Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
If Obama can't stand up to PACs and 527s...
then how is he going to stand up to al Qaeda?
I'm sure we all
recall Obama decrying PACs and 527s supporting his competitors John
Edwards and Hillary Clinton. He referred to the groups, which include
labor unions and EMILY's List, as "shadowy, Washington-based
organizations."
Now that these PACs and 527s have popped up
supporting his candidacy, where's Obama's anger at their spending? If
he can't stop their spending DIRECTLY on his behalf, why aren't people
expressing their outrage?
Obama supporters have expressed
outrage about the proposed Wright ad by the NC GOP and McCain's
inability to stop its running. Here's a quote from HusseinTenaX: "So
he's a public liar and jackass over it." I guess the same applies to
Obama, no? And if not, why not?
Here's a link documenting Obama's sham disdain of PAC and 527 spending: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/obama-wins-endo.html
Comments (14)
Uh, nowhere do I see anything said about the SEIU financing 527's and PAC's in support of Obama. They are simply "supporting" Obama. The argument could be made they heard Obama's criticism, realized the error of their ways and decided to support Obama's way of doing things.
Come back to me when the SEIU officially starts financing 527's to make attack ads for him. Until then, this is just a red herring.
April 25, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding me? That's funny that you didn't know how much money 527s are spending to support Obama. Here you go: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/obamas-seiu-boost-in-pennsylvania/
April 25, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
PACs and 527 are supposed to promote causes. Not make insinuations about individuals.
I'm pretty sure he was decrying 527s and PACs actually playing the cards saying what campaigns want to, but can't, openly say, about competitors.
Do you really think that McCain and Clinton would not decry personal attack ads themselves?
For as much as Clinton claims to be vetted, the only response we have from her is the "shame on you" tirade when Obama dared point out flaws in her health care plan in a mailer.
Let's get real here.
April 25, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really, you need to get real and understand the blatant hypocrisy in Obama's position. He decried their infusion of money in Iowa when they weren't supporting him, and now he's mum on the subject.
April 25, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let this not be a battle about 'blatant hypocrisy'.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/24/132543/942/817/502592
April 25, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought your candidate is about new politics? I could have swore I heard that. Simply pointing the finger when someone shows how hypocritical you are isn't new politics. Sorry. Try again.
April 25, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this, Hillary is full of mud, but it's Obama's fault that she can get some mud to stick on him, because he said he wants to run a clean campaign?
You haven't heard Obama or his campaign trying to slander her with insinuations and innuendo. In fact, he's stayed clear of things that I'm sure Hillary's campaign would consider "fair game" if the tables were reversed, but he's being a gentleman about it.
If your statement says: "yeah, she's really bad, but he's a little bit bad too, see, and he said he was good".
You're not doing your candidate any favors by engaging in this sort of behavior.
April 25, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many times will you repeat this same post? I saw it yesterday.
If it didn't generate enough interest on its own, maybe you can come at whatever point you want to make in another way.
April 25, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe two more. That's it. I promise.
April 25, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, what is your point exactly? This is just like the "Willy Horton" type ad that tries to connect one of Obama's nea votes on a death penalty bill( that even the Republican governor of Chicago at the time felt was unconstitutional) with 9/11.
Look, Obama is not perfect, according to Obama. I get that. He gets that. A lot of his supporters get that.
There are things I don't like about him and things I do like about him. I still support him.
Is there another candidate you think would be better? If so, why?
And what are the things you don't like about that candidate?
April 25, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the same logic Josh employed earlier and there seemed no disdain, outrage or questioning of his logic in the blogs. No, when the subject re: the Wright ad proposed to be run by the NC GOP was discussed on another posting, all I read was outrage at McCain. My argument is that the same outrage should be lodged at Obama. And if not, why not?
====================
If John McCain can't stand up to the North Carolina GOP swift-boat freaks, how can he stand up to al Qaeda?
--Josh Marshall
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/191134.php
April 25, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I said, there are things I like and dislike about Obama.
Do you have a candidate you support? And is there anything you dislike about that candidate?
April 25, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read the article and it doesn't specify where the SEIU financed a 527 to create negative ads.
From your original article:
He is criticizing the usage and coordination of 527's as a way of getting around campaign finance laws . He is not criticizing direct support from the unions themselves.
April 25, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kinkistyle, here's excerpts from Obama's memo:
"Heading into the final stretch before the Iowa caucuses, millions of dollars in third party spending are pouring into the state in an unprecedented attempt to benefit the campaigns of John Edwards and Hillary Clinton."
"Clinton also has benefitted by spending from Emily’s List and the AFT, who have spent $485,777.43 and $799,618.59 respectively on her behalf.
This unprecedented level of outside spending could impact the outcome in Iowa and New Hampshire, and we believe voters in these states deserve to know exactly how much is being spent, where it’s coming from, and who’s benefiting."
It seems clear that Obama is decrying the infusion of money from outside groups. Now when they are throwing in money on his behalf, he's strangely silent.
Keep trying on why Obama's not being hypocritical.
Here's the full memo: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/29/538074.aspx
April 25, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment