Pre-Debate Happy Hour Reading
We'll be blogging tonight's debate, which starts at 8 P.M on ABC, right here at TPM Election Central.
Meanwhile, here's some good happy hour reading to kill the time until the debate gets underway...
The New Repubic's John Judis says that Obama's small-town comments could badly damage him in a general election, and argues that he'll have a tougher time remaking the electoral map than he claims.
But Open Left's Chris Bowers rebuts Judis, saying that the electorate has changed in ways that will render the old politics of conservative backlash against "liberal elitists" ineffective.
Mark Halperin points to all the bad things that didn't happen to Obama in the wake of the "small town" comments.
Media Matters catches yet another political observer making the transparently ridiculous case that no matter how partisan John McCain's behavior is, the press doesn't believe he really has his heart in it, so it doesn't really matter.
Atrios says Howard Kurtz has it right on the absurdity of multi-millionaire pundits claiming to understand what rubs working folks the wrong way.
And those who think Hillary's "commander in chief test" attacks on Obama are too rough might want to remember this ad against Howard Dean in 2004:
Hey man, you gonna post Hillary's "Screw 'Em" comment about working class voters?
April 16, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh did post the link from the tabloid post.
Sad.
April 16, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
a link post isn't worth anything without further analysis by one of the TPM crew.
April 16, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is sad. Just a link, nothing from Greg?
Of course the really sad thing is that Bill that Hillary was being literal when she said, "Screw 'em."
April 16, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops, sorry. The really sad thing is that Bill tought Hillary was being literal when she said, "Screw 'em."
April 16, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I give up, my fingers aren't working, I'm going home.
April 16, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did he post this lie?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_N.htm?se=yahoorefer
Oops, he did it again.
April 16, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Obama is in the tank. $2.26MM out of the estimated $237MM he's raised to date is less than 1% of his contributions. Yep, Obama is bought and paid for....
Seriously, you are just dialing it in now. What happened to you "gotalife"? You use to be beautiful....
April 16, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know. That comeback was just a little "bitter".
April 16, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's more breaking news from the Hillarity camp: She's an expert sharpshooter now, and she scared off the Bosnian snipers in 1996. Here's the skinny:
http://mrsensible.com/?p=33
April 16, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And those who think Hillary's "commander in chief test" attacks on Obama are too rough might want to remember this ad against Howard Dean in 2004
What about those of us who don't think they're "too rough", just risible and feckless?
April 16, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention fundamentally dishonest
That adjective, it seems to be coming up more and more often when paired with Hillary Clinton, doesn't it?
Clinton fatigue v. 2.0
April 16, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Pre-Debate Happy Hour'"
"Did some one say Happy Hour! Make mine Crown Royal, straight up, with another for a chaser".
Hillary Working Class Clinton.
April 16, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which would of course make so much more sense if the Republicans had actually done anything in the past seven years to catch Osama.
April 16, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a pretty rough ad, but let's keep in mind that Hillary said she and McSame were ready and that that soundbite will be uxed over and over again in the General Election.
April 16, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to point out the obvious. But that ad against Howard Dean, that attack ad was a Republican attacking a Democrat, wasn't it?
I don't recall a nasty ad like that one being done Dem on Dem in history.
I may be wrong. Does anyone know of a democrat attacking another democrat in an ad as nasty as Hillary's or the one that Greg Sargent has so graciously offered as a remembrance?
April 16, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
No dude you're wrong. That ad was by Charlie Gibb more or less on behalf of Kerry. Funny thing. I wonder what ever happened to him?
April 16, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing about going negative is it detracts from both Democratic candidates. Not that she is too tough, its that she's pulling the whole party down on a super-slim chance to win the nomination.
April 16, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has already passed the CIC test by saying he'd go after bin Laden in Pakistan.
What did McCain say? No, I'd rather spend 100 years in Iraq instead.
Who do you want as CIC?
April 16, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is in response to the youtube attack on Dean.
That won't work in 2008.
April 16, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton.
April 16, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I am pretty sure you want McCain.
April 16, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, we get mcwar if the Dems are dumb enough to Obama.
April 16, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
What blather.
April 16, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your sentence is nonsensical unless you replace Obama with Hillary -
Explain this to me gotalife:
Bush, Cheney and Hillary all agree on Iran (in their own words)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFZL33nPoEU
April 16, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dem's in third person? The Dems...?
Not "we" Dems, or (probably more honestly) YOU Dems, but The Dems... hmmm interesting.
April 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seeing as the Clintons have alienated:
Young voters
Old voters
Voters that live in Red States
..Caucus States
..Black voters
..Latino voters
..White working class voters
You're still sticking by them, meaning that by process of elimination, you're either Howard Wolfson or Canadian.
Which is it, eh?
April 16, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
O thanks for reminding me how much fun 2004 was.
Yes, I remember now - Dean was "unelectable" he was "inexperienced" he was "an elitist" and he got kneecapped and we got Kerry.
I'm just dyin to go through that again -
April 16, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The latest poll, out today on the Washington Post shows that Hillary's negatives have gone sky high, which means that she has no chance of ever winning a generla election campaign.
You will not see TPM drawing much attention to this:
Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton
By Anne E. Kornblut and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 16, 2008; A06
PHILADELPHIA, April 15 -- Lost in the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign's aggressive attacks on Barack Obama in recent days is a deep and enduring problem that threatens to undercut any inroads Clinton has made in her struggle to overtake him in the Democratic presidential race: She has lost trust among voters, a majority of whom now view her as dishonest.
Her advisers' efforts to deal with the problem -- by having her acknowledge her mistakes and crack self-deprecating jokes -- do not seem to have succeeded. Privately, the aides admit that the recent controversy over her claim to have ducked sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia probably made things worse.
Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.
Among Democrats, 63 percent called her honest, down 18 points from 2006; among independents, her trust level has dropped 13 points, to 37 percent. Republicans held Clinton in low regard on this in the past (23 percent called her honest two years ago), but it is even lower now, at 16 percent. Majorities of men and women now say the phrase does not apply to Clinton; two years ago, narrow majorities of both did.
April 16, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, care to update your piece about Obama's tax records for 1997-1999 to reflect the fact that they were already released to the media over a year ago?
Or are you just going to ignore that you posted a blatant falsely-premised bunch of Hillaryland bullshit?
April 16, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
8 PM... what time zone? Pennsylvania time?
April 16, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eastern.
April 16, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks
April 16, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is someone who worked for Bill Clinton hosting the debate???
April 16, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, George worked for Bill and then left the White House to write his tell all "All Too Human" book, for which he became persona non grata to the Clintons since.
Gee, think Hillary will call him Judas tonight at the debate?
"Thanks for giving Barack the first question this time, Judas, er, I mean George..."
April 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lestatdelc,
Where? I've looked and can't find them. Plus, he released nothing on 2007 and every instead criticized Clinton even though she released or filing for extension data, which gives basic numbers for 2007. Again, from Obama, nothing.
So, where are these 90s returns you say are released?
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 16, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did release his 2007 taxes.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/HQpress/fed%2520tax%252007.pdf
April 16, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to use L33Tist language, but Michael Weaver has been PWND!!!!
Here's another sumthin' to chew on Mike:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exsmFDYyK4U&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/16/43431/1412/670/496661
April 16, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our resident white supremacist (Matthew Weaver) seems to have gone for a twofer there... 1) being ignorant of his 1997-1999 taxes already been given to the media last year and 2) lying about Obama not releasing his 2007 returns.
Wonder what that twofer will do to his standing with the TrollCritic3000?
April 16, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a soft spot for twins, so I'll give you the link. It appears that he released them to the Chicago Tribune and possibly other Chicago news outlets. They are just not publicly available.
April 16, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the Chicago Tribune back in April 2007:
The Illinois media had long ago gone over his pre-2000 tax returns.
April 16, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, love the green shroud you got covering on your head there, hides the dead wombat nesting atop your noggin in your other avatar.
April 16, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
She will crush him like she does in all debates.
Probably another rookie move agreeing to another debate.
Could expose all his lies on tape to play over and over on the corporate media.
April 16, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This time she will be asked about Tuzla, and her husband taking $800,000 to lobby for Columbia.
I hope she cackles again.
First question to Obama:
Senator Obama, How many angels dance on the head of a pin?
April 16, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that whoever is the Democratic nominee has a staff paid to think up the worst possible ads that could be made about the candidate, and then come up with responses.
One of the things that frustrates me about Democrats is that they seem chronically incapable of anticipating just how nasty and sick the Republicans will be.
While not being able to anticipate underhanded tactics, lies, smears, distortions, etc, is actually probably a good thing for an individual human being--it's not a good thing for any campaign.
So will this be the year that the Democratic candidate handles the crap dished by the Republicans, and aided and abetted by the media?
Please?
April 16, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sounds like perfect work for Hillary and her campaign after they lose the nomination.
April 16, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
One caveat: The events of September 11, 2001 took place almost entirely before the "small town" flap broke out, so it's unclear as to how much more tragic the outcome would have been.
April 16, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on TPM, the Judis piece is now two days old and has been fairly well refuted by polling data and Bowers. Why does it now merit a top line link here and on the front page? The public is not biting on bittergate. Why keep flogging it?
April 16, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it won't be bitter. None of the candidates involved in this campaign are bitter people.
Well, unless Barack Obama is there. He is a bitter, bitter man.
April 16, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more that Americans see of Hillary the more the do not trust her. An overwhelming majority of Americans now no longer trust her. They will not elect someone who they do not trust. She can not win in November.
Here is her latest, and all time high negative poll ratings. She is toast.
Clinton's Negatives at Record High
Poll Finds Majority of American Have a Unfavorable Opinion of Clinton
By JAKE TAPPER
PHILADELPHIA -- April 16, 2008 —
Democratic rivals Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, will square off for the last debate tonight before Pennsylvania voters got to the polls next week.
Clinton is favored to win Pennsylvania, but a new ABC NEWS/Washington Post poll finds her support nationally has further declined.
Likely Democratic voters 51-41 percent say they want Obama to win the nomination -- his biggest advantage to date. Obama has also cleared the "electability" hurdle in Democratic minds -- 62% say he is more likely to win than Clinton.
In more bad news for Clinton, 58 percent of Americans polled said she is not honest and trustworthy. Obama beats her on this attribute by a 23-point margin.
"She flip flops on issues too much and seems like a professional politician whose goal is just to get elected at any cost," said Gene Louin, a Pennsylvania voter standing in line at Geno's Steaks in South Philadelphia.
Added Michael Gold of Westchester, PA, "I do not think Hillary is trustworthy -- not because she's a woman not because she's a Clinton -- not because she's a democrat but because she's a politician."
Clinton's Negatives Hit Record High
A record high of 54 percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the New York senator, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll.
Her husband, former President Bill Clinton's unfavorability rating is almost as high at 51 percent -- his highest level since leaving office.
"I love Bill Clinton but I'm not happy with the way he has conducted himself," said Mina Bannett of Cherry Hill, NJ.
The former president will be watching the Democratic debate tonight in Pittsburgh with Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and Dan Onorato, the Allegheny County chief executive.
April 16, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, help me good folks, bad folks, smart trolls, and hacky trolls (not to be confused with hockey trolls... --go Flyers)
I have to call "shenanigans" on the McCain national polling. It defies logic. It may be a conspiracy, why not, as the justice department can't keep away from them so why should pollsters, but...
70+% believe the country is moving in the wrong direction.
30% or less approve of Bush.
Yet in some (cherry picked perhaps) polls McCain beats either Dem candidate --Bullshit.
McCain has not only failed to distance himself from the status quo and the Bush administration, he has ACTIVELY moved closer to it...
If the polls said: 35% McCain, 15%Dem candidate and 50% undecided it would be plausible, OR 30% McCain, 20%Dem, 50% NEITHER.
But Rasmussen 47% and 50% McCain?
BULLSHIT
April 16, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody know if the debate (video or just audio) is streaming online anywhere live? I'm at work and only have computer access. Thanks.
April 16, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody know whatever happened to that guy who made that famous attack ad against Dean? I mean that's some serious Rovian shit. I think his name was like Gibbs or something. Wonder what he's up to now?
April 16, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 16, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just hope no Democrat would have a place for someone like that.
April 16, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll just go ahead and tell you. He is now Obama's Director of Communications. Director of Communications. #2 guy.
April 16, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink