Hm, somewhat corny, but only insofar as her ad was corny, so the rejoinder is necessarily burdened with the same excesses. Otherwise, I would say that this is a very effective ad. If I were undecided (which I am not) it would help move me over into the Obama column.

Brilliant. I have no idea how they get these done so quickly (and so professionally). The only thing I would have changed is to have began it as a more clear response to Clinton (i.e., "Senator Clinton tells us that there's a phone ringing..."). But what do I know? Great ad.

nice to see an immediate fight back. i like it substantively as well.

Here's a question: What if Kerry had responded within 12 hours with an ad rebutting the swift boat piece of crap? I don't know if it would have changed the result in the end, but at least we wouldn't have had to see that stupid ad playing over and over without a rebuttal.

I'm not going to critique the ad, I'm just thrilled they responded so quickly. It might even be early enough to make tonight's news.

Ouch.

YES! Game, set, match. That absolutely proves Obama is not soft and can fight back firmly and promptly but respectfully. While Hillary peddles fear, Obama peddles truth.

Hillary I think is intent on ruining any chance she had to be VEEP or to run again as a Democrat in 2012 in the event McCain wins. This morning there was still a strong chance I would vote for her in the general election if she got the nomination. But after her fear mongering ad today, I know with certainty that I will never vote for a Clinton again.

I like it. It's harsh but we can't get complacent!

Plus he gets to the damn phone more quickly.

Obama's media folks are damn good. They are consistently able to get out effective response ads, that stay classy, within the same news cycle as the original attack. And the responses are considerably more powerful.

Certainly not going to get caught slipping on the deck of a swiftboat.

Which one of these candidates is going to investigate why stock footage of sleeping children is readily available?
I mean who, other than these two campaigns apparently, needs stock footage of sleeping children?

I liked that they used the first few seconds of the Clinton ad. It's a clever tactic, because a lot of folks who liked the original ad will start watching it again, only to be surprised by the different direction it goes in after the fist few seconds.

confused it's set to run but is it going to run?

I love how fast Obama is responding to this bull. Looks like Repub jackasses wont have days of unanswered attacks to count on like in recent history.

Scare ad? What are you guys "scared of"? Obama as this thing wrapped up, right? So "what" if Hillary is better qualified to be commander-in-chief, as evidenced by the endorsements of 30 generals and admirals.

We want Obama who is gonna unify us all . . . by doing exactly what? Oh, I forgot - daily rallies in the Senate Chamber - Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham chanting: "Yes, we can"!

(Though my guess is this ad is more for the news shows and blogs that covered Hillary's ads... in which case, it works perfectly.)

The most important use of the Obama ad will be that it forces the network and cable news shows to show both ads, not just Clinton's alone. Clinton's campaign doesn't get a free airing of their ad, as they might have hoped when these ads get played over the weekend.

There was a nice touch at the end of the Obama ad pointing out the cooperation with Richard Lugar, the Republican senator in the adjacent state of Indiana. Obama is appealing to Republican cross-overs in Ohio, as well as in Texas.

Anyone know how many retired Generals, Admirals, etc., have endorsed Obama, and who? Because I'm telling you, this national security thing is a problem for him. Fear is a very powerful emotion. It is used everyday to sell everything from supporting wars to selling pimple cream. We shouldn't underestimate it. It needs to be addressed not ignored.

Because dammit, it IS a dangerous world. And *Someone* will be answering the (figurative) phone. And I personally would like them to be able to conference in someone who knows what the hell to do. Obama needs to surround himself with a bunch of retired military guys and I mean right quick.

And does everyone agree that the Veep needs military experience?

I note the following result from the FoxNews/Opinion Dynamics poll published today (the latest poll posted on this site under February): Obama behind 8 points in OH; ahead 3 points in TX.

Can anyone tell me if Fox News polling is as crappy as everything else about Fox News? And while your at, if you know, can you tell me which polls are most credible: Rasmussen, Zogby, SurveyUSA? Some other? None of the above? Rasmussen and Zogby are showing OH to be much closer than Fox. They pretty much agree with Fox on TX.

Humorous note: The Clinton campaign has stated that Obama must have a clean sweep on Tuesday. A less than perfect outcome will signal that the Democrats are having buyers remorse and want the race to continue. They really and truly believe they're talking to idiots.

Turns out Howie Kurtz over at WaPo had the details on the origin of Hillary's "3 AM phone call" ad this morning:

it's not "plagiarized," it's just recycled. The guy who conceived it is the same guy who conceived the same concept for Walter Mondale 24 years ago.

Howie said:

But perhaps its closest cousin is the 1984 "red phone" ad that Walter Mondale ran against his primary opponent Gary Hart: "The most awesome, powerful responsibility in the world lies in the hand that picks up this phone. The idea of an unsure, unsteady, untested hand is something to really think about." That ad was made by media adviser Roy Spence, who now works for the Clinton campaign.

Check it out:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/29/clinton_as_commanderinchief_1.html

Obama's ad used the first 5 seconds or so from Hillary's ad. What are the "intellectual property" implications here? Is this plagiarism? Anyone?

In ratings I believe Survey ranks high, Rasmussen okay, Zogby erratic often crappy. I think the Fox poll on OH is an outlier given that others have it in the 2-5 pt range of difference.

"Obama's ad used the first 5 seconds or so from Hillary's ad. What are the "intellectual property" implications here? Is this plagiarism? Anyone?"

Probably falls under free speech provisions, ie. intellectual criticism, satire, etc.

Plagiarism is an academic problem, doesn't apply to political campaigns (despite Hillary's wish).

Copyright is only for certain content (Hillary probably bought the original video from a stock video source).

If Obama's camp bought the same video stock, then he has usage rights.

Dang. Quick response. Typical of this very effective campaign.

Kerry would've responded about a week later and then would've apologized for something.

I'm happy to see that the money I've been contributing to Obama all year is being used so wisely. I've never seen such a smoothly-run, fast, and intelligent campaign. Ever.

If Obama and his advisors can run our country anywhere near as well as they run his campaign, well...

...yes we can.

SNAP!

Brilliant! Way effective/powerful reframe...The obama team is rewriting history about what it means to run an effective campaign.

Greg's been so busy hauling out the kitchen sink for Mrs. Bill that he's neglected to post several late polls.

Perhaps this is why Hillary flails Greg? Ya think?? Maybe??? Huh????

ARG
Obama 51
Clinton 44

Obama is a one-trick pony. He keeps talking about the past, when he stated an opinion, when he didn't have the reponsibility of the consequences if her was wrong. It's easy being a Monday morning quarterback. Hillary based her vote on the intelligence information she was given and on the promise by the Bush administration that they would send the inspectors back in to finish the job. It was promised that war was a very last resort. Obama continues to distort this point. He has said he didn't know how he would vote if he had been in the senate, yet he wants to make this as a basis for his presidency. He is blaming a fellow democrat for the atrocious actions of the Bush adminstration. If, God forbid, he ends up in the White House, I hope they give him just as much slack as he has given Hillary on this. And he criticizes her vote on the Iran deal. At least she showed up! Obama wasn't even there! And if he did, he would have probably voted a cowardly vote of "present" like he did so many times in the Illinois Senate. He is the one who will say anything to get elected. And he is not making Hillary look small and petty to the people who know her. He is making himself look like an idiot. He is like a child on the schoolyard hurling taunts. I am voting for McCain if this clown gets the nomination, and changing party affiliation. If we nominate him we will just as stupid as the Republicans were when they nominated Bush. Same old, same old.

Somebody suggested that opposing the war was not a risk for Obama because he was in a safe seat.

I don't think that's right. Obama's had national political ambitions for some time -- I don't think, even back then, he was thinking that he would be a Senator forever. Even if he opposed the war, he could have done it quietly and covered his ass in a future election bid. Instead, he made a major speech condemning it, when the political and national mood was very much against him, apparently because he believed that opposing the war was important. That's political courage.

Redux,

You seem to know Hillary Clinton. Can you tell me why her campaign seems to be so terribly bad? I'm serious about this. She still has Bill. And a big chunk of his advisors. And he was nominated and elected twice. I'm glad Obama is winning and I give him a lot of credit for that, but Hillary is doing an awful lot of losing. And I think it is driving her supporters nuts.

She's not just losing primaries, she's getting clobbered. She's not just losing caucuses, she's getting destroyed. She's not getting out the vote. She's not getting enough endorsements. Hell, she's not holding on to the endorsements she has. What on earth is she paying her advisors for?

And can you tell me why they didn't have the Texas delegate situation figured out, as late as Monday? Hasn't it been in place for DECADES? Didn't her husband win the nomination twice with roughly those same rules in place?

She deserves better, but it's not Obama's fault. He and his campaign are doing their jobs.

Finally, why on earth would you vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination? Isn't that being at least as petty as you say Obama is being? If you really think that McCain is so much better than Obama that you'd rather have a Republican White House than a Democrat White House? What about the Department of Justice? The Supreme Court? Our troops in Iraq?

Are you so angry at Obama that you'd give them to the same people that have had them for most of the last decade? Have you not seen these Republicans blatantly shredding documents, telling government officials to not respond to subpoenas, and then having DOJ refuse to enforce them? Torturing people? Wandering from country to country engaging in conflicts that cost blood and treasure that we cannot spare?

Redux, listen. They don't even think you have the right to know who visits the White House. You can't want them to remain in control.

You can't be *that* mad.

Don't give Obama that much power over you.

Fight for your candidate. Fight hard. Be pissed off. But vote Democrat.

Your point would have been perfectly valid without lying about your age. We can see your picture. You're obviously not yet over the hill. Try again.

His ad sums up why I'm voting for Obama in a nutshell. Clinton had a chance to make the right decision. Many, many Democrats saw through Bush's lies and voted against the authorization. Too many others chose not to. Chose to see the risk in the Iraq vote being a political risk. A risk of appearing soft. The real risk was being WRONG and destroying hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Destroying our volunteer military and bankrupting our future.

Yah that's who I want answering the phone.

Perhaps Obama will wait several years to answer the phone, like he waited several years to take any kind of action on Iraq.

Or does the ad end with Obama giving a speech about the importance of answering the phone while the phone rings and rings?

He's running for President so that he can take action on Iraq. What exactly do you think he should have already done?

Just because the guy is articulate doesn't mean he's all talk.

Wait a minute... people still watch TV?

Sun, any idea who the troops are giving their money to?

Here's a hint -- it isn't Hillary.

Isn't Hillary done yet? I am getting so tired of listening to her and her supporters whine. Enough already. Go home.

Sensing that Texas is leaning to Obama, Hillary is threatening to sue the Texas democratic party, thus holding the official election night results for that state. She wont stop on march 4 even after loosing Texas, she will insist to get the Florida and Michigan delegates and will continue the fight to Denver's democratic convention, her selfishness will damage the democratic party and ensure a McCain election.

So basically what Obama was risking was his precious career and what Hillary was thinking about was putting peoples' lives at risk. Poor Obama, He is soooo brave, risking his career like that.

Just for clarification, my last post was in reply to LizB

Geez, guys. It is completely fair to run an ad, in a contested primary, that draws that distinction with your opponent - when the two of you are running for commander-in-chief. An attack ad, fear mongering?

And oh, tell Obama he really needs to get some new material. I mean, we all get it. The speech was great; we all loved it. Hillary was in the Senate when she did her vote - but the fact is - it was six years ago.

John McCain has already outmaneuvered you and said you are talking about the past. The fact is, we are there, and the fact that we're still there is a huge issue. Young people are still dying, our military is in terrible shape. We've got soldiers going back for 3rd and 4th tours, and a tour is 15 months long. So the issue is, what the hell do we do now?

I think this ad is "brutal" only if you already love Obama. If not, it sounds just like the "yeah, I agree with Hillary" responses in the debates. The rest of us see his reliance on an anti-war speech in an anti-war district during a state senate race as weak evidence of some fantastic judgement.

But from a fan base that applauds when the guy blows his nose, I guess this kind of hyperbolic boosterism is to be expected.

I feel like we are in a Republican unreality bubble. Hillary Clinton's fearmongering isn't helping. She should stop attacking Obama and start focusing on the Republicans. THEY
are the problem, as we all know.

I think it's a joke how Republicans keep talking about tax and spend Democrats. The Republican spend and spend record makes the Democrats look like Republicans. The Republicans are a fiscal trainwreck. If they were a household, they'd be on the verge of losing their house begging themselves for sub-prime relief!

Just look at their war of convenience in Iraq. The latest estimate is that the Iraq war alone will cost 3 to 5 trillion dollars, not to mention far more America lives than we lost in the 9/11 event which prompted the war. That's an abysmal rate of return on every count. That's orders of magnitude more than the $60 billion Republicans told us it would cost when they were selling the war. That's orders of magnitude higher than any number the Republicans are even trying to pin to the Democrats for anything. And the Republicans are ignoring the data, saying we can afford to be in Iraq for another hundred years.

Now Bush tells us we are not going into a recession. What a joke. And the Republican nominee for President, McCain, admits he also doesn't know squat about the economy.

It's beyond me why anyone would listen to the Republicans anymore. What's even more staggering is that after such a terrible record, the Republicans would be so arrogant as to harshly criticize anyone else on fiscal responsibility. The Republican electorate, their fast talking arrogant rude pundits like Rush and Coulter, and most of all their Republican leaders, need to be quiet and take a good long hard look at themselves.

In the meantime, let's bring in someone smart with a fresh approach. Let's bring in someone who is not going to spend all his energy fighting and tearing people down. Let's bring in someone who can bring us together to bring real change to the direction of America. That's what we need. That's our only hope for change. Otherwise it's status quo, and despite what the Republicans are telling us, status quo is looking pretty bad right now.

Obama '08. Yes we can!

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-02/29/content_7694954.htm

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 29 (Xinhua) -- The Iraq war will cost Americans between 3 trillion and 5 trillion U.S. dollars, including military spending, broader economic costs and decades of benefits and medical care for combat veterans, a Nobel prize-winning economist said.

In a testimony at the Congress Thursday, Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2001 and a professor at Columbia University, gave his latest estimate of the war's economic impact, the Cox News service reported Friday.

The upper end of the estimate is nearly double what Stiglitz had projected just two years ago.

He attributed the dramatic increase to the continuing intensity of the war, which will be five years old by next month, and the likelihood that operations there would continue for at least another year.

The war's gravest toll has been paid in blood.

Fighting in Iraq has so far taken the lives of 3,973 U.S. troops and left nearly 29,300 wounded."

"If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one"s trying to get you to think, if one candidate"s appealing to your fears and the other one"s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

-Bill Clinton, 2004

Hillery Clinton's resume, In a Nutshell.

I married a man who became a State Governor, and then the President of the USA.

Everything that he did that worked, was because of my help.

Everything that failed, was because I had nothing to do with them.

When you marry the right person, you get to jump to the head of the line, instead of having to work your way to the top, on your own merits, while all the while screaming Experience, Experience, Experience.

Judgment and character matter. And Hillary's troubles me:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/24/164324/479/466/463280

That Hillary ad was sooooo scarey. I was so frightened just watching it... It scared alot of people...

Telephone Ring: Hello Mr. President of ___________ this is Barack Hussein Obama
President of .. (other country): who…… Osama?? Are you threaning my country?
Obama: no..no, this is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!
President: Hussein….. who?…… Sadam???? Anyway…. get lost!

Telephone Ring: Hello Mr. President ___________ this Hillary Rodham Clinton
President: Oh… Hello Mrs. President, how can I help you.

GO HILLARY!

And he has Trounced "Fighting Hillary" in eleven straight bouts.

Which one will foreign leaders respect and pay attention to:

A proven champion, or Tough talking Hillary, with a proven glass jaw.

Hillary talks a lot of trash, but she has gotten trounced by Senator Obama in eleven straight bouts.

Hillary is all Boxing Gloves and no Punches.

What about Obama's judgment in having a racist pastor who is friendly with the likes of Farakhan?