Fantastic. Really, great. (And fast.)

"Same old phony politics" strikes me as every bit as devastating as "there you go again." There is little by way of logical content to either, but they both set the listener up to look at the target as some sort of stammering loser. I think that this will be a very effective ad (although I am also an entheusiastic Obama supporter, so my impressions deserve to be read with a grain of salt).

Not to nitpick because I do enjoy this site, but why does every Obama post have some sort of forced caveat at the end?

I have actually been wondering this for a few days: Can anyone point me to a race where this whining over debates has moved votes? I know it's a classic move for Congressional challengers who are down 20 or so points, but has it ever worked?

Great response ad, btw. It seems to do more than just rebut the issue, but also throw it right back in Hillary's face (subtext: she'll say any ridiculous thing to win).

Here's why Obama's ad will, IMO, be more effective. It more accurately hones in on voters' pre-held reservations about Clinton, mainly that she's phony and/or untrustworthy, that her entire campaign is artifice.

18 debates and 2 more coming...that's damning to the claim that he's ducking her, and gives them room to pivot and slam her as inauthentic without coming off as a smear. They're responding to an attack, marshaling the facts that support their argument, and then making a pretty valid assessment: the attacks are phony.

The rebuttals on policy are also pretty strong, by citing Bill's cabinet.

This reminds me of SC, where Hillary went negative on the Reagan comments, Obama issued an ad rebutting the complaints and closing with the devastating line "Say anything, change nothing", and Hillary immediately pulled her ad (and he then reciprocated)

Hillery went to Texas to seek a Wisconsin debate with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has been in Wisconsin meeting twith the people of that state, ever since Tuesday night. HIllary must think that the people of Wisconsin are stupid, and that she can feed them any line of crap, and they will fall ofr it.

You know, good or bad, Hillary is dominating the news cycle right now. Whether it's Penn's stupid remark about insignificant states, Wolfson's nuclear convention, campaign shake-ups, or her new attacks against Obama are all getting a lot of press attention. Hillary is ramping up noise regardless of it being negative or not to keep herself in the news. Obama has been largely absent in the media since winning the Potomac. Whether that ends up working or not is the question.

"Attack ad" -- you're kidding right? Wait for the Republican 527 machine to get warmed up.

That is a great ad. The more Hillary goes negative, the better Obama sounds going positive. Furthermore, the Clinton's assertion about debates was stupid.

Is Obama buying superdelegates?

[E]lected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 81 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 34, or 40 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $228,000. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him.

Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $195,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton.

from: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

There is only one phony in this campaign and that is Obama. He switches his story depending on who he is talking to. He plagerized Hillary's economic plan and WHY IS HE NOT DEBATING??? Hhe hasn't answered that question.

HERE IT IS!!!

Look who's singing a different tune now

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/30/061030on

Before running for President, Senator Obama told the New Yorker:

Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton, politically?

You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she's the most disciplined—one of the most disciplined people—I've ever met. She's one of the toughest. She's got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she's somebody who's in this stuff for the right reasons. She's passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children.

So it's not clear to me what differences we've had since I've been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence.

And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.

Sounds like he's singing a different tune now.

The reason this ad is effective is not just because it effectively rebuts the 'no debate' argument (which I honestly don't think has a whole lot of traction). It's real effectiveness is that it also highlights a number of Obama's policies which rebuts the 'no-substance' meme that Hillary's camp keeps bringing up. Tie the two together with the phrase "same old politics of phony charges and false attacks" and it implicates the Clinton campaign as not just being disingenuous about the debate (non-)issue but about several aspects of their argument against him.

As an answer to Hillary's ad about Wisconsin debate, why does not Obama invite her to give stump speech in the same joint rallies? For fear of being booed in a joint rally dominated by Obama supporters, she would not accept the challenge. Then, Obama should challenge her in a TV ad. Or, in one of his speeches, he can directly just challenge her to speak before a joint rally, arguing that a joint rally would attract more live participants, unlike TV viewers who are virtual participants.
When you speak on TV in a formal debate, you will have to address the national audience, meaning you will deprive the state specific audience and state specific issues, and opportunity to talk to them and connect with them. You will be answering the same old questions by the same old media employees, not real people's concerns.