Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

And so it begins: New PAC to attack Hillary from the Left

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:28 PM
Original message
And so it begins: New PAC to attack Hillary from the Left
Just posted on Politico

Stopping Hillary from the left


A newly formed political action committee is aiming to stop Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary by calling into question her progressive credentials.

"We think there are other Democratic presidential candidates who are both more progressive and have a better chance of beating the Republicans than she does," said the president of Democratic Courage, Glenn Hurowitz.

He declined to tip his hand on the group's case against Clinton, but said the PAC plans a paid media campaign in the early primary states to make its position clear.

"We’ll definitely have sufficient resources to make a significant media buy," he said, adding that their campaign against Clinton would be "edgy" enough to get attention. "We don’t need to raise an immense amount of money to make a big difference."

Hurowitz, 29, is a Washington-based writer and activist. (He has written freelance Ideas articles for Politico, including this piece criticizing Clinton's and Obama's energy plans.) The group's two other officers are Sam Goldman and David Lipowicz, both of whom have worked for liberal and environmental groups in Washington.

Hurowitz and Goldman have both contributed to the campaign of former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, but Hurowitz said their effort is independent of any campaign.

"We have no plans right now to back any particular candidate," Hurowitz said.

As a federal political action committee, Democratic Courage is raising money only in contributions of $5,000 or less. This allows the group to politick more directly than the independent groups known as 527s, which can raise money in unlimited quantities but which have limits on their direct support for candidates.

Their effort follows a long line of lackluster "Stop Hillary" campaigns on the right, which began before her election to the Senate in 2000, and have largely failed to raise large sums of money or attract widespread attention. But Hurowitz distinguished his group from those.

"I'm definitely not a Hillary hater — I think there are other candidates who are better for the progressive movement," Hurowitz said. "Most of the people involved in our PAC will be happy to support her if she does become the nominee."

A spokesman for Clinton declined to comment on the effort.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Stupid. I'm an Obama supporter--how about putting the money and
effort into SUPPORTING an alternative candidate rather than damaging the one who's most likely to have to face the Republican next year?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. ahhhh politico
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 03:30 PM by Horse with no Name
truth be told, they probably started it to cause party infighting (as if we needed any help).


edited to add:
THE Right Wing Rag politico.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. Edwards just lost my support
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. He probably never had it
if you believe everything you read on that rag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. Independent of any campaign
Right :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. Oh it will be "independent".
They will issue an attack and John Edwards while stumping will cite this independent group of liberals and repeat said attack. No real coordination necessary.

Dollars to doughnuts says the same donors for the Edwards campaign might happen to comprise a large bit of this 527's funding. The real shitty thing? We may not be aware who is funding this org until at least Jan 15th.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
89. ""We have no plans right now to back any particular candidate," Hurowitz said."
:rofl:
I call Bull Shit on that one!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
8. "Independent of any campaign" - well, hell hath no fury like...
...what's going to happen if Hillary finds out there is another candidate behind it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. John Edwards would destroy this party to serve his vanity... what else is new?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Oh come on, Edwards isnt' responsible for what his supporters do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Was that what you were saying about Swiftboat Veterans for Truth? I'll guess no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Did I say something about SBVT recently?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. People involved with a campaign leave the campaign to set up an 'independent' hit organization
directed againt the person the former campaign is running against.

That doesn't ring a SBVT bell?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #22
42. Yes, but--the whole point of swiftboating is to make things up that aren't true
to slander a candidate. I don't know if the group here in question is going to deal in fact or fiction, first of all, and the fact that the founders admit to being Edwards supporters tells you that Edwards' campaign isn't involved--they wouldn't be so dumb as to intentionally reveal a connection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. The point is that we all know SBVT was not really independent, so why
should we have a different standard when we agree with the message?

I have no idea what these people's message will be, but it's going to be revealed as an Edwards operation eventually.

Just my suposition based on the fact that Edwards is running around urging people to use their "instincts" to see that nobody will vote for Obama, which is racist bullshit, so I think Edwards has become deranged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #47
73. It's not about agreeing with the message, it's about fact vs. fiction.
It's not Swiftboating unless it's not true.

If this PAC makes up stuff, then I'll join you in agreement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #73
81. I agree
I don't think it's wise to dilute the meaning of "swiftboating". I think it's important that it continues to be associated with deception and not merely refer to an "independent group" By that standard, MoveOn could be painted as swiftboaters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
11. This type of thing was considered treason by most at DU
when it was done to Howard Dean in 2004. No doubt there are many differences beyond the target changing, but there seem to be ample similarities as well. So who what will be the public face for the Iowa ads that undoubtalby will follow this time? And where exactly will the money come from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Ding! Ding! We have a winner
It's treason. If Hillary does, I won't support her either. I support the Democratic Party over any individual
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #19
32. Thus the yellow dog?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Hell yeah!
When I find another party that can give us the 40 hour work week, weekends off, Social Security, etc I'll switch parties
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
13. This is too good to be true...
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 03:45 PM by SaveElmer
If there is anything that will help Hillary more with moderate and right leaning indies it is a concerted campaign to trash her from the left...I don't know what it is...

Where do I contribute!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
14. Too bad they can't find someone to support instead.
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 03:47 PM by AtomicKitten
That said, I have grave concerns that a Hillary nod will result in a nail-biter election considering 50% of those polled have said they absolutely will not vote for her. I don't want to roll the dice on this election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Hi Kitten. No need for concern
That 50% poll is highly unreliable. (It's an opt-in online poll)

All conventional polling shows her as being as electable as anyone else, and with lower "never vote for numbers" than any republican.

Oppose her on the issues, but no need to worry she's unelectable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. IT'S AN ONLINE POLL???
People are going wacky over an ONLINE POLL?

Only on DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. Did you see the DU poll about coattails?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. I had no idea it was an online poll
Why are people (both on the right and left) giving it any credence whatsoever???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. It's a serious online poll... not like a CNN what do you think poll, but
it is limited. The number that gives it away as monkeyed with by the people who signed up to be polled is that 59% of senior citizens would "never" vote for Hillary. That's obviously false... even the worst Hillary hater knows that's not true.

Zogby does some online polling where you sign up to participate, then he normalizes the results against assumptions of how many dems, pugs, young, old, regional, etc.

It is better than a meaningless online poll, but less reliable than a poll where you pick people at random, rather than letting them come to you on the internet. And an opt-in poll can be freeped, or DUed or anything else.

(Everyone who participtes is REALLY interested in politics... that's why 47% said they would never vote for Mike Gravel. There is no way 47% of Americans have even heard of Mike Gravel.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Thanks for the explanation
That explains why the brainiacs on DU believe it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 04:44 AM
Response to Reply #34
87. Thanks for the explanation
I think any poll that "opt-in" is far from scientific. That's why these results haven't been duplicated or even close anywhere else.

Hillary is not my first choice - and both my parents worked on her senate campaign - they said she woud grow on me and they were right. That is one tough broad (high praise). She runs a disciplined, very smart campaign and never lets anything get too far without answering it. She's more centric than I would like, but in comparison to Giuliani (or anyone else on the right), I will proudly cast my ballot for her. Those that say there is no difference between them is either lying or delusional. Brings me back to Nader is a very not good way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. Well its Zogby Interactive, diffferent from a regular internet poll.
Though the sample is still self selected by signing up to be a participant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. I suppose the thought of more GOP governance by the seat of their pants -
makes me very uneasy. My concern is a close election. The GOP is packing the courts with their judicial activist comrades, and I believe we face elections decided in the courts in the future. The GOP will leave no rock unturned (reads felonies) to "win."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Considering your source for those numbers, I'm not one bit worried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
67. They're attacking Obama, too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. Leaving no stone unturned for their guy.
Desperation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. Edwards?
Jeez, I'm beginning to think this primary belongs in Thunderdome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #75
79. Yep
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
20. Is this better or worse than sourcing from FOX?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. I've yet to see any thing more than urban legends about Politico
I remain open to the possibility that its RW media.

But they have been none too kind to any of the GOP candidates, ANd the argumuent that they are trying to lull us into beleiving theyare credible and objective solely to spring ugliness on us... Is to convenient to be a viable explanation.


