Source: Hillary TV Ad Campaign Is Now 100% Negative In Most Pennsylvania Markets
Here's a glimpse into Hillary's ad strategy in the final stretch of the Pennsylvania primary:
In most of Pennsylvania's markets, the only TV ad Hillary is running right now is a negative one -- the spot hitting Obama over his "small town" comments, a political ad buyer who tracks buys in Pennsylvania tells me.
The buyer says that as of this morning, that ad -- and no positive spots -- are running in the Pittsburgh, Erie, Johnstown/Altoona, and Wilkes-Barre/Scranton markets.
Meanwhile, the buyer says, in the Philadelphia and Harrisburg markets, Hillary's ad campaign is 50% negative -- she's running two spots, the new spot hitting Obama over oil companies, and another spot touting Hillary's plans to right the economy that doesn't mention Obama.
According to the buyer, the Philadelphia and Harrisburg markets add up to a bit over half the state's households.
Upshot: Nearly half the state's households are right now seeing only the "small town" spot, and the remaining half are seeing her economy spot and the oil spot hitting Obama, the buyer says.
Of course, this could still change at any time. Asked for a comment, Hillary Pennsylvania spokesperson Mark Nevins would only say: "We don't discuss our ad strategy. The colonel never gives away the secret recipe."
Late Update: There's still more: Ben Smith has obtained the script of a new ad hitting Obama that the pro-Clinton third party group American Leadership Project is set to run.















Seems like a stupid, 90s-era, DLC drive kinda move.
In short, quintessential Mark Penn strategy. And hey, that's been working swell for HRC!
April 16, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
BHO needs to be exposed for the fraud that he is. His insulting and condescending attitude towards people in small-town America is appalling and unacceptable. It's even more so when you consider the circumstance in which it was said: off-the-record and with a group of his liberal-elitist homies.
For some reason, the democratic party loves to trot out far left-wing, liberal elitist candidates that get chewed up in general elections because they don't play well in middle America. Someone needs to tell them that doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result, is the definition of stupidity. For the parties sake, you'd better hope and pray that BHO is NOT the nominee.
April 16, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're too funny. And delusional, of course.
If Clinton is the nominee, the Dems will lose, and, they'll probably lose their margins in the House and the Senate.
But hey: Obama said something about people who live in small towns, and every elitist in the country is telling PA voters how they should feel about that! And Clinton is fanning these flames.
The Yale educated millionaire Clinton. Instead of substantive discussions, Clinton is leading her campaign into a sinkhole of negativity. Nothing says "leadership" quite like that. But I've learned to expect nothing more from Sniper Fire Senator Clinton...It's a shame. I once had respect for her.
And then she started losing, and the true nature of the Clinton campaign was revealed.
April 16, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes someone elitist are their opinions and attitude, not where they went to college or how much money they make.
In these respects, BHO is the very definition of elitism. The American people are waking up to that fact every time he opens his mouth and inserts his foot into it.
April 16, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes Hillary Clinton, and her supporters, elitist was the assumption that his remarks would offend people.
Know anyone like that?
April 16, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What that response typed by the kitty in your picture, or am I insulting the poor thing?
April 16, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least her kitty knows about proper sentence structure and punctuation. Tool.
April 16, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool avatar. Are you as prepubescent and angry as it would suggest?
April 16, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes, and this is the kind of dialogue we should expect from the person you support, right?
Was that HRC or McCain?
Btw, how're those campaign coffers looking, troll? $.50 per post? I'd be keeping a tight Excel spreadsheet on the numbers, 'cuz bottomfeeders get paid last.
With one ad running, I think it's safe to assume those coffers are running pretty tight right now.
April 16, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grow up dude.
April 16, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
you mean being right about stuff, and things like that?
April 16, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Education breeds elitism.
Ignorance breeds racism.
April 16, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I won't get into any race-baiting with you.
April 16, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary called my state insignificant, not Obama. Bill said my generation was not smart enough to vote for Hillary, not Obama. Do you therefore think we should expose them for the frauds that they are?
April 16, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So by your definition, you too are an elitist.
April 16, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama went from a fatherless prep school scholarship student -raised by his grandparents- to earn two Ivy League degrees and be elected to the US Senate. He is better than most people.
We've tried the entitled everyman legacy admission President with disastrous results. It's time to elect a leader who earned his way.
April 16, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
i grew up fatherless too. cry me a fucking river. it certainly doesn't him make him better than me.
April 16, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fascinating.
Perhaps you could enlighten us on the issues on which Obama is "far left". I know Bill O'Reilly (when he's not falsely accusing US soldiers of war crimes) likes to use that silly term.
But please.
Enlighten us.
How is Obama to the "far left" of American opinion on the issues?
Iraq? Nope.
Health care? Nope.
I'm just so curious to hear your opinion on this. I'm sure it's a doozy.
April 16, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's fascinating (and somewhat laughable) is your lack of objectivity. BHO was THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR in 2007 according to the Nation Journal's annual rankings. The republicans will beat him over the head with that distinction if he becomes the democratic nominee.
April 16, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Most liberal" is not what you said. I asked you a question which you transparently ducked, so I'll ask it again.
On which issues, specifically, is Obama on the far left? And how does his position differ from mainstream America?
I can't wait for your response!
April 16, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should I do your research for you? Most obamatrons tend to ignore facts anyway. I could come up with several statements of fact that you would then subjectively dismiss, so I won't be wasting my time.
April 16, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The usual response when a troll can't find any half-ass quote to demonstrate the "truthiness" of their proffered opinion.
Intellectual dishonesty. The hallmark of trolls everywhere.
April 16, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another hallmark of the true troll is to post a standard 'usual reponse' response. Try posting something with actual substance.
April 16, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Test us. Post some facts about Obama's liberal bent and see if we ignore them. Your inability to continue this argument, to be able to support your own statement, is pretty clear evidence that you're letting someone else do all your thinking for you. As is your repetition of the National Journal "Most Liberal Senator" canard.
April 16, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Won't take the bait, sorry.
April 16, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't justify your own statement. Got it.
Pathetic, really, and laughably transparent.
And if you really think Obama's the most liberal Senator, I've got four words for you: Russ Feingold. Bernie Sanders.
Choose life. Don't let Little Green Footballs do your thinking for you.
April 16, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Choose life? Isn't that what liberal democrats who favor abortion do the opposite of?
My whole point is this: I can justify my statement to rational, objective thinking individuals. I cannot justify my statement to irrational, subjective obmatrons.
April 16, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post it for those poor under-represented non-Obamatons, then, who might be reading through these comments and are in danger of being deprived of your no doubt profound wisdom.
I call bullshit. You haven't got anything to back up. We all know it. The longer you try and pretend that you're anything more than a sad, attention-starved troll who posts like Tarzan and supports like Jane.
April 16, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I smell bullshit.
April 16, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Must be your upper lip.
April 16, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, actually it's all about you my friend.
April 16, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to be about your inability to tell me why Bernie Sanders (a socialist!) and Russ Feingold are less liberal than Barack Obama. You can't, can you? You don't even know who Sanders and Feingold are, do you? You're just posting some unexamined whoppers you read on some other site, aren't you?
April 16, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try to relax friend. No sense in getting worked up over what some uninformed political hack like myself thinks, right? Or is it just possible that I have struck a nerve of truth in your otherwise unshakable confidence in BHO?
April 16, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You haven't struck anything but your own wank-spot.
April 16, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice response. You must be particularly proud of that one.
April 16, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm most proud about the upper lip retort, actually.
So... you were saying, about Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold?
April 16, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That zinger would have gotten my vote as well.
April 16, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! LOL! I love it! I was thinking the same thing. Although I fear any rational point of view is lost to people who clearly don't know how to make sound arguments. Thanks for calling him out and showing his incompetence.
April 16, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
No problem. It was my pleasure. Thanks for the props bud.
April 16, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nerves of truth are especially sweet when served up with a side of evidence. C'mon, hit us hard!
April 16, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you know? Facts and evidence are wasted on anyone who thinks too much about reasons for rejecting them, such as their changing the actual subject, or not being true, etc.
April 16, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know who else thought finding evidence to back up his claims was just too much trouble to waste his time on? McCarthy.
April 16, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes, name-calling. Showing our true colors, are we?
April 16, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I have a suitcase full of conclusive evidence here that you are in fact the reincarnation of Joe McCarthy in demon-donkey form. I just won't waste my time showing you the evidence because you'll dismiss it all subjectively. You... something-tron you.
April 16, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, someone who agrees with me :)
April 16, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because you made a factual claim that you can't back up? So if you can't back it up, I'll ask you to either retract it or we'll all just assume you were lying. Which would you prefer? To back up your easily proven statement or be considered a liar?
Seems to me, if you have any proof of even one issue on which Obama is to the "far left" you'd slam it down on the table and stun the crowd.
Alas, you can't. Hence, you should retract what you said if you had any intellectual honesty.
April 16, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you even read my comment that you replied to? My whole point was that fanatical BHO supporters won't listen to facts. If I told you BHO said the sky was green, I'm sure that you would tell the rest of us what he really meant to say. I won't waste my time with what I consider to be an exercise in futility.
April 16, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fanatical? To quote your other post: "Ah yes, name-calling. Showing our true colors, are we?"
April 16, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not name calling when it's true. In this case it's called an apt description.
April 16, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and of course whether something is true or not has nothing to do with whether you can show that with facts or evidence. In that case...
Condescending! Elitist troll! I judge thee!!!!
April 16, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read your comment. And I asked you to back it up and you can't. Therefore, I'll assume you are a liar, and that Obama is not, in actuality, "far left". But I will assume that you are, in fact, "very dishonest".
Thanks for playing.
April 16, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree that you READ my comment. But it's readily apparent that you did you UNDERSTAND it. Please re-read, this time with understanding it as the goal.
April 16, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you take back your "far left" comment? I'm having a much harder time understanding your weaseling than your original post.
Let me quote you:
So let's be clear here. Are you claiming Obama is a "far left" candidate or not? If so, what's your proof of that?
April 16, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll cede one point to you: you're consistent.
April 16, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you take it back? Good. That was weak bullshit. I'm glad you've wisely retreated from it.
April 16, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't let anyone ever tell you that your IQ is a hindrance. Turn those lemons into lemonade.
April 16, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, the National Journal is a joke. They do that to every Democratic front-runner; in 2004, they did it to Kerry. Please.
April 16, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just unwittingly made my point for me. Thanks a bunch.
April 16, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
He ought to be proud to be a liberal. It is nolonger the insult it was before GWB destroyed the conservative brand.
April 16, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liberal is not a bad word, JACKASS. Unlike HRC, who constantly gives in to repug frames like 'liberal is bad', Senator Obama turns the argument around and basically says, 'Darn right; I'm liberal like John Kennedy. I'm liberal like FDR.'
Liberal is not a bad word, troll.
April 16, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa, slow down with all the anger and name-calling there buddy. Just trying to have a reasonable discussion here. I'm not saying being a liberal-elitist is a bad thing, except if your goal is to win a general election.
April 16, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ryotsu, Your proficiency at indignant self-righteousness is commendable. But nothing we hadn't heard already.
Have you considered the possibility that perhaps, maybe, the nation IS more left than the media would have us believe? or you believe?
Just asking.
April 16, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that there is a significant portion of the country that is very liberal, but I don't believe it's large enough to get a president elected in the general. If you are perceived as a far-left candidate by the public, you will almost certainly lose a general election in this country. It's been proven time and again.
April 16, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Reagan won it was conventional wisdom that you could not win as a conservative. The democrats discounted him because they thought that he could not win being that far to the right of center. Things change. Regan was the result of a national swing to the right and Obama is the result of a notional swing back.
April 16, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a big difference between moderate conservative and liberal elitist. Moderates get elected.
April 16, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only constant is 'Things Change'. Obama is changing the elctoral map with the help of GOP incompetence.
April 16, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a Republican troll. Only the Clinton campaigns takes advice from Republican's.
April 16, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny, I could have sworn you were the troll from the smell you're giving off.
But getting back to my argument: It's not my advice, it's historical advice. While your busy mindlessly supporting your candidate, try looking up actual information to support your delusions.
For the past 40 years, here's how liberal-elitist democratic candidates have fared. Notice a trend?
Year Result Candidate
1968 lost Hubert Horatio Humphrey
1972 lost George Stanley McGovern
1984 lost Walter Frederick Mondale
1988 lost Michael Stanley Dukakis
2000 lost Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
2004 lost John Forbes Kerry
April 16, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of them had a Hillary or a McCain to run against. Don't be so hard on them.
April 16, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
14 posts ... $7 ... time to get back to work.
Thanks for joining.
April 16, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you implying I make money by posting here? That's hilarious. I do this because its therapeutic.
April 16, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Humphrey -- attacked McGovern from the right in 1972 and split the party, and had stood up for the Vietnam War in 1968. Some liberal there.
McGovern -- see above (it's a bit difficult to overcome the kind of antics HHH pulled at the convention and still claim to represent all your own party), and in any case he's endorsing Hillary this time.
Mondale -- Another member of the Hillary fan club. Corporate lawyer, machine politician, not exactly a liberal.
Dukakis -- If you don't do any campaigning in the general until a month before the election, it makes it more than a bit difficult. Besides, John Yoo endorsed him -- so he can't be all that liberal, right?
Gore -- won the election and had it stolen from him
Kerry -- definitely liberal and if not elitist, his wife certainly is, but that isn't what lost him the election. Go check Scott Rasmussen's polling, connect the dots with major events in the campaign like the Swift Boating, and then get back to me.
April 16, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't know it was possible to pack that many excuses for losing into such a small space. You obamatrons never cease to amaze me.
April 17, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The word is not "homies" anymore. It's "holmes".
You would know that if you weren't so elitistized from other peoples cultures.
April 16, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. He created something out of whole cloth. That evil man. No one had ever even thought about wedge-issues before he opened his mouth!
April 16, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
HILLARY WILL WIN!!!!!! Barack HUSSEIN Obama is elitist, liar, stupid, not funny, won't wear flag pin, won't sing to flag, married to Michelle, inexperienced, Tony Rezko, Reverend Wright, Barry, middle name HUSSEIN! HE CAN NOT WIN!!!!
Hillary has climbed the mountain. She is polished gold. GOD BLESS HILLARY CLINTON!!!!!
April 16, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is parody, right?
April 16, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html
April 16, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, if Barack Obama is the elitist, why is it that "far left liberal elitist" defeated Democratic presidential nominees like George McGovern and Walter Mondale have all endorsed Hillary?
Neither your logic nor your name calling hold water.
April 16, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
AMEN. at least someone makes sense here.
April 16, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So in other words, she's clinging to bitterness.
Well, at least she's off the booze and has put the guns away.
April 16, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Hill-ster thinks da whiskey is mighty bitter!
April 16, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Loverly.
And when she wins PA (albeit, by a smaller than expected margin), pundits will all agree: Negative ads work!
Joy of joys.
April 16, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The colonel never gives away the secret recipe"
Keep it dude, we don't need a recipe for losing.
April 16, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cindy McCain likes to give away other people's recipes.
April 16, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And has TPM yet pointed out that Obama picked up another super delegate today???
April 16, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two, actually.
http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/price_watt_endorse_obama
April 16, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it 3? The Indiana rep, plus two in NC?
April 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not bitter. Seriously, I'm not. You'd be bitter too if everything you tried didn't work. Still, I'm not bitter. See?
April 16, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
All you need to know about this approach, courtesy of today's Gallup release:
Conceivably, Obama could be hurt more in a general-election context, where voters with the characteristics he describes might already have an inkling to vote Republican, and such remarks could nudge them more in that direction. But Gallup's general-election tracking data -- like that for the Democratic nomination -- have so far shown no deterioration in Obama's standing versus presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.
April 16, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you please tattoo this to the brains of the talking and writing hairdoes that dominate our political discourse?
Please?
April 16, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld. They seem desperate to insist that there the polling is undecided re "Bittergate."
April 16, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure the people of PA will be swayed by the opinions of a Clinton campaign volunteer from New Jersey who speaks on behalf of all Pennsylvanians.
Good job, Clinton camp! Completely fucking up at every turn on DAY ONE!!
April 16, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't understand the "Upshot"? What am I missing?
April 16, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are we even looking for an "upshot"?
I work as an analyst for a Fortune 50 company and anytime the results of my analysis are negative their is a weak minded boss who asks where is the good news or "silver lining". I get to have the pleasure of telling someone way above my pay grade that there is none and that it's not my job to hunt for one.
If the truth is positive then so be it, if it is negative, so be it. The media in general seems to have fallen into an idea that balance needs to be taken to all points which is just ridiculous.
April 16, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I guess that's how I understood it as well. I still don't quite understand, in context, who it's an "upshot" for, or what exactly is the "upshot."
I feel like I'm missing something obvious here.
(Meanwhile, I agree on your theory about "fairness")
April 16, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I took it to mean "In summary", not, here's the bright side.
Although it is a bright side that the voters of PA are only being subjected to one negative ad at a time, rather than multiple ones.
April 16, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Dictionary.com has confirmed your reading. I've never heard it used this way before.
April 16, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
HaHaHaHa -- Best sell your KFC stock, if you own any.
I'm sure political strategists will be studying the genius of the Hillary campaign for decades to come!
April 16, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
""We don't discuss our ad strategy. The colonel never gives away the secret recipe."
Uh, dude... the Colonel is dead!
April 16, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, now I'll never know how to pooch a campaign.
April 16, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
While these attacks are probably having some effect at slowing down Obama they are also pulling Clinton's numbers down in PA and nationally. She is trying to make a case to the Supers that she is the one who can win in November at the same time that her national numbers and trustworthiness are slipping further and further down.
The only real chance she has at this point is to suspend her campaign and wait and see if Obama screws up royally between now and the convention. She may win PA but her tactics are costing her bigtime and she didn't have good approval ratings before she went on the attack. How does she think that she can effectively win in November and more importantly lead the nation if she starts with low approval ratings "on day one"?
I really don't think that she is thinking about this campaign in any logical terms at this point.
April 16, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the possibility of "leading the country" is anything Clinton wants right now. She wants the nomination, period. She wants the Presidency, period. The end justifies any means she needs to take to achieve that.
And if, in some incredible turn of events, she gets the nomination, and wins the Presidency, if she can't lead the country, so what? She'll blame it on the same vast rightwing conspiracy, the media, and just about any other convenient scapegoat (Obama supporters? Natch).
It's not about being a leader. It's about getting her wish.
April 16, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe this is a crazy notion, but the negative ads and general phoniness could keep voters who were on her side home, with a "to heck with both of them" attitude. And then Obama wins.
We'll see how crazy ...
April 16, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely right. The "upshot" of this strategy is that Hillary's negatives will keep getting higher, which would undermine her ability to win the general election if she somehow managed to pull the nomination out of a hat. It's a no-win for her.
As Eric wrote in a different post about today's Washington Post poll:
All these wounds are self-inflicted.
It's also curious that she would go all negative all the time when she's in the lead in Pennsylvania -- usually that's the "hail Mary" strategy of a person far behind.
April 16, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an interesting point. Maybe her internal polling is looking problematic. Or, maybe her internal polling is telling her she has the chance to win big, and this is the way to do it.
Except my guess is that it isn't.
The way to do it, that is.
April 16, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may well be that her campaign advisors are telling her she needs to win Pennsylvania by 15 to 20 points, in which case that would dictate campaigning as if she's behind. Still, as you say, I don't think this approach will work. All it will do is drive up her negatives.
April 16, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It makes perfect sense when you realize that Hillary's goal isn't to win the primary. She has to know by now that that's next to impossible.
No, her goal now is to do as much damage to Obama as she possibly can and destroy his chances in the general election. She wants Obama to lose to McCain in November so she can run again in 2012. If Obama wins in November, she won't be able to run again until 2016, when she'll be 68 (not that much younger than McCain is now) and there'll be a brand new class of Democratic rising stars to compete with.
Hence, Hillary's Tonya Harding strategy. She is willing to hand the Supreme Court to the religious right for a generation for the sake of her own ambition. She truly cares about nothing except herself.
April 16, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Titanic mode did you say?
Or is this is an attempt to rest below the Titanic?
"The colonel never gives away the secret recipe."
So, give me another shot of Crown Royal bartender so I can clear my throat for that chicken, and add a mug of beer to wash the Colonel's finest down.
Oh! Where is my rifle and pistol I used in Bosnia?
Yugo, Girl! Annie Oakly ain't got a thing on you.
April 16, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ismay: But this ship CANT sink!
Andrews: She's made of iron sir. She can and she will.
April 16, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the ad with the Clinton supporter from New Jersey posing as a Pennsylvanian?
April 16, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing about all this that makes me laugh is that in the eyes of Obama supporters Hillary is always the one who is being negative. When, for example, Obama calls Hillary "Annie Oakley", that isn't seen as negative. That is seen as Obama responding to Hillary's negative attacks. Rest assured that Hillary supporters see a lot of negativity coming from Obama.
Something that Hillary has not said about Obama, but certainly could say, is that a large part of the concern about Obama's "cling to faith and guns out of bitterness" comments in San Francisco is that it raises an unspoken concern about the reasons why Obama was so attached to Rev. Wright. My take on it is that Obama has a lot of bitterness within himself over race, and that is what attracted him to Jeremiah Wright. When speaking of small-town people he made the faith/bitterness connection because that same connection exists in his own heart. Hillary could raise that issue, but she won't. The Republicans however will find a way.
April 16, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here we go again with 'The Republicans will attack Obama.' Duh!
Let it be known that they completed the playbook against Hillary months ago before she fumbled the shoe-in nomination.
April 16, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
" The Republicans however will find a way."
So how are you going to help them once they do?
Oh, yes! Are San Francisco and Wright a good match for the "unspoken concerns" of the Republicans?
April 16, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama didn't call Hillary Annie Oakley. He implied that she was not Annie Oakley. Please try and keep that straight.
Now, is that negative? I think there are very few of us who would not be unfavorably compared to Annie Oakley. There are few people alive or who have ever lived who could match her markmanship. The fact that Hillary obviously cannot strikes me as less about being negative than it is about pointing out the silliness of some of her own criticisms. But whatever.
Further, your comment that "Obama has a lot of bitterness within himself over race" is cryptic at best. Care to flesh out exactly what you mean by that?
April 16, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not following the Clinton campaign's talkingpoints du jour, allastair.
Their response to the Annie Oakley comment is that Obama was demeaning Annie Oakley and is therefore showing his misogyny again. You can read the "sophisticated" version of this line from Sean Wilentz over on HNN.
Of course, allastair, you're entirely correct about what Obama actually said, as anyone who hears the speech--or even the soundbite--can tell. This isn't even about the Clinton campaign's taking an Obama comment out of context. Instead it's the Clinton campaign's trying to transform everything Obama says into "evidence" of "elitism" and misogyny by sheer force of will.
The death throws of the Clinton campaign are just very, very pathetic.
April 16, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, with your great wisdom and insight, then, explain this:
http://www.pollster.com/US2TopzDems.php
That's without Gore in the mix.
It's over.
April 16, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That trend stops in February. Here is the current one.
http://www.pollster.com/USTopzDems.php
April 16, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another the GOP will raise. Following and using the same sentiments expressed by Obama on his "cling to" gaffe, how would have Obama said it if he was talking to the bitterness and abandonment felt by blacks in urban neighborhood? Is he going to say they cling or resort to using coke and criminality? We know that's not a truthful statement but following Obama's thinking, the bitterness, coke and crime are observable phenomena as in any other place and Obama would link them as he had on the bitterness and church and guns of small town America.
His remarks has racial undertones. The media is again giving him a pass on it.
April 16, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I could distill all of your posts, the net would be something like, "Obama is very bad man, very bad!" with that wagging finger accompaniment. You keep saying that voting for Obama would be a big mistake. You don't say what makes Clinton a better choice or how Clinton beats McCain (how does she when she hasn't beaten Obama?). Why is that?
April 16, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget Otto's other line:
"The mean, old scary Republicans are going to say Very Bad Things about Obama. Oh woe, alas, alack!"
April 16, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama hates his own family that raised him, sacrificed for him to go to good schools and make something of himself? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure growing up a multiracial kid named Barack Obama had it's tough sides but to assume that he has racial bitterness because his paster made some occasional remarks.... come on, you know your making a leap in logic or leaving logic out of it completely.
April 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We don't discuss our ad strategy. The colonel never gives away the secret recipe."
The Colonial was not going broke on his secret receipe, and it was not making millions of people throw up.
April 16, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's message is hollow as a drum.
April 16, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
April 16, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Liam, that is so funny!!!
Using metaphors of other peoples success stories only makes you look foolish.
The Clinton campaign apparently could never discover what the actual secret recipe was, for the secret recipe resides in the Obama campaign.
April 16, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let Hillary run her smear campaign, and let Senator Obama keep on being the truth teller:
Hear is where he is coming from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHodpyhXFSg&feature=user
April 16, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it true about the New Jersey supporter posing as a Pennsylvanian? Wow, that tidbit could become another Bosniagate for Hillary....
April 16, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah does anyone have a link?
April 16, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's an informative ad. The issue of the sentiments expressed by Obama in his "cling to" gaffe is the most legitimate issue I have heard so far. And I thank Hillary for airing it, a job that the media has abdicated again.
While campaign promises and political situations change over time, one's sentiments are durable and they end up manifesting themselves in his actions and decisions. An example is Obama's "cling to" gaffe and his at first his denial of having heard Wrights fiery sermons and having stayed with the church for 20 years.
The most important news for the voters to hear are those the candidates don't want you to know or are keeping away from you. The rest can be seen in their websites and ads, hence, are really not newsworthy to cover.
This gaffe by Obama is newsworthy and I hope that media don't fail to inform the voters of the candidates' sentiments, particularly on those least able to help themselves and have no voice as opposed to the audience in San Francisco he gave his remarks on "cling to".
April 16, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you been living in a cave the last four days? Do you want CNN to spin-off a seperate channel just to cover Bittergate 24 hrs a day?
April 16, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN, no. It's the most biased cable channel there is. They all talked about was the "bitter" part and intentionally left out the "cling to".
Obviously, everyone knows bitterness exists out there at this time and at all other times in our history. There are always losers in a capitalistic economy.
It's a fact though that the "bitterness" index was lowest in the Clinton administration in many decades.
What is at issue here is Obama's sentiments which would likely manifest themselves in his actions and decisions. Everyone needs to know that. And all CNN has to do is provide the complete text of Obama's remarks in close doors among his private and biggest contributors in San Fran.
April 16, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this parody?
April 16, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am pretty sure I have not turned on the news once in the past 5 days without being immediately confronted with this story. Not once. I feel I can say without fear of contradiction that this has absolutely, positively been the top news story on every channel since Saturday. Frankly, I don't know what could possibly make you happy with regard to covering this story anymore than it has been.
April 16, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, Yotin. Do you even think it's important to read/hear two words in their entire context? Or to accept someone's apology that, while the sentiment was right, the wording was awkward? Or the testimony of others who say they weren't offending by the comments?
A lot of us have wanted to like Clinton a lot more than we like her right now, and comments such as yours give us fewer and fewer reasons to feel good about her and her defenders. Meanwhile, can you kindly blast the media for blowing everything out of context, including those (amazingly few) unscripted comments made by Clinton?
April 16, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree what you said that Obama's elitist sentiments is in his true colors.
Most voters in PA, NC, IN are busy making a living (if they're jobless). They don't pay attention to what's going on until when they're ready to do something about it.
The media gave Obama a pass on the Wright issue when they stopped covering after weeks into the elections. PA voters need to know about the sentiments he shared with Wright expressed by his anti-American rants. The media hasn't pressed Obama on which parts he disagree on Wright's sermon and, thereby, which parts he agree with.
You have a free choice on who to support, irregardless, of what I or others' opinions are of the candidates, race, gender or religion.
I just hope that you don't let Obama's subtext influence you and I say this not knowing who you are. Obama's subtext is you're stupid and are a loser for not voting for him and so instead you cling to guns. Or the subtext in his Philly speech or of Michelle Obama's remark,you are racist you can't vote for a black man.
April 16, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yotin, Yotin, Yotin …
Here's who I am: 1) someone who lives in rural America (admittedly liberal rural America); 2) someone who has an advanced degree in theology; 3) a black man who, for most of his life, has attended churches populated predominantly with white folks; 4) someone who nevertheless knows something of what goes on in black churches.
Your comments lead me to believe that, while you may be (1), you are not the other three. And might I suggest that, if you were, you would better understand what's happening in this political contest? Or is it honestly too much to ask you to open your eyes to other points of view?
As for anti-American comments, were you as worked up against the Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson when they railed against America less than a week after 9/11? I most certainly hope the answer is Yes.
April 16, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the most legitimate issue you've heard so far? Seriously?
April 16, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the poster is refering to what comes out of the Clinton camp then perhapse this is the most legitimate issue so far.
April 16, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We don't discuss our ad strategy. The colonel never gives away the secret recipe."
Hillary looks a little too much like a chicken for that anology to be a good one.
April 16, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this is either going to prove or disprove Clinton's theory that Obama cannot withstand a prolonged negative Republican attack.
April 16, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I love the smell of desperation in the morning… It smells like… victory."
April 16, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for her. Obama needs to be outted for the who he is. And anyway, "negative" is very subjective. If the ads are truthful, they are not necessarily negative. That is, unless your holier-than-thou candidate is on the receiving end of an unwelcomed reality check.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 16, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Truthful" is also subjective, insofar as Clinton volunteers are pretended to be offended PA voters...
April 16, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you going to eat those babies, or just hold them out in front of hungry me in a taunting manner.
April 16, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, Matthew Weaver's finally back . . . had to take a break from trolling to knit little tiny white hoods for the kiddies
April 16, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me that everyone is arguing about something that doesn't exist: those remarks were NOT what Obama said, any more than the distorted soundbite "I invented the internet" is what Gore said. What Obama SAID was "people cling to [political issues like] religion [such as abortion or gay rights] and gun [control]... [They are not interested in the talking points of my campaign].
The fact that he left certain words out and that they had to be gathered from the context of the surrounding sentences in a semi-private conversation is something that everyone needs to keep in mind when discussing his words. It wasn't what he said that is causing him problems; it is what he left unsaid.
April 16, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
the tag seems not to be working properly. I proof-read my remarks and they didn't show up as I marked them unless I was extremely cross-eyed when I proof-read them.
April 16, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in small town PA and I AM BITTER! I'm bitter at all the money wasted on @%#$@ TV ads in which a multi-millionaire alum of Wellesley and Yale calls somebody else 'elitist.' Fuck her. She IS a monster.
April 16, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could someone provide the link? This is the type of stories that has legs and be replayed over and over by the MSM, a politician faking small town people talking to small town people, this will get the small town folks up in arms. It should be brought to the attention of Obama's campaign.
April 16, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant the New Jersey Clinton supporter posing as small town Pennsylvanian of course...
April 16, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of negative ads, one of the "offended" small-town people from her recent Obama hit ad isn't even a registered voter in Pennsylvania.
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/clintons_offended_pa_voter_not.html
April 16, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
saw that, first the lady made her cry in NH, the little girl of 3am ad, the Bosnian girl "under sniper fire" with her and this... well never mind, this guy at least knew he was bing used by Clinton.
April 16, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. It seems he was born in Scranton but lived most of his life in NJ until recently. It's still worth mentioning, especially if all those "small town folks" are really Hillary campaign workers, not random people plucked form the street as suggested by the video. that is again cynical deception, taking the geniune small towners as fools and using them for political fodder. This should be picked up by the media, or perhaps Obama can mention it during the debate - she can't even find real Pennsylvanians to make her ads claiming Pennsylvanians are outraged.
April 16, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Put aside the tone for a second, that ad is so amateurish that I don't think it will move anyone to support Hillary Clinton. If what Obama said was such a great offense - shouldn't these people be acting like they're actually offended?
Contrast this with the "tax-hiking, government expanding, latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, New York Times reading ..." spot the Club for Growth ran against Dean in Iowa four years ago. Yes, that was a scripted spot but it doesn't matter. That's what Clinton wanted and she missed it by a mile.
This ad helps Obama because it has none of the emotion it wants Pennsylvanians to feel. The low-key tone tells viewers what Obama said really isn't a big deal.
April 16, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
News Flash: Hillary Clinton is running a negative campaign.
April 16, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 16, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant to say that you left out losing. It should apear next to negative.
April 16, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is is possible that the DNC lets her get away with this? Even McCain has said that BHO isn't an elitist.
This just shows that the DNC needs to step up and put an end to this thing after IN/NC. This has become a disgrace.
Shame on her for making me almost feel sorry for her
Mike
http://www.theobamageneration.com
April 16, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
About time. She has not run a negative campaign yet.
"Democrats are now asking themselves whether they were
too precipitate in placing their hopes in Obama:
Democrats are now asking themselves whether they were too precipitate in placing their hopes in a candidate about whom they knew so little. Obama is smooth tongued and good looking, with a plausible manner, but the more we come to know of him, the more he looks like a certain loser in November."
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/miracle-philadelphia
Time to go for the knockout.
April 16, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
My parrot won't shit if I line his cage with the NY Sun. He says, "That's redundant."
April 16, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
the knockout? don't you normally need to set somebody up and have them on the ropes for a knockout? What has possibly made you think that Hillary has any chance at actually being the nominee.
Oh, 3 more SD's for BHO today. 1 declared this morning, and 2 more will this afternoon.
Mike
http://www.theobamageneration.com
April 16, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume your avatar depicts Hillary raising a glass of Crown Royal, but at that size it looks more like a fascist salute.
April 16, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone ever questioned whether gotalife was being satirical à la idiotic, your question has now been answered. I've been suspecting it for a while, but never had conclusive proof until now.
Well played, sir. Well played.
April 16, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shhhhhh! Now you've gone and spilled the beans!
April 16, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, elitism has *nothing* to do with what money you make? So rich people aren't considered elitist? Hillary is just a regular ol' person that you can pal around with? My friend, you might need a trip back to the dictionary.
April 16, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, an UPSHOT is simply a result or consequence of an action, there is no value (positive or negative) intended.
April 16, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, that was meant to be a response to Ryotsu near the top of thread.
April 16, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Far left": That is a phrase that conservative talk radio uses to look like they are mainstream, but really the far left does not exists in this country: Far left means agrarian reform, nationalization of the means of production, and dictatorship (a la Cuba). Nobody politically relevant is proposing anything close to that for the country. So, please, keep between the boundaries of reality.
April 16, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point! The "far left" voters were for Dennis Kucinich in the Dem Primary race. Obviously they don't represent a very large portion of the Dem party or we wouldn't have only Hillary & Obama going at it at this point.
April 16, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello Hillary Fans and Hillary Haters.....
Here are a few SurveyUSA polls in Kentucky, Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.
Puerto Rico, South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, and Guam have polling data out but none from SurveyUSA yet.
SurveyUSA is been more correct this primary season then any other polling company....
Here are the lastest polling data from SurveyUSA:
Kentucky.... Clinton: 62%...Obama: 26%
Indiana.... Clinton: 55%....Obama: 39%
North Carolina....Clinton: 39%....Obama:49%
Oregon....Clinton:42%....Obama:52%
Pennsylvania....Clinton:54%....Obama:40%
Here are the lastest polling data from different companies, for what it is worth:
Puerto Rico....Clinton: 50%....Obama:37%
South Dakota....Clinton:34%....Obama:46%
West Virginia....Clinton:55%....Obama:27%
Montana....Clinton: 29%....Obama:17%
Guam....Clinton:35%...Obama:44%
All Polling data is between March 10, 2008 to April 16, 2008
Polling data shows that Hillary could win six of those states.... Obama could win four of those states.
April 16, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You haven't been around for awhile.
Too bad for your hopes that Clinton needs, not just to win, but win big.
April 16, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that would leave her . . . still impossibly behind?
Still that's a nice, meaningless and random selection of polls.
April 16, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
See Bill Marshall's take on this. Assuming pretty much best case scenarios, she'll still be more than 100 delegates behind. (He only mentions pledged delegates, but even factoring in the unpledged delegates, he'd have a 100-delegate lead.)
Sure, she should stay in since it's energizing voters, but she should make sure that she does no damage to Obama's chances in the general.
April 16, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but there lies the rub. Everything she is doing is expressly designed to damage Obama's chances in the general.
April 16, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it's a bummer. But hey, she could still lead the Senate. Be a Ted Kennedy. No shame in that at all.
April 16, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
when all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
April 16, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment.
April 16, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, you should copyright that!
April 16, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The colonel's food is unhealthy. The Clinton campaign is unhealthy. Living on the Colonel's diet can corrode your arteries. Watching the Clinton campaign for this long has well neigh corroded the Democratic Party.
April 16, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And years later we've discovered that the Colonel's recipe included trans-fats which can cause cancer.
Sounds about right.
April 16, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Folks, unless there is some serious, really damaging information yet waiting to come out about Obama, this long campaign with Clinton works to his benefit against McCain in the general.
What the Obama campaign seems to have figured out is that Youtube, Google, and discussion boards like this have altered the dynamics of the news cycle. I have no inside knowledge, but every one of their responses to 'challenges' appears to have been based on a recognition that they did not need to 'win' a 24-hour, or even one-week news cycle based purely on 10 second soundbites.
The analogy I'd give you would be the process of cultural influence Hawthorne describes in _The Scarlet Letter_: while the Puritan authorities tried to constrain Hester Prynne within their narrative as "Adulteress," her patient, consistent demeanor resulted in the town creating a new narrative within which she was "Able," or "Angel."
April 16, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure these Negative ads will not affect the Democratic Party as a whole.
I see Senator Clinton's campaign leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth towards both candidates, which is typical of "going negative". The strategy is employed with hopes that it will hurt the other guy more, but you go in knowing that it detracts from both.
April 16, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the Clinton campaign is always such a ray of sunshine.
April 16, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Predictably short-sighted
As if HRC can afford HER negatives to go any higher.
April 16, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only fools and the terminally biased could consider Barack Obama the most liberal Senator in a body that still contains Russ Feingold and Socialist Bernie Sanders. The contention that Barack Obama is the Senate's most liberal member does not pass the laugh test, and a person with two neurons to rub together should be able to plainly see through it.
April 16, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
People in PA have a right to be bitter and thank God someone is concerned about their future and their economic hardships, opportunities. It wasn't worded right but clearly Obama's head & heart is/was in the right place.
Clinton uses the lowest common denominator to get votes, and yes she will get some votes that way, by scrapping the barrel. Instead of doing ads talking about what her plans are, she is attacking Obama. Why is this a substantive issue for PA voters? It isn't, plain and simple. Let Clinton do these ads, but how are they educating, inspiring, mobilizing or explaining anything of importance to voters?
Obama on the other hand has already aired issues that need to be aired and dealt with. He tells the truth and he elevates the nation. I hope that the American people will see this and vote for him. Even if he looses PA, don't worry the nation sees what is going on in PA and I think in general they think Clinton is phoney. She may win there but she has shown her true colors to the rest of the nation. Also, I don't think she will win (if she does) by a lot. This vote will be a gut-check type of vote for 1) the candidate who tells you the truth or 2) the candidate who wants to make believe that we are still living in 1991 or something.
It is 2008, we have grown as a nation and we have serious troubles facing our nation. For the Governor of PA to say what he said, he is trying to make people believe that they aren't ready to vote for an African American. Rendell and Clinton need to step up to the plate, it is 2008...so much has gone on, people are more educated and yes, more bitter! We need change. Obama is deflating that denial ballon. Clinton can't make it all better. She is too stuck in the past.
Also, Bruce Springsteen just endorsed Obama!
April 16, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could it be it's the only ad she can AFFORD to run?
April 16, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point! You may be right!
April 16, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This
ryotsu
is telling me as Obama supporter to read and realize the facts?
The only fact that I read and realize is that Obama is ahead in delegates and popular votes. So unless Sen. Clinton overcomes that, discussing all these other issues doesn't make sense.
So I want you to go back and realize that fact. If she can win the delegate counts and popular vote then you can come back and give me all other reasons. If she manages to overtake on delegate counts, even if Obama is in better position for November I will still support Hillary's nomination.
So these are the mindset of Obama supporters. If you cannot realize the mere facts of current race, then you assertion of history doesn't make any sense. History is made every time new things happens, thats' why it is called history. So please get a life. Come back to us after Clinton's victory in delegate counts.
April 16, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope Hillary doesn't get all that muck from the gutter on her motherfucking pantsuit.
But that's another story.
The real story is going to be watching the superdelegates assess the Hill-sta as she descends into her thug-like antics.
It's ironic that John McCaveman might be more civil.
April 16, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the worst problem for Hillary Clinton is what the WaPo poll that appeared this morning shows: That the number of people that find her not trustworthy is increasing significantly. The problem with that is that whatever you say, or whatever message you wnat to send, people doesn't believe you. So, this going negative can also backfire big time, because people does not believe in your attack, only see that you are being mean.
April 16, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, this is delicious. Hillary Clinton on working class voters in 1995: "Screw 'em."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html
April 16, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's even more damaging.
April 16, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supporters should be thrilled, knowing that they can sit back and enjoy five days of breathless "Screw-gate" coverage.
Not.
April 16, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ruh, roh.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html
April 16, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please do not feed the trolls. Thank you.
April 16, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of negative, if you're an Obama supporter, this little ditty is pretty damn hilarious. If you backing Hillary, you might not want to click:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJLcptupENc
April 16, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding elitist thoughts------see Huffington Post article of today where Hillary, in 1995 suggested to Bill that h"e should just screw working class white voters. I believe hr exact words were, "SCREW 'EM".
April 16, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's so interesting that Obama runs an ad saying he doesn't take any money from Oil Companies. True. It is illegal for him to take money from Oil Companies. So how does he get around the law? He takes money from Oil Company employees. What's interesting is that he's been called on this already. But he continues to run deceptive ads about it. Maybe he really does believe small-town people to be stupid.
April 16, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
He clearly says he doesn't take money from PACs or Washington Lobbyists in the new ad.
How can he be any clearer than that?
April 16, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
On a side not, I don't get why some Democrats seem to be upset that Obama is not taking money from PACs, but from ordinary people (including oil workers, yes!) instead.
I mean, which is worst? Having lobbyists literally running their business from your campaign bus?
Or having people with degrees of separation from lobbying firms help your campaign because they believe in YOU.
All this "controversy" about Obama's fundraising seems very forced, and in the end, damaging NOT to Obama, but to the campaigns making the accusations.
Because all Obama has to do is go, "Oh, what I'm doing is bad? Then what YOU are doing is worse."
Not smart. And I DO hope this comes up in the debate tonight, and I hope Hillary brings it up.
April 16, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
the first "worst" should be "worse".
And edit function would be nice, Josh!
April 16, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You almost win the award for most self defeating troll.
April 16, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
OBAMA TRIVIA
============
Here are some more or less known facts about the brilliant orator and presidential hopeful:
- he used alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine during his teenage years to
"push questions of who I was, out of my mind"
- according to his own claims both parents were declared atheists
- His first name Barak is a specific Arabic first name and his middle name Hussein is
a specific Muslim name
- Despite the fat that he claims that he has never been raised as a Muslim, in the
various schools he attended in Jakarta, Indonesia, he was registered as a Muslim;
also, according to his sister Maya Soetoro, "the family did not attend the mosque
for regular worship, but for communal events"
- his father was a polygamist, as he was already married with a child in Kenya,
when he married Barak Jr.'s mother: Ann Dunham; before divorcing her, he married
a 3rd woman, Ruth, while studying in Boston, MA
- four years after his father's death, Obama Jr. traveled to his father's ancestral
Kenyan village. There he learned the full story of his father's life and met some of
his relatives
- after his father, he has 6 step-brothers and a step-sister
- after his own told recollections, he was tortured by fellow pupils - who let out monkey hoots -
and turned into a disenchanted teenage rebel, experimenting with cocaine, marijuana and alcohol
However a former classmate, Alan Lum, radically contradicts Barak's claim:
"Hawaii is such a melting pot that it didn't occur to me when we were growing up that
he might have problems about being one of the few African-Americans at the school. Us kids didn't see color. He was easy-going and well-liked."
- While at Columbia University, his book claims, "no matter how many times the
administration tried to paint them over, the walls remained scratched with blunt
correspondence (about) niggers."
But one of his classmates, Joe Zwicker, 45, now a lawyer in Boston, said:
"That surprises me. Columbia was a pretty tolerant place.
There were African American students in my classes and I never saw any evidence
of racism at all."
- According to Chicago Sun of Feb 13, 08, a volunteer setting up an Obama office in Texas
had a Cuban flag with a picture of Che Guevara tacked up in her office
- the Italian translation of the book "Audacity of Hope" was published with an introduction
by Walter Vetroni, a former leader of the Italian Communist party
- One of Obama's good friend, campaign contributor and advisor is Tony Rezko, an Arab American, born in Syria, who is currently facing federal charges of attempted extortion, money laundering, and fraud; Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged
- Interestingly, Obama's campaign has relied heavily on people such as Kenneth Griffin, a
Chicago-based hedge-fund manager who reportedly earned $1.4bn last year
- Obama's spiritual leader and counselor is Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who said in the
newly disclosed video that the 9/11 attacks were brought on by US "terrorism."
- Obama's congregation invited the leader of the terrorist organization Hamas, to post
political opinions in their printed flier
-Obama's wife Michelle ( possible First Lady) publicly declared that she is for the first time
proud for her country, when her husband is runing for President
- Barak has close association with the domestic terrorist organization
members like:
- William Ayers, who bombed high-profile government buildings,including the Capitol (in 70 and 72),
- Carl Davidson or Bernardine Dohrn, members of the "Weathermen" underground radical
leftist group that referred to itself as a revolutionary organization of men and women,
whose purpose was to carry out a series of attacks that would achieve the revolutionary
overthrow of the US Government
- Barak, while living in Hawaii, developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Frank Marshall Davis,
outstanding member of the US Communist Party, by listening to his “poetry” and getting
advice on his career path
- he repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier
to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in Illinois,
he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times
- he is endorsed by former Black Panther Charles Barron, and by Louis Farrakhan, the leader
of the "Nation of Islam", as well as other senior memebers of the Nation of Islam
- According to the National Journal, Obama is the most liberal of all 100 senators, who has
absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience
April 16, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the view like, up inside your own ass? Does it look like the inside of Karl Rove's ass? I must assume you have firsthand experience.
April 17, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink