Pro-Hillary Group Spending $39,000 On New Anti-Obama Mailing In New Hampshire

Source: tpm election central

By Greg Sargent

Looks like the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees -- which backs Hillary -- is set to hit Obama with another negative mailing, this time in New Hampshire.

According to FEC reports filed this afternoon, AFSCME plunked down nearly $39,000 today for an anti-Obama mailer to go out in the state.

AFSCME mailers hitting Obama on Hillary's behalf have caused a bit of controversy already in the race. A week ago the Edwards campaign criticized AFSCME for an Iowa mailer hitting Obama's health care plan because it included an Edwards quote, which could lead some readers to think that the Edwards campaign, and not the Hillary-backing AFSCME, was behind the mailer.

Anyway, get ready for another one.

Read more: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/prohillary_group_spending_39000_on_new_antiobama_mailing.php

Instead of all of the candidates (on both sides) constantly slamming one another......Why don't they tell "We The People" what they intend on doing for the US and it's citizens should they become President?

Most of them do tell the people what they intend on doing. If you aren't getting that info, that would be the fault of the media - and yours for not going to read the speeches at the web sites yourself.

I'm talking about the media going bat-shit crazy over every negative comment made. Not to mention when all of the trashing/swiftboat type television ads begin. :eyes:

Not, "all" the candidates. And, again, not "all" the candidates run negative ads either.

I meant when it gets down to the nitty gritty......Repub vs Dem. Back in 2004.....the ads with Kerry and Bush slamming one another on television was ridiculous. "We The People" want to know what they'll do for the country.....not listen to the constant BS going back and forth between the last two standing.

All you can do is hope the voters are informed enough to see through the BS, and reject it.

She needs to start talking about what she'll do in concrete terms. Taking a difficult stand or two wouldn't hurt, either.

Her negatives are already way too high. This sort of stuff can't possibly help with that.

And why do we always spend the energy tearing down the other (in-party) guy? Doesn't that just make things difficult come the general election?

I don't like this, I really don't.

she has spent the majority of her time talking -- voter by voter, forum after forum, month by month -- about her concrete plans when she becomes President. And not backing away and apologizing for her vote for the IWR -- unlike Edwards who did a politically convenient 360 after spending his time in the Senate selling the war so hard in 2002 -- is one of the toughest stances to take!

Are you actually willing to fault the candidate and not our sound-bite driven media for not adequately or accurately covering the issues the candidates -- including Hillary -- are talking about?

I see her refusal to say "I was wrong. It was wrong." as intransigence, pure and simple. A not to be admired character flaw, to me. And she reads to me as a candidate hedging her bets for the general. I'm not looking for that. I want clear stands, even difficult stands. I want to be sure the next president is strong enough and willing enough to shake things up and change the mess we've got -- not by increments, but with gusto.

I agree with you.

although it may surprise you to learn that I don't support or defend it.

How easy it would have been for her to say "yeah, it was a mistake and I shouldn't have voted the way I did"? How tempting it might have been for some to turn around and, falling in with present public opinion, admit the mistake and rail against the war.

But I have to hand it to someone who has the political courage -- and despite the fact there will obviously be those who hold it against her -- to NOT say "it was a mistake", but, instead, to assert that based on what they were offered as evidence and then promised by this President, she did what she thought was best at the time while understanding that the continued use of Inspectors was part of the deal.

If people want to talk about pandering or lacking in political courage, it wouldn't be fair to point the finger at Hillary as some kind of example. When it would have made things much easier for her, she refused to back down from a stance she took and I have to begrudgingly admire that. Not support it, of course, but admire the willingness to take the obvious political hits and not buckle under the pressure.

Just substitute Hillary with Bush and... presto!

"If people want to talk about pandering or lacking in political courage, it wouldn't be fair to point the finger at Bush as some kind of example. When it would have made things much easier for him, he refused to back down from a stance he took and I have to begrudgingly admire that. Not support it, of course, but admire the willingness to take the obvious political hits and not buckle under the pressure."

and a stronger stomach than I do to visit a site like that. And just what were you doing on FreeRepublic?

don't have much choice cause that's all thats available in my area. I actually enjoy observing the
RW when they've been hobbled like after the 2006 elections and I also find it intersting how they can justify their way of thinking. It helps to know my enemy and it helps me prepare to deconstruct their talking points whenever I have discussions with repub acquaintances.

because I live in an area where there are many choices when it comes to information (NYC) and the Republican friends I have are sane, rational, intelligent and (gasp!) despise ** and the direction their Party has taken over the last 10-15 years. Many of them also cringe when faced with the republican choices for President, so I suspect they may jump the fence and vote Democrat this time out.

Again, I tip my proverbial hat to you. I have neither the stomach nor the patience to listen to people like Rush or read sites like FreeRepublic or anything like that. It is important, though, to know what "the enemy" is up to, what they're saying and how they're thinking. Some can handle it (like you) while others (like me, a total weenie) can't.

Bravo! :applause:

I see it as admitting the truth -- and I'd be interested in hearing it, because frankly, I don't buy that ANY of the people who voted for it trusted Bush one inch at that time. They should have known better, and I find it strains credulity to be told that they trusted him or his information. (I think Kerry should have simply said: "yes, I was foolish to believe the promises of the Bush administration. I made a terrible mistake, and I'm sorry I did it").

I mean, seriously -- how many of us knew at the time that there would be no serious attempt at inspections, that this was, flat-out, an invitation to war in Iraq? I'd say the majority. So why did these people in the heart of things not get that? It's puzzled me for years.

Don't get me wrong; should Clinton be the nominee she gets my vote. But I cannot support her in the primaries, even though we're pitifully overdue on a woman in the WH. I'm just not excited about *this* woman in the WH, I'm afraid.

she doesn't have to back away it. She should embrace it and ADMIT she made a huge mistake and that she did so because she did the politically expedient thing at the time and supported the President. She should also admit that she did it because she was afraid that not supporting the war at the time would make her look like a person that was not patriotic and she was afraid of being labeled unpatriotic.

She won't do that because she has no political courage, and therefore, she won't get my vote.

about Hillary Clinton OMG!

how do these new ads, which no one has described in any detail, "attack" Obama?


please - wtf is the big gripe with these ads?

about? They aren't in it to lose. What's the difference anyway? Barrie's supporters will just come up with something to top this in a day or two.

This has been the best entertainment politics could possibly buy. Only thing I can compare it to is mud wrestling.

If Hillary has something to say about Obama's health care plan, she needs to grow a set (metaphorically speaking) and do so openly. This business of whacking Obama while trying to make it look like Edwards is the hit man is just plain sleazy.

And if you think that there is no coordination between the Clinton campaign and AFSCME, I have some primo beach front property in North Dakota that might interest you.

last week. It didn't make it out of the post office. Every time Obama is hit on behalf of Hillary it sends me closer to a vote for him.