All this does is feed the notion that she's now in desperation mode. Campaign shakeups and calling for excessive debates are the kind of things you see from failing campaigns. That's what the Clinton campaign has become.

Please Senator Clinton. Release your tax returns before you start accusing Senator Obama of being a wimp. Just where did the President get that $5 million? Voters want to know.

Why is she doing this??!?!?!?

All it does is hurt the party.

Uhg

AlwaysTip is 100% correct. Not only should Hillary hand over her and Bill's tax records they should also hand over the records of the Clinton Library and the Clinton foundation.

The whole idea that she will turn them over during the General Election and not the primary is laughable.

wwjb-

How many debates took place during the 2004 Presidential primaries? That would be a better comparison. Anyone know?

Being from the midwest, specifically MN and WI, I know that in general we don't respond well to negativity. I don't think this will be a winning approach in WI. I suppose time will tell.

How does this hurt the party? She's now attacking him on things which are factually accurate, which you Obama supporters had asked for. Does it hurt the party when he paints her as the status quo? Says she's too divisive? Please give me the list of what hurts the party and what doesn't so I can check it next time.

Let's be honest here. Hillary wants more debates, not because she wants Obama to answer questions and not because she comes off better than he after debates. Hillary wants more debates because she has very little money. Debates are free TV time. There have been EIGHTEEN DEBATES, and there will be at least one or two more. What more questions does he (or she for that matter) have to answer?

Hillary supporters, please respond. I'm honestly curious.

The ad will reinforce the image that many hold of Hillary being a mean, spiteful, and vengeful person who will not stop at anything to win. Now she really has found her voice; that real cold, calculating, and strident one that we were all used to before she pulled out a nose hair in New Hampshire.

No, this doesn't hurt the party. Obama does need to add some substance to his stump speeches. And he does need to mark the contrast between his plan and Clinton's. Clinton isn't taking a low blow or anything here - in fact, this might help Obama in that it pushes him further in the direction he needs to go - less fluff and platitudes, more nitty gritty. It's the time now for him to turn the corner and start hitting the Republicans hard, do more town hall meetings, smaller venues, etc.

HRC's line on releasing tax returns amounts to "I'll let you see them when I have the nomination and you're stuck with me ... and whatever they reveal." It's a loyalty oath thing. Don't you trust her?

A few questions he could respond to in the next debate:

How can you advocate following party rules to disenfranchise FL and MI voters, but then advocate bucking the party rules when it comes to superdelegates and their right to choose whichever candidate they want?

You promise post-partisanship. How exactly, in precise detail is this achieved? What does it mean? How do you create a post-partisan world while still pushing traditionally liberal and Democratic policies?

If you believe in new politics, why are you afraid to push for equal rights for gays and lesbians, including marriage?

Why did you claim that "the entire Rezko story" consisted of five hours of legal work when in fact it consisted of multiple shady land deals and years of campaign contributions?

While i am certainly no Hillary fan and did not vote for her in my primarary, but would if she is the nominee, this is a good ad.

Not from a substance perspective, but i imagine they thought they were brilliant putting this out.
Hopefully people will see it for what it is.
A desperate ploy.

Obviously it's desperate, but not underhanded. It's free exposure (Obama has more money). It's a good format for her (She's a great debater). I'm for Obama, and I see no reason to increase the debates. What else is there to say after 18 of them. I'm not sure if I can sit through another two, let alone four.
Go Obama. Yes we can!

P.S. - not sure if going negative will work for her or hurt her.

What about all the Paul Krugman columns about Obama? Don't say they are pointing out policy differences either b/c the last two at least have had basically nothing to do with policy.

Maureen Dowd is ELITE opinion????

I'm a strong Obama supporter and volunteer, but is THIS a negative ad? Have we come to the point where any criticism is a negative ad? This is fair comment.

This is not hurting the party.

She is hurting her candidacy however.
She is not even going to be in Wisconsin until the weekend. She is making a bad situation worse by not seriously contesting the state of Wisconsin. The voters there will see that for what it is and vote accordingly. She is really trying to give Obama a full head of steam with two weeks to chip away at her lead. If she took the time to work in Wisconsin, she could get it close and there would be some positive press out of that. But by almost ignoring the state she will insure yet more bad news going into Firewall 2.0.

And yes I know the Big Dog is there. But they shortened his leash since the biting incident.

I think it's a fine ad but the "he won't debate" argument looks pretty weak when you find out they've already had 18 of them.

I doubt the ad will have much traction. I agree that Barak needs to add more policy details to his stump speech. However when 18,000 people come to a coliseum to see you they usually aren't there to hear policy details.

Texas and Ohio = Hillary Country

Two decisive victories and to the White House!!

XD

What I want to know is did he formally decline, or is it really because she's in Texas and he's in Wisconsin?

IMO, her old school politicking is what's hurting her.

There is nothing negative about this ad; it does not attack Obama in any personal or demeaning way. I think it is reactionary to call this "negative" and TPM would do better by calling it a "new" ad rather than playing the same game as corporate media. As for Obama supporters, I hope they can respond to the content of the ad to keep our TPM debate going. Obama supports seem to force every comments section into the same drumbeat. From that perspective, the refusal to participate in debate plagues both Obama and his supporters.

Also, how many debates featured Obama and Clinton one-on-one? The substance of individual positions in a multi-candidate debate format often gets lost. Finally, Obama needs the practice in one-on-one debating. If he become the nominee, he will certainly face McCain one-on-one.

My question to those who claim it hurts the party and my question to you WHAT PARTY? No one has mentioned what those of who have been loyat Dems have been trying to say but our voice is being drowned out by the hype surrounding OBAMA

Obama is not winning the DEMOCRATIC nomimation by getting the dem votes. He is winning by getting the votes of people who do not support the true fundamentals of the party. If Obama wins the nomination it will not be because DEMS wanted him but because people who have no clue as the democatic party values are taking over our party becuase they could not get one started on thier own. If Independants support this guy then why not let him run as an independant. To us it is not fair that people who will not even support our party platforms get to jump in by the masses and over take our voice and shaft the democrats with a candidate that we do not want.

Before anyone argues take a look at how your candidate is winning. Ironic that the democratic party will be a ticket not voted on by the majority of REGISTERED DEMS. The Majority of registered dems have voted for Hillary. Our anger comes at the fact that people who don't support our party our taking over. Why should I vote for your guy. I have been to his website and looked at his record but see nothing that actually speaks to the reason why I JOINED the party. I registered to vote in 91 I chose to because I seen what the "party of ideas" did to the people know.

What have we to do now that "change" has come. We have lost our party to a bunch of elite, arrogant, know it alls, who think that bipartiship is wonderful. Not if it comes at our expense. You don't make friends by fighting our causes and we are smart enough to know that the Clintons made alot of enemies in the 1990's because they faught on behalf of us. Bill Clinton listened to Rep but he didn't give in unless it was really a good idea. Obama's legislative record is calculated. He went to the senate and jumped on board with legislation not because it was the right thing to do but because it made him friends and would look good on the campaign trail. Where I come from we seen alot of change on behalf us because of Clinton and now you say that its time to move on. WHY? Someone gave more than lip service to our plight and we are not going to vote for someone who thinks it was not enough. The Clinton's felt our pain and did something about it.

18 debates, one between the 2 of them.

What's Obama afraid of?

The people of Wisconsin do deserve to hear both candidates on the issues. I live in Minnesota and I feel like I have heard both candidates, even though they didn't debate in my state.

I have a TV, and I have basic cable. I bet that many people in Wisconsin have a TV, too. And the wonder of television is that we can see events live from anywhere in the country.

Well, I just registred now and I find this the perfect article to write my first comment.

I disagree with many here: it's not a smart ad. Hillary is trying to run as the 'serious' candidate, the one with real plans for real problems. But it hasn't worked yet. And the more she attacks Obama, the more Obama runs on the positive side of politics, which is a winner-take-all bet for 2008 among democrats, since the Bush administration has waked up people's hunger for a different kind of public debate.

Furthermore, Obama hasn't really attacked Hillary yet, he just has responded to some negative assertions made about him. If Obama has to start attacking Hillary some times, you bet he has a lot of bullets left: not for nothing 47% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of her.

REEKS of desperation!!! If memory serves, she will have the pleasure of a one-on-one debate with Obama one week from tomorrow, broadcast live from Austin, Texas. She's just hungry for free publicity. This morning on Scarborough's show, Wolfson made several references to fundraising through her website, saying "hillaryclinton.com" at least once. Like the last debate, she wants a free forum to beg for cash.

If she really cared about Wisconsin, she'd move up there for the next few days. She loves to steal from Obama's speeches; now she should steal his campaign style. Go around the state, meet the people, hold town halls. If she's such a terrific candidate, she won't lose any Texas or Ohio voters. Money shouldn't be an excuse. She should copy Huckabee - fly coach and make as many media appearances as possible, more free publicity!

You know, last night I started to feel sorry for her. Stopped myself, though, knowing that as soon as I did, she and/or Bill would do something to make me regret it.

The next three weeks will be VERY interesting. A true test of Bill Control. Any bets on the next eruption???

With all respect, I think a debate between Hillary and Obama should center on Iraq. That is the issue for me given I have three young sons who are potentially prime fodder for a long-lasting conflict. I support Hillary as our best shot at defeating McCain given that she has not painted herself into a corner like I think Barak has.

If you look at what Barak is proposing (direct from website): Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

I think it is problematic on several fronts and leaves Obama open to attack.

First, he appears to say that it will take less than a brigade to defend what will be the largest U.S. embassy in the world. I find that notion simply flawed in its thinking.

Second, it assumes that al Queda can be targeted without troop presence in the country. Given how challenged our troops continue to be in Iraq, even at current troop levels, it appears that this idea at a minimum needs to be explained better. How exactly does he intend to challenge al Queda's presence and efforts in the country and even in the Middle East if we pull out all combat brigades.

Three, in light of a full withdrawal, is there anything that can be done to protect Iraqis who have worked with us and who might suffer as a result of our departure? Do we have any responsibility to these people? Who and how many of them are there? What kind of cost might their protection by us entail?

I strongly supported John Kerry in 2004 (to the point of doing GOTV in Reno) because the Senator had combat experience and because I wanted that person sitting behind that desk in the Oval Office potentially signing orders to deploy our troops into harms way to have known what it is like to be on the receiving end of combat. Bush avoided the opportunity to gain such experience.

I am against Obama because I have grave doubt about his plans for Iraq. I believe they are more likely to ultimately force my sons into harms way. Otherwise, I see the Sen. as good and well meaning man from whom our country could benefit a great deal. That said, McCain would hurt the country in every other way possible. Hillary is my middle ground pick and I think her experience on the international front will help us get through the situation created by Bush.

I notice that today's WI poll is not nearly so favorable to Obama as yesterday's, which confirms me in my suspcicion that we should not feel too confident about our chances there. Not that we should despair of winning it either, but I do not think that we should look at it as "in the bag" just yet.

This ad might not work out well for HRC if the current news cycle prominently features the fact that she has finally agreed to go forward with the NBC debate after threatening to boycott it over the Schuster comments. There is some dichotomy there, at least at first blush, between the "he won't debate me" angle in the ad and the news that she (not he) was throwing up roadblocks to the NBC debate. At a more general level, news that there is going to be another debate (or two) between the candidates in the coming weeks tends, in my view, to blunt the "he won't debate me" argument. At best, it morphs into "he won't debate me FREQUENTLY ENOUGH", which is far less powerful and starts to sound somewhat petty.

you guys think this ad is negative???

just wait until the general election!

and don't count on the media to defend the candidate who is attacked. just recall the "he said, she said" reporting of the swiftboat ads.

those ads got more play on the cable news networks than they ever did elsewhere and it took the "journalists" weeks (if not months) to figure out that they were just a pack of lies.

Greg Sargent:

Define "more aggressively than usual."

Thanks.

"You promise post-partisanship. How exactly, in precise detail is this achieved? What does it mean? How do you create a post-partisan world while still pushing traditionally liberal and Democratic policies?"

He doesn't promise "post-partisanship". That is a label that someone else made up. He does promise to try to get out of the stagnant ideological arguments of the past, which have gone back and forth with no progress for two decades.

An example would be teaming up with Republicans to put government spending online in a database. This creates transparency. He points out that wasting money cuts itno the budget which can be used for progressive causes too. ie. Every bridge to nowhere means less school books. In the past, liberals just defended big budgets versus the anti-government conservatives. But efficient, effective government is probably a better idea.

Same goes for the all-or-nothing health care debate. Watch the GOP scare people over mandates in November. Obama sidesteps the issue by providing universal access as a start. This will be much harder for the GOP to villainize and defeat. This is what Hillary should have done in 1993 and didn't, and so it failed. ( I think his breaking with orthodoxy on this is why Krugman is furious. But Krugman's approach was tried and failed miserably.) Frankly, health care is so bad in the US, that universal access to health care would be wonderful, even if some people cheat and even if it is not single payer. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I think he is moving beyond ideological extremes and trying to get bipartisan support to actually accomplish these tasks. It won't be easy, but the culture wars approach hasnt worked very well, so why not try something else?

As far as the ad, hard to take too seriously when Obama has agreed to more debates -- just not as many as Hillary wants.

As far as Krugman, he's great on economic policy but out of his league when it comes to politics. Maybe he has (had) his eye on a job in the Clinton II Administration.

republican voters who will be 100% behind McCain are voting in democratic primaries for the weakest candidate in the general - that is Barack Obama ...

Keep it up kool aid drinkers.

Good luck in November.

I'll support you "hopeful" campaign if he makes it but he is the weaker candidate I don't care how much the media puffs him up.

He has no substance at all.

Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich have always had it in for the Clintons. No news there, but it's interesting to see how low Dowd's column can go in her sexist attacks.

Hillary's camp still hasn't explained how they will force every American to buy health insurance. Payroll tax? Wage garnishment? Unless they detail their enforcement mechanism, there's no reason to think they will really cover EVERY American, as they claim.

Plus, McCain will run against freezing foreclosures as socialism.

My question is: Why should Obama give in to Hillary's ploy? Why does he have to play by Hillary's rules? We all know that she believes (falsely?) she speaks better in question-answer format. Why does not Obama invite her to give stump speech in the same joint rallies? If she disagrees, challenge her in an add. Or, he can just challenge her to speak before a joint rally. When you speak on TV in a debate, you will have to address the national audience, meaning you will deprive the state specific audience, and opportunity to talk to them and connect with them. Moreover, Obama has already done more than twice as much debates as in the last presidential primary (18-8). Obama knows the trick Hillary is tying to play, but he is letting her fall into her own desperation. Like I said 3-4 days ago, she is going to resort to aggressive negativity soon and start using her Karl Rovian weapon of weapon 35 years experience against her own fellow democrat, here she has already begun doing it. It is her do-or-die situation, so she has lost her mind to unleash full-fledged negative attacks against Obama. This is self-destruction for the Clintons and still worse for party.

How praytell is this a negative ad? This seems pretty tame to me. Really the Obamabots are getting a little carried away.