Again.... I am not saying they are not a right wing rag.... I just have not seen suffcient paper trail to support it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #29
37. There are some excellent fact, filled posts
following the money on politico here. You shouldn't have to search back more than a year I wouldn't think. Some major RW backers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #37
52. Pedigree is les important than substance
I understand the argument...I just am not conviced they are supported by the editorial history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
23. We have plenty of candidates that are better on the issues than Hillary
Who have just as good of a chance, or better, at winning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
27. Here's an article by this group's founder, Glenn Hurowitz, doing some Edwards lovin'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Wait, you mean Edwards website has a link to fundraise for an "independent" 527?
Isn't that an FEC violation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #30
39. I don't know, but I hope it is.
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 04:10 PM by seasonedblue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. I don't think si
The Edwards website has an article that was written by him BEFORE he left to start this PAC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. Ah, too bad
thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. More bad news: Edwards isn't Obama
so there's no assurance the attacks will be clumsy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #51
61. Sad but true
although I don't underestimate Clinton's ability to fight back. She's the toughest one in the race IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #30
40. It says they're not an independant 527
specifically so they can raise money for a specific candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #40
58. All these fundraising brackets confuse the shit out of me.
So one can be a 527 and raise money for a candidate but they cannot do media with campaign coordination? Do I have that right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Heck if I know
:) They're confusing to me too. I only know what the article said. lol.

Maybe someone else here knows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #58
66. Where's WesDem,
she usually has a good handle on these things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. I hope the Clinton camp tracks this shit down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. This is good news for Hillary...
I'm not surprised they didn't comment...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
33. Desperate People Do Desperate Things
Yawn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
43. Seems like a waste of useful energy that could be directed elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
45. "I'm definitely not a Hillary hater — "
Sounds like DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
46. I think the contributions to Edwards are interesting
mostly because I don't see a big difference between Edwards and Clinton on policy positions. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
48. Well, I don't really like this
I'll wait for a full judgment after they get going to see if they participate in fact or fiction.

But overall, I dislike this going dirty business. I can only hope that one day instead of a group to tear down, they'd make a group to build their own candidate.

I would think that the Hillary campaign has been expecting actions such as this to eventually form against her, and since it's such a well oiled campaign they'll handle whatever they throw at them just fine. But really, who knows?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flarney Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
49. Unless they lie, mislead or smear, what's the problem?
This isn't "swift-boating" unless it's based on lies, right? Why can't a Democrat be challenged from the left? Isn't that what Ned Lamont did? (Ok, just for the record, I'm NOT comparing Hillary to Lieberman.) Isn't that how we push all of our candidates towards a more progressive platform?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. The candidates are free to and capable of, criticizing their competition
They don't need another "independent" PAC to do that. This is an excuse to get around campaign finance rules, and to avoid having Edwards take responsibility for the attacks.

If someone says something bad about a democrat (or anyone else for that matter) wouldn't you want to know who is making the accusation?

With this PAC, you won't know
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flarney Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. Maybe I'm being niave here, but is it possible that this is being done independently
and not directed by Edwards' campaign? If it is secretly being directed by the campaign then that would be illegal, and the campaign should be punished accordingly. However, if it's not being directed by the Edwards campaign, then I think we should reserve judgment until we see the nature of their "attacks."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #53
57. I agree with reserving judgment until they actually do something
But the reality is that it's very doubtful that this is completely independent of the Edwards campaign. Politics is a dirty business, so it's easy to assume that this is going on with Edward' blessing pretty much.


But as I also stated up thread, I'm going to wait until the PAC actually makes a move before I completely trash it. :) I don't have a problem with legit criticism, but if they go with unfounded accusations, I'll be disappointed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #57
63. That's reasonable
I don't think it's naive to not believe it. However, given the circumstances it's not unreasonable to believe it either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #49
74. Very Dangerous slippery slope
Groups like that can raise money and lie, mislead, and smear 3 days before a primary date without time for anyone to research and debunk false claims, and then they can disappear like smoke in a breeze with just a few "unafiliated" indivuals left to bear the blame afer the fact, folks who couldn't care less what you thought after the fact.

It is different if a new coalition of well establised organizations were forming to coordinate a political campaign against one candidate; like if PDA, DFA, and the SEIU were to do that. Then at least we all could expect those organizations to still be standing after the elections were over, and they would have members to hold them accountable for their behavior. But that would likely never happen because there would inherently be something potentially unsavory in groups like that coming together to beat up on one Democrat out of many. That never happens and it never happens for good reasons.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
54. Edwards goes Swiftboating. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flarney Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. My bias is on my sleeve here, but isn't that a little bit of a knee-jerk response?
No offense intended...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #55
62. Look at the website--nice smiling picture of
John Edwards. Lots of pro-Edward blogs listed.

There are probably no direct ties between the Edwards campaign and this group, but . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #62
68. It's not "Swift Boating" until they lie
IMO, it's a bad idea to dilute the meaning of swiftboating to apply to any campaign org we don't like
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cobalt1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
56. This will probably backfire on them and raise Hillary's support.
There are a number of people who have only heard the Right's opinion of Hillary as a evil liberal and a few of these ads from the left will go a long way into convincing the independents she isn't as left as the republicans are portraying her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
60. awesome!!!
:bounce:

i don't care that much for john edwards (if he's even invoLved) but anyone fighting hiLLary is a true patriot for america.

k&r

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #60
69. You think the repukes are "true patriots for america"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewHampster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
64. Probably Freepers under cover
seriously
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
65. There's a difference between stopping her and attacking her
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
70. FOLLOW THE MONEY is all I gotta say. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cobalt1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #70
76. I wouldn't be surprised to see that this is another "Nader like" funded effort
by the right.

Nader wasn't getting all that money from the far left, the right was funding him big time. Probably the exact same tactic. Find a stooge to do your attacking from the left and quietly fund him while laughing your ass off in private.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. Just like Lieberman wasnt getting all of his money from DLCers- some came from other conservatives.
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 06:18 PM by Dr Fate
3rd party spoilers that cause the DEM to lose are often funded by conservatives, no doubt.

The difference is this is the primary, not the general-But I'd like to know who is funding this particular PAC as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
72. If Hillary is tough enough to beat the Republicans in '08, then she can handle this.
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 05:44 PM by Dr Fate
I'm not sure why people are suprised that people attack each other in this manner.

I've been attacked by DLCers & "centrists" for arguing against the war and other conservative issues for years now. Anyone remember how Dean & Lamont have been attacked by the conservatives in their own party- or more recently- Stark?

Some of the posts in this thread remind me of the saying: "you can dish it out, but you cant take it"

I dont know if this is a front organization or not, but if Hillary is ready to take on the GOP/media as mush as we are being told, then surely the Clint Eastwoods and John Waynes over at the Hillary campaign can handle this little thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #72
82. Again, I gotta agree with you
My concern is not that they are going to attack her, and I'm not assuming that they're going to "swiftboat" (ie lie) her. However, when I hear an argument I do like to know who is talking. I would also like to know who is funding it.

I think that in the long run, the effects of having "independent" political groups whose funding is not broad-based will be deleterious to the party and to the nation as a whole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
78. Who's side are they on? How assinine, why don't they just go form another Party?
I mean really, if they are more interested in stopping Hillary than supporing Democrats and stopping the Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. This is the primary, not the general election. Conservative DEMS fight hard in primaries too.
Edited on Wed Oct-24-07 06:57 PM by Dr Fate
If these guys are on the level, then it's not that different from when the conservative DEMS fought against Lamont tooth & nail.

If you recall, some conservative DEMS like Harold Ford of the DLC even supported Joe as 3rd party candidate- this new group, assuming they are on the level, at least promises to support whoever wins the nom, rahter than supporting another party like the DLCers did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. Right or Left, I don't like front groups in politics that spring up suddenly...
...to attack one person, that obviously will disappear as soon as the election is over. If a permanent organization, or a coalition of ongoing groups wants to do that fine, they have a reputation to maintain and members to hold them accountable. But I hate semi shadowy single election anti-candidate hit groups, way too much potential for abuse. I didn't like it when it was done to Dean either, and I was a Clark supporter then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesEtoiles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
83. This will only make her appear more moderate to the swing
voters.

It's a tactic Gordon Smith uses when he is attacked by the far right. See! Look how wonderfully moderate I must be if the far right is attacking me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
85. I'm so sick of this shit!
And now we have it within our own party. This group just took a page out of the GOP playbook. I hope they are proud of themselves.

They should spend their time and money supporting their candidate instead of tearing down others. What a moronic idea. This REALLY pisses me off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
86. give me a break. And so it begins??? She has gotten only favorable press for a year!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #86
88. Obviously you don't know what a PAC is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC