« SurveyUSA: Tight GOP Race In Florida, Romney Up By One | Home | Dem Pollster: Romney Up By Seven In Florida »
Dem Campaigns Expand Ad Buys In Feb. 5 States
With the Democratic race fast shifting to a national contest, the campaigns are ramping up their buying in the Feb. 5th states. The Edwards camp, for instance, announced on a conference call an "aggressive" new ad buy in 10 states over the next 48 hours.
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is rolling out a series of state ads, including one in Missouri starring Obama backer Claire McCaskill...
...and another in Arizona starring Janet Napolitano:
Advertisement
Now if he was as persuasive as getting her straight on FISA as he is with getting her to help him get elected, I'd have more respect.
January 28, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a lucky thing for Sen Obama that I am already so far gone for him, because I have no use for Sen McCaskill. He has a very good commercial running in the later hours of prime-time right now, however, in MO about health care. Hopefully more folks are paying attention to that one.
January 28, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Rezko trickle - - Ben Smith
Marc Ambinder notes that today's a pretty good day for Tony Rezko to get arrested, from the Obama campaign's perspective of it being drowned out by other news, but it's also worth contrasting the Clinton's handling of Hsu, a parallel case, with Obama and Rezko.
Clinton after a day or two of scandal decided to dump nearly $1 million, which ratified the scandal, but at the same time gave reporters less to dig for.
Obama's campaign did a very good job of more or less keeping the story out of the papers all year, but now that prosecutors have put Rezko back in the news, information seems to be coming out in a bit of a daily trickle.
January 28, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Greg, for posting this.
Edwards fundraising is going growing by leaps and bounds, and this new ad buy will only create more momentum. The campaign raised more than $3 million online during the first 25 days of this quarter, which was more than it raised during the whole 4th quarter of last year. Not bad for a candidate that (too) many have claimed was no longer in the race!
January 28, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
First they triangulated and marginalized AntiWar Democrats
Then they did African Americans in our party
Who'll be the next Clintons' victim
January 28, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like Obama is doing a good job of blackmailing Democratic leaders in red states, forcing them to endorse him if they want to keep the black vote that narrowly elected them.
I wonder how the white voters in Missouri and Arizona will appreciate such strong-arm tactics.
January 28, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's official, this campaign is two against one. Sorry, two against one against one. (*nod to Edwards*)
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/01/clintons-plural.html
January 28, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
About McCaskill,
He flipped her, she voted against cloture on the FISA filibuster. She's one of us after all!
January 28, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, why does Obama get the credit for flipping McCaskill? I called her office to tell them that as a democratic voter in MO, I was expecting her to vote against cloture. Don't I get any credit?
;-)
Seriously, though, I am glad to read that McCaskill did vote the right way this time.
January 28, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, I'm sure your efforts were not in vain. I certainly appreciate them.
I'll tell you what, I'm in Ohio and we got Sherrod Brown on the same day you got her. Suffice it to say, we got a better deal. He's been incredibly liberal. Looking at his record, I can't understand how the hell he was elected, or more to the point, how he'll ever be re-elected. Fortunately, his next turn comes on a presidential year so we should get at least two terms out of him.
January 28, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Sherrod alot, you got him in office by the fact that he has railed against the free trade concept, even 2/3 of republicans think it is a bad deal. This issue could be the defining issue for dems to pull in the fence sitting moderate males in the GE. That is if the dems can take their nose outta wall streets azz and plant it on main street where it belongs.
January 28, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
little old lady,
I smell Clinton here. Find something more productive to do with all the time you have in your hand. Bingo, perhaps!
January 28, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strange, very strange…
January 28, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grant,
We know about Rezko. I read fully up on the connection in my process of choosing Obama. It was a mistake, and one he apologized for, and about as relevant as Clinton's ties to Norman Hsu.
January 28, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill,
Keep telling yourself that. It will perhaps ease your pain when the shit really hits the fan.
January 28, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: Rezko:
Rather than banter with you folks over well-trod ground, you might want to look to the Chicago Sun-Times, which has been covering this exact topic for years, now. They've pulled no punches in calling what Obama did idiotic, yet they also have pointed out that nothing illegal occurred, nor is alleged to occur by anyone currently involved in the prosecution.
My eyes are open. I've done the legwork. I encourage anyone who questions the current events regarding this gentleman to do the same, rather than spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. I'd rather leave that sort of "reporting" to the same kind of GOP operatives who started us down the Whitewater trail.
January 28, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Increased ad buys are the payback for coverage of the candidates with the most money.
January 28, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how the white voters in Missouri and Arizona will appreciate such strong-arm tactics.
You mean the ones who will show up in droves during the General to vote against Hillary? Thanks for playing.
January 28, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kathleen Sebilius - each of you is.... Haha, what kind of English is this? the heartland English?
January 28, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Each of you is... grammatically correct.
each=singular subject
of you = prepositional phrase
anonymous = dumbass
January 28, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 10:24 PM:
"Kathleen Sebilius - each of you is.... Haha, what kind of English is this? the heartland English?"
I've never seen her talk before. She certainly is dull. Some people talk about her as a national candidate. Hard to see her catching on.
One thing she does have in common with her endorsee. Both of them give feel good but relatively content free addresses.
January 28, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm that white voter in Mo and I'm totally for Obama. I see bumper stickers for him every day. I think Clinton is sorely lacking attention in this state. Obama is coming twice, she sticks us with Bill.
January 29, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget about Arizona. No one cares much for Napalitano. She probably won't be re-elected and her career is over. She's hoping for a job with Obama because she know she won't get one with Hillary. And, Arizona will NEVER go for Obama! Why! He is for driver's licences for illegals. This is a hot button issue there. AZ folks are enraged over there. They want all the illegals dumped at the border and they don't care how and why.
January 29, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink