« Ickes: Pledged Delegates Not Required To Stay With Their Candidate | Home | Obama Releases His 2000-2006 Tax Returns, Demands Hillary Release Hers »
Hillary Ad In Pennsylvania: "Time To Level The Playing Field"
The Hillary campaign, which is effectively in the red, has been asking donors for cash so she can go up on the air in Pennsylvania. Now she's going up in the state with this straightforward spot on the economy and standing up to special interests, a pitch for Pennsylvania's sizable population of blue collar and lower middle class whites.
It's one of her core constituencies, and if it doesn't deliver for her in a big way on April 22, the race could effectively be over...
The ad also ran in Ohio, an effort to appeal to a similar constituency there.
Advertisement
Ok, what experience does she have a steward of the economy? What more experience does she have than mccain or obama in this department? Anybody?
March 25, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Standing up to special interests. By taking their donations.
March 25, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, maybe she had to rise out of her seat to take their check. I mean, come on - let's give her a little credit, right? (Heh..."credit"...)
March 25, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
They ad drops specific reference to NAFTA, but the references to unfair trade deals seem a bit riskier now that the White House schedule and witness accounts have her as a NAFTA advocate. If the news media are going to be looking for post-Tuzla follow-up stories on the Clinton-credibility theme, this seems like strong contender.
March 25, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt that there is much danger in it. An ad like this is targetted to a very low-information segment of the electorate. I dare say that the folks to whom this ad is targetted will never do the research necessary to learn that her NAFTA record is far more ambiguous than is suggested here.
March 25, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great Ad. It is about time someone stood up for the white blue collar workers in this country.
Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race, of course Obama and his limousine liberals think they have been. obviously bashing Bill Clinton and comparing him to Joe McCarthy is not the way to be popular among average working folks.
March 25, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Limosine liberals"?
Remind me again, which campaign is supposed to be reprehensible for using right-wing talking points?
March 25, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Because all Obama supporters are rich and ride around in limousines.
Look, I'm a Midwestern-born guy living in PA living paycheck to paycheck, so you can stick those Republican talking points right up your ass.
I'm voting for Obama because I support the policies he wants to implement and the manner in which he wants to do so. If you disagree, fine - but save the name-calling for recess, K?
March 25, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, you too. It is funny, for all the time I have spent hanging out at volunteer functions with other Obama supporters, I have never arrived in a limo or seen anyone else arrive in a limo. Most of us end up carpooling to these events. The last phone bank I worked, I baked muffins and brought them to share. I think a few other folks brought snacks, but there was no caviar or canapes supplied by caterers (at least none that I saw).
I keep hearing how we Obama supporters are all rich while Clinton's people are all poor, but I tell you that the only place I have seen Clinton signs are in the upscale neighborhoods. My neighborhood (which is anything but upscale) is peppered with Obama signs, but not one single Clinton sign to be seen.
Never mind that, however. Dembillc says that folks like us are rich, so I guess that it must be so...
March 25, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm setting fire to my pile of money right as we speak. Favorite lunchtime activity.
March 25, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Facts are Obama is in the race because of overwhelming support from blacks and upper-income liberals. If you are an exception maybe they let you in to the party because you bake and bring muffins.
March 25, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your right, I aplogise. I sure there are some uniformed clueless supporters as well.
March 25, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many of those 200,000 jobs she promised to create for upstate NY when running for Senate actually panned out?
March 25, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tim Russert said they actually lost 30,000 jobs, if memory serves me.
Sounds like "deception you can depend on!!!!"
March 25, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
When she promised those jobs she did not consider Bush stealing the election by disenfranchising Florida voters and Gore being the President.
Of course Obama is doing the same thing Bush did disenfranchising Florida voters.
March 25, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is the candidate that said that working class whites have legitimate grievances about race? (Hint: It was a male democrat who is winning the figh for the nomination.)
March 25, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...if it doesn't deliver for her in a big way on April 22, the race could effectively be over..."
That's an interesting way to manage expectations.
Everyone has already proclaimed that this race is over.
March 25, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Greg says "the race could effectively be over" in every piece about PA. He said it yesterday too. It must be boilerplate copy that he cuts and pastes into articles so Obama nuts don't accuse him of Clinton bias.
March 25, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think "big way" is a key word here.
Rendell for instance said on Sunday he didn't think she'd win in a "big way".
But Greg surely thinks that only "big way" is a way to stay in a race that's over. Or something...
Right, Greg?
March 25, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg also used "the race could effectively be over" (or similar) right before Texas and Ohio voted.
I can't remember if he used "in a big way" then, too. It's such a forgettable phrase.
March 25, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me jaded! Unimpressive!
The following is interesting: "The Hillary campaign, which is effectively in the red, has been asking donors for cash so she can go up on the air in Pennsylvania."
How about those folks who were prepared to pay for a sanctioned primary in MI? Got money?
March 25, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
She is bought and paid for by special interests. Who is she kidding about standing up. She will stand up just in time to get a check from them.
March 25, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least she didn't use an Obama supporters in her video this time.
March 25, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only does she take more lobbyist money than any other candidate, but she takes more lobbyist money than any American politician. Does anyone seriously believe that these federal lobbyists are donating money to Clinton so that she can serve the public interest? How exactly can a politician be in the "solutions business" when they represent business as usual?
Wake up, Pennsylvania!
March 25, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone has already proclaimed that this race is over.
By the same people that want Obama to win. Surprise! Can't Hillary HEAR the calls from TPM and Politico that this race is over? Sheesh! Can't they hear the new rules we all agreed on for the superdelegates on how they should decide their vote? Can't they understand Obama decided FL and MI are irrelevant? Lastly, don't they understand if you have a 2% lead in delegates this year [unlike any in election history] that this qualifies you as the de facto winner?
March 25, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you figure a 2% lead?
If you don't count Super-Delegates, Obama has a 12% lead.
Counting SDs, the lead drops to approximately 8%.
A 12% lead with 10 contests to go (half of which Obama is favored to win) is a MUCH more substantial lead than you're implying.
source: MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/
March 25, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he's thinking of the popular vote, which - last I checked - was not how this race was to be decided, anyway. People like that guy bore me.
March 25, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's always supported the underdog -- like when underdog NAFTA was having trouble garnering congressional support, she was out there pumping up that little NAFTA until it won!
If you're considering Hilary, do yourself a favor and research her record on NAFTA and trade VERY carefully.
March 25, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doh! No wonder he doesn't want any freeze on mortgages.
Press Release
3/24/2008
FACT CHECK: Sen. Obama Accepts Over $1 Million From Subprime Lending Industry
The Obama campaign’s response to the comprehensive plan Hillary laid out to address the housing crisis today was not to discuss their disagreement with her proposal but to assert that Hillary has received contributions from subprime loan companies.
Considering that Sen. Obama has received $1.18 million from subprime lenders and has taken more campaign contributions from the top ten issuers of subprime loans, that attack rings hollow as just words. Sen. Obama has a record of talking about standing up to special interests and then caving to their demands. Hillary has a 35-year record of standing up to special interests and delivering results.
Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans. [cq.com]
Obama received $266,907 from Lehman. [Cq.com]
Obama received $5395 from GMAC. [Cq.com]
Obama received $150,850 from CS First Boston. [Cq.com]
Obama received $11,250 from Countrywide. [Cq.com]
Obama received $9052 from Washington Mutual. [Cq.com]
Obama received $161,850 from Citigroup. [Cq.com]
Obama received $4600 from CBASS. [Cq.com]
Obama received $170,050 from Morgan Stanley. [Cq.com]
Obama received $1150 from Centex. [Cq.com]
Obama received $351,900 from Goldman Sachs. [Cq.com]
Sen. Obama has taken more money from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans than Hillary. Sen. Obama has received $434,420 from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans. Hillary has received $364,950. [Cq.com; USA Today]
March 25, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter Mark. The only thing that matters is that Clinton took money from them. That's all we need to know.
:-)
March 25, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, if you're going to make the smear, at least make it accurate. The donations were from EMPLOYEES of those companies, not the companies themselves. If you add in the special interest and lobbyist money that the clintons have been raking in, I am sure they are way, way, way, way ahead. Just the 130 million from the kazakhstan uranium deal with the kazakhstan dictator puts them way, way over the top.
Oh and by the way he raised 55 million from average americans last month. You think he is soooo stupid that he would just piss on average americans for 400k? Of course not.
Try again.
March 25, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary has a 35-year record of standing up to special interests and delivering results."
The fact-checker missed a spot. I didn't realize you could stand up to special interests as a Wal-Mart lawyer or a First Lady.
March 25, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your numbers are all over the place.
Did he take 1.18 million or 434 thousand???
Also, I don't know about all of the companies listed, but I've worked FOR Washington Mutual and my sister worked FOR Centex. Neither is very active in the sub-prime loan biz. They may do some, but it's hardly their primary business. WaMu is an all-services bank, and Centex is a home builder.
Come to think of it, most of the companies on that list (other than Countrywide) are primarily Full Services Banks...
Perhaps you're reaching..again.
March 25, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a good ad. I do not live in PA and am not undecided in any event, but if I were an undecided voter living in PA, this would help to move me into Sen Clinton's column.
March 25, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too Greg D., were any of only true .
March 25, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt that the accuracy of it makes much difference to its target audience. Fact checking is the prerogative of high-information voters, who are not really the target audience for this ad. Given that the "undecided" population is enriched in low-information voters by this point in the race, I still think that this is a good, effective ad. Simply flashing that picture of the guy in the UAW jacket slapping her on the back should be good for ~40K votes.
March 25, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is the biggest Corporate Lobbyists Magnet in Washington.
Most of her campaign funds come from them. She will do what they want, and continue to lie to the working class people of America, just like she has about her role in actually pushing for to have NAFTA passed. We know from Hillary's Tuzla Fairy Tale that lying comes easy to her. This ad is a complete lie. She is not on the side of the working class. She is bought and paid for by major corporations.
The working class fell for this same BS from George W. Bush, so if they fall for it again now, then they are beyond saving.
March 25, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"By the same people that want Obama to win."
Actually, by the people who do the math re. how insanely well Clinton would have to perform in the remaining primaries to catch up.
"Can't they hear the new rules we all agreed on for the superdelegates on how they should decide their vote?"
No supposed change in rules required. Why is it assumed that the as yet uncommitted superdelegates are all Clinton votes in hiding? Clinton garnered an early lead in superdelegates based on existing relationships with superdelegates as well as an early perception of her as the front runner. That was all before Iowa. Ever since then, there has been a very clear trend in superdelegates toward Obama, from a Clinton lead of around 150 to about 40.
"Can't they understand Obama decided FL and MI are irrelevant?"
Obama didn't decide that - the DNC did, as punishment for violation of the rules. Obama and Clinton agreed to it, yes, as a condition for campaigning.
"Lastly, don't they understand if you have a 2% lead in delegates this year [unlike any in election history] that this qualifies you as the de facto winner?"
It's not a 2% lead, and Obama's lead is significant and becomes even more significant with each passing primary, as it leaves Clinton less opportunity to make up the deficit. Texas and Ohio played well in the media, but made hardly any difference at all in the delegate count - and that's what counts in the end. First to make it to 50% +1 wins.
March 25, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'd think by now she wouldn't have to look down at the script to tell us what the "purpose of her life" has been all these years in that last segment.
For me it nicely accentuates the overall phoniness of her campaign and the "fog of nonsense" Josh speaks of on the frontpage as they try to promote one implausible scenario after another into the public consciousness in order to convince us she's still a viable candidate.
March 25, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a break. How anyone can trust a word she mutters after the phantom sniper revelation is beyond me. This woman now has ZERO CREDIBILITY.
March 25, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but this ad just isn't as good as Obama's. I'm glad she didn't go negative, but her ad doesn't have the same appeal. Obama's gets me all choked up. I'm sure some of you are going to say that it's only the koolaid. We'll see on April 22.
March 25, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink