ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Obama memo hits Edwards, Clinton

Posted: Saturday, December 29, 2007 12:51 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:

From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
The Obama campaign today released a memo hitting Clinton and Edwards parts for an influx of support from outside groups into Iowa. The only one not benefiting is Obama, as he’s largely been going it alone.

”These latest revelations make it clear why Edwards was able to announce that he could accept public funds while still spending all he needed to spend in Iowa,” Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe writes. “His campaign simply exploited the biggest loophole in the campaign finance system in order to get public matching funds while arranging through allies to benefit from a 527. That’s how they avoided the spending limits that are a condition of the public matching funds.”

On Clinton, Plouffe denounces an anti-Obama AFSCME mailer. Notably, a pro-Edwards 527, funded largely by local SEIUs, is up with positive ads in Iowa for Edwards. AFSCME and the American Federation of Teachers have been out with mailers for Clinton. Clinton has not shied away from interest groups’ money, even defending them as real people at this summer’s YearlyKos convention. Edwards has campaigned hard on a platform against Washington interest group money, and has had to balance denouncing the 527 and embracing the support of the SEIU.

These are groups Obama lobbied, and they ultimately chose Edwards and Clinton. How would Obama have handled the situation differently if these groups had endorsed him?

Here’s the full memo:

TO:     Interested Parties

FR:     David Plouffe, Campaign Manager, Obama for America

RE:     Flood of Washington Money In Iowa

DA:     December 29, 2007


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.  For Clinton, AFSCME, EMILY’s List and the AFT have spent over $2.6 million to assist her campaign – even as AFSCME attacks Obama for a position on health care mandates that they themselves have.  The groups supporting Edwards have spent over $2 million including efforts organized by one “independent” organization run by one of Edwards’ highest-ranking political aides which newspapers reported today received a questionable 11th-hour donation of $495,000 just days ago.

We have both the financial and organizational resources to compete aggressively in all four early states and through February 5th.  However, there is no doubt that the size of the spending and its underhanded nature deserve further scrutiny.

John Edwards
John Edwards, who is running in large part on a recently adopted campaign platform of taking on the big corporate interests in Washington, is relying on a former aide to run an unregulated 527 operating outside campaign finance limits to support his candidacy.   Even as he was decrying such influence last week, his former campaign manager was spending $750,000 on television ads in Iowa.  If Edwards can’t stand up to his own former aides how can stand up to the special interests in Washington?

Nick Baldick, who ran his campaign in 2004 and was on the campaign’s payroll as recently as June, is now running Alliance for a New America.  The Alliance for a New America has spent $1.5 million to help Edwards in Iowa, while the group Working for Working Americans, funded by the Carpenters Union, has spent more than $500,000 supporting Edwards, bringing the total spent on his behalf in Iowa to $2 million.

In their most recent financial disclosure, the Alliance for New America revealed that they had raised $495,000 from Oak Springs Farms, LLC. Oak Springs is funded through the assets of Rachel Mellon, who is 97-years old.  According to the available records, which go back to 1980, she has never donated to a political candidate until a contribution was made in her name to John Edwards this year. Mellon's involvement in the decision to donate to the Edwards campaign is unknown. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Alexander Forger, who has power for attorney for Mrs. Mellon, is a major supporter of John Edwards’ candidacy. Crain's Business Journal reported in February that Forger and "a group of prominent New York lawyers" hosted a fund-raiser for Edwards at Essex House -- the Central Park South address where his office is located. Forger has also personally donated $4,600 to Edwards' campaign, according to FEC records.   This is not the first time Forger has used Oak Springs Farms to support Edwards; in 2006, he made a $250,000 contribution to Edwards’ One America 527 group.

While Edwards has said he doesn’t want this group to run ads, he has not called his former employee and friend and asked him not run these ads.  And according to the New York Times, this group was started after consultations with Edwards’ campaign manager and other senior members of the campaign.

These latest revelations make it clear why Edwards was able to announce that he could accept public funds while still spending all he needed to spend in Iowa.  His campaign simply exploited the biggest loophole in the campaign finance system in order to get public matching funds while arranging through allies to benefit from a 527.  That’s how they avoided the spending limits that are a condition of the public matching funds.

When John Edwards applied for matching funds, he agreed to spending limits in return for the public money he is now receiving. But at that time, the Edwards campaign was actively involved in discussions about the establishment of an “independent” 527 effort, to be conducted outside the federal financing requirements.  Members of the SEIU, which is funding the 527 that has spent the vast majority of the money in IA on his behalf, described consultations with senior Edwards staff and a visit to the campaign in Iowa, all intended to assure that the project delivered “the specific sort of support they’d [the Edwards campaign] like to see from us.”

Within weeks, the Alliance for a New America, a 527 group organized just to boost Edwards' last-minute media spending in Iowa, came into existence.  The group portrays itself as an issue advertising group, able to operate outside the legal restrictions of the federal campaign finance laws.  Its goal is to help Edwards, who is specifically promoted in its advertising. Consistent with the close coordination envisioned by the planners, key individuals involved in this organization and steering its activities are close associates of the Edwards campaign.

Hillary Clinton
Of all of the candidates and interests groups participating in this campaign, the American Federal State County Municipal union (AFSCME) is running perhaps the most negative and misleading campaign. To date, they have spent $1.3 million on radio ads and direct mail – with over $300,000 spent on negative ads targeting Obama – and are reportedly readying a negative television campaign against Obama.

The ads have mischaracterized Obama’s universal health care plan. AFSCME has attacked Obama’s plan for not including an individual mandate, when it is the official position of AFSCME to oppose an individual mandate.  The President of AFSCME testified at a Congressional hearing in 2006 that “we are concerned with the direction reform efforts have taken in some states.  For example, the Massachusetts reform model attempts to achieve near universal coverage through the use of individual mandates.”

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.
TOTALS
CLINTON
AFSCME: $1,333,456.96 (includes $309,545.60 explicitly against Obama)
AFT: $799,618.59
Emily’s List: $485,777.43
Total: $2,618,852.98

EDWARDS
Working for Working Americans/Carpenters: $526,440.76
Alliance for a New America (SEIU): $1,530,411.77 (this includes $769,000 that has not formally posted)
Democratic Courage: $20,410.00
Total: $2,077,262.53

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

HEY!

The problem with Edwards  -That you conveniently  left out of your report- is that the leaders of the 527 are former Edwards campaign managers!  The biggest donator (the Mellon family) to the 527 also donated the maximum to Edwards campaign!

What kind of reporting is this?
new ARG poll shows Clinton 31 , Obama and Edwards 24
http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

Once again, Mr. Middle Class strikes out while team "Special Interest" continues to hit home runs!  I am not too sure that Obama doesn't live in a glass house???
Isn't this similar to the "pot calling the kettle..."?
I see they're still harping on Edwards not calling up his "personal friend" and getting him to stop running adds, despite the fact that it would be patently illegal!!!  

Obama is just a big crybaby because these organizations chose not to support him after he courted them.  If they chose to back him we probably wouldn't hear another peep about this issue.  But, then again, this is the Obama campaign.  They'll whine and cry and denounce the other campaigns for it, while they will continue to partake of the same.  
'These are groups Obama lobbied, and they ultimately chose Edwards and Clinton. '

barack is  the queen of whinning and being negative.
will his fans see it, or just spin it?
Get a grip Obama.  Where were you earlier on this issue?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-dems29dec29,1,941930.story?track=crosspromo&coll=la-news-politics-national&ctrack=2&cset=true

Lobbyists:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

Quit whining.  It's quite unbecoming.  At this point, you've dropped to 4th place in my eyes.
the most misleading health care ad is Obama's latest, where he clips a section of a sentence from a paper and presents it as the whole.

Does Frist Read always lie by omitting critisisms of obama?,,,, yes.
This is outrageous - why aren't the press all over Edwards for this?
this guy whines about everything!!!!! WHAT CRYING A BABY !!!!
Want some cheese to go with that whine Mr. Obama?

I do not see Oprah Winfrey on their list.
Obama will win. He's the most prepared to get us past the Bush-Clinton-Bush deadlock.

Obama's strategy is inferior.  He doesn't know how to run and win in Iowa, and this is one of the more amusing examples of sour grapes in this campaign to date.

Obama has outraised Edwards because Time Magazine et al decided to pay him attention he simply did not deserve.  Other than saying "really, I wouldn't have voted for the war, really I promise", Obama has UTTERLY failed to connect on messages, and now he has admitted that he knows not a thing about Iowa campaign strategy.  

I feel very bad for Obama supporters.  They are good people hoodwinked by Time Magazine and the rest of the MSM to believe that this clown actually had a chance.  Now they are finding that Obama is failing to use the money he bilked from these supporters to, you know, actually WIN an election.  The guy sounds like a con artist at this point in the game, and I urge Obama supporters to abandon their failed candidate and join the Edwards juggernaut, where they will find a large community of true Democrats ready to win and undo the damage of the last eight years.  

JOHN EDWARDS IS ALREADY ACTING PRESIDENTIAL.  Obama who?  He is ruining his own prospects for a VP or Cabinet spot with this type of internecine whining!  As if this catty little press release were a major policy announcement.  NEXT!

-jef
Please, let's open our eyes to the reality of John Edwards. He has made millions upon millions of dollars from the "greed" of the very same corporations he now condemns, through his hedge fund management. He lives one of the most posh lives of any candidate, from his multi-million dollar home to his haircuts. He blindly supported this awful Iraq war when he could have opposed it. Now that he is running for president that is all bad? Are we so used to being manipulated and lied to by the Republicans, that we Democrats now can't even see when one of our own is doing it to us. He uses his soft-spoken southern voice, heavy with emotionally laden language to lull us into believing his closing arguments in this campaign.
I beg you Democrats, please let's not be fooled again.
We need to unite behind a candidate who has not shifted, maneuvered or squirmed out of crucial positions over the years, and who does not have to convince us that NOW what he believes is really what he believes, that NOW his positions have changed for real, not because they will get him votes.
The only electable candidate who personifies the real shift we are looking for from this type of politics is Barack Obama. No explanations needed, just, as his campaign says, change we can believe in .
The innuendo that Mrs. Mellon knows not what she does is striking, both for its ageism and its audacity. One hopes that Obama's henchmen have done their homework, before accusing the Edwards campaign of taking advantage of an old lady.

Plouffe asks, "If Edwards can’t stand up to his own former aides how can [sic] stand up to the special interests in Washington?" This is a nice little rhetorical device, but Edwards has been very clear about his disdain for 527s. Furthermore, he and his new campaign staff are forbidden to coordinate with Baldick and the Carpenter's Union 527. Baldick, like Clinton and Obama, seems so desperate to win that he has abandoned the principles of his candidate. Plouffe's nasty-gram falls into the same Machiavellian category.
Makes Obama look whiney.  Besides, all candidates do everything they can to play the campaign financing rules.  Edwards and Clinton can no doubt find ways to turn the tables on Obama without too much digging.

This isn't a winning strategy for any candidate except maybe the no-hopers who are running message campaigns, not seriously in it to win, and therefore can afford to keep their hands sparkling clean.  People who are sufficiently into politics to actually go to the trouble to caucus know the score.
Shame on Edward, I thought he was clean fighting for us. He is no different from Hillary, just a populist.

The Clintons at least to them is obvious that they will do anything to have a dynasty.  

America wake up, we dont need 8 more years of hypocrisy and nepotisim.  Let's have a fresh begining with brilliant president with integrity and judgement.  Go Obama, we are with you.
Domenico, you are one of the best reporters out there, keep up the good work, but why lower yourself to even hint that Barack Obama might have turned a blind eye to "independent" expenditures if he had won the endorsements of the organizations that are supporting John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.  There is nothing in his character and the way he has run his campaign to suggest that.  It would be more reasonable to suggest that these organizations know that and that is why he didn't get their endorsements.  That is just my counter spin of course, I don't know that it is true.  But it is true that these organizations, or at least their leaders, like to play the politics of manipulation and that is not a game that Barack and those who stand with him wish to play any longer.
As Obama becomes increasingly negative in the final days leading up to the Iowa caucuses, look for Hillary Clinton to surge back in front as Barack fades into obscurity.
Now Edwards is learning what Barack and Hillary already know: it's a lot easier being the underdog.  Time for John Edwards to face the same kind of scrutiny BO and HRC have been dealing with for months.  Wake up folks.  John Edwards is not the raging liberal cherub you'd hoped he was.  He's a trial lawyer who has made a career out of doing whatever it takes to win. That's not what this country needs right now.  
Please Obama do not start sounding like a whiney George Bush.
Endorsements are fine. Campaigning for your favorite candidates is fine. But spending millions to buy ads promoting your candidates is using the loophole in our campaign finance law. This is hijacking of politics.
holy cow! Edwards got a half million from a 97-yr old who a) has never been involved in politics before, and b) doesn't have power of attorney?!  Scandalous!  She was stolen from by the person who has her power of attorney!
The following was extracted from the article:
AFSCME has attacked Obama’s plan for not including an individual mandate, when it is the official position of AFSCME to oppose an individual mandate.  The President of AFSCME testified at a Congressional hearing in 2006 that “we are concerned with the direction reform efforts have taken in some states.  For example, the Massachusetts reform model attempts to achieve near universal coverage through the use of individual mandates.”

Comment:
The above duplicity, re the Clinton campaign, is par for the course. Her coronation is apparently threatened: "It WILL be me," she said to Katie Couric. If people don't want more of the same, it won't be.  If it is, then they DO  want more of the same. And, at core, this goes for both foreign and domestic policy.  The caucusing and voting will tell.


[While] Edwards has said he doesn’t want this group to run ads.......
If Edwards can’t stand up to his own former aides how can stand up to the special interests in Washington?

The above sentence and question were extracted from the article.  Given the sentence and given the agenda Edwards has delineated for implementation should he become potus, the question is of major relevance.
Endorsements are fine. Campaigning for your favorite candidates is fine. But spending millions to buy ads promoting your candidates is using the loophole in our campaign finance law. This is hijacking of politics.
Senator Obama would you like cheese to go with you wine?
Those who are running negative ads on behalf of any of the candidates will punished at the caucases.i will definately not vote for Hillary Clinton or John edwards, iam now voting for Obama as first choice and Biden as my second choice.Edwards was the one i was looking to vote for second but he has shown he cant stop the 527 supporting him and yet he thinks he will stop lobbysts in Washington?
They say that Iowa pays special attention to the presidential race, more than anyone else in fact. I really hope that they see what is truly going on behind the rhetoric. How could we not vote for Obama if we are looking for change? The only changing Clinton has done is her campaign slogans on nearly a weekly basis. And how can she change something that she has been a part of for so long? Edwards claims to be for the poor but can't even talk to the middle class people that live across the street from him. Oh and by the way, did anybody notice ALL the candidates, including the republicans have modeled their campaign and fundraising strategies from Obama's? Everything that we see in this election that we haven't seen in the past, even doing big events for small donors, Obama started and everyone else followed. This is leadership, and one more thing, Obama has what it takes to be the next president! Everybody wants to talk about experience, and yes it is important, but how much does it matter when you are making the wrong decisions? Hilary loves to blame Bush for her vote, but she neglected to even read the intelligence reports. In addition, she likes to say " Obama wasn't in the senate at the time of the vote" Exactly! he didn't even have access to these reports, and he still got it right!
Hilary says we need someone in the white house who can hit the ground running, I say we need someone who is going to make the right decisions the first time!

Please, vote Obama. Because we can't afford any more causes for apologies.
They say that Iowa pays special attention to the presidential race, more than anyone else in fact. I really hope that they see what is truly going on behind the rhetoric. How could we not vote for Obama if we are looking for change? The only changing Clinton has done is her campaign slogans on nearly a weekly basis. And how can she change something that she has been a part of for so long? Edwards claims to be for the poor but can't even talk to the middle class people that live across the street from him. Oh and by the way, did anybody notice ALL the candidates, including the republicans have modeled their campaign and fundraising strategies from Obama's? Everything that we see in this election that we haven't seen in the past, even doing big events for small donors, Obama started and everyone else followed. This is leadership, and one more thing, Obama has what it takes to be the next president! Everybody wants to talk about experience, and yes it is important, but how much does it matter when you are making the wrong decisions? Hilary loves to blame Bush for her vote, but she neglected to even read the intelligence reports. In addition, she likes to say " Obama wasn't in the senate at the time of the vote" Exactly! he didn't even have access to these reports, and he still got it right!
Hilary says we need someone in the white house who can hit the ground running, I say we need someone who is going to make the right decisions the first time!

Please, vote Obama. Because we can't afford any more causes for apologies.
Is it only me or Obama is becoming increasingly negative and pretty much like a cry baby seeking help desperately?? Where's the politics of hope?? Getting tired of Obama already he's just like every other politician
I am not voting for Edwards anymore. He is a crook.
Shame on Barack Obama and his campaign. As a graduating senior in college, I expect more from the Obama camp. I use to think Obama was all about the politics of hope. At the beginning of his campaign he tried to distance himself from being the traditional negative politician. However, this memo clearly shows the bickering and anger on his behalf. I take it he's probably upset because those agencies didn't endorse his campaign. You see, this ALL is a dirty game of politics. Obama is NO different from the next politician. He has just as many negative ads against Clinton, he talks on major television networks against Clinton, and he started the negative campaign when John Edwards and him attacked Clinton first a few debates ago. Now because she has started firing back its an issue. Just take a look at her On the attack Web Site and you will see all of the attacks. Obama, what ever happen to change? Do you consider this change, I don't think so! To me, its feeding into traditional Washington politics. I was tied between Clinton and Obama but this letter just helped aid my decision. As a black man, I'm not voting on the race card, I'm voting for the politician that can assure me that America's safe, universal health care and economic growth. Hillary Clinton can do just that! Thanks Obama for making it easy for persons like myself to make this important decision.
RE: Edwards pulling a fast one with 527s

Read the research the DailyKos did on Edwards’ 527.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/28/151249/52

(1)A 527 is supposed to advocate “issues” NOT candidates. The 527 ads supporting Edwards clearly advocate for him, so it’s not abiding by the law. When you advocate for a candidate, you’re supposed to set-up as a PAC.
(2)The donors of the 527 INCLUDE PACs (see link on DailyKos).
(3)The 527 is run by an Edwards campaign manager who was on his payroll this past spring.
(4)This isn’t the first time Edwards has done this. Before the 2004 Iowa caucus, another Edwards aide, Jonathan Prince, left to form a 527 that spent money on advertising for Edwards in Iowa.

Edwards may be hiding behind a smokescreen of “leagalese” but it is clear that he is exploiting a loophole in campaign finance laws to get more advertising dollars spent on his behalf in Iowa. Also, since PACs are contributing to the 527, Edwards is benefiting from PAC money.

He is playing a game of “the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing” – only they do. Edwards is playing a game of "legalese" with this 527 issue - he talks against them, but when he can't raise as much money as his rivals, he sends out his top brass to start 527s to funnel advertising dollars into Iowa on his behalf, then claims that he is not "coordinating" with them and makes a false show of “asking them to stop”. Edwards is a phony. And it’s one thing if some totally separate group sets up a 527 – it’s quite another if your own people have a history of leaving your campaign before the Iowa caucus (in 2004, now in 2008) to work for a 527 which funnels advertising dollars into Iowa on your behalf.
I spent a lot of time researching Edwards, Clinton and Obama's policy positions on their websites and I must admit that only Clinton has plans that are;
realistic, paid-for and well-thought out.

While I love the word "change", I want to know that the candidate I support has the intellect and PLANS to actually bring about that change. I hope Iowans come to the same conclusion on caucus night.
"These are groups Obama lobbied, and they ultimately chose Edwards and Clinton. How would Obama have handled the situation differently if these groups had endorsed him?"

I believe this part of the article says everything. Obama run the most negative campaign, he was the one who started and maintained attacks, and he doesn't stop. It is the first Democratic campaign I followed closely, and it showed quite low standards in the way candidates have treated each other. However, I noticed that Edwards, Clinton, Richardson mostly responded to attacks and were forced into this. Obama had no substance to offer and kept chasing everybody else. I respect all Democratic candidates except Obama.
How is Edward's commitment to economic populism a recent development? Obama is just as centrist and negative as Clinton. He is the tokenist candidate for the deluded left.
So this is what happens when you lose hope... you become one of the most negative and bitter campaigns in the race. Obama is nothing new. He is the same kind of politician that comes around every four years promising what he is either too naive or quite frankly dishonest to realize can not happen. There are serious differences America has on policy. We are not going to hold hands and sing and all suddenly come together around an answer in the middle. The truth is that sometimes the best answer for our country is not nonpartisan. Social security is a partisan idea! Medicare is a partisan idea! And sustainable environmental policy is a partisan idea. Sorry we need real people to tackle real problems and your plan of hoping for sunshine on rainy days will not help this country.
The Obama campaign is in a panic. Mr. Axelrod's reprehensible statement is meant to deflect the spotlight and rescue his candidate, because as people think about the implications of Benazir Bhutto's assassination one thing comes to mind and it isn't the leadership experience of Barack Obama. International tragedy has made Barack Obama and his campaign desperate for fear their paper thin experience in foreign policy will be weighed as voters ready for the Iowa primaries. It's in moments of crisis you find out what a candidate has and the strength of his character to respond to real dangers in the world. Another example of Mr. Obama's campaign of "hope," no doubt.
former Chicago political operative has put up ObamaTruth.org a rather damaging array of videos and story links outlining Obama’s wife Michelle’s business dealings – from her $195K raise at the hospital she works for (which came, according to Novak, just after Baracks’s election to the most exclusive club in the world), to her seat on the board of Treehouse Foods.
The Obamas reportedly also had a less-than above-board real estate relationship with an “indicted political bagman” named Tony Rezko.
The most damning piece in all this is that while Sen. Obama was preaching progressive politics about healthcare and workers’ rights, it seems Attorney Obama was up to her briefs in the very predatory behavior he was criticizing.
In any case, if true, it takes a considerable amount of the shine off Sen. Obama’s squeaky clean image. Aint it always the way…
John Edwards does NOT have the support of the Voter, that's why he selected to go with Public financing. This was seen by his Former campaign chair & the reason why he resigned some 6-8 months ago.This was John Edwards way of getting around, Not having enough $$$$$$$$$$, to look beyond IOWA, where he has practicly lived since DEC-04. I personally feel that if his Support was so strong in Iowa, the $$$$$$$ would have already been there. He's been to New Hampshire only a few times, why is that.Because after IOWA, he's done.Outside groups can't & won't support him after a disappointing showing in IOWA.Just like Gore in 2000 could'nt deliver his Home state, Edward's could'nt either in 2004.


BTW, 1st read, i get an Error when trying to go to the Barack middle name thread, it's the only 1 i can't get to.
OBAMA IS SHOWING HIS TRUE COLORS! MORE NEG CAMPAGING BECAUSE HES GOONA LOOSE, EVEN HIS WIFE AGREEES, GOOLE "OBAMATRUTH" IF YOU WANT TO READ TRUTH ABOUT MICHELLE AND BARRACK
Obama should know this is what will happen in the closing days.  Report it and move on.  There are always people who will seek to circumvent the laws be glad that he is not one of them.  America has a choice to make- business as usual or believing we can do better.  Obama 2008.
Do your homework and report accurately!  The comment "John Edwards, who is running in large part on a recently adopted campaign platform of taking on the big corporate interests in Washington,..." is another example of the constant media bias against John Edwards.  Edwards has been taking on big corporate interests in Washington and elsewhere for over twenty years, and that information has been out there for just as long.  I recommend at very least quick reading of his book, 'Four Trials,' which talks about taking on corporate interests over twenty years ago.  This is no "recently adopted campaign platform" for Edwards.  This is his life.
What a surprise.  A Clinton Campaign doing something negative.  Obama is the only one of the three Dems that actually has a soul.  Thats why he won't get Nomination though.  The Dem's haven't picked a Person to represent their Party who was honest and had any kind of morals since Kennedy.

It will be Hillary, and since she is the most unelectable of the three, that will give the White House to the Republicans again for the 5th time in the last 7 elections.

Who'd have thought that the Democrats would be taking large amounts of money from 527's to swiftboat each other.  It's really time for a different kind of politics.  There are no red states, there are no blue states...OBAMA 08!
If obama doesn't win and it ends up being edwards or clinton, i really hope bloomberg runs because otherwise I'll probably have to sit out the election or vote independent. Many democrats did the same to kerry before.  He was the establishment candidate, like clinton would be, and he lost, because he was a loser, like clinton/edwards.  I really think this country needs a change in direction and that means ANYBODY BUT BUSH/CLINTON and their cronies.  
There are alot of unintelligent and uninformed comments here about Sen. Obama. One thing the writers of these negative comments do not seem to understand, is, that, as much as Sen. Obama wants to serve his country by seeking the presidency, he really does not need the presidency to validate who and what he is about. Look at the challenges he overcame in life -got two Ivy League degrees, a constitutional law professor for 10 years at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School, served in the Illinois Legislature, and now in the US Senate, and other achievements, all before the age of 46. Hillary Clinton is how old -64 years, and what has she accomplished -foster bitter partisanship in our politics?

Sen. Obama is really a very decent person -the most honest and decent candidate in the race -Republicans and Democrats. He has been the most straight forward, candid and open, of all the candidates. He does not tell the public what we want to hear. He tells us, what we ought to hear.

Contrast him to the other alternative -Hillary Clinton. First, no other candidate in the 2008 Presidential Race (Republicans and Democrats) has had as much criminal investigations for potential criminal activities, than Hillary Clinton. Most Americans with as much criminal investigations against them, would not get security clearance for janitorial jobs, in federal government. Is she the type of character you want as president of this great country? The nation was put through more than enough shame and humiliation, with the sordid details of Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades. Hillary could have punished him, for, not only for what he did to those poor women, who were sexually abused by him, but also, to teach him a lesson, like most women would. What Hillary did was to orchestrate a campaign of disinformation to discredit these women, according to those close to the Clinton White House. Hillary accommodate Bill Clintons sexual assaults on these women, by not leaving (divorcing) him, just in order to preserve his support for her political ambition –the US Senate and the Presidency. While Hillary Clinton is entitled to her rationalization, however, it is very important, that those of you, who are supporting her, re-examine your reasons. Just like African Americans should not base their support for Sen. Obama, simply because he is African American, women should have equally more compelling reasons for supporting Hillary, than simply because she is a woman.  There are a lot of intelligent women out there, whom, I hope, would engage themselves in a thoughtful self-reflection, before casting their votes. Nominating Hillary Clinton, let alone, electing her president, would bring Bill Clinton’s sorry face to the White House.

Secondly, Hillary Clinton invokes her “experience” as the First Lady, as superior qualification over her opponents in the race(some of the writers in this blog, the inept, incompetent and cowardly news media we have in the US, and potential Hillary Clinton supporters, have bought into that charade). Hillary Clinton has been asked time and again, to mention some of her achievements and policies in her husband's administration to which she contributed. However, she has not mentioned, not even one. Where is the proof or evidence of the "experience" that Hillary Clinton has duped most of you, her supporters, into believing, she has? It is sad and tragic, that most of you, her supporters, who are as intelligent, if not more intelligent than she is, have sheepishly believed her. You have been pimped by Hillary!

We all attend and watch various sports games -football, basket ball, soccer, base ball and others. How many of you claim you are ready to become baseball, basketball, soccer, or football players and ready to play any of these games without any further training, simply because you have watched the game over the years? Well, this is analogous (similar) to Hillary Clinton's argument -that by being the First Lady (although, she did not accomplish, not even, a squirt), she has acquired experience to be President from day one. Does experience not comes from active, rather than passive participation, anymore? Hillary Clinton did not actively participate in anything (other than the disastrous healthcare reform, which she led) during the 8 years as First Lady, and the management of campaign of disinformation and misinformation to discredit and dehumanize the women, who were sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton, like Monica Lewinsky, Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willy and several others. Well, if these are now the new set of required experience for the Presidency in the US, what have we come to, as a nation?

I am sick and tired of hearing Hillary’s “experience”, without anyone, citing one major accomplishment that Hillary was singularly responsible for. I dare any of the people (you, her supporters, the brainy arch that is the Iowa Des Moines Register’s Editorial Board that cited her experience, in its endorsement of Hillary, any journalist, or political pundit who would be so misguided to mention Hillary’s experience as her advantage over other candidates) to cite specific evidence of her accomplishments as proof of how she acquired the experience. If you could mention verifiable and substantive three key achievements in or out of the Clinton Presidency, that could not had been possible without Hillary’s contribution, I would switch my support and urge others to support Hillary? If you people cannot do this much, then shut up and stop mention Hillary’s experience for the presidency, which does not exist. I hope Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and other early state voters would see through this Hillary Clinton charade, and prove to the rest of us, morons, that, Hillary’s alleged experience, does not exist, because, there is no evidence or proof of any single accomplishment by Hillary, in the 8 years as First Lady.

Thirdly, another fact worth your consideration, before you decide, whether to stick by Hillary Clinton is: Hillary has had Bill Clinton, seal her records as First Lady, at the National Archives, until 2009 -much after the election. Well, what is she hiding from the voters, which she does not want the public to know, until much after the election? How many of you would apply for jobs, would refuse the hiring firm from having to looking your background, to enable the hiring officer, determine, whether you should be hired? Well, your Hillary is hiding something, she does not want you, her supporters to know. You would be a fool to allow yourselves to be duped in such a manner.

I hope you reconsider and vote for Sen. Obama, to bring the type of change and leadership our country critical needs.

Ignatius Anyanwu
Folsom, California.
Who in their right mind runs a negative campaign at the end of the race? Obama is either panicking due to inexperience or their internal numbers show he's losing support. I mean really, this is the guy that campaigned on changing the tone in Washington and bringing a new kind of politics. Last week he was channeling Edwards, copying him so much the LA Times (who have been favorable to Obama) ran a story about his campaign now resembling Edwards.

And now he's going negative against Clinton & Edwards with a memo that is deceptive at best. It's a good thing this behavioral change happened before the general election. Who would want to waste their vote on a candidate who seems to come unhinged so easily. There is no way a candidate like that would survive with the Republicans and their smear campaigns.
In one case Obama criticized a group who ran an ad for Clinton attacking a plan of his for NOT including something that the group DISagrees with!

In the other case, Edwards SAID that he did not want the 527 group to run ads (unless the article is telling a lie). Disingenuousness is not a good trait for one so passionate about the type of agenda he hopes to implement as potus, in the environment in which he will have to operate to get it done.

I opine that the politics of hope is NOT a euphemism for let them mislead, prevaricate, and have their cake and eat it too. Now, so what if Obama lobbied the SIEU  and AFSCME. Where does it say that he lobbied for the SIEU to fund or largely fund a 527 for him? IF he did, touche, he would have no basis for criticizing Edwards. As for AFSCME, had they supported him, they would not be a position of criticizing someone for NOT doing something they DISagreed with.

America is a Democracy - We are not a Monarchy.
Wiser folks than us - saw to it long ago, that we be fortunate enough to realize this life blessing.
Nepotism may be fine for the old-corner-store but it will only serve to fail us again -as it has, most resoundingly, for the entirety of this millennium.

Voting for the worst policy decision in our life times does not make one 'experienced'.  It -IS- high time America elected a woman as commander-in-chief.  When a self made woman of conviction and talent stands up and demonstrates the character that can stand as an example for us all - we should stand behind her -  with conviction and fortitude.  Hillary Clinton is not that woman.  She is the spouse of a former and popular President. In a nation, 300 million strong, are we to believe that the person most suited to be the President just happens to be related to the last President ?!
Are we really to believe this is the case ?
Will we make this mistake, again ?

Barack Obama has the strength and certitude to take America in a new and positive direction - a direction that our evolving nation - being formed all around us all as we pass through our daily lives - very much is in need of.  There really is an immediacy of the 'now' that we all share.  We truly must begin to think big again and to face the immense challenges before us in brave and selfless ways again -  like those people in the old faded photographs on our walls did - for us.  It really is time to wake up again America. The time is, most certainly, now.

Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.

It's time for America to Rise and Shine again.
Um, a publicly financed campaign is by definition a campaign supported by the people.  Candidates receive matching funds up to $250 from individuals.  Until the Bush v. Kerry race of the multi-millionaires, it was de riguer for presidential candidates to take public financing.  Not doing so was seen as trying to "buy" the election (which it is).

Read the Kos diary carefully; if the 527 did anything illegal, it's the 527 that's at fault, not Edwards.  It's also worth noting that Edwards wants to eliminate 527's and take all money out of politics ... Contrast his commitment to Obama's record, which includes enormous PAC contributions from Wall Street firms and Exelon (nuclear energy, which Obama--surprise!--supports).  OpenSecrets.org reports that on October 29, the FEC reported that the two senators who received the most $$$ from HMO lobbies this year were ... 1) Hillary Clinton and 2) Barack Obama.

Anyone who can't see the difference between union support and money from giant insurance companies probably isn't really a democrat.

"This is an election, not an auction"--John Edwards.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=538074

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google