Hiding behind false attack ads? I watched that ad here on TPM, and it was just a response to her first "He won't debate" ad. Huh?

Hillary just told me (via e-mail--I can't get off their list, no matter how many times I've tried) the following:

When the bright lights are off and the speeches are over, who can you count on to listen to you, to stand up and deliver solutions?

I guess the solutions candidate is still here.

That's her only issue. Dead campaign.

Yeah, I don't know. I mean, if he weren't debating at all, that would be one thing. But the no debating in Wisconsin? (I guess that means Wisconsin counts or something...) And isn't Hillary supposed to be al about substance anyway? I'm not sure this is a good tactic, especially since Obama's ad was pretty effective [I am debating, that's old politics, let's get back to my vision for the country.]

But what do I know.

Haha, how pathetic. I think the voters of Wisconsin will see right through that, especially after she has all but written off Wisconsin and every other state besides Texas and Ohio as meaningless.

Yeah, way to show the voters of Wisconsin what they deserve :P

Where in the world did that last bit come from about taking away benefits from seniors? That is an blatant inexcusable lie. Any Hillary supporters care to answer?

Like Obama's last ad, the first five seconds of this one are the debate issue (OK, the last two seconds, too). The rest is a contrast of positions on real issues.

I'd love to see both of them giving the extra few seconds over to the real meat of the thing, and getting more detail in there. Coverage limitations are a real issue and deserve more time.

Ah, the last bastion of a flailing, failing campaign. What's that I smell...oh yes, desperation.

How much money does it cost to show these ads? I'm guessing it's less expensive in Wisconsin than, say, in Texas, but it's still got a cost some dough. And this is how they're spending it?

Why mention Obama at all, in any ad? For instance, when the local news is on tonight, imagine that this ad comes on, and the next item on the news is coverage of the Obama rally in Milwaukee. Exciting footage in contrast to an ad complaining about...debates! Nothing says "ZING!" like debates, if you ask me...

so what's Hillary's plan for social security then?

oh, yeah, balance the budget and THEN start to think about it, and fob off responsibility for the pain to some committee

at least Obama has put some things on the table he might be willing to consider to shore it up

the triangulator can't even get that far. day one? yeah, right

Hillary was accurate in the ad (and Hillary did not pile on by mentioning that Sen. Obama admitted he was taking a page from Ronald Reagan's playbook)

From ABC on May 17, 2007:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've also said that with Social Security, everything should be on the table.

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising the retirement age?

OBAMA: Everything should be on the table.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising payroll taxes?

OBAMA: Everything should be on the table. I think we should approach it the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did back in 1983. They came together. I don't want to lay out my preferences beforehand, but what I know is that Social Security is solvable. It is not as difficult a problem as we're going to have with Medicaid and Medicare.

There may be just three weeks of this stuff left. If anything, that ad shows that the Clintons know they're behind and have to hit hard. It's the fourth quarter, there's two minutes left, and they're losing by two touchdowns: so they're letting it all hang out.

I've been wondering this since the last ad: how effective are attack ads, really? Historically, are they known to sway undecided voters one way or the other?

Honestly, Richmond, I think Barack and Hillary are pretty close on the issues, and everything else is parsing a bit. I don't expect any candidate to do as I wish them to on everything--Barack doesn't and Hillary doesn't. What matters to me is a) electability, getting the Republicans out before they blow up the world and b) who can best put this country back together again. I trust both candidates to put together a terrific staff and listen to them (a refreshing change from the past few years). But I really, truly do not believe Hillary can beat John McCain. And I think Obama can.

More importantly, I think he has the capacity to inspire the people of this country to be better than they are, to inspire them to work for their fellows (as opposed to, say, Ari Fleischer on SUVs: "the President thinks the American way of life is a blessed one.") and to raise this country out of the mud, I think he has a real vision of what he wants this country to be, and vision, after all, is a president's job--and the wisdom to put together a group of fantastic people who can help him get there. I think a policy wonk can be a good president, and I think Hillary would be a very good president. I think someone like Obama could be a great president. I also don't think Hillary will ever get there.

Regarding the Clinton campaigns commercials attacking Obama for not debating, the Obama camp needs to respond with a much more effective commercial. Clearly Clinton is desperately grasping for anything to change the tide and that would be expected by not just an underdog but also by the likes of Clinton and her bizarre crew working for her (I can't wait to see Penn, Grunwald, Wolfson etc...GONE). It is just a tactic, but I worry an effective tactic that if not answered in a way that silences her argument, may work to her benefit. Obama's camp needs to keep things going their way right now and obviously a win in Wisconsin is pretty important.

My advice to Axelrod and Plouffe (for what it's worth) is to respond with an ad that says something like this:

"In debate #3 of this long primary season Hillary Clinton said she supported NAFTA. However in debates#5 and 9 she said she was against NAFTA. Just like in debate #13 where she said she supported driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and then in debate #15 told the American people she no longer supported what she had said in the last debate. Maybe Hillary Clinton is so eager to have another debate (we've only had 18 to date) so that she can yet again change her stance on the issues (background shows NAFTA, Iraq War, Patriot Act) that matter to the working people of Wisconsin."

Something along those lines...just a thought. Don't let her line of attack continue, however. Something tells me it might be effective.

No rest for the weary.

I want to ask Obama supporters why they are so upset about obama debating. I am sorry but being able to go out and speak is far less important to me than having someone that not only talk about the issues but can defend them. I find it ironic that your afraid of someone going on TV and pointing out to voters the holes in his policies and stances. I for one take someones stump speech with a grain of salt. I am not led by any pied piper. If Obama wanted to loose the "only rhetoric tag" then why is his so afraid to step of the podium and defend what he says. All I hear from his supporters is that he shouldn't have to take time off the trail of goin around repeating unappossed speeches. If he really is more than just a speech giver why is that he will not prove it.
I am sorry you do not like debates but I for one put more stake in how they defend thier positions with with the opposition. One of the biggest problems in our Congress is that we have lost the debating process. Reps and Senates stand and give speeches day after day. The media editorializes from the safe haven studios. I mean really how much more could you gain from both Orielly and Olberman if they set accross from each other making thier claims.

The truth is that if your oponenst is there to call you out- its harder to convince people if you don;t have a leg to stand on. Pundits don't have people on that challenges thier opinions for a reason. If Obama continues to deny a debate prior to a very importand primary then I have to reason its because he does think that given unchallenged rhetoric is more important.

Sorry we are electing a president not an Am idiol. They have to debate the issues so we are able to determine who knows thier A** from a whole in the ground. Our problem in this country is that we spend to much time believing stump speeches and not enough time debating.
The free market of ideas is a theory that states that if an idea has merrit then they will be able to compete and eventually win over opposition. How does having a bunch of candidates going around giving stump speeches really place the ideas in competition. How do we know his ideas have more merrit than hers. WE DON"T until they debate. And don't give me the we had upteen debates crap. THe have also given humdreds of speeches several on TV. I say Wisconsin deserves more than Speeches BEFORE THEY GO TO VOTE. That the issue yes they are scheduled for a debate but that is after they vote. Sorry but there are still alot of people who have yet to watch a debate because they did not think it would go until they got to vote.

In May 2007 Obama said raising retirement age should be on the table, along with everything else, to resolve Social Security's funding issues.

But his current and more refined position, presumably, is the one reflected on his website, which says:

"he does not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.

Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system."

Is it accurate to say, as Hillary's ad does, that Obama "might raise the retirement age"? Perhaps in some sense. Does it accurately reflect Obama's plan for Social Security? Not at all.

If Hillary is so concerned about what Wisconsin deserves, why hasnt she set foot in the state? Why is she ignoring the good people of the cheese state?

Besides, its absurd to say Obama is afraid to debate. They've had 18 already, and there are two more scheduled before March 4.

This is just more proof that Hillary will say anything and change nothing.

Thats why i'm voting for REAL change. I'm voting for Obama.

I understand your point about "electability" completely. I want to give you my best analysis which is really just one opinion. There are others, I know. "Electability" is probably the toughest issue to deal with because it looks forward in time to November, really a lifetime in politics. It is a fragile and precarious calculus because it rests on variables like gaffes, voter turnout, negative ads, immature supporters, fundraising, debate performances (remember GHWB checking his watch in the debate with WJC?), and other unpredictable factors. My concern is that the primary process should be a crucible for testing each candidate, their respective policy positions, their endurance, and yes, potential problems that need to be vetted and aired. It has not been such a test. This campaign has not been about policy contrasts, or contrasts in experience, or contrasts in life experiences. It is about personality. In many ways, Sen. Obama has been given a pass. The NBC/MSNBC canonization of Sen. Obama (and reciprocal trashing of the Clinton family) is just one well-documented example, but there are others. I am very concerned about the process to date. There are questions about Chicago land deals, political campaigns in Kenya, and other matters that I do not think have been aired out. I hope, for the sake of Senator Obama and the party, that there is no there there, but hope and prayer will not give me comfort on the crucial issue of electability. Not yet.

For some reason, the comments don't work right for me if I try to reply to a specific prior poster, but this is directed to Richmond's post above.

First, it's not clear that Obama's substantive position on what should be done to resolve the issue has evolved since last May. Note that he said in the interview:

"Everything should be on the table....I don't want to lay out my preferences beforehand."

So perhaps the only evolution is that he's chosen to say specifically what his preference is.

Second, the $97,500 figure is out of date. For 2008, the maximum is $102,000.

Third, Obama has stated that he might go with a "donut hole" approach so that the additional taxes might not apply to someone for income between $102,000 and $200,000, but would pick up again for earnings over $200,000.

I agree with what has been said, re: Wisconsin voters having 18 opportunities to see them debate. I would add that there are two more debates scheduled in the next two and a half weeks.

I am a political junkie and love debates, but this is getting to the point of even driving me nuts. Not to mention that when you have morons like Wolf Blitzer moderating, all you can really gain from these debates is an increasing desire to punch the delightful Mr. Blitzer in the face.