Obama,are you for real as you sound as though your inhaling something. Or are you listening to CHRIS and TIM (mr.DISGUSTING and mr.DEVIOUS). MAN WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. OBAMA, you are on a pipe dream. Please wake up fron fanasy world as your cremating the Democratic Party. Are you a chicken in the FOX hen house ???

Edwards can't derive benefit from outsiders, beyond his control, endorcing him? And Obama should renounce the help he received from Oprah and insist that she not do it again, too? What would be the real difference?

Make sure to check Campaign Diaries's very detailed analysis and rankings of both the Democratic and Republican races, where McCain has vaulted to the top-position. Here's the GOP: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/presidential-rankings-republicans.html

And here are the Democrats: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/democratic-rankings-getting-tighter-by.html

claudialong--"The Post has become a rightwing joke. today the NYTIMes ran a similar hit piece on Hilllary on the front page. They always do as their rightwing publishers wish, when push comes to shove."

The Clinton picture idiocy was terrible judgement, just like the Obama "muslim rumour" stuff (although I do not seem to recall certain board regulars complaining about THAT one.)

The NYT piece is not a "hit," though. It is the very first time in this campaign that an MSM outlet calls Clinton out on her "superior experience" claims. It is fairly objective, actually.

claudialong--What really "drew Obama's ire" was the fact that just days before this became public, Edwards had in exactly so many words denounced 527's and their untraceable donations outside the campaign finance laws wielding influence in an election.

Edwards stating that and then refusing to denounce a 527 that benefits him apparently seemed to be only "talking the talk" to Obama.

peterdc: Matthews is a joke to most of us that have been around awhile. Add the WashPo and NY Times to the list of "Liberal Media", what a joke they have been. This has been going on
now for years and very few folks call them on anything. Political reporting has been so bad for a number of years, it is very hard to get "FACTS" about any of the Dem candidates without a clear distortion.

The Washington Post reporters have become a joke in this campaign. They have nothing much to add to the debate and have seemingly become a shill for the Post supporting Obama. At least if the Post would editorialize already and endorse -people would realize that everything in the paper is biased.

As to Chris Matthews he is a comedian. Not a very good one but no one with any intelligence takes anything he says with any seriousness.

Claudia
Add Chris Matthews to the mix--he was encouraged to repeat his Clinton is Evita parallel to the amusement of all his buddies on MSNBC this morning.

'Looks like Matt Drudge has gotten himself a new gig -- he's just been signed up as an assignment editor for The Washington Post.

So it seems, anyway. Let me explain: Early last week I noted here that Drudge and Rush Limbaugh were having a grand old time making fun of Hillary's wrinkles after Drudge posted an exceptionally unflattering pic of Hillary looking, shall we say, not at her best. Drudge left the photo up for days.

Now today's Washington Post has gone and run the photo. The paper's justification for doing this was to accompany it with an article that purports to discuss the journalistically "difficult issues" raised by the question of whether to run such an image, which WaPo calls a "hangdog shot." First, the writer of the piece, Philip Kennicott, acknowledges that the pic is just plain awful:

'The popular Drudge Report Web site recently ran a particularly notorious picture of Hillary Clinton, showing her face riven with deep furrows and wrinkles. She looked so awful that even some conservative commentators noted the unfairness of using such a manifestly unflattering image.'

But then, even though his own paper ran the very same pic, Kennicott tried to argue that traditional news orgs like WaPo approach the question of whether to run it so much more responsibly than the new media rabble do:;

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/washington_post_15.php

This is exactly what I told you would happen -- as soon as the primaries drew near, every major media outlet would start trashing Democrats, as they always do. Now the NYTimes and WaPo are just simply handing over their pages to Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh and doing their dirty work for them. The 'liberal media' is such a tired and absurdist construction...

The Post has become a rightwing joke. today the NYTIMes ran a similar hit piece on Hilllary on the front page. They always do as their rightwing publishers wish, when push comes to shove.

'But limiting personal contributions, which translate to political advocacy ads, is IMHO is the exact opposite of what the founders and framers envisioned.'

This is risible indeed. I actually laughed out loud. I cannot imagine that the framers and founders intended for our political representatives to be bribed and bought outirght by foreign govenments and multi-national corporations, endangering our soveriegnity and writing laws that harm the interests of our nation and our citizens.

And Hillary playing footside with Hsu? wgat about Rudy playing footsie with the dictator of Kazakhistan?

'Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's campaign is looking for political cash this week in an unlikely place: Resource-rich Kazakhstan, where the Republican presidential front-runner's law firm does substantial business in the murky oil, gas and minerals industries.'

Conflict of interest, anyone? Even the wall Street Journal calls it 'murky' and that's an understatement.

'A fund-raising event tomorrow in Almaty, the commercial center of the former Soviet republic, will mark the campaign's third foray overseas for cash.'

But I guess you can bleieve anything if all you beleive in is money. anotehr piece connected to that...

'Now, federal prosecutors say Giffen, 64, cemented his power by bribing Kazakh leaders with $84 million that Amoco Corp., Mobil Oil Co., Phillips Petroleum Co. and Texaco Inc. paid to win access to Kazakh fields. In January, Giffen goes on trial in federal district court in New York in one of the largest overseas criminal bribery cases ever.'

I really doubt this was what the framers 'intended..' what a joke.

bsimon writes, "this so called expression of free speech trumps any appearance of impropriety. "

Your position happens to be in line with what the Supreme Court has said is the justification for speech limitations - avoiding the appearance of graft, bribes, etc.

In my opinion, I think it's sufficient to use sunshine as the disinfectant; fully publicize who is giving to whom, and let the media do their job.

And to answer your quesion, if today's broadcast technology existed during the formation of this country, my guess is the founders would have ensured freedom of speech (and association) through unlimited political contributions, yes.

JD writes
"But limiting personal contributions, which translate to political advocacy ads, is IMHO is the exact opposite of what the founders and framers envisioned."

Taking speech literally, Dady Warbucks & a Li'l Orphan have the same ability to speak in the public square, saying what they like to whomever will listen. Once you equate money with 'speech', the ability of Daddy Warbucks to 'speak' is vastly different from that of the Li'l Orphan. Is that what you imagine the framers envisioned?

What is troubling about the usual 'conservative' argument about campaign contributions equalling free speech is the inherent admission that there is a potential conflict created by giving money to politicians - but that this so called expression of free speech trumps any appearance of impropriety.

Obama needs to be held to the same scrutiny all the candidates on both sides have had to endure, and needs to stop whining . These are not "attack" ads that target him specifically, they're legal, and the issues raised in them are important to primary voters.

Mark, if you need to tell yourself that limiting campaign contributions is not tantamount to limiting political speech, fine. But you will never convince me that, by limiting the *means* to speak, you haven't de facto limited the speech itself.

And look what a convoluted system we've now gotten, as a result of McCain's silly law! 527s that EVERYONE knows, even Chris C, is a front group. 'Hillraisers', 'Rangers and Pioneers', and other shady money bundlers. HRC and Hsu playing footsies.

Disgusting.

You want to ban political contributions by corporations and unions? Fine. But limiting personal contributions, which translate to political advocacy ads, is IMHO is the exact opposite of what the founders and framers envisioned.

And all the paranoid types on this board, screaming Orwell et al because of GOP tactics of torturing terrorists, warrantless wiretaps, etc., don't say a thing about limiting political speech because, hey, it's OK when we give the Federal Gov more power, according to their agenda.

JD

Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards would be light years ahead of another Clinton presidency.

ARG polls cannot be trusted according to this analysis. ARG had Bush winning NH in 2000, only to see McCain win by almost 20 points! They also had Dole winning NH in 1996 by 7 points, only to see Buchanan win.

http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/12/problem-with-american-research-group.html

The fact that Obama employs Gibbs, who equated Howard Dean with Osama Bin Laden shows how cynical his attacks on this so-called issue are.

This, I think, is far more telling, something I found while researching an article. i read a few months ago that Rove was caught with briefing notes for Guiliani's campaign on a PowerPoint presentation, [I beleive it was Dana Milbank who rported it] so he's been helping Rudy behind the scenes. It appears from every indicaton, that Rudy is Cheney's hand-picked successor and will run the country exactly the way bush/cheney has done -- except with less restraint:

'Very quickly to Rudolph Giuliani who gave the keynote on the first night of the Republican National convention, last night, sitting together with vice president Dick Cheney. You have been on the money trail looking at what Rudolph Giuliani is doing behind the scenes at this convention.

PETER STONE: Giuliani is engaged in fund raising to help members of congress. His PAC has recently been revived and he's raising money. He had a fund-raiser this week that had help congressional candidates this fall. He also did a fund-raiser for John Thune, senate candidate in South Dakota, certainly one of the most important races for the GOP this year. These efforts coupled with many things that Giuliani is doing, mostly to support the Bush campaign this week, are seen as, one of Bush's leading allies at this point. Very important ally, even more, in terms of making the case as he tried to do the other night about bush's effective leadership and the importance of continuing that leadership for another four years.

This week, you know, Giuliani has been seeing many state delegations, also doing visits to groups that are important for potential candidates down the road, such as AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, farm state delegations and some analysts who watched Giuliani think, you know, this could be a harbinger to run in 2008.'

Let's hear it folks --FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

It is relatively easy to draw a bright line limiting campaign contributions for particular candidates and not offend First Amendment principles [I have explained this before, JD; it has to do with the lawful regulation of "time, place, and manner" that is analogous to keeping the speaker's stand in the public park open to all comers].

Real 527s pushing real issue agendas are not subject to the same ease of analysis. Of course, this mechanism is subject to abuse.

And because the First Amendment truly despises "prior restraint" of speech, a phony 527 will air its message at least a few times before anyone can notice that it is a phony.

That is not to say this Union's message is "phony" any more than that church group's anti-abortion message was.

The candidates are well advised not to whine, but to respond wherever appropriate. More free speech is better than less.

Obama's all for his own 527s., he just doesn't have them in iowa.

How is this 527 different from any other 527, CC, which I beleive all the candidates have? And the truth is, their message is the same as his. So what?

Obama should get over it. He's only making himself look petty.

I can't bring myself to care about this, but I sure hope it doesn't lead to an Obama-Edwards knife fight.