Posts with the tag 527

The National Republican Trust and the Politics of Hate

Jedidiah Palosaari — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:31:37 EST

Depending on where you live, you're spared this. For this election cycle, and most, I've been on the West Coast. Washington and California are solidly blue, so we don't get a lot of election ads. In Washington, we were excited and surprised to even get visits from the Democratic candidates in the primaries, as usually our caucus is too late. But now I've moved to Wisconsin, and evidently everything has changed.

Wisconsin isn't really a swing state anymore either, but it was recently. That allows us to get the occasional campaign ad, and a lot of the 527 ads. And recently, about three times an hour, we get treated to a particular ad from the National Republican Trust.

Don't get me wrong. I might disagree with a political ad, but of course, I support the right to post them. It is when they lie, and get vicious, and attack other people's culture and race. And make no mistake, this is what the National Republican Trust has done.

The ad is a direct attack on the Reverend Wright, and Senator Obama. It is vicious and underhanded. As I've pointed out in the past, Wright is enmeshed deeply in the black tradition. His remarks weren't at all racist, but were deep in the prophetic tradition of Judaism and Christianity, as expressed in the Old Testament. Sure, he went overboard in claiming that the US government gave AIDS to blacks, but considering our history with syphilis, it wasn't that far off the mark. But in general, what the Reverend Wright said, and the way he said it, is no different from what you find in black churches across this nation.

Thus, at the very least, the continued recent attacks by the Republican Trust reveal that they know nothing of the Black Preaching Tradition. In truth, they reveal an attack on another culture, a "foreign" culture to the whites at Republican Trust. This attack is as despicable as overt racist attacks, and indeed, is difficult to distinguish from them. Blacks are okay, as long as they don't think differently from "us", or don't make us have to see their differences. They certainly have nothing to offer us in their manner of thinking, their preaching, or their style of Chrsitianity. Or so is the underlying thinking of these commercials from Republican Trust.

Well, I agree. I don't like being forced to listen to something I disagree with, that I find morally repugnant and racist. I don't expect the Republican Trust to be forced to sit in the church while Jeremiah Wright preaches. So why am I forced to watch these commercials every time they come on the air, three times an hour?

So this is what I've begun to do. Every time the commercial comes on, I contact National Republican Trust, at nationalrepublicantrust.com/contactus.html, and tell them just what I think of them. I tell them they are racist, and I want nothing to do with them. I suggest that they go somewhere else to peddle their racism, because it has no place in my home or my country, and is not something that real Americans believe.

And I invite you to do the same. Let's put a stop to this. I'm not speaking of positive commercials, or even negative ones. But the ones that are over the top, that are viscious slander or racist- start responding. Every time one of these comes on the air, contact the 527, and demand that they pull their commercial off the air. Maybe we'll begin to get through to them. At least we'll strike a blow for truth and justice, and maybe, one day, make that the American way.

Talk with your heart...not with your head!

Conrad from Chicago, IL — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:53:54 EDT

Barack; you're doing the same thing Kerry did...nothing!!! I've been a lifelong Democrat but the last 3 presidential elections and this current presidential campaign have left me very angry..no very Goddammed angry. How do you expect to convince the country that you can be a forceful leader, a forceful protecter, a forceful president when you let mccain/palin slap you in the face time after time with your continued whimpy, passionless responses? I want a president who, though is capable of restraint, but will not let his restraint allow himself to become a whipping boy. Look, I too am an intellectual. I have 3 undergraduate degrees and one masters but I will not let someone slander me interminably without picking up the gauntlet and slapping the SOB hard across the face. Yes, you do not want to alienate voters who you fear would cringe at such a response but let me tell you they will not. I live in Chicago, which as you know is a town of Democrats but everyone I talk to is, like me, very angry to see their Presidential aspirant being interminably slapped around and want you to start slapping back and slapping back hard. There is so much "truthful" information out there to slap back with its ridiculous to continue with intellectual retorts. Also, stop holding the independent political groups that want to start slapping back and punching when you're punched. I find it outrageous that you have reined them in. Let them do what they will. If I had a 527 under my rein I would not listen to you if you tried to stop me...you couldn't HELL NO! When someone I respect and care about is attacked the SOB that's attacking will regret the day he merely fantasized about his first attack. How can you expect the American people vote you to become president if they can't see you have the balls to attack back when attacked by people for whom diplomacy is a whimpy option. I saw your speech at the 2004 Democratic convention and you inspired me and millions of others because you had the guts, no more than guts, the balls to say what had to be said and I keep waiting for you to show the same courage and passion you showed then. Hell, the whole country is waiting for you to show that same passion and courage!!! Stop letting your head dictate your responses...start using your heart. Come on guy, you've got the balls...start using them, again.
Conrad

R U WHINING ABOUT PUBLIC CAMPAIGN SPENDING ? ? ?

new day 4 us — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:00:53 EDT

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/07/07/for-mccain-money-talks.aspx

There were some of you that were whining about Sen. Obama's decision to decline public campaign financing. He had never undonconditionally agreed to accept public funds. The key word is unconditional. McCain would never agree to the terms. The link above will tell you why.

Be open minded and research - the media loves to only give you some of the facts to create controversy.

Public Financing; Which Candidate Won't Follow the Rules Again???

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:08:49 EDT

the following is taken directly from a newsletter by FAIR; Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting; a watchdog group of the 'watchdog group' called the mainstream media; or better known as the CORPORATE media.

Democratic candidate Barack Obama's June 19 announcement that he would not accept public financing in the presidential race prompted a media furor. Obama's "flip-flop" (Hardball, 6/20/08; USA Today, 6/25/08) was used by many corporate journalists as an opportunity to undermine Obama's reformist image.

"Obama's money move lifts expediency over principle," a USA Today (6/20/08) headline declared. The Associated Press's Liz Sidoti (6/19/08), in an article headlined "Barack Obama Chose Winning Over His Word," wrote that "the first-term Illinois senator tarnished his carefully honed image as a different kind of politician - one who means what he says and says what he means - while undercutting his call for a new kind of politics."

"It was a flip flop of epic proportions," proclaimed Mark Shields on PBS' Newshour (6/20/08). Scott Simon, host of NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday, charged (6/21/08): "Senator Obama's reversal raises fair questions about the sincerity of his campaign promises and even about the decency of spending so much money…at a time when thousands of Americans are losing their homes and the price of food is becoming difficult to afford." David Broder reiterated this sentiment, affirming (Washington Post, 6/26/08) that Obama "was rightly criticized for rigging the system in his favor."

Despite the media outrage over his "broken promise" (Washington Post, 6/20/08), Obama's stance on public financing has actually been much more qualified; he pledged in a 2007 questionnaire only to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election" (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/18/08). Similarly, Obama stated at a February news conference (New York Times, 2/15/08): "If I am the nominee, I will make sure our people talk to John McCain's people to find out if we are willing to abide by the same rules and regulations with respect to the general election going forward."

As recently as April, Obama told Fox News that (4/27/08):

I have promised that I will sit down with John McCain and talk about can we preserve a public system as long as we are taking into account third-party independent expenditures, because what I don't intend to do ... is to allow huge amounts of money to be spent by the RNC, the Republican National Committee, or by organizations like the Swift Boat organization and just stand there.

Media have long gotten Obama's position on public financing wrong. "Obama has pledged to take public financing for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent will do the same," the Washington Post reported last year (8/22/07). Similar misapprehensions were expressed in the Toronto Star (3/4/07), New York Times (4/5/07), Orlando Sentinel (4/10/07) and Philadelphia Inquirer (4/17/07), among others.

Obama justified his decision in a video posted on his website, expressing concern about a system which "as it exists today is broken" and "opponents who have become masters at gaming this broken system." In particular, he referred to his belief that during the presidential race, John McCain will benefit from 527s - independent organizations that run negative ad campaigns, such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who launched a smear campaign against Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004. It was a justification most mainstream media dismissed. A Washington Post (6/20/08) editorial (which did recognize that Obama's "earlier pledge" was "to 'aggressively pursue' an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing") scorned Obama's "effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good."

How "aggressively" Obama pursued an agreement with the McCain camp is a legitimate question. Jake Tapper's blog on ABCNews.com (Political Punch, 6/19/08) reported:

Obama campaign counsel Bob Bauer met with McCain campaign counsel Trevor Potter and, according to Obama spox Bill Burton, Potter "immediately made it clear there was no basis for further discussion," that they weren't interested in any sort of agreement. "McCain and the RNC had spent months raising and spending money for the general election, and their basic attitude was 'You'll catch up,'" Burton says, suggesting that the Republicans were also turning a blind eye to the activities of 527s.

Tapper also reported the Republican contention that Obama did not "try to negotiate at all with the McCain campaign." The thrust of the piece appeared to take McCain's side, as it was headlined, "Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election."

While Obama has been thus disparaged for his "flip-flop," the media have largely ignored McCain's reversal on the same issue--a reversal which may have actually been illegal. Early in his campaign, McCain pledged to accept public financing for the primary elections, but on February 6 he reversed his decision. According to the Washington Post (2/16/08), in November McCain took out a $3 million loan, using his forthcoming public money as collateral.

Under Federal Elections Commission (FEC) regulations, the Post reported, a candidate who uses the promise of public funds as collateral is legally bound to stay within the public financing system. On February 25, the Democratic National Committee filed an FEC complaint against McCain, charging him with violating spending limits (Politico, 2/24/08; Media Matters, 6/26/08)--a move that attracted minimal media interest.

Media Matters (6/26/08) noted that outlets including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Fox News' Special Report and CNN have omitted mention of McCain's loan when quoting his criticism of Obama's "flip-flop":

This is a big deal. It's a big deal. He has completely reversed himself and gone back not on his word to me, but the commitment that he made to the American people. That's disturbing.

While most mainstream media have paid little attention to McCain's turn-around on public financing in the primaries, more coverage has been given to his "flip-flops" on offshore oil drilling and Bush's tax cuts. But while Obama's campaign finance decision was pronounced "emblematic of his uncanny ability to renege on promises, brush off transgressions as if they were unimportant, and prevaricate with an ease that inspires marvel" (USNews.com, 6/20/08), McCain's "flip-flops" are frequently explained away, or even viewed as evidence of his moral character. The Miami Herald (7/2/08) argued:

John McCain and Barack Obama have been accused of flip-flops recently. However, there is a significant difference: McCain changed his position on drilling off our coasts in order to make a difference in our dependence on foreign oil and as an extra safeguard for our nation. Obama changed his stance and rejected public funding for his presidential campaign to benefit himself.

Contrasting Obama on public finance with McCain on offshore drilling, ABC's Sam Donaldson declared (This Week, 6/22/08):

There's a difference there with John McCain. He can say, circumstances have changed. I mean, if hanging fixes the mind, try $5, $6, $7 a gallon gasoline to fix the mind. And he can say yes, but today we have to do something different. So he flip-flopped on energy but he can say that.

Never mind that offshore drilling will have at best a minimal effect on gas prices (Beat the Press, 6/19/08)--or that Obama can plausibly claim that "circumstances have changed" when his opponent reneged on a signed commitment to accept public financing.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen (6/24/08) claimed to see evidence of virtue in McCain's lengthy record of policy reversals:

Here is the difference between McCain and Obama -- and Obama had better pay attention. McCain is a known commodity. It's not just that he's been around a long time and staked out positions antithetical to those of his Republican base. It's also -- and more important -- that we know his bottom line. As his North Vietnamese captors found out, there is only so far he will go, and then his pride or his sense of honor takes over. This -- not just his candor and nonstop verbosity on the Straight Talk Express -- is what commends him to so many journalists.

U.S. News & World Report's Gloria Borger (7/7/08), on the other hand, seemed to excuse McCain's shifts not based on a core consistency but on an essential inconsistency:

In a way, McCain may have less to lose because the public already sees him as unpredictable. So when he flips his positions to conform with GOP orthodoxy on tax cuts (he now supports) and immigration (build the fence first), it doesn't seem so odd that he then tacks to the middle on global warming or panders to frustrated motorists on offshore drilling. It's part of the "don't pigeonhole me" trademark, which has its appeal to independent voters. McCain's inconsistency fits the brand, so voters may forgive him.

Voters may or may not forgive him, but it's clear that McCain's cheering section in the corporate media already has.

See the most recent issue of Extra!: "The Press Corps' Unshakeable Crush on McCain: Some Straight Talk About the Media's Favorite 'Maverick'" by Peter Hart (5-6/08).

This article is available at: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3569

Make no mistake, the public is financing Obama's campaign. And that's a good thing!

BigSean — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:15:56 EDT

The talking heads and NeoCons are yammering on that Obama broke his word on public financing. He didn't. He agreed to aggressively pursue public financing and if his opponent did the same thing they could come to an accord. I speak English and understood this several months ago.

The Huffington Post blogged about this in February. The Obama campaign has carefully parsed their position on it, which I think was a mistake, but an understandable one in favor of the idea of fair play. Of course with 527s and all the stops pulled out on dirty politicking, who in their right mind would agree to public financing?

In a battle, you don't fight with one hand tied around your nether regions.

This is much ado about nothing. And for those who still are still missing the short bus: Obama's campaign is publicly financed by average Joes like you and me.

Of course, I'm currently up in arms about FISA, but give me a break on public financing.

Media conflict of interest - covering funding of PACs and 527s

Tom Hayes, working for change — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:39:24 EDT

Once Senator John McCain and the RNC began circumventing the McCain/Feingold limits via the creation of the “McCain Victory ‘08 Fund” with its $70,000 per individual donations they really left presumptive Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama with no reason to keep extending his offer to limit campaign spending by accepting public financing. They sprang into faux outrage, of course, ready to accuse him of a flip-flop despite the fact they’d not accepted Obama’s conditional offer. Follow the money, not the spin, and you discover that this has gone virtually unreported. The commercial media outlets have a conflict of interest; reporting on the McCain fund undermines their profits.

Here’s the simple truth:

MoveOn Closes 527 In Response to Obama

Jason — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:05:27 EDT

This from talkingpointsmemo.com

MoveOn, the advocacy group supporting Barack Obama, has decided to permanently shutter its 527 operation, partly in response to the Illinois Senator's insistence that such groups should not spend on his behalf during the general election, I've learned from the group's spokesperson.
MoveOn's decision, which will dramatically impact the way it raises money on Obama's behalf, is yet another sign of how rapidly Obama is taking control of the apparatus that's gearing up on his behalf.
By shuttering its 527, MoveOn is effectively killing its ability to raise money in huge chunks from labor unions, foundations, and big donors who would give over $5,000. The decision doesn't mean MoveOn will stop spending on Obama's behalf. Instead it will raise money exclusively with its political action committee, whose average donation is below $50 and will even be raising money with things like bake sales starting this weekend.
The move could also make it tougher politically for John McCain and the GOP to benefit from 527s, which can raise money in unlimited sums, on his side. While he has generally disapproved of such activity, he recently said that he couldn't control negative ads by such groups.

"The hope is that Republicans will match this, so that the voices of ordinary Americans can drive this election," Hogue said.

Choose Hope, Not Fear

Ben from Novato, CA — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:36:50 EDT

The onslaught is coming. And it’s coming fast. The time is now for the Republican 527’s to define Obama. They know Obama is smart so they have to be smarter. Meaner. Bolder. And they’ll need some new tricks. Rove is ready.

The Republican 527’s have no positive cards to play so they’re going 100% negative. The fear machine swings into action: The pundit entertainers on Fox will hammer the smears home. The mainstream media will cheer them on.

There will be personal fears: He’s a Muslim, radical, antichrist, devil, deceiver and a black. Born in Africa, he isn’t eligible to be president. He’s an ultra-liberal out of touch with America. An opportunist with a secret long-term plan to become president. A secret member of al Qaeda. An evil member of a secret club of violent black activists – the new Black Panthers. A mysterious Wizard of Oz with a secret agenda to destroy America. The new Hitler. A magician with the power to hyptmotize millions at a time.

He has hypnotized millions of Democrats by his subliminal satanic words. How could so many people fall for him? He will ruin the America that we love. The founders would be shocked!

He has no experience. He’s in way over his head. These are challenging times. We can’t afford his mistakes. The wolves are circling. America’s enemies are coming. This is no time for a novice. We need an experienced military man.

There are policy fears: We will lose all that we’ve "accomplished" in Iraq. He wants to surrender. He will "dishonor" our troops. The Middle East will burn, oil will skyrocket, and terrorists will torture America. The Russians will rule the world. Along with the Chinese.

There will be discrimination against whites and Latinos, he will turn America into a Muslim nation. The end of religion. Gays run amok, gay marriage in your own church. Ten-minute abortions. The regulation of everything, the defense budget slashed, new wars, a higher tax bracket for whites, inflation, stagflation, gas lines, darkness and gloom. A costly effort to subsidize Africa. He will redistribute everyone’s wealth. Welfare for everyone. The nanny state. The end of affluence. The end of American competiveness in the word.

The Democrats will control both the White House and Congress. We can’t let that happen. It will ruin us all.

The images – both strong and subconscious – will be scary: an all-black cabinet, a unionized America, prisoners released all across the U.S., whites in slavery, starving Africans entering America by the boatload. Disease, famine, depression, violence, misery, despair and pain. No food on store shelves. Gasoline at $7 per gallon. Gas lines, foreclosures, terrorism, and a new civil war. The twin towers. A mushroom cloud. Hitler. Hurricane, tornado, ice storm, heat wave, earthquake, flood, drought, UFO, meteor shower. The sky is falling. It will be a colossal event – the Rapture is at hand....

BUT WAIT! I don’t think so. No Rapture this year. Not this time. Because in 2008 voters will Choose Hope, Not Fear.

And McCain isn’t the man from Hope. He doesn’t inspire much hope. Is his war hero story accurate? And if so, what does that get us? Being imprisoned is not the same as being a leader with sound judgment. He’s never held an executive position. Never managed anything. How embellished is his resume? What experience does he really have?

EXPERIENCE IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE LESSONS YOU'VE LEARNED FROM IT.

McCain hasn’t learned the right lessons from experience.

McCain’s will not be a third Bush term. It will be a THIRD CHENEY TERM.

Is McCain someone we’ve known and "trusted" for years? Someone who is tested and ready on day one? Who really is he? Who is the real McCain? Which McCain is running this year?

McCain is mediocre at best. He’s not a top-notch mind. Did he almost flunk naval school? Maybe he’s a lucky loser. The truth is that the maverick image is phony. He is not what he seems. His strategy is to make a big PR splash on key issues then quietly vote the other way when no one is looking. Can you trust him? He’s reversed his positions on so many issues. Who is he? Don’t we deserve better? He’s an opportunist. He married into his political success. His rich sugar mama. McCain is an adulterer – let’s talk about that. What does that say about his values? Dishonest. Deceitful. Do conservatives want another womanizer in the White House? A campaign run by lobbyists. A founding member of the Keating Five. Don’t be fooled. If he is so brave with so much integrity why can’t he reel in the ugly Republican 527’s?

McCain: the straight talker with a crooked mind. All talk, no substance. He will loose his own state of Arizona in November.

Want to talk about fear? How about "Bomb, bomb Iran"? "Mushroom Cloud McCain" as the next "War President". Bring back the daisy commercial; we need it

Or better yet, someone should put this skit on YouTube: McCain working at McDonald’s McCain’s fast food chain. You can order an Iran War Burger, a Draft Your Kids Happy Meal and more.

Would you like nuclear warheads with that?

move on dot yawn

jp — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:12:27 EDT

No disrespect, but I am gratified to see the blog commentary shift to McCain from Hillary.

IMO the anti-Hillary tirades have been over the top, and the big fight now begins: The really nasty Republican machinations and the 527's. Well, it's already begun, to wit, the Bush-appeasement fiasco.

The republican machine and the 527's.

Gas Tax Costs Hillary General Election

Disabled Vet 2000 — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:50:47 EDT

What happens to Hillary's populist argument when she can't pass the Gas Tax Holiday in a Democratic Congress? How will she convince people that she can reach across the aisle and end gridlock when she can't even get her own party to rally behind her.

This will be the headline in November if people don't get behind Barack Obama. The Gas Tax promises Hillary made, but can't keep by any stretch of the imagination will end our hopes for an end to the Bush era. Hillary won Indiana by claiming she could give people a break on the gas tax - polls show that Rev Wright did not impact Obama much, if at all with white voters - his numbers remained steady, which says to me that once we have a nominee he won't have much trouble swaying white voters in the General once Hillary is no longer an option.

We need a Democrat in office and if a backroom deal takes the nomination away, one of the biggest wild cards no one is talking about for the general election is what will happen when Hillary's Gas Tax Stunt fails. McCain will say that even in a Democratic Congress and Senate Hillary did not keep her promise. He will say that it is even more proof that she is a politician that will say anything to get elected, but fail to deliver to the people that got her elected. McCain can simply blame the Democrats for a failure to pass the Gas Tax, saying it's further proof that Democrats don't care about the working class voter.

If Obama is the nominee he can simply show what happened in the past with Gas Tax Holidays. In the end they benefit Big Oil and Obama will use this as proof to the American people that McCain was pandering for votes. He can also say that with all of his experience McCain knew from the start who this "Holiday" would benefit and it will be more evidence that he is loyal to Big Business and Special Interests over all else. Over the past 8 years we have learned just how dangerous it is when Big Business essentially runs the government.

Even if you support Hillary or are undecided, tonights primaries have proven that she simply can't get the delegates to win. It's time to back the only viable candidate for the nomination before the Democratic Party self-destructs. If the Super Delegates have to decide this at the convention, we will have no time to come together to defeat McCain.

Hillary has to discount states or change rules to even make the argument that she can win the nomination. Obama has the math (any way you slice it), the money, the delegates, and the popular vote. Now Hillary is trying to change the number of delegates needed to win because she knows she can't reach the target currently set. It seems that if she can't win within the rules - change them again and again until she figures out a way to win.

So please, vote for the good of the American people and the Democratic Party. We can't win if the black community and voters under 40 stay home in November. We also need the Independents and Republicans that will vote for Obama but not Clinton. Many conservative voters will stay home rather than vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, but the antipathy they have for the Clintons will cause them to come out en mass to defeat her if she somehow got the nomination.

Many Independents are upset with McCain for going so far to the right appease the extremist Jerry Fallwell/Pat Robertson contingent in the GOP. There are many that are sick of Bush and have left the GOP or gone a bit to the left because of a disasterous 8 years and the hold the extreme Christian Right now exerts on the party. Many have gone independent because of the war in Iraq and Obama has a much better shot of getting their votes than Hillary does. I have spoken to many of them when making phone calls for Senator Obama's campaign and I have changed quite a few minds and have swayed even more that were leaning towards Obama but still undecided to get behind him.

My final argument is that Hillary has not been "battle tested" as she claims. Obama has not stooped to Rovian tactics to get elected and McCain thus far has focused on Obama. In this election no one has not gone after her on any of her financial scandals. They have barely touched on her exaggeration of her foreign policy experience, neither has the main stream media. That will change drastically once this is a Democrat vs. Republican race instead of and intraparty struggle. If McCain and the GOP "Swiftboat" 527 organizations get to run against her in the General Election. They will also go after all of Bill Clintons pardons, Lincoln Bedroom "rentals," and Bill's Chinese business deals. This is going to get nasty, but Hillary has already dragged out anything she could get on Obama, and frankly all she can find is a couple of people he knows - nothing on the man himself.

Stephanie Marushia, Virginia Beach, VA

CLINTON’S NEW 527 CREATED TO GO AFTER OBAMA

Pastor Linda — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:17:59 EST

Two obstacles blocking Sen. Hillary Clinton's bid for the Presidential nomination are the public's perception of her as a woman who is willing to destroy anyone blocking her pursuit of political power and influence and lingering images of a Presidency blemished by scandals, law suits, impeachment and public disgrace.

During the past 8 years Senator Clinton has worked tirelessly to construct a new professional image that distinguishes her from her husband’s years in the Oval Office. However, she's been unable to reshape the public’s perception that she's a factious, self-centered person who's willing to win at any cost. In part, Clinton's persistence in running negative attacks against Sen. Obama have contributed to her ongoing negative personality appraisal.

In order to ensure a sccussful bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Clinton and a group of Democratic politicos set up a new independent 527 organization prior to the March 4, election primaries. The new organization is called the American Leadership Project (ALP). The purpose of ALP is to help Sen. Clinton defeat Sen. Barack Obama in the primaries leading up to the Democratic Convention.

The Federal Election Commission defines a 527 group as a political group organized under section 527 of the tax code and defined generally as a party, committee or association that is organized and operated primarily to influence the selection of a nominee for public office or political position. Sen. Clinton’s 527 group; American Leadership Project was established to help her to obtain the Democratic Presidential nomination while destroying Sen. Obama’s chances for winning.

527's

David Lloyd — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:03:00 EST

i read about the 527 called, 'american leadership project' a couple of weeks ago.

i was not particularly surprised by the use of these tactics by the clinton campaign, but disappointed none the less. i took some time and located contact e-mail address for as many of the corporate interests directly involved in the organization and attempted to start a dialog with those in paid positions within the organization. while i knew it was a long shot, why not try, right? here is the email sent,

" To _______;

I've recently heard of your firm's involvement in the in the '527', the 'american leadership project'. I am curious about your specific role in the organization and am interested in learning more as to why you've chosen to participate.

