« Top Hillary Surrogate Disagrees With Bill: No Candidate Played Race Card | Home | Obama Nabs Another Super-Delegate »
DNC Dropping $500,000 On Anti-McCain Ad
The Democratic National Committee has seriously upped its ad campaign against John McCain, with the latest FEC filing showing a $500,000 buy to run the spot on the economy that they previewed over the weekend.
With the Democratic candidates still beating each other up, the DNC has had to step in and do some of the heavy lifting in taking on John McCain rather than let him enjoy a free ride in the press. And this is not a small problem, either -- the DNC has been the one area of Democratic fundraising to seriously lag behind its Republican counterpart.
A DNC staffer told us that the ad will run on national cable.
Advertisement
I saw an ad on MSNBC last night, finally glad to see this happening.
April 23, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
https://www.democrats.org/page/contribute/fundTheAd
Please donate, I just did. Good ad they are running.
April 23, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did this morning.
Please give.
At this time they are the only ones doing the much needed heavy lifting. Obama and Hillary are taking shots at him but mostly they are dealing with each other. McCain should not have this time to freely define himself with no challenge.
Please, give.
April 23, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh, forgot. sorrry.
Thanks for posting the link, independentmeans.
April 23, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've mentioned here a few times over the past several days how Hillary got the NY Times endorsement by getting one of her financial heavies to lean on the editorial board. Actually, it was Sultzberger they leaned on...and I finally remembered where I had read about it. Link here; scroll down to paragraph 11.
How sad, she had to get some deep-pocket financial sector bad guy who wants to be her Treasury Secretary to lean on a home newspaper to get an endorsement. Hence the editorial today...apparently no one leaned on Sultzberger in time to get it pulled.
April 23, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, that's really interesting. That needs some bigger play. (Only liberal elites read Vanity Fair.)
April 23, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we're off into general election mode! (sorta)
April 23, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't wait til Hillary finally goes away so we can focus on the Republicans. It is bullshit that Obama has to fight an election on two fronts at once.
April 23, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally off-topic but a new video has surfaced of Obama's "bitter remarks" that contextualizes them in a very different light:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eZxa54qWHw
April 23, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it a surprise to find out George Gallup is related to George W Bush...not really , but if yoou wish to see the proof and research, go to wargs.com.....this is why I don't trust polls....they all have political agendas
April 23, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are your thoughts on what Gov. Corzine, a Hillary supporter, said about not counting the thirteen caucus states?
April 23, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dismissive and just plain rude. Making up as they go along. I will never be able to look at HRC again without distain.
April 23, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The polular vote is irrelevant.
why?
because the delegate allocation process is NOT, I repeat NOT, directly related to population. Delegates are allocated according to voter turn out and electorates. Delegates are a REWARD for good get out the vote efforts over the past 3 presidential elections AND the timing of a states primary (incentivized to get states to take later dates.) If you say that only the popular vote matters, you are not just disenfranchsing the states that use a caucus to elect delegates, you are also taking away the the incentive some states have used to gain a few more delegates to the convention.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml
April 23, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it a surprise to find out George Gallup is related to George W Bush...not really , but if yoou wish to see the proof and research, go to wargs.com.....this is why I don't trust polls....they all have political agendas
April 23, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
DNC fundraising is down for a couple reasons. Everyone's giving to their candidates; they're giving to down-ticket Dem candidates; and people are ticked at the primary process the DNC dreamed up. (First two are probably factually correct, the last one is my humble opinion.)
April 23, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
EXCUSE ME?
Over my dead body and the dead bodies of the tens of thousands of people who caucused in Texas.
I won't hear of that and I don't think the Texas Democratic Party will sit still for that bullshit for one second. We don't want another Republican massacre down here and that's exactly what that idiot Corzine is asking for.
April 23, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corzine says "Screw 'em" to caucus states
If you're taking blood pressure medication, now might be a time to do so....
April 23, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah I see - we're back to: We could ham and eggs! If we had some eggs. And some ham.
April 23, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the likelihood of any of that depends on your definition of "ham", "and", "eggs" and "we", in Clinton-land.
April 23, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it a surprise to find out George Gallup is related to George W Bush...not really , but if you wish to see the proof and research, go to wargs.com.....this is why I don't trust polls....they all have political agendas...and these favor Obama and republicans
April 23, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls have a well-known bias against the losing side.
April 23, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "don't count the caucus states" thing has always been part of Hillary's quest for the popular vote. Didn't everyone know that? The idea is to count the popular vote of the primary states - including FL & MI (without giving any votes to Obama in MI since he was so, like, dumb to take his name off the ballot) - and then NOT count the caucus states where there are no offical vote tallies. That way the numbers add up to her getting the popular vote.
That's why her supporters like Goataloofah say she has the popular vote. Not because she actually does. But because - Republican style - they only count the votes they want, regardless of how many legitimate voters they screw over.
AND THEN - they'll accuse the Obama folks of doing exactly what they themselves are trying to do. Just watch. They'll pretend MI & FL always counted.
April 23, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you know, that belief and bottle of Jim Beam will be Hillary's companions through many a long, sleepless night.
April 23, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, the gop have their first wrightgate ad out.
Get use to it if the Dems are dumb enough to run Obama.
April 23, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Goat Life - I guess your "Hillary wins by 20" prediction was a bit off.
April 23, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the DNC has to focus on winning women in swing states away from McCain.
A recent NM head-to-head poll showed
51% voting for Obama or Clinton
45% McCain
4% undecided
18-26% of liberals said they would vote for McCain (2% undecided)
(incidentally, 30-36% pro-choice voters say they would vote for McCain, too!)
What's up with that?
In the last couple of months, the economy has dominated our primary campaign (jobs, trade, housing crisis), with Iraq and health care jostling for 2nd & 3rd. In terms of importance to voters, these appear to be the greatest common factors for both Democrats and Republicans.
But just looking at those people who say they are going to vote for McCain, as in the NM poll, the economy is not *their* biggest issue.
Their biggest issue is "Terrorism" (which is not the same thing as "Iraq"). It's most important for 88-91% of McCain voters. The economy is most important for 51%, behind Immigration (63/66%) and about equal to Education (51/52%) Health care? most important for only 26% of McCain voters.
It's similar in MN, where 10-14% of liberals said they would vote for McCain. For McCain voters, the #1 issue (85/86%) is Terrorism. Next is Immigration (75/88%). The Economy is most important for 42/47%.
And in OH, 16-24% of liberals go for McCain. Again, Terrorism is the #1 issue (82/88%).
And in VA, Terrorism is #1 for 91% McCain voters. 24-28% of liberals for McCain.
Even in MA, 10/11% of liberals would vote for McCain. #1 issue is still Terrorism (77/83%)
You get the picture.
So what's going on?
Why would self-described liberals vote for McCain?
Is it possible that we haven't been talking about the issue of terrorism in a way that satisfies or meets the needs of some voters?
Think about it.
"Terrorism" has not been a big issue in the primary, and when it has come up, it's usually in terms of the fear factor that's triggered with the thought of red phones ringing at 3 AM.
It's exploitative.
And then the eye-rolling begins, and the fingers point, and the accusations fly, and ultimately, we haven't really addressed the issue in a serious way that reaches those voters who are honestly, deeply worried about terrorism.
In contrast, John McCain is a wizened war hero. He may be wrong about Iraq, but a lot of people - I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that maybe even some liberals - trust him more to take their concerns about terrorism seriously.
Somehow, the DNC needs to start chipping away at the notion that John McCain - just because he lives and breathes - owns the turf when it comes to dealing with terrorism and keeping us safe.
I leave it to the creative minds at the DNC and MoveOn to figure out the best way to do that, but until we do, I think it's going to be very hard any Democrat to beat McCain.
April 24, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to what I read,McCain didn't even show up for this vote:The House already passed a measure to improve workers’ rights in this area, and the Senate was poised to do the same. A bipartisan majority supported the legislation, but they couldn’t overcome Republican obstructionism.
Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a measure intended to overturn a Supreme Court decision limiting pay discrimination suits in a politically charged vote certain to be replayed in the presidential and Congressional campaigns.
By a vote of 56 to 42, the Senate fell four votes short of the 60 required to begin consideration of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, named for an Alabama woman who lost a case against the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company when the court found she not did file her complaint in time. Ms. Ledbetter had been paid as much as 40 percent less than her male counterparts doing the same job, according to her allies.
Looking at the final roll call, the measure had the support of 57 senators (Harry Reid switched his vote for procedural reasons, giving him the ability to bring the bill back to the floor before the end of the session). Every Democrat and both independents (Lieberman and Sanders) supported the measure, along with six Republicans, four of whom (Coleman, Collins, Smith, and Sununu) are facing tough re-election fights this year.
What a remarkable coincidence — Republicans sure do get more moderate on good legislation when they’re worried about losing their seats.
(Courtesy Carpetbagger Report)
April 24, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
As for the politics of this, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama came back to the Senate to vote for and speak out on behalf of this legislation. And what about John McCain? He didn’t show up for work (again), but he made a point of telling reporters he’s against the legislation: “In New Orleans today, McCain explained his opposition to the bill by claiming it ‘opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems.’ He added that instead of legislation allowing women to fight for equal pay, they simply need ‘education and training.’”
It’s almost as if he doesn’t want women to vote for him.
April 24, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink