Day." You might call them "Obamacrats!"

Here are tinyurls for the Google cache:

http://tinyurl.com/24pvlg

http://preview.tinyurl.com/24pvlg

"Florida "Democrat for a Day"

preview link to Florida "Democrat for a Day" project

TexModDem wrote on January 14, 2008 8:43 PM:

stlounick: "The majority of Congressional Democrats voted AGAINST the Iraqi War in October 2002. Hillary voted WITH the Republicans. This is leadership?"

And this contradicts the fact that it was "politically-calculated" how?

And, btw, you and your ilk have roundly condemned the entire Democratic caucus for their lack of integrity, so, again, LOL with these inane rationalizations for your equally inane hatred for Clinton.

BTW, you are also being disingenuous about the vote: 29 Democratic Senators voted in favor and only 21 Democratic Senators against. Since voting in the Senate is motivated by substantially different political considerations, this is a much more accurate representation of how the vote played out.

But intellectual dishonesty and tendentious interpretation is the calling card of Obama supporters.

blackstar wrote on January 14, 2008 8:45 PM:

at least you've come out and designated yourself. of course, that just makes it easier for the rest of us to discount posts by your handle as posts made by a proven idiot, but that's a benefit of this system.

TexModDem wrote on January 14, 2008 8:50 PM:

blackstar: "if a prosecutor attacks a testimony given by a an unnamed, unverifiable "expert" provided by the defense, this isn't ad hominem."

I haven't claimed to be an expert, so you analogy, like so many others, is inapt and dishonest, per usual.

blackstar: "if a person calls your house and begins to argue with you about an issue, but doesnt tell you his name or purpose for calling, you're not engaging in ad hominem by hanging up on him."

I didn't call your house nor is my purpose relevant to the substance of my argument, unless I am asserting factual matters that only I can attest to.

And, you didn't "hang up."

More intellectual dishonesty and false analogy.

blackstar: "similarly, if you don't take the time to let us know who you are, why should we consider what you say with any seriousness?"

Since you haven't told us who you are, clearly you cannot be taken seriously and I don't.

But that has more to do with what you post, not what anonymous nom de plume you post under.

Jeff wrote on January 14, 2008 8:54 PM:

Don:

"So I guess the campaigns are not about getting more accountability into government!"

Boy are you dense. PRECINCT CAPTAINS ARE NOT PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. They are just volunteer citizens who do voter ID and GOTV in their own precinct. It's VERY clear that many on this thread have no campaign experience. Anyone who does, regardless of which side you're on, would see this for the non-issue it is. Every campaign has volunteers that are beyond their control.

TexModDem wrote on January 14, 2008 8:55 PM:

So, just like with Nader, the GOP aims to support Obama, using the same methodology, but this same GOP that is using him just like they used Nader is going to support him in the general election?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Gotta love it.

Dawn wrote on January 14, 2008 9:20 PM:

DRinOH,

Many others have said what I would want to say about about Obama's supposed popularity among Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents in the general election. Why on earth would one of them vote for him over McCain? It just isn't gonna happen. People talk as if the same pool of Independent voters is available to McCain and Obama - that's not how it works. Most Independents have strong leanings one way or the other.

In the primary it is a different dynamic of course. If they want to play in the Dem pool, they can vote for Obama out of spite because they hate Hillary. This brochure is not appealing to the better angels of their nature in Obama's usual "that which unites us is stronger than that which divides us" ideal. In fact , it is a parody of that. It is saying "that which unites us is our being against Hillary Clinton." He is not uniting with them on a policy issue or trying to convert them to him permanently - the flyer says For One Day. He's uniting with them over personal issues. That is what, IMHO, makes appealing to that hatred personal.

Again, perfectly fair in politics.

Marc wrote on January 14, 2008 9:32 PM:

The guy's making a pitch to independents and Republicans, to be sure, but I don't see anything especially underhanded in it.

lombard wrote on January 14, 2008 9:43 PM:

Dawn,

You write so many level headed and articulate posts. I'm not surprised that your words are not more popular with the faith based sect here.

lambert strether wrote on January 14, 2008 10:00 PM:

There's an interesting little detail over at HuffPo from Buchanan, the overzealous volunteer:

"Buchanan says the decision to create the flier was his own. The Obama campaign, he said, refused to even read the two-page handout."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/proobama-flier-urges-rep_n_81447.html

"Refused even to read"? Sounds like plausible deniability to me.

IADem wrote on January 14, 2008 10:28 PM:

Dawn wrote on January 14, 2008 5:19 PM:
Great slogan for Obama going forward : Republicans love me!!!

Yes, it is a good slogan. And it is true. And many Republicans DO like Obama. In IA there was a signficant cross over of voters who simply Obama better than any other candidate, on either side. The offical stats say that only 4% of caucus goers were cross-over Republicans, but this only counts those who re-registered that night at the caucus. Iowans are practical folk-- the Obama Republicans I know re-registered in advance, so as to avoid a long line. At my own caucus there were 4 young men in T-shirts reading "I'm that Republican Obama told you about".

The flyer in question is hard to defend. But the Obama campaign should positively try to pull as many independents and disgruntled Republicans into the fold as possible: its called "party building", and, yes, the Democratic Party is the big tent party.

Daniel Bruno wrote on January 14, 2008 10:29 PM:

in general, a good tactic by Obama. he is poised to become #44. see www.whythedemocratswillwinin08.com

Daniel Bruno wrote on January 14, 2008 10:31 PM:

correction to the above.
www.whythedemocratswillwinin2008.com

LOVE THIS POST wrote on January 14, 2008 10:46 PM:

I've got no problem with this at all anymore. A month ago it would have been bad manners. Now I say let's let it all hang out. The fact is, a lot of people hate hillary, and it's a good idea to tap into that rational hatred. She participated in the smears of all the women creepy Bill accosted and then lied about. She knew the truth and opted to destroy people rather than admit what an adolescent clown her husband was. She's lied about her own name, for god sakes, claiming she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary.

A lot of people in this country would pretty much do anything to keep "the creep" and his serial enabler out of the white house-- just as they would obviously do anything to get back there. Including making deals with a bamboozling "death tax" scumbag like Johnson.

Dem4Life wrote on January 14, 2008 10:55 PM:

So the Obama campaign says Republican'ts can be Democrats for a day, the day of the caucus. Nice to know the Obama campaigns views the old time Dems who put up the signs, make the calls, and volunteers during campaigns as expendable.

Can you blame him? wrote on January 14, 2008 11:08 PM:

Dick Polman (Philly Inquirer) today:

Hillary's "Florida Republican tactics"
One week from today, the Nevada Democratic caucuses will be receding in the rear-view mirror, and the story I'm about to describe may well be relegated to a footnote. But let us live for today. What we have here is a classic demonstration of the disconnect between what a politician says and what a politican does.

At the same time that Hillary Clinton is extolling herself (on Meet the Press yesterday) as a tireless champion of working women and people of color - "I've worked all my life on behalf of civil rights and women's rights and human rights" - her allies and surrogates in Nevada have filed a lawsuit that is designed to undercut the voting rights of working women and people of color.

This is how the game is played when the stakes are high: The Clinton surrogates - who have no direct links to the Hillary campaign, and are thus supposedly acting on their own - don't like the fact that the Nevada Democratic party is making it easy for unionized casino workers to participate in the Saturday caucuses. So they've sued to stop the process.

The state Democratic party has been busy setting up meeting sites at nine big casinos, so that members of the powerful Culinary Workers Union - as well as any non-union workers within a two-mile radius of the sites - can choose a candidate during their work break. That seems like a reasonable idea - so reasonable, in fact, that the Democratic National Committee overwhelmingly approved the plan last spring; and so reasonable that nary a whisper of dissent was voiced by any of the Democratic presidential candidates.

Indeed, when Hillary left Iowa last week, she lamented the fact that so many working people were unable to participate in those caucuses, due to their work schedules. As she told ABC News, "You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard. That is troubling to me. You know, in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time - they're disenfranchised."

But all of a sudden, Hillary's surrogates are now claiming that the Nevada Democratic plan violates the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore these "at large" caucus sites - which are actually intended to enfranchise more working people - should be eliminated.

I'm just wondering: Could this lawsuit, filed late Friday, have anything to do with the fact that the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union gave its much-coveted endorsement, 48 hours earlier, to Barack Obama?

Kirsten Searer, the state party's deputy executive director, is quoted as saying that, ever since the caucus rules were OKed by the national Democrats last May, "the campaigns have been fully informed throughout the process." There hadn't been a shred of protest from the Hillary camp about the plans for casino caucus sites; nor had there been any protest from the pro-Hillary folks who have now filed the lawsuit. In fact, some of those pro-Hillary folks are members of the state party, and they participated in the March 31, 2007 meeting that OKed the plan...unanimously.

Officially, Hillary's campaign says it knows nothing about the laswuit and, as the candidate herself said this weekend, "I have no opinion on the lawsuit." So we are supposed to believe that she and her campaign have no connection whatsoever to the plaintiffs, who happen to include the Nevada State Education Association teacher's union, whose deputy executive director is a founding member of Hillary's Nevada Women's Leadership Council. And it's perhaps sheer coincidence that the law firm pushing the suit is Hillary-friendly; several senior partners have given her money, and one prominent lawyer in the firm, ex-congressman James Bilbray, has endorsed her and has been campaigning for her. (Here's Hillary, yesterday: "I don't think it's supporters of mine. There seems to be some misunderstanding about that.")

Hillary has complained for years that the 2000 post-election Florida crisis was an insult to democracy, an attempt by Republicans to disenfranchise minorities by suppressing their votes. It's hard to see how she is well served today by exposing herself to that same charge in Nevada - particularly when it is being leveled by a pro-Democratic union official whose members include large numbers of working-class Hispanics ("This is an attempt to wholesale disenfranchise people who are largely women, largely people of color, and people who do the kind of work that makes this town go").

On the one hand, we have Hillary repeatedly declaring that she has fought for minorities all her life; on the other hand, we have her surrogates suing to shut down caucus rules that have been designed to help minorities (again, state party official Searer: "The at-large precincts were included to increase participation in the highest concentration of shift workers - many of whom are minorities"). On the one hand, we have Hillary inveighing for years about Republican suppression tactics; on the other hand, we have D. Taylor, the Culinary union official, accusing Hillary's surrogates of "Florida Republican tactics."

Barack Obama should be pleased, because Hillary has handed him a hot one. She comes off looking like a typical pol who says one thing but does another, somebody who lawyers up to change the rules, even at the risk of alienating the minorities and working stiffs whom she claims to best represent.

Jon H wrote on January 14, 2008 11:09 PM:

There's a huge difference between this flyer and the 'muslim' smear emails.

The smear emails have the potential of goading some disturbed Islamophobic Fox-tard into taking up arms to save the nation from a phantom threat.

This is just trying to get Republicans to vote in a caucus.

Huge difference.

jjm wrote on January 14, 2008 11:41 PM:

Obama has made explicit and coded appeals to Republicans and independents so this isn't surprising. Through the first two states the exit polls show Obama losing Democrats and there are a lot of closed primaries on February 5. I thought the campaign was abandoning this strategy after NH.

DonnaG wrote on January 14, 2008 11:51 PM:

This is tangential to the actual topic of that precinct volunteer appealing to Republicans.

But, I am a bit disturbed by the seemingly wholesale notion that Republicans are monolithic in their positions and voting preferences, or for that matter, any notion that Democrats are always monolithic.

My own US representative is a Republican, and though I disagreed almost always with his votes on issues [and said so in letters to him], I was very happy to learn that he always declined to involve himself in that gravy train K Street project of Tom DeLay. That took integrity. Also, at one point, one of my US Senators was a Republican who very honorably bucked his own Republican state party in order to bring transparency to some ear-marked funds coming into this state. That took a lot of integrity.

As I said upthread, I do not like [or agree with] that Obama volunteer taking the tack of playing on the unpopularity of Clinton in his first version of that mailer.

But, the idea is solid in my mind that a portion of Republicans can and wil find Obama appealing for what Obama represents, especially those who themselves are unhappy with what their party has come to represent.

Have a Cigar, Monica wrote on January 14, 2008 11:51 PM:

The Clintons must be getting nervous. I feel a Bimbo-Eruption about to happen.

jmarie wrote on January 15, 2008 12:11 AM:

The precinct captain in Reno most likely got "his" idea from this FL website from April 2007.

http://www.obamaflorida2008.com/plugins/p2_news/printarticle.php?p2_articleid=17

I don't quite understand why Democrats (assuming the Obama supporters here are Democrats) don't mind Republics and Indys choosing the Democratic candidate? If Obama's plan to draw everyone together involves moving the party further right than it already is, he's going to lose a lot more Democrats than he will gain Republics.

drop.the.volunteer wrote on January 15, 2008 12:51 AM:

I spent four days in New Hampshire canvassing for Obama and this is not what the campaign is about. We didn't attack anybody, we didn't insult anybody, and we didn't ask people to vote *against* anything.

This is a campaign *for* a progressive, unifying approach to government - not triangulation or capitulation but actual unity. You can invite Republicans and independents to the caucus, but not by appealing to fear and hate.

Even though they're extremely valuable in the campaign, Senator Obama should drop this precinct captain.

M. Simon wrote on January 15, 2008 4:44 AM:

I find it encouraging to see Democrat unity in Action.

green heron wrote on January 15, 2008 6:02 AM:

This is smart. Republicans hate Hillary. Why not use them to beat her?

Kefa wrote on January 15, 2008 6:39 AM:

Just remember...live by the sword, die by the sword.

Phillips wrote on January 15, 2008 7:15 AM:

Greg:

I ask again: Why is this flyer "controversial?" I just do not understand. If the story is really about campaign "accountability," then the piece is poorly-written since most people didn't seem to get your point. Which again: was what exactly???

heretic wrote on January 15, 2008 10:10 AM:

I am starting to think the most important thing a Democrat can do right now is to switch parties to vote in republican primaries to stop McCain. It looks like he is rolling to the nomination right now, and state polls suggest he would beat both Hillary and Obama. Admittedly, Obama appears to have a better chance than Hillary against Mac in current polls, but I think he wouldn't really do as well in the actual election. McCain will be able to run toward the center and score major points for his real bipartisan policy achievements and leadership over the years (as opposed to the promises Obama makes despite no real achievement in this area). Not only is he progressive on the environment, immigration, international law, and civil rights, but I can almost guarantee he is also going to promise to end the war. This may or may not be true, but it will sway enough voters to his side to clinch it for him. OTOH, polls suggest either Hillary or Obama would beat all the other viable candidates (Rudy no longer being viable, IMO). The Dem race in my state is close and I don't think Obama is up to the job, but I think he might be better than McCain. So, I have to decide whether to vote in Dem or Repub primaries. If I (and enough people like me) vote Repub to stop McCain, we have no say in the Dem nomination. But, that might be a risk worth taking. Its gonna be a long three weeks, that's for sure.

Jeff wrote on January 15, 2008 11:51 AM:

Yes, and how will Hillary run against McCain? She can't even attack him on the war, because she voted for it and will be called on her flip-flopping and will get crushed for it.

Around 50% of the electorate already dislikes Hillary, and i would guess most of those people have already decided they will not vote for her. The media seems to hate Hillary, and loves McCain.

So please, don't tell me Hillary is more electable than Obama. If Hillary gets the nomination, we get 4-8 more years of Republican rule.

And HillBills race baiting and her campain's reprehensible comments (johnson's Look who's coming to dinner line) cost her my vote in the General. If i want Karl Rovian tactics/special interest pandering/Iraq and Iran (kyl-lieberman) warmongering, why not vote for the guy who at least admits it.

Dawn wrote on January 15, 2008 12:07 PM:

Thanks Lombard. Just another proud member of the Reality Based Community!

The world is changing, that's for sure. I still think the most notable thing about this primary campaign is Obama's decision to outflank Hillary on the right instead of the left. I can't think of another Dem primary season where that has happened. He must be very confident he can keep the base with him as he goes courting Republicans. Where else are we going to go?

Hillary doesn't have that option. Republicans are a lost cause for her, which to me is the biggest paradox since she is so close to them on many issues, particular defense related. She is really in a box.

LPX303 wrote on January 15, 2008 12:22 PM:

To those asking why this is a personal attack: IT'S A PERSONAL ATTACK

IT REPEATS REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS by saying that "SHE WILL CONTINUE TO POLARIZE OUR COUNTRY" That is not based in fact, attacks her character and the democratic party. She wan New York with 67% of the vote. FAR from polarizing in a sometimes very red state.

How can you ask why this is personal?

Tennwriter wrote on January 15, 2008 12:58 PM:

I've never voted for a Dem for President. I've rarely voted for them for other positions. Jimmy Carter was the worst president of the Twentieth Century. Ronald Reagan deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for SDI.

Now that I've established my conservative credentials....

I could see voting for Obama in the following scenario. My personal preference is for Huckabee, then Thompson, then Romney in descending order. But, the Republican Establishment may get their way (when they do, they lose, btw.), and John McCain might be nominated.

McCain sponsored anti-free speech laws, and Conservatives take their free speech seriously. Its not us that supports 'speech codes' at Universities. McCain also pretty much spat on Rush, and by extension on Rush's supporters.

A long time ago, I decided I'd vote for Hillary before McCain on the principle of its better to have an open enemy than a secret enemy.

...So lets say McCain gets nominated, (which is still very much in the air), then it becomes a choice between Hillary and Obama.

I like Hillary's stance on the war. If I thought she was serious, I'd take it more seriously. Everything else about her, I dislike.

Besides, Obama seems like a likable guy.

So in that scenario...Yea! Obama '08!

Dawn wrote on January 15, 2008 1:08 PM:

tennwriter,

thanks for laying out the logic of how you get from a Huckabee supporter to an Obama voter.

Certainly no political writers I have read could have figured that out on their own!

Charles J Rox wrote on January 15, 2008 1:25 PM:

Hello,
I'm a 66 year old man who once worked for Sen. Ted Kennedy senatorial campaign as a precinct Captain.
I know what a toll it can take on one's life and yet, there is so much joy in working for a candidate who shares the same concerns as you.
It is not often that a time comes when everything appears to line up just right. This is such a time and Obama is such a man to effect change.
You did a wonderful job in Iowa and I know that you will do just as well in Nevada.
I salute and congratulate you on your commitment to change and the hard work you put in to make it happen.
Know that you are not alone. There are people all across America that are with you, we support your efforts and we support Sen. Obama campaign.
Keep up the good fight and keep fighting to you hear that final bell.

Post a comment

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