Obama campaign on the Union ad

[ProSense]

Team Obama distanced themselves from the ad. “Sen. Obama believes, and has said clearly, that campaigns should fund themselves and discourages supporters from spending outside the campaign,” said spokesman Bill Burton. But he said Team Edawards mounted a much more aggressive string of attacks 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.

He went on. “It’s not our ad — the first we learned of its contents was from press reports. If the Clinton campaign has questions, they should contact the union that sponsored the ad whose support they sought throughout the course of this campaign. But coming from a campaign that is repeatedly launching absolutely false attacks against Sen. Obama, it takes some chutzpah. The facts is their camp clearly would like to have worker’s voices silences and they need to live with that unfortunate position.”

link

[ShortnFiery]

1. Pointed and excellent response by Team Obama!

:thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

2. Kicked and rec....

In case the media is scouring trying to find out about those ads.

[MadBadger]

3. Obama soooo just won the Jewish vote with mention of "chutzpah."

[sunonmars]

4. Basically saying

Hey, we didnt do it but we arent going to dismiss what it said, what a bunch of hacks. They are so behind it.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Hey, that's what I think about Hillary and that suit that was attempting to

disenfranchise all of those Union workers.

She probably pretty pissed that it didn't work out in her favor, hey?

[cloudythescribbler]

6. Well, at least they distanced themselves from the ad -- would like to have seen more

A general statement somehow tactfully stating, at least in an overall way, that the campaign seeks to appeal across all ethnic, gender, regional, blah blah lines would have been a good further step.

It's a touchy situation because Obama for good reason is reluctant to trash his union supporters.

[jackson_dem]

7. What a hypocrite. He should condemn it for being racist and for the reasons he laid out 3 weeks ago

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Exactly

Calling somebody a racist is the rhetorical equivalent putting a bullet in someone's head...

It's takes things to a whole new level...

[jackson_dem]

9. And he still has the "audacity" to pretend he is running a positive campaign based on "hope"

[Inuca]

12. Racist?!?!

I am not happy with the ad, but RACIST?!?

[jackson_dem]

13. It implies Hillary is racist toward Hispanics

[ProSense]

14. Where? n/t

[jackson_dem]

15. Through the context. Hillary doesn't care about "us", Barack cares about "our community" etc.

[ProSense]

16. What? She tried to disenfranchise an entire union and they called her on it. That is

shameless!

[jackson_dem]

17. They didn't say our union. They said "our community". That implies ethnicity, in this context Latino

[ProSense]

18. A community is a group. She tried to deny them their rights, they pushed back. n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

10. Swiftboating 101: "Team Obama distanced themselves from the ad."

Swiftboating 102: “It’s not our ad — the first we learned of its contents was from press reports."

[ProSense]

11. Kick! n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. I have never questioned the political free speech of ongoing membership based groups

The Culinary Workers Union in Nevada is not an entity that sprang up solely to effect one political campaign in Nevada. It will remain after this election, and it will continue to have a membership which I assume has means through which to hold it's leadership accountable. It has a right to fight for things it believes serves it's members, and that right extends to attempting to influence political contests.

I also understand that the legal effort to declare casino workplace caucus sites invalid was a controversial one and I do not fault this union, which had a direct stake in the outcome of that lawsuit, for being vocal in their views regarding it, including their belief that Hillary Clinton attempted to make their ability to vote more difficult. So I do not think Obama needs to defend himself over a Union which supports him releasing an ad that attacks Hillary Clinton.

However I am profoundly disappointed in the statement made by Obama's campaign regarding the controversy over the ad that Union broadcasat on his behalf because that statement pointedly makes zero reference to the aspect of that union ad which has many people like me most upset; the overt racial card that it injected into the Nevada caucus contest.

John Edwards laid out the racial concern about it pointedly in his email sent out to tens of thousands of supporters. He also reminded all of us of the pledge made at the last Democratic debate by all Democratic candidates to steer their supporters away from engaging in those divisive tactics. The issue is clearly on the table and Obama totally ignored it, which makes the reply by his campaign to the controversy that ad stirred meaningless to me.

And for those who still cling to the fig leaf fiction that there was no racial card played by the union in the text of that ad, I ask you to read that text again. The radio ad does not begin with any mention of a lawsuit, it begins with the statement "Hillary Clinton does not respect our people". And it ends with a false claim about the Obama campaign adopting a widely used latino pride slogan.

This was not an internal newsletter sent out to Union members. It was a public radio ad heard by the general public. Within internal union communications the phrase "our people" would be understood to refer to fellow Union members. But the vast majority of people who heard that ad were not union members. Still, perhaps it can be inferred from context that "our people" meant that specific union's members only - even though that concept was dangerously ambiguous in the context of the ad. But the ad did not stop there, one sentence pointedly noted that Clinton did not respect "our people" AND that she did not respect "our community" in sequential progression.

This was a community radio station. Listeners perhaps could deduce that "our people" was only a reference to the Union's members, even though confusion about that in many people's minds was completely predictable. I believe it was always inevitable that many who heard the ad would assume "our people" mean latinos. But the ad went even further in claiming it was "our community" that Hillary does not respect also. What percentage of listeners do you figure would conclude that both the phrases "our people" AND "our community" broadcast over a public radio station were both internal references to the Culinary workers union members only? Be honest.

At the very least it must be admitted that an unintentional racial message was broadcast in the text of that ad, if not an intentional one. THAT is what I wanted Obama to distant himself from. He chose not to and instead used his reply to land another blow on Clinton. I honestly expected better from him.

[ProSense]

20. See the OP n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. If I hadn't seen the OP, I would not have responded. n/t

[ProSense]

23. This specifically: "If the Clinton campaign has questions, they should contact the union..." n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. I did note that. Sorry but I honestly think that was a lame deflection

Especially after Obama and Edwards and Clinton all openly discussed rising racial tensions in the overall contest for the Democratic nomination at the Nevada debate several days ago. I was pleased with all of them for the concern they there expressed, and for their resolve to do more to prevent it in the future. Concerns over the actions of candidate supporters was explicitly addressed and included in the resolve expressed to do better in the future.

All I expected from Obama was HIS reaction to that racial sub text in that ad. It was appropriate for him to remind people that he had no direct control over the content of that ad. It was fine for him to say that he can't answer for someone else what their literal intent was. It would have been fine with me if he offered his own opinion that the Union did not actually intend to make a racial slam against Hillary. But he still could have, and in my opinion should have, expressed discomfort with how that ad could, at minimim, be "misconstrued".

Instead he punted. "Don't ask me, ask them". I wanted to know what Obama thought about that ad. He was perfectly comfortable talking directly about other aspects of it's contents, the aspects regarding the lawsuit to deny casino caucus sites. But when it came to the race baiting aspect suddenly he had no words to say other than "If the Clinton campaign has questions, they should contact the union..."

[Evergreen Emerald]

22. how is that an excellent response? He did not denounce the ad.

He is such a hypocrite. He is playing the racism card AGAIN.

[ProSense]

24. "It’s not our ad." Obama wasn't designated the nation's ad denouncer! n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

25. please. that is disingenuous. He can say: that ad is reprehensible as it uses racism

in an attempt to sway voters to choose me in the caucus. I do not want voters to come to me because of racism. I denounce the ad."

Is that too hard to say? It apparently is.

Gosh, the people on DU have been attacking Clinton whenever she does not denounce a statement made my someone who has supported her in the past no matter how skimpy the ties to her campaign.

And yet here, there is no demand from the Obama crowd? What gives?

Double standard / hypocritical.

[ProSense]

26. Why

should he?

Hillary got dissed by people whose rights she tried to deny.

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. Well, I will say it again; BECAUSE HE SAID HE WOULD NOT USE RACISM

and now he is using racism in an attempt to garner votes. He is being dishonest.


That is why.

And, Clinton did not try to deny anyone their rights. That is a lie. Dang, you people will twist anything to support your side.