« Here's Where Hillary, Obama And Their Surrogates Will Be In Pennsylvania Today | Home | Hillary Campaign Chief: There's "Nothing Negative" About New Ad Showing Bin Laden »
New Hillary Ad Shows Bin Laden, Asks: "Who Do You Think Has What It Takes?"
Hillary's up with a new, last minute spot in Pennsylvania designed to swing the late-breaking undecideds -- and it includes a brief appearance by none other than Osama Bin Laden.
Though there's no mention of Obama here, the crisis imagery, combined with the line "who do you think has what it takes," are clearly designed to sow last-minute doubts about Obama's fitness to be commander-in-chief, just as the "red phone" ad did...
Late Update: The Obama campaign is already out with a response: It's directing folks to this video of Bill Clinton saying the following in 2004:
"Now one of Clinton's Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That's the best."
Late Late Update: Hillary's new chief strategist says that there's "nothing negative" about the new ad.
Advertisement

O. MY. GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Take off that Hillary Clinton, Dick! We know it's really you under there, Cheney.
April 21, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take off that Hillary Clinton mask, Dick!
April 21, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dick Nixon, you mean.
She's the reincarnated undead Tricky Dick!.
April 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
it was a fine ad.
She shouldn't have pulled it.
April 21, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did she pull it?
She should run it non stop.
This is the issue of national security.
A big one next to the economy.
April 21, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ad isn't offensive to me, even the Bin Laden footage. Those images have all been part of what tests a president.
The message is fair game -- but it is the wrong message for this candidate.
We know that campaign messages have to be binary and oversimplified. That's the understood way voters process them: Obama represents hope; Hillary represents experience. The problem is McCain TOO represents experience -- and his dwarfs Hillary's "35 years". This creates a cognitive dissonance in voters' minds, with potentially disastrous consequences for her, were she somehow to recapture the nomination.
Why oh why did she choose to campaign on "experience"? I simply don't understand. Clinton is a fantastic legislator, an engaging and inspired leader who has accomplished a lot in her short time in public office. Why not campaign on that? And on the freshness of her ideas? On the future, not on the past? Why campaign on this faux experience and on "trust" (a notion that people have a conflicted time associating with a Clinton). Why choose those themes when she has so many other talents?
Yes, this campaign is in part about hope versus experience. But if we look at things in a binary way, the "experience" candidate is McCain, not Clinton. And regardless of their choice tomorrow, that dissonance is bound to be in the back of Democratic voters' minds.
Such a shame. This was her race to lose. Obama while he has not managed to close the deal yet, from a macro standpoint has been a much more effective candidate: as a mere freshman senator he has overtaken the anointed household name of the party.
April 21, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice, now go lord your slums.
April 21, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm Hillary Clinton, and I'm bankrupt and desperate."
April 21, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure that it's just because she doesn't have the money to run it.
It's a good thing that there's youtube, or nobody would be able to see her ads anymore...
April 21, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I don't think the ad's so bad, although it's very weird that she would include a quote about "getting out of the kitchen". (Is this post-feminism in action?)
Her campaign has been incredibly inept, and should raise questions about her electibility far more than anything in the realm of "identity politics" should. I went from supporting her to really being against her, strictly due to the tone and tactics employed by her campaign.
But this ad? Not offensive to me. That'll be $0.02, please.
April 21, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, that's it for me.
Senator Clinton has lowered herself to the level of George Bush and the Republicans. I haven't been thrilled with her campaign, simply because I think it's been poorly run.
This, though, removes any doubt that Senator Clinton is willing to use any sort of weapon to gain her goal, even if it does damage to the country.
Shame on Senator Clinton. Shame.
April 21, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You said it. I was sick of Bush and Cheney playing the fear card already 8 years ago, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Now she's heading toward the convention stage as Giuliani 2. It started at the debate. She got 9/11 in 5 times. So in addition to being just reptilian and vile, this woman is totally out of touch. Is that what money and petty power and influence do to your brain?
April 21, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
This can't really surprise anyone. This is hardly the first time she has done this. Remember before New Hampshire when she was implying Al Quaeda was going to attack us if we ellect Obama?
Check out this, the relevant portion begins about 2:30 into it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BB4Vvgn_4k
April 21, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quote:
“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.”
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_heighte.html
April 21, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You think in that quote she's implying they'll attack if Obama's elected? You're mad!
Gordon Brown (UK Prime Minister) took over after being Chancellor (2nd most powerful politician in the Government) for 10 years. That is not an analogy for a rookie becoming President, it's saying that *whoever* becomes President could have to deal with a threat very soon after taking office, as happened in the UK.
April 21, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that is fear mongering.
As was the 3AM add.
As was the circulating of the photo of Obama in Somali garb.
Hillary has adopted the Karl Rove playbook, this is nothing new and shouldn't surprise anyone.
April 21, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's a piece of work, all right. It would be a damn shame if she got back to the White House this way. One thing she's proven by releasing her inner-ugly is that she's not fit to lead a nation that needs a lot of repair. All she's good for is the demolition.
April 21, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, unfortunately.
April 21, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please, it doesn't take much to get you lot riled up. It isn't exactly the best ad ever, but it's hardly scaremongering. To me it more had the feel of a [low budget] trailer for an Indiana Jones movie or something.
In my opinion, far better to air an ad lke this, than to air one attacking Universal healthcare.
April 21, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's really nothing she could do or say that you would find objectionable, is there?
April 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually there's plenty of things, which I've commented on before. Similarly, I like a lot of what Obama says (it'd be hard not to, considering the similarity in their policy positions).
April 21, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
For what little it is worth, I actually agree with Foreigner's take on this. I think that the ad is dumb, but I am not quite convinced that it is really dirty, and clearly I am not saying this simply because I have drunk the Clinton kool-aid.
April 21, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anything that dumbs down the political debate helps Republicans.
Appeals to fear, suggesting that foreign policy is all about being "tuff" is campaigning for McCain.
April 21, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the ad shows bin Laden, it's taking a page out of the Karl Rove playbook which makes it evil.
April 21, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moreover, the issues raised - two wars, gas prices and economic depression - are exactly the issues Pennsylvanians should be considering tomorrow.
April 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
He waits for her to lead on an issue and he follows her lead.
April 21, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny. Cause I waited for her to "lead on an issue" for eight years while she was in the Senate and Bush was shredding the Constitution. The "great fighter" kept her head down cause she didn't want to lose the Broder-Lieberman vote.
April 21, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better check your hero's voting record.
He did what you are spewing.
He voted yes and some she voted no.
cheney's energy bill is just one example.
April 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a cynical way of looking at it.
I would say that she didn't want to take the lead, because she *WAS* the Broder/Lieberman vote.
April 21, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The ad is not a great one, but it's not a negative ad by any stretch.
If any strategists from the Clinton campaign are reading through these threads, I finish school a week from Friday. Call me. Seriously, you guys need help.
I'm going overseas later on this summer to teach, so don't wait too long.
April 21, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton were actually willing to use any tool necessary to win the Democratic nomination, I think I'd be a good deal more enthusiastic about her.
The problem is that she seems willing to use any tool except the ones that might actually freaking work.
April 21, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that gets me too.
April 21, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stay classy, Hill.
