I know, Jerome, it is unfair that Hillary isn't as charismatic as Obama.

I see the "Obama is a secret muslim" or "Obama belongs to a church that hates whites" junk posted by J.A.

You seem to be obsessed with Obama.  

What did he spend the money on?  That is kind of important.

The rules apply to him just like they do to everyone else.

Regardless of what he would like us to think.

Regardless of what his acolytes would like to think.

Hey Jerome thanks much for the post. It's refreshing to have someone actually report the news.

But be careful.

Truth tellers are never welcomed among the acolytes. Hence the arguments that your posting facts about his failed campaign in Florida means you engage in race-baiting.

If only more voters were paying attention to the facts and not the hype, but I don't think that's the case.  Props to Obama, he and his campaign are superb at selling the hype.

And Hillary is an agent for change?  Does it bother you that her campaign is only now figuring out Texas' weird delegate allocation rules?  Doesn't sound like she is prepared to lead from day one does it?  As far as Breaking Blue, yes Obama is winning, he is playing by the rules.  The DNC allowed different states to hold open primaries.  And yes, Dems can screw up the Rethugs, just like the Rethugs can do the same to us.

I'd be perfectly happy with Clinton, though I moved from Edwards to Obama, but this sort of petulance on both sides is fairly embarrassing.

Yes, Clinton supporters think, as one who raised $20,000 for her told me the other day, that -only- she can fix the direction of the country, and that if Obama wins, we're all screwed.

Yes, Obama supporters think he's gonna magically transform the system with his Mighty Refrain of Kumbaya.

So? That's how this works. What's tiring is not only the hyperbolic messianic crap on both sides, but the hyperbolic pearl-clutching crap from pundits who pretend that this is somehow uniquely offensive.

Am I the only one who remembers being a Deaniac? Now -that- was when I bought into the messianic crap.

How did he spend the money?  Polling, fund-raising, the party-approved national ad buy?  The article doesn't say, and it makes all the difference, especially if they were in areas that would not strictly be considered campaigning.  How much of the money was spent before the delegates were stripped?

Welcome to www.myHRC.com!

To judge the $1.3 million spent in Florida, we would at least need to know when that was spent. The candidates did not sign the non-campaign pledge until September 1, 2007. Then we would need to know how that was spent -- expenses for fundraising activities (which were acceptable) or others?

Just don't try to fake others, whom don't support him currently, into believing that he exemplifies a transcendent change.

Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom.

"Look, I really don't mind at all if Obama wins the nomination"

Jerome, anyone who reads this blog knows that this is not true.  You don't want Obama to win.  In fact, for at least the last three months, your writing has been decidedly anti-Obama.  That's fine.  Your choice is your choice.  But please don't insult my intelligence by trying to pretend to be some kind of neutral observer.  You are not.  

This is what Hillary supporters don't get (or pretend not to get). The movement behind Obama is not really about Obama. Nobody thinks he is anything other then a gifted politician. But he understands the mood of the country and is willing to lead us in a different direction. What to you think the 2006 election was about? Obama got it and Hillary did not.

Once elected Obama will be under enormous pressure (from Democrats and Republicans) to go back to business as usual. That's were the people power generated by his campaign gets into  the act. We will hold his (and the Congress) feet to the fire.

From the Hillary Project, Nov. 14, 2007:

Obama spent a whopping $1 million in Florida, and Clinton spent $259,000. But figures for Florida are deceptive indicators of campaign activity such as grassroots organizing because much money spent there is devoted to fundraising activity. Florida has been a traditional fundraising hub for both parties.

So there is a good chance that most of this money was spent before the pledge on fundraising, no?

oooh...someones got sour grapes...teeheehee....

Please Jerome, we all know you DO NOT WANT Obama to win the nomination, stop pretending to be objective on this issue...........

"Look, I really don't mind at all if Obama wins the nomination"

Ha! Best line yet on MyDD.

Bitter much?

Did he spend $130K or $1.3M? And what did he spend it on?

Jerome, the Washington Post fact checked the Obama Exelon story a long time ago here:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec ker/2008/02/obamas_backroom_deal.html

Clinton lauded the legislation Obama pushed and co-sponsored it. Senators Boxer and Durbin say Clinton's latest spin is flat out false. The Post awarded the Clinton campaign a double Pinocchio for trying to push this story, so I guess you're now an honorary recipient of two big noses, too. Congratulations.

Employees? Was it at a lobbyist fundraiser or something or were they just Illinois citizens like me who gave him money?

What's tiring is the talk that he's different, especially the hyperbolic messianic crap that his supporters shamelessly use to hype Obama

What's interesting is that the active Clinton partisans are MORE interested in demonizing Obama supporters than they are actually talking about the man himself. Pretty desperate and pitiful, if you ask me. It couldn't possibly be the case that millions of voters have correctly picked the person who actually would be the better President on foreign policy, on getting progressive legislation passed through Congress, on the rule of law and a limited executive.

What's interesting is that having a candidate who captures the imagination of voters and actually turns out people to vote for at the polls has now somehow become a bad thing. Is everyone who supports Hillary Clinton a member of the Clinton cult? She certainly has a VERY passionate and large base of support. Of course the revealing difference here is that the active Clinton partisans are more focused on attacking Obama than they are building a positive case and a positive narrative for their own candidate.  

That's the problem when you try to run a vanilla inevitability campaign and your upstart challenger has accurately captured the mood of the electorate and grabbed the mantle of the change candidacy right out from under you. And then afterwards, having so miscalcuated, with no real positive narrative of your own, whining about your misculation afterwards. Instead of endlessly complaining about how the voters didn't vote they way they were "supposed" to vote, maybe the active Clinton partisans ought to try to figure out how it is that the super-legendary-experienced-brilliant Clinton political machine is now on the brink of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

What a pathetic slam.  The article doesn't say what the spending was on, and yet Jerome tells us that it was spending on "campaigning."

We get that you don't like Obama, but at least pretend to have some journalistic integrity and accurately convey what the article says (and doesn't say).  Sliming all of Obama's supporters by referring to the "hyperbolic messianic crap" that they supposedly utter is just the lowest of the low.  This article is complete garbage.  You come across as a whiny thug.

It's about what Americans perceive Obama represents. That's why he likely will win. Obama will likely be our Reagan. Politicians as a whole are just stiff.. can't relate to them. They aren't hip. They seem fake. Obama doesn't seem fake. And that resonates.

When and how was the money spent?  Where are the details?  

Ummm????  Jerome...you know better!

If you're going to make an insinuating charge, you might want to be specific.

Also...don't try to pass yourself off as a neutral observer.  You've been anti-Obama obsessed for the last several months.

Come on, Jerome, it must be really tiring to keep attacking Obama, but I guess if you've got nothing better to do, why not?

I don't mind you trying to say that Obama isn't perfect, but stop putting up straw men. None of Obama's supporters think he is the Messiah, none of us think he is perfect, none of us think he has been the greatest Democratic Senator, so stop putting words in our mouths.

You can't keep criticizing Obama on a daily basis and recycle every attack you can think of and say "I really don't mind if Obama is the nominee."

Have you written one post that is pro-Obama in your life? If you have, I haven't seen it.

Don't use MyDD as a sounding board for your frustrations because the candidate you may have supported dropped out.

I'll second the questions asked by others on this thread: what was the money spent on? If all that Capital Eye is reporting is that he sent $1.3 Million worth of checks to Florida, that still doesn't entail that he did any campaigning there.  

As to Exelon, again, I'm not yet convinced: as I understand it, Obama pushed hard for stringent reporting standards, but wasn't able to get them through. He did, however, secure a voluntary commitment (not as good, I know, but something anyway) to report any potential problems. Again, though, I'd like to hear more from you before you conclude that Obama's a craven pol just like the rest of 'em.

I'd add, more generally, that though I find it disappointing that such a venerable institution of the progressive media would post this without further investigation, I don't, sadly, find it surprising.  Some of you here at MyDD would do well to look to the examples of your erstwhile colleagues at OpenLeft (not at dKos, which suffers from similar flaws, on the other side) to see that there can be such a thing as campaign coverage that is, though not 'objective', still intellectually responsible.

The article you link to has other interesting content: apparently, everybody's favorite populist, give-em-hell-Hillary, led all candidates last year in health-industry contributions, and all but Romney in contributions from the insurance industry.

I am so fucking tired of terms Obamabots or Hillerybots tossed around in all encompassing generalizations.

Both Candidates have strengths. Both Candidates have flaws. It is, perhaps the nature of the political beast that we focus on strengths and downplay flaws of our choice candidate.
However when Jerome interjects language such as
"hyperbolic messianic crap that his supporters shamelessly use to hype Obama."
How are we to take you seriously on other political writing.
Are you implying that we Obama supporters believe Obama is the Second comming?

Are we impressed by and moved by his rhetorical  ability as one of his strengths? Yes! But our support does not depend on that alone.
Could our support be misplaced. Always a risk just as those that support Clinton may be misplaced.
It will not be the first time nor last.
(Remember how so many of us thought the 2006 elections would really make a difference in 2007)

Perhaps President's Day brought out a less sophisticated side of you. I will await the return to your usual level of insightful writing...

Where is the link to the actual newspaper articles they seemingly base their synopsis on? I'd like to read some of them but my google searches are coming up empty.

drivel if Obama wins the nomination?  

Look, supporting your candidate is just fine and dandy.  I don't think the sun shines out of Obama's ass - every politician is a politician first and foremost, meaning they are at least somewhat compromised.  

But what you're doing with MyDD now just seems increasingly counterproductive.  Obama is the front-runner now.  Hillary can of course turn things around.  We'll know more after tomorrow, and a lot more in two weeks, but the chance your spinning and framing here is actually helping Hillary win the nomination is rather small.  

On the other hand, you've let freepers infiltrate the site and post outwardly racist concern trolls.  Do you think this is just going to stop if Obama secures the nomination?  How would you feel to have arguments that you typed out first come out of Bill Kristol's mouth in October?  

Try to engage with the blogosphere on the positives of Hillary.  Don't just provide ammunition for the mouth-breathers on redstate when they finally figure out how to attack the man.  

when the liberal blogs start railing against President McCain, please remember that it's the circular firing squad you (on both sides) created that helped elect him.

It's the power company: it's one of the largest employers in Illinois. (I believe Illinois is a large net exporter of electricity.) By my quick calculation, including those multiple election cycles, the average Exelon employee's total donation to Obama would be under $13, none of which came from lobbyists. IBEW Local 15 represents over 6,000 Exelon workers in northern Illinois; the IBEW (as a whole) supported both Durbin and Obama for Senate.

Just for comparison, Citigroup is one of the largest employers in New York and, for Hillary Clinton's 2006 Senate campaign alone, its contributions topped $228,000. And as a percentage of total donations to the candidate that's much, much larger. It's also not particularly unionized.

Jerome, this is a wonderful Diary entry.  It spells out, neatly, everything I've known to be wrong with Obama's campaign.  I agree wholeheartedly.  I, too, will vote for him come November, but I have am not delusional about him.  I know he gets (1) corporate funding, (2) lobbyist funding, (3) he panders to washington elite, (4) he has washington ties, (5) he complains when the rules are not in his favor, (6)etc., etc.

Thanks for so clearly writing what many of us need to hear.

Look, I really don't mind at all if Obama wins the nomination, and if he does I would hope he wins big too. What's tiring is the talk that he's different, especially the hyperbolic messianic crap that his supporters shamelessly use to hype Obama. The pretending that he's light and Clinton is dark while his votes are not any different than Clinton's; the pretending that he is a progressive leader in the Senate when he is not; the pretending that he's the oracle of change when he's merely mouthing words that David Axelrod recycled from Deval Patrick's winning MA gubernatorial campaign in 2006; and the pretending that he's some sort of vessel that shares your personal values which if its true means your soul succumbs to good marketing

Support the guy, vote for him, argue about his electability. Just don't try to fake others, whom don't support him currently, into believing that he exemplifies a transcendent change.

Can you let me post this on my forehead while I walk the streets of Obamaland?  

Bravo...!!  I guess some of us did not buy the Bush lies about the war and we don't buy the Obama lies about being transending, and transforming.  

No, Obama is not perfect but there aren't overwhelming reasons why he might not be a fair candidate. Clinton, on the contrary, has proven that no only is she's only a Bush-lite in foreign policy, she is not being truthful with the electorate, saying anything to win:
here, here. Don't mention experience (just another snippet) and don't mention the corruption!

As for the Clinton myth ... well ...

So there you are. Rooting for Obama does not mean that one has fallen for pretty speeches or whatever. It is simply of a total rejection of old politics!

Sorry for typos!

Paul Lukasiak on the popular vote

Faking it would be posting something like this about him spending this money in Florida with zero corroboration or details.  What did he spend it on?  Was it campaigning, or something else?  When did he spend it?  Was it before the pledge?  Answer these basic questions, and if you can't answer them, you shouldn't have posted it.

Just sad.  

.

Obama is just another Bill Clinton-like, just 16 years later. If anyone is saying something different, he/she is lying or being a big hypocrite.

My only problem with Obama is that he is a liar like anyother politician. Jerome was much better than me in saying "pretending" instead of "lying".

Obama lied about:

a) lobbyist (state over federal, we value state corruption more than federal corruption now in America?)
b) Exelon bribe (apart from Exelon being one of the highest contributor to Obama, they also paid David Axelrod a "consulting" fee..also called bribery fee in other countries)
c) Energy bill with Dick Cheney (feeding his cousins so called ties with pork for lobbyist in that bill..Hillary voted against it because of Dick Cheney lobbyist)
d) Triangulating (when he himself was triangulating on national TV on drivers license)
e) His Rezko relationship (5 hrs work, who believes?)
f) His past beliefs (which allowed the rumors to float)
g) Social Security (he changed his position 3 times in 2007).

If anyone thinks a charismatic liar can be a transcending figure, then I will call him a cult member. Liar's charisma is fool's paradise. Bill Clinton was a charismatic figure too and yes he lied too. Look he couldn't become transcending. Only difference, Obama started with lies, Bill ended with lies. So Obama can never achieve what Bill achieved.

Dont a be fake God, be a truthful human first. Can any Obama supporter negate any points above by putting their hand on their heart?

especially about the messianic aspects of the Obama cult.  That path is one that will destroy the left in America.

It is the antithesis of empowerment.  I seek no Christ-figure to rule over me.  I seek no political intoxication to avoid the real problems of life.

is a funny thing.

Progressive Blue

hey jerome, if hillary is so "competent", why didnt she understand the texas delegate apportionment situtaion until "last month"?

if you are going to rip obama for not being "change" enough, then you must equally rip hillary for not being "competent" enough.

Is it because Hillary Clinton surrounds herself with talentless hacks that freelance talentless hacks back her so strongly?

Do you look at Mark Penn and think, "Hell, I could do that"?

Wow Jerome, I expect better from you. An article from Center for Responsive Politics that provides no sourcing for its numbers that the candidates supposedly spent in Florida. We just have to trust the author apparently. How responsible.

Quit crying Obamacans.. Leave Jerome alone.  

I don't think this issue is worth the outrage that some are showing, but the "story" is pretty silly if the expenditures were either (1) made before the candidates agreed to the DNC pledge; and/or (2) weren't campaign related.  The second eventuality seems likely, since the article you linked to seems to say the expenditures were calculated based upon checks being sent to Florida for any reason.  

Candidly, I prefer your posts on Obama where you articulate philosophical differences with him.  I still disagree with you, but those are interesting to read.  This strikes me as a flawed attempt at gottcha.  But maybe that's just me.  Since I support Obama, I assume I am incapable of rational thought anyway.  

I thought candidate supporter entries were supposed to be marked, or was that just before Super Tuesday.

The link fails to provide a breakdown of the expenditures or when they happened.

An unsupported assertion with a link to an unsupported assertion is still as unsupported assertion.

Regardless of what anyone spent, no delegates will be seated at the convention, according rules settled long before and agreed to by both the candidates. Anything anyone spent there was wasted money.

I wonder if the $1.3 million figure is how much the entire nationwide ad buy cost (the one that ran in FL)?

Jerome, have you ever been paid by any of the presidential campaigns during the primaries?

with this post, jerome just continues the slow reputation suicide he's been working on for the last couple months.

this piece is not credible, irresponsible, and intellectually dishonest.  even if you don't respect sen. obama, have some respect for the readers of your site who are not so stupid that hey can't see this empty shell for what it is.

It is not non sourced , he sources it, right there.  Read something beyond the words of each other.  

Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 82 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 35, or 43 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $232,200. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him.

Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $205,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID= 336

But "Clinton does it too" only undermines the Obama supporters' points and boosts Jerome's.

Both of these candidates are corporate candidate. One has just been marketed better. By pointing out that Clinton and Obama "both do it" you are just affirming that, because people BELIEVE otherwise.

Why do they believe otherwise? Because that's how its been marketed to them.

Obama spent 1.3M in Florida- do you think it's because he has heavy hitters like Exelon and The Carlyle Group in his corner?

www.politicalamnesia.blogspot.com

"Although the Democrats weren't able to earn delegates in Michigan or Florida, because the states scheduled early primaries without the national party's blessing, the hopefuls still spent nearly $3.4 million in those states. Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida--more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state." From Center for Responsive Politics.    According to this paragraph all the Democratic candidates spent 3.4 million and Obama spent 1.3 mill that leaves 1.84 million spent, after deducting the 260,000 spent in MI, by some one other candidate. I wonder who that could be or is it possible that some one can't subtract. Please do the math and correct me if I'm wrong

So are you gonna update this hit piece since it's been debunked on your own site?

I'm glad you did an update, but this is incorrect now:

"He did that, plenty, through television ads that aired in Florida."

That national ad buy was on CNN, so that disbursement would either have been through
CNN headquarters, in Atlanta, GA, or TimeWarner Cable, Comcast, etc.