New Obama Ad In Iowa: "Our Moment Is Now"

Comments (53)

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 7:44 AM:

Greg,

I think you are artificially cheapening this ad by characterizing it as just an attack on Clinton. Yes, there is no doubt he is implicitly drawing a contrast. But the ad is much more directly about himself, his own attributes and vision, and why he thinks he is the right person to meet this moment in history.

In short, first and foremost this ad is about why Iowans should caucus for Obama. It is only secondarily, and even then only implicitly, about why they should not caucus for Clinton.

Anonymous wrote on December 6, 2007 7:56 AM:

Please DTM, that was a vicious smear and you know it.*

*Unlike Hillary's campaign, I will indicate promptly that the above humorless comment was, in fact, a joke.

An Outhouse wrote on December 6, 2007 8:00 AM:

"Scrupulously honest"
-- Joe Kline

Ha Ha Ha Ha :)

I just doesn't get better than using quotes by Mr. Anonymous.

upper left wrote on December 6, 2007 8:03 AM:

Every candidate and every candidacy must have a rationale. In 60 seconds, Obama explains why he wants to be Presisdent and why he thinks nominating HRC would be a mistake. Besides saying "it is my turn," does HRC have a comparable rationalle?

Powerful stuff, eloquently written, forcefully spoken, it makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck and explains why I so fervently hope this guy becomes President of the United States.

For the first time in thr thirty years of my adult life, we would actually have a President that I would trust and that I could truly admire. Isn't it about time?

Michael wrote on December 6, 2007 8:22 AM:

People have warned that the "truth teller" model of campaign typically fails (Bradley v Gore, e.g.), but I think the virtues of it in this particular cycle are becoming clear. The current President draws ire for his lying and partisan ways and the Dem frontrunner's biggest issues with primary voters and the nation writ large are honesty/pandering/polarizing...so Obama has been able to run a campaign that, if Hillary wasn't in the race, would've been almost 100% positive.

But b/c Hillary is in the race, everytime he makes the case for himself as an honest uniter post-partisan, he also implicitly suggests Hillary is not...without having to get blunt and say she has "character issues".

Really brilliant, when you look at it in total. Probably worth a blog entry. Comparing their 2 different approaches to "attacking"/"drawing contrasts"

It seems Obama's approach is most likely more suited to primaries (Dems dont want to see other Dems ripped to shreds) and Hillary's approach might more suited to the general, in an ironic twist. Which means Obama would need a real attack dog for VP

Cyn2 wrote on December 6, 2007 8:31 AM:

Obama gives me hope for a better future.

Like "upper left" the hairs stood up on the back of my neck when I heard him deliver the line about the "United" States of America. What a concept!

Danny wrote on December 6, 2007 8:36 AM:

Awesome, absolutely brilliant.

AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on December 6, 2007 8:37 AM:

This brought tears to my eyes. If I had to vote today, it would be for Obama. I've haven't totally brought the Koolaid to my lps, but I am getting close. This ad and the fact that he closed the NPR debate by saying that Climate Change was our greatest challende might just push me over the edge.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 8:38 AM:

Michael,

I actually think that is the overall story of the race so far: Obama has been running a classic primary campaign, and Clinton has been positioning herself for the general election. And that is a large part of why Clinton finds herself in such a precarious position right now despite her early leads.

Cast that way, it sounds like Clinton and her advisors have made a terrible strategic mistake. But obviously they wanted her to be President, not just the nominee, and they were undoubtedly right to foresee that Clinton in particular has some vulnerabilities as a general election candidate that needed to be considered even during the primaries.

So, I can see why they calculated that they would have to try to thread the needle. The problem is that in the end, it just may not be possible for them to both beat a strong primary contender and win the general election. In other words, politics is not chess, and sometimes no matter how smart you are about politics, you start off in a position from which you simply cannot win.

But we shall see.

