New Obama Ad In Pennsylvania Attacks Hillary Ad That Attacked Obama Ad
And around and around we go: Here's Obama's new radio ad responding to Hillary's ad from yesterday accusing Obama's earlier ad of being misleading because it said Obama doesn't take money from oil companies.
The new ad -- which you can listen to here -- seeks to persuade the blue collar and lower-middle-class voters who comprise a key Hillary constituency that Obama, too, feels their economic pain:
"Across Pennsylvania, we're living the problems: An economy in shambles. Families struggling. Gas prices close to $4 a gallon. What's Hillary's answer? Misleading negative ads."
Recent polls show Hillary with a double-digit lead among Pennsylvania voters who cite the economy as a driving concern, but Obama has shown that he's been able to start making gains among some of her core constituencies in the state.
Late Update: Full transcript after the jump.
SCRIPT – “Fill”Across Pennsylvania, we're living the problems.
An economy in shambles. Families struggling. Gas prices close to four dollars a gallon.
What's Hillary Clinton's answer?
Misleading negative ads.
Here's the truth.
While she's played political games, it's Barack Obama who's taken on the oil companies, demanding higher gas mileage standards and a larger investment in alternative energy.
It's Obama who's worked to strip tax breaks from the oil giants as they roll up record profits.
And he's the only candidate who doesn't take a dime from oil company PACs or lobbyists. The only one.
The Federal Election Commission reports that Clinton's taken more from Big Oil and other PACs and lobbyists than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican.
The same old Washington politics isn't going to lift our economy or bring down gas prices.
So if you've had your fill of that...
Vote for change we can believe in, Barack Obama for President.
Greg:
I'm deaf. Is that the full script of the radio ad?
April 10, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic, but Randi Rhodes fans can now find her on Nova M, link below. I believe she starts next week. Air America has gone corporate bye-bye.
https://www.novamradio.com/index.php?pid=99
April 10, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but Randi Rhodes drives me nuts. She's a know-nothing gasbag. I'm glad she's gone.
Bring back the Seder, I say.
April 10, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you, ah, talking, ah, about, ah, Sam, ah, Seder?
He could, ah, say, ah, twice as, ah, much if he, ah, just got rid of those, ah, ah's.
Randi a know-nothing? Have you checked her blog lately? Name another talk show host that presents almost all of her research and background on her blog.
She's abrasive, and loud, and pushy. Get over it, or don't listen to her. Some people think these qualities are faults, others like them.
She can be very short and rude with her callers, and I don't enjoy that.
But you're going to have a real hard time making the case that she's a "know-nothing."
April 11, 2008 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I'll be sure to never go there, then. I'm an Obama supporter, and what she did really turned me off to her. Good riddance.
April 10, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll know what to avoid, in the future.
Didn't care for her comments.
April 10, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bye-bye Rhandi, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
April 10, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another ad from Obama?
I've been an Obama supporter from the beginning. But as a cheeky college student who has to scrimp to buy the books, I'm wondering if such a cavalier, free-spending fellow should hold the country's purse strings.
April 10, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Donors are not giving to him to not use the money.
What would you have him do. Keep the funds in a display case and throw powder sugar at it.
He is up against a two term president, his famous wife, the governor of the state, the mayor of Philly, and the mayor of Pittsburg. The Clintons have been well established in Pennsylvania for at least 15 years. Senator Obama is just introducing himself to that large state, for the first time.
He has to use a lot of ads to do that, and offset the Clinton distortion machine.
April 10, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The trolls are out today. It's OK to feed them poisoned apples. They like them.
April 10, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be mean to me or I'll vote for McCain!
April 10, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the laugh. I particularly liked the "cavalier and freespending"...I think other candidates in the race (Democratic and Republican) qualify for the cavalier and freespending label. Obama? Not so much. His campaign has been in the black since the beginning.
