Pro-Clinton 527 Prepares For Ohio, PA and Texas

Allies of Hillary Clinton plan an expensive, stealth campaign to buttress her standing in the must-win states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

They're canvassing Clinton donors for pledges of up to $100,000 in the hope of raising at least $10M by the end of next week. The money will be placed in the account of a political committee organized under section 527 of the tax code.

A Democrat who was briefed on the project said that Pennsylvania attorney William A. K. Titelman is leading the effort to solicit money. Titleman, who raised money for Gov. Bill Richardson's presidential campaign, has not contributed money to Clinton. He did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

By law, the 527 cannot coordinate its activities with the Clinton campaign, although at least one major Clinton donor with direct ties to the campaign said last night that the effort was an open secret among donors.

(Update: Per ABC's Jake Tapper, the group is calling itself the "American Leadership Project" and is staffed by several veterans of the Clinton White House.)

A Clinton spokesman said he knew nothing about the 527.

Two Democrats said that the 527 plans to run television ads and send pro-Clinton literature in all three states. One of the Democrats said that the ads will also include contrast messages against Obama.

Plans for the 527 were conceived in late January, when Clinton's campaign was nearly broke. Since Feb. 5, she has raised nearly $20M, but still faces a resource disadvantage. Obama's aides said they're approaching their goal of raising money from 500,000 new donors since Jan. 1 and project a total haul of more than $35M for February.

Perhaps as early as today, a consortium of Service Employees union locals will disclose its own plans for mobilization in Ohio and Pennsylvania on behalf of Barack Obama, an irony that will not be lost on those covering the race closely: a similar SEIU compact in Iowa ran ads praising John Edwards and drew strong protests from Obama's campaign.

Comments

Marc-This will be all out war with the Clintons and the hidden money folks that benefit from their power. I hate 527's but I wouldn't hold it against any pol running against them for using any tool available to them.

You can't change DC if you don't get elected to DC.

Posted by G Davis | February 20, 2008 8:41 AM

527's now getting in on the primary fun? Trying to take down another Democrat? Classy.

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure I heard that Obama shot himself in the leg to get out of a bad real estate deal with Rezko, and also that he talks real nice and sweet, so therefore must be the devil.

It's time (or close to being time) for Democrats to start coming together to fight McCain and the Republicans. To keep dragging each other down is not helpful for either candidate come November.

Posted by Craig | February 20, 2008 8:45 AM

Organizing this 527 is about as smart as investing your entire nest egg in pets.com

Posted by swarty | February 20, 2008 8:47 AM

Also, I think it's clear that the negative ads in Wisconsin didn't work. So if a 527 goes negative on Obama in OH, TX, or PA, people are just going to assume it's Hillary's campaign going ballistic which will reinforce the negative perception that people have of her, and they will smell mightily of desperation. If I were in Hillary's camp, I'd want to see what the 527's were producing before they hit the air. If they are hit pieces, then I'd try to keep them off the air at all costs. Hillary still has a political future ahead of her in the Democratic party - for now at least. She needs to stay positive and confident and be careful to avoid being seen as the person who tore apart the Democratic party.

Posted by Craig | February 20, 2008 8:53 AM

"be careful to avoid being seen as the person who tore apart the Democratic party"

Okay I know your talking about a campaign, but you're probably a smart person, look at what you are saying.

The Clintons have in fact already torn apart the Democratic party because they are so self-serving that only 1/2 of the people can stand them. That they need to avoid the image of their real story is getting bizarre, even by political standards.

Do you believe that people cannot see right through their every word?

Posted by kim, livonia, michigan | February 20, 2008 9:04 AM

Is this the rumored 527 with Steven Bing as a top contributor? The Steven Bing that Emily's List happily took a quarter million from without criticizing him after he knocked up two women and wouldn't admit to it until DNA came knocking on his door to try and protect his fortune? This to the point that he hired an LA private eye who's now embroiled in a federal investigation regarding his favored investigative technique of wiretapping? If so, groovy.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120286639798963915.html?mod=blog
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/movies/12bing.html?scp=1&sq=steven+bing&st=nyt
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/05/16/wbing16.xml

Posted by Zach | February 20, 2008 9:10 AM

It kind of makes you wonder why people would sink their money into this. Hillary Clinton has a huge uphill battle right now.

I hope the press will investigate the business-favors links between these donors and the Clintons. Given the large difference in the Clintons' and Obamas' family net worths, there is probably far more fodder than anything between Obama and Rezko.

Posted by Sue | February 20, 2008 9:12 AM

My question is what do these folks have to gain by chipping in $100M to a losing campaign? It's one thing if they doubled-down after New Hampshire; but dropping $100M on a candidate that has suffered 10 losses in a row (with the smallest margin of victory being 17 points) seems like a monumental waste of cash. And I can't imagine how this is going to help Democrats win the White House in November.

I know one thing, it means that I'm going to have to double down on my donations to Senator Obama.

Posted by Keith | February 20, 2008 9:16 AM

there is probably far more fodder than anything between Obama and Rezko.

I'm sure there is more fodder, considering the Rezko story has no legs, or arms, or torso, or feet. Did you happen to read the recent Bloomberg News article on the subject? Barack and Michelle were the highest bidder on the house. The sellers said they got no other offers. So, there really is no scandal.

Posted by Craig | February 20, 2008 9:17 AM

By any means necessary, that is the Clinton philosophy - even if it destroys the democratic party. Perhaps she has already started thinking about 2012, she has to destroy Obama to get another shot at POWER!

Posted by j07 | February 20, 2008 9:18 AM

Finally, the Clintonites are showing what exactly they are made of. They are all out to destroy American lover boy; guess what? It ain't going to work. Obama has insulated himself by the words of his mouth and the language he uses to fight his opponent. The most conservative Republican believes it will be difficult to bring him down.

For any 527 out there, here is what i will tell you, bring it on.

Posted by Ayo | February 20, 2008 9:24 AM

It says they are going to try to raise 10M. It doesn't say they have. Marc, any chance of keeping tabs on their success? It will be a sure sign of the strength of sentiment.

Posted by John Dillinger | February 20, 2008 9:27 AM

I don't doubt that Clinton is hungry for power. But is she really so delusional to think that if she torpedoes Obama's campaign, either by refusing to endorse, or launching a barrage of negative attacks, that she has any chance to win in any election in the future? Including defending her Senate seat? Maybe they're calculating for 2012, but if that's the case, they're missing the fact that she's going to lose her Senate seat and the campaign for any other office (Governor, President) she may pursue. She needs to start going positive, she needs to be Obama's attack dog, start hitting McCain. Then people will sorry for her, she's a good candidate, the timing wasn't right, etc., and they will likely vote for her in a future campaign. Going negative reinforces all of the supposedly unfair "Clinton Rules" that have circulated in the past 16 years. Rise above, Hillary. Rise above that crap.

Posted by Craig | February 20, 2008 9:27 AM

you say that Hillary has raised nearly $20 mil since January. As you relayed from the conference call yesterday, she's announced a haul of $15 mil so far. But hey what's $5 mil and a 33% exaggeration between friends?

Posted by jeff larson | February 20, 2008 9:30 AM

"But is she really so delusional to think that if she torpedoes Obama's campaign, either by refusing to endorse, or launching a barrage of negative attacks, that she has any chance to win in any election in the future?"

Yes, they are that delusional.

Posted by Kim | February 20, 2008 9:31 AM

jeff larson-

I would imagine Team Clinton is lower expectations (they're really good at that) to increase the impact of their actual haul.

I bet the end up with $30 million in Febrary.

Posted by Deep Throat | February 20, 2008 9:39 AM

Hillary is staying the course.

This is her surge.

Posted by neil | February 20, 2008 9:41 AM

Craig - You don't understand. Hillary doesn't want to be ANYTHING but President. It's all or nothing.

She never wanted to be a senator except as an avenue to becoming president. So, she could care less how it damages her political career. Her whole political career has been about one thing only. That's why she will do anything to get it NOW.

In 2012 - She will be seen as a loser - who botched a major campaign - and another establishment machine will be in place - not the Clintons'. This is her one shot. This is her one goal. This is why anything permissible and this why she will lose.

Posted by C.B. Todd | February 20, 2008 9:42 AM

CB Todd:

Right, I got it, she's relentless. But what I'm not getting, what I just cannot grasp, is how delusional she ultimately is. Are we talking fairly delusional or just plain maniacal delusional? The fact is, she cannot win in November if she goes negative. Her only hope is for Obama to mess this up on his own. Then she can swoop in and save the party, the responsible and pragmatic doer to take on the Republicans. But at some point, Gore and Dean and some other heavies need to sit her down and talk some sense into her. I know, I know, unlikely. But there will come a time when the people in her campaign and her supporters are going to come to the realization that the longer they tie their political future to a failing campaign, the more they are endangering their own political futures. Bill must know this. Schumer must know this. Rendell must know this. Strickland must know this. Hillary can go all the way to Puerto Rico if she wants, but once people start jumping ship, she is going to need to save some face, and how. All of her supporters need to get on the horn now and encourage her to ditch Penn, start over, and from here on out, go positive. I know, I know - fat chance. But still.

Posted by Craig | February 20, 2008 10:00 AM

And what are the Clintons really thinking?

"Take that, Barack Obama. You think our donors have 'maxed out'? We’ll show you and those 500,000, chump-change contributors you’re relying on.

This is one more example of your naivete in suggesting that you'd consider accepting public financing for the general election campaign. The Republicans would kill you with 527s if we don't do it first.

Get used to it Barack. You're playing in the big leagues now."

Posted by Ron Tunning | February 20, 2008 10:04 AM

As a PA resident and Obama supporter since the beginning, I am going to contact William Titleman and let him know where I stand. Feel free to join me.

Mark says he's a lawer in PA but his firm, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP is located in NY. Good Luck.

