What Obama is doing is actually smart as hell.

[cali]

He's reminding everyone over and over, that the ads being run against him, are being run by people who were high up in JE's campaign until only a few months ago. He's not letting JE get any space between himself and negative ads. For you who think this is stupid, it's not. And he's doing it with a sort of exasperated humor. The ads will hurt one of them, to some degree. Maybe both of them. My money is on Obama coming out least scathed. I'm beginning to see not only a smart fighter, but a guy with a teflon quality to him.

[Inspired]

1. I wish you peace this holiday season, Cali. n/t

[cali]

2. Same to you,

Inspired. May you have a lovely Christmas. I'm looking forward to mine. (Another umpteen rounds of egg nogged up charades)

[wake.up.america]

6. For Goodness sake. We have a complete moron in the White House...

Let's not make ourselves look silly in regaing sanity in America. Disagree sure, but do it in a dignified manner

[xultar]

11. The OP posted nothing but objective analysis. Just cuz you don't agree don't be a jerk.

[Inspired]

12. huh? how did my holiday greeting equate to being a jerk?

[cali]

14. beats me. I took it at face value.

I don't know why others saw it differently.

[Inspired]

19. Thanks for standing up for me, Cali!

It was posted in good faith from one Democrat to another.

[xultar]

26. Then I apologise for being a rude jerk.

:hi:

[BeyondGeography]

3. Exactly...the main point is to paint Edwards as negative and dishonest

and I'm sure that will work with some voters because, as Obama keeps pointing out, the ads are being produced by Edwards' former campaign manager and former political director. Meantime Edwards keeps saying he has no control. Some people will find Edwards is being duplicitous, others might be more swayed by the ad. If Obama hadn't launched this pre-emptive strike, Edwards would be getting nothing but benefits from the ad.

[cali]

4. I really don't see that what Obama is doing

can hurt him at all. Now the ads themselves... that's a different story.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Edited for clarity n/t

[ThatPoetGuy]

7. Obama's actions hurt us.

His responses have painted labor unions with the same broad brush as corporations. Thousands of hard-working people get together to pitch in their money so they'll be represented by the unions.

So once again, Obama's rhetoric undermines the progressive movement in the US.

Here's Paul Krugman: "oes it make sense, in the current political and economic environment, for Democrats to lump unions in with corporate groups as examples of the special interests we need to stand up to?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/opinion/24krugman.html

[cali]

8. No they don't. He's being very careful with his rhetoric and targeting

only Edwards and his relationship with the people running the ads- former high up Edwards staffers. He's not targeting progressives at all. He's highlighting something that Iowa voters didn't like at all in 2004. Odds are they won't like it in 2008, either.

[indimuse]

9. Equating unions to swift boaters DOES NOT HELP progressives.

Equating unions to swift boaters DOES NOT HELP progressive! AND he intentionally avoid
mentioning that the ads he is now criticizing are put out by a union he actively seeks endorsement from.

[cali]

13. He's not equating Unions to swift boaters. He's pointing out that

there's a close relationship between JE and those at the top of the organizations running the ads. That's his focus. And if you think 527 ads helped Gephardt in 2004- well, they didn't. They hurt Dean, but they hurt Gepbhardt more. Obama has a good record of Union support. He won't have any problem whatsover getting their support if he's the nominee- no more than Kerry did in 2004.

[ThatPoetGuy]

15. The 527 ads against Dean --

you know, the ones that slimed Howard Dean and compared him to Osama bin Laden --

the ads run by a shadowy consortium who wouldn't even admit whose side they were on --

those ads were made by a guy named Robert Gibbs.

Guess who hired Gibbs this time around?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/7/22374/8663

[Zueda]

16. So where is this slimeball ad from Obama?

I keep hearing people here referring to Gibbs being hired by Obama but yet I have seen nothing but positive from the Obama campaign. :shrug:

[ThatPoetGuy]

18. Nothing but positive?

His campaign completely twisted Paul Krugman's words and took them out of context, to smear a major liberal voice as being dishonest. There was no factual basis to this -- everything Krugman said was true -- so it was merely ad hominem character assassination for its own sake.

Show me one place -- ONE -- where Edwards or Hillary has been 1% as dishonest, 1% as vindictive, or 1% as anti-liberal.

