Chris Matthews said Obama had DNC pre-approval to buy cable ad

on the earlier edition of Hardball. I checked out this info, and this is what I found:

http://swarheit.blogspot.com/2008/01/clinton-campaign-h...

"There's a simple reason why the Clinton campaign is doing this: They lead in Florida because Obama has been unable to campaign there. The national media ignored Michigan (and we'll get to Michigan in a moment) and the Clinton campaign, which seems likely to lose South Carolina this week, would love nothing more than for the national media to treat Hillary Clinton's "victory" in the previously uncontested Florida race as a "momentum booster" going into Super Tuesday on February 5th. They are taking this opportunity to try to convince everyone Florida really is in play, so when they do win on January 29, it gets covered, talked about, and gets Clinton off the mat after her expected South Carolina defeat. Makes sense. Problem is, it's incredibly hypocritical.

"First, this is not a Florida ad-buy, it's a national ad-buy. The Obama campaign inquired about excluding Florida from where the ads were run and were told by CNN and MSNBC that it was impossible to do so. Not only that, but they went to the Democratic National Committee itself and got permission from the South Carolina DNC Party Chair. If the DNC and South Carolina had no problem with the ad-buy, why should the Clinton campaign? " (emphasis added)

and

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Welcome_Flo...

UPDATE: Though the Clinton campaign convened a conference call with several early-state supporters, Obama's claims the stamp of approval approval from the only early-state chair still in play, South Carolina's Carol Fowler.

“Both national cable networks told us it would be impossible for us to run advertising nationally that excluded only Florida. For that reason we consulted with the South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler who told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of pledge made to the early states,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton." (emphasis added)

It is being quoted on several websites, including Mike Allen’s at Politico:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8019.html

Bill Burton, the Obama for America press secretary, called the attack “misguided.”

and

“For that reason we consulted with the South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler who told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of pledge made to the early states.”

Note that Carol Fowler is affiliated with the Democratic National Party. She's the Chair of the party in South Carolina:

http://www.scdp.org/scdems/letter_from_the_chair/

There's a lot more of the same on several links which I did not post. Looks like the Obama camp made a legitimate effort to check out the advertisement purchase with the DNC before it proceeded to do so.

and report what I find.

I have no horse in this race, but I am really getting upset that many distortions are being reported on DU. Initially, people came here to get away from the distortions of the official MSM. I posted these quotes on other threads, and got refutations, no links, just opinions. What's that about? Are some DU'ers simply becoming "talking heads" now too for the benefit of their candidate? What about the benefit of their DU reputation?

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

as opposed to being serious.

no more whinning! ;)

I saw that ad immediately after the debates and I was impressed with the timing. I think both Hillary and Edwards should have stepped up their orders. It's just all in the game, and not a huge breach of ethics as it is being played. Just my view. The truly interesting part to watch NOW is who makes the next move, and what will it be?

CNN and MSNBC have no local affiliate marketing programs. I suppose that's why we see so many advertisements for non-local business on the 2.
Yeah right.

according to the website I visited. Wouldn't you think she has the authority to speak for the DNC? I assumed that. She had to have known her words would be quoted by Bill Burton on a trillion websites, including, for instance CBS.

or had something to do with it's origination. If so, then I'm not sure what the hubbub is if she had no problem with the ad.

All bets are now off, a spokesman for the Hillary Clinton camp said, when it had been learned Obama "breached" the agreement. Many speculate Florida might indeed end up in play. As things stand now, South Carolina is the last Democratic primary before February 5th. If Obama has the momentum from that win, the only hope from taking that momentum from him would be if Florida "suddenly" came into play.

You know, it did not occur to me until I started to respond to your post that this might indeed literally be artificial hubbub. If one's campaign strategist had to come up with an idea as to how to recapture the momentum before February 5th, the only way to do so would be if another primary venue "opened up" and one that was favorable to that strategist's candidate. This might have been entirely orchestrated out of desperation. What do you think? Hillary was 30 points ahead in Florida when the controversy started.

I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE BEEN PLAYED ON THIS ONE.

Misguided? hilary and bill need a fucking moral compass.

so the facts do not seem to be in dispute.

The speculation as to why this is happening I believe is accurate.

It's all about the Big MO going into February 5th. Obama might capture that if he wins SC. The only possible way to change that is opening up a win in Florida. The average person does not pay that close attention of the details of this race. Thus, if Clinton were to "win" Florida as she did "Michigan" it could change the public perception of who is in the lead, meaning it would disrupt the momentum Obama might gain from the South Carolina win.

I think this is called politics and it's pretty disingenuous. You have to keep paying attention and do your own fact-checking.

to take some doing to bring down the clintons but I'm thinking Obama is just the right man to do it.

to observe.

They tell half-truths and misrepresent facts and people, for the most part, take them at their word.

As a former President, Bill holds an even greater sway in this regard.

The American People have been buying it wholesale from both Hill and Bill because noone was calling them on it.

Just wait until the facts start to get the upper hand.

Bill honed his skills in the pre-Youtube era. When people didn't have the ability to look into things en masse.
He is in for a world of hurt if he continues playing such an active role in this campaign.
He just doesn't really want people to start looking into his issues, past and present.

Notice how all of this bullshit that is filling up the news, has nothing to do with what the candidates should be talking about ?
I don't care about this petty bickering. We should pressure all our candidates to bring more class to the process.

an agreement he made with the DNC. That's a pretty serious accusation.

But the smoke has cleared now, and some facts have emerged, and those threads making the initial claims that the Obama camp cheated are still surfacing to the top. Do facts not count?

Was it just poor political tactics from Obama? He could have forced Hillary to break the pledge first regarding Florida if she needed Florida so badly. It's not like Clinton had found a magic loophole in the agreement that let her send national ads into Florida while Obama couldn't. Then Obama would have held the high moral ground and could have followed up immediately with his own national cable buy. That would be better than what happened from his perspective. Overall it would have been better from his perspective if none of the candidates began their national cable ads before Florida. Then he would likely have gotten the momentum our of the last victory before Super Tuesday

So out of three choice; let Hillary break the agreement first, wait with her until after Florida to start national cable ads, or be the first to send ads into Florida giving her an opening to consider Florida a competitive race, his team chose the worst.

Clinton strategists. So we will have to wait to see what exactly unfolds. I believe they were brain-storming on how to detract from Obama's recent successes and the potential SC win. Whether or not one agrees with how Nevada is being represented, it appears many are calling it a "split-decision" or a draw -- she had 500 more popular votes (or so) and he was awarded one more delegate. (Prior to that he won one; she won one). Factor in the total scoreboard: Obama wins one; Hillary wins one; Split Decision; Obama takes SC. This is not an overall good picture to be hanging over Hillary's head pre-February 5. I believe that's why her strategists threw in the ridiculous claim of the Michigan victory, to tilt the tote board, knowing many in the voting public is not paying that close attention to the detail.

Back to the brain-storming session, the only way to change the current dynamics (should Barack prevail in SC as expected) is to attempt to open up another possible venue to spin the momentum in Hillary's direction. The only possible opening I see is Florida, and think about "the agreement is off the table remark" from the Clinton camp. What else could that possibly mean but they are going to campaign in Florida? What else is there? If something can happen there between now and February 5 it puts Clinton into much closer contention with Obama with the momentum issue. But more importantly, the distance between Obama and Hillary in the national polls is truly tightening. After the SC primary, he might overtake her. If nothing happens to change all this, as things stand now, it is projected Obama will win more states February 5th than previously projected. If something turns it around, he will not. So that's why this is all shaking out as it is, IMHO.

Hillary's ability "to open up another possible venue" was facillitated by the Obama campaigns decision to be the first campaign to air TV commercials inside of Florida. This can be looked at from every angle but from every angle he still did so first, and that created the opening that you argue Hillary wanted. Obama was not at a competitive disadvantage by refraining to start those ads. No matter how you look at it both he and Clinton were faced with the same decisions and economics regarding National cable news buys, and they presumably have the same desire to get ads out nationally before Super Tuesday. It is more and more looking like a major political blunder for the Obama campaign to have been the first to air campaign ads in Florida.

You said:

Hillary's ability "to open up another possible venue" was facilitated by the Obama campaigns decision to be the first campaign to air TV commercials inside of Florida. This can be looked at from every angle but from every angle he still did so first, and that created the opening that you argue Hillary wanted.

Not exactly. Strategy has a way of evolving as events change. Obama did not quite give her the opening you think he did because he did in fact play by the rules. He discussed his options with the DNC (the referee on the agreement) and the DNC signed off on it. That last part is the part the Clinton camp did not know when it made its statements of foul.

The Clinton camp knew they had to do something and were scratching around for a possibility. Slim pickings available. When the commercial aired in Florida, the Clintons SEIZED that opportunity to retract its agreement based on the foul shot called. It was a tactical mistake, but oh well, after the utterance of the Clinton camp "the Agreement is off" -- the opportunity arose for them to eyeball Florida, where Clinton held a 30 point lead, and assess "can we do anything with this."

Obama was not at a competitive disadvantage by refraining to start those ads.

He made the right move to protect his momentum. Acting quickly ensured those commercials would be on the air asap. As I mentioned elsewhere, I saw it immediately after the debates ended and thought what perfect timing. Obama got the jump ball on this in a legitimate way and edged out both Clinton and Edwards. It was a smart move. They should have acted just as quickly.

No matter how you look at it both he and Clinton were faced with the same decisions and economics regarding National cable news buys, and they presumably have the same desire to get ads out nationally before Super Tuesday. It is more and more looking like a major political blunder for the Obama campaign to have been the first to air campaign ads in Florida.

I don't think so because on the off chance anyone formed a negative opinion as a result of something Obama said during the debate, that image would be offset by the playing of the wonderful ad which immediately followed. It was strategically a great move.

So now my question: if people are chronically reminded that there was a legitimate approval for the placement of the national ad, will the Clinton camp continue to call foul and use that call for whatever justification they need for an innovative maneuver in Florida? I am thinking, yes, of course.

From all I have been able to find from surfing around, that part seems to be clear. I am not certain what role a "referee" has and I am not finding clarification about what exactly is implied by the statement that "the DNC signed off on it". Could you clarify that please (a sincere request)? Was it a verbal opinion from an individual at the DNC or was it some kind of formal review with a written opinion issued. Was there any vote by an oversight committee of the DNC or did the Chair of the DNC issue a formal opinion?

Regardless unless some one shows me evidence to the contrary the agreement was made between the four Democratic State Chairs of the States that were leap frogged ahead of by Florida and the candidates directly. It seems clear on the face of it that only those who entered into that agreement can ultimately agree to changes being made in that agreement. In this case I mean the four state chairs, not the candidates. But it seems only common sense to me that if a candidate intended to claim that the pledge would not be binding under a specific set of circumstances that such a claim would be discussed with representatives from all of the involved candidate camps before unilaterally being acted upon by one candidate. Obama chose not to consult the other campaigns that were party to that pledge, he easily could have.

More relevant though are the four state chairs. I reject the logic behind the assertion that since only the South Carolina vote still is pending that only the approval of the South Carolina State Democratic Party Chair was needed to nullify the terms of the pledge made by all the candidates:

"On Thursday, Florida State Senator Ted Deutch sent a letter to the Democratic Party Chairs of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The letter asks the Chairs of the four early states to release the Democratic candidates from their pledge not to campaign in Florida before February 5th. Florida's primary is scheduled for January 29th, 3 days after the last of the four early primaries in South Carolina on the 26th. Senator Deutch's letter states
On January 26th when the polls close in South Carolina, the goals you established in September when you asked the candidates to sign the Pledge will have been fully satisfied, and there will be no compelling reason for you to ask the candidates to continue to abide by the Pledge.

For five months, the candidates will have concentrated their attention on your four states. Allow Florida to have two days."

http://fl-kossacks.blogspot.com/2008/01/will-florida-no-campaign-pledge-lifted.html

Note that even this request for flexibility originating with a Florida State elected Democrat only calls for flexibility regarding the pledge AFTER South Carolina votes, not before then. And it is directed to all 4 State Party Chairs, not just to the Chair of South Carolina.

There is a reason why it is a bogus argument that only South Carolina's position now is relevant because only South Carolina has not yet voted, and I mean a reason beyond the obvious one that the agreement on it's face does not drop State's from having a say in the pledge's terms once voters in that particular state have already voted. The point of the agreement in the first place was to make sure that States like Florida IN THE FUTURE do not attempt to arbitrarily move their primary dates up to usurp the traditional focus on the first states to caucus and vote, by forcing candidates to divert their energies to campaigning elsewhere as other larger states crowd the front end of the primary calender.

All parties to that agreement agreed on terms that they felt put sufficient teeth into the agreement to stop other states from doing what Florida did this year in the future. Those teeth were designed to include a severe disincentive for candidates to campaign inside of Florida until AFTER ALL FOUR early DNC sectioned contests were concluded. Those agreements furthermore were timed to expire AFTER the literal Florida vote, not before then; not even three days before then, which is why the letter from Florida Senator Deutch REQUESTED a voluntary release that would allow candidates to campaign inside Florida AFTER the South Carolina vote.

Senator Obama and the State Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party did not by themselves have standing to dissolve on their own an agreement arrived at by all the candidates and all four of the four effected State Chairs.

The rest of your comments involve perceptions about what was and was not politically advantageous. This reply is long enough as it is, but you can read some of my broader thinking here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4153723&mesg_id=4153936

The other campaigns didn't think to try to do national ad buys?
Why would you go to the chair of the SC Party for permission? That's just bizarre.

If you promised not to advertise in Florida, and you are advertising in Florida, I don't know how that is not violating your promise.

SC is the only state that the ad could potentially effect. They gave their approval.

Hillary just wants an excuse to campaign in Florida.

have any issue with the pledge?

February 5th is soon here. Obama has to worry about trying to hold on to his lead in South Carolina and carrying the momentum until February 5th. So, no, he could not have waited a week.

And it's going to be very interesting to watch to see what happens in Florida.

The Clinton camp said all bets are off, meaning Florida could be in play (I take it that was their inference). Will she campaign there?

Stay tuned. It's going to get even more interesting, if that's possible.

They were all in the same position. In fact Obama probably was going to win the last contest before Feb. 5th as it was giving him the last hit of momentum. Why could Obama not afford to wait if Clinton and Edwards had to wait also?

and immediately placing the national ad to run as last night's debate progressed was a pretty strategic move. Clinton and Edwards could have done the same thing but for some reason, there was a hesitation. Clinton and Edwards are the seasoned national campaigners, Obama is just getting his feet wet. But he did get there first on this, and it's keeping him moving forward.

We already know the answer. As you said, he was desperate-and willing to take the potential fallout from violating his pledge in order to capitalize on the momentum. And excuse me if I don't buy into the "SC chair said it was OK" cover. A pledge is a pledge. Did Team Obama not realize that such a pledge would keep them from running national ads when they made it?
Whether or not the other campaigns will try to make him pay for this remains to be seen.

She's desperate to move it to her side of the aisle.

I did not say he was willing to take the fallout from violating his pledge. I said in one of these posts when two parties reach an agreement, and the initial contracting party acquiesces in a gray area, and publicizes that acquiescence, no pledge is broken. It's a verbally-modified plank publicly published. Hillary could have gotten the same thing had she asked, but he arrived first and the Clintons negatively reacted to that advantage.

Perhaps the upside of getting that jump seemed worth it to the Obama campaign compared to the downside of giving Clinton a legitimate pretense for calling Florida now in play. Doesn't seem like it to me but I'm not a political pro and I suppose time will tell.

Clinton camp.

I am not a pro either. However, Bill Clinton is an excellent strategist and he will do all he can to change that Obama momentum pre February 5. I am only watching the moves and trying to guess the plays, and I am no better at it than you, so keep thinking! What other maneuver is possible here?

And thank you for your participation in the speculation! It's fascinating to watch a high-stakes political prize fight, isn't it?

Sam

Last night was amazing.

What really surprised me was I missed the first 40 minutes due to an unexpected event. A phone call from my Republican (Bush-proponent) brother alerted me it was on and it was riveting. He doesn't usually watch the Democratic debates. "What's going on?" I asked. I was very interested to know how he saw it before I caught the replay. His response was that Hillary kept attacking Barack and he was giving as good as he got. He mentioned Barack got in a couple of excellent points. In fact my brother was laughing.

As I came to this website and heard the cries of disbelief in how the Democrats were conducting themselves, I could not help but think of my Republican brothers remarks. I think (and this is just gut) Barack, in attempting to reel in some disgruntled Republicans, knew not only for the sake of his personal self-esteem (and record) he needed to stand up to Hillary, but that it was equally important to do so if he wanted to gain the respect of Republicans. And I think he did just that.

Conversely, Hillary looked like in this process she deflated one of her best selling points she's been pitching: I know how the Republicans attack, and I can stand up to them. My thought, if she's not standing up to Barack any better than this, that's Barack, the new-kid-on-the-block (by her definition), she will not withstand Republican confrontations as expertly as she has represented. And that's what any Republican watching would have seen.

It's truly fascinating to observe the difference in the reaction to the debate held by DU'ers here and compare that reaction to that small Republican intake. Totally different.

For Barack Obama to get a compliment from my Republican brother is nothing short of a miracle.

companies on a national level and that's how they basically are shown. They do not allow these national purchases to exclude 1 state. That's why the Obama camp checked to see if this was okay. One can buy ads locally, but if you strung enough together to cover all the area that needed to be covered, as opposed to buying on the national level, the cost would be astronomical. The Clinton camp had not quite yet encountered the problem because they had not quite gotten to the point they went to purchase the national ads. Therefore, the controversy erupted. However, the person who signed off on this is associated with the DNC, so one would think she had the authority to okay the purchase. The Clinton camp is representing it is a breach of the agreement. I think their questioning should be directed to the DNC, not Obama personally.

Every candidate wants to save money by making a national cable buy rather than a state by state cable buy. Every candidate wants as many of their ads seen as possible by voters in Super Tuesday states as soon as possible. The reasons why Obama decided to purchase those national cable ads apply to Clinton and Edwards also. They were all in the same boat playing by the same rules. It did not place Obama at a competitive disadvantage to hold off on national cable ads that also went into Florida as long as the other candidates held off on them also.

The reason why the Clinton camp had not yet encountered the problem is because they held off against being the first camp to purchase national ads that would be sent into Florida. If all camps had done that none of them would have been at a competitive disadvantage to each other. The sending of cable ads into Florida was in clear violation of the language of the pledges each of the camps made. Seems to me negotiations should also have included representatives from each candidate camp regarding changing the terms of that pledge. They all had a stake in wanting to make national cable buys. If no agreement could be reached between them the status quo of no ads into Florida would not have put any of them at a disadvantage relative to each other as long as all parties honored it.

camp got the jump on them.

I am not sure it can be called a clear violation with the DNC itself, the arbitrator of the pledge, which did not see it as one when asked prior to the purchase. If Clinton had asked first, I feel she would have received the same go-ahead. I think they were simply caught off guard and had a knee-jerk reaction by the new-kid-on-the-block being first out of the gate. These things happen when everyone is so fatigued they are running off fumes.

What remains to be seen is what happens in Florida now, since the total agreement has been called "off-the-table" by the Clintons. This is certainly getting very interesting.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. It's always good to be shown another dimension.