Posted by Dave | February 20, 2008 10:08 AM

Perhaps as early as today, a consortium of Service Employees union locals will disclose its own plans for mobilization in Ohio and Pennsylvania on behalf of Barack Obama, an irony that will not be lost on those covering the race closely: a similar SEIU compact in Iowa ran ads praising John Edwards and drew strong protests from Obama's campaign.

At some point, even ardent Barack Obama supporters (such as most members of the major media outlets) must acknowledge the hypocrisy. It certainly adds a taint to Obama's Iowa victory.

Posted by dry_fish | February 20, 2008 10:09 AM

Get used to it Barack. You're playing in the big leagues now.

Welcome to the big leagues, Barack. Where, apparently, you seem to be doing amazingly well. Hey, let's go back to Double-A!

Posted by Craig | February 20, 2008 10:09 AM

So she uses:

-Attack campaigns
-Shady money solicitation tactics
-Campaign adviser's from the same company of McCain's adviser.

Thanks Hillary, politics as usual.

Posted by Steven May | February 20, 2008 10:09 AM

I really should start anticipating this garbage from the Democratic party. Obviously it's more important to spend these resources to try to torpedo the most promising general election Democrat of a lifetime so that a policy-equivalent but less impressive candidate can run.

Posted by V. | February 20, 2008 10:09 AM

dry_fish - Yeah, I'm kind of uncomfortable with the SEIU running ads for Obama. I wish he'd put out a statement condemning them. But the fact that they ran ads for Edwards in Iowa only taints Edwards' numbers, not Obama's.

Posted by Howard | February 20, 2008 10:22 AM

If anyone ever gets around to asking McCain about his accomplishments, he will probably mention campaign reform, which basically means he's the father of 527's.

Posted by danp | February 20, 2008 10:25 AM

I have read that 527's defended barack in NV with ads in spanish and that 527s went on tv for edwards around Iowa. And I remember reading that 527s were upheld as legal by the courts, kind of like free speech.
So is it really an example of Hillary fighting dirty?
only if you don't like a level playing field.
It took a third ballot for FDR to get the nomination and then he went on to beat the republicans by huge margins.
Is our democracy really so fragile that they can't keep fighting for this important nomination?
They both believe a lot is at stake and each has many millions of supporters behind them.

Posted by Michael C. | February 20, 2008 10:30 AM

Howard, the Obama Campaign spent the full last 10 days before the Iowa caucuses viciously attacking Edwards in the press over 527 activity. It's one thing if it was Obama's honestly held position that 527s are bad, but clearly with Obama's embrace of SEIU's efforts to support his own candidacy, his original posture toward 527s obviously was of convenience. So, I have to disagree: there's a taint to Obama's Iowa victory because he used a disingenuous attack to blunt Edwards' late momentum.

Posted by dry_fish | February 20, 2008 10:30 AM

dry_fish:

I see what you're saying and I agree that it's a political maneuver to say what is convenient to get you ahead. But are you suggesting that people shouldn't vote for Obama because he acts like a politician who is trying to win, and will spin different events to his advantage? We all know that everyone in the race is trying to win the nomination. Do you really think that this is enough to move voters from Obama to Clinton, who, after signing off on the DNC's decision to ignore the delegates in MI and FL, now feels the winds are blowing a different direction and is seeking to get them seated? Don't we want politicians to fight for any advantage they can find?

Posted by Craig | February 20, 2008 10:41 AM

Perhaps as early as today, a consortium of Service Employees union locals will disclose its own plans for mobilization in Ohio and Pennsylvania on behalf of Barack Obama, an irony that will not be lost on those covering the race closely: a similar SEIU compact in Iowa ran ads praising John Edwards and drew strong protests from Obama's campaign. At some point, even ardent Barack Obama supporters (such as most members of the major media outlets) must acknowledge the hypocrisy. It certainly adds a taint to Obama's Iowa victory.
________________________________________
Has anyone asked if he sought these endorsements? He is only a hipocrit if his campaign is seeking these groups.

Posted by Brandon Ott | February 20, 2008 10:42 AM

Clinton's own senior adviser, Harold Ickes, voted as a member of the DNC committee to not recognize these two state delegations because they violated the rules of the primary scheduling process. Now as a Clinton campaign representative he's making the case that they should count.

Politics.

Posted by Craig | February 20, 2008 10:48 AM

GO HILLARY!!! YOU ARE THE BEST!!!!

Posted by JOHN | February 20, 2008 11:12 AM

Maybe they are doing this because they know something the Gullable Obama supporters don't!

Republicans are crossing party lines to vote against Hillary so they can easily maintain the White House..

In PA it's perfectly legal to register Dem for the day of the primary- and then switch back for the GE.

This "plan" is once again working just as the Repubs thought it would!

Watch how they "crush" your In Experienced Choice.

very sad.......

Posted by pa bluesky | February 20, 2008 12:38 PM

kim, livonia, michigan |

"The Clintons have in fact already torn apart the Democratic party"

Sorry, but it takes two to tango, baby. BHO has done as much to rip this party apart, to the point where I won't vote for him if he is the nominee. Good luck with this wet behind the ears charlatan in November against a war hero like McCain. You'll need it, but you won't get any from me.

