OMG, thank goodness I live on the west coast!

The ad is all over the internet, so nationally it's already done it's damage.

Anyway, to hell with these sleazebags. They're going to be routed in november.

Seems to me that if David Plouffe pays attention to anything he ought to pay attention to just how Bill Clinton and Hillary slid out from under Gennifer Flowers during Bill's first campaign.

I will repeat myself:

The North Carolina GOP is a joke. Everyone knows that, even local conservatives.

The Dems expanded their statehouse majority with the House speaker under indictment (for pretty serious corruption, of which he was guilty) and on the front page of the paper every morning. This despite his refusal to step down, or even to abstain from running for re-election. Presidential year, too. Perfect storm for the state GOP and they lost seats. They have NO IDEA what they're doing.

Additionally, our primary electorate is highly educated and comprised of many African Americans. The ad will boomerang, if it has any effect at all.

Jeremiah Wright hurt Obama with many Democrats. It wasn't the kind of issue that Democrats wanted to make a big deal about, and the controversy APPEARED to be quieted by Obama's speech. But that was of course an illusion. The Republicans are going to use it extensively and to good advantage. While Obama supporters will be indignant over it, it won't matter. It is a powerful issue, and Obama can't escape it.

The real question is:

Will Hillary denounce the ad?

Or will she (as I expect) use it to say "See? Obama is damaged."

Of course, if she says that, and loses NC as expected, that would not look good.

The Grand Old Party of Racists does it again.

It's a good thing for the cash strapped Hillary campaign that the GOP has come to her aid.

Just the fact that the GOP is spending this money now is proof that this is about trying to influence the Super Delegates in the Dem party.

They really don't want to take on Obama because it just isn't a good match up for McCain.

I'm actually glad they NC GOP is running this ad.
Gutter, code-word racism, as this ad exemplifies, must be out in the open and exposed.
It works when it's whispered in the back alleys.
It backfires when it is trumpeted out in the open like this is.
It won't work in 2008 except with the racists who were never going to vote for Dem or for Obama in any event.

I wonder if this will help Hillary in North Carolina. She needs to win big, if she wants to overtake Obama in the popular vote and the delegate count. She also needs to prove to the super delegates that she can win over African Americans. Any Democrat who wants to be victorious in November is going to need the African American vote to do it, and so far, Hillary's numbers among AA's have been abysmal at best.

Greg and Eric, I (and others) are STILL waiting for a post about Obama's superdelegate pickup this morning. We've had three or four posts this morning consisting of non-issues and sensationalist bullshit that we already know is going to happen. I'm not saying that this isn't newsworthy, but isn't a superdelegate pickup (given last night's PA results and Hillary's "momentum" meme) equally as newsworthy? What's the deal?

The NC African American community is highly engaged already. This will only serve to stoke that fire. It also won't cause second thoughts for white liberals and pragmatists - we already know that a Clinton will never win our state (hell, Bill couldn't even beat Bob freaking Dole in NC). He never had any of the DINO racist vote, and that's a much smaller share of the NC primary electorate than outsiders think. I'd bet that it's less than PA's, based on what I've been told by people who've lived in both states.

Conspiracy theory: McCain is behind the whole thing. Think about it; he gets the ad played for free on news outlets, AND he gets to do the honorable thing by denouncing it.

Should Obama go negative?

I have managed several candidates faced with the same dilemma. Here are the the ground rules for going negative if you are candidate who really does not want to go negative (such as Obama):

1. Do you risk your opponent's smearing you to the point that it will permanently damage your reputation? (Unless you believe going negative is a greater wrong than losing.)

2. Is there a "negative" approach which is purely defensive and effective, that voters will understand is not underhanded or petty?

3. Is your negative message generally unknown by the electorate, completely accurate, and important to the voters' decisionmaking?

4. Are you winning anyway, and can actually make more headway toward your goal by making a virtue of staying positive?

Although it may seem obvious that Obama is winning and will almost certainly win the nomination whether or not he goes negative, the decision is not so simple.

For Obama at this stage, winning means winning the November election since he has the nomination wraped up. His foe is taking literally any swipes she can, including deception, scare tactics, and even racial appeals to win. Not responding runs the risk of permanent damage.

In my view, Obama's challenge is not whether to go negative (not all the time, but enough to put Hillary on the defensive a bit) but on what issues.

He must avoid the petty distractions he so rightly condemns. For example, running an ad on the Bosnia hallucination would seem petty. Bringing up Monica, Whitewater, Vince Foster, or other 1990's scandals of the Clinton administration would backfire since he needs to woo Bill Clinton supporters.

His best negative ads would be Hillary's NAFTA reversals of positions (juxtaposing contradictory statements); the Iraq vote and the Iran threat & vote (not to mention the "obliteration" remark) and other such issue oriented points.

She will then need to spend some of her limited funds on explaining the unexplainable for a change.

I say mix an aggressive approach with a new emphasis on change, change, change, (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton) and get away from the inside the beltway "lobbyist" stuff (although it is important).

Aggressive, focus on change, and keep Clitnon on the defensive. Axelrod and Plouffe have done everything else perfectly -- bravo! -- but it's time to get the candidate in line on the message transition. This is the campaign's final test

I do not think that Obama should go negative. Remember, he has said that he is placing a bet on us, the American people, that we are fed up of the same old politics.

So really, it is up to US to show the politicians that Obama is right. That we are indeed fed up. If we allow the same old distractions to distract us again, well, then Obama will have lost his bet and we will have lost much more.

The Obama campaign should give those candidates' campaigns 1 million dollars each.

BTW, I am all for elevating the dialog,and neutering the "old politics",BUT, this reminds me of the old saw,of FIRST hitting the mule with the 2x4,to get his (or her) attention!I personally would LOVE to see Obama whip Hillary like a rented mule...and I think a whole lot of other folks would get a WHOLE lot of satisfaction from that attitude adjustment...it's LONG overdue.