I just posted two replies to you above, I replied immediately as I came upon your posts so my first reply didn't include the benefit of having read your other post first (if that makes any sense, lol).

in the same markets, they just hadn't done it quite yet. If they had, they would have encountered the same problem, and probably sought advice from the DNC as well. See above response. I believe all this was triggered because the Obama camp placed the order first, and not knowing all the facts and with tensions running extremely high, the Hillary camp assumed the worst -- a breach.

The chair of the South Carolina party IS associated with the DNC, and that's where they were when the question arose. See above link in original post.

They had no choice because the cable company would not exclude the one state. The Hillary camp would have/still will face the same problem when they place their order for the national ad. It's just the way events shook out.

with an immense cost difference. I'd guess that was why they checked regarding violation. If DNC gave OK, it's OK.

Like no one could campaign in MI either but DNC said others could campaign on your behalf and our Governor, ex-Governor and State Senator campaigned hard for Hillary and spoke against voting "Uncommitted".
Seemed unfair but it wasn't against the rules

they're going to run around and claim victory when people are voting on the clinton brand and not the issues, so it's fair for him to do something to try to offset that bullshit.

:o

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1533

"South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler, who played a lead role in drafting the DNC rules and candidate pledge not to campaign in Florida, said she feels bad about this, really she does, but everybody knew the rules from the start.

"I like Florida, and I love to go there, but I'm afraid to go down there right now. I'm afraid people might shoot me," she quipped."

I didn't realize this was a problem, but it seems perfectly fair.

and we hear the same tune still being played: Obama broke a promise. Are there those here just as guilty as the MSM in distorting issues? How discouraging: influence the campaign by knowingly muddying the facts that have been reported.

since it was such a hot issue here, I decided to find out if the truth could be discerned. When I found all those quotes of the wide-variety of websites, I knew Matthews was not standing out in the cold making this statement. He had some very reputable company.

them, as he did with my Poli-Sci classes last Spring...all he wanted was lunch. Not a dime,otherwise.

The Gore is a liar thing was just so much the big lie in itself. As a Washington insider, Matthews has to know Al Gore is one of the few here with high personal integrity. In fact, when Gore finally sat down with Chris Matthews about 3 years after the election, Matthews opened up with a statement to that effect. "Those people who know you well all say you are a man of high personal integrity ..." Words to that effect.

It amazes me how people are willing to destroy others' well-earned reputation for the purpose of promoting themselves, but I have lived here in Washington for a long-time, so nothing should surprise me any more.

This is not to say Chris Matthews does not serve an important function in our political observance. He's scored a few good ones, and does hold people's feet to the fire.

You obviously like him, so congratulations of having the opportunity to meet him.

And more importantly, thanks for posting on my thread!

I live among the POWER ELITES in the D.C. beltway area. FYI, they don't give a shit about the working and middle class people.

At all those luxurious "power socials" - often times, for the elites within both parties and "the whorish pseudo-journalists who adore them, they MOCK the common people as "the chattering classes."

Or have you forgotten that it was Chris Mathews who dubbed the term "Pajama Hudeen" for the net-roots?

The political ruling classes would LOVE nothing more than a 3rd Clintonian DLC Executive Branch because it would continue to be, for them, business as usual.

Chris Mathews is much more POLITICO CLASS-IST than he is SEXIST. To him, the politico elite are *gods* and he is their number one groupie.

Oh, have you also forgotten in his backpedaling to please "the perpetual victim" candidate, that Tweety FALLS ALL OVER HIMSELF to complement Tom Delay last year?!?

Hello? Tweety's role for the ruling class politicos is to keep us "little people" at each others throat by spinning like a top.

I have ZERO respect for Chris Mathews and now David Schuster who defended him. They're all one big Prostitution Ring who serve (kiss ass and spin, spin spin!) for the CEOs and other political power elites. :thumbsdown:

and married to a great Vice President f Nursing at a Philly Area Hospital.

Chris Matthews has been kind to my students.

Quite frankly,I don't give a shiite for your diatribe above.

See my sig line.