Krugman’s latest attack on Obama conveniently leaves out several key facts

[TeamJordan23]

Some responses to Krugman's latest attacks on Obama. (see Krugman's article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin )

There are several problems here, including Krugman's claim that unions are somehow not special interests, and Edwards' past opposition to exactly this type of special interest lobbying. But the biggest problem is that Krugman really doesn't seem to know, or at least doesn't note in the op-ed, the basic facts of the case. As Ezra Klein (a critic of Obama's lack of a mandate) says, the union 527s are running ads attacking Obama; I don't know about Krugman, but I'm not generally surprised when candidates object to ads attacking them. Krugman also fails to acknowledge another person objecting to the ads. Edwards, at least publicly, opposes the ads, even as his former communications director is the one orchestrating them. So, evidently Edwards, Krugman's obvious choice in the primary, hates unions too. Or maybe no one hates unions, and Krugman just has a personal vendetta against Obama and really doesn't care about such quaint things as facts when pursuing it.

http://minipundit.typepad.com/minipundit/2007/12/krugman-raises.html

Krugman conveniently leaves out several facts in his piece. One of which is that these are misleading attack ads– not simply pro-candidate ads– financed by God knows who (527s like these, and the Swift Boaters that Edwards so loudly decried in 2004, are not legally obligated to disclose their funders and thus are widely considered the most unsavory campaign mechanisms).

While portraying these ads as merely wholesome, positive, union-funded health care ads that should appeal to Democrats, Krugman has also left out the fact that Edwards himself has (meekly) asked for the ads to stop running (Stop These Ads begins a statement issued by the campaign), and he has failed at having any effect on them, even though in 2004 he said that if Bush had called loudly enough for the Swift Boaters to stop, they would have.

Krugman also ignores one of the key reasons why this is a story at all: he doesn’t mention to his readers that the person running one of these shady 527s happens to be John Edwards’ former campaign manager, and one of his top aides and close friends.

http://www.thedailybackground.com/2007/12/24/krugmans-latest-attack-on-obama-conveniently-leaves-out-several-key-facts

[Nedsdag]

1. I have completely lost respect for the man.

I wish he would come out and say he's endorsing Edwards.

Stop being coy about it.

[ShaneGR]

2. I'm a little bewildered though, why would Obama fight the Unions?

Just doesn't make sense to me. Are these actually SEIU ads?

[VCubed]

3. Obama opposes 527s, not unions

Obama's is the only campaign using union labor with USA-made campaign paraphernalia to show donations as small as $200 on the public record. He states he would not "hamstring" the Dem Party by refusing 527 help in the General election, unless his Rep opponent refuses it also. He makes a point we ignore at our peril: 527s were designed to get around public campaign finance laws. We don't know if Rupert Murdoch gave 999,000 out of one million dollars to get the 527 ads out, and that's the problem. Let's not pretend there are not people influencing campaign financing to get desired outcomes, and that those outcomes are usually more of the status-quo.

Second, Obama is not getting 527 donations because he refused to accept them from the start (not because they don’t support him, but because they can’t influence him), clearly informing all his volunteers (I'm one) to spread the word: keep campaign ads clean - don't contribute to 527s, good or bad 527s, because at least in the primary among fellow Democrats, 527s kill donation transparency, and candidates have no control over the message which will, unavoidably in a primary, be aimed at a fellow Democrat.

Lessons were learned from the fiasco of Dem crossfire in 04, but no candidate worth his/her salt risks the entire election on a message on his/her behalf that he/she cannot control. Clinton's campaign lost more than it gained from labor 527 ads that made it appear Edwards' health plan was being supported when in fact Edwards was being used to attack Obama while not attributing the attack to Clinton.

Obama's insistence that progressive Dems walk the talk on open campaign finance is anything but hypocritical. He refused the 527 donations/ads on principle, to prove it works, yet 527s use millions of dollars to win influence with someone, regardless of what it does to our chances to win the General election.

Obama's insistence on a clean, above-board campaign among ourselves is the sign of a smart candidate who understands the 527s are a direct contradiction to his Open Government/Transparency in Government policies, which have received short shrift from progressives, undeservedly. Both Obama and Edwards refuse federal lobbyist and PAC donations – Edwards’ supporters crow and dance, rightly. Only Obama (among the frontrunners) refuses 527 donations in a primary among Democrats, equalizing the playing field if the others would set an example and join him, and liberals attack him. Either we believe that Transparency would expose the big-money manipulation and incite informed voters to rebel and vote for a clean campaign, or we keep passing piecemeal laws that will be subverted before the ink's dry on the legislation and even support the subversion by playing futile catch-up games with neo-con 527s.

Obama's consistent, public opposition to the opaque, hidden-donor, political-operative-run 527s is yet another that, with his stand on Iraq, Republicans won't be able to attack him on.

Obama knows the Constitution; he taught it. 527s can have their free-speech, so can the candidates asking them to not speak on their behalf, albeit indirectly as the laws create an appearance of no-collaboration with legal machinations , instead of asking, as Obama did, volunteers to stick with documented, verifiable direct donations - even hiring union workers to create USA-made campaign paraphernalia as direct donations. You can't buy $200 in t-shirts from his campaign without being identified as a donor – and as a union-supporter, which I am.

I'll vote for consistent Transparency. I'll vote for Obama.

[ShaneGR]

4. Buy why attack Edwards for it, it's not like Edwards can control it...

As far I know, it would actually be illegal for Edwards to communicate with them about the ads. I mean, I'm an Edwards guy, so I understand that particularly in the General election, Edwards will need the 527's. I think after what the Republicans did in 2004 with swiftboating, it would be downright stupid not to use them to our advantage.

I guess what I didn't understand overall is, Obama is basically attacking up at Clinton and sideways at Edwards at the same time. I don't get the campaign logic. /shrug

[Jim Sagle]

5. The logic is this: Obama is a goddamn liar, and so are his NY Times defenders.

Edwards' problem with Obams isn't that he's opposing the 527s, it's that Obama is BLAMING EDWARDS for the 527s. But as you point out, Edwards can't legally stop them.

[TeamJordan23]

6. He is not blaming Edwards, he asked Edwards to speak up against them. nm

[Jim Sagle]

9. Edwards HAS spoken out. Obama says that's not good enough.

Obama is outspending Edwards, and pro-Obama 527s are outspending pro-Edwards 527s, yet Obama is pissing and moaning about Edwards.

Obama's a hypocrite and a jagoff. And those are his GOOD points.

[VCubed]

10. Edwards can't stop his own friend/former advisor?

Seems a little disingenuous, don't you think? Edwards has, in effect, been campaigning in Iowa since 05, but he could not, in all this time, get the message out to his 527 supporters/former staff from his 04 run that he could use their help best, and most openly, with direct donations to his campaign instead? So the arguments for Edwards are:

(1) Edwards can't control his former staff and supposed good friend (in one of the two cases of 527 ads), or
(2) Edwards failed to get his populist open-donation/no-527s message to his own supporters and staff, or
(3) he knew he'd only get through the primaries with untraceable 527 ad donations and not only ignored their fundraising, but made sure they knew he wouldn't shut them out if they decided to support him (thereby signaling "You don't have to fold operations in Dem primaries and focus only on beating the Republicans in General election; you can raise donations twice and win influence with me", or
(4) all the above.

My questions to readers are:

(1) Do you want to know where campaign donations come from - all donations? - or don't you? Obama co-sponsored (with a Republican) the legislation that creates a user-friendly database of all donations, but implementation requires money. Do you want a President who walked the talk, raised the grassroots (not 527) traceable donations openly with union-made campaign paraphernalia, to make sure that bill gets implemented?
(2) Or do you want the one who used the available legal loopholes to avoid the grassroots' organizing that will last long past this historic election?
(3) Do you want the rhetoric, or the one who's clearly promised a cost-of-living increase in the minimum-wage, so we don't have to fight the 527s, and PACs and lobbyists who've smashed our living-wage movement so effectively up to now?

Obama has a proven track record:

(1) Protected overtime pay. Obama was the chief sponsor of the law that exempts Illinois from the Bush Administration's new federal overtime rules and protects overtime pay for thousands of Illinois workers.
(2) Provided a living wage. Obama voted to increase the minimum wage to $6.50 an hour.
(3) Worked to ensure advance notice for workers. Obama sponsored the law that requires the monitoring of employer compliance with federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification laws, so that workers have advance warning if their employer is about to conduct a mass lay-off or close their plant..

[Jim Sagle]

11. Hey genius, it's ILLEGAL for Edwards or ANY candidate to try to control a 527's actions.

[VCubed]

12. Faked weakness is just as bad as real weakness

Final fact: On his first presidential run, Obama succeeded in letting 527s know he wouldn't approve of their donations, they took them elsewhere. On his third presidential run, Edwards couldn't/wouldn't discourage 527 donations, so he got them. Enjoy them, whatever they bring, since you won't address their funding or support except to defend them. Genius. Merry holiday, Grinch - oh, and the co-creator of The Grinch endorsed Obama today - Merry Christmas!

[papau]

20. If Obama nominated, union 527s will fund ads for him - will he then dump on unions? indeed SIEU

is giving costly pro-Obama help now - I am at a loss as to what Obama is crying about.

[Jim Sagle]

26. But a fake REPLY is WORSE than a real one.

If it's illegal for a candidate to contact a 527, it's illegal. Period. No amount of clamor from the Obamabozos on this bus will change that.

[TeamJordan23]

17. Then why did Edwards call on Bush to stop the Swiftboat Veterans ads? nm

[spooky3]

18. Because Cheney, Rove, Bush-Cheney 2004 were allegedly DIRECTING SBVT

as alleged in the formal complaint Kerry-Edwards filed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

See the .pdf of the complaint at footnote 94.

"SBVT purports to be an independent org....However, the facts do not support SBVT's claim of independence. This group's campaign of outrageous lies has been coordinated with the Bush campaign and the Republican Party from the outset..."

[existentialist]

13. of course your bias isn't showing too much.

I'm writing this as a Democrat who could, despite this minor bout of mudslinging, support either Obama or Edwards against any Republican--or for that matter against Hillary Clinton.

[VCubed]

15. Pointing out contradictions isn't mudslinging

The perverse art of mudslinging is based on personal attacks. This isn't personal, and both Edwards and Obama get props for not mudslinging. Anyone who says they oppose 527 influence then accepts it is simply contradicting him/herself. No one's casting aspersions on Edwards' personal life. The choice in primaries is for voters to chose the one we most agree with and feel can win the general election. Of course my "bias"/choice is showing - I said clearly from the start, I volunteer for Obama, a lot!

[existentialist]

23. My apologies.

I got mixed up on the list of responses to the original post, and placed my comment in response to the wrong comment. I had meant to reply to Jim Slagle for some comments that I thought went beyond what the facts produced supported.

[Jim Sagle]

27. I'd support any of them against any Republican as well.

[killbotfactory]

7. Thanks for your post

and welcome to DU.

[Andy823]

8. Nice try

But the only two 527's that have put out ads so far, are both unions. Now when you say they are the same as the "special interest" groups that run D.C., well I think he has a problem here.

You can defend him all you want, anyone who checks out the facts will see what is happening. The ads are not "negative", and they are not connected to Edwards. All Edwards can do, and he has done so, is ask them "not" to run the ads, the rest is out of their hands.

I am sure that if one of the unions put out a 527 for Obama, he would do the same, ask them not to, but then it would be out of his hands also. Obama, and his camp, are making way to much out of this, and it is hurting him more than it is helping him. I really makes him look desperate.

[VCubed]

14. Not only union 527s are at issue

and you can't say they aren't negative if they haven't even come out yet <g>; Hillary's already-issued AFSCME-sponsored ad is a case-in-point that used Edwards. Was that acceptable to Edwards supporters?

What is at issue is double-speak: Edwards criticized 527s just days ago, but he can't stop them from violating his own standards and it's his third try at the presidency? Either that's not impressive management of his campaign, or he never really made his message to 527s clear. How clear will he be with lobbyists? I hope lots better than this, if he becomes the nominee.

[spooky3]

19. as others noted (and my link shows) Edwards CAN'T legally stop 527

Please stop with the smears.

[eridani]

16. Excuse me, but Kucinich has had union paraphernalia for 7 years now n/t

[creeksneakers2]

25. 527s cannot make donations to candidates

So Obama can't be refusing to take what is not offered. Also, federal laws demands that donations to candidates over $200 be disclosed. Obama is doing nothing more than following the same law as the other candidates also follow.

Obama refuses money from federal lobbyists and political action committees. Those actions are voluntary and commendable.

Unless the FEC stops them (and since the FEC is about to be closed down that looks even less likely than before) 527s will play at least as big of a role in 2008 as they did in 2004. Obama would be foolish to persuade all those on his side to surrender while the GOP 527s flourish.

I know money is very unpopular here on Democratic Underground and many here don't like the idea that money can be equated to speech. But 527s are citizens carrying out their free speech rights. I'm glad there is a MoveOn.org and would be angry if the free speech rights of MoveOn.org members were stolen.

Leaving the free speech door open lets millionaires buy up disproportionate amounts of media time. That's a disadvantage of the first amendment we have to live with. Poor people don't own big newspapers or TV networks. They only way we can have equal participation in free speech is to drastically limit it. That would be terrible and America won't let it happen.

The Supreme Court allows donations given directly to candidates to be controlled. That ruling allows the FEC to rule that 527s can't coordinate with candidates. That's as much as can be legally achieved without sacrificing the first amendment.

Obama is wrong to want to do away with 527s.

[antiimperialist]

21. Krugman was confused, either on purpose or deliberately

Because Obama is a strong supporter of unions; what Obama disliked was the fact that a union supported a candidate, specially when this union's boss has had ties to Edwards in the past, and the rules prohibit this kind of support anyway.

[papau]

22. Krugman is right - Obama wrong -and seems sensistive to pointing out "no mandate" not as good as

having a mandate. Obama would be better served by saying "no mandate" is necessary to get health reform past Congress, rather than pretending not having a mandate is a good design that gets you closer to universal than a plan with a mandate.

The facts are not on Obama's side in this one - I don't understand the frontal attack choice he has made.

[zulchzulu]

24. Krugman is for government-enforced insurance peddlers and against campaign finance reform

He's a good economist...outside of that, he's over his head.

[Jim Sagle]

28. Yeah. Right.