He's not leaving vendors high and dry. He's not taking Greyhound buses around the campaign trail. He's still flying reporters around...and his campaign is IN.THE.BLACK.
April 10, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"His campaign has been in the black since the beginning"
That's a little racist, don't you think?
April 10, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tee hee!
You were snarking, right?
April 10, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Si.
April 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he should use as much money as he can. The more he spends, the worse it'll look if he doesn't get close.
April 10, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do know at this point it's delegates that matter not who spent how much. If Hillary wins PA by 8 the story that she won while being outspent 3-1 will last for a day the story that she is still 150 pledged delegates down will last for a week. Plus if polls and trends hold true Barack will win enough delegates in NC to more than offset what he lost in PA. So by mid May he will be up 160+ delegates with only 6 smaller contests left half of which favor Barack anyway. At that point Hillary will fold her cards.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751
April 10, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's raising at a much faster rate then he's spending.
April 11, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
And around and around we go:
Shorter: ad infinitum....
April 10, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
no, sorry -- I'll post the full t-script in a sec
April 10, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks, Greg.
April 10, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was pretty stupid for Hillary to attack Obama for taking money from Oil workers, when she takes MORE money from oil PACS.
April 10, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's stupid of Obama to claim he has a better record on energy reform because he voted for the *Bush-Cheney Energy Bill*!
Going negative doesn't suit Obama, and this ad is no exception.
April 10, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Notice he doesn't touch that.
But since the main piece of Hillary's ad was "oil money" and NOT the energy bill, he didn't have to.
Don't get mad at Obama for Hillary's stupid ad.
If the Energy bill is such a big deal: why didn't she make it the point of the ad? Or a previous ad, for that matter? Why wait until the contest is practically decided before bringing it up?
April 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because she brought it up before, and was called on it, and it didn't stick. That's why. If she had more mud to fling, she would. But her kitchen sink is already overboard, and now it's just old banana peels.
April 10, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sometimes wonder if you actually listen/read/think about the things you comment on, SC.
"If the Energy bill is such a big deal: why didn't she make it the point of the ad?"
In Hillary's last ad she says she stood up against the oil companies by voting against the Dick Cheney bill. Tick.
"Notice he doesn't touch that [voting for Cheney's bill]"
In this ad of Obama's, the "larger investment in alternative energy" etc he's been "demanding" comes simply from the fact that he voted for the Cheney bill, which threw in a few small environmental cherries to try and disguise just how pro-big oil it was.
Obama's record on energy reform is poor, and Hillary has brought this up before. The whole PAC thing is such a red herring - $5,000 max per company. Wow. Only takes 3 oil executives donating privately to overcome it (money that Obama accepts gladly, as a couple of oil execs are among his major fundraisers).
Hillary supporters would say it isn't about money it's about your record. Obama's trying to make it about money, and has to mislead to try and do it, because his record shouts pro-Cheney loud and clear.
April 10, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it was about the record, she'd have a whole lot of stuff to explain too, though. Like her opposition to better CAFE standards.
It's not black and white.
I'd wager that most of Obama's supporters think he did a decent job with the amount of power he had at the time. I think he did a good job. Some might think a little less.
But we all trust him that, given a lot more power as a president, he could do a lot better, because he's responsible to people who elected him, not the lobbyists that paid for his campaign. And his plan to not have lobbyists run the White House is comprehensive and sound.
And after this primary fiasco, I wouldn't trust Hillary with running the local BK, let alone the White House.
It's all about judgment.
April 10, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correcting the lies of the Bullshit Warrior Princess of Tuzla is not going negative.
April 10, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last summer I told my wife that Hillary's negative ratings would get better when more people got to know her. Well was I ever WRONG!
Her negative rating never did get better and as Bill started to be-little Obama the Clintons lost my support. I have donated to her campaign in the past and was going to as this election got going.
I challenge anyone to show me in a national poll anytime from now to ten years ago when basically 50% of the country did not have a negative opinion on her.