Oh, and I'll take the candidate who said that the war in iraq was going to divert resources from our real enemy instead of voting for said war. Thanks.
April 21, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! I just blogged about this.
In my opinion, this is by far one of the worst political ads I've ever seen. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Who is she, the Rock?
Just really bad. Laughable.
April 21, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you SMEEEELLLLLL what Hillary Clinton is cooking????
April 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
No no no, you guys have it backwards!
The Rock=Barack!
Have you heard them speak? They sound exactly the same. "Can you SMELLLLLLLLLL what BARACK is cooking??"
April 21, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and for the record, this is nothing but a compliment for Barack, just in case anyone gets confused out there! Because he will lay the smackdown on Hillary's candy-ass!!
April 21, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok I will officially become a total jerk here and just say - I don't think I can vote for her. I'll write in Obama. I cannot vote for someone who tries to terrify people into voting for her.
I'm through - the Clintons are dead to me forever now.
April 21, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I reluctantly came to that point a while back too.
In my dark night of the soul about this, I tell myself that it is in the long term interest of the party to purge this type of shit. The ends don't justify the means. My vote is sacred to me and I won't dishonor it this way. If pigs fly and she gets the nod, then McCain wins against her, heaven forbid, perhaps Obama can be convinced to run again in 2012.
April 21, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I do not want John McCain picking successors for Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stephens. If the pigs fly and all else fails, I'll have to vote for her.
Not that it will do any good. There is no path to the nomination left for her that doesn't entail pissing off half the party and half of the indys who might otherwise have voted Democrat so bad that they stay home or vote for McCain.
April 21, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain can't get his nominees confirmed unless the Democratic-controlled Senate lets him.
April 21, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have seen little benefit from a Dem controlled Senate.
Especially with Lieberman in the mix.
April 21, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Free Barrackistan:
It's just barely a majority right now and only with Lieberman in the mix. Yuck. We need to get up near 60ish Dem senators before the majority becomes effective.
April 21, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
@expatjourno2:
I fear that a McCain presidency could put this country into eclipse for the next 50 years. We've seen what it looks like to have a clueless Chief Executive surrounded and handled by conservative "advisors" who are the actual policy makers. Not to mention sneaky AGs who issue opinions re legality of questionable practices, and "signing statements" and the plethora of procedural loopholes we've seen BushCo employ in their pursuit of the Unitary Executive.
That said, I believe in a balance between the three branches of federal government, and if our Constitution was less threatened by the policies of the last eight years, I would agree with you, that the legislative branch can prevent the executive from overreaching. In theory, that's how it's supposed to be. It's what's supposed to stop us from a slide into totalitarianism.
I have yet to really feel assured that any of the currently-viable candidates, Repub or Dem, have any intention of restoring the balance that Bush/Cheney has worked so hard to undermine.
April 21, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then I will be a jerk right along with you. If Clinton is the nominee, TX will be a write off for the Dems, so it won't matter if I write in Obama. I'll still turn out for Rick Noriega, Nick Lampson and the other down-ticket Dem's. But, Clinton at the top of the ballot will have and adverse effect on trying to "Turn Texas Blue".
April 21, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You won't have to. Barack will be on the ballot.
April 21, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know. I felt the same way for a while. Suspending logical reality, though, let's assume for a moment she got on the ballot with Obama as VP. And you know that's what's going to happen no matter who's the nominee. Well, no, you don't, but I think it's pretty darn likely at this point. Remember, you've got 4 MORE YEARS OF WAR on the one hand and Hillary Clinton on the other. Pick your poison. ^^
April 21, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi-liar-y will not be rewarded for her stoking racial fears, and thrashing activists, just because they vote for her, the hypocrisy, and the rest of underhanded tactics she has employed. I will not be voting for her; I will vote Nader any day instead.
April 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
And screw the country for another four years?
April 21, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let's assume for a moment that Hillary Clinton has won more votes or more delegates or more states or raised more money. While we're at it, why don't we assume that trees are made of cotton candy and little green men live on Mars?
April 21, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, I know. I'm just playing devil's advocate. Mwahahahaha... *twirls her mustache*
April 21, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Happily, you will never have to make that choice, because Obama is going to be our nominee. There really is no realistic likelihood of the alternative.
April 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sad.
April 21, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sad."
Who? You, Hillary and/or both?
April 21, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never thought I would say this, but I will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee. I'll take my chances with John McCain.
April 21, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calm down, people. Last I saw, Obama still has in insurmountable lead. (but if Hillary steals the nomination, I'll be writing in Obama's name, too, Hillary is a Republican, and I'm not voting for one of those)
April 21, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena;
I agree-Clinton's tactics have been deplorable and I am saddened that I no longer have a good feeling toward either of them.
But that being said, ANY vote not for the Democratic Candidate is a vote for giving control of the US Supreme Court to Scalia!
So perhaps we may need to hold our noses when we pull the lever-but we need to ensure that everyone understands this.
As enthusiastic as I am for Barack, this election really is at a critical time for our country. We cannot allow the Court to swing for the next decades in Scalia’s direction.
April 21, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fear mongering? We don't fear-monger? What on earth are you talking about?!?!?
This is a contrast ad...
Democrat my ass. It is really sad that the biggest names of the party, don't really belong to our party.
April 21, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
This kind of ad didn't work for Guiliani, why does Hillary think it will work for her?
April 21, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It worked for Gephardt against Howard Dean in Iowa.
April 21, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was 2004 and things were way different.
People were still polling favorably for the war in Iraq.
The whole world has changed since 2004.
Jeez.
April 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Er, not really. Gephardt lost IA just like Dean did. Their attacks on each other cost both of them, not unlike the fratricide we are seeing unfold before us. Here's hoping that something can bring the bloodletting to an end soon.
April 21, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because of the voters she's trying to sway.
April 21, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh brother.
Recycling worn out old quotes from the '40s.
I guess when your appealing to the grandparent generation, you do that.
Thing is...John McWalkingCane has the old fart vote wrapped up, so I don't see the point.
April 21, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
John McTheuselah! John McElderhostel! John McRagin'! John McFists-O-Fury!
April 21, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll vote for Hope over Fear any day, thank you.
April 21, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"who do you think has what it takes," .
Not Hillary, she can't even run her own campaign, how is she going to run the country?
April 21, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terrible ad on multiple levels. What's the media buy? I suspect it won't be large....
April 21, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, what a bad message. It somehow trivializes the Presidency and the tribulations they and Americans faced.
April 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the voice over is really bad. The guy's voice and intonation are totally wrong for the message.
April 21, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
....cue Bill clinton in 2004 'when someone is appealing to your hopes as opposed to your fears to whom should you be supporting? I think you should go with the candidate that plays to your hope instead of preying on your fear'. I am sure we'll be reminded of that tidbit throughout the day.
April 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come back here and read the update.
April 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly not that lieing sack of shit!
April 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Harry Truman!
Harry Truman!
Nagasaki, anyone?
April 21, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised to that she didn't mention Obama's relationship with Osama.
April 21, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to hit back on this hard.
He said he's saving his attacks against the Republicans. But these ARE the Republican attacks.
There's no reason not to hit back now.
April 21, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he needs to make an ad just like this one.
This is mcwar's strongest issue.
April 21, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, it's really clear now that Obama is currently facing down two Republicans. There's no way in hell I can ever vote for Hillary Clinton.
April 21, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big old C.
April 21, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unbeliiievable.
Hillary will do anything to win..even pimp her daughter Chelsea just like Schuster said. My weekend paper had an article about her daughter calling a superdelegate and BEGGING the superdelegate after being told the woman had decided to switch to Obama. The superdelegate said she had the hardest time with Chelsea who kept asking her Why? WHYY?...and all the delegate could say was I have decided to go with Obama. The woman clearly was feeling emotionally wrenched having a CHILD repeatedly ask her why she had switched her vote from her MOTHER.
This is how low the Clintons have sank. They play on superdelegates emotions by having Chelsea call people and BEG and IMPLORE the person.
Child PIMPS that's what the Clintons have become.
They pimp children for their ambitions. If Hillary pimps her own daughter you best believe she will have no problem killing children around the world.
Do you think with the world in crisis that Chelsea will be farmed out globally to beg and implore Ahmajmedejad or Bin Laden or Kim in Korea or SoHung in China when they decided to keep their nuclear weapons and build more. Will chelsea be calling them on the phone imploring WHY? Why?
.
April 21, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Clinton is using her daughter to campaign for her, and that is a good thing to do. Chelsea still has a following, is a charming young woman, and will be a positive influence for Clinton. Just because I dislike Senator Clinton doesn't mean I think everything she does is bad.
April 21, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chelsea isn't a child. She's a grown woman, and part of the Wall Street den of thieves already.
April 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You'd think Clinton would be smart enough to wait until figuring out whether or not her attempts to paint Obama as being rattled or on the defensive or whatever following the ABC debate actually succeeded before throwing this out there. I can't imagine Pennsylvanians reading yesterday morning about Obama arousing a spontaneous march of thousands in his support in Philly and then seeing this ad and buying Clinton's claim that Obama's so rattled by the campaign that there's no way he'd handle the presidency.
If Obama were less classy, he'd use the ample material provided by Clinton in this campaign of what being rattled by campaigning really looks like.
April 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The late update link goes to a clip of Bill Clinton's quote, but it doesn't look like an ad.
Is Obama putting that in an ad? I really hope so.
The quote: "Now one of Clinton's Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That's the best."
April 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, there goes Bill Clinton off-message again...
April 21, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
truly despicable!!! this is the nail in HRC's coffin, I can't wait until Wednesday when the superdel's head en masse over to the Obama camp.
We Cannot Wait - Obama 08!!!!!
April 21, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Threatening not to vote for Clinton in November is an empty threat. Clinton won't be on the ballot in November, so I doubt that any of us will vote for her then.
As I see it, the November campaigning has started, and Senator Clinton still favors her friend, Senator McCain over Senator Obama in that election. So, she is just doing her part now.
April 21, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like to threaten and I've never missed a vote, but I can only take that so far - I have a conscience.
I agree she won't win, but inasmuch as she keeps touting her electability over Obama's, it's not quite such the empty threat it seems, in that context, actually.
April 21, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a threat. It's a promise.
April 21, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't not vote against McCain, but I think in my state it would be a wasted vote.
Fortunately, I don't think I'll have to hold my nose.
April 21, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
How shameless...how can her supporters defend this blatant Republican fearmongering? Especially when it plays into the hands of McCain by doing the GOP's work of painting the Democratic nominee as unfit to keep American safe!
April 21, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where's gotalife(not) when you need him/her?
April 21, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably recovering from the orgasm from watching this ad multiple times. Give him/her a minute, s/he will be here momentarily sharing with us how great this ad is for Senator Clinton.
April 21, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hehe.
April 21, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty wretched, no doubt. But I'll still put on a gas mask and vote for her in November should she manage to steal the nomination. You guys really want two more Scalias on the Supreme Court?
April 21, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since I live in Texas, I have the dubious "luxury" of writing in another candidate for President. Clinton cannot carry Texas and all of our electoral votes so it McCain will carry the state if Clinton is the nominee.
OTOH, the I've seen analysis that Obama can make TX competitive which means that McCain will need to spend time & money in a huge state with lots of media markets. Also, Obama is more likely to turn out the voters who could help defeat Cornyn and add another Dem to the Senate.
Just saying, depends on where you live and how the electoral votes will go in deciding to write in a candidate for President.
April 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is the thin thread by which I'll dangle, if she actually beats the odd and gets the nomination.
It's become a very thin thread.
April 21, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still haven't gotten a good answer to this question, so I'll pose it to you:
Given her 100% pro-corporate stances on everything from energy to healthcare (where she has somehow managed to fool a lot of people); given her fascist stances supporting free speech zones, flag-burning amendments, bans on arts she doesn't like; given her desire to show off how manly she is by being a belligerent warmonger; what in the world makes anyone think her SCOTUS nominees would be any better than McCain's? Sure, they'll have perfunctory "liberal" positions on pro-life, etc, but why think she's going to nominate anyone that isn't an utter disaster on the issues that really matter to the underlying experiment of America? I just don't see it.
April 21, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do we know what she will do if elected? She is truly a schizo. I will write in Obama if the worst case scenario should happen. There is no way in hell I would support HRC IN ANY WAY after this desecration. She is vile cockroach.
April 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Words are so inadequate. Just so inadequate. I'm speechless.
April 21, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fear mongering
April 21, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's the one going around lately talking about Truman - just how much experience did Truman have going in, Hillary-Joe? Huh? And why are you so hung up on Truman - are you dying to push that red button yourself?
Remember Truman's background, Hillary? Do you? He was a haberdasher - that's what they called him. The press crucified Truman in comparison to Roosevelt. He had as much experience as anyone, but he never got credit for it. He was a very unpopular president - remember who he fired? It's only been since he died that he was reassessed.
God you are so much dumber than I realized, Hillary.
And meaner, and more obtuse and nastier.
Go away
April 21, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aw, I hope there's a way to clarify this remark. I see Joe and I think Biden. Biden's good people! Don't drag him into the mud puddle with Clinton!
April 21, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and Truman was such GREAT president.
Other than ending WWII (which is nothing to sneeze at) he wasn't a very good President.
I agree, not a very good ad. I thought her 3am ad was better and more effective but what do I know. I am definitely not her target audience - I have a brain.
April 21, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
This ad "might" help her in the race tomorrow, but it will hurt her among the super delegates.
April 21, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious why Obama (or a 527) doesn't run a last minute ad reminding voters of all the drama and tribulations of the Clinton years. Too unseemly? Too much in the gutter?
In 30 seconds, you could do a nice montage of travelgate, the failed health care initiative, Monica, the vast right wing conspiracy, the meaning of is, the impeachment, the Mark Rich pardon, the Clintons' leaving the White House with government furniture in tow. And then a voice at the end, "Do Americans want another 4 years of Bill and Hillary Clinton in the White House?"
Would Hillary get too much sympathy from this kind of approach? Would it harm Obama too much?
I've been amazed there haven't been at least some subtle reminders about the fundamental recklessness and immaturity of the Clinton years.
April 21, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone ought to do it. Afterall, it's what the Republicans would do in November, which makes it a reasonable line of attack, according to Hillary.
April 21, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo.
April 21, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to do more than direct folks to that video.
Obama needs to put an ad up and use Bill Clintons words.
He needs to say that while Hillary claims a vote for her is a vote for Clinton policies she really doesn't mean that. Hillary beleives in using the GOP tactics of the GOP. And that it is Obama who really beleives in what Bill said which is....
"if one person appeals to your fears and the other your hopes, it one person is trying to sxcare you and the other is trying to get you to think...they you need to vote for the one appealing to you hopes and thoughts."
Obama needs to quote Bill and hijack Bill's attitude to show that it is HE who plans to bring back that prosperity and economomic security because Hillary is too traumatized and damaged from the GOP she has PTSS...
He needs to put up an ad...QUICK..
Boy o Boy is the Olbermn interview going to be great with Hillary.
I hope Olberman does to her what Stepinfetchinopoulos did to Obama...a diluge of gossip and smear and innuendo questions....after all those are what Clinton considers 'tough' questions after living in the shadow of the scandal prone Bill. Hillary actually believes smut are tough Presidential questions rather than global and domestic issues.
The woman is seriously damaged and unhinged.
April 21, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
They even named the dam ad "Kitchen" I mean COME ON how funny is that.
April 21, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Forget Kumbaya...... I want Obama to destroy her....
April 21, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Harry Truman eh? Wasn't he that wildly unpopular president who couldn't get any of his proposals passed? The guy who dropped nuclear bombs on Japan? The guy whose administration was riddled with corruption?
April 21, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd think fear tactics would make you more likely to vote for the elderly guy who served in 'Nam. I'm wondering how differently primary season would've turned out had Clinton portrayed herself as a compassionate, maternal politician rather than a love-child of Rocky Balboa and Margaret Thatcher.
April 21, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there is a difference between Hillary and the GOP, I really don't see it. Abortion and health care, maybe. That's it.
The GOP would use every one of her ads. Just change the names of the candidates.
I thought the whole point of being a Democrat is that we want an end to this sort of pathetic fear-mongering. But Hillary's complaints about "Democratic activists" reveal that she relies on the useful idiots on the Left, just as Bush has relied on the useful idiots on the Right.
April 21, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. BOW BEFORE ZOD!
April 21, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
A split second image of Bin Laden [who did attack us] = worse than the Holocaust!
Hundreds of thousands of negative attack mailers mailed telling low information voters in OH & PA that Hillary will garnish their checks = Legit!
April 21, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
show me one link with PROOF that bin laden attacked us.
just one official charge or document.
The fbi says it has no proof.
so show me one piece of proof
April 21, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both Hillary and McCain refuse to take direct action against bin Laden if he's in Pakistan.
Barack Obama will take out bin Laden no matter what.
THIS is what Obama needs to make an ad about.
Expose this bullshit.
The ONLY Candidate who will protect America is Obama.
April 21, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is another supporter ad using the Bill Clinton clip with other footage. Huzzah!
April 21, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please tell me this rebuttal ad is up and running in PA?!?
Clinton may not say Obama's name but any local knows she's talking about him. She used the "kitchen" line the other day at a campaign stop.
April 21, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to state the record, or perhaps, re-state the record, just for the record.
Arguably the largest organizational task either candidate has undertaken to date is their campaigns for President.
Obama = B+ to A
Hillary= C to D+
Now I am certain some Hillary supporters will give her higher marks, this IS subjective. However, not even a passionate Hillary supporter could argue that she deserves higher marks than Barack. In fact HAD she run a better campaign this primary season most probably WOULD have been over by now.
So if we are going to talk about who is ready, let's do judge them by their record as executives.
What is striking about this is that when Mark Andreesen of Netscape asked Obama in 2007 if people needed to be concerned about his relative inexperience as an executive, Obama responded by saying, "watch how I run my campaign ---you'll see my leadership skills in action."
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/marc-andressen-an-hour-and-a-h.php
Seems outright prescient at this juncture doesn't it.
April 21, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha ha. Drudge is running some internal Clinton polling showing them beating him 2-1 in some place in Pa. I'd want the head of the staffer that leaked that information on a plate. Way to set those expectations guys!
CLINTON INTERNALS SHOW 11-POINT LEAD IN PA
Mon Apr 21 2008 11:10:14 ET
**Exclusive**
Controlled excitement is building inside of Clinton's inner circle as closely guarded internal polling shows the former first lady with an 11-point lead in Pennsylvania!
Clinton is polling near to nearly 2 to 1 over Obama in many regions of the state, a top insider explained to the DRUDGE REPORT.
A strong coalition of middle-class and religious voters has all but secured a Clinton victory Tuesday, with headline-making margins, the campaign believes.
"It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of how much," a senior campaign source said Monday morning.
When pressed if the dramatic internal polling numbers could somehow be flawed in a state as demographically complex as Pennsylvania, and with new voter registration surging to unseen levels, the campaign insider held firm.
"Senator Obama would be wise not to unpack his bags quite yet."
MORE
With less than 24 hours to go until the beginning of the end of primary season voting, Obama has handedly captured Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, but has failed to dominate suburban sprawl, the campaign's polling reveals.
An 11-point victory in Pennsylvania for Clinton would expand on margins scored in Ohio.
Clinton will quickly move to feverishly focus on Indiana starting Tuesday night, hoping to somehow convince superdelegates that she not only has superior stamina but has crucial swing state appeal.
Without superdelegate intervention, Clinton still faces impossible math to nomination.
Developing...
April 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want to know what drugs she's on.
She never blinks, she never gets tired. That's going to be one hell of a crash when it comes.
April 21, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
drudge says it, must be so
sheesh
April 21, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
and... Obama picks up another super delegate.
April 21, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"showing them beating him 2-1 in some place in Pa."
No informed person in their right mind would doubt that to be true. As has happened many time before (cf Missouri), Hillary will clean up across most of the rural areas of the state. The result will come down to what the margins are in urban centres.
April 21, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I truly fail to understand the outrage. Osama bin Laden is an issue, even though the war for which she voted distracted the US from dealing with Al Qaeda.
On the other hand, her comparing herself with previous great presidents was hilarious.
April 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we are at war.
We are losing Afghanistan like they lost Iraq to Iran.
Clinton/Clark is the best choice to after the real enemy in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
Whining to not going to win.
April 21, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that Obama is the only candidate that talks about focusing attention on Afghanistan. For years, he's been saying Iraq is a distraction from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda.
April 21, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did Hillary authorize the invasion of Iraq, when the REAL threat was/is in Afghanistan? Barack was spot on about this from DAY ONE!
She has no leadership cred.
April 21, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What country attacked us that we should go to war against them?
Is it possible to have a war against a tactic?
If so, perhaps we should start a "war on weapons," instead of a "war on terror," or a "war on drugs."
All three "wars" are not truly wars.
April 21, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good point. However, nuclear weapons are an issue in this campaign as well, and I dont think its appropriate to use a mushroom cloud image as a scare tactic. Relevance is not a license to Rethug.
April 21, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does she actually believe this garbage? I mean, she actually thinks she is "better" than someone who has more support from the people in her party? I cannot believe that I am witnessing this. I know what the spin will be.
"We are not fear mongering. We are portraying all the challenges that presidents have faced through out history."
The problem is that she voted for Iraq and did not argue to stay on Osama Bin Laden, which she tries to use politically? Come on. I now will not vote for her even if she is the nominee. I cannot morally support someone who disguts me this much.
April 21, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wooooo Hoooooooooooooooo
The campaign responded with Bill Clinton's statement about fear vs. hope.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
I love this candidate and I really love his campaign. O god, talk about leadership - when do they mess up royally? They haven't yet - small missteps, but $51 million dollars and a campaign that stays on message better than I have seen in years and years and years.
April 21, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
In reaction to this story, I had a thought:
Would Hillary agree to be McCain's running mate? Could she be angry enough to jump away from the awful Democrats who've rejected her for the chance to still be on the national stage?
It would sure shake things up, wouldn't it!
April 21, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
hehe cept the repugs hate her more then thew dems
April 21, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill wouldn't allow that in a million years. Can you imagine that as a footnote to his legacy?
April 21, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
what a ho!
but i dont really think this is a very good ad.
but i am beginning to think the internals have this closer then we all think.
if she was 12 or more points ahead i dont see how these type of ads come.
course i have been wrong before.
April 21, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will note, Obama is relatively unique as a prof of con law. a con law "perfessor" with apparently no scholarship to his name. You see, that's what affrimative action means, you get advanced without having to do anything. Not a very good system, I think : (
And it makes me wonder if he really is competent enough to do the job, if he basically got a free ride in his main employment of his life.
April 21, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Milo, you keep posting on Election Central. Just go on over to Stormfront where you'll be among your own racist kind, ok?
April 21, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're going to bitch about affirmative action, you ought to learn how to spell it.
April 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's affrimative. Roger that.
April 21, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we know that's what you say you think. You've shared your bigoted "affirmative action" slander with us over and over and over and over again.
April 21, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is running as Bill Clinton against Hillary-Joe's Bush/Cheney triumvirate.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 21, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is just offensive. Pennsylvanians are (marginally)smarter than this. I think this will swing people to Obama.
April 21, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess this is what you get when you whine about being outspent 3-1.
End the Bush/Clinton regime!
April 21, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the troll couldn't raise enough reaction just with weaver's not quite overt racism, and decided to put up another nym who would go whole hog.
Milo.
Our own personal Grand Wizard of the KKK.
just what was lacking!
April 21, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't freak out about this ad, just see it for what it is. Desperation, pure and simple. She knows its over.
My prediction, for what its worth, is Clinton wins PA by 5, afterwards she stages a big rally with balloons and music and cheering crowds and gives a huge victory speech. She knows she can't win, so its all theater.
April 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meh. On a scale of 1-10, with one equaling puppies and flowers and 10 the daisy chain ad, this is a three. Fact is, the ad kind of blows. One thing that's been consistent for her throughout the campaign is really bad ads. The three a.m ad was clumsy, last week's man-on-the-street felt like a bad high school play and this one just comes off as lackluster. Maybe the ad guys think they'll be stiffed when it comes time to get paid and are phoning it in.
April 21, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree about the poor quality of Clinton's ads.
What's more interesting is how riled up the Obamabots have become over this simple ad. Bin Laden's an issue for Obama as well; he wants to do whatever it takes to get him. I can see him running an ad in the fall about why we wasted our energy in Iraq when we should have gone after Bin Laden.
April 22, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sick of Hillary's kamikaze approach to this primary, but I'm actually with you on this one, foreigner. Her entire (public) reason for staying in this race is that she believes she's better suited for potential crises in the White House. This ad just shows a lot of crises and asks who you think is better prepared for them. What's the issue?
April 21, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well this race seems to be about tactics and politics at this point. So what do you like better? Hugging the devil and bringing in the Republican playbook to the game or do you think that we can do something different? Like - use the truth?
April 21, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect ad.
She will get him because she is strong on national.
America hates a whiner but they hate obl more.
Clinton by 30.
April 21, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on cue. Goatlife's inadvertent self-satire never fails to disappoint.
April 21, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who will be willing to take out bin Laden in Pakistan?
Only Obama will.
April 21, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for injecting some real humour into this thread.
April 21, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
1)She voted for a war that diverted from finding obl.
2)She has made no noises before this election about focusing on obl. Obama has talked about focusing on obl from the beginning of this race.
3)Hillary Clinton is the a whiner if there ever was one:
whaaa, the boys are piling up on me - politics of pile on.
whaaa, (exhibits tears) I don't want to see us go back wards....(implying that Obama did want to see us go backwards)
whaaaa, tears up at Wellesly when she is introduced.
whaaa, caucuses are not democratic.
whaaa, only big states count
whaaa, I always get the first questions
whaaa, the media hates me because I'm a woman. It took SNL for people to see that.
whaaa, where were you people to fight back for me after debate moderaters picked on me. Why defend Barack and not me.
whaaa, all he has is a speech, I've got policies. Pay attention to me!!!
whaaa, I was in a Bosnia fighter space because presidents only sent their spouses to dangerous places in teh world.
whaaaa
whaaaa
whaaa
suddenly we get Hillary the candidate MOST comfortable in the kitchen with footages of disasters and she is FDR?
She went from Rambo to FDR in PA? What kind of stuff is she on to make such a vast transformation?
April 21, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. America hates a whiner, and Hillary is the biggest whiner out there.
April 21, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton by 30.
So she's going to win PA by almost twice the margin in NY?
Are you drunk?
April 21, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now I get it. Gotalife is a Hillbot parody. There's just no way someone can be this delusional. Bravo, you had me going there for a while. You could easily work for the Onion.
April 21, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I clicked this thinking it was going to be satire... jeez. I gotta stop being surprised.
April 21, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have not heard a positive comment on this site for Hillary, so the comments are common.
If the new ad is about fear, you might thank GWB for scaring you for the past 7 years. Hillary doesn't own the trademark on fear. She's believes in the promise and hope this nation holds and is fighting for it. That is courage and thats a leader.
And it would be a non story if GWB had caught Osama, but hasn't now why hasn't he? Because the Bush family is friends with the Osama family thats why
April 21, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I'm beginning to think HRC has even fewer scruples than Tricky Dick. I hate to say this about another woman but she is scum.
April 21, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got your back on this one, sista - I feel ya.
This is what we expected from a woman running? I had hoped for a whole hell of lot more, myself. She is ruining our gender's hopes for leadership in the future.
I'm getting angry as a feminist at her - I don't want a woman president who is this fucked up - I thought the idea was we'd do it better.
She's not only doing it the same way, she isn't any good at it.
She's a goddamn LOSER. With a huge ass L on her forehead.
April 21, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a Vast Chasm Between Hillary's proposed policies and Senator Obama's.
Their proposals are very similar, but Hillary is lying her arse of like she usually does, and she will ditch all policy promises that are opposed by her Fat Cat Cabal.
There is a reason why 60% of the American voters find her to be untruthful and untrustworthy. She achieved it the old fashion way by habitually lying her arse off.
How many of you are foolish enough to fall for her promises now. Are you among that 40% of the voters who are easily fooled all the time!
April 21, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with this ad? It reminds everyone about her Bosnia lies. She shoulda stood in the kitchen making cookies.
April 21, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The scariest thing about the ad is the production value. Amateur hour.
April 21, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good comeback from the Obama campaign! Thanks for the update Greg.
April 21, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a good ad. Sure it shows Bin Laden. Unless we're saying that Bin Laden isn't out there any more, then I think that the next President will have to deal with him.
But here's today's Obama response that I found more interesting. In a speech this is what he said to Hillary:
"You learned the wrong lessons from those Republicans who were going after you in same way using the same tactics all those years. I don't want us to become like them. I want us to change the country."
I'm sure that appeals to all those young, idealistic folks who are voting for him. There are only two problems with it. First, Obama hasn't thus far changed politics. He's partaking in the same mud-slinging low politics as Hillary. Sure, he blames it all on her, but that doesn't stop him from going negative. Second, the GOP just won the last two elections doing politics as usual.... like all Presidents before them did. Obama isn't going to change anything, and certainly not in the coming months as he goes before the GOP hit machine. Obama may talk about his dream world of politics, but he lives in the real world. And it was in the real world that he wilted before tough questioning by two moderators on ABC, and later whined about it. And it is in the real world that he will lose to McCain, because McCain isn't going to be a high-minded whimp.
Obama, you've wasted so much time and money talking about a new kind of politics. You've got to get into the White House first. The GOP hasn't signed any agreement saying they will renounce negative attacks. You're dreaming. Or worse, you're trying to capitalize on the naiveté of young voters as a way of covering your vulnerability when it comes to hand to hand combat. We need a fighter. We need someone who can handle the Republican's tactics. You're not that someone.
April 21, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto - the thing is, Hillary won't go after bin Laden if he's in Pakistan.
Obama will.
So your argument is MOOT.
April 21, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I am more than certain Obama will go after Republicans hard. The difference here is, he's saving his smears for the general. He's slung a bit of mud at Clinton, that's true, but you've got some mighty thick rose-colored glasses on if you think his charges against her are anywhere near the level of deep much she keeps dredging up.
People keep saying "oh but look at the history" -- well, some of us have, and campaigns don't go as negative as Clinton has during the primary. Democrats do not go after Democrats in the way she has gone after Obama.
Barack is a fighter, but he's also a gentleman. You keep saying "just wait till you see what the Republicans bring in the general!" Well, here's what I say:
Republicans, watch out. Your record speaks for itself and John McCain has no chance in hell.
April 21, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bin Laden hit Hillary's New York back on 9/11/2001
What has she actually done about it since.
Not a damn thing. Bin Laden is still at large.
What has Hillary done about it.
She voted to Invade Iraq, and recently voted
to give Bush/Cheney a green light to attack Iran.
Hillary is the new Lieberman.
April 21, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
AMEN, LIAM!!!
The question I've waited for her to answer is, When Bush broke his Ground Zero promise to bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice, why did she support him when he decided to turn tail from pursuing bin Laden and invade Iraq?
Do so few actually see the correlation???
April 21, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What, no Wolves? Lame!
I heard Hillary shot down two Zero's during the Pearl Harbor Attack.
April 21, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is ready for anything? HA!
Her campaign wasn't even ready Obama...thought they would have it all wrapped up after Super Tuesday.
April 21, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Best. Ad. Ever.
As confirmed by everyone's reaction against it in this comment thread. lol!
She really knows her target audience.
April 21, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
coming from a McCain supporter, why am I not surprised?
April 21, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Acid reflux acting up, SCMadden?
April 21, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm laughing.
And I'm laughing even harder at the fact that her campaign is now furiously backpedalling over this ad.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 21, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget to watch her on Larry King tonight!
April 21, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's extremely redonculous about Hill's kitchen sink comment regarding Obama is the fact that she cried for the cameras after she lost Iowa (and before the New Hampshire primary). And now her campaign is trying to scare voters? Liam's right -- she is the new Lieberman.
April 21, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh this isn't a negative ad. I'm an Obama supporter and I believe it is a lot better than the other negative ads she has run.
In other news Hillary's managment style sucks.
1. She didn't give us Healthcare when she had the chance.
2. She has run a terrible campaign with tons of debt and little to no cash on hand.
April 21, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would be funny would be McCain using these exact ads, save replacing "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve of this message" with "I'm John McCain and I approve of this message".
Not that I think Obama is weaker than Clinton or McCain by any stretch, but that is the prevailing belief it seems. However McCain is also seen stronger than Clinton - so if she is running on this now, can she change her election points come the genral? I mean can she all of a sudden say, well it was never really about defense/security but I just used that to beat Obama, now it's the Economy stupid.
April 21, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton campaign is moderating all the comments for this video on YouTube. So far, not one comment has been posted for this. Guess they can't take the heat.
April 21, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
ATTENTION HILLARY SUPPORTERS:
She will not win.
Praise her ad, praise her tactics, praise her flip-flops, praise her lies.
She will not win.
Do the math. She wins PA, and still loses.
You can count FL and MI delegates:
She still loses.
But keep on backing a loser, and her tactics.
It makes you look smart.
April 21, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
They both need the supers to win.
Stop the whining.
April 21, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
and you think this ad will convince the Supers?
April 21, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Obama should make an ad showing he is strong on national security and stop whining the President.
That is weak on national security.
Your move Obama.
April 21, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's done. Get over it, grow up and put the party over your hurt feelings.
April 21, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope, will not win the supers.
She is not done until they vote for him.
I do not see any reason they would.
April 21, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cause she's the weaker candidate in the GE? Cause she's pissed off major voting and fund-raising blocs?
April 21, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you think your attitude will convince any of Senator Clintons supporters of anything?
This isnt pop psychology 101 and it does not do Senator Obama well to have his minions dissecting Senator Clinton or her supporters motives. This isnt the vote for the prom king. I wish most of the folks on this site would quit acting like it is.
April 21, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody should remind Obama, we were not in two wars when President Clinton was running.
obl did not carry out the biggest attack in US history when he was running.
Lets get real, Al Qaeda is stronger than ever and they attack when new leaders take office.
This is McCain's best issue and you better saddle up and have this argument or you will lose three in a row.
Stop your whining, we are still at war and whining will not get obl.
April 21, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Qaeda is stronger than ever
Wow. You just follow her right down Republican Road, don't you?
April 21, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it is fact thanks to Iraq.
Better saddle up to this argument and stop whining.
Weak on national security lost the last two elections.
April 21, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
you mean the war she voted for has made Osama stronger?
I would think you wouldn't want to pursue this point.
April 21, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Obama had one oversight committee hearing on Afghanistan after he was busted out on not having any.
She should pound him on that too.
Does he really want to get obl?
His actions say no.
April 21, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on European Affairs! That's the key to finding bin Laden!!
You, sir, are a genius!!
April 21, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I trust Obama to get bin Laden more than I trust Hillary or McCain.
I hope Obama makes this point in his next ad.
April 21, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
We wouldn't be in two wars now if Hillary Clinton and other cowards hadn't sent us into one of them.
If we hadn't gone into Iraq, we could have actually finished the job in Afghanistan.
Hillary Clinton voted *against* finding bin Laden. Hillary Clinton voted to have our resources poured into the Iraq War, the biggest suckhole ever known to humanity.
Hillary Clinton voted us into these two wars. She is not forgiven.
April 21, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody should remind Obama, we were not in two wars when President Clinton was running.
Are you referrign to that quote from Bill Clinton? That's not from his campaign. It's from 2004
April 21, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every time I begin to think she might be less than completely horible she pulls something like this.
April 21, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is called strong on national security.Mcwar is too. Obama is whining about President Clinton. That is weak and that lost the last two elections.
April 21, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I kept waiting for the alien attack after bin Laden's cameo. Jebus, how pathetic.
Should she somehow threaten-scare-bully her way into the nomination, I dunno how I could possibly punch my ballot for her. What is the difference at this point? Somebody upstream said health care and abortion, but can we even really be sure about that anymore? Her health care plan mandates we all give money not to the health care industry, but the *insurance* industry. And she might be tempted to forget about abortion, too, if it becomes as convenient as throwing aside African-Americans and the progressive wing of the party.
She really is trying to suck any of the joy out of this primary season, isn't she? Come on, PA. Put an end to this charade. She's no Democrat anymore. And the party ought to realize that by now.
April 21, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Tancredo get a lot of heat by an add like this?
April 21, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just showed my wife the ad, she was not imprssed.
"To generic," she says. Hillary is not mentioned until the end of the ad. There's nothing backing her to the claims she'll be the best.
This could backfire on her. It'd sure be funny if she LOST tomorrow!
April 21, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm John McCain and I approved this message because it makes it easier for me in the fall.
April 21, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary! It's 3:00 am! There's a phone call!
It's for Bill!
Something about a VIP service . . .
April 21, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton is the nominee, your vote for her won't matter in any case. McCain will win.
Should a miracle occur and Clinton makes it to the Oval Office, what chance in hell do you think she would have of appointing progressive members of the Supreme Court? Yeah, that's what I thought....
April 21, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Turdblossom Clinton has passed The Fear Monger In Chief Threshold!!!!
April 21, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if folks are projecting their anger over other Clinton acts onto this ad. I think that there are a million and one things that Sen Clinton's campaign has done over the course of this campaign that I have found reprehensible (John McCain has reached the C-i-C threshold, Wright is a legitimate issue, a race between McCain and Clinton would be two patriots, etc), but this ad is not really among them. This seems to me to be a poor ad, but not especially beyond the pale in any important respect. Is it perhaps just that so many of us are so disappointed in her based on her other acts that we are poised to explode in response to anything. Otherwise, I am hard pressed to understand the number of altogether reasonable and intelligent folks I have seen upthread who have claimed that this ad was the final straw which have moved them to lose any last trace of fondness that they once harbored for Sen Clinton.
April 21, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well sometimes I think you think too much. :)
This ad is straight up Turdblossom, crappy or not - flashing on bin Laden is so Karl Rove I expect her to pull out a tape next, with Osama endorsing Obama.
April 21, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could be. I noticed that a lot of folks are comparing this ad to things that Nixon did, which makes me wonder if one does not need to be older than I am to appreicate the thoroughgoing sliminess which these folks purport to see in the ad. As it stands, I am simply unimpressed by it, not appalled as so many others are. That said, I respect the opinions of folks like yourself and NCSteve and CT Voter quite a bit, so if you folks this that this ad is beyond the pale, maybe I just lack the faculties of judgment or perspective necessary to recognize its true awfulness.
April 21, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can trust your gut on this one, Greg.
April 21, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, of course. Too many have felt the burden growing of what Hillary Clinton has done to our Democratic principles, and are very ready for the collapse that a 'last straw' could achieve in bringing relief from that burden.
April 21, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just when you think she can't stoop any lower, she does. Just like Bush and the Republicans.
April 21, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget to watch her on Larry King tonight!
April 21, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then, to wash the unsavory mental taste of the Larry King show out of your brain, be sure to watch Obama on the Daily Show tonight...
April 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
IN the quote:
Why is HEAT in all caps, did Truman yell it?
When he said it was he trying to scare people too? Or was he referencing Nagasaki?
April 21, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just submitted this comment on youtube also. Think it'll get approved?
April 21, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know mine won't.
April 21, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's using the Republican formula. Pure and simple. This tells you everything you need to know about how deperate her situation is, and that she is willing to do almost anything to get what she wants.
Wow.
April 21, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found that ad to be clunky and just poorly put together. It's like the ad was out late on a Tuesday night, and went to work the next morning wearing the clothes it had worn the previous night. Just sloppy. I guess that's what -$2mil gets you. Seriously, I think they threw in that "Kitchen" as an afterthought. The ad doesn't need it and it carries the a better message without it.
Is a PENN voter really going to go into the voting booth and think "ok, ok, who was it that couldn't take the heat?" Dumb ad.
Or it is a really clever ad. If you think about methods of persuading people who are only half paying attention (i.e., undecided voters), then peripheral routes such as this ad, that do not offer substance but only vivid imagery and emotionally "heated" statements, tend to work.
I still think it's sloppy though. Brav-booooo.
April 21, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's too late to put that out now, but they should use that in an ad. Often.
April 21, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lemme guess: Another "bombshell" negative ad that the mass media will run 20,000 times for free for her, with mock surprise that "wow, she's really slamming Obama with this negative ad!" and "will it work?"
By repeatedly playing it for free, she effectively gets free ad time. Great for her cash-strapped campaign.
She did it last time, and the MSM eats it up like candy. They love negative ads, and love to help her out in gaming elections with last minute bullshit.
After PA, even though it was her state anyway, they'll pretend that the Osama ad was a "game changer".
Can the media be just that shallow and simpleminded? The answer is clearly yes.
April 21, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same terrorist organization that struck the twin towers on 9/11/01, had truck bombed them in 1993 when the great "Two for the price of One" Clintons were running the country.
That same terrorist organization went on to bomb American Embassy after Embassy, and the US Cole, while the Great Clintons were in charge. That same terrorist organization was left intact by the Clintons, and therefore were capable of bringing down the Twin Towers on 9/11/01 because The Clintons did not take effective action to destroy those Terrorists.
Ready from day one, my Arse. Hillary Turdblossom Clinton is lying her arse of as is her custom.
April 21, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it's my turn, goddamit !!!
April 21, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's really it in a nutshell, isn't it? Her whole rationale. And it worked so well for the Dole and the GOP in 1996.
If the feminist rationale is the strongest, from what many Hillary backers here state, then if you were applying for a job and had better qualifications than an internal candidate who had simply been at the company longer, wouldn't you feel a bit cheated?
And what of the women among the millions of Iraqi refugees that are the result of Hillary not reading the 2002 NIE and voting for Bush's blank check? What of the feminist rights of those Iraqi women?
April 21, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't want anything to do with Obama, before, because I feel about Obama like I feel about Jesus,I like the dude, it's the followers I can live without.
But the more information about working with that guy with the Weathermen - and if he DOES agree with Bin Ladin that Amerika brought 9/11 on itself,I am beginning to like him more and more.
I think he has a point, now.
April 21, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more I think about it, the less I think this is such a fear-mongering piece.
It does appeal to fear, but the basic message "Pick ME!!! Pick ME!!! Oh, teacher, pick MEEEEEE!" is really the same she's always had.
I think the appropriate response is to give more money to Obama, and to volunteer to make calls or drive voters to the polls if you live in Pennsylvania. The response to something like this is more democracy, not less.
April 21, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. A few more dollars dropped into Obama's plate would not go amiss right now.
April 21, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama: Clinton has learned the wrong lesson and is employing Republican tactics.
http://the-osterley-times.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-clinton-has-learned-wrong-lesson.html
April 21, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still whining.
Good, he will lose the supers.
Weak on national security is a loser.
April 21, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't this ad violate a basic principle of "don't ask a question when you can't be sure of the answer."
Because when I look at that and am then asked, "who do you think has what it takes?" I immediately think Obama. And a whole lot of people agree with me.
April 21, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I became fully convinced after hearing Obama question Petraeus.
He's comfortable with complexity.
April 21, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Phoebe. I actually think the ad asked a good question--and I don't think Clinton is the answer. I hope most PA voters agree with me.
That said, the imagery, the reminders, the sense of WHAT'S AT STAKE, is much more substantive than most of what I've been seeing on TV recently.
April 21, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
She should run a stronger ad like this. Pound him on national security.
His whining shows he is weak and can't win the general.
April 21, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I can bomb, pillage and slaughter just as well as any constipated, white male."
grrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
April 21, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
HILLARY TURDBLOSSOM CLINTON HAS PASSED
THE FEAR MONGER IN CHIEF THRESHOLD.
April 21, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
again, while obama-ites get all exorcized, a review of the actual commercial reveals nothing either untrue, invalid or unfair. tpm and obama-ites act as if the only image throughout the piece is of osama bin laden, or that he's the last ominous figure, or the like. but i believe i saw historical footage of the crash, or pearl harbor, of the energy crisis, of osama, of katrina, perhaps other images.
central tenets of the ad: (1) unforseen situations beyond presidents' control inevitably impact a presidency for better or worse, and (2) assessing which candidate of the remaining 3 can best confront those unforseen realies is a fair question to put to voters.
i'm absolutely sure that there are any number of folks in pennsylvania and elsewhere who strongly feel that obama is the best to handle such unforseen events. obviously, the clinton campaign believes their candidate is the best and believes voters in pa believe that to be the case.
we'll know come tomorrow evening, but all the incessant obama-ite whining anytime someone does anything but annoint their candidate as the 21st century political messiah is truly becoming all one can stand.
bordering on pathetic at this point, and that critique goes to the many obama-sympathizers and lovers in the media ranks.
April 21, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how this demonstrates the fortitude of someone who complained about getting the first question a debate.
April 21, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
HILLARY TURDBLOSSOM CLINTON HAS PASSED
THE FEAR MONGER IN CHIEF THRESHOLD.
April 21, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry King. Tonight.
April 21, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Larry's really known for asking the tough questions. Sheesh. If I want to know her favorite color, I'll tune in...thanks!
April 21, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will any of the talking heads bring up Clinton's failure to strike Bin Laden when the CIA could have?
She has about as much credibility on terrorism as Bush!
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/clinton-missed-chance-to-get-b.php
April 21, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think observer's nailed it. Imagine how far behind she would actually be if the MSM hand't decided to braodcast all of her attacks as anything other than the desperate flailings of the loser that she is?
April 21, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a brilliant ad!
This should remind everyone that when it came time to hunt down bin Laden, Hillary did the right thing and voted for the bill authorizing the use of force against Iraq, 5000 miles away from where bin Laden was hiding.
Bravo Hillary! Thanks for reminding us about why you are the trustworthy candidate on this and so many other issues!
April 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo, BDiddy. You are totally trippin'.
Billary cried after she lost Iowa in order to get some sympathy and complained about being asked tough questions first during one of the debates. Now she runs an ad essentially saying that Obama's a pu**y? And you dont' see anything hypocritical about that (the others on this site sure seem to).
Every leader of every country has to be prepared to deal with crises of every sort. That's part of the job. If you dont' like peeps putting Obama on a pedestal, that's understandable - he's not a christ like figure. But you should equally understand why many feel Billary is completely full of sh*t. All you have to do is review how she's conducted her campaign over the past few months.
April 21, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo, BDiddy. You are totally trippin'.
Billary cried after she lost Iowa in order to get some sympathy and complained about being asked tough questions first during one of the debates. Now she runs an ad essentially saying that Obama's a pu**y? And you don't see anything hypocritical about that (the others on this site sure seem to)?
Every leader of every country has to be prepared to deal with crises of every sort. That's part of the job. If you don't like peeps putting Obama on a pedestal, that's understandable - he's not a Christ like figure. But you should equally understand why many feel Billary is completely full of sh*t. All you have to do is review how she's conducted her campaign over the past few months.
April 21, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the early debates, Biden or Dobbs should have challenged her assumption that her husband's administration, accomplishments, and experiences were her own. We wouldn’t be here if they would have been tougher on her experience claims in the earlier debates.
April 21, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lou Dobbs dropped out?
April 21, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that the last time she was in the kitchen, there were numerous verifiable stories of Hillary Clinton being unable to handle the heat, and either melting down or exploding... well...
And the thing of it is, she wasn't even a sous-chef.
I don't want any president that combustable in the White House, regardless of whether their name is Hillary Clinton *OR* John McCain.
I don't want someone who looks like a deer caught in the headlights, reading a book to a bunch of kids while New York burns... and I don't want someone who storms, screams, and swears obscenities at their underlings, isolated from the public, while surrounding themselves with yes men... rushing to judgement without at least thinking of how we can bring the rest of the world onboard to help address the crisis.
Barack Obama maintains his composure, even when under great pressure, and he responds to challenges in a unified, forceful manner with a high degree of clarity and gravitas. That's who I want in the White House when there's a crisis.
April 21, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
exactly
April 21, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh, it's like a long public tantrum with this woman. It's really unbecoming, especially in a primary.
April 21, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay people. Deep calming breaths. Don't go all Nader 2000. I'm disgusted with how Hillary has run her campaign since late January. In a perfect world, I would vote to cut off my nose to spite my face and vote McCain. But... these are not perfect times. The "Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve" had it right. It's the Supreme Court, stupid. No matter how stinky a DLC candidate she picks, it would be much better than anything a McCain administration would nominate.
April 21, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is sad, folks. Even Hillary supporters here need to realize this is exactly a Bush-Cheney ad and exactly what they have done to this country over the last 6 1/2 years since 9/11.
Code orange/red/yellow; domestic wiretapping; torture; suspension of 4th amendment if President so decides...all driven by a climate of fear stoked by the President.
So now a Democrat tries that same thing - ratcheting up the 3AM ad a few notches.
As they say, all is fair in love and war (and politics) but I find it pathetic and sad. If I want this type of country and politics, I will vote for McCain, not Clinton.
April 21, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find your comment sad because it's 100% emotional and reactive. That's what Bush-Cheney have done to you: They made you stop thinking.
See below for some analysis of what's actually going on in the ad.
April 21, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
oooohhh.. that is so scarey. Get a grip folks and dont be quite so sensitive. I could have written the comments here before I even saw the ad.
April 21, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary wins tomorrow by 15 plus points, then it was a good strategy, if not, then it looks like Obama's locked it up.
we only have about 35 hours to wait.
I'll be gung ho f