Waaaaay overplaying the hand of this endorsement. A jumping of the shark, if you will. That's so overdone that it caused some of my coworkers to laugh as I played it. Odds are that this ad will be looked back on as a textbook example of how to take a really good endorsement and screw it up by overplaying it...

Hillary is just another run-of-the-mill politician.

She gives a good speech and cries for the cameras, then sends out a misleading negative husband. She talks of a new way of doing things and reaching out to people who disagree with us, then turns the west wing into a playground sand-box for her husband Bill. There's nothing new or fresh about her, and she's not ready for prime time.
Point is, the Billary's have bought into a false Billary of goods. All well-intentioned, but they got all gauzy and glassy-eyed thinking the Monicas had personally touched down and entered the Democratic race. Sorry, folks, but you just have another has been politician on your hands (one without much tact, experience or skills beyond speeches in front of small crowds). You've projected all of your nightmares onto one human being. No person could possibly live up to them, let alone someone so devoid of substance and experience and original ideas. Just a bunch of recycled rhetoric from just another of Bills play things.

And who wants Billy wagging his finger and cigar in their face !!!!!

Does anyone find this slightly disgusting? Mr Change needs to be propped up by one of the greatest democratic presidents of our time? There is a reason Obama's ads don't talk about all the good things he's done. You can't run on air. Oh, wait, apparently, you can.

Yeah...The Page lists the spanish language ad as playing in California. Not FLA. Our guy is respecting the nominating the process.

BTW, did you all see this?

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Hillary's+word:+It's+worth+nothing&articleId=0853268a-d982-4190-81e8-740ae942f510

COURTING VOTERS in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar.

Clinton kept her name on the Michigan ballot when others removed theirs, she campaigned this past weekend in Florida, and she is pushing to seat Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention. The party stripped those states of delegates as punishment for moving up their primary dates.

"I will try to persuade my delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida," Clinton said last week, after the New Hampshire primaries and Iowa caucuses were safely over.

Clinton coldly and knowingly lied to New Hampshire and Iowa. Her promise was not a vague statement. It was a signed pledge with a clear and unequivocal meaning.

She signed it thinking that keeping the other candidates out of Michigan and Florida was to her advantage, but knowing she would break it if that proved beneficial later on. It did, and she did.

New Hampshire voters, you were played for suckers.

They should have gotten a professional to do the voice over she really doesn't have great delivery. Then they could have cut to her and she could say the bit she does while on camera. The funny part is could anyone look less excited as she says she feels excitement.

steve, i think you missed the "let's all whine about Hillary" thread - it was two articles further down. This one's about the Kennedy endorsement of Obama.

I'm a strong Obama supporter, but I think this ad is a bit over the top. Of course, as a 28 year old male who's been solidly in the Obama camp since 2004, I'm not exactly the target audience. I'm curious as to how it will play, and whether it will turn off any voters. If it works, more power to his media team, which I think has done an excellent job so far.

There's one thing I've learned from reading this site and other liberal blogs -- as well as the comments on them. The segment of the population that checks these blogs and their close friends are completely unrepresentative of the country. For months, many people commented that no one they knew or worked with really liked Hillary Clinton, yet obviously she has a huge following. I tend to believe Steve, who says that he and his co-workers thought this ad overplayed the endorsement. But most members of the public don't read the New York Times or watch cable, and they may not even know of the Caroline endorsement. So I think this ad will reach those whom Obama needs to reach, and it certainly won't cost him votes among those who are already on board.

Kathy, you wrote:

'Does anyone find this slightly disgusting? Mr Change needs to be propped up by one of the greatest democratic presidents of our time?'

you don't see the irony in that comment? really?

admittedly the "greatest" might throw you off a bit, but, come on.

pot meet kettle.

WOW....
That ad gives me chills.
That is one fantastic ad.
To all of you saying it is "overplaying your hand", I say, whatever.
That ad hits me right where I live, and it is honest.
Caroline has every right to claim that Obama makes her feel the way other people felt about her father.
You are all just WAAAYYY too cynical, or jealous, I cant decide which.
That is one POWERFUL ad, and it will serve him well.
People are cynical about it, maybe, until they hear him give a speech.
Obama makes me proud to be an American, none of the others have that effect on me.

This is an ad in which Caroline Kennedy tells the viewer the same thing she told readers in the NYT: that Barack Obama makes her feel like he could excite voters and heal divisions like her father did. I think this is the kid of ad that could have overplayed its hand. But, did not.

This is really Caroline Kennedy telling you how she feels, about Barack Obama. It's personal, and not for her own political gain. So, I think it is what it is.

This is a fantastic ad for Obama. Caroline has never publically endorsed any presidential candidate. She has been described as one of the most dignified women in America today. For her to come up for the first time as Oparah did to support Obama carried a lot of weight.

Kathy

Now admit it, you are a Hillary Clinton supporter. Nothing to be ashamed in that!
I do have to give you credit for not race baiting.

You say "cheap commercial stunts",
I would be interested to know why you think it is "cheap". It seems very respectfull and dignified. I will stand up for it.
Unlike your not standing up for Hillary.

Get with the program, if your going to debate then debate, don't hide and play games!

This election is too important.

Just a reminder: every Clinton supporter, and Hillery herself, would have swooned had they secured the sincere endorsement of Caroline Kennedy.

But that was not to be.

Perhaps people should ask themselves why.

Barack, chill on the Camelot stuff. You can't recreate Woodstock.

Do your thing, it's great. Let it happen.

Kathy

So you would not use a family member of yours who'd died - someone whose legacy and image you were proud of - to endorse or enhance the image of someone you admire and want to help.

Your blog perhaps says more about your disappointments and lack of aspirations -
then it does of Obamas and the Kennedys.

For that I am sorry for you.

Are the numbers spelling trouble for Hillary?


A very interesting post from Andrew Sullivan's site:

Winning New York City would be more than a symbolic victory for Obama. In New York State, twenty-three Congressional Districts have five delegates\ apiece, and six CDs have six delegates. Five of those six are in NYC. Were Obama to carry those districts, he'd score 4 delegates to Hillary's 2, or 3 to her 1 if Edwards tops 15%. In the remaining CDs, if Obama can just top 30%, the delegates will split 3-2 in favor of Hillary, or 2-2-1 if Edwards meets the threshold.

The point is this. Using the numbers in the poll you cite, and the conservative assumptions that Hillary wins every single district out of the city, that Obama everywhere garners at least 30%, and that Edwards doesn't meet the threshold anywhere, the pledged delegate tallies for New York State would be: Hillary 132, Obama 100. You can knock one delegate off of Hillary's total for every upstate CD in which Edwards cracks 15%; if he breaks that statewide, subtract another 6 from Hillary and 4 from Obama.

The point is this. Hillary's strategy is built on the assumption that she can leverage huge leads in NY, NJ, and CA to compensate for her losses in the south and midwest. And in the last week, that strategy has gone up in smoke. She's finished; if our national media wasn't innumerate, it would have noticed by now.

"What we think about it doesn’t matter."

That's where you're wrong, my dear. Here is what most Democrats think: We need a nominee who is tough and smart. We need a nominee who really knows what he/she will do in the White House ... who has a workable plan to get the economy back and track and a sensible way to start pulling out of Iraq, who has a health care plan that won't leave millions out and has a reasoned approach to addressing entitlement programs once and for all. Hillary brings all of that, and more, while Obama brings none of it.

What does Obama bring? Foggy, intangible notions that give the small but vocal core of hypnotized Obamabots "chills" and "tears." Things like a "sense of who we are" and "hope" and "belief that change is possible." All great things. They sound wonderful. Obama inspires us, me included. But he does not give me confidence that he would have any clue what to do if he was (somehow) elected president and found himself sitting in the Oval Office.

And no over-cooked ad from great Democrats three generations ago can change that core, key fact.

Kathy

So you would not use a family member of yours who'd died - someone whose legacy and image you were proud of - to endorse or enhance the image of someone you admire and want to help.

Your blog perhaps says more about your disappointments and lack of aspirations -
then it does of Obamas and the Kennedys.

For that I am sorry for you.

steve, if you actually paid attention to what the candidates said, you'd know Obama is every bit as specific about goals and policies as Hillary or any other candidate. This "foggy" crap you bring to attack him is just like what Kerry got in 04 from Bush/Cheney, anyone who talks about hope or speaks intelligently at all is all the sudden all "empty rhetoric" or flip floppy or whatever, just because you can't keep up and understand the candidates and what they want to do doesn't mean the candidate has a problem, sounds more like a problem with your understanding to me.

"Homosexuality-inspired hatred of Hillary"? Wow. Methinks you are projecting something of your own.

As a matter of fact, Sullivan's recent cover article for The Atlantic makes a very strong case for Obama entirely on his own terms. His argument is anchored on the eminently reasonable point that Obama would make the best face of America for meeting the global issues ahead. As significant as a female president would be, an African-American leader of the free world would be much more significant - and powerful testament to what's good about America - around the globe.

Besides, I think many other former admirers are joining me in a growing dislike of Hillary for the Clintons' tactics ('well, Jesse Jackson won in 84 and 88...') of late.

Steve and others -


Bewail all you might, Obama does have specific plans:


http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Okay, now I remember why I don't post here. Back to Talk Left where dissent is not confused with delusion.

Big News

Rasmussen’s new poll for CT shows Obama and Clinton are tied at 40% each. It’s the first new poll taken since he won SC, but BEFORE Ted Kennedy’s endorsement was announced. Also, prior to this poll, Hillary was leading by 20%.

Hillary was supposed to have a lock on the NY tri-state (NY, NJ, CT), so if CT is in play, she may be in trouble in NJ and NY as well.

The new Kennedy ads are coming out one after another in all the big states.

Obama is making up ground FAST. Looks like Obama could pull an upset on February 5th.

I support Hillary Clinton because she is smart and tough and because she has the right plans to get the economy on track, fix health care, deal with entitlement programs and get us out of Iraq sensibly.-steve

How do you feel about her jumping up to applaud Bush's line about the surge working in last night's SOTU speech?

"I support Hillary Clinton because she is smart and tough and because she has the right plans to get the economy on track, fix health care, deal with entitlement programs and get us out of Iraq sensibly."

This is every bit as content free as you accuse Obama of being, my friend. It sounds like you copied it right off of Hillary's website. Try thinking for yourself.

It's funny how the Hilary crowd complains about Obama's lack of specificity, yet all they offer in response are platitudinous references to her strength and experience.

Dear Kathy,

Mrs Hillary `Experience' Clinton needs to be propped by the Mr. Bill `First Black President' Clinton. Ooops! I forgot, the Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison took that back.

I do not see dramatic policy differences between the three democratic candidates. However, Obama has given the young generation a reason to be involved. The exit polls in Florida twilight zone Democratic primary show something interesting. The majority of under 50 people picked Obama.

There is a vibe in the air that does not compare with anything I have witnessed in the las two decades.

Sincereley,

Felix `Yes we can!' Klein