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.
Comments (207)
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
http://www.votenic.com
is hosting a 2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
Last Week's Results Just Posted!
Vote to see results.
April 16, 2008 2:05 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...