Whoa, whoa, WHOA. Do I smell hypocrisy on the part of Barack Obama?

[PresidentObama]

I became outraged right before the Iowa Caucus, when my second choice Barack Obama starting nailing my first choice John Edwards for an outside group running pro-Edwards advertisements. I believe Senator Obama proclaimed John Edwards didn't walk the walk, just talked the talk because he couldn't control an outside group and what advertisements they decided to run.

Now I log onto DU, and see on the front page a pro-Obama labor allie is spending $14,000 on radio advertisements in support of Barack, and attacking Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Seeing this pissed me off. Barack Obama is STILL my second choice, but as soon as he started attacking John Edwards in Iowa for this, I thought about making it Hillary. Obama knows full well that Edwards had no control over the outside group that ran the advertisements in Iowa.

So is Obama not walking the walk in Nevada? Why isn't he calling for the end of these advertisements?

After all, this is an outside group. It's not part of his campaign.

That's what he attacked Edwards for, isn't it?

And I saw a lot of outrage among Obama supporters who attacked John Edwards for this. Where's your phony outrage now?

Got hypocrisy?

P.S. If you can't tell, this has really pissed me off :)

[bunnies]

1. It sure would be nice if candidates had total control over their supporters.

Dont you think? :shrug:

[neutron]

39. HRC supporters do not run smear campaigns

in the blogs. There are slime diaries everyday in daily Kos, but not
from Clinton.
It is evident that candidates CAN exert influence - IF THEY WANT TO.

[bunnies]

45. The blogs are not the only place damage is done.

Hillary has had her share of rogue supporters as well.

[SoxFan]

2. Two questions

Is this 527 operated by a former Obama campaign manager?

Has anyone found an email that expressly says that there is coordination between the 527 and the campaign?

When you find out, let us know.

[PresidentObama]

3. To answer your questions, it's a pro-Obama ally group.

Just like the pro-Edwards group, headed by his FORMER campaign manager, was an ally group.

But Obama nor Edwards have control over either group.

[SoxFan]

10. You didn't answer the question

There is clear evidence of collusion between the Edwards campaign and Nick Baldick's 527. Do you have any evidence that shows collusion betweent he Obama campaign and this group?

[PresidentObama]

15. Would you care to post the evidence?

I have yet to see any evidence. None.

[Luminous Animal]

26. There is zero evidence of collusion.

The email that supposedly proves your false claim was an intraunion email discussing union GOTV strategy before the 527 even existed.

By the way, Gore invented the internet.

[Adelante]

30. It isn't even a 527

Unions have political committees their members contribute to voluntarily, aside from regular union dues. The CWU felt itself under attack and the ad is in defense of its members. This is what political committees are set up to do. They also can campaign on behalf of their membership for a specific candidate. There is nothing stopping them from interacting with campaigns or candidates. These ads are legal.

A 527 may be funded by a union in part or in full or by anybody; all can and usually do take money from anybody who will pay into it. They are not allowed by law to do campaign ads. They are not allowed by law to interact with campaigns or candidates. The 527 ads in Iowa were illegal, but nobody cares, because it's factored into the cost that they will pay an FEC fine down the road.

Negative? I stopped worrying about that after Iowa. It is what is at this point.

But this is why I say, when there is no anti-labor candidate in the primary, labor unions should just stay out of it and fight the GE when the time comes. It's not worth the damage to the party and to labor itself.

[sandnsea]

4. A union is defending its members

Do they have a right, responsibility, to do that?

I don't like the racial overtones, but they have a right to tell people about the disenfranchisement.

And the Obama campaign has already released a statement about outside organizations.

[PresidentObama]

6. I didn't say they didn't have the right, only pointing out the hypocrisy.

Can you post this statement from his campaign?

Did he denounce the advertisement?

Otherwise to quote himself he's not "walking the walk"

[sandnsea]

19. Here's the statement, where's Edwards' condemnation?

Said Obama spokesman Bill Burton, "Senator Obama believes, and has said clearly, that campaigns should fund themselves and discourages supporters from spending outside the campaign. But no one should be confused about the effort that was run on behalf of John Edwards in Iowa. In that case, it was not the independent speech of individual union members, each contributing small amounts to amplify their voices. It was a special project of outside donors funding a massive 527 effort run by one of Edwards’ top political lieutenants.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/unite-here-divi.html

I've been looking for Edwards statement against the law suit and never heard anything.

[PresidentObama]

24. Both were/are outside groups, not involved with any campaign.

They simply support a respective candidate.

It's still hypocrisy for Barack Obama not to come out against this advertisement when he bashed John Edwards for the same thing.

And plus, the John Edwards campaign had no involvement with that 527 in Iowa. And any involvement would be and is illegal.

[sandnsea]

25. Strange reasoning

Okay, I just posted the Obama campaigns criticism of the advertisement.

:wtf:

I posted the difference between 527's and union member ads.

And you still want to hide behind Edwards' statement that he can't control the 527, while calling Obama a hypocrite.

Again...

:wtf:

[papau]

33. OK - I'm confused - an "outside group" can't co-ordinate -period - both cases needed

the candadate to reject the "help" - Edwards did reject it - Obama not so much.

Indeed todays Spanish lanuage ad that run's every 30 minutes on just about every Spanish radio station in Las Vegas is racist anti-Hillary implying she hates all Hispanics (does nothing for "our people") - needs an Obama comment.

[sandnsea]

46. Edwards said he can't control 527's

I didn't see that he condemned their actions, although he may have and I missed it. I just posted a clear rejection of outside influence and you want to say "not so much". And then call Obama a hypocrite???

:crazy:

Where is Edwards' statement against the law suit and voter disenfranchisement, seeing as he's the one who would have fought Ohio. Isn't that significantly more important than a union rightly attacking a candidate who tried to disenfranchise their members?

[Adelante]

49. Not true

A union's political committee, which is the case here, can and does coordinate. Trust me, Hillary's endorsed unions are coordinating with her staff, the same way they did for her Senate runs and Bill's presidential runs. I say this from personal experience. That you don't like the anti-Hillary tone of the CWU ad, frankly, is neither here nor there.

A 527, which is not the case here, cannot coordinate and cannot produce campaign ads, both by law. They do it anyway and pay a future fine, as will the pro-Edwards 527.

When a pro-Obama 527 was set up early last year, he asked his supporters to contribute directly to his campaign and not to the 527. That group, to my knowledge, has not produced ads or done much of anything since he spoke against it, except in their PAC end, they promote absentee balloting, and I'm not sure there is much of that.

[papau]

56. the anti-Hillary tone of the CWU ad," - it is a racist ad appeal to "our people"-as to co-ordination

the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) has no carve out for unions or union sponsored anything.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/ebook/part3/campaign_finance_fed02.html

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/ebook/part3/campaign_finance_fed03.html

[Adelante]

58. General treasury funds, yes, coming from union dues

might fund a 527, which would be subject to the coordination ban and the legal restrictions on communications.

But a voluntary fund, over and above union dues, a political committee, has a lot of leeway in in-kind contributions. Union political staff are even loaned to campaigns for the duration, still paid their regular salaries, campaign offices are furnished with computers, etc., supplied by the union. There is a great deal of interaction. I'm not saying, by the way, there is necessarily coordination on ads in particular. There might be, there might not be. Just that political committees voluntarily funded are not subject to the same coordination restrictions as 527s funded by a union's general treasury from union dues.

[papau]

60. I agree - but there would be fines - just as with 527's - if there is "co-ordination" that is not

reported as a contribution.

[Barack_America]

12. It's a line that I think they can draw...

The union is, after all, disproportionately Hispanic. They are free to interpret the events according to their own feelings and experiences.

Do I think that Hillary was specifically targeting Hispanics? No. But I can't speak for the union or its Hispanic members. Their perspective is one that I do not have.

Edited: My spelling is such an embarrassment lately.

[sandnsea]

20. It's also paid for by a member fund

per the statement above, which I keep forgetting.

[Barack_America]

27. Thanks. I was aware of that, but not the distinction it made.

Thanks for the little lesson in politics there.

[sandnsea]

28. Just adding info

generally, as often as possible, not really specifically directed at you, as if I think you needed a lesson, know what I mean?

[Barack_America]

37. Oh, I didn't mean that snarkily...

I was sincerely thanking you for the lesson in politics.

Sorry. I should've clarified, especially with the tone of the board what it is these days.

[papau]

31. the union is 40% Hispanic

[Barack_America]

34. Your point?

Unless the population of Nevada is 40% Hispanic, then the union is disproportionately Hispanic.

Do you have those numbers?

[sandnsea]

42. It's 60% white/not hispanic

Although the 40% isn't all hispanic.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/32000.html

[Barack_America]

52. Okay, 24% Hispanic...

...so my until now unsubstantiated claim that the Culinary Workers Union is disporportionately Hispanic stands. Whew!

:blush:

(You caught me repeating the MSM without double-checking)

[sandnsea]

54. Again, just adding info

I actually didn't know the demographics of Nevada, never really paid attention. I'm not sure why it matters, in regards to the culinary union, anyway.

[stillcool]

5. Who is this 'supporter'?

Maybe you should direct your outrage towards them?

http://www.unitehere.org/
What is UNITE HERE?

UNITE (formerly the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees) and HERE (Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union) merged on July 8, 2004 forming UNITE HERE. The union represents more than 450,000 active members and more than 400,000 retirees throughout North America.

UNITE HERE boasts a diverse membership, comprised largely of immigrants and including high percentages of African-American, Latino, and Asian-American workers. The majority of UNITE HERE members are women.


UNITE HERE Endorses Senator Barack Obama

January 9, 2008

The Executive Committee of UNITE HERE has voted to endorse Senator Barack Obama for President. On behalf of nearly one million members and retirees, the union announced that it will be supporting the campaign in primaries and caucuses throughout the nation.

[PresidentObama]

8. Nope, I won't. Why? Because Obama attacked Edwards for something that he wasn't responsible for.

And his supporters here on DU posted their phony outrage.

Obama said Edwards wasn't "walking the walk" because an outside group ran a pro-Edwards ad.

So does that mean Obama isn't as well?

[stillcool]

22. I don't know how..

politicians can prevent groups like Move-on from producing whatever they like. I am not familiar with the Edwards ad that caused the outrage. Perhaps you could provide a link? I hate not knowing what people are referring to.

[stillcool]

59. BTW...I mis-spoke...

There is a difference between a "Union" and 527's.
http://www.unitehere.org /
http://www.moveon.org/
There is a difference between the Nevada Democratic Party and Barack Obama 'supporters'
http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/2008/01/16/OppoDemsMTNRelief.pdf

[Barack_America]

7. IMO, Hillary has gotten so negative with her misleading fliers, the lawsuit, etc.

That I am disappointed, but not surprised, to see this.

Barack's in a corner. He needs this union badly. And the union, I feel, was justifiably insulted that the lawsuit brought on by Clinton-supporters was trying to silence their members' voices. I cannot fault them for being angry. And these ads and spots reflect their anger and their view of the events.

I think that we all have to give a little wiggle room where supporters are concerned. They're hard to control (although I would argue that if you're on-stage with them at the time, you should be able to control them).

But what I think is inexcusable is that these false fliers about Obama are coming from the Clinton campaign itself. That's over the line, IMO.

[PresidentObama]

11. Maybe so. But that doesn't change how much of a hypocrite he looks after this.

I was so pissed when Barack came at Edwards over this.

And now he's got groups that are pro-Obama doing the same thing, and he's silent.

Where's the phony outrage? Where's the charges towards Barack Obama that John Edwards got saying he didn't walk the walk?

[Barack_America]

13. Possibly. But I'm thankful it's not his campaign directly. Unlike the Clinton fliers. n/t

[neutron]

43. If you can't provide a LINK to a flyer

I can only assume this is hearsay and smear as usual from the Obama people.

[bunnies]

50. ...

on edit: good gawd. I dont know what that was so big. Click the link in this article:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-slams-cli.html

[sandnsea]

23. He isn't silent, you didn't do your homework

The campaign has spoken to it. This is not, however, a 527 which can be funded through hundred thousand dollar donations. This is a specific fund that union members contribute to, a very different thing.

[neutron]

40. the blog smears from the obama camp

are a turnoff.

[Skip Intro]

9. yes, very hypocritical of Obama - and have you seen what the ads say about Hillary?

They flat out tell latinos that Clinton is not for them, Obama is.

It is vile and viscious, but I think the NV voters will reject it and I expect a backlash in the form of incrased votes for Hillary.

But yes, you are correct - there has been a double standard all along regarding Obama - one can bend and twist and put under a microscope anything said by any other candidate, but criticize in the least Obama's record or past statements, and by God, you are an evil racist!

This is just another example of that hypocritical double standard. Thanks for briinging it up, I hadn't realized it. But you are entirely correct.

[neutron]

47. here's a link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIKIfXDkn6I

[Azathoth]

14. As an Obama supporter, I don't particularly like it, but after Hillary tried to use GOP tactics

to disenfranchise the union's voters, I'm not really surprised that they are responding like this.

[PresidentObama]

16. Two wrongs don't make a right. Ever.

[Barack_America]

41. But there's a big difference between a CAMPAIGN adopting these tactics...

...than a union you have very little control over doing so.

The Culinary Workers need Obama to win Nevada seemingly as much as he does. I don't know what he promised them, but the seem to want it desperately.

[neutron]

44. what bs

why are union voters getting extra privileges that normal citizens do not have?

[Adelante]

53. They are not getting extra privileges

Anyone working within 2.5 miles of a workplace caucus can go into one and caucus. They don't have to be union members. You can work in a Burgher King up the block, you can drive a cab, you can be a secretary in an office, you can be pumping gas that day, you can work in a non-union casino even.

