Sean Hannity had on a guy who worked on the Willie Horton ad in 1988, and this fellow has done a similar ad re Obama. It has to do with gang violence in Chicago and some vote in the Illinois legislature to apply the death penalty to gang violence. Obama voted against it, and the ad is going after him for that. It's some PAC putting it together.

More of the same.

Posted at April 24, 2008 5:16 PM in response to The Swiftboating Begins

1. Unsure. Voted for Hillary in Texas primary but like Obama and would be happy with either. I just want a Democrat to be elected.
2. No.
3. Obama, unless things really fall apart.
4. Obama, I hope (see no. 3). But we shall see. I do not underestimate the Republican skill at trashing Democratic nominees. On the other hand, I have been heartened the last couple of days at seeing audiences of both Hillary (in a campaign event) and McCain (on Tuesday's Hardball) respond with boos or audible discontent to any negative insinuation about Obama. Maybe things aren't working out as planned on the anti-Obama side.

Posted at April 15, 2008 8:35 PM in response to TPM Readership Poll

Eric is exactly right: "The American candidate Americans have been waiting for" is a
clear suggestion that Obama is not entirely American, with all its concomitant implications: unpatriotic, Muslim, Kenyan father, you name it. It's a low blow. I have always liked John McCain and would probably have voted for him in 2000--but this is what Obama can, unfortunately, expect from the Republican dirt machine as it presently exists.

I've read that McCain has hired the very person who orchestrated the attack against him in the 2000 South Carolina race. If so, it's just another example of what candidates will do when bitten with the Presidential bug. It's not good for the character or the soul.

Though I voted for Hillary in the Texas primary, I believe Obama would make a good president. And I dread the election season if this ad (and worse) is what it will bring.

Posted at March 28, 2008 8:52 PM in response to New McCain Ad: "The American President Americans Have Been Waiting For"

I'm a big MSNBC fan, but Shuster's comment is disgusting. As it happened, I watched Chelsea during one of her appearances with Hillary pre-New Hampshire. After Hillary's talk, the C-SPAN camera followed Chelsea. And Chelsea didn't try to "campaign" for Hillary. The women she spoke with mostly asked her what she was doing now, that sort of thing. But one time, during the conversation, Chelsea asked, "So are you going to vote for my mom?" The woman said she hadn't decided yet, and they continued to talk about other things.

Anyone, in or out of the media, who can characterize that as "pimping" needs to get a life.

At the time, I thought how very fortunate Hillary is to have an accomplished daughter who so visibly cares about her. My daughter is about ten years older than Chelsea, but I could easily imagine her doing the same thing, were I in Hillary's shoes. It was a nice moment.

There are things to criticize about the Clintons, but their relationship with and treatment of Chelsea are definitely not among them.

Posted at February 8, 2008 10:07 PM in response to Shuster Offers Another Apology For Chelsea "Pimp" Remark

I have liked Hillary from the start, but I have nothing against Obama--in fact, I think he may be the strongest candidate in a general election. The guy does have that magic JFK grace and self-confidence (and I'm old enough to remember that well.)

The attitude of the MSM these last few days, in particular (ignoring their attitude for a long time) is that whatever Hillary does, it's wrong. First she was the cold, calculating witch (because they don't dare say the b-word), then she "cackled" (sounded like a hearty laugh to me), then she--Omigod--cried. And all of it was wrong, to hear them tell it.

If she wins tonight, it's not a vote against Obama, it's a vote against the media. And I am not generally a media basher. But this has just been ridiculous.

Who "cackles"? Witches. I would bet most of the reporters and anchors would blanch if you told them they were just another incarnation of Barbara Bush (re Geraldine Ferraro, remember?), but that's the way they've acted.

They should grow up and quit patronizing women.

Good for Hillary, if she pulls this out.
As the saying goes, "You go, girl."

Posted at January 8, 2008 7:00 PM in response to Results Open Thread

Re jbrennan's post, this new war between the White House and the Fourth Circuit Court is worth watching.  First, Luttig attacks the Administration, and now the Administration has hit back.  When judicial conservatives find Bush way out of bounds, that may be the best bet for bringing the Administration under control.  Let's hope...

Posted at December 28, 2005 6:08 PM in response to from a wise lawyer friend, in re warrantless searches

Re #5:  I live in Houston, and Katrina students have enrolled in public schools (HISD in particular) in large numbers; the University of Houston has enrolled something close to 1000 Katrina students, Rice U. has taken a large number of Tulane students, and I believe St. Thomas has taken some.
What are you talking about?
I don't know if Spellings' (?) comments about reimbursing students are to be believed, but there seems to be some commitment to at least reimburse Texas for a lot of the cost, if not all.
This is not a defense of Bush--I'm a longtime Recovering Republican.  But I think there's a little paranoia out there about vouchers.  It's possible the Repubs will play that card eventually, but I don't see it happening now--and I work for a large educational institution.

Posted at September 17, 2005 5:09 PM in response to things to watch for

Excepting Novak's own regal self, of course.

Posted at August 5, 2005 6:40 PM in response to Carville Speaks

It occurs to me that the reason Novak was so sympathetic to Katherine Harris about media treatment of her make-up--odd as it seemed on its face--is that he was already mad at Ed Henry because he knew what was coming.  Obvioiusly Henry had already told him that he would quiz him about the Plame case--and there was Who's Who sitting right in front of him.  Maybe sympathizing with Harris on the makeup / media issue was just a way of snarling at Ed Henry, CNN, and the media in general.

Posted at August 5, 2005 6:35 PM in response to Carville Speaks

I'm puzzled by Cooper's statement today that his source released him from confidentiality.  It makes sense, if Miller was his source, that under the circumstances, since she was going down anyway, she release him from his obligation.  (Someone suggested her as his source earlier in the thread, which is intriguing.)

But Karl Rove?  It's really hard for me to think he has enough warm blood to call Matt Cooper on the Big Day and tell him, O never mind.  I saw elsewhere, which I had forgotten, that he had signed some sort of blanket waiver allowing reporters to testify--and that was exactly the sort of waiver Cooper trashed in his statment to the media.  Presumably Miller never had to sign any such thing.  So, was it Rove?  Very strange.

Posted at July 6, 2005 6:15 PM in response to On Judith Miller's Sentencing