I'm curious about the process and would like to hear more about the methodology you'll employ in achieving the 527's political agenda. I am also curious as to what if any personal investment you or your firm has in the project (are you simply hiring out your services in exchange for money/ political 'points', or do you have a personal stake in this).

while it is difficult for me to understand how a '527' enhances democracy, I assume you are in an excellent position in which to help me to understand. I'd be grateful for feedback as well as any light you can shed regarding how campaigning on behalf of a campaign indirectly, and for all practical purposes anonymously, improves the political debate between candidates.

Thank you very much. I look forward to communicating with you.

best regards,
David Lloyd
425.753.7798
david@gollydesign.com "

As anyone reading this may have predicted, I received no response from any of those contacted. Anyone else interested in contacting any of the involved parties, here is the contact info I came up with,

remcho, johansen and purcell (lawyers defending the efforts of the 527)

510.346.6200

info@rjp.com

mattis goldman

info@dcomedia.com

erick mullen

help@mullenandcompany.com

Jason Kinney

jkinney@calstrat.com

***** UPDATE

while contacting these individuals two weeks ago proved difficult without any special connections, it seems near imposibble as of today. most of their sites seem to be down and contact info is difficult at best to obtain. please take a shot yourself if you have time/ inclanation. :D

New poll shows gap narrowing!

Mike Palmer — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:44:06 EST

A new poll done by Reuters, C-SPAN and the Houston Chronicle (2/26-2/28) shows that Obama trails Clinton in Ohio by only 2 points and has a substantial 6 point lead in Texas! The time is now for us in Ohio to show what a good organization can accomplish when we are motivated by an inspiring leader. See the report on the new poll below.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/clinton-barely-edging-out-obama/story.aspx?guid=%7B624CF7C2-4FAB-4F95-BB49-41B9B6C34F35%7D

Obama's campaign has maintained a high level of integrity. While the other contender for the democratic nomination puts people like Tom Buffenbarger out to introduce her:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/20/684411.aspx?p=1

And McCain's campaign hires people like Bill Cunningham to introduce McCain:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080227/NEWS01/302270009

Obama continues to stay on the high road, discussing issues and the differences between him and the others while not making vile and negative remarks.

This is just one more reason why I support and am working hard to help Barack Obama become our nominee and our next President. He is a class act all around. It is also the reason, I'm sure, that he is reluctant to make a firm comittment to public finance money for the General Election. He knows how many Republicans abuse the rules that govern 527 groups, which prohibit advocacy for a specific candidate or defaming another specific candidate directly, but THEY DO IT ANYWAY! You can't trust them to play by the rules! Remember the "Swift Boaters" and how they attacked Kerry!! Stay with Obama, Stay on the high road. America will respond and he will be our president and he will enhance the world's view of America and help restore the American Dream!

Regarding the so called Obama "cult"

Mitch from Orlando, FL — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:44:09 EST

It’s interesting, I’m starting hear the term “cult” used when referring to the organized support for the Obama campaign. Ironically from the GOP side; yes the group of people who are best known for their methodical collective of ignorance. I truly believe that we the Obama supporters have come to terms with the fact that we need a collective force, a hard hitting and yes, almost cult-like force. I am in no delusion about the reality of what could happen if Obama were to get into the White House. He could be another Jimmy Carter. However unlike Carter; Obama has a great instinct about the world and the understanding of what it takes to mobilize people and resources which then can translate into votes for policy changes. Let it be known, our so-called “cult” does not follow a leader, but is built from the collective force of the masses; this is the future, where people interconnected can set the tone and bring the force and focus to a message and a campaign. This is true social politics.

HIllary lost the debate, but her campaign strategy is amazing

Ron Amundson — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:26:19 EST

Wow, I don't know what sort of magic Maggie Williams brought to the table, but obviously this part of a larger strategy... and its working. Talk about positive spin recovery, the gamble is working... but not quite good enough. The divide and confuse part did not work, and in fact served to rally our throops even more so. This rallying dynamic was an unknown to them and to me, and I must say I am more than pleasantly surprised. We are at 1,000,050 donors at 4:05AM CST. Amazing, really amazing.

Despite loosing, she set a tone, and created a powerful reference frame, all good things for her donor pool, and her future career in politics, but its no where near enough to bypass our momentum. Short of a major happening in the next few days, she is likely finished. Yet, the American Leadership Project (the 527 set up to campaign for her...iffy I know) still could have a lot of cards to play over the next week... thus, we need to keep on the phone, and keep on donating. We must not let our guard down.

If you haven't donated yet, even $5 helps. My initial target is 100 donors of $5 each, and then I'll raise the bar, and keep on breaking the thermometer. My donation page is at

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/RonAmundson

If you haven't made any calls yet, by all means check out the Barack's inspired phone bank army. We had a conference call last friday night, and it was incredibly helpful... and I'm a newbie there.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/BaracksInspiredPhoneBankArmy

If any member of the group Beards for Obama donates to my page within the next 72 hours, I'll kick in an extra $50 this weekend, and delay cutting mine until Barack win's the nomination.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/BeardsforObama

Yes we can!

"Independent" Expenditures

""""Jeff C."""" — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:25:47 EST

Fellow Obama Supporters --

Yesterday we learned that a few well-connected supporters of Sen. Clinton are attempting to raise $10 million to spend in the upcoming March 4th primaries.

This so-called “independent” group will produce “issue” ads that mirror the Clinton speeches versus solutions talking points. The group, "American Leadership Project" is organized as a “527,” which enables a few wealthy individuals to pump money into political campaigns because they are not “openly advocating” for one candidate.

This “527” is, coincidentally, organized in the same manner as the despicable “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.” We all know how that one worked out.

However, Barack Obama has something that no few well-heeled supporters of Sen. Clinton can muster. That is, the support and enthusiasm of a movement that is roughly one million strong.

Let’s show the “American Leadership Project” and like-minded groups that their efforts to skirt the spirit of campaign finance laws will only be in vein. Please support Barack’s campaign by making a small contribution.

If you are like me, you are probably already about tapped out with regards to contributions. Therefore, I’m submitting $5.27 as a message that the power of the people trumps wealthy well-heeled insiders.

Please join me:

My Fundraising Page

Thank you,

Jeff Cronin

Does she think HOPE can be purchased?

Erick — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:23:58 EST

Allies of Hillary Clinton plan an expensive, stealth campaign to buttress her standing in the must-win states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

They're canvassing Clinton donors for pledges of up to $100,000 in the hope of raising at least $10M by the end of next week. The money will be placed in the account of a political committee organized under section 527 of the tax code.

527's Supporting Hillary Clinton Mobilizing

MaryGJ — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:58:35 EST

A 527 organization is being formed to hurl negatives at Senator Barack Obama. This "powerful" group is supporting Hillary Clinton. It is amazing to me that another Democrat would so viciously attack another. This is really scary and I will not remain in a party so divided they would do something like this. It is bad enough Hillary Clinton sided with Republican John McCain on the campaign finance issue. The Republicans know Obama will out raise them 3 to 1 so McCain starts his campaign to undermine Obama.

Obama should hit John McCain on his own turf and that would be the flip flops he has made. If you want to attack Obama's character, get his on the flip flops.

You must convince folks we will work through consensus. As a team we can work together as individuals we stand alone and for self.

Group to Mischaracterize Obama in Ohio & Texas

Riv — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:50:06 EST

ABC News has learned that a group of Democratic politicos have set up a new independent 527 organization called the American Leadership Project (ALP) with the express purpose of helping Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, beat Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in Ohio, and possibly Texas and Pennsylvania as well. ...

... ... ALP has developed three ads aimed at pushing the idea that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is a talker and not a doer -- the ads are called “If speeches could solve problems" -- and they will contrast Obama and Clinton on issues of importance to middle class voters, such as the economy, health care, and the mortgage crisis.

"Our purpose is to encourage audiences to look beyond the campaign speeches and political rhetoric to specific proposals to address these core issues," says an ALP mission statement obtained by ABC News. ... ..

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/new-pro-clinton.html

This is so disheartening to me. One reason I'm supporting Obama is because he wouldn't let this happen if it were his supporters doing the same. MoveOn's campaign for his candidacy isn't smearing Clinton like this group plans to smear Obama.

I'll be glad when this is over on Mar. 4th.

SENATOR OBAMA SHOULD NOT TAKE PUBLIC FINANCING!!!

Donn Cook — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:22:48 EST

Senator Obama didn't say he would pledge to take public finance money. He said that he would discuss it with the Republican nominee if he were the Democratic nominee.

Senator Obama should NOT take public financing. Sure, it would level the playing field for McCain which is good for him but Senator Obama can raise significant sums of money. The major reason that is important is because the right-wing conservatives will donate huge sums of money to 527s and try to "swiftboat" Obama. He can't fight that with public financing. He just can't and the campaign watchdog groups should understand that.

Beware the Swiftboats!

Michael Blackburn — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:39:12 EST

We are all very excited about Barack Obama's strong fundraising capability. However, there is a seamy underbelly to fundraising. Hillary's donors have cast their lots with her, and have Lincoln bedroom stays and ambassadorships riding on her success. They will not sit on their wallets just because "the rules" say they cannot contribute any more to the Clintons' campaign in the primary season!

Remember, the Clintons have proven they will say anything, do anything to win. That money will find its way to 527 groups that are "not part of the Hillary Clinton campaign."

This meme needs to get out ahead of the inevitable Swiftboating, so undecided voters will see it for what it is. We all know how hard it's been to discredit the reprehensible religion and patriotism smears. Imagine if those are put into a slick mailer or a television buy!

Be on guard!

Vote Hope Asked to Disband in December

Benjamin Vos, Nashville — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:14:46 EST

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Bauer_PAC_Undermines_Obamas_message.html

If you haven't seen the letter (and I surely hadn't), Ben Smith of Politico.com just pointed out the fact that Obama's legal counsel (which has no power to shut down a PAC, as far as I can tell) specifically asked Vote Hope's Steve Phillips to subsume its operations under the Obama campaign and disband the Vote Hope PAC. It's a very well-written letter, by the way.

And FYI, in interest of full disclosure, I called Vote Hope myself around the same time the 527 thing was coming out in Iowa. I asked for more information on how Vote Hope was operating and verbalized my concerns about the appearance of impropriety.The official position of the campaign is very clearly outlined in Bauer's letter. Anyone who continues to question Obama's connection to the Vote Hope group can refer to the letter for a clear answer.

Obama is Right on 527s

Obama for President — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:13:01 EST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/obama-is-right-on-527s_b_78308.html

Home
Politics
Media
Business
Entertainment
Living
More on HuffPost... Politics HuffPolitics OffTheBus Fundrace Media Eat The Press Business Entertainment Living All Blogs All News 23/6
23/6

Home > The Blogs > Sam Sedaei Site Web Sam Sedaei BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Similar Bloggers Obama is Right on 527s

Posted December 26, 2007 | 01:40 PM (EST)

Over the past month, Barack Obama has been consistently rising in the polls. The most recent Washington Post/ABC News Poll had him on top with 33% of the vote - 4 points above the second candidate - and the most recent Boston Globe poll has Barack Obama ahead in New Hampshire with 30% of the vote as well. Finally, the most recent CBS poll has him leading in South Carolina for this first time during this campaign with 35%.

These numbers are making the establishment nervous, and that is leading a whole lot of empty attacks against Obama. One set of attacks have been offered by the NYTimes columnist Paul Krugman. In two recent columns, he slams Obama for refraining from demonizing those who disagree with him and on his opposition to 527 political - and often smearing - ads.

Krugman believes that in order for change to come, Obama has to maintain a harsh anti-corporation and anti-Republican platform. But what Krugman fails to recognize is that Obama is pursuing a strategy that is a whole lot wiser and more effective. Instead of demonizing the other side as Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and other conventional politicians do, Obama has effectively brought moderates from the other side to his side time and again for over 10 years to push for improving funding for public schools, strengthening transparency, setting up the "Google For Government" to publish where the federal money goes and bringing about two great ethics reforms in both the Illinois legislature and the U.S. Senate.

By focusing on the facts and problems, Obama has effectively changed the rules of debate and neutralized attacks by Republicans who would love for him to resort to politics of demonization and vilification that have repeatedly failed. Edwards and Clinton think that the candidate with the harshest rhetoric is the best candidate to bring about change. But the fact of the matter is that while these candidates have talked about change, Obama has delivered on that promise of change by forcing the republicans to talk issues and defeating them based on merits.

And as for 527s, Krugman is upset about Obama's position against them because Krugman essentially believes that 527s are okay as long as they come from the left. But if they represent corporations, they must be abolished. This is, of course, a fundamentally hypocritical position to take. How can we legitimately do away with 527s and claim the moral high ground if we are to allow certain 527s to get a free pass? Isn't this double standard mentality why we have repeatedly been unable to get independents to our side on issues? Isn't this a perfect example of the kind of divisive methodology that has repeatedly failed us and kept this country divided?

Maybe Paul Krugman doesn't believe this is hypocritical at all just as he didn't think it was hypocritical when at the same time that he was issuing such rhetoric against corporations, he was serving on the advisory board of Enron for $50,000 a year before he was forced by New York Times to resign from his board position due to conflict of interest.

The problem with 527s is not that they represent corporations. What makes 527s undemocratic is that unlike candidate committees and political action committees, 527s are not regulated by Federal Election Commission or a state election commission and are not subject to the same contribution limits as PACs. Now one may think that as long as they represent unions, we shouldn't care who is funding them. But because of a lack of transparency, a major corporation can simply create an artificial organization that would then claim to represent a certain group of workers and produce an ad that would attack the candidate that has in fact been the strongest in defending workers. And of course people see the ad and think that because it looks like a workers' group, it must be right. If we are to open that door, to embrace certain 527s while demonize others, who is going to decide which 527s are acceptable? How can we tell which ones' positions are truly progressive? We obviously have no way of doing that.

Paul Krugman thinks that the reason why Democrats should continue to support 527s is that Republicans are and they will use 527s against whoever will be our nominee. But keep something in mind. When 527s are allowed to function, they disproportionately help Republicans over Democrats because most of them are funded by the power elite, which often come down on the side of Republicans. But the Democratic nominee can effectively neutralize the impact of 527s by distancing himself from them from the beginning and asking the Republican nominee to similarly condemn them. He can even challenge the republican nominee to support the idea of pushing for legislation to curtail the power of 527s. But just as someone who voted for the war can't effectively make a case for bringing our troops home now, if Obama supports 527s now, he will be in no position to rally against Republican 527s after he wins the nomination without being called a "flip-flop" or accused of being "for them before he was against them."

Krugman's approach to this election represents the kind of strategy that has repeatedly failed the Democrats. This is the idea that we can maneuver around and play the game of partisan politics and simultaneously maintain a credible position against partisanship. There is one cold fact that Democrats have to accept: if we are to effectively see our policy ideals realized and lobbyists abolished, we have to maintain those positions across the board instead of playing the game when it's to our benefit -- as John Edwards and Krugman want to do in case of 527s -- and still think that we can be credible when claiming that the system is corrupt.