« Gallup: Clinton Edges Obama By One Point | Home | Obama-Backing General: Clinton Lacks "Moral Authority" Over Bosnia Gaffes »
New Obama Ads In Pennsylvania Attack Clinton
Barack Obama has two new ads out for the home stretch in Pennsylvania, attacking Hillary Clinton on both her policies and her overall political character.
This one lists the newspapers endorsing Obama, quoting both their praise for his candidacy and their condemnations of his opponent:
And this one goes after her health plan:
Advertisement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBGyuYKlxIg
April 19, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
FARC This !
Investors Business Daily wonders who sent the envoy for Barry to visit FARC:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=289786626246641&kw=Obama,FARC
Did I forget to get my "Change I can believe in" when I left the store?
April 19, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing but manufactured DISTRACTIONS.
April 19, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fast Pain Relief
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qep2x2QcJbQ
April 20, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No wonder Newt is spewing ya'll love terrorists.
This guy gets more embarrassing every day.
Drop out.
April 19, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
So let me make sure I have this absolutely clear. A FARC guy has his computer cracked open, and they find an e-mail where the guy says he met with two unnamed "gringoes," and from his meeting he believes (1) that Obama will be President, and (2) that Obama does not support the Colombian Free Trade Pact.
From this you get Obama's connection with terrorists??!
So if Charlie Manson talked to a security guard and based on that conversation he believed that Obama would likely be President and he would probably not pardon criminals, then I guess under your logic Obama would have a "Manson connection."
(Pause)
Okay, then, well, you go ahead and believe that.
Unless one of the gringoes was sent by Obama or his campaign to deliver that message to FARC (and there is not one scintilla of a trace of a molecule of a whiff of an imagination of a breath of a chance of a notion of that anywhere in the article), I would suggest going back to beating the drum on MIDDLEFINGERGATE as your last manifestation of desperation.
April 19, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol
these losers cant seem to understand that Obama is the nominee.
but besides the fact that they cant influence anyone here you have to wonder why they keep posting lies and distortions.
and i think its because hillary just attracts that type of person.
April 19, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama also attacked Clinton on her lies about NAFTA, and his campaign had a conference call with Pennsylvania veterans who were angry with Clinton over her lies about sniper fire.
April 19, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
OBAMA ATTACKS!!
By stating the difference between the two campaigns.
April 19, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Oh, brother, I can already guess what the TaylorMarshHillaryis44NoQuarterians are saying. "I thought he was the candidate of HOPE? Why is he using negative attack ads?! Drop out already!"
Let's make sure we all understand our definitions here. An UNFAIR negative attack ad is, "Hillary Clinton has a fat butt and eats fried weasel, and she is a liar liar about Bosnia. Vote for Obama."
A negative ad that highlights differences based on policy considerations is not an "attack" ad. It is what in this country, since the dawn of the revolution, we refer to as--Grab a pen, because you are going to want to write this down. Go ahead, I'll wait. Got one? okay, good, here it is--campaigning.
Also, I love how people are all "He's not strong," or "he can't hit back, how will he fare in the fall against the evil Republicans?" or "He's all Kumbaya ha ha ha", but then when he actually responds it's all "that's not fair!" or "he's just using old politics" or "Wahhh waaaah!"
Goddamn, they never really tell you that in the denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance stages of loss it's denial and anger that are the real hurdles to get over.
April 19, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please, it's the hypocrisy we don't like. Obama says things that *sound* good, but either acts in an opposite way, or hopes you don't think about what they actually mean.
Take that "Hillary looked in her element" comment after the ABC debate. At face value, a great comeback. But think about what it actually means for a second. She was looking comfortable while answering tough, in some cases aggressive, questions on-stage, in front of the American people, and defending and justifying her policy ideas.
That's exactly the forum in which you want your President to look in her element. Not someone who stammers along semi-incoherently.
April 20, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think #2 "Afford" will be more effective than #1 "Reason".
I know progressives hate when Obama attacks mandates, but mandates are the one issue that allows Obama to cut into Hillary's base. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but they polled and found that Obama's supporters were in favor of mandates while Hillary's blue-collar base absolutely HATES mandates.
So this will either A. hurt Obama with his base or B. hurt Hillary with her base.
April 19, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not really counter-intuitive because mandates don't effect upper income professionals who have employer paid health insurance. The mandates only punish the folks who do not have employer paid health insurance -- and these are the working class folks who have lost the union jos.
April 19, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is the best ad of the whole season because, despite being an "attack ad," it does actually highlight a crucial difference between the two that struggling folks will recognize -- the fear of having yet another cost thrown on their backs by the government.
The downside is that many progressives will howl that it is an underhanded "Harry and Louise" attack, though I don't agree that the two things are equivalent.
April 19, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the healthcare ad is absolutely disgraceful, and I'd like to hear from some Obama supporters agreeing with me on this.
Attacking Hillary because she wants *every single American* covered by health insurance is a low, low blow.
It's even worse because it's misleading, as Hillary's plan provides tax credits to limit insurance premiums to a percentage of total income. And it also fails to point out the Obama's plan also has mandates.
I'm not asking anyone to switch from Obama to Clinton over this ad, but I would like to hear you registering your strong disapproval.
April 19, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary to this date has NOT announced how the premiums would be affordable for working class Americans! She'd be mandating them to purchase insurance premiums that they can't afford, and that's something many Americans who live paycheck to paycheck really can't deal with realistically.
April 19, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. flufferwink's right, Foreigner. Hillary has not been forthcoming about what her plan may really mean for voters.
It's understandable that she would play up the benefits everyone will enjoy under her plan, but she does not present the potential downside. While I think it's perfectly understandable that she would avoid doing so, I can't fault Obama for stepping in to point it out.
Likewise, Hillary has (rightfully, in my opinion) pointed out that Obama's plan could potentially leave (I don't remember her estimated number--17 million??) Americans without coverage. I appreciate knowing that.
I'm saying this in all sincerity, respect, and completely without snark. As a voter, I know each candidate's plans could produce both positive and negative consequences. Each campaign has pointed out the potential weaknesses in the other's plans. It's kinda ugly to watch them get snarky about it, but I believe this actually does serve a useful purpose to voters.
April 19, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read this: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/theyve_got_you_covered.html
There's no evidence that Obama's plan would lead to cheaper health insurance than Hillary's, and according to the experts, Hillary's healthcare plan covers 90+% of the uninsured, while Obama's only covers 40-50%.
And what about Obama's mandates on children's health insurance? Are you arguing that wouldn't affect working class Americans??
April 19, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may or may not be right. But since there is some hazy details here, lets go with what we do know.
Hillary has taken more money from Insurance companies and lobbyists. I doubt that she will not be beholden to those interests.
Obama on the other hand has not. So going with that information, who do you think would be more willing to go against insurance companies bottom line?
Just common sense...follow the money.
April 19, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. That argument does not add up.
Did you see Sicko? Remember the interviews with insurance company employees, who were disgusted with the way the industry operates? Did you consider it might be them who are donating to Hillary?
More importantly, however, Edwards has pretty much endorsed Hillary's plan over Obama's. Is he also in the pocket of big pharma?
April 19, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And did you also see that Moore pointed Hillary out as one of the biggest beneficiaries of insurance lobby money. There is no way all that money is coming from employees digusted with how things are done. She's no Obama and could in no way rase that much cash from insurance company employees. She's in the pocket. She is outright lying when she said the lobbyists supporting her are all good samaritan groups.
April 19, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot to comment on Edwards' endorsement there.
April 19, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has said "I wont tell people what they want to hear, I will tell them what they need to hear"
Both Hillary and Edwards are telling people what they want to hear. But that is a far cry from what is really possible. We have been stuck in an outrageous capitalist catastrophe with our medical care. I would love to scrap the whole thing and go single payer. That is not reality, we have to take steps to get there. Obama's plan is one of those steps. It is the art of what is possible, what can pass. The only way to rein in insurance companies is to use the market that made them, break them.
That means, Hillary and Edwards could stand on the senate floor and beat the drum, but the opposition would be just as firm back. Deadlock. Nothing gets done.
Obama's plan is more nuanced. Not only does he realize that once people realize government has good insurance and something they could afford, the government can set rules for insurance companies that they must follow to have access to those millions of people. No more gouging, no more denials. And the reality is - this is America, people don't like being forced. Hillary demands, people don't want a mother in the White House. Americans want to feel free, like they have a choice. I don't believe anyone who is uninsured would not make that choice.
April 19, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Moore just endorsed Obama.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/michael-moore-endorses-obama.php
April 21, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Both candidates use assumptions to predict the outcomes of their health care proposals. Each of them reaches different sets of conclusions because they're using different assumptions about future events and conditions. Likewise, each campaign has valid questions about the assumptions the other uses to make their predictions.
So, where you point out different conclusions about how Obama's plan might perform, Obama's campaign has conclusions to counter how Clinton's campaign might perform.
That's why I say it's good to hear each campaign's criticism of the other's plan. The opposition will present the most critical analysis and prediction of outcomes. This can be a very useful thing for us voters.
April 19, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. But do read the independent comparisons of the two
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/theyve_got_you_covered.html
April 19, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Foreigner:
"Hillary's healthcare plan covers 90+% of the uninsured, while Obama's only covers 40-50%."
To make sure we're clear, the link you cited in your post (factcheck.org) actually makes many different assertions with the low end being; "a plan without one [a mandate] would cover 49 percent", while the SAME source (Gruber) says that Obama's plan "would cover about two-thirds of the currently uninsured..."
The additional source cited says Obama's plan would cover about 45%.
If you are going to compare the two from that data source, the more correct range to cite would be 45%-66% coverage under Obama's plan.
I am an Obama supporter. I agree that Hillary's proposed healthcare plan is better than Obama's.
Neither goes anywhere near far enough, imo.
April 19, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see it your way. She is not being attacked for wanting "*every single american* covered by health insurance".
Obama thinks his plan will effectively cover more people than Hillary's plan.
Hillary already tried it, unsusscessfully. It is time for another person -with fresh ideas- to try.
April 19, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama thinks his plan will effectively cover more people than Hillary's plan."
Care to point us to a single shred of evidence that supports that claim?
April 19, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's said many times that the reason people are uninsured is it's not they don't want it, they just can't afford to have it. Obama thinks that once presented with affordable health care options, people will WANT to sign up because it's affordable and there.
April 19, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, can you point to a single shred of evidence which demonstrates that Obama's healthcare plan will result in cheaper premiums than Hillary's?
April 19, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let alone more people taking them up!
April 19, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here you go: Obama Health Care Plan
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanFull.pdf
April 19, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just skimmed it. Care to point out where it shows it'll lower premiums more than Hillary's? Nowhere I could see.
Here is an independent analysis of the two plans http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/theyve_got_you_covered.html Read it.
April 19, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both campaigns are relying on assumptions and projections, and neither are provable, to be honest. You might find some of the ansswers your looking for below.
According to Jacob Hacker at TomPaine.com:
If you're interested in reading the full article, see: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/06/04/obamacare_clearing_away_the_fog.php
Like I said, both campaigns' positions depend on admittedly questionable assumptions about how the plans will be passed, implemented, and enforced (in the case of mandates).
April 19, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there a single shred of evidence that it won't?
April 19, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
no thanks. i would rather vote for someone with some EXPERIENCE in this.
hillary clinton '08.
April 19, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Experience in screwing up a healthcare plan?
April 19, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
With respect, the experience in question is one of contention and failure.
April 19, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has she learned from her mistakes? It doesn't appear likely. Look at the infighting and mismanagement in her campaign.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle
She doesn't "get" it. Being a bull in a china shop doesnt make things happen. We need someone smart and nuanced. Someone can who can speak to the other side and convince them of his ideas, not beat them over the head, unlike Hillary who tries to force everyone to do her bidding.
April 19, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
In any event, the ad doesn't "attack" Hillary "because she wants 'every single American' covered by health insurance." It takes issue with imposing a mandate that requires it.
To take that specific criticism of a part of her plan and somehow arrive at the suggestion that Obama is against every American having health insurance is pretty disingenuous. Hillary does the same thing on the stump.
April 19, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary wants every single American covered by health insurance-----BY FORCE!!! Us poor smucks don't like that. Who decides we can afford it? What if our income says we can according to her scale, but we say we can't because we have other debts or money burdens. In MA they went the mandate way and this is what happened: The people who still couldn't afford it, got nasty fines. So now, they still don't have insurance, but they do have nasty fines. And the fines renew every now and again, but they still don't have insurance. Obama says if people can afford it, they'll want to buy it. It's like everything else Hillary Clinton does. She always tries the hammer first. Somebody really ought to tell her how well it works to be nicer. Being liked is not necessarily a bad thing Hill.
April 20, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really hoping that by the time this is over, people will be so sick of it they'll demand we scrap the whole thing and go universal.
April 19, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed!
April 19, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither one of them has a very good health care plan, as far as I'm concerned. They both leave private insurers as the primary vehicle for coverage, when that's the primary source of all the misery in the system.
That having been said, having a mandate forcing you to do business with the primary source of all the misery in the system is probably worse than nothing at all.
April 19, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually he is not totally leaving it in the hands of private insurers. Check out this vid with him speaking about healthcare in IA
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070616/VIDEO05/70619061
April 19, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
But under his plan, private insurers are still the primary vehicle of coverage, since that's who all of the currently insured are covered by and by the outlines of his own plan, who some of the currently insured would be covered by.
I'm an Obama supporter, but as I said, this is a glaring problem in both his plan and Hillary's. It insures that medical costs will remain higher than they would under a national single payer plan. The problems with the system go much deeper than having 15% of the population uninsured, and virtually every one of those problems can be traced back to a health insurer.
April 19, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a perfect world, there would be no place for insurance companies. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world.
Everybody agrees tobacco is bad for you. But you don't see the government coming in and shutting down all of the tobacco companies do you?
They can't, because this is still America.
Both Obama and Hillary's plans include insurance companies because, like it or not, they are still legitimate US companies. What they can do is rein them in.
Both agree that the only way to do that is to get enough numbers of people signed up to leverage insurance companies to change.
Hillary says force everybody, that will guarantee the numbers.
Obama says this is stll America. If people like their insurance, they can keep it. If their insurance company screws them, they have government sanctioned private insurers who won't.
Who hasn't been screwed by their insurance company? Who hasn't had ridiculously high premiums?
What is the biggest cost to US companies? Healthcare. What if these companies dropped that benefit for their employees because the government has a guarantee plan they can switch to? Employers would love the chance to drop that costly benefit.
Obama will have the numbers for leverage, and it will be the market that did it - not forced mandates.
Hillary's bull in a china shop mentaility "She knows what's best for us" meme is not going to go over - not in Washington and not with the voters.
April 19, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what's Barack Obama's campaign theme song going to be?
John Kerry's 2004 campaign theme
Bruce Springsteen - No Surrender
U2 - Beautiful Day
April 19, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about the most obvious choice: JayZ's Dirt Off My Shoulder
perhaps a little editing...
;)
April 19, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
... or Luda could rewrite Southern Fried Into
Cause it already has some great lines:
I'ma house hold name, wit' game spittin' outta my mouth at all times
I spit it out and about, and spit outta the south,until they recognize the danger signs
So feel a tingle in yo' s-spine, by the way I talk
And it's pimpin' in my blood, you can tell by the way I walk
Ooh lawd, more styles than a barber shop, call the cops
People in the way wanna baller block
Little do they know that I'm callin' shots
April 19, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes...Get That Dirt Off Your Shoulders
http://www.zazzle.com/get_that_dirt_off_your_shoulders_shirt-235948970941149559
April 19, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I can think of LOTS of good ones....
SHAFT
Fear of a Black Planet
Superfly
...sorry, I'm just going for the ones that would most upset the tight-assed white people...
April 19, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wanna upset white people?
If you haven't ever seen Dead Prez's video for their track Hell Yeah Jenn - find it. I still can't believe they filmed that thing - it's brilliant.
It will definitely upset white people.
but I can think of 100s of trax that will definitely upset white people. Try Throw Your Hands Up by MJG and 8-ball with Andre 3stax from Outkast. This is the chorus:
Now I heard that the south is where your folks from,
down in the bottoms where they broke some,
whips cross a n****'s back, way back,
and now they wonder why we act how we act? -...
April 19, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about for Barack Obama's inaugral celebration, who should he get to perform.
Bill Clinton had Michael Jackson perform We Are The World in his 1993 gala.
I was thinking that Barack Obama should have Janet Jackson perform "Rhtyhm Nation" for his 2009 ceremony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk7i_EPxTlY
April 19, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck it, man, he should go the complete opposite and make "On Top of the World (Looking Down on Creation)" by the Carpenters or "Yummy Yummy Yummy (I Got Love In My Tummy)" by Ohio Express as his theme songs and confuse every white voter out there.
For his inauguration he should have Travis Tritt and Lee Greenwood play just so we could hear, from the comfort of our homes, the pop-pop-popping of conservative heads in the din of their explosions.
April 19, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
No this should be his theme song. I get chills everytime I hear it (no it is not Will i am)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i23Y0J1_wM
April 19, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
April 19, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could some Obama supporter please explain why their hero goes negative? Isn't he supposed to be, like, inevitable?
April 19, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary had stuck to only going negative on Obama's proposals, you might have a point. Instead, she chose to make it personal. Compare and contrast and feel free to point out anything you see in the ads that any rational person would consider to be a personal attack on Hillary. Otherwise, give it up.
April 19, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Divide and conquer, McCain is inevitable mu-66. Get ready for 4 more years. The Man Who Would Be Bush will be your next POTUS, good luck America.
April 19, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll respond. First, these ads are hardly "going negative". The first draws a distinction in their healthcare policy while the second rattles off endorsement quotes. Both are typical fare in election season and are leagues away from "swift-boating" negative ads. Second, while Obama is the presumptive nominee from any reasonable standpoint, he still has to earn the delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Pennsylvania is an important place to gain delegates, and he's fighting for every single vote and every single delegate. In other words, he's not making the mistake Clinton made in her lack of preparation for caucus states and states after Super Tuesday--he's been prepared for this long haul, yes, from day one.
April 19, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
As well he should. He is in the fight of his life. Obama might have more ads, but Hillary has Bill campaigning AND Chelsea campaigning.
Heck the only newspaper to endorse Barack was the U of Penn student paper...guess Chelsea is a real pro.
April 19, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops that should be Hillary..who was endorsed by Uof Penn
April 19, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
haha. you said it yourself. did you forget the "change" at the store?
April 19, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama doesn't attack, he's weak and unqualified to be CiC. If he does attack, he's mean and unqualified to be CiC.
So I say attack away, nothing to lose there. And to be fair, his "attacks" are highlighting differences in their positions. Not that fairness is relevant to Hillary.
Assuming HRC and her supporters don't have glass jaws, they should be happy. Don't have to address issues or talk about harrowing experiences dodging sniper bullets.
April 19, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't fair to steal Hillary's pony.
April 20, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to.
He's doing it because he needs to get her the hell out of the race sooner rather than later. If she's run like a Democrat, he could take it easier on her. Instead she's running using the same content-free lying attacks the Republicans will use against him in November. Problem is, he can't hit back against her as hard, or in the same way, as he would McCain because he has to try to undo the damage to the party she's doing after he seals up the nomination and her her mathematically illiterate suppoters get all angry and whiny when anyone talks aout making her stop.
April 19, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oo, you're a smarty pants, as Mel Brooks might say.
You're so right.
April 19, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is passing out literature in PA about Ayers and trying to associate Obama with his actions from 40 years ago, that Ayers refuses to repent.
As if Obama is Jesus himself and can make Ayers repent.
Given her actions...the ad on healthcare is at least FACTUAL.
April 19, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Attacking mandates is a good idea if for no other reason than they are DOA in Congress. Too controversial and too easily used as a reelection weapon. It's a waste of time even considering them.
April 19, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
absolutely. people who are struggling to get by are not going to like the idea of being punished because they can't afford insurance
April 19, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on the Money!! He knows that mandates will NOT pass Congress. There is a little thing to still accomplish, called getting along with the other side. This is something they only see as an entitlement. Obama has said more than once that you start here, and eventualy get to something like single payer for everyone - if you do not alienate every Reublican in existance before you get to the door.
April 19, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lying, smearing and divisive.
Yup, Obama's gop style of politics he calls new.
Sad folks believe that crap.
April 19, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't choke in it, dear.
April 19, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol
April 19, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight. You support the Tigress of Tuzla, who just got outed badmouthing "party activists," a lady who is one of the most divisive figures in American politics (and has the negatives to prove it) and who relentlessly peddling the Wright and Ayers "connection" stories to the MSM until they finally broke down and ran with it, the lady who was saying the exact same things as McCain, often on the same day . . .
and you call Obama lying, smearing and divisive, and say he uses "GOP style" politics.
Are you really that lacking in any sense of proportion or irony?
Oh, wait, you support Hillary. Of course you're lacking in any sense of proportion or irony.
April 19, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that was a bit more "literate" than my choke on it comment.
:-)
April 19, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
But not nearly as succinct or hilarious. Brilliant.
April 19, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
no. he's just realistic.
hillary clinton '08.
April 19, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 3rd. Be there.
April 19, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think we'll have to wait that long.
April 19, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mandates are also a horrible general election argument.
Anyway, these ads are not very negative, and it is a stretch to call them attack ads. One is a contrast ad and the other is touting his newspaper endorsements.
April 19, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off the top of my head:
TV on the Radio - Staring At The Sun
Pete Yorn - Crystal Village
Sparta - Taking Back Control
I'm not sure about the second two, but TV On The Radio has this sort of primal soul that is infectious and fits real well with Obama's message. Plus, it's a band made up of two black guys and a white guy from Brooklyn, and they are pretty political.
April 19, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much negative campaigning has Obama done?
Find out here quiz
April 19, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh! That's a neutral source right there! Good on ya!
April 19, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or as Hillary would call it "creating sharp contrasts." Lol.
April 19, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Damn straight.
April 19, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
35,000 people come out to see Barack Obama.
Hillary can ONLY dream about getting this kind of response and it's only a dream of BILL'S inauguration day since it ain't never gonna be hers.
And did you see him on the train tour today. The photos/crowds are so fucking American, FDR would be proud.
Obama is spending money she only wishes she was capable of raising and then COMPLAINS that his out -spending her is somehow a bad thing. Nope, it's you fund raising and spending priorities that are wrong, dear. Now go pay your bills.
I hope he puts a a commercial on Monday called LIAR,but he's too much of a gentleman to really go negative.
April 19, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny how he is going negative and she is not.
I bet your hero flips her off again.
He is a jerk and needs to grow up.
Sore loser.
April 19, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have forgotten the The Page listing the various anti-Obama robocalls going out from Clintons today in Pennsylvania.
April 19, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the robo-calls, why does the link to the MSNBC robo-call story "CLINTON CAMP'S PA ROBOCALL ATTACKS "from TPM's frontpage read "Clinton Camp Does Anti-Obama Robocall" instead of the MSNBC headline and yet somehow these two ads one quoting reputable media sources about Clinton, and the other discussing an actual substantive policy difference are called attacks by TPM.
Josh and Eric, please use discretion when using the term 'attack' in a headline or writeup, otherwise you come off with the perception of bias, whether you actually are biased or not.
April 19, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has been one GIANT NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN since NC and she's never stopped.
April 19, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife said: "Funny how he is going negative and she is not."
Her commercials are 100% negative. And before you complain that she is being outspent 3-1 I would suggest that she does not have the money to compete. If she did, she'd be running more negative ads. So either pony up your $2300 and $2300 more for your significant other or just stop whining. It's boring.
Gotalife also said:
"I bet your hero flips her off again."
He used 2 fingers, so he might have been flipping her off British style.
April 19, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Total bs as usual. It is all over the internet but you folks are too dishonest to admit him doing anything wrong.
Pathetic.
April 19, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also all over the internet that Bill Gates wants to give me a million dollars and that there are Nigerians who want to give me their fortunes.
June 3rd. And make sure you donate the full $2300 to the Hillary campaign. By Tuesday if you can.
April 19, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
funny how she's being outspent...yet she'll win penn big-time on tuesday!
sorry, barry. looks like you can't buy everyone's vote. even the bitter ones. hope and change indeed!
April 19, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife, I'm going to suggest that we in the TPM Readers' Blogs community should throw an online party after the nomination to make peace and nurse the injuries of the losing candidate's most ardent supporters. I gotta say, right now, it's looking like the injured folks will definitely be Hillary's devotees.
If I'm right, I'll vote for you to be the party's guest of honor. You are definitely a loyal and devoted fan of Sen. Clinton.
Peace, G.
Best regards,
L "H" J
April 19, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Problem is, gotalife isn't a Clinton supporter. Gotalife's a righty, trolling here to stir up the shitstorm.
I'm all for unification, but there would have to be a minor miracle for gotalife, marginal player, and the rest of the righty yahoos trolling here to come over from the real Dark Side.
April 19, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely, at least Marginal Player made his persona obvious by quoting Billo and Hannity and sporting his all so cool KKK avatar. Got no life is a poser. It is not even worth trying to argue with him about Hillary. He is not a Hillary supporter and is getting his propaganda from the RW.
April 19, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are very kind.
Thanks .
April 19, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just call 'em like I see 'em.
April 19, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Laura, you read my mind. I was just about to propose we have a party, invite gotalife as the guest of honor, and just spend the whole thread absolutely showering him with love and Hope and Change and good tidings and warm feelings, and then virtually toussle his hair (I assume he is not bald), and give him emoticon hugs and just love on that old boy until he absolutely cries like Jimmy Stewart at the end of It's a Wonderful Life.
Then, and only then, can he go back to RedState from whence he came.
April 19, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess there could be something for some white people to hate in just about every rap song out there - maybe not every one, but all my faves, anyway.
Even Stuntin Like my Daddy has shit that is going to upset someone -
That's why there are on/off knobs and things like that. No one is forced to listen in this country.
But anyone who wants to go off on rap music is going to have to go through me first - it's all I listen to. I don't want the Rap Police messing with it.
April 19, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tera, then I need your assistance, and badly.
Confession time. I saw the speech when he did the dirt off my shoulders thing, and when the crowd erupted I had my first, true moment of feeling like I had absolutely no idea what was going on. I had no frame of reference, I had no cultural touchstone, nothing. And I will tell you in complete honesty that I felt, in that moment, like I was mentally lost. I suspected--true, this--that I had had a minor stroke, because I was utterly and irrevocably lost.
It is how I suspect very old people must feel. And there was no Lieberman to help me.
I am only 37! I am an old school rap-loving white boy, with my Run DMC and my Flav and my Beastie Boys and my Public Enemy. I have woefully not kept up with the latest hip hop developments since, oh, say, 2001 or so. "Hot in Herr" and "Crazy in Love" is my last real stopping off point. Sad.
Can you make this music-loving but otherwise distracted old white square hip again?
Can you suggest a short catalogue of albums I simply must download?
I just downloaded Jay-Z's latest. No fucking way will I let the goddamned President lap me on cultural references. No fucking way.
Help a brother out.
April 19, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, Tena even.
April 19, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Teh google is your friend.
I too was not familiar with the gesture...since I was only ever a fan of political rap and never got into the gangsta, pimp-n-ho variants, which is most of what's around now. But it's up on wiki...
April 19, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lars,
JayZ popularized the gesture for the young folk but the saying has been around since the turn of the century and is often repeated in churchs.
It means to simply dust yourself off and not worry about whatever is going down but to use it to make yourself stronger.
The origin of this term comes from a story in which a donkey falls into a well and cannot get out. The farmer tries to get the donkey out by rope, unsuccessful in his attempt. He decides, instead, to just give up and bury the donkey in the well. As the farmer begins filling the hole with dirt, the donkey becomes depressed, realizing that all of the dirt on his shoulders and back were going to eventually bury him. He then thought of an idea: I can just shake it off and step up. Therefore, he could just die by doing nothing and getting buried, or shake the dirt off his shoulders and step up to the occasion. So when you have a problem, will you shake it off and step up or be buried?
another way this is said is that 2 mice fell in a urn of cream...one drown but the other crawled so fast and furious it churned the cream into butter and climbed out.
April 19, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Funny how he is going negative and she is not."
Ayers, Farrakhan, and Wright in the same sentence the other night - if you don't think Hillary has been going negative, then your parents had to be siblings.
April 19, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Hillary is courting the Jewish vote heavily.
Jewish people get to call folks Nazi's ancd decry Germany as Nazi Germany. But when a black man in America who is a decorated veteran calls the US the USKKKAmerica for some reason that sends off alarm bells in white folks heads?
What kind of sense does that make when the KKK were such a huge threat to blacks and seldom to whites. It is not as if Wright was a terrorist like the OKlahoma bomber. Heck he served this nation and served at the side of a US Presidents medical bedside. Yet, whites are suppose to fear Wright?
Give. me. a. break.
This is complete nonsense. As long as Jews can decry nazism and the holocaust which was not even a tragedy perpetrated by America all blacks in this nation should be able to shout from every street corner, pew and mountaintop that America was the home of the KKK for over a century and still thriving during do height of the holocaust there were over 10 million blacks lynched.
Folks need to wake up and learn American history. Jeremiah Wright put his life on the life to uphold American democracy that would not even allow him to drink out of the same water fountatins as whites when he was DISCHARGED.
Wright is no more anti-semitic than Hillary was when she kissed that Palestinian women.
Those are the pictures Obama should be displaying in PA if he wants to attack her with low blows like she has him.
Huge pictures all over the tube showing her kissing the Palestinian first lady.
Then he would be fighting fire with fire.
Bless Obama's heart though he sticks with the policy contrasts.
April 19, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, it's crazy to call Obama's campaigning negative when she's openly admitted using the kitchen sink strategy.
She seems proud of it - all the Wright===> Farrakhan====>Hamas cuteness, for example, that McCain has picked up and is using.
It's completely absurd to say she hasn't run a negative campaign - she hasn't even denied that, as far as I know.
She's a disgrace.
The Clintons are dead to me.
April 19, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The day Obama puts out an ad that talks about blue dresses, cigars, Monica and/or Whitewater, we can talk negative campaigning.
Until that time - there is absolutely no argument there. She's run a slimy nasty Rovian smear campaign against him and against progressive democrats.
He has only responded to her slime. He has tried to keep this campaign above that and she's goaded him and goaded him. It's like a woman who knows a man won't hit her, so she keeps pushing him, even hitting him herself. It's cowardly cause she knows he won't hit her back. So she's just pushing and pushing and pushing
and finally the Democratic Party has had enough.
April 19, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually he would have to suggest she was lesbian to accomplish the same thing as associating her with something that is as completely far fetched as Ayers is.
April 19, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah he is a disgrace:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTJs0VRJLO8
Should even be in the Senate.
April 19, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Yeah he is a disgrace"
Disgraceful is desperately trying to suggest that Obama was giving anyone the finger - I guess when your candidate is getting her ass handed to her, you gotta try everything. lol
April 19, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, should not be in the Senate.
Embarrassing for real Dems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTJs0VRJLO8
Sad.
April 19, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because I care, gotalife.
Here is your proof, from a pro hillary web site:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/19/172425/373
Make sure you get that $2300 in soon. It appears she needs the cash.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/politics/20loyalty.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
April 19, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems Obama brings out the best in so many of us.
But he sure brought out the worst in Hillary.
How much has she damaged her credibility these last several months and her future in the party?
Will there be a productive place for her in the kind of party BHO will be trying to build?
April 19, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Seems Obama brings out the best in so many of us."
I'll take your word for it, but let me tell you, it *really* doesn't come across that way online!
April 19, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not even close.
April 19, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love Randy Newman!
Baltimore is a classic!
April 19, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I didn't recognize the avatar. I love Randy too!
April 19, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's healthcare ads are perfectly legit by the Hillary standard.
After all, mandates would be a HUGE issue in the general election, if Hillary got the nomination. The Republicans would be all over it. And "the Republicans would say it, so I'm just saying it first" approach has been all Hillary all the time.
Obama's just trying to help by making sure her plan is "fully vetted."
April 19, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama board funded gun control efforts"
Busted in another lie at politico.
Can this man tell the truth about anything?
April 19, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife,
You are the only one supporting a PROVEN liar to be President. You wouldn't know the truth even if it was played in an endlessly loop and shouted from the pulpit of Trinity United by Jeremiah Wright. You prefer lies to truth.
Tim Wise describes your kind well in this article entitled NATIONAL LIES and RACIAL AMERICA:
http://www.counterpunch.org/wise03182008.html
Excerpt:
So what can we say about a nation that values lies more than it loves truth? A place where adherence to sincerely believed and internalized fictions allows one to rise to the highest offices in the land, and to earn the respect of millions, while a willingness to challenge those fictions and offer a more accurate counter-narrative earns one nothing but contempt, derision, indeed outright hatred? What we can say is that such a place is signing its own death warrant. What we can say is that such a place is missing the only and last opportunity it may ever have to make things right, to live up to its professed ideals. What we can say is that such a place can never move forward, because we have yet to fully address and come to terms with that which lay behind.
What can we say about a nation where white preachers can lie every week from their pulpits without so much as having to worry that their lies might be noticed by the shiny white faces in their pews, while black preachers who tell one after another essential truth are demonized, not only for the stridency of their tone--which needless to say scares white folks, who have long preferred a style of praise and worship resembling nothing so much as a coma--but for merely calling bullshit on those whose lies are swallowed whole?
And oh yes, I said it: white preachers lie. In fact, they lie with a skill, fluidity, and precision unparalleled in the history of either preaching or lying, both of which histories stretch back a ways and have often overlapped. They lie every Sunday, as they talk about a Savior they have chosen to represent dishonestly
April 19, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well except for perpetuating the lie that Obama "is not tied to lobbyists or special interests", I think the ads are fine.
That is not to say that they are not misleading, or that they are not attack ads. They are both, but I think that kind of stuff is fair game in an election. However, they do not fit into Obama's claim that he is leading some new kind of politics.
April 19, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and on the plans, I think both of them are inadequate. If I were queen of the world, we'd have single payer. But I'm not. So I take what I can get.
I believe Obama's plan has a decent chance of being made law. I'm not convinced Clinton would be able to get her plan passed.
April 19, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Te ads might be fair game, but the Bosnia vets conference call is exactly what Obama pretends to rally against.
April 19, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's because this is online and the same dynamic plays out on every single comments board I've ever seen.
And the same old complaints - always. The people who are hanging around strictly to cause trouble cause they know they are outnumbered, if they are sincere supporters, and it's impossible to know who is and who isn't, cause - you're online - always bitch and that's chiefly why they continue to hang around.
And they get mixed up with the trolls who aren't doing any candidates any favors and don't care.
So what is a body to do online? You tell me - serve tea and crumpets? We'd all die of boredom, dude. Trust me.
April 19, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that when a candidate disagrees or exposes a policy difference with another candidate it's called an "attack," as in "attack ad?" The idea that pointing to differences in politics is attack and that controversy is a pejorative, is the propaganda of the status quo.
April 19, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Those who can not afford my mandated health insurance coverage, or the penalty fines I will sue them for, if they do not enroll and pay up, like I order them to do; are not going to vote for me anyway. So, I say "SCREW "EM"
I am Hillary, I Shall Be Obeyed, Clinton,
And I approve this threat.
April 19, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
These aren't attack ads.
One clue about what is and what isn't an attack ad is where the required "I'm Candidate X and I approved this ad" marker comes. If it comes first it's likely an attack ad that leaves a bad taste in the voters mouth. Candidates want to get as far away from the bad taste as possible and leave it sticking to their opponent. If the tag comes last it's not a negative ad because no candidate wants to have voters think of them after seeing something dirty.
One exception is when a candidate is just getting known to voters (like in Iowa bio ads) but when people already know who you are so you introduce yourself right away to get their attention.
The 3AM ads aren't attack ads either. They may have scary music and scary ideas but the idea is to reassure voters and that is why Hillary Clinton appears late in the ad. You notice in HRC's 'Bitter' ads she gets the tag in first and then disappears. There is a reason for that.
April 19, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a good time for this lie to come out:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9722.html
Ouch for PA.
April 19, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another smear attack headline. Sitting on a foundation board does not mean you have the decisive vote for the actions of the foundation.
Unbeleivable how irresponsible these headlines are.
BTW gotalife here are some facts you need to memorize:
Obama said Ayers is "a guy who lives in my neighborhood" and not someone who has endorsed him or talked to him regularly.
"And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense," Obama said.
Clinton said the relationship was deeper than that because both men served together on the board of a charity.
Ayers, she said, made comments "which were deeply hurtful to people in New York and, I would hope, to every American, because they were published on 9/11, and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more.
"And what they did was set bombs," she went on. "And in some instances, people died."
THE FACTS:
Clinton's implication that Ayers made hurtful comments connected with the terrorist attacks is wrong.
By coincidence, a story about Ayers and what he called his fictionalized memoirs appeared in The New York Times on the day of the attacks.
The story was based on an interview he had done earlier, in Chicago, in which he declared, "I don't regret setting bombs," and "I feel we didn't do enough," even while seeming to dissociate himself coyly from the group's most destructive acts.
Clinton is correct that both men served together on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based charity that develops community groups to help the poor. Ayers joined the board in 1999 and is still on it. Obama left it in December 2002 after nine years.
Ayers was clearly more than someone Obama just ran into in the neighborhood on occasion. In the mid-1990s, when Obama was making his first run for the Illinois Senate, Ayers had Obama to his home to introduce him to others.
But a flub by Obama in the debate suggested he does not know him that well: He called Ayers an English professor. Ayers teaches education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and has been an education adviser to Mayor Richard Daley.
Ayers disappeared after the 1970 town house explosion, although he was not charged in that episode. He and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, surfaced in 1980.
They both faced charges stemming from Chicago demonstrations in 1969 but his were dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct while she pleaded guilty to aggravated battery and bail-jumping.
THE SPIN:
Obama said Clinton was not one to talk about guilt by association because "President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground, which I think is a slightly more significant act than me serving on a board with somebody for actions that he did 40 years ago."
THE FACTS:
Obama correctly sketched out the details of Bill Clinton's acts in the case. However, senior Obama strategist David Axelrod went too far Thursday when he said the two cleared by President Clinton had killed people. They were not convicted of that.
Bill Clinton created an uproar with New York lawmakers from both parties and with police when, on his last day in office, he pardoned Susan L. Rosenberg and commuted the sentence of Linda Sue Evans.
Rosenberg was sentenced to 58 years after being caught unloading 740 pounds of dynamite and weapons from a car in New Jersey in 1984. She was wanted on charges related to the deadly Brink's ambush but never tried on them, and Clinton's order released her after 16 years behind bars.
Evans was captured in 1985 along with one of the fugitives from the Brink's robbery, whom she was accused of harboring. Evans was sentenced to 40 years on a variety of weapons and terrorism-related convictions, including the 1983 Capitol bombing plot.
Although Hillary Clinton publicly disputed her husband's offer of clemency to Puerto Rican nationalists in 1999 because they had not sufficiently renounced violence, she is not known to have objected to his freeing of Rosenberg and Evans in 2001.
April 19, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has she completely lost her mind? She sat on the board for Walmart for godsake. Can we attribute her fellow boardmembers personas to hers?
April 19, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes she has.
Let's go look up all those folks on the board when she served and find out about their unsavory pasts and accuse her of being a chicken hater and union buster. Just like WalMart is.
April 19, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, you need to stop posting and start donating! $2300 for the primary and $2300 for the general. And if you have a significant other, that's another $4600 for them too.
Total - $9200 Make the check payable to hillary clinton
She needs you!!
April 19, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are "attack" ads? Really?
I think a more accurate representation would be "contrast" ads. The first is mostly positive, only mentioning Clinton as a contrast. Furthermore, he only repeats what the endorsements said about his opponent and only that she uses "negative attacks" that increase political "division".
The second ad again says Hillary is attacking and then spends the remaining 29 seconds contrasting the two healthcare policy plans. Perhaps one could think that the analysis is inaccurate, but I would say this is actually exactly the type of ad that is appropriate.
Ad #1 spends 23/30 seconds on Obama. Ad #2 spends 20/30 seconds on Obama. Neither ratio seems to suggest an "attack" ad.
April 19, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest difference between Clinton and Obama in health care (or just about any other issue of importance) is that Clinton will be unable to pass any of her legislation, while Obama will. Even if they are proposing exactly the same thing. The reason of course is that the entire GOP loathes the Clintons and will do anything to help them fail. Moreover, Clinton's coattails will not be helpful to the local candidates, and consequently she will have a much smaller majority to work with in Congress. Obama will of course have some partisans working against him out of spite, but nowhere near what Clinton will have. I mean, geez, I think it was one of McCain's advisors who said he'd rather quit than lead a campaign against Obama, just because he respects him so much.
April 19, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first ad is fair, not necessarily an "attack" ad, but I think the second ad represents why the newspapers in the first ad are wrong. Obama doesn't offer anything new. Just as Hillary has failed to explain just how she'll enforce mandates, Obama has failed to explain the penalty for the uninsured once they need coverage. Yet he attacks her on the mandates. Nice. Real progressive.
April 19, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The health care one will play very well. Grew up in PA, and if there's one thing people HATE there, it's the concept of someone else forcing you to do something.
April 19, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he's on the stump today whining about Hillary's negative ads.
We're ok with that.. It's good ole fashioned Washington politics .. we're cool with it ..
He's a hypocrite with it ..
April 19, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Universal Healthcare is bad because then they might garnish your checks.
/Republican
April 19, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is very smart on Senator Obama's campaign for several reasons.
1. she has no money left so she can not respond, and the timing is also perfect...
2. it is very effective because it is not a negative ad, it highlights contrasts.
3. the newspaper ad is so good because it does come from newspapers who endorsed him.
4. It shows that he is a fighter.
He is on fire right now, and all the rallies in PA are going very well...He is getting there...A few more days...
April 19, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is rightfully going on the attack with the Bosnia conference call hypocracy. I simply don't understand how Obama or the campaign thought it was a good idea. His big speech to 35,ooo+ people yesterday was all about how he disdained "Gotcha" politics, and this is EXACTLY what he is doing the next day. It really cheapens his speech yesterday and his message as a whole.
April 19, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's ads are not manufactured 'gotcha' distractions.
The ads tout his endorsements from the newspapers in the state and clearer contrast the difference in their health policies since they were not discussed during the debate.
Obama is right to highlight those differences.
While Hillary may not have money for ads she is doing robocalls on healthcare and specious attacks on Obama voting for an energy bill.
Hillary supporters simply do not know what attack ads are because Hillary complains, whines and simpers all the time about being attacked when she isn't to the point that her own supporters have become as disllusioned as she is when it comes to stating clear policy differences.
Policy differences are not 'gotcha' distractions.
geez
Jonze think for yourself you already know Hillary lies...didn't you see the friggin Bosnia tape with her walking with Chelsea and no sniper fire anywhere on the tarmac?
Surely, you know that listening to and believeing a known liar is dumb.
They even said in the debate that she isn't trustworthy and those robocalls sure reinforce that in the minds of Pennsylvanian's.
When Obama starts running a robocall discussing how dishonest and untrustworthy the polls say Hillary is...that will be her level of attacking until then...
nothing but policy differences out of the Obama camp.
April 19, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the ads that I am referencing, but rather the conference call he had this afternoon where he had Bosnia war vets slamming Hillary for Snipergate. One vet went as far as saying Hillary could never lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier as CIC because of this issue.
He brought this up after saying during the debates that he never made issue of the Sniper fire lie and only discussed it when specifically asked. Then yesterday in front of 35,000 people he spoke against "Gotcha" politics - so every one of those in attendance in Philly yesterday who know of this conference call should view him as a hypocrite or a liar himself.
I'm not a Clinton supporter by any stretch, I've been staunchly Obama, however this was a mistake and it's going to bite him. Every time it seems like he's closing the deal he screws up.
April 19, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonze,
How does it bite Obama? A veteran said that no? Obama in't sayin it. Hillary is talking about Hamas, Farrkhan, Wright an Ayers.
April 19, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is was on an Obama Campaign conference call. They got a bunch of Bosnia War Vets together for the sole purpose of trashing Hillary for the Tuzla Sniperfire lie.
April 19, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing unfair or hypocritical about pointing out an egregious lie. Clinton lied about being under fire. She had a whole rueful attitude going on about the occasion. You can see it in the clips.
Or maybe it's delusional like Ronald Reagan claiming he witnessed the liberation of the concentration camps.
April 20, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck it, man, he should go the complete opposite and make "On Top of the World (Looking Down on Creation)" by the Carpenters or "Yummy Yummy Yummy (I Got Love In My Tummy)" by Ohio Express as his theme songs and confuse every white voter out there.
For his inauguration he should have Travis Tritt and Lee Greenwood play just so we could hear, from the comfort of our homes, the pop-pop-popping of conservative heads in the din of their explosions.
April 19, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever Clinton's "plan" might be now, it will be discarded the moment it's not in her political interest to press the issue. So it's meaningless.
April 19, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is going on Larry King on CNN on Monday night, so I am sure she will still try to ridicule him between now and then...
April 19, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can bet her entire conversation with Larry King will be about Farrakhan, Wright and Hamas. AIPAC has bought and paid for her to be out there doing everything she can to tar and feather Obama as anti=semitic.
April 19, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
and don't forget the 1 Million dollar in one minute on Monday for Senator Obama...Another $50 coming to the Obama campaign for change we believe in...
April 19, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is doing Larry King and Obama is doing Jon Stewart on Monday- at least they know their respective bases.
What is interesting that for Hillary to make hay with the Bosnia Vets conference call she'll have to bring up the whole Sniperfire lie in order to do so.
Maybe Barack should come out and apologize for the mistake and agree that it was a low blow and of the same "Gotcha" politics he was rallying against - that way he would have succeeded in making it newsworthy again, and come off as the bigger person for admitting the mistake.
April 19, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has been bashing him for so long, and he has behaved as a perfect gentleman. Even during the debate, when he had the opportunity to go on the offense about Bosnia he declined.
She keeps saying he is not electable, and she is divisive...
I used to think for a long time that she was a good person, and in all honesty, her campaign has been one of the worse in political history...
she is showing that she is not capable of uniting her team, she can not be trusted with money, since her campaign is broke, and she keeps lying...even I can understand it is about politics but there is time where enough is enough...
April 19, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, another good news for Hillary...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9719.html
April 19, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love the newspaper ad -- positive for Obama and good constrasts to Hillary from impartial third parties.
I was worried about the healthcare ad but in looking at it I think it is OK. I don't see this as being a big winner for Obama; on healthcare they both seem the same. Maybe it is attacking her percieved strength and she has been silent on the important point of how do you inforce the mandate.
Obama seems to be missing the big contrast between his campaign and Hillary's -- the degree to which she is engaging in Republican style attack politics. I liked his line in the debate that she learned the wrong lessons for the Republican attacks on her. The truth is that the Republicans will be equally hard on her as they will be with Obama. She has started the process against Obama for the Republicans while he is being more cordial to his fellow Democrat. He could be more explicit about that with his commercials -- it might be a better message than the healthcare ad right now.
April 19, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems have a better opportunity to take the WH and dominate both houses than at any time in the last half century. We have a chance to enact some real changes with universal health care being one of the biggest and most important. It would be a reform on the level of social security or Medicare and the Great Society programs.
Obama miscalculated when forming his policy. He was overcautious and ended up stuck promoting a program that won't reform anything in the end. Still, there was the chance that he might change course if he got in the WH and push for real universal HC, but he is now actively campaigning against it.
I could care less about tit for tat attack ads. They seem to be part of our lowly politics. But Obama is playing the Harry and Louise RW scare tactics to score political points. He's falsely claiming that mandates will be forced on people who can't afford it. By locking himself into his insurance industry favored plan and providing future opponents of UHC unimpeachable arguments against it, he is ensuring that there will be no true health care reform in the near future and likely not in a long, long time.
April 19, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don
no matter what hillary proposes she lacks the leadeship and diplomay skills to get it through Congress. Hllary has already proven that her methods ensure no true health care reform. It has already been a long long time since her healthcare debacle. Her only response has been to act like a sycophant to the healthcare lobby so there is no way she will ever pass universal health care. none.
April 19, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
So McCain can say in the fall that, yes, Obamas health care plan will force you buy health insurance, and take money away from you -- Obama can say what? "I decry these kind of Republican fear tactics"?
At least Obama isn't appealing to the "low information voters" in states like OH or PA where both of these mailers went out.
April 19, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, McCain called Obama a reckless liar and a terrorist with ties to Hamas.
See what we are up against it?
And you thought they were just going to hand over power without a fight.
Need a fighter not a whiner.
April 19, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is a whiner, so I guess that means you're for Obama, right.
April 20, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
and the fighter is Senator Obama, thank you Gotalife for agreeing with us...Senator Clinton has been whining for so long...
April 19, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was Obama's response for mcwar's attacks?
April 19, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I'm sure it is coming.
Maybe he's waiting until Monday to have a bigger impact.
April 19, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must say I'm sorry that you buy what is essentially the IBD's attempt to politically blackmail a position change out of the likely Presidential candidate with this specious terrorism connection argument.
If they had any real dirt, this story would be out there lickety split. They have wild imaginations, and not much else.
April 20, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You call THOSE attack ads? One quotes newspaper endorsements. The other objectively states a difference between their two health care plans.
Calling those attack ads is, again, evidence of the enormous sense of entitlement you people have. Which is the main reason a lot of us despise you and your candidate.
Hillary Clinton will never be president. Get used to it. She has no path to the nomination. If Obama somehow self-destructs catastrophically enough to prevent him from getting the nomination, Al Gore, not Hillary Clinton, will be the nominee.
But I hope Hillary stays in the race so Obama can keep kicking her ass. It's fun to see. When it's all over, there'll be nothing left of her but a bad smell.
April 20, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll give Obama this - despite engaging in negative attacks every bit as much as Hillary has in this campaign, he has done a far better job of painting Hillary as the one who is negative. It's BS, of course. But he seems to have pulled it off. When she attacks him, he makes a big issue of it. When he attacks her, he and his supporters and the media see it as him simply defending himself against mean ol' Hillary's negativism. A lot of people are sheep. But for a change I don't think that many people have fallen for the big outcry over the ABC debate. Sure, Obama supporters see the debate as unfair, and Obama as a victim. But I get the impression everyone else sees all the outrage as an attempt to limit the damage caused by Obama's wimpy performance. People know that the GOP isn't going to be nice this Fall, and we need a candidate who can take the heat, whether they think it's fair or not.
April 20, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you know and as Obama and Obamaites know he can't get away with what he does without MSM being complicit in his tactics. But MSM is controlled by republicans so the question has to be why do the republicans want Obama to win the Democratic primary? Simple. They know in America they can beat a uppity elitist black man. No racism intended. Just facts.
April 20, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
When she attacks him, he makes a big issue of it. When he attacks her, he and his supporters and the media see it as him simply defending himself against mean ol' Hillary's negativism.
One reason why this works is because it happens to be true. His "attacks" ARE mainly responses to her attacks.
April 20, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of new ads, Obama has a new one out called, "Exactly" in which he responds to a new Clinton ad. Here's what Ben Smith's blog says of it:
"Obama responds to Clinton's latest with another meta-attack, calling it her "most misleading and negative" spot yet, with "11th hour smears, paid for with lobbyist money."
"The ad denies that he takes money from "Washington lobbyists"; it doesn't contest her ad's actual claim, which is about state lobbyists."
Notice how Obama's negative ads are always presented as responses to Hillary's negativism. And just like his add about big oil, his ad is misleading. True, Obama doesn't take money from big oil executives. That would be illegal. Instead he takes lost of money from big oil employees. And in this ad he denies taking money from Washington lobbyists, even though her ad didn't accuse him of that. What about State lobbyists, Mr. Obama?
April 20, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is all that needs to be said to Obama and Obamaites criticism of Clinton tactics
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0704030881apr04,0,6468332.story
April 20, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is stagnating despite a HUGE outlay of money of American citizens to blitz out the competition in Pennsylania. Spending FIVE TIMES as much as Clinton in cable tv advertising, this incredibly self-entitled individuals feels that if he loses by less than double digit figures, it's a victory. I say : he should win by the difference in money spent on advertising.
April 20, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right.
Clinton losing a 25-point lead to come out barely ahead in a state where all of the demographics and machine politics favor her would be a victory.
April 20, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, that health care ad is deeply dishonest -- it doesn't mention that people with lower incomes will be subsidized, their payments will never go above say 5% of their salaries, and they'll have a raft of choices. And that the cost of Obama's pandering to his younger and healthier voters -- that's what it is -- is higher costs for everybody else. In all the talk of "negative campaigning," the Obama campaign is truly negative here. They mention Clinton, they lie about her health plan, and they scare the very people that universal health care will most benefit. Excuse me for seeing very cynical old politics, not the new kind.
April 25, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink