I don't think the group co-ordinates with the Edwards campaign, but calling them Edwards-linked is fair. Just look at the Democratic Courage website, they've got a picture of him at the top of the front page. They've also got a pro-Edwards article posted, as well as an anti-Obama article. While I would be happy to see this group's spots knock Hillary off her pedestal, I definitely wouldn't consider supporting them in any way. The statement that they're not backing a particular candidate seems disingenuous.

It's not a 527, cause they're taking no donations over 5 k.

I think it's great, assuming their message is fair.

You insinuate that the Edwards campaign is coordinating with the 527. You have zero evidence to support that conclusion. Are these guys working for the possible benefit of Edwards? Yes. At the direction of his campaign? No.  

Stop lying.

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound calling Matt Drudge a "Clinton surrogate"?

The campaign leaks their fundraising numbers to Drudge one time, supposedly, and now Drudge is a "Clinton surrogate."  Best laugh of the day.

We also heard there's no connection between the 527 formed to attack Dean with the other candidates in 2004.

I don't believe at all if Edwards is not behind this. Think about it. One major reason he cited to be able to get by under the public financing was to count on those 527 groups to launch attack ads.

I hope MSM will do more investigations of the link between Edwards and those groups. It's going to kill him.  

Yeah, we also know there's no link between those despicable Dean-Osama ads and the other candidates.

Give us a break, this is the key.

Is this what Matt Stoller , had in mind , just curious ?

Well, it's even better if we finally figure out it's a tag-team between Edwards/Obama.

Do their dirty work when they don't dare to do? How sweet.

Longtime denizens of this blog have learned that engaging "areyouready" is a hopeless waste of time.

Thanks for what you are doing.  It's right and correct and completely within the rules.

And "Swiftboating" should not come to mean "campaign against."  It means "undermine the candidates strenght by lying about it repeatedly."

Not the same thing.

How can you attempt to make a case about progressivism when there is plenty of evidence that not only is Clinton an obvious progressive, but that she is actually MORE progressive than other candidates?

Review voting record rankings and bill-writing ad co-sponsor rankings on independent sites such as Progressivepunch.org, govtrack.org for verification.  Clinton is ranked ahead of Obama, and Edwards' voting record (in fact his entire political personna until a couple of years ago) was decidedly moderate/centrist.

We don't owe you and your ilk anything.

Go ahead, throw your mud. We'll see how it works out for you.

Hi Glenn. While I support letting voters know about Hillary's record, a quick glance at your website definitely makes Democratic Courage appear explicity pro-Edwards and explicitly anti-Obama, on top of anti-Clinton. Am I wrong in that assumption?

I'm still trying to find out who is behind Hillaryis44.com

You're pathetic.  You're no better than those who swiftboated John Kerry.

Why don't you come out and be a little bit more honest.  You have donated to Edwards' campaign and you support him.

Good luck digging dirt.  Hillary's progressive record far outmatches Edwards or Obama.

Also who is behind Hillaryis44.org.

I'm curious, Glenn- will you call off attacks if/when Edwards says it's hurting him?

Personally, the polling looks to me that 50-60% of the selfidentifying Democratic electorate won't buy in on those types of claims, and another 15% vote Republican for federal office and won't bite either.

So you're down to 25-35% of primary voters and potential caucus-goers already, which isn't enough, and is the aggregate of Obama and Edwards support.

I think Team Clinton knows perfectly that AUMF vote-mongering has no effect, an neither does all the mongering about being an insider and whatnot.  You're probably on a fool's errand, even if the only target is some blue collar Iowan caucusgoers.

My guess is this sort of thing will do Edwards no good and not actually hurt Clinton.  Here where I live Democrats have little or no interest in voting for a de facto economicly Left/socially Right candidate- it's considered not much help and status quo.  That's why there's negligible Edwards support here.

Let the candidates do their own dirty work.

Why is it despicable?  And they aren't swiftboating anybody.  Hillary may have a progressive voting record, but many of us believe it's because she can afford to since she's senator from NY.  A discussion of the candidates positions, character, etc. is healthy for a primary.  What else would you suggest, are you ready?

LOL!!!

Document everything?  Are you kidding me?  When you enter in here daily with the HRC talking points???

Obviously, and this is serious, there is a faction of the Democratic Party that do not want to be bothered, nor reminded of the Clintons.  That is just a fact.

Who knows how this will play out?  But we will know shortly in less than 90 days.

And you are the last thing on this site to call anyone despictable.  Can we say "hey kettle", "yeah, black"!!

... the direct link with Edwards campaign that your title claims.

Where. Is. It.

There is a link to the John Edwards 08 blog, in the blogroll, but no evidence if links with the Edwards campaign.

Again, if you have no skeletons in the closet, have not done no dirty deals, raise money for your campaign properly, not in bed with big business, then you should have absolutely nothing to worry about.

You are totally right Steve , what i am interested in is to find out the progressive case they will make against Hillary Rodham Clinton because her record trumps everyone running on progressive issues outside of Dennis Kucinich.

If progressive purity is what is in play here then Edwards is the wrong tree to be barking up ( they seem like Edward sympathisers) , his record isn't as good as obama or clinton on prgoressive causes.

Let us not confuse rhetoric over record.

I wouldn't call it swiftboating in any way.  But, if they are going to make the case that Clinton is not a "progressive," it seems they would do so under false pretenses, with distortions and/or nontruths.   Clinton's record is decidedly progressive, the only question is which of the candidates is MORE progressive than the other.  There is lots of evidence that points to Clinton being the most progressive of the bunch (progressivepunch.org, govtrack.org) and even a more in-depth parsing by progressivepunch.org to distinguish between mere "padding conservative credentials" votes and voting progressive "when the chips are down" revealed an even more progressive candidate in comparison to others.  

Now, if they are going to bank on people's ignorance of the facts and distorting the truth (I personally don't see how they can make a non-progressive case without that) it makes sense to get this out in the open now and look at the motivation behind this 527.   We have seen one such effort attack Dean by linking him visually to Osama Bin Ladin, which did a lot of damage to Dean, even though it was nothing but a smear.  I believe there should be an open dialogue about these efforts, especially when they come from the left.  

Please.  Did you say the same thing when you saw the anti-Dean ad where he morphed into Osama Bin Ladin, courtesy of Robert Gibbs?  Yeah, a lot of "dirt" they discovered there.  "Hey, Robert, look, Dean's eyes look just about as far apart from each other as Osama-Bin Ladin's.  As good progressives, we should be able to show Dean's sinister side with that, don't you think?"

you need to go get a drink.  you are trippin' and hard.  shit, this is politics.  all these candidates have been hit and will be until iowa.  did you think your girl was going to waltz into a coronation?  how dumb can you get?

Taylor Marsh has a good show, and occasionally, she is right about the impressions a campaign can make. She's from the entertainment business, so she has a sharp eye about what the populace's lenses may be.

I disagree with Taylor's commentaries when she shouts sexism and racism where it is not warranted.  She is correct sometimes, but I think she stretches it a bit far at other times. She's had her share of discrimination, but one cannot call "wolf" each time someone of an opposite gender and race is critical of Clinton, of her, or her guests that favor Clinton in their comments.  

I am very progressive but do not look for every ceiling to be necessarily glass either.  One looks for ways to break the barriers.  My observation is that Taylor thinks it is OK for Hillary to have Bill break the upper floor windows for all to see (Hillary already broke glass ceilings).  And he has done it well, since he continues to have questionable "Dream Merchants" and "Carpetbaggers"in both negative and positive ways to solicit his advice and channel money into his wife's campaign coffers.  Just read Harold Robbins, who had been gone 10 years this month, but a novelist who understood these transactions and why.

To me it is not OK.   As a woman, I've never had a man to promote me based on connections to my spouse, nor would I welcome it.  Yes, collaborations, but basically, I can say in job interviews (which I've not needed for 6 years, but do an evaluation for peer reviews) I learned from mistakes and worked on my own to be a better manager and stepping into leadership, not just control the message which is all I see Hillary has learned.  To her, that is all it is because of what happened to Bill and the 1998 scandal got out of hand.  

I've not had name recognition based on my spouse either.

Either Clinton takes the aggressive route and claim credit for all what she did with Bill (which if NAFTA, horrible welfare reform, telecommunications act or not getting Bin Laden count) are accomplishments... or she runs strictly on her records outside First Lady roles in Ark and WH, and instead on her senate/her own activist (since 2001) records to run on.  

So my vote for someone else not Hillary is laid out here.  Name recognition is great, but status-quo is not.