Vice-President Picks

Remove all ads!

You have got to be kidding me. Have you ever seen some of the links in this place? I have never heard of jawa before, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. At least until I find something that disproves them. I mean, it isn't like they are Dan Rather or someone with a known record of recklessness.

But a 527 commercial does have to mention that they paid for the ad. Also to claim the Moveon.org would do something without the Obama campaign knowing about it is naive. Personally, I always felt the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were telling the truth. Even if they were lying, everyone knew they were the ones doing it. Here we have a case of a professional hatchet job being done, and then trying to convince everyone it was done by amatuers and therefore not subject to scrutiny or regulation.

Even Joacquin gets it. Maybe he isn't such a jerk after all.

 

Yes, any political ad must mention at the end who paid for the ad. But again, what is your point? Everyone knows that there are 527 groups out there. I've also seen one that is blasting Obama for being against the surge (I forget what the name of the group is at the moment). Just like everyone knew that the Bush Campaign could have got the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth to stop if they asked them, since 527 groups are not linked to the campaigns in a legal sense, they are not authorized to speak for the campaign. In fact, if the Bush campaign actually asked them to stop it would give the appearance that the SBVFT actually WERE working for the campaign, so there was plenty of reason for the Bush campaign to keep their mouths shut. Same goes here.

How many people 527 groups get to believe what they say or their effectiveness in getting their message out in general is irrelevant to the argument. From a legal perspective they are a private company buying a commercial time slot. That is also why it is irrelevant that both campaigns are fully aware of which 527 groups are working for and agaisnt them. As long as they aren't using campaign funds for making their commercials, and as long as they are not being paid by the campaigns, 527 groups are completely legal, with their commericals (as one sided as they usually are) falling under the protection of the 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause.

 

Of course you are. They're making a case for something you obviously wish to be true, but can't otherwise convincingly argue on your own: that the Obama campaign is crooked. Hey, whatever floats your boat. I guess it doesn't matter to you who makes that argument, you're already on board. Would you give the same benefit of the doubt to a Daily Kos posting that argued the same about Sarah Palin? Or is having never heard of them before your standard for credibility?

Are you kidding? Dan Rather's career and legacy were all but destroyed because he was held accountable for a bad story (a story that wasn't even really his, he more or less just anchored it). Some dork on a web site who doesn't even post using his real name is held to no such standard and can say whatever he wants. Don't act like this is on the same level as a legitimate investigative report, where the one doing the reporting is actually expected to properly check his facts and be held to account if it's shown that he just made stuff up or drew misleading conclusions.

Oh I'm sure you did, and that kind of proves my point. I guess when you make up your mind in advance about a candidate, anyone who reinforces your previously-held belief is somehow telling the truth, even after they've been proven to be full of it.

There are plenty of web sites written by nameless yahoos who claim all sorts of nasty things about Sarah Palin and John McCain and George W. Bush, but I don't believe a word most of them say, and I sure as hell wouldn't post them here willy nilly for "the benefit of the doubt." I take this election far more seriously than that, sorry. Whine all you want about the big evil liberal media and how they all conspire to pick on conservatives, but at least major news organizations have checks and balances. Blogs don't, and though their opinions are often valid when making a rhetorical point, their "reporting" is almost always highly suspect, no matter what side they're on. Especially in the case of a guy whose web site posts near-constant "Democrats love terrorists" nonsense and cribbed his name from a King of the Hill character. It's illuminating to me that you find this doofus credible, but the entire mainstream media can't be trusted.

Whatevs.

 

That's what makes propaganda so popular these days: There's no need to reconsider the "troublesome facts" of an issue. You see, the earth really is flat. Just go look out your window and see.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

 

Aldeth, you missed the entire point. The point is that it looks like a 529 group made a political ad and instead of disseminating it the regular way (which would identify them as the makers) they instead ignored the regulations governing the 529 groups and pretended that the political ad was made by an individual and therefore not subject to the rules. They then tried to make the ad go viral and used multiple postings and screen names to do so. That is a no no. To make matters worse the people involved appear to have direct links with the Obama campaign. Now I'm not saying the messiah has any direct knowledge, but it isn't a stretch of the imagination to people in his campaign knowing.

 

*sigh* Talkin' to myself...

 

It will probably be the most intelligent conversation you have all day....

 

I agree with your points, DR, it's just that I think it's even more basic than that.

Really? Then I will need a better explanation from you, because your arguement appears to be going in circles. I responded to your point, which appeared to be that the Obama campaign was complicit in the making of this ad. I disagree with that statement. If that's NOT your point, explain yourself more clearly, because there's nothing you've written thus far that would indicate otherwise.

To reiterate: The Obama campaign most certainly knows about this ad. It would be negligent on their part to not be aware of who was saying what in regards to the their platform and their opponent's. All I've been saying from the beginning is that there is no evidence that Obama funded this ad. If it was done without campaign funding, then it is the equivalent of an ad produced by a 527 group, which does not speak for the campaign. However, unless you have something a bit more concrete to put forward, the evidence that the Obama campaign is complicit in making this ad is flimsy. The evidence I have seen points to this ad being done by a private group, commonly known as 527 groups. 527 groups are legal, they work for both Dems and Reps, and there's nothing new there.

 

Aldeth, I will try one more time.

Everything you have said is 100% correct. The part you are missing is that a 529 (I don't think it is 527) still has a responsibility by law to disclose that they are producing the ad. That is what was not done.

Therefore using your logic that of course the Obama campaign knew about the ad campaign, then that meant they also knew that it was being done incorrectly and therefore illegal.

Obama and pals are free to use all the 529s they want, as long as they follow the rules.

 

Hold up a second, there! I was under the impression that the 529s, or 527s, or whatever the hell they are called, are not controlled by the campaign offices -- they can do whatever they want, even if they are asked not to by the campaign they are ostensibly advocating. To my knowledge, Obama's campaign has not been shown to have been in favor of the posts in question. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if it came out later that they were, or that some of McCain's staff secretly funded / supported some nasty stuff. But until I see evidence showing that, I don't think it's fair to convict the campaign people, even if it's only a conviction in the court of public opinion.

 

It's called a 527. Google 529's, if you must, and see what you find. Then google 527. The fact that you insisted on continuing this little mini-argument without even bothering to look it up doesn't exactly help your case. That said, lets examine your logic.

Because the people who uploaded and promoted the ad were members of a professional PR firm (and professional PR firms never work for 527 groups), the family that runs the firm has extensive ties to the democratic party and are staunch Obama supporters (and no committed democrat who regularly donates to the party would be a staunch Obama supporter), worked in a concerted effort - and on company time - to ensure that the video would go viral on its own (because, you know, only official campaign ads strive to go viral), the distribution efforts included actions by at least one employee of the firm who isn't connected to the family running the company (since any company employees that aren't family members are clearly Obama campaign operatives), they hired a professional voice over artist who worked with Obama's chief media strategist in the past (and professional voice over artists that work for David Axelrod never take work from anyone else - and 527 groups always hire amateurs), and they didn't cite themselves on the ad*, the Obama campaign is behind the ad.

* 527's only have to identify themselves in paid advertisements, and placing videos on youtube is free. Neat loophole, isn't it?

 

Actually joacqin the democratic 527's outspent the republican groups by 235%. So who was the starting the most fires?

"A total of $439,709,105 was spent by these organizations alone, $307,324,096 of which was spent by Democratic/liberal groups and $132,385,009 of which was spent by Republican/conservative groups"
This was for the 2004 elections

from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_group

 

Drew, the point is that, specifically because the family donates to the DNC, they probably support Obama. All the other evidence (including the fact that the employee wasn't a family member) then goes to show that this family used their company to produce/distribute/promote this advertisement (and that isn't free, regardless of where you put it). If they're a 527 group, they're subject to certain regulations that they seem to have skipped over (plus, I think they have to register with someone). If not, well, then they had to be payed by someone (a 527 group or the Obama campaign or whoever). The problem isn't that a professional add went out, but that a professional add went out under the cover of an ametuer adventure.

 

I said nothing about expenditure. You can spend a lot less and still be a lot dirtier (or effective depending on your point of view) and I do think that Republicans and the Bush people have been extremely succesful in assassinating the character of their opponents in the last few elections even if they happened to spend less money.

From my point of view the democratic 527 groups probably spent all that money on factual ads attacking hte policies and decisions of the Republicans while the Reps spent their small bag of money more wisely and just slung a lot of mud.

 

joacqin, did you actually watch any of the adds in those elections? I don't think I saw a factual one among them, and there were a lot more Dem than Rep adds. Sure, the Reps may have been better at playing dirty, but that doesn't mean the Dems tried to play clean.

 

NOG,

Maybe we are just taking this arguement from different perspectives. The only thing I'm claiming is regardless of whether or not the group that produced the ad was playing by the rules or not, it seems like a stretch to say that the Obama campaign was complicit in the creation of the ad. If you buy commercial air time, you have to disclose who made the ad. As Drew rightly points out, if the only place where you could see it is YouTube, there's no need to reveal your identity (if such a requirement existed there would be a heck of a lot fewer YouTube clips out there). But even that fact seems ancillary to the point at hand. Just because they happen to support the DNC and are Obama supporters, it doesn't mean they work for the Obama campaign. By that logic anyone who ever donated to the Obama campaign would work for the campaign.

 

The issue in that case is that they're long time friends of upper level DNC members and I think I heard friends of the Obama family. I'm not sure about that, and it seems iffy even if it's true, but if McCain's brother-in-law (does he have one?) did the same thing with such a company, I think heads would roll. There would be no more proof that anyone was working for anyone else, but there you go.

Actually, Bush recieved plenty of flack for the Swiftboat campaign back in '04, even from members of this board as I recall, but he had nothing to do with it.

 

There was so little else that his competitors could say against Obama that Biden was just grasping the obvious point of Obama's youth and newness when trying to elevate his own claim to political experience. The first clip is just sound bites under media pressure to diss one another during a loaded political debate. The other clip shows a more extensive, personal reaction, response and opinion of Obama when Joe is not touting his own cause. It's all politics but I believe the second "shirtsleeve" clip is more honest and fairminded. i just saw in pollclash that Joe Biden has now been officially introduced as Barack Obama's Vice Presidential selection well you can see teh video in http://pollclash.com

 

Friends with the Obama family is pushing it, NOG. These guys are democrats, sure, and they certainly do donate prodigiously to the party (and a long-time donor isn't really the same thing as a long-time friend), but that doesn't make them members of the Obama campaign. I'm not taking exception to the idea that these guys are democrats or that they support Obama.

I'm taking exception to the idea that since they (1) are members of a professional PR firm, (2)donate regularly to the DNC, (3)support Obama, (4)used company time to create a viral video, (5)one of the employees who worked on the video wasn't a family member, (6)hired a professional voice actress who has worked on similar ads in the past for other democrats, including David Axelrod, (7)and they didn't cite themselves on the ad because it was placed on YouTube rather than a paid medium, that the 527 is actually part of the Obama campaign. Not a single one of these arguments actually support the conclusion that these guys are part of Obama's campaign.

 

It's been stated in this thread a few times that we can't accurately pass judgement on Sarah Palin until we've heard what she has to say. Well, it's been nearly a month since her selection and she's now done three whole press interviews and taken 3...maybe 4 questions from the press.

What do we think of her now?