That is the problem democrats would have in the fall if she is the nominee. Half of the country does not like her and that would be a terrible place to start against McCain.
April 10, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another lie:
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6802
April 10, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this Hilary website the source for your daily talking points? Of course they are an independent news source with no reason to spin or slant.
April 10, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
" Senator Obama says he doesn’t take campaign contributions from oil companies but the reality is that Exxon, Shell, and others are among his donors. I wonder if they’ll fix the ad.” – Clinton Campaign Spokesman Phil Singer
That's a little misleading in itself.
Individuals from the companies may be donors, but not the companies (through PACs) themselves.
Anyway, this is a response to the original ad. I think the new ad refutes the Hillary argument well.
April 10, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Companies cannot directly contribute to PACs either. They can only take donations from employees or shareholders or whoever else associated with the company. There is essentially no difference between taking money from "bundlers" associated with oil companies and taking money from PACs associated with oil companies. I give Obama credit for this strategy of not taking from PACs because he is not lying when he makes this distinction, but if you really believe that the only people that are contributing to him are oil company employees that are "inspired by his message of change" I have some real estate I'd like to sell you.
April 10, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't the company executives decide where the money goes? The folks contributing "trust" the company that employs them to donate the money to the folks who will support the company's wishes and dreams. There's nothing democratic about it.
And don't get me started on how this sort of "donation" is subtly coerced within a company...
April 10, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well he has the money to pay for it. There's a big difference between planning the campaign so that you can hit the key states hard, like this, and not use up your money, and running a campaign on credit and bouncing checks, which seems to be a problem for the senator from NY.
April 10, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!
April 10, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lame ad. How did he take on the oil companies when he voted for the 2005 Energy Bill they basically wrote? Clinton, despite receiving oil money, voted against it. Words and actions. She can take all the money she wants from them so long as she votes the correct way. And she has.
April 10, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a fair point, and one Hillary should make clearer.
But, I feel it's too little, too late. Again, if Hillary really cared about this issue, why didn't she bring it up earlier?
or at a debate, so Obama could explain his vote?
To be clear, I think this is a weak point for Obama, but it's sad that bloggers have to bring it up.
April 10, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, Phil Singer did bring it up.
But for whatever reason, Hillary waited too long to make it into an ad.
April 10, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have always thought this was his weakest area. She has a pretty impressive record on the environment which you can see in a blog post I wrote if you want to peruse. I remember her bringing it up in at least two debates, but for some reason she wasted more resources on many less effective ads.
April 10, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but Obama doesn't pretend to be the most knowledgeable about environmental issues.
I'm sure that, as president, he'll surround himself with people that are knowledgeable on the issues (something that's harder to do as a senator). And progressive enough. And he would actually listen to them. As opposed to "knowing" that he's right all of the time.
April 10, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean she voted against big oil and then voted for big oil in a later vote? Is this like the bankruptcy bill she voted for but hoped would fail?
April 10, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Hillary can trade in some of her leftover gourmet sandwich platters to drum up cash for more classy TV ads. Sources indicate she has leftover platters down in her bunker.
April 10, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's warchest assures that he does not leave the Diva's slap unanswered.
April 10, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, it would be nice if we could use at least some of what's in those massive war chests on John McCain. Sigh.
April 10, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another exaggeration:
Obama Says Real-Life Experience Trumps Rivals’ Foreign Policy Credits .
April 10, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that's just plain old truth.
You can get experience doing a bad job for a long time.
His judgment on the key issues that matter is much superior, an it's in large part to his broader understanding of the world.
He hasn't lived in a bubble his whole life. And it shows. And Americans like it!
April 10, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife - That is something for voters to decide. When you are interviewing two people for a job and one has the perfect college degree but the other has more experience; it is up to you to make the call as to which is more valuable in this situation. This is a matter of opinion and judgment rather than a matter of fact that you can call Obama out on.
Of course he is making this case, it is his opinion that he will be a better President; if he didn't he wouldn't be running.
April 10, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 10, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, I'd forgotten about that part. The whole book is pretty awesome at explaining the whole reason he's running, and his understanding of how Washington is broken, and I agree with it 90%.
April 10, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha. Nice work.
April 10, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. May this go from your fingertips to throughout the blogosphere.
April 10, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I basically don't like any political ads. I don't like ads.
One of the worst mistakes the American Bar Association ever made was giving the ok to state bars to allow us to advertise.
Oy oy oy!
The results have not been pretty and certainly haven't done one thing for the image lawyers have.
I feel just the same about political ads - they aren't designed to tell a big truth - they are designed to make one point as quickly as possible.
So I don't expect much from a political ad. All I see here is Obama trying to answer her, and not very effectively from our standpoint. I have no way to gage how many other voters out there pay the kind of attention that we do to these things. I guess that's a rudely long-winded way of saying I have a hard time critiquing political ads.
April 10, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, didn't the First Amendment and/or the Sherman Act give the OK for lawyers to advertise?
April 10, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I recall, that was basically forced upon the legal profession by courts finding that ads were protected speech under the First Amendment. Not really the ABA's doing.
April 10, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember, all the negativity in this campaign was caused by Hillary. Obama is never negative. He is simply responding to Hillary's negativity. The American public knows this for a fact because it is a fair-minded and balanced people which never takes sides. Obama is not trying to defeat Hillary Clinton. In fact, Obama wants to win without defeating Hillary Clinton. He is simply trying to run a fair and completely positive campaign. Hillary, on the other hand is just full of hate. End political rivalry by supporting Obama.
The Easter Bunny and Santa Clause approved this message.
April 10, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that's pushing it a bit, but overall sounds pretty accurate. I bet Obama would love to win without having Hillary lose. He thinks he's the best person for the job and has a better chance to win in Nov.
Hillary is convinced he'd lose in Nov, and that seems to be her reason for running these days. To keep Obama from losing the general. Pretty nasty stuff if you ask me.
April 10, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has endorsed John War Monger McCain for Commander in Chief ahead of Senator Obama, a member of her own party.
That makes Hillary the most negative candidate that we have ever had for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. It
puts her in Zell Miller territory, and makes:
Hillary the New Lieberman.
April 10, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, probably the two most beloved characters of my childhood.
But I'll tell you something this cheeky, 22-year-old college student doesn't love, and that's mean, silly people saying bad things on the internet. And if you do it again I just might vote for John McCain!
April 10, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to admit, I was all for Obama because he is clean and articulate and all, but after reading gotalife's informative postings, I'm in a bit of a pickle.
Should I stay with my initial feeling and vote for a biracial "Tiger Woods" who has a preacher who says awful things about white people and America?
Or should I switch to the only true patriot in the group, Hillary, who simply misspoke about being shot at in her effort to show just how patriotic she is.
I mean, c'mon, who hasn't misremembered something like that? Think of how she can use her peace making skills that were honed in Northern Ireland in the Middle East!
It's not fair that Obama is able to outspend Hillary. He should let her catch up some, because all of the really important states haven't voted yet.
I thought it was also very nice for Hillary to offer the Vice Presidency to Mr. Obama. I didn't see him being so nice to her. I guess that proves that we are really ready for a woman president.
April 10, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the thoughts I've always had in my life is that it is wrong to be mean. I know many Obama supporters don't understand that, and that's sad. I guess that's why I'm now wavering more solidly toward Hillary.
April 10, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also wrong to lie. And while some of Obama's supporters ARE mean, Sen. Clinton lies herself. That's much more important for me.
April 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the practical thing to do is to acknowledge that lying is a very important political skill, and that here, too, Hillary's experience trumps Barack's significantly.
If someone's going to be taking 3 a.m. calls at the White House from the representative of an alien race that values lying above telling the truth, can you honestly say you'd want that person to be Barack? We could all be dead!
You know, the more I get real about things, the better I understand that my support for Barack requires serious reconsideration.
April 10, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm rather starting to like Leroy. S/he is new, but s/he is good!
April 10, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Leroy,
Quit that wavering and jump right onto Hillary's train wreck!
1,2,3, go!
April 10, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the thoughts I've always had in my life is that it is wrong to be mean. I know many Obama supporters don't understand that, and that's sad. I guess that's why I'm now wavering more solidly toward Hillary.
Let me get this straight.... you are deciding whether to support a candidate for POTUS based on, what, the things a few supporters say in blog comments?
Wow. That's some deeeep political thinking.
stops and thinks a moment...
I'm going to leave the above as it originally stood, but... Reading over some of Leroy's other posts in this thread, I'm beginning to think my Snark-O-Meter may be miscalibrated.
Is Leroy the new idiotic? ;)
April 11, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
ROTFLMAO!
And the fact that he has so much more money just proves her point that boys are picking on her, again.
April 10, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Audacious one - thank you for that.
April 10, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of condemning the 2005 Energy bill, why don't some of you actually do some research on it?
http://www.energy.gov/taxbreaks.htm . Then, when you have an informed opinion, you can come and discuss it like rational, educated civilians.
April 10, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you do some research on it?
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/
Most rational Obama supporters recognize it was a mistake.
April 10, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm more than satisfied with his response in the Audacity of Hope (quoted above).
This was a compromise, and arguably the best we could have gotten at the time.
That's why we need a DEM president and a large senate majority.
I know Obama will deliver that. I'm not so sure about Sen. Clinton.
April 10, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not in favor of it myself but that page is hardly a sound reference weighing the pros and cons of the bill. Lets look at some of the names of their "guides"
There are few other politicians in Washington I would trust actually weighed every part of a bill coming to a vote. Did it give (obviously) handouts to the Republican friendly industries? Of course. Did it have legitimate parts that lays groundwork for better regulations down the road? Probably.
April 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the perspective of a Government employee, I know that I had to start changing what I was allowed vs. not allowed to purchase concerning energy-efficiency, recyclable, renewable, etc. So although I don't know much about what it did for the oil companies, as far as restrictions on the Government to be more proactively green, it was very good.
April 10, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between what is legal and what is a policy or an ethical standard, and the ABA and the state bars for many years considered advertising an ethical issue.
Ok?
April 10, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is "stop the game playing" the new theme for the ads? I haven't been following the ads closely (because I really hate political ads), but this one and the tv spot I looked at both used the "game playing" meme.
April 10, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so happy!!! (I had to go to Fox News to find this story, however.) I may actually start listening to Air America again. For a while I played a little game with the radio station. As I drove to and from work I'd turn on the liberal station and count how long before hearing the first rant against Hillary caused me to switch the radio back off. It never took more than two minutes, and often took only seconds. Aside from always attacking Hillary, Randi Rhodes had a very bad habit of calling any man she disagreed with "gay".
On Air America one can also hear the rants of homophobic hick Ed Schultz, an ardent Obama supporter who recently embarrassed Obama by calling McCain a war monger at an Obama event.
Air America has done a lot to piss off their fellow Democrats who support Hillary, whom they falsely blame for all the negativity in this campaign.
Here's a clip from the Fox News story:
"Randi Rhodes, the radio talk show host who was suspended last week from Air America after going on an obscenity-laced tirade against Hillary Clinton and one of her prominent supporters, has resigned.
"Mark Green, president of Air America Media, told FOXNews.com that Rhodes terminated her contract Wednesday after she refused to apologize on air for her remarks.
“We sought an apology, because of what she had said … Like Imus, like David Shuster,” Green said. “She refused and instead last night informed us she was terminating her contract with Air America, which she has the option to do.”"
April 10, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm happy too.
People who say such ugly things do not represent Obama's values, and are hurting his campaign.
On a side note, you're the first person I've heard about who actually listens to Air America.
April 10, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tried listening to it when it first started. I could not take much of it. Rachel Maddow was the only real pro on there. I could not listen to Al Franken. He was stammering all the time, and he kept bring on this Ditto Head supporter of The Big Fat Pillbilly, just because the guy was Al's roommate in college.
I listened to Ms. Rhodes for the first two days, and could never listen to her again. She was one of the most over the top, weirdest personalities that I have ever heard on radio. I was surprised that she did not self destruct much sooner.
April 10, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think we get Air America in the DFW area, but I download Maddow's show as podcasts every night. They're great.
Onto the original topic - at what point does answering a negative accusation constitute "going negative?" I keep hearing people complain about Hillary AND Obama going negative, but can't really find examples of Obama himself (and not many of his surrogates) lobbing the first grenade. But hey, I'm biased toward Obama, so feel free to educate me.
Hillary, on the other hand, wholly lost me after her "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" rant, less than 48 hours after she'd made so nice on the CNN debate.
April 10, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Obama will make a great President...I know McCain and Hillary will not...Now with anything in life, I have a 60/40 chance of being right. I will take the 60 over the 40 anytime.
April 10, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more mean word out of you and I'm going to vote for John McCain.
April 10, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh boy, instead of Clinton-Obama childish fights we get to have pro-con Air America childish fights for a change, yeah !!
If you had listened to Ed Schultz very long, you would have known he is on the Jones Radio Network (which is picked up by local stations carrying mostly AA) and that he co-owns his own production company & franchise, and also that he is just a salt of the earth jock (small-state star college football QB who, as he put it, "had a cup of coffee with the Oakland Raiders" when he was young) and worked his way up in broadcasting with local sports and general interest work in the Northern plains. What's wrong with that?
And where does your "homophobic" come from? He's not gay nor does he come from a culture that was quick to understand gayness, but he's handled gay topics as they come up with adequate sensitivity and I've never heard him say anything remotely homophobic -- I appreciate him as a consummate broadcast professional.
And I really appreciated Al Franken (and can only think you must be wrapped very tightly to have the reaction you did), he was the opposite of the consummate professional broadcaster when he started, but he did give us an amazing glimpse into the comedic mind at work as he grew and learned over his Air Am. career, he was much more polished and politically astute at the end of it.
Randi R. IS over the top and specializes in being over the top, I did that enough in my youth that I can appreciate her for it and the great shots she gets in against the wingnuts, in her work, without enjoying every single minute of the process; a C+ in my book. Live by the flame, die by the flame, I know it well and have tried to grow myself ...
Her replacement Sam Seder (sp.?) was being very humbly outspoken and revealing in his discussion of the situation today with pro and anti Randi callers as I drove home from work, as he said, she'll re-appear somewhere soon because there is a market for it (and as he didn't say, what politician is not a whore at some level?)
April 10, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Effective immediately, I will no longer engage in the HRC vs Obama dialectic. HRC cannot and will not get the Democratic nomination. Hence, I will now focus my energies on the real enemy, John Bush-McCain. While I am saddened that HRC Inc. are poor losers... the reality is they do not matter any longer in American politics. I must live in 2008 and not 1982.
April 11, 2008 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Merlot, I think you meant 1992, but I understand what you're saying. Clinton supporters think elect her will bring back the economic boom of the 90s, but that's not going to happen. It's going to take fiscal discipline and a rollback of tax cuts to fix the budget mess we have and to do that, is going take a president who can sell the idea to congressional Republicans. Two things that make Clinton a bad choice in this regard:
1.)The Republicans in congress this time around are a very different breed than the ones Bill dealt with. These are not fiscal conservatives.
2.) It will take a real salesman to work with the GOP to get the federal government back in the black.
3.) Hillary is no salesman.
April 11, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink