Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's Florida claim

This morning Jerome Armstrong made a bold claim on the front page of MyDD. In a piece entitled Obama Spent $1.3 Million, plus change,  in Florida, Jerome cited this quote:

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.

and made this claim:

That, from the Center for Responsive Politics. I realize that it's still going to be a fight to make the Democratic Party convention a 50-state event, rather than the 48-state event that some want it to be, but this puts to rest the notion that Obama didn't campaign in Florida.

I wrote to Massie Ritsch at the Center for Responsive Politics this morning to ask him for a clarification of the accuracy of Jerome's claim.

Printed below is what, with his permission, he wrote back to me...

Here's the text of the email Massie Ritsch sent to me regarding Jerome Armstrong's claim published with his permission {Emphasis mine.}:

Paul,

The information from the Center for Responsive Politics that Jerome Armstrong cites comes from our Feb. 5 analysis of the candidates' year-end campaign finance reports; it's not something we posted today. He also conveniently left out this disclaimer from that same item of ours: "Now would be a good time to mention that measuring spending in a state is problematic. The biggest expenses--advertising, for one--are often spent with vendors outside the state, or even just over the state line. These figures measure only what was spent on the ground with local companies and individuals."

To explain further, the expenditures figures Jerome cited are calculated by looking only at the addresses of the vendors that each campaign paid. They are almost certainly not accurate counts of how much was spent in a state. It's possible that Obama hired a vendor based in Florida who did work outside the state for his campaign. For example, maybe the printer of his signs is in Florida. The amount of money spent on signs would appear in the campaign finance reports to have been focused solely on Florida, when, in fact, the signs were used to campaign all over the country.

Bottom line: I wouldn't use state spending totals gleaned from campaign finance reports to saw anything authoritative about a candidate's effort in a particular state. The FEC's requirements for reporting expenditures just don't allow for that sort of precision.

Feel free to share what I've told you with the blogosphere. And thanks for your question.

Massie Ritsch
Center for Responsive Politics

Jerome Armstrong and MyDD, in my view, owe the Obama campaign a retraction of the claim made in that piece. The claim that Obama spent $1.3M campaigning in Florida is unsupported in the material Jerome cites and, further, the bold claim Jerome makes is directly refuted by Massie Ritsch in a "for attribution" email from the Center for Responsive Politics itself.

We in the netroots have a responsibility to accurately report the facts as we know them and to source our arguments properly. Unfortunately, Jerome's claim is not only unsupported by the material he cites; his cite warns explicitly about drawing the very conclusion he makes.

Jerome owes his readers and the Obama campaign a retraction and a correction. (And I think that should include changing the title of that piece and putting a correction within it so that google searches and cites back to that MyDD piece show the corrected record.)

For myself, neither Jerome's post nor Ritsch's willingness to issue a forthright rebuttal came as a particular surprise. That seems to be, for better or for worse, where we are at this primary season. Truth and accuracy, however, matter. Being a straight shooter is important. Being reality-based is part of what sets our netroots movement apart from politics as usual and the status quo.

Thanks for reading.
k/o



Display:


Recommended . . . (2.00 / 9)


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:20:51 PM EST

Re: Recommended . . . (2.00 / 1)

I've done so as well.


Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.
by Walt Starr on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:14:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for Following Up (2.00 / 1)

I had read the qualifier language you cited, but am glad to hear directly from the source that Jerome's assumptions were in error.  

Please rec this folks.  


by HSTruman on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:22:08 PM EST

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (2.00 / 3)

From my brief look at the spreadsheet, it looks like the majority of these expenses was just that it paid off American Express bills to a Florida address.


by Adam B on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:26:04 PM EST

not exactly a rebuttal (2.00 / 1)

So CRP confirms that Obama did in fact spend $1.3 million in Florida. Ritsch adds a caveat that some of that may have been on Florida vendors doing work for other states. Not exactly a rebuttal.

If you want to rebut Jerome's point then look at the filing and show that the Florida vendors were not doing campaign work in Florida.


by souvarine on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:26:21 PM EST

Re: not exactly a rebuttal (2.00 / 3)

Is this a joke?  The guy said you can't tell from the disclosures what the $ was spent on.  He also said that the assumption Jerome made was contrary to their own warning, in the article cited, and wasn't justified based on the data.  Precisely what more do you want?  

This kind of intellectual dishonesty is really just beyond the pale.  Are you really so desperate to advocate for HRC that you've lost all perspective?  


by HSTruman on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not exactly a rebuttal (2.00 / 1)

This kind of dishonesty is EXACTLY what the Clinton campaign and Jerome Armstrong are about. Actually, let's call it what it is: a lie. I understand why Obama has to dance around the semantics and can't confront the Clintons directly about their lying, but the rest of us can, and we should. To Clinton's credit, though, it seems as if, for once, it is her supporters who are ahead on this one, and rather than have to cover for her lying they just thought they'd jump to the next stage and be more proactive.

I check out this site regularly, mostly because I find it important to understand what motivates Clinton supporters, but if a contributor as prominent as Armstrong can try to get away with blogging that is as sloppy and morally corrupt as this, why bother to stop by at all?


by pcjnyc on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:17:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not exactly a rebuttal (2.00 / 0)

We don't know that these were campaign expenses, and we don't know that they weren't. Jerome asserted that they are due to campaigning - the burden of proof is on him.  


by PantherDem on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:31:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not exactly a rebuttal (1.50 / 2)

Yes it is. Jerome made a cut and dry association between the report and Obama's campaign effort in FL. The fact that it is not cut and dry removes the entire premise of the diary.

I very surprise to see this kind of 'propagandist' behavior from a leader of the progressive community. If our sites are not reality based then we are no better then 'Drudge' and 'RedState'.


by JoeCoaster on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:36:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

THANKS (2.00 / 2)

This is so pathetic. A lot of people ignore the mainstream media and go to blogs b/c of exactly this problem - people with hidden interests playing fast and loose with the "facts."


by highgrade on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:26:46 PM EST

Re: THANKS (2.00 / 1)

Not sure you could say Jerome's interests are hidden.


by Tantris on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:39:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

true (none / 0)

I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt - not sure why.  


by highgrade on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (2.00 / 2)

This is the site to go to for unfounded claims and smears against Obama, much like DailyKos is where to go for unfounded claims and smears against Clinton.

Sometimes, both sites have actual, good posts against candidates.

Recommended, nice work k/o.


by theblaz on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:36:28 PM EST

Re: Center for (2.00 / 2)

Obama spent $1.3 million in FL.  That much is clear.  But on what?  This doesn't exactly prove it wasn't on FL.  Neither does Adam B's statement that it was credit card bills.  If you want to disprove something, then show it was in error.  All you have shown is that Jerome didn't include a caveat.  You haven't shown whether or not the money was spent on FL.


by Mike Pridmore on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:36:53 PM EST

Re: Center for (2.00 / 2)

So a blogger says there is a causal relationship between $ listed on a disclosure form, that blogger's source says no such relationship exists and you can't tell what the $ was spent for based on the disclosure, and your conclusion is that the burden is on Obama supporters to prove, definitively, that the money wasn't spent on campaign activities?  

Interesting "logic."  


by HSTruman on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:43:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know, I know... (2.00 / 1)

Logic isn't allowed to be used when we're talking about the "Rock Star Candidate" after all... What was Jerome thinking?! ;-)


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:45:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know, I know... (1.50 / 2)

If you were being logical, that would help.  Since you're not...


by HSTruman on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:49:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So answer the question... (none / 0)

How was the $1.3 million spent? I am being logical... That's why I'm asking you. How was the money spent?


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:04:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So answer the question... (2.00 / 3)

There have been several theories outlined already.  First, some of it is without question fundraising expenses.  That goes for HRC's 300K as well.  Florida has lots of donors for 'Ds' and 'Rs'.  Second, another poster has noted that an Amex bill apparently is paid to a Florida address, meaning that all of those expenses are listed as "florida expenses" for purposes of this Data.  Finally, and vendors based in Florida - regardless of where they actually did their work - would be listed in this category.

That logical enough for ya?


by HSTruman on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:07:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So answer the question... (2.00 / 2)

It's not even a theory -- I looked at the FEC filing.  That's what it says -- AmEx bills and fundraiser expenses.  Not advertising.


by Adam B on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:13:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So answer the question... (none / 0)

I only meant "theory" in the sense that we don't know what % of the total amount was for Amex payments.  But your point is well taken and thank you for tracking that down.  


by HSTruman on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:14:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So answer the question... (none / 0)

So what are those exactly?  You haven't really answered the question.  AmEx bills is a pretty vague description.  And what fundraiser expenses?  


by Mike Pridmore on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:00:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So answer the question... (2.00 / 2)

All the campaign's AmEx bills -- all of them -- were paid to a Florida address.  And the FL finance director gets paid a salary, etc.


by Adam B on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:45:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So answer the question... (2.00 / 2)

Adam B... I think you are being intentionally vague. What is this "AmEx" you speak of? Is it a daily paper in Orlando that Obama took full page ads out in? Is it a Florida TV station that he bought commercial time from? Is it a rally venue that he gave a campaign speech at? I don't really understand what you mean...

<snark>


unapologetic Obama supporter
by dantes on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:33:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So answer the question... (none / 0)

50,000 American Made pantsuits = $1.3 Mil


by IowaCubs on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:43:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But I guess proof isn't necessary... (2.00 / 1)

When we're talking about something Obama says. I also have yet to see what Obama spent that $1.3 million on. Until his campaign can answer that, Jerome's question still stands.


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But I guess proof isn't necessary... (2.00 / 2)

Did you read the diary?  Jerome drew the exact conclusion that the article said one could not draw from the data and which the source for the article has now reiterated isn't proven by the data.  That means Jerome made a mistake.  Which, I would add, is fine.  I think it was somewhat irresponsible for him to write what he did, but this is a blog, and people post stuff in real time.  Mistakes will be made, but there is really no way to argue with any credibility that this isn't a mistake.  The key word there, in case you missed it, is credibility.  

But carry on.  I'm sure that won't stop you.  


by HSTruman on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:48:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're misinterpreting. . . (none / 0)

. . .the "disclaimer" as originally written. It points to an undercount of expenditures in the early primary states, not an overcount.

Also, go back and read the original article that Jerome linked to. What is the point of that article? Isn't it to inform us what the various candidates spent on their campaigns in the early primary states? If not, I challenge you to tell what the point was. And, read the particular sentence that Jerome quoted. What did the "Center" mean by this sentence? Wasn't it clearly implying that Obama had spent a lot of money on its Fla. campaign? If not, why compare his expenditures to that of the other Democrats, and, even more to the point, to the Republicans who had "delegates to win from the State"?


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:55:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're misinterpreting. . . (none / 0)

First, I did read the whole thing.  The disclaimer is cleraly intended to cover their ass in case someone tried to make the exact argument now at issue.  Second, they've now issued a clarification.  Doesn't that, all by itself, justify a correction?  


by HSTruman on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:07:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The intent of the disclaimer. . . (none / 0)

. . .was to indicate the possibility of an undercount. Jerome accurately quoted a sentence from the article, that sentence, even with the disclaimer in place, implied that Obama had outspent the other Democrats and 8 Republicans in Florida. I defy you to interpret that sentence in any other way. If the "Center" wanted to "cover its ass" against someone making that argument, they did a poor job of it.

The Center's clarification is in fact the exercise in "ass covering." The Center is now saying, despite the authoritative and unambiguous sentence that Jerome quoted, that it doesn't how much, if any, money Obama spent in Fla. Having been called out by a prominent Obama supporter (the diarist), the Center now wants to mend fences with the Obama campaign and, in so doing, throw Jerome under the bus.

It may well be that all or most of that 1.3 million dollars is for credit card payments mailed to Fla. for expenses incurred out-of-state. I have no way of knowing. If that is the case, though, then how can anyone rely on the Center's, or the FEC's, numbers at all?  

I would say that Jerome owes a correction once it is authoritatively shown that all or most of the 1.3 million was not spent in Fla. I also think the Center owes a correction right now, and an apology to Jerome for trying to make him the scapegoat for their faulty info.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:17:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But I guess proof isn't necessary... (none / 0)

LOL!

this is really getting ridiculous!
!
by alex100 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:06:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Center for (2.00 / 2)

No Jerome said it was spent campaigning in FLORIDA, the burden of PROOF is on Jerome.

Look, at many of these FEC reports.  Many campaigns get materials manufacturered all over this country, including Florida.

To make an outrageous and straight up outlandish claim is on Jerome, no one else.

He cited the source, the source said, NOT TRUE.

Which is it?  And the burden of proof is on Jerome.


by tracey webb on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:45:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Guilty until proven innocent. (2.00 / 2)

That's enshrined in our Constitution, is it not?


by Bob Johnson on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:49:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Center for (2.00 / 7)

I can't repost the entire spreadsheet; it's huge.  Download it here, chop off the contributions and you can filter to the expenditures.  It's a mammoth amount of AmEx bills paid to PO Box 360001, Ft. Lauderdale    FL 33336-0001, some hotel stays in Florida, and salary for Ashley Walker and Jessica Clark, who handled Obama's FL fundraising.  (Which, of course, was totally okay under the agreement.  All the candidates raised money in the state.)


by Adam B on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:52:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do I have this right? (2.00 / 0)

Suppose Obamas' campaign charges the bill for 10 hotel rooms in Manchester New Hampshire on the AMEX  card, and mails the monthly payment to Ft Lauderdale that proves Obama is campaigning in Florida.

Is that the basic point , here?


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:29:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

exactly. nt (2.00 / 2)


by Adam B on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Center for (none / 0)

Well said Mike.


by durendal on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:36:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I bet Taylor Marsh will run a correction, too. (2.00 / 6)

Kidding.

Just kidding.


by Bob Johnson on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:38:03 PM EST

Comedy. Thanks for this. I always love (2.00 / 0)

a good laugh at the expense of any partisan hackery.


by illlaw1 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:39:11 PM EST

Typical (2.00 / 2)

Another anti-Obama piece debunked.  Thanks Kid Oak.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:39:36 PM EST

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (2.00 / 2)

wow kid, you beat me to it. I did the exact same thing, got a response from Ritchie, and was going to write it up but had to go out. Great work.


by along on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:45:46 PM EST

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (2.00 / 0)

dammit: I meant Ritsch.


by along on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:47:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what crap (none / 0)

you are claiming and the Center for Responsive Politics is claiming that federal filings of expenditures are not a good source when trying to determine how much a candidate spent in a particular state?  So then, what do we believe?


by linc on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:18:36 PM EST

Re: what crap (2.00 / 2)

Adam B provides a link to the expenditures, upthread.


by Bob Johnson on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:20:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what crap (2.00 / 3)

It's like this: I live in Colorado, but I send my credit card bill to a bank in Nevada every month. On those reports, it would look like I spend that money in Nevada, but I haven't set foot in Nevada in twenty years.


by BlueinColorado on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:28:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what crap (2.00 / 0)

I'd like to speak to that. All the major media outlets reported that the democratic candidates kept their pledge not to campaign in Florida. It was on CNN, NYT, MSNBC, AP and more.

Now somebody quotes the 1.3 million figure. What is the correct approach? Ignore it and believe the MSM? No. Ignore all the other reporting and assume it's true? Even dumber. The correct response to that information is to say "tell me more."

So someone got more information, and now we know that having spent money in the state does not imply that Obama campaigned there. So there is a simple explanation that does not involve either an error in the report or a massive conspiracy by the MSM to conceal a million-dollar campaign that violated agreements with the DNC.

A blogger jumped the gun. Unless there is other evidence, we revert to where we were; the campaigns didn't break their pledges not to campaign in Florida.


by EMTP democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:30:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jumping the gun (none / 0)

It is simply not fair to say that Jerome "jumped the gun." The Center for Misleading Statements clearly stated that Obama had outspent his Democratic and 8 of his Republican rivals in Florida. I put to you the challenge that I have put to other posters: go back and look at the sentence Jerome quoted, if it does not mean what Jerome took it to mean, what does it mean?

The Center for Making It Up As It Goes Along is now desperately backpedaling. They know that they have besmirched the integrity of the campaign of He Who Cannot Be Criticized. So, while refusing to admit that their initial statement was wrong, they are blaming Jerome for relying on that statement. "Responsive" seems like the last word in the language that one would apply to these jokers.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:35:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jumping the gun (none / 0)

"The Center for Making It Up As It Goes Along is now desperately backpedaling."

Come on everybody, there's room for all of us under the bus!


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:11:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you are thinking of Populista (2.00 / 2)

I am roughly the same age as kos and Jerome.

Thanks for the words, though.


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:20:18 PM EST

What is Jerome made of? (2.00 / 0)

Paul, good work for bringing some truth to the internet.  We will now see what Armstrong is made of and perhaps who he's working for.  Anyone can make an honest mistake in rush to prove their point.  But people who make honest mistakes apologize for them, and issue retractions.


by Piuma on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:23:28 PM EST

What are you doing? (1.00 / 1)

Which point is NOT correct in Jerome's diary? Massie Ritsch said the number can not give a complete picture since it does not include spending made in other states. Did he deny that Obama spent 1.3Million? After saying Florida primary was just a beauty contest, he spent 1.3 million IN Florida. That's the main point here. Jerome just needs to add one sentence saying "the figure does not include..." Actually, after reading your diary, I think Obama might have spent more than 1.3 million. Did't he run "accidentally" TV ads in Florida? I suspect he paid for them in somewhere else not in Florida.

Finally, how dare you come here and lecture the right way to do journalism? After what happened (and is happening) in Daily Kos? Did you receive a memo from Obama camp asking you to attack Mydd? I saw so many diaries attacking Mydd and Jerome (particularly) today. Actually I would not be surprised even if you have received a memo and began to "work" on Mydd. How convenient to have a bunch of self-claimed internet "pundits" in the pocket! I just regret that Hillary could not hire you first.


by praxis1 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:23:35 PM EST

Conspiracy! (2.00 / 0)

Acting on orders!

Cult!

Shoo!


by Bob Johnson on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:25:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What are you doing? (2.00 / 0)

Re-read the diary again.  Maybe try it slower this time.  Hopefully then you'll understand.  Good luck!


by HSTruman on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What are you doing? (2.00 / 1)

Jerome said that the report proved that Obamam campaigned in Florida, which it certainly does not.


by PantherDem on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What are you doing? (none / 0)

Did he deny that Obama spent 1.3Million?
Nope, didn't deny that at all.  He did however point out the same thing that a lot of people pointed out- that spending money in a state isn't the same thing as campaigning there.  Both candidates spent money there.  Neither campaigned there.


by Brillobreaks on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:32:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama mails his AMEX payment to FL (2.00 / 1)

If he charges 10 hotel rooms in Wisconsin on his AMEX (or rental cars in Milwaukee) the payment is processed in Fort Lauderdale and reported from Ft Lauderdale.

How does THAT prove anything remotely close to what Jerome wrote?


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:34:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What are you doing? (2.00 / 1)

A lot of us responded today because this latest diary from Jerome put us over the top.  

It continues to crack me up the number of obnoxious venom filled diaries against Obama on MYDD which basically say, "Obama's supporters are writing venom hate filled diaries!!!"

Luckily, I think the majority of us Democrats are united and our #1 priority is getting the GOP out of the White House.  I am an Obama supporter, I have a lot of friends who are Hillary supports.  All of us look forward to having a Democrat in the White House in November.  We have 2 good candidates and should be proud as a party.  5% of each candidate have totally obnoxious supporters who are going after each other here and on Kos.  It is like being back in Junior High.

My guess is that it will take less than 5 minutes for someone to write, "but Obama supporters are mean!!!"  

That is OK - I have 2 kids; a 9 year old and a 6 year old so childish, "she started it!" is something I am very used to....


by paida on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:11:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What are you doing? (none / 0)

"Which point is NOT correct in Jerome's diary? "

The point where he said that the figures show that Obama campaigned in Florida. That's what the source he cited is calling him on.

Look, there's no mystery here. Somebody took a single piece of evidence out of context, ignored all the contrary evidence, and used it to "prove" a politically useful version of events. You may remember this sort of reasoning from the selling of the Iraq War.

By the way, let's not trash Jerome. Give him a chance to look at the new information before pilloring him for being unwilling to issue a correction. You don't bring people to your point of view by tearing them a new one before they can get a word in edgewise.


by EMTP democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:36:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Make up your mind (none / 0)

If no inference at all can be drawn from the numbers in the Center for Equivocation's original article, what was the point of publishing it? And, given what the Center is now saying, what was the import of the sentence quoted by Jerome, "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"? Why make this comparison unless the 1.3 million dollar figure had something to do with Obama's expenditures in Florida and for Florida, rather than it just representing an irrelevant happenstance of money spent in Florida, but not for Florida?

Note too, that the original disclaimer in the article is phrased in terms of money spent on, but not in, one of the early primary States, and not counted towards that State, rather than vice versa. The disclaimer pointed towards an undercount, not an overcount, of the money spent in the early primary states. Also, and despite the snide comment that Jerome "conveniently left out" the disclaimer, Jerome in fact linked to the whole article, which included it. Finally, the email from the Center for Whatever contains new disclaimers (the hypothetical business about the sign printing, the lack of "authoritativeness" of the numbers, the "imprecision" of the FEC) that it did not see fit to include in the original article.

The Center for Having Your Cake and Eating It Too should either admit that its original article (even with the disclaimer) was misleading and take some of the blame, or it should stand by its story. As it is now, it is ripping Jerome for relying on its statement, distancing itself from that statement after the fact, but not repudiating it.

O! The joys of being a self-proclaimed fighter for "responsive politics!"


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:30:26 PM EST

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (none / 0)

It's not my problem that they printed something that was misleading.

But sure, find out how much money Obama did actually spend campaign in Florida, through his television advertising, and I'll update accordingly.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:33:51 PM EST

Wow! (2.00 / 3)

Have you read Adam B's comment that much of this is from the campaign's AMEX bill, which will include stuff like Milwaukee rental cars, New Hampshire hotel rooms, catering in New York, etc . . .

It appears that the monthly payment is mailed to Ft Lauderdale Florida.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:36:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (2.00 / 2)

Jerome, they printed a disclaimer. You either missed it or ingored it - which?


by PantherDem on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:36:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Disclaimer (none / 0)

This is the disclaimer:

"Now would be a good time to mention that measuring spending in a state is problematic. The biggest expenses--advertising, for one--are often spent with vendors outside the state, or even just over the state line. These figures measure only what was spent on the ground with local companies and individuals."

Note that it was included in an article about "targetting the early primary states," of which Florida was one. What I draw from this "disclaimer" is that the numbers given for expenditures in an early primary state might be too low, not too high, because money spent on advertising "out of state" (say, on a Boston TV station for the New Hampshire primary) are not counted as being spent "in" the early primary State. There were no early primaries in states that bordered Florida, thus there is no way to interpret this "disclaimer" as applying to the 1.3 million Obama spent in Florida.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:46:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disclaimer (none / 0)

you just flunked a few logic tests with that particular post.  The disclaimer's point is that it's difficult to target how much has been spent in a particular state, from this date, period.  How you figure that it means this # is only the floor is utterly beyond me.  


by HSTruman on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:49:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong (none / 0)

The disclaimer clearly points to money spent for a campaign in an early primary state, but not counted towards the expenditures FOR that state, because it was not actually spent IN the early primary state. It does NOT point towards money spent IN an early primary state but not FOR the campaign in that early primary state. Go back and read it. Moreover, read your way, the disclaimer swallows all of the other information in the original article, and that is not how disclaimers are normally interpreted.

Also, you are conflating the import of the disclaimers contained in the self-justifying email sent by this "Center" to the diarist with the disclaimer contained in the actual article that Jerome linked to and quoted from. Yes, now that the Center has apparently been caught with its pant down, it wants to highlight the original "disclaimer," which does not say what the Center now claims it said, and to add new disclaimers that Jerome was not privy to when he relied on the article.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:03:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (2.00 / 0)

Well, with all due respect the information already provided does take the air out of your claim that this proves Obama "campaigned in Florida."  The source you cited wasn't the model of clarity, no doubt, but don't you have an obligation to correct your post once you receive corrected information?

To be clear, I'm not trying to attack you here.  I just think that statements should be corrected if the sourcing collapses -- as it rather clearly has here.  


by HSTruman on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (2.00 / 2)

Sure.  Do we also have the data on how much Clinton spent on advertising in Mobile, AL, prior to Florida's primary?


by Adam B on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (2.00 / 3)

It's your problem that you didn't read it carefully and then passed on your faulty interpretation as established fact. And it will be your fault if you don't issue a correction.

Don't be like them...


by DonBinTN on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:45:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Agree. (2.00 / 0)

The story you cited was misleading and unclear, and seemed to imply the same thing you did (ie. that Obama spent that 1.3 million campaigning there.)

At the same time though, it was only about two minutes after posting it that people pointed out that there was no way to tell whether that money was spent on campaigning or something else.  We now know it was spent on something else (10 million fact checking monkeys can't go wrong, eh?)

Bottom line- you should have checked before you posted and you probably should have checked sometime during the day after this was brought up.  Either wa, now that we know the story you cited was bullshit, you should probably correct your's.  Or at least say something other than 'not my problem'.  


by Brillobreaks on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:50:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome your credibility is on the line here (1.75 / 4)

There are 60 recommends for this diary and it's off the list despite being posted just over an hour ago.

This diary should not be censored, Jerome, and the oringinal piece should be updated and corrected.


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:50:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He has (2.00 / 0)

zero credibility. This is just icing.


by taylormattd on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:50:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (none / 0)

READ: It's not my fault that I'm not responsible for what I write.  


by IowaCubs on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:55:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is this Crashing the Gate or Protecting it? (none / 0)


by illlaw1 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:51:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Recommended Diary List (2.00 / 6)

This was just at the top of the recommended diary list.  Now it isn't on the list.  What just happened?  I guess the recommended diary list is controlled by the runners of the site?  If it looks bad for them, remove it?


by Tantris on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:35:05 PM EST

I predict kid oakland is going to (2.00 / 0)

have this story at the top of Daily Kos very soon.

If not him, then Adam B or someone else.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:42:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Recommended Diary List (2.00 / 1)

It's weird. Jerome?


by Adam B on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:52:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe... (none / 0)

Another one pushed it off?  


by Brillobreaks on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:56:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (1.80 / 5)

not with 60 recommends.  That's not how it works. And 60 fresh recommends is more than sufficient on MyDD.

You don't go from the top of the list to off this list in 2 minutes.

If this diary is not on the recommended list right  now, it is because it has been removed from the recommended list.


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:05:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hilarious. (2.00 / 3)

Never will you meet a more insecure host.


by Bob Johnson on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:14:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

OK, it's official. Jerome just flew way the hell over that shark. Thankfully, the story is back on the rec list; if it was some mere site glitch, I take it back, but if it was intentional, whether or not it was undone is irrelevent. Over the damn shark.

I've really been trying not to throw Jerome, personally, under any kind of bus. I've not said word 1 against Krugman (other than the fact that I disagree with him), or any other respectable critic of Obama (Taylor Marsh doesn't count). But I now have officially lost respect for Jerome.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:18:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Whoops. Off the reclist again. Suspicious.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:32:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Recommended Diary List (2.00 / 0)

The diarist made JErome look like an idiot. Of course it's off the Rec list.

Now many diaries will be posted to get it off the recent list.


Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.
by Walt Starr on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (none / 0)

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID= 335 also has the 1.3 million figure spent in FL. DOn't know who's telling the truth on this one.


by Iceblinkjm on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:35:20 PM EST

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (none / 0)

The fact that money went from Obama to Florida is unquestionably true. The spin that the money was spent on campaigning is likely false. Not one shred of evidence exists to support it. The suggestion that it was to pay off AMEX bills sounds reasonable.

Heh, could you imagine if every time people sent their minimum payments to Delaware they were accused of actually spending money in Delaware?


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:22:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (none / 0)

I don't mean to stroll in here like an idiot, but doesn't this link prove Jerome's larger point:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008- presidential-candidates/tracker/candidat es/barack-obama/states/fl/

... which is that Obama did in fact campaign in Florida?


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:58:19 PM EST

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (2.00 / 1)

No, because they were allowed to fundraise in Florida; Clinton did too.  They just couldn't do any public events.


by Adam B on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:05:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

according to the logic (none / 0)

Campaigning doesn't include press conferences, nor does it include television advertising, lol.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:07:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey, Jerome... (2.00 / 2)

How did ko's diary disappear from the Rec list so fast when it had a ton of fresh recs?


by Bob Johnson on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:16:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh Bob (2.00 / 1)

We can't have anything that would embarass Jerome at the top of the rec list.


by taylormattd on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:47:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Agreement... (2.00 / 1)

Didn't cover fundraisers.  Both Obama and Clinton kept right on raising funds for the rest of the states from Floridians.  They just didn't actively campaign - commercials, fliers, GOTV activities, campaign appearances, etc.


by Brillobreaks on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:08:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (none / 0)

Or not!

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008- presidential-candidates/tracker/candidat es/hillary-clinton/states/fl/


Hillary Clinton is not a monster,....as far as I know.. We are all Hussein JUNIOR.. ///.. FEINGOLD/BOXER 2016
by Its Like Herding Cats on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (none / 0)

I updated the post, but basically, the Center for Responsive Politics has a disclaimer, and I passed it on.

Now, if you'll find out how much Obama has spent campaign in Florida through television advertising, I'll update it again.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:06:40 PM EST

Finding That Out... (none / 0)

Sounds like an excellent front page post.  Get to digging, I'm sure the info is out there.  ;)


by Brillobreaks on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:12:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's insufficient (2.00 / 5)

You know as well as I do that MyDD's google rank will propogate your demonstrably unproven title and story onto the web. The least you should do is change the title and put the correction above the story not tucked beneath.

It was your job to fact check your story before you made a big claim. All you've offered was excuses. Your readers and the public deserve more than that.

Everyone in the MyDD community can see that this diary has been removed from the recommended list no sooner than it arrived.

Why?


k/o: politics and local blogs
by kid oakland on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:35:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton is not paying him to be honest (none / 0)

Right on Jimmy.  The guy is an embarrassing hack.  A paid shill.  Typical of the Clinton style of "fling shit and see what sticks."

I'm extremely glad he's been called on his antics and exposed for the liar and whore he is.


by Darwinator on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:02:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (2.00 / 1)

"Now, if you'll find out how much Obama has spent campaign in Florida through television advertising, I'll update it again."

Obama spent nothing on ads in Florida, as you must know. He had a national ad buy from which Florida could not be excluded (he asked).

Weak, weak defense of the original error.


by EMTP democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:41:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome pulls the plug? (2.00 / 0)

Or will we get the ol', "It's a glitch in the software?"

How did this diary -- with over 60 fresh Recs -- disappear from the Rec list?


by Bob Johnson on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:22:23 PM EST

Re: Jerome pulls the plug? (none / 0)

No kidding...  Have all the Direct Democracy you want -- unless you point out sloppy reporting?


by rdn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:45:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (2.00 / 1)

Amazing.  And the shark has left the building.


by dday on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:25:22 AM EST

Insightful post Kid! (none / 0)

Good job bro


by optimusprime on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:22:27 AM EST

have some self respect (none / 0)

jerome, have some self-respect


by chriscizzila on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:24:18 AM EST

Re: Center for Responsive Politics rebuts Jerome's (none / 0)

Thanks for checking this out, kid oakland.  If we're not attempting to be accurate in the blogosphere, then we're all wasting our time.


by vbdietz on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:36:14 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.