[flpoljunkie]

17. These "independent" 527 groups are kept in business by a FEC looking the other way. Unfortunately,

they are here for the duration of this presidential campaign, with no oversight--no one (FEC) checking to determine if they are truly independent of the candidates.

We need public financing of campaigns and Barack Obama has pledged to work for public financing as president. I am in total agreement with this position.

[PresidentObama]

18. I am too. I agree with his position.

As I believe John Edwards does as well.

Edwards has consistently denounced 527's.

But my point is, this makes Obama look like a hypocrite. And personally, I wish he would address it when he attacked Edwards over an outside group running pro-Edwards advertisements in Iowa, and now Obama's got his own set of outside groups he has no part in running ad's for him.

[sandnsea]

21. This is paid by member funds, not any 527

I think unions fall under different rules and campaign changes require any advertising to be approved by members and paid separately.

[ProSense]

29. No hypocrisy: Here's the difference

Unions are not 527s

[rinsd]

32. Here's the hypocrite in his own words

"We found out today that there's an outside group spending $750,000 – just bought three-quarters of a million dollars worth of television time – and the individual who is running the group used to be John Edward's campaign manager," Obama said during a stop here. "So, you can't say yesterday, you don't believe in 'em, and today, you're having three-quarters of a million dollars being spent for you. You can't just talk the talk."

Edwards, who has raised significantly less money than Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, said Friday that he has sought to discourage such spending on his behalf.

"The way the law exists today is you have no control," he said, according to the Associated Press. "You're not allowed by law to have contact or to coordinate with 527s. So can you discourage it? Yes, and I do."

Barack Obama - completely full of shit.

[ProSense]

35. Where? A union isn't a 527, and Obama had nothing to do with the ad. So where? n/t

[PresidentObama]

61. They aren't 527's, but they are outside groups who are running advertisements like a 527.

That's the hypocrisy. Obama attacked Edwards for an outside group running pro-Edwards ad's.

Now when the shoes on the other foot, his campaigns playing dumb, he's silent, and they're all pretending to still be holier than thou. And no such phony outrage from Obama supporters who blasted Edwards for the 527 group he had no involvment or control over. Hypocrisy? Very much so.

[jackson_dem]

71. As clear as night and day that Obama is a lying hypocrite on this matter

[grantcart]

36. When you consider making Hillary your second choice I have two words

Rupert Murdoch.

[Divine Discontent]

38. my sentiments exactly n/t

[cloudythescribbler]

48. Obama publicly challenged Edwards to disavow the attacks, attacks Obama considered unfair

I don't know how Obama would handle a similar challenge here. But neither he nor Edwards are saints. My first choice is Obama, my second Edwards and my third HRC, of the three leading Democrats.

There are PLENTY of things that bother me about Obama MUCH MORE than this (alleged) hypocrisy.

[tishaLA]

51. The ad is unfortunate

and I wish the campaign would tell them to spend the 14K on something like outreach efforts instead of incendiary language. I'm not sure what the rules are governing those kinds of requests, however.

[sandnsea]

57. He did

"Senator Obama believes, and has said clearly, that campaigns should fund themselves and discourages supporters from spending outside the campaign. But no one should be confused about the effort that was run on behalf of John Edwards in Iowa. In that case, it was not the independent speech of individual union members, each contributing small amounts to amplify their voices. It was a special project of outside donors funding a massive 527 effort run by one of Edwards’ top political lieutenants."

[jackson_dem]

55. Obama railed against "special interest" groups running such ads just three weeks ago

He used it not only to attack Edwards but to burnish his image as a "candidate of change", while, once again, echoing a right-wing talking point (labor unions are "special interests"). Now he is silent when he is benefiting from the same thing. It is very clear cut hypocrisy and audacity.

[PresidentObama]

62. And the same people who provided the fake outrage on DU are either silent or defending Obama.

Got hypocrisy?

[jackson_dem]

70. This is the "change" Obama will bring? Whatever suits him at a given moment

[GalleryGod]

63. FWIW,Folks...looks like Kerry is "walking the walk" and really hustling in Nevada behind

his endorsement...well,done...LTCMdr.

[PresidentObama]

64. Kerry is and always has been a class act.

:) Agreed.

[elizm]

65. Tell me something...exactly which 'state' is it that Edwards is going to take? nt

[PresidentObama]

66. What does that have to do with the OP? Digs at my prefered candidate don't change the hypocrisy.

Does it?

[elizm]

67. I'm not making digs at your candidate. It is a question that I am curious about the answer to...

What state do you think he will win? I am in SC, his birth state, which he seems to have no chance of winning. He is way behind in NC, his home state. I am just wondering which state you think he will win?

[PresidentObama]

68. If you want to know, launch a thread. Has nothing to do with my OP.

[PresidentObama]

69. Kick for hypocrisy n/t