Zueda wrote on December 6, 2007 8:40 AM:

For an "attack" ad it sure is inspiring.

colonpowwow wrote on December 6, 2007 8:40 AM:

Good ad from a good candidate.

IMO - he needs to win both Iowa and New Hampshire to have a chance against another good candidate - you know who she is. Let's see. I still like her chances in NH and it's been a tossup in Iowa all year. Worst case scenario for Barack (and a distinct possibility) - Edwards takes Iowa, Hillary places or shows strongly, then Hillary wins squeaker in NH and on to South Carolina.

That's exactly how I see Iowa and New Hampshire unfolding at this time as Clinton firms up her support.

That said, again, good ad from Obama. Furthers his good chance to win Iowa.

loki wrote on December 6, 2007 8:48 AM:

DTM,

Really? You really think Greg is saying that this ad "is just an attack on Clinton?"

Here's where I find your commentary in here just a little too over the top. Greg clearly says that the ad "is in keeping with the Obama campaign message that he's uniquely positioned in various ways to be a "game changer."

And yes he points out that he's talking about Hillary without saying her name. That seems to me to be pretty obvious.

But saying Greg characterizes the ad as only an attack on Clinton is no better than if he had actually done that. Which he didn't.

bg wrote on December 6, 2007 8:59 AM:

This was a well delivered speech for Obama, and it could probably anchor a campaign ad to great affect, but the editing in this spot is awful. Reverent spectators, canned applause, junket like endorsements floating across the screen, and all of it backed by a big, sappy score. They managed to take a forceful, authentic moment of his candidacy and leave it feeling dilute and somewhat false. I'll put on my Halperin hat and give it a b-/c+ for missed opportunity. Rework it is my two cents.

Kefa wrote on December 6, 2007 9:02 AM:

Thats a joke.....who in the hell was he fighting in the 90's when the Clintons were fighting for us in DC??????

Doyaun wrote on December 6, 2007 9:04 AM:

It could merely mean that we have watched a blue vs red political war for some time and it started heavily combative in the 90's. We have had a change of guards, bush clinton bush clinton (jeb's next?) but then I kinda liked Bush Sr.

Even if Bush Sr was wrongly cast, and Clinton did some cool stuff, and Bush Jr. flubbed, the vitrol of the 90's is something I want to avoid. We need another JFK movement. Not that I agreed with JFK's position 100 percent, but we need a moment where faith in US Government grows not faith in party attack dogs.

I think that is why this is the defining difference. Obama isn't speaking of just politicians, but voting blocs in america. Hillary talks about fighting. She set the tone of the old guard, Obama wants to change that. So is it all about Hillary? I would say the last 20 years has annoyingly been touted by her as where she impacted the nation the most, so she made it about her in her own words. Why deny it.

bg wrote on December 6, 2007 9:05 AM:

How about Public Enemy's Burn Hollywood Burn for a score?

DonnaG wrote on December 6, 2007 9:05 AM:

Greg, I will allow that this ad is supposed to 'hit Hillary' if you will allow that Obama's now famous 2004 speech was also 'a hit job'.

Seems to me that if Hillary is in any room today, not only does everything said have to 'be about her', but the room suddenly gets divided, so that even if one is talking about unity, those words will get degraded mid-air by clique mentality.

I remember the 90's being terribly divided politically, but I never blamed the Clintons for that. I am turned off by the notion of 'recapturing the 90's' [which is laughably impossible in any event] and so am the opposite of persuaded by Hillary's frequent references to that decade.

An old line from a children's song: "This very very minute, are you really living in it?"

Keith wrote on December 6, 2007 9:07 AM:

He's not making the case against Hillary Clintion. He's making his case.

Doyaun wrote on December 6, 2007 9:10 AM:

Kefa,

Hillary was fighting for parties. But why is running this country always a fight? Why isn't it about right governance, national security, promotion of the general welfare, equality of law, and universal identity? If all we do is fight we just frig everything up for 20 more years.

Instead why not develop solutions that takes all viewpoints into consideration? Discuss rather than Fight. Blindly tilting with windmills is not my idea of greatness. But in the 90's he was fighting for equal rights in his backyard. Just governance which included the fates of all people not just the affluent. And defining common purpose for the citizens of Illinois/Chicago.

Just because it wasn't in DC doesn't make the message less important.

loki wrote on December 6, 2007 9:40 AM:

"same ol' Washington textbook capaigns..."

"hope and change..."

There is this underlying notion that Obama is the "outsider" coming to Washington to shake things up, make us all honest and pure again.

He rails agaisnt "politics as usual" and tells us our "moment is now." I have to say his speeches are remarkably similar in tone if not exact text to Bill Clinton's way back in those horrible '90s. Funny really.

I hate to rain on your parade folks, but Obama is Washington Politics. You do not get to become a State Senator without knowing who to deal with. Knowing who's ego needs the most stroking. Who to get your campaign funds from. Knowing who the political insiders are and how to keep them happy and on your side. And it only gets worse when you want to become a U. S. Senator.

Obama, the United States Senator from Illinois, is every bit the Washington Establishment as the others in the race. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, by the way...but don't delude yourselves.

And hey, for comparison sake, when Bill Clinton was making his Hope and Change speeches back in the 90s at least he was coming directly from Arkansas, not just a few blocks down Pennsylvania Ave.

horseface wrote on December 6, 2007 10:01 AM:

OMG that ad is AWESOME!

NYer wrote on December 6, 2007 10:02 AM:

And Mitt Romney is about to make a speech in which he'll say he wants to be the President of people of ALL religions - how about we applaud THAT. I keep waiting for the cooperation of all of those RED state republicans for Obama's bipartisanship - guess I am just too old and jaded.

Shane wrote on December 6, 2007 10:16 AM:

Great add..and in the 80's and 90's he was in Chicago fighting for peoples who's jobs got moved overseas..while the Clintons were in DC signing NAFTA...give it a rest....Obama 08

NCSteve wrote on December 6, 2007 10:17 AM:

Yes, Loki, we get it. The official subtext of Hillary's campaign is that Obama is just as bad as she is, just as inauthentic, just as rawly political for the sake of being political, just as lacking in any ideals other than her own election. Nothing can really change, nothing can really get any better so Hillary is really the best we can hope for anyway. Our politics are forever frozen into fighting the battles of the 60s over and over and over again without resolution or final victory.

So, wtf, might as well vote for Hillary because, notwithstanding the constant increase in her negatives, which are back above 50% in the latest Zogby, she's "safer" than Obama and more likely to win. And, hey, it's not so bad. At least some of us made a few bucks in the 90s and again tolorating that lingering bad taste in our collective mouths is a small price to pay for another tech bubble.

Yep, that is one inspiring message Hillary's people have been pushing out lately. Makes me want to go wrap my house in red, white and blue bunting and follow a Souza-playing parade down Main Street to my polling place, it does.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 10:22 AM:

loki,

Actually, Greg tweaked this post after my original comment. I don't have any complaints with the version available as of my posting this comment.

bupalos wrote on December 6, 2007 10:27 AM:

Definitely on message. Definitely gives people a choice. I'm the first to admit that on sustantive policy, I don't think any of the three leaders are very far apart. But in temperament, they sure are, and the tone of the campaigns sure is.

What's really ironic is that it seems the more Iraq continues to trend towards a calm slow motion disaster rather than a hot one, Clinton-- the most hawkish of Dems-- seems to be suffering. I don't think I could have predicted that. I guess it's just an "in times of trouble, people want a hawk" thing.

Bupalos wrote on December 6, 2007 10:30 AM:

what did the post say before, DTM? I'd kind of like to know where Greg's instincts are.

CalD wrote on December 6, 2007 10:43 AM:

You know, I like Barack Obama OK. I believe he's a basically a good man who has chosen politics as his career and is just out there saying the things politicians have to say to impress the rubes and get themselves elected. But criminy, you'd think he could at least come up with a little fresh material to throw in and spice it up bit. His ads and his speeches really strike me as mostly a litany of the same shopworn, time-tested (and no doubt, poll- and focus group tested) platitudes used by every "outsider" candidate since Julius Caesar, just kind of strung together willy-nilly, like popcorn on a string. Every time I hear him speak it's like tuning in to a golden oldies station.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 10:47 AM:

bupalos,

I should note I can't remember exactly what it said. But I believe the headline was different and referred to Obama attacking Clinton (or hitting, or something like that). I also think the current paragraph above the ad is different insofar as it details how the ad is in keeping with Obama's basic campaign message.

But personally, I don't think this is a big deal. I just happened to read the original post mere minutes after it appeared, and I don't have a general objection to bloggers doing revisions in that short of a timespan (although if the changes come after an extended time period, then I think they should mark them as updates and leave the original unchanged).

Michael A wrote on December 6, 2007 10:55 AM:

Gotta love that conclusion. I don't want to revisit the 90's either. Let's move on to a bright future, not return to a dark, divided and acrimonious past. I want to see results, not more partisan bickering and gridlock.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 10:58 AM:

I have to say I am amused by the current arguments of people like CalD, which have come full circle from arguing that Clinton is more experienced and therefore a better politician than Obama to complaining that Obama is using time-tested rhetorical techniques to win political support.

So yes, it is true that Obama is using the same rhetorical techniques that have worked for everyone from Gaius Julius Caesar to Franklin Delano Roosevelt to William Jefferson Clinton. And that is because he is not dumb.

DRinOH wrote on December 6, 2007 11:05 AM:

Extraordinarily effective ad. I like the overlay of the one-liner endorsements (though I'd rather not see anything from Joe Klein) and the score was minimal enough that it didn't override the speech, which we've heard before, but is still inspiring. Like others, that one's a goosebumps ad for me.

Michael wrote on December 6, 2007 11:11 AM:

bupalos:

I have a theory about why, even though she's the most hawkish, Clinton has dropped as Iraq has improved that allows voters to be rational.

1-Voters might prefer someone who's getting things right before mistakes are made...i.e. Obama coming out against the war, being dovish on Iran (in light of NIE, that was prescient), public vote of no-confidence in Musharraf (given his efforts at authoritarianism undermining his own stability, hard to justify continuing to stand by him), etc.

However

2-Clinton's campaign message has been in part a modest appeal to "steady and competent leadership". In terms of voters concerned about current problems like getting out of Iraq now, they may prize competency in executing a plan to get the country out of its current mess over vision/judgment to not get the country into a mess in the first place.

In that sense, then, the worse off Iraq is, the more Hillary's "competence" claim resonates for those who are afraid of the consequences of a withdrawal gone wrong, a viewpoint that seems to favor Hillary. The better Iraq looks, the more voters can turn towards the future and ask themeselves who the trust to get the next foreign policy calls right.

Or, alternatively, its possible that Hillary's fall and Obama's rise have nothing to do with external states of affairs, and that people who preferred Hillary earlier but have since switched, originally liked her by default and then rationalized it by "trusting her on Iraq" or whatever...but as Obama has campaigned and aired TV ads in the early states and they've gotten to know him, he's changed their minds.

I think there's probably a shred of truth in both those explanations, though even the 2 of them together probably are still missing some of the dynamics (I certainly don't think the Clinton campaign is helping itself right now by going after Obama so viciously)

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 11:19 AM:

For what it is worth, the relevant polls I have seen suggest that Clinton is in fact trusted more by Democrats to deal with Iraq, but that gap has been falling recently.

By the way, I wonder how many people were really aware of her initial support of the Iraq War at the beginning of the campaign. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a lot of people made an incorrect assumption about Clinton.

Michael A wrote on December 6, 2007 11:25 AM:

DTM, I am sure alot of dems are unaware of her position on iraq, as well as other matters. That's why its important to get out the facts so that people make an informed decision. If you listen just to her rhetoric and speeches, its hard to come away with the impression that she gave a green light for war and supported the king's invasion of a sovereign country that was no threat to us. Dems need to be aware of this to make an informed decision about who they want as the nominee. She wants us all just to forget about it.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 12:01 PM:

Michael A,

Indeed, and to give Bill Clinton credit, he is right that the press does a horrible job at informing people about this sort of thing. That in fact is a large part of why money matters in political campaigns: in the current environment, candidates need to fund their own advertising, mailers, and so on to get relevant information to the voters, because the press isn't doing that job.

loki wrote on December 6, 2007 12:47 PM:

NCSteve...nope, your wrong.

DTM,

Didn't address what I said.

loki wrote on December 6, 2007 12:53 PM:

Dammit! Sorry..."you're" wrong...not "your" wrong. Sheesh.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 6, 2007 2:19 PM:

'I don't wanna pit red America against blue America.'

What.Kinda.Tripe?

LOL

That's all fine and dandy rhetoric in a vacuum.

But me thinks Obama is being a little naive if he thinks the Michelle Malkins or Anne Coulters of the world are going to fall in line once HE (and apparently, HE alone) becomes president.

Really Obama? YOU (and YOU alone) are the solution to the 'dead-enders' in this country?

Not even a good argument to even attempt to put forward, IMO.

I'm not even into the Dixie Chicks like that but:

'I'm not READY to make nice'.

No, I'm not.

Got $5 that says not 5 minutes into his inauguration, all that 'bipartisianship' republicans like to talk about after a loss will be out the window. Just as fast as it was when Pelosi was made speaker of the house.

(got $5 more that says race will be front and center in right-wing smears as well)

Michael A wrote on December 6, 2007 2:54 PM:

You're on, I'll take that bet. No he is not trying to make nice with the cooooters or the mucklins of the republican party, just the moderate rank and file. Lush, coooooter and mucklin can go f themselves. Not all republicans buy their garbage.

Obama is leading the dems in republican draw with 39%. That's nothing to ignore and maybe, just maybe he might be able to unite the country. There is no guarantee, but he's the only dem with a shot, which is better than nothing.

brewmn wrote on December 6, 2007 3:09 PM:

"Thats a joke.....who in the hell was he fighting in the 90's when the Clintons were fighting for us in DC??????"

The Clintons were NOT fighting for orindary, working class Americans.

Their chief political fights were waged on behalf of global capital, and they maintained a razor-thin electoral majority through thinly-veiled racism, homophobia, and aw-shucks good ole boy schtick.

Anyone who thinks the Clintons fought the good fight on behalf or the working and middle classes is either too young to have lived through the '90s, too old to recall that decade clearly, or too stupid to see the Clinton administration for what it was.

Steve wrote on December 6, 2007 3:26 PM:

There was a time when this kind of ad would have worked for me. But now it rings hollow--it's all rhetoric without anything to back it up. There's not a single policy proposal in there anywhere--nothing about health care, about energy, about labor issues, about Iraq, about anything. Heck, from the text you can barely tell if he's a Democrat or a Republican.

Honestly, almost anybody can say this kind of thing. Even George W. Bush's 2000 convention speech was pretty good in that aspect. (No, I am NOT comparing Obama, someone who I generally admire, to George Bush, the worst president in history.) But without policy and deeds to back it up. Calling Clinton "disingenuous", staying silent about Kyl-Lieberman and then attacking Clinton for it, not proposing a universal health plan--it all sounds a lot like politics as usual to me.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 3:36 PM:

loki,

Right, I didn't address what you said in your 8:48 post because I don't have any problem with Greg's current post. The confusion is being caused by the fact that my 7:44 post was referring to an earlier version of Greg's post (one which apparently had changed by your 8:48 post, and certainly had changed by the time I posted at 10:22). So when you pointed out in your 8:48 post that my 7:44 post appeared to be unfair, I agreed--but that is because you were trying to match up my criticisms with the revised post, and not the original one I was addressing.

willyjsimmons,

As Michael A implied, the idea is to try to attract Republican voters, not the current Republican power structure. And we have lots of evidence that a substantial number of Republican voters (and voters that have recently stopped identifying as Republicans) are disaffected with their current leadership and willing to consider voting for a Democrat.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 3:45 PM:

Steve,

The thing is, you have to understand you are not the target audience for this ad. Indeed, the mere fact that you are posting here strongly suggests that you are unusually active in following politics.

Most people, however, spend far less time following politics than it appears you do--and I can't blame them for prioritizing family, work, and so on. And it is those people who can benefit from actually seeing politicians in ads like this, because they may have seen little of it from that particular candidate before.

Of course that shouldn't be the only information voters get, and it won't be. But I also don't think you can entirely discount the importance of having a President who can speak to people in a way they find inspiring.

CalD wrote on December 6, 2007 4:15 PM:

DTM wrote:

"I have to say I am amused by the current arguments of people like CalD, which have come full circle from arguing that Clinton is more experienced and therefore a better politician than Obama to complaining that Obama is using time-tested rhetorical techniques to win political support."

Ah well, you know what they say, simple minds are easily amused. But also wrong as usual, in that I did not in fact say any of those things.

DTM, if you want to make up your own assertions to argue against I can't say that I blame you. Your arguments are invariably weaker than mine so your preference is certainly understandable -- that's known as a "straw man," BTW. But if you want to supply both sides of the argument yourself then you obviously don't need me, so just leave my name out of it.

DTM wrote:

"I have to say I am amused by the current arguments of people like CalD, which have come full circle from arguing that Clinton is more experienced and therefore a better politician than Obama to complaining that Obama is using time-tested rhetorical techniques to win political support."

Ah well, you know what they say, simple minds are easily amused. But also wrong as usual, in that I did not in fact say any of those things.

DTM, if you want to make up your own arguments to argue against I can't say that I blame you. Your arguments are invariably weaker than mine so your preference is certainly understandable -- that's known as a "straw man," BTW. But if you want to supply both sides of the argument yourself then you obviously don't need me, so just leave my name out of it. K?

willyjsimmons wrote on December 6, 2007 5:13 PM:

@Michael A

You're on, I'll take that bet.

That republicans will suddenly stop obstructing democratic legislation?

No he is not trying to make nice with the cooooters or the mucklins of the republican party, just the moderate rank and file.

Then why is this add running prior to the primaries? He's speaking to 'moderate' republicans?

maybe, just maybe he might be able to unite the country.

Based upon what? Policy? Faith?

@DTM

And we have lots of evidence that a substantial number of Republican voters (and voters that have recently stopped identifying as Republicans) are disaffected with their current leadership and willing to consider voting for a Democrat.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 6, 2007 5:16 PM:

DRAT!

messed that all the way up.

@DTM

I'd like to see what evidence 'we' have.

And who is 'we'?

loki wrote on December 6, 2007 5:53 PM:

DTM

It's probably too late for this thread, but what the heck.

I knew what the original post had as a heading. That is what I was talking about. You had a problem with it, Saying:

I think you are artificially cheapening this ad by characterizing it as just an attack on Clinton.

My argument was that he was not "characterizing it as just and attack."

You were once again "working the refs." And over such a minor thing. Yet again proving my point about your irrational feelings towards Greg, Josh and TPM and their supposed bias. The fact that Greg proved this time to be a weak ref doesn't make your criticism legitimate. The ad did "hit Clinton." It also talked about Obama's message. All of this was pointed out.

Ah well...I gotta hand it to you, you are doing a hell of a lot better job than I thought possible. So shame on Greg Sargent.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 6:20 PM:

CalD,

Fair enough--I withdraw my comment.

willyjsimmons,

By "we" I just mean the public.

The evidence in question is mostly polling data, although there is also more anecdotal evidence (such as Republicans forming groups to support particular Democrats).

The simplest polling evidence is things like generic Democrat versus Republican polls. For example, in a recent NBC/WSJ poll, a generic Democrat beat a generic Republican 50-35, even though the party ID numbers were only 41-34 in favor of the Democrats. And that gap in party ID numbers in turn reflects an increase from 2004, when the Democrats had something like a 3-4 point advantage. In other words, Republicans have been becoming independents or Democrats.

For more detailed evidence, you can look at the many relevant hypothetical head-to-head polls available (particular the ones from SurveyUSA, since they generally provide cross-tabs by party ID). Although the cross-over numbers will likely go down once the nominees are settled, the Democrats tend to do better in these polls than the Republicans in attracting cross-over voters (with the arguable exception of McCain).

And for one small but interesting example, you can consider the August University of Iowa poll. They polled Iowa Republicans about their presidential preference, but unusually let them name people rather than asking them to choose off a list. In that poll, Obama actually got 6.7%, good for third among Iowa Republicans (behind Romney and Giuliani).

It is not too hard to understand why all this is happening, by the way. Returning to that NBC/WSJ poll, when asked if the next President should take a similar approach to George W. Bush, it was 74-20 against. People most want a new direction on health care, followed by Iraq. This is the same sort of thing reflected in other polls, and on top of that the Republicans are generally much less happy with their field than the Democrats.

Basically, even a good number of Republicans are in the mood for change, the top issues favor the Democrats, and the Republicans don't like their candidates as much. All that adds up to very favorable conditions for a landslide election--provided the Democrats nominate someone who can realize these advantages.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 6:26 PM:

loki,

Without Greg's original post available it is a little hard for us to have a debate about whether my first comment was fair or not (for example, I believe you cited a line that was added or at least modified in the new version, but it is hard to check that without the original available). So, I will just note that nowhere in that comment did I accuse Greg, Josh, or TPM of bias, and otherwise as previously noted I no longer consider that comment applicable.

And incidentally--do you have a problem with the final version of Greg's post? I have no idea if my comment in any way influenced Greg, but even if it did, so what? As long as his final post is fair, why would you care?

Michael A wrote on December 6, 2007 7:10 PM:

Finally got to watch the ad. Awesome ad.

On the bet willyjsimmons, search recent news articles, in addition to DTM's comments there was one in the last month reporting on a gallup poll with obama drawing 39% of republicans. In the same article, they were discussing republicans organizing to help obama win the democratic nomination in iowa.

Sounds like pretty good evidence to me. Is it a given, nope. But it does give us some hope and that's what the country needs right now.

Also, with obama at the head of the ticket and the republican draw he brings as opposed to the radical republicans that clinton II will bring out in droves to vote against her, there is also a shot that dems could get a filabuster proof majority in the senate. Finally, if the lanslide is big enough, moderate republicans, the 4 or 5 in the senate could join with the expanded dem majority to shut down the republican loons and stop filabustering to get stuff done. With clinton II there will just be stagnation and gridlock.

DonnaG wrote on December 6, 2007 8:41 PM:

Just being curious, I e-mailed a link to this Obama ad to the one Hillary supporter whom I personally know.
Here's the reply:
That was beautiful. Great ad!

Dave Carlson wrote on December 6, 2007 10:29 PM:

DonnaG, I think you're right. This is one of those ads that is acceptable, even inspiring, to everybody. I think it's not so much an attack ad as it is an assertion of Obama's mission and unique position in the political process.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)