[Zueda]

23. I like Edwards...

and would rather not state why he is not my top choice. As far as Clinton- it is clear that her campaign has been the most negative and I'm sure we haven't seen the worst of it before January 3rd.

[readmoreoften]

31. Nothing but positive? He is good at playing the victim, I'll give him that.

*
*The culture engendered by the 1960s is a part of the problem.
*"Gays are killing our children?" I disagree, but give that man a microphone and make him part of my team.

He is no less negative than the others despite his feel-good politics.

[cali]

17. Has Obama run any negative ads. Have any "independent"

527s done so on his behalf? No? And who's funding the negative ads running against Obama now? Oh, that's right we won't know for months.

[creeksneakers2]

30. After all I've read about Mark Penn

I never heard about this Gibbs before.

[ripple]

33. Unions that attack individual candidates ARE swift boaters

He isn't attacking the union members, but I think it's more than fair to question the judgment of the leaders. Of course, I have a serious problem with unions telling members who to vote for, anyway.

The most disturbing response I've received when knocking on doors hasn't been from people supporting other candidates, it has been from people who say they're in a union and that they'll caucus, but the union hasn't decided on the candidate, yet. To me, that indicates pressure on union employees to support the candidate of the union's choosing. Clearly, that is undemocratic at it's core. Yet I believe it continues.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Obama has no quarrel with unions

His point is Edwards is hiding behind an outside group, whoever it is. With 527's, you can't be sure whether it's a union, John's friends at Fortress or some other group that is paying the freight.

Look, if you were about to be slammed with a major ad buy, what would you do, sit there and take it? It's obvious that this group is pro-Edwards, so he's making sure that Iowans see that part of the story, not just the ads themselves.

[Andy823]

27. What I hear

Is that the former staff member hasn't worked for Edwards since 2004, now tell me how this is making Obama look good?

His "negativity" and pettiness is making him look "bad" not good. This whole thing is going to backfire on him big time, and when it does, remember how you said this was a "good idea"!

Obama used to be my #2 pick, but Bidden is looking much better these days! :wow:

[tired_old_fireman]

20. It's smart for the primary, dumb as hell for the general election

If 527s run ads on his behalf in the general election, then Obama looks like a hypocrite and the repubs will use his words against him. So, that means any union that run ads supporting Obama will give the repubs easy ammo against him. How is a democrat going to win without full support of the unions? I don't know. Either does Obama. That is why he won't pledge to do the very thing he wants Edwards to do and not allow 527s to run ads for him.

[laureloak]

21. More proof that Obama isn't ready for the presidency.

He's too green.

[cali]

22. It's a different kettle of fish altogether to run 527s against repubs

in a general. And if Obama's the nominee, the Unions will back him wholeheartedly. And the repukes won't use it agaisnt Obama. It's way too inside football to try and use something like that in the general. Didn't work when Kerry and Edwards tried to shame bush. In any case, we don't know who's funding the ads targeting Obama. Could be trial lawyers for all we know.

[sandnsea]

25. Nope, he's already put up the challenge, he's consistent

So when he makes a big stink about any 527 swift boat in the general, he's on solid ground.

[Gman]

24. Politics 101: Never make your opponent a martyr

Corollary: If your opponent won't make you a martyr, make yourself a martyr. That's what Obama's campaign is doing a very good job of. One of the few things Obama is doing right. But playing for the sympathy vote does not guarantee solid support. Support out of pity is not very reliable.

[readmoreoften]

32. Yes. And it's also difficult to argue that you're both pitiful and a strong leader.

I want someone who takes his damn lumps. I will not vote for any candidate who tries to make me feel sorry for them. I want an unabashed fighter.

[cali]

35. I want a clever and canny fighter

not a blowhard.

[venable]

40. so do I, but we disagree on who the blowhard is, and who the real fighter is. nt

[venable]

28. Total BS, Cali, Total BS

Obama knows full well Edwards has nothing to do with these ads, and can not legally do so...Obama knows this and still he does this lame attaching of Edwards to these ads. It is BS on Obama's part, and he knows it. so it is BS of him to foster this misread, and BS of you to admire it. New politics, indeed.

As for the former campaign members as recently as a 'few months ago'...simply not true. A lie. The people responsible for these ads have nothing to do with the campaign. Sure, Edwards would know them, as he was involved in 04 with some of them, but nothing since, and who knows if they even have a cordial relationship any longer, so why the lie? Is it not possible that people share the same ideology and not have anything to do with each other? Not according to Obama. B friggin S. Old school lame fool-the-public politicking.

Candidates, as you know, can not control 527s it is against the law, but they CAN control whether or not they take money from lobbyists. In terms of what the CAN control, Edwards chooses no money from lobbyists, Obama chooses otherwise.

AND who says they are anti-Obama? It is very clear that the good senator from Illinois is very worried about the Edwards surge, so he is playing the lamest of political games, obfuscation and stretching the truth. I find it disgusting. But you admire it. I rest my case.

Get over your obsession. Edwards will be the next president, so you may as well begin getting comfortable with that soon.

[cali]

34. Yeah, and S. Claus is going to bring you lots of shiny presents.

It's not a lie that Edwards' former campaign manager is behind the group spending 700k on advertising on Edwards' behalf. It's the plain truth. And yeah, Edwards could stop it if he wanted. Remember Edwards insisting that bushco could stop the swift boat ads? No difference. Yeah, the ads are targeting Obama. I don't know if they're fair or not, but the point is Edwards' hypocrisy. He's been excoriating these groups for quite some time. And it's pretty clear who's desperate here: John Edwards, who in case you didn't know it is running behind Obama, not just in Iowa but in every state in the Nation.


I suggest you do a litttle homework on the connections of the people running these ads to Edwards before you make unfounded statements. Oh yeah you might stop lying about Obama. He is NOT taking lobbyist money is this campaign. Yes, he took lobbyist money previously.

And just so you know, if by some unlikely chance, Edwards gets the nomination, I'll work for him enthusiastically. And god knows, he'll need all the help he can get to overcome the deficit that his accepting public funding has created. But odds are strong that I'll be working for nominee Obama, not nominee Edwards. I hope you'll join me in enthusiastically working for Obama should he be the nominee.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/24/in_shifting_race_edwards_aims_for_the_gut/

[venable]

37. If Obama is the nominee

though I believe he has more to overcome than you believe Edward does, I will work all day every day for him, and then I will work some more.

Our country, and the world desperately needs a Democratic President, especially a fighter (which is the prime reason I choose my guy over your guy).

As for research before writing - check out the actual relationship between Edwards and the 'former campaign officials', and see how long ago (04) they severed campaign ties. See who else these same people, political consultants for hire with many clients, work for.

As for taking lobbyist's money: One has, one has never. That is my point.

But to end on a note of secular holiday cheer - I will work for Obama, should it come to that, as hard as anybody.

[Stop Cornyn]

29. It has cost him my respect. I think demanding Edwards take a pledge that he won't take looks rotten.

[depakid]

36. "a guy with a teflon quality to him."

That certainly seems to be the case among his supporters.

The guy can say or do most anything without being held answerable or accountable.

[cali]

38. you neglect to mention what ghastly things he's done.

And yes, I think he has a teflon quality to him that will serve him well if he's the nominee. He's not just a fighter, he's a clever fighter who doesn't need to boast about how tough he is.

[Andy823]

44. The problem I see

Is his only "victory" is running against "Alan Keyes", and winning. Now sure he won, but have you heard "Alan Keyes" speak? I did at the last debate in Iowa. That guy is crazy as hell! :crazy:
I don't think this makes Obama much of a "fighter". The republicans will make mince meat out of him!

Clever in "not" voting on things that may be to "political"? Clever in attacking union 527's and saying they are the same as the "special interest" groups that run D.C.? I don't think so!

[venable]

39. 'teflon' speaks to the nature of the support more than to the candidate

and it is not an attractive, or strategic, virtue in a supporter. It smacks of idolatry, which lacks rationality or measure or principle. It places the man or woman above accountability. My candidate, Edwards, has several positions with which I do not agree, or he has in the past, and I choose not to overlook them. ie His previous reliance on consultants advice regarding political expediency, which he relied on less than most but more than I would like, his failure to grasp that the bush crowd were pathological liars, which bitter history has taught him now, and his failure to convince Kerry to contest Ohio vote count (though I know for a fact that he tried), are all things I can not forget. But I weigh that against his true progressive values, and his emergence as a courageous speaker of truth to power far outweigh, for me, these faults. He is our true best hope, as audacious as that sounds.

[cali]

41. There are oblivious posters of all the candidates here at DUI

and if you think you can actually generalize as to who has the most oblivious candidates, you're mistaken. I see a lot of Edwards supporters that are in denial about his Senate record and his vulnerablilites such as lack of money if he wins the nomination, and soft spots that will make it easy for repukes to frame him in a crude and effective way.

But again, you neglected to state what issues Obama has been so awful on. I certainly don't see him as perfect, but I do think he's a good candidate. I can point to things I don't like about him, such as his avoidance of the K/L vote, with no problem. Candidate flaws are myriad, and they loom larger in those we don't support. That's axiomatic. Partisanship partially blinds all partisans.

[venable]

42. I think you're confusing me with someone else in the thread

in that I didn't say there are issues he's been awful on...but now that I'm here, my problem has more to do with his hands-across-the-water, everything's going to be OK as soon as we have a uniter not a divider. I want fight. I want to seize the country back with a full recognition of the lack of moral compass held by the current Republican party. It is beyond naive to think that good intentions and sweet optimism mean jack-anything to these cats. They will eat us alive, as they always do. We need some backbone, and I believe nobody has it more than Edwards, who is more in the mold of a Webb than a Carter (a misunderstood great man, IMO, but one who let himself be savaged by the bad guys)

I believe that Obama is often in the right - but there are serious gaps here, ie his Lieberman love, etc.- but his tone of new politics (which is BS if you read your OP, which points, as I said, to the obfuscating, facts-bending nature of this maneuver) is not comforting - well, let me rephrase that: It is comforting to those who need their noses punched.

My other real concern is that he gave one really terrific speech (after being coached phrase by phrase on how to deliver it) at the convention. As a footnote, for those in attendance, Obama's great speech paled in comparison to Reverend Al's, which brought the house down. Obama is not, I believe, a good stump speaker. I think he is vague and wanders and lacks focus. I am not the only one to notice this. I know a number of former supporters who lost interest after seeing him in person. This is anecdotal, I know, but it is what I have noticed. I wish he was a fiery focussed speaker, with a real desire to confront the criminals who have torn our republic apart since the reagan era. I really do wish that was the case, but I just do not.

In a grueling, long, demanding campaign, Edwards will stand up stronger. The lawyer stuff simply doesn't work against him, because the fact of his law career are inspiring, not condemning. Faircloth tried it and it failed.

The IWR vote can only be used against him by Dems, now, in the primary. Clearly, it is a republican war, so they can't accuse him of failing to see the duplicity of the bush administration. Dems can, but repubs can't.

[PresidentObama]

43. Yeah, Karl Rove uses smart strategy too...win at any cost. He's still a jackass, and wrong.

Obama's my second choice. And I respect the hell out of him.

But this bullshit is Karl Rove 101.

[Tejanocrat]

45. This 527 hypocrisy is smart like the Donnie McClurkin mess was smart. It shows his lack of beliefs

will facilitate a certain type of ruthlessness, but when a candidate has previously held himself out as a "different" type of candidate who offers "hope" -- well, that may or may not be smart as hell.

In fact it might be stupid as hell.

[venable]

46. I agree entirely

this is old school dirty politicking of the most base kind. he is no more a new kind of pol than any other candidate sacrificing, knowingly, their principles for a vote. here is a note from OPED NEWS on the matter:



"At a time when most Americans are celebrating holidays that focus on happy times with their families and stress the ideas of “peace on earth and goodwill toward men” Obama and Clinton are shattering the mood by going negative.


Obama’s attack on Edwards was the harshest, and had the biggest whoppers in it. Edwards has made attempting to get corporate PAC’s and 527s out of elections an important part of his campaign. Obama pointed to two 527s that are running ads in favor of Edwards and accused Edwards of “talking the talk and not walking the walk”. The problem with Obama’s claim is that Edwards and the Edwards campaign have nothing to do with the ads. Edwards has no power to stop the ads. He has asked the 527’s not to air the ads. What more can he do?

How can one claim to be the harbinger of hope and then lie about your competitors? If Obama’s message is strong enough, why does he have to lie about Edwards?"



And yet, the OP begins the thread by admiring the savvy cunning of this charade. I'm afraid that with each passing day we find that BO's version of 'Hope' is sound and fury signifying nothing. Same old same old, and not very skillful, in that it is so transparent. Frankly, I expected more, much more, from him.