Posted by Shane | February 20, 2008 12:44 PM

William Titleman is actually at the DC office now. 202-298-6969.

Posted by Gretchen | February 20, 2008 1:27 PM

arack Obama's ability to organize, manage and lead this campaign is something that no savvy political operative saw coming.

He created it from scratch, besting (so far) the entrenched power, money and organization of the former president of the United States and his senator wife with her 35 years of experience and their millions of dollars and big money contributors.

The campaign is an unconventional, broad based solution addressing the problem of winning elections. He has out thought, out worked, out performed and out fundraised all of the opposition. It takes excruciating attention to detail coupled with a broad vision and the ability to communicate. It takes a compelling message and the ability to be flexible. This is no trivial accomplishment. Those are leadership skills. This is not the case that merely running a campaign is tantamount to running the country, but this is an example of what it takes to solve a problem from the ground up. It is a blueprint for how he plans to lead the country.

The campaign demonstrates kind of ability and intuition it will take to solve the country's problems. The idea is to build a broad spectrum coalition of Americans to tackle the issues facing the country in unconventional ways. The big rallies are not window dressing. They get voters together and energize them to get more voters. It helps get people to caucuses. And the idea is to keep the collation together and involved after the election to bring pressure to bear on entrenched interests that stifle reform. The politics of gridlock can be at least shaken up, if not overcome, by constituent pressure. One of the reasons Obama has been successful is that he has been adept at building a strong organization in every state in the union from the ground up, linked by a dynamic web-based community.

The untold story of this campaign is that he has created the model for voter-based financial support. I predict that future successful campaigns will use this model since it frees the candidate (of whatever political leaning) from having to go hat-in-hand to lobbyists, whose interests are pretty much at odds with most citizens.

Political operatives are (and will be) studying his campaign in detail. Theoretically, any of the candidates could have mounted a similar operation from a technical point of view. It's not magic. But to do it, it takes insight and foresight, dare I say, from day one!

Posted by pgo | February 20, 2008 2:06 PM

Hopefully this will increase the chances that the convention goes beyond the first ballot, and that Democrats will come to their senses and draft Al Gore.

Posted by Gore for Prez | February 20, 2008 2:14 PM

Thanks for the Email address. I sent him an Email saying that if a schmoe like me found out about this and Emailed it to the 43 people in my address book, and they Emailed it to the people on their considerably larger lists, etc, how quickly would it get to Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, let alone the evening cable yak-fests? "Stealthy, my ass" is a good subject line, if anyone does the same.

Posted by Russ | February 20, 2008 2:24 PM

WOW! Talk about desperate, Hilary's Campaign at first were perceived as the Patriots now they are pulling out all the stops to beat a man whom many expected to be defeatable as the Giants were. Politics can't live with them can't live without them. I tell you what, it is better that this is all over the media instead of celebrity garbage i.e. Britney Spears and her father

Posted by Paul Matthews | February 20, 2008 2:27 PM

Hillary has a "huge uphill battle" ??? After winning TEN primaries in a row, Obama still has only 70 more delegates than Clinton. C'mon, if the Clinton campaign spins this correctly, they come away with the nomination -and- a unified Democratic party. Obama does better than Clinton against McCain??? Malarky. I'd much rather see a Clinton/McCain race where the Dems pull out -all- the stops against--not McCain--but the Republican attack machine and destroy it once and for all. There is -nobody- qualified to do this as well as a Clinton campaign.

Uncle Ron

Posted by Uncle Ron | February 20, 2008 2:31 PM

Obama supporters will simply counter what they do with what we've been doing all along...digging into our pockets and donating every spare cent we have and STILL beating the pants off of the Clinton slime machine.

The next President of the United States is being funded by every-day people and not the usual high rolling fat cats. This time 'we the people' are showing up big time. Bring it on! The Clinton tactics have already all but destroyed her candidacy. Keep it up and their legacies will be toast too.

Posted by Terri | February 20, 2008 2:36 PM

It is starting to seem pretty obvious to honest Clinton supporters that Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

I just wanted to thank all the Obama supporters for their tauntings on blogs and throughout this campaign. Let us not forget how much they insulted our intelligences and the vitriolic, misogynistic language that they spewed. We will not be joining you in voting for Senator Obama. We may not vote for McCain, but many, many of us will be voting against your guy. Good luck with those Republican-leaning independents!

Hopefully, we can all coalesce around the same nominee in 2012.

Posted by Moderate Democrat | February 20, 2008 2:40 PM

Obama is incorrect when he says that he will get the votes cast by Clinton supporters. Many dems will never cast a vote for this candidate. They would vote for Hillary but will sit this one out or vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. These are long time dems, the kind that Mr. Obama seems to take for granted and regard as the past, some liberal, some conservative, highly educated and knowledgable, who have watched the destruction of our country with an inexperienced lightweight President. They are unwilling to particiate in the election of another empty suit, a man with no legislative or foreign policy experience, with an arrogance reminiscent of the current occupant in the White House.

Posted by RReddy | February 20, 2008 2:48 PM

What complete derangement by some of these Hillary supporters. We need to start raising our children better so they don't turn out like this.

On the other hand, I respect the hardcore Hillary supporters who fought tough against Obama, greatly pissing me off most days, but won't walk away from the party and won't become the right wing, just because of of bitterness and spite.

It's Hillary supporters who are beginning to resemble the dominant caricature of their candidate. Cult of personality indeed!

Posted by biwah | February 20, 2008 3:03 PM

Maybe Hillary's supporter's are honest, but, she sure isn't. I voted for Bill twice and am now sorry I did. I never knew how corrupt this woman and her husband really are. Not only that, start reading how this wonderful woman is making a fool out of her own daughter. She is embarrassing her own daughter for whom she works at her speeches. She is capable of anything. It's no wonder Chelsea never wants to live with them again.

Posted by Mollie | February 20, 2008 3:17 PM

Allowing these ads into Ohio, Texas & Pennsylvania may hurt Hillary. It will potray her campaign as weak because these are Bill Clinton's political appointees during his 8 years at the White House. Their belated support to rescue Hillary will be seen more as a gratitude to Bill Clinton who is not a candidate in the primaries. It is his wife that is running and it will contrast her theme of being ready to be Commander in Chief from day 1. What Bill could not do on the numerous stumps and Chelsea could not achieve after spending 3 days at Hawaii will be difficult to broker with the 527 group. The fact is that the Clintons should read the handwriting on the wall and concede to Obama because since South Carolina,they have been explaining away their losses read failures. They have also arrogantly forgotten to thank voters in primaries and Caucauses they lost. About 23 presently and counting. They have also ignored congratulation Obama and have gone ahead on occassions to address rallies without making concession speeches openly. Americans in states that have not voted have noted that, that is why as soon as Obama started to speak yesterday, all networks switched off Hillary and started relaying Obama. Yet she did not thank Wisconsin and did not congratulate Obama. Later her campaign team issued a press release that she called to congratulate Obama after Obama's rally at Houston.
My take is that the odds are heavily against Hillary. The Clinton machine has thrown all their dirt at Obama without shaking him. They have joined the Republicans by taking on Obama on his premature pledge on Campaign financing advocating for McCain. Fact is how low can the Clintons go just to cling to power? It is now their turn to embrace Change and vote for people who have been voting for the Clintons for the past 35 years.

Posted by Tony Kings | February 20, 2008 3:57 PM

Why would Chelsea want to live with her parents again? She's and adult. Would you want to live with your parents again--assuming you've moved out in the first place...

I've been a Hillary supporter from the beginning and remain so. It's really not a surprise to me that so many folks have jumped ship-changed their mind-in such a short period (a month or so). Most people haven't a clue about the issues-all of their understanding comes from TV ads and media blurbs/distortions that are intended to sensationalize the news-that is, sell the news.

Most people don't have well-formed, knowledge-base convictions, so it is quite easy for them to flip-flop. Americans are more concerned with being behind the perceived frontrunner than actually forming convictions and sticking with them. They will flip-flop to keep their delicate egos in tact as the expense of taking the time to form convictions and staying true to them.

Hillary's base is loyal. Obama's base does have many loyalists, but also a significant number of flip-floppers-those more concerned about not losing over what a candidate actually stands for.

All that said, watch how quickly those "followers" flip back if this 527 campaign actually works. And of course they would vote for Hillary against McCain.

Posted by RCDnyc | February 20, 2008 4:14 PM

Put a fork in her!!!!!!
Obama in 08'!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

Posted by mike in chicago | February 20, 2008 5:39 PM

mike in chicago - the link you provided does support your contention.

actually it shows a decreasing difference in spread between obama and clinton. if that trend continues, the race continues--making obama's nomination less of a done deal...

most american's do not understand statistics...sad, but true...

Polling Data
Date Sample Obama Clinton Spread

02/17 - 02/19 1199 V 47 42 Obama +5.0
02/16 - 02/19 900 LV 47 40 Obama +7.0
02/13 - 02/16 494 LV 52 38 Obama +14.0
02/07 - 02/10 520 A 41 46 Clinton +5.0
02/08 - 02/09 525 A 47 44 Obama +3.0
02/06 - 02/07 602 RV 42 41 Obama +1.0

Posted by RCDnyc | February 20, 2008 8:19 PM

Schadenfreude: satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune.

Clintonfreude: satisfaction or pleasure felt at Hillary's comeuppance.

1) google "hillary"
2) click on the pay per click for her website.

this will help her spend some of the hoard of cash she and bill have that they do not want the American people to know about.

("I'll release my tax return AFTER I get the nomination"; kind of like getting to squeeze the fruit AFTER you have paid for it)

Posted by Spend Hillarys Money | February 20, 2008 9:03 PM

As a life long dem. white middle class male born in Columbus, OH. I wlll be pissed if a fellow DEM runs 527 adds against OBAMA.

Thou shall not run 527 adds.

Scott

Posted by Scott4Obama | February 20, 2008 9:11 PM

I can only imagine what Hillary Clinton must be thinking after Wisconsin and Hawaii. She planned to pull off this primary, but just how remains a mystery. Political types of all stripes will write about the brief but nauseating rise & fall of Hillary for decades. What not to do: marriage of junk-science and wrongdoing with hypocrisy. And the Clinton apologists on TV; what possible successful political conclusion do they envision for Hillary? Perhaps they wish to avoid the Clinton's wrath altogether. When Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for president, I began distributing this link in earnest. I've had a few visitors to the site, but nary a contradiction – no conformations, and no denials either. This is no hoax or puff piece, the facts are verifiable. To borrow a phrase, you decide: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | February 20, 2008 9:21 PM

More California fund raising? Where's this story?:
The Case Management Conference hearing in Paul v Clinton on February 21,2008 in Los Angeles Superior Court will finally set a trial date in the long delayed civil fraud case and it will set a schedule for discovery that will include the sworn depositions of the entire Clinton family and the Clinton hierarchy of the Democratic Party.
Hillary Campaign Frauds Exposed by Peter Paul on ABC 20/20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPxtv6kcn7s

Posted by CBSouthampton | February 20, 2008 10:03 PM

"They're canvassing Clinton donors for pledges of up to $100,000 in the hope of raising at least $10M by the end of next week."

Question - Where did they get the donor information? Is it just a coincidence that Clinton sold her donor list this month?

Posted by Niki | February 20, 2008 10:35 PM

HOW DARE YOU!!!!

I am tired of being nice and smiling when people malign Hillary Clinton and expect me to sit quietly by as they praise Barack Obama as though he’s the Second Coming. As far as I know, no one has walked on water lately.

Just because Barack is black we’re not allowed to criticize his record? Well let me tell you it doesn’t stop me from going off at my children…and they’re black.

What is wrong with all of you???? The emperor has no clothes on. He’s naked and you’re all trying to market it as change. It’s not change. It’s nakedness. The man has a bad record while in the Illinois Senate-129 votes for “present”—who the heck is “present?”

Old school thinking is that “Present” is the best way to avoid your best friend “Mr. Accountable.”

But God help Ms. Hillary if she points to Mr. Present’s record. Somehow he can point to her war vote but she can’t point out how he’s slip sliding away from his “present votes???? Who choreographed this dance?

Posted by susan | February 20, 2008 10:54 PM

HOW DARE YOU!!!!

I am tired of being nice and smiling when people malign Hillary Clinton and expect me to sit quietly by as they praise Barack Obama as though he’s the Second Coming. As far as I know, no one has walked on water lately.

Just because Barack is black we’re not allowed to criticize his record? Well let me tell you it doesn’t stop me from going off at my children…and they’re black.

What is wrong with all of you???? The emperor has no clothes on. He’s naked and you’re all trying to market it as change. It’s not change. It’s nakedness. The man has a bad record while in the Illinois Senate-129 votes for “present”—who the heck is “present?”

Old school thinking is that “Present” is the best way to avoid your best friend “Mr. Accountable.”

But God help Ms. Hillary if she points to Mr. Present’s record. Somehow he can point to her war vote but she can’t point out how he’s slip sliding away from his “present votes???? Who choreographed this dance?

Posted by susan | February 20, 2008 10:55 PM

It really doesn't matter what dirty tricks are paid to win the election. The people have already made their choice and all the negative campaigning and the dirty money won't win the election.

Posted by CAC | February 20, 2008 11:13 PM

Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP

NEW YORK OFFICE
10 East 40th Street
22nd Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Toll Free: [phone]

PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE
231 State Street
6th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Toll Free: [phone]

Posted by MaCkay | February 21, 2008 4:02 AM

only in america a certain hussein barrack can run for presidency,we in europe think amercicans are dumb.a christian never carry a muslim name.and netheir a new born christian .when your eyes only sees color you forget the spiritual aspect,everybody run after the color they forget simple facts and when true they refuse cos they think a black man gonna make it better for another black.in ghettos black on black is an everyday problem.one advice to the americans if color of skin ever made good politics africa would be so misarable ,they all black presidents there but the richess continent on earth is the miserable one .in politics only interest matters.and obama is serving the interest of the KENNEDY not yours poor black american open yours eyes and vote for someone real who can help you ,someone with a good agenda,not someone of your gender you ll be deapointed

Posted by from europe | February 21, 2008 4:53 AM

only in america a certain hussein barrack can run for presidency,we in europe think amercicans are dumb.a christian never carry a muslim name.and netheir a new born christian .when your eyes only sees color you forget the spiritual aspect,everybody run after the color they forget simple facts and when true they refuse cos they think a black man gonna make it better for another black.in ghettos black on black is an everyday problem.one advice to the americans if color of skin ever made good politics africa would be so misarable ,they all black presidents there but the richess continent on earth is the miserable one .in politics only interest matters.and obama is serving the interest of the KENNEDY not yours poor black american open yours eyes and vote for someone real who can help you ,someone with a good agenda,not someone of your gender you ll be deapointed

Posted by from europe | February 21, 2008 4:53 AM

only in america a certain hussein barrack can run for presidency,we in europe think amercicans are dumb.a christian never carry a muslim name.and netheir a new born christian .when your eyes only sees color you forget the spiritual aspect,everybody run after the color they forget simple facts and when true they refuse cos they think a black man gonna make it better for another black.in ghettos black on black is an everyday problem.one advice to the americans if color of skin ever made good politics africa would be so misarable ,they all black presidents there but the richess continent on earth is the miserable one .in politics only interest matters.and obama is serving the interest of the KENNEDY not yours poor black american open yours eyes and vote for someone real who can help you ,someone with a good agenda,not someone of your gender you ll be deapointed

Posted by from europe | February 21, 2008 4:55 AM

It is very likely that the 527 will be a positive message encouraging women to unite behind Hillary as the first female candidate for president.

Come on ladies! You may not love her, but let her open the door for better female candidates in the future.

Barack is just another man and girls who vote for him are just trying to impress their stupid boyfriends.

Posted by Michael Buchanan | February 21, 2008 5:02 AM

this time we really got to know that american are really lowminded.them so complexed about color of skin and slavery and shit.after sept 11 you love so much the muslim that you about to elect an past post muslim in the white house

Posted by europeean | February 21, 2008 5:04 AM

Before we all get too excited about the connotations of the report (that the 527 group will go negative, or this is the first planned 527 advert of the Dem campaign) please read article from the International Herald Tribune at:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/20/america/Clinton-Outside-Group.php

Relevant part of the article quated below:

"We want to shine a light on issues that matter most to the nation's middle class — health care, freezing foreclosures, those sorts of things," Roger Salazar, the president of the new group, said in an interview. "Obviously Senator Clinton is a recognized champion on these issues."

The group, whose principals are mostly in California, has already prepared at least one ad to begin airing in Ohio. It does not mention Obama, but it echoes what has become Clinton's refrain that while Obama gives speeches, she offers solutions.

"If speeches could create jobs, we wouldn't be facing a recession," the ad's narrator says. "But it takes more. As senator, Hillary Clinton passed legislation to bring investment and jobs to struggling communities and worked to end tax breaks for corporations sending jobs overseas. Her economic blueprint is endorsed by (Ohio) Governor (Ted) Strickland. Tell Hillary to keep working on these solutions for the middle class."

Salazar said the group intends to keep its message positive.

This new group appears to be the first 527 organization to come to her (Clinton) aid.

A 527 group financed by Obama supporters spent more than $1 million assisting Obama going into Super Tuesday and a union-backed 527 ran ads on behalf of Edwards in Iowa.

Posted by 2N | February 21, 2008 9:29 AM

527s are perfectly legal, and I'm sure Obama has 527s supporting him as well. The problem for Hillary is that this seems desperate. She can't raise money from "average folks" like Obama can so she's forced to ask her super-rich friends to bail her out one more time.

I agree with an earlier poster who wrote why would anyone drop $100K on her now? I know that is pocket change for many of these people, but still, why bet on a loser? There is no way she'll surpass Obama in pledged delegates and the popular vote even if she wins TX, OH, and PA. Obama's guaranteed to get at least 45% of the vote, and likely 45% of the delegates, in each of those states (if not win them outright). Combined with his guranteed wins in remaining states like NC, VT, MS, etc., he'll still have the delegate and popular vote edge when all is said and done. She is finished.

Posted by Chris | February 21, 2008 1:33 PM

RCDnyc:

02/17 - 02/19 1199 V 47 42 Obama +5.0
02/16 - 02/19 900 LV 47 40 Obama +7.0
02/13 - 02/16 494 LV 52 38 Obama +14.0
02/07 - 02/10 520 A 41 46 Clinton +5.0
02/08 - 02/09 525 A 47 44 Obama +3.0
02/06 - 02/07 602 RV 42 41 Obama +1.0

All your polling data shows is that pollsters have no idea what they're doing this election. Many have been off by as much as 15-20%.

europe: You are an idiot.

Posted by NH | February 22, 2008 5:38 PM

Question? Will they be as negative as the pro-Obama unions in Nevada and Florida (yes, that massive ground campaign Obama had in Florida)?

Get back to us on that if you dare.

Posted by Crispin | February 22, 2008 7:35 PM

hi all of you- the point of Rezko is how Obama lies and ducks and deflects. Here is a case of the all time worst judgement..and he lied on tv-not just during the debate but 4 occasions prior and continued to lie until February 20th.
the same with plagarizing. He just does it and says 'silliness' or bad judgement and pretends it has no repercussions. It does matter as he has called everyone else's judgement to task, why not his?
He has an 18 year record of bad judgement. It is my belief that Rezko will be much more interesting as the trial progresses and we see how deeply Obama was invested corgis 800k house gift.

Posted by M Miller | February 22, 2008 9:26 PM

Why do you not care enough about the United States to stay out of finding ways to try to countermand the majority vote of the people? Pretty damn disgusting. If the Democratic nominee winds up being the one that does NOT really win, then I can quite readily see there being hell to pay with the citizens of this country.

Posted by Angela Lee | February 23, 2008 1:25 PM

At this point, Ms. Clinton needs to get her own house in order, before throwing stones at someone elses, regarding consistency of her message and economically regarding her own campaign...

Harsh criticism is not a substitute for meaningful solutions, and the further she strays from this caveat, the more Ms. Cinton gives an impression of immaturity, that, " If I can't have it, nobody can!"

The lack of a mature understanding that she cannot win the nomination at this point threatens the strength of the Democratic Party.

The swiftness with which Ms. Clinton realizes this, and concedes the nomination to Mr. Obama, will be directly related to the probability of a Democratic win for presidency

Posted by ardent observer | February 23, 2008 5:34 PM

Why vote for Obama? Because YOU can .. be a part of the winning team.. not just in the primaries but in the General Election too!Speeches or Solutions? How about Speeches AND Solutions.www.barackobama.com/issues/

Hillary Clinton is hungry for power AT ANY COST. Just take a look at what her power can do to a person like Peter Paul, who contributed 1.2 million to her senate campaign in 2001. She later claimed she never knew Paul, Never met him and certainly never took any money from him, which she later recanted and let her finance director be criminally charged and tried for..(www.hillcap.org/rosen_indictment.pdf) (www.peterfpaul.com)
Her poor finance director, David Rosen took the fall for her mistakes during her senate campaign.

Now, Are you going to let 'America' take the fall this time, Take a look and realise what the Clintons are capable of .. just to win a senate seat, What do you think they could do for the presidential nomination?

If Hillary wins the nomination, Many people like me would clearly favour McCain and may vote for him.
For Hillary Clinton's abuses .. Look at the links above and also see the following clips on youtube.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I

She went all out for her senatorial campaign? What more can she be capable of for the nomination?

Posted by Dominic | February 24, 2008 8:37 AM

DOMINIC, I AM GLAD THAT YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THE LAWSUIT BECAUSE I COMPLETELY FORGOT ABOUT IT. THE LAWSUIT IS: PETER F. PAUL V. WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON HILLARY ROHDAM CLINTON HILLARY ROHDAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE INC....THERE ARE ALSO OTHERS IMPLICATED IN THIS LAWSUIT, AS WELL. THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA HASN'T REPORTED ON THIS FOR AWHILE. A PORTION OF VIDEOTAPE (EVIDENCE) IS ON VIDEO.GOOGLE.COM AND TYPE IN HILLARY UNSENSORED. ON, 10/29/07, GOOGLE VIDEO HAD SCORED 1.4 MILLION HITS AND YOUTUBE SCORED 350,000 HITS ON THIS HILLARY VIDEO.

Posted by Jamie | February 25, 2008 12:29 AM

If it was still possible to be disgusted and shocked at anything Hillary would do....

What kind of vicious, self-centered, self-serving blind ambition would lead her to use the same tactics of the Swift boat scumbags?

I can't believe I used to support her. I'm ashamed of it. She'll pursue the nomination using every scumbag trick in the book knowing full well it would only lead to a McCain victory in November...?

Obama will win anyway and this heinous, shrill, nasty, divisive woman will fade away.

Posted by Dave Davis | February 27, 2008 12:54 PM

Seen on Yahoo news article:

re speech given (?Ohio):

"Clinton praised Corning for moving into new product lines like fiber optics. 'They used to make glass," she said. 'If they were still about glass they wouldn't be around.'"

Isn't Fiber optic cable made essentially of...well...glass???

Ms. Clinton needs to clarify her facts if it's really about "words".

Posted by ardent observer | February 27, 2008 10:24 PM

Superdelegates now need to move quickly and confirm Mr. Obama given his clear technical advantage if the Democratic party is to triumph in this election...the sooner the better

Posted by ardent observer | March 5, 2008 3:41 AM

The fact that Mr Obama pulled off a speech on such a difficult topic at a particularly difficult time in the campaign..head on... supports the fact that he has the backbone of a president.

White water will always be an albatross upon Ms. Clinton' head...too much happened behind closed doors....breeds too much suspicion.

Posted by ardent observer | March 19, 2008 10:52 PM

The fact that Mr Obama pulled off a speech on such a difficult topic at a particularly difficult time in the campaign..head on... supports the fact that he has the backbone of a president.

Whitewater will always be an albatross upon Ms. Clinton' head...too much happened behind closed doors....breeds too much suspicion.

Posted by ardent observer | March 19, 2008 10:53 PM

During the last Debate, it appears that even Ms. Clinton is Endorsing Mr. Obama...she needs to step aside sooner than later at this point

Posted by ardent observer | April 22, 2008 12:57 AM

During the last Debate, it appears that even Ms. Clinton is Endorsing Mr. Obama...she needs to step aside sooner than later at this point

Posted by ardent observer | April 22, 2008 12:57 AM

During the last Debate, it appears that even Ms. Clinton is Endorsing Mr. Obama...she needs to step aside sooner than later at this point

Posted by ardent observer | April 22, 2008 12:57 AM