Matt Stoller's tease last night, "Anti-Clinton Opportunity," certainly piqued everyone's curiosity. Today's Politico.com piece covers what Stoller teased, though without mentioning Matt.
"We'll definitely have sufficient resources to make a significant media buy," he said, adding that their campaign against Clinton would be "edgy" enough to get attention. "We don't need to raise an immense amount of money to make a big difference." ... ..
... .. "I'm definitely not a Hillary hater -- I think there are other candidates who are better for the progressive movement," Hurowitz said. "Most of the people involved in our PAC will be happy to support her if she does become the nominee."
Hurowitz has written pro Edwards posts, and he freely admits he personally supports John Edwards, as well as having given money to Edwards. An earlier post of Hurowitz's covered "The Clinton-Obama energy plan." However, Democratic Courage is not a pro Edwards PAC. According to Hurowitz, others involved in the PAC support other candidates and they have no intention of endorsing anyone. He was quick to add that if he and the others joining him believed that Clinton was truly inevitable they wouldn't have formed Democratic Courage. He's more than willing to support Clinton if she wins, as the quote above illustrates, but he thinks the primary is far from over and his group is going to do all they can to make sure they get their message out.
Fewer than twenty people are involved in Democratic Courage right now. But when I asked Hurowitz what big name blogs were involved he wouldn't give the names. He also said his PAC had several "maxed out donors," who have already given $5,000. PACs can't raise more than that amount from any one individual, and the main advantage of a PAC is that there are far fewer limits on directly supporting candidates than 527s, which rely on unlimited windfall contributions from big money donors, but also come with tight strings attached on how you can use the money.
Hurowitz made a point of mentioning that tomorrow is the 5-year anniversary of Paul Wellstone's death, and Hurowitz will have a post up on Politico.com talking about it, something he also covered in his book. Looking at the homepage, you'll see a picture of Wellstone right alongside of John Edwards.
Looking at the Democratic Courage site, I found the blogroll interesting. John Edwards is the only candidate listed, so I asked Hurowitz why Obama wasn't included as well if the PAC isn't John Edwards centric. He laughed and said that the site was his personal blog until very recently when he made it the home of the PAC, and he's not gotten around to doing anything with it.
I've emailed the Clinton camp, but haven't heard back from them.
The primary temperature is about to heat up.
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
You claim the Republicans stopped your Health Care Bill, well those same Republicans are still there, what do you plan to do different? What is your success in working with Republicans, you’ve been in the Senate for 8 years, just like you were in the Whitehouse for 8 years – Tell us what significant bills you have passed in the Senate, show us how you have worked with the Republican Senate.
That would make all of the American presidents since Raygun ,
4 presidents,
20 years of
just 2 closely knit families!
That ALONE is enough to vote against Hillary. No hereditary monarchy for the USA!
There is "offthebus" on this Board which blatantly promotes Obama and now 'Democratic courage' with Edwards. Plenty of these have come and gone and will come and go. The REAL netroots and Democrat liberals are MoveOn and ACLU. They don't just opine or rant, they actually do something. And when they do something, it is for the good of the party and not a self-serving political act
Hillary is steamrolling ahead and Edwards is stuck where he was 10 months ago, while Obama is headed down ...
The real thing that would take the wind out of HRC's sails is for Gore to announce. You can help this along by voting in the Democracy for America poll at http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll. You have to select "other" and then write in "Al Gore".
There does seem to be some suspicion raised that this is an pro-Edwards move, but it does not seem like he is the likely beneficiary anyway.
If the candidates really care about getting a Democrat elected President in 2008, then all of the candidates and their supporters have to be careful not to hand the Republican nominee a lot of ammunition he can use to shoot down the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she may be.
In addition to Richardson's position on Iraq, he has respect as a negotiator from the international community. He has been UN ambassador and Secretary of Energy, both in the Clinton administration.
However, my ephiphany occured when I heard him interviewed about his decison to legalize medical marijuana in New Mexico. He said that a lot of county sherrifs were angry at him for that decision, but he did not care because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. the man has principles.
Edwards has also led the dialogue of this campaign since Day One, by speaking openly, honestly -- no triangulation, no manipulation -- giving thoughtful, smart answers to all the problems we face -- and he has forced Clinton and Obama to follow his lead.
Hurowitz sees -- as Democratic party establishment folks apparently don't -- that the Republicans are salivating at the prospect of revving up their base which hates Hillary with a vengeance, and the fodder her long history provides. If you think they "swiftboated" Kerry, just wait and see what they do to Hillary.
Corporate America knows Edwards will put working people above corporate greed; Washington insiders want business/politics in Washington to go on unchanged. Edwards speaks to the fact that the whole system is broken. We all know it is. But who has the courage to challenge it? The power of the Presidency (as Bush has so abominably demonstrated) is unbelievably powerful, that in the hands of a good, honest, smart man, a visionary of courage and will, things WILL change. We have a unique opportunity to nominate and elect a leader who will do what we all know needs to be done: John Edwards. We all know it won't be easy, but we simply must change, or our nation will destroy itself.
I say BRAVO to Mr. Hurowitz and his associates! They are true Patriots! We all need to follow their example rather than following like sheep to the slaughter, and do what we know is best for our country: Nominate and Elect John Edwards.
She's corrupt, you know. Remember the now-you-see-'em, now-you-don't Rose Law Firm billing records? The unjustified firing of the White House travel office employees? The hundred grand she made in the dubious "cattle futures' bullshit?
She's owned by every big interest in town. She voted for the war in Iraq, and she recently voted for the war-enabling Kyl-LIEberman amendment. The Israel lobby owns her.
Support the candidate you REALLY favor, and not the so-called "inevitable" one.
voting and this will all be sorted out. What
we're seeing now is just how ugly democracy
can be - the worst form of government except
for all the others. If anything has gone wrong
this time, it's the effort to decide who the
candidates will be *before* the primaries,
which turns out to be 'not such a good idea'.
A little patience is in order, if you please.
It is long past time we had a female president, but HRC has far too much baggage. If she is the nominee it is a safe bet we will wind-up regretting it.
Who are they?
If Hillary is nominated, i think we'll have the biggest republican voter turn out EVER. They hate her.
Polls cannot measure this aspect because they only poll "likely voters" and prior voters. There are millions of people who don't usually vote who will come out just to vote against her.
The republican's great hope is that we'll go ahead and nominate her so they can pull their base together and vote against her en masse.
So...i hope "democratic courage" is sucessful.
I'm an Obama supporter, myself, but Edwards would be my second choice. But Hillary? Never.
Our country is already on the path to destruction because we have had these two dynasties running it. Bush, Clinton, Bush and another Clinton. No thank you. That would mean almost 24 plus years of their control.
The cycle needs to be broken so our country can heal and perhaps one day return to the way it once was. If that means putting a Republican in so be it. At least the cycle will be broke.
People that live in other countries are also wondering why Americans would want two dynasties to continue to control our government. Good question don't you think?
If people were to follow the money they would see that HRC is just as evil if not worse than Bush. Also the wars will continue, the secretive BS, and our country will remain divided by a divisive person at the Helm. Same old Shit? Not for me!
Otis P.