MyDD :: New Clinton ad about small town values and Obama

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

Edwards has no reason to endorse either. There is nothing to gain from endorsing a losing Clinton campaign.

by CardBoard on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:41:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Spanky on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:07:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

JRE would be the first one to agree with Obama that rural voters do feel bitter because of how their towns have lost manufacturing jobs. Also, Obama is totally on the mark on saying repugs do try to divide rural supports from their economic interest by using their love of guns, religion, anti-immigration, and even anti-trade.

That is what Obama was trying to say and didn't. Rural voters are stupid when it comes to their own economic interest, choosing social issues to their own welfare. It is the truth. I live on 40 acres out in the boonies, and it amazes me that democrats here voted for Bush because John Kerry supported gay marriage. That was the big issue in north Florida back in 2004. This year it is the Iraq war and the economy. I think that even the rural democratic voters here would vote for any democrat than 4 more years of Bushism.

I am not worried that Obama will be painted as elitist by the repugs. Obama is not an elitist. The repugs and the Clintons have tried to paint Obama as a black man, a muslim, and now an elitist. I wonder what the Clintonistas and the repugs will try to paint Obama next??

by Folkwolf101 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Except that Edwards would most certainly be taken about also by Obama's elitism. He is and always has been a man of the most common people. He has been championing their cause from day 1, and he certainly would feel enmity in Obama's bitter words.

If he decides to choose to endorce, it seems more likely to be Hillary, since that is where most of his constituents are leaning.

Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.

Obama is not an elitist, and JRE knows it. If anything I'd think he'd sympathize with Obama (after the $400 haricut nonsense) and frown on Clinton's using these comments to smear him.

by fogiv on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards knows Obama is right. (2.00 / 1)

by dystopianfuturetoday on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:56:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

if you've ever been a JRE supporter (none / 0)

then you know your comment is ludicrous. JRE is staying neutral, so don't count on him rescuing your candidate.

by 4justice on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:53:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Folkwolf101 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:18:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting point, Markjay. I don't think he would endorce Obama, either. But what I really wish is that the video ad included more of what Obama said, that this smalltown bitterness is also expressed in their anti-immigration, anti-trade, anti-anti-gay marriage, and is creating their antipathy toward others. That part of the statement is even more insulting.

Edwards is smart enough to see this attack for... (none / 0)

... for the rank political bullshit that it really is. If anything it makes Edwards more likely to endorse Obama.

by dystopianfuturetoday on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:55:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who started this? (none / 0)

It was Barack's unthinking and poorly worded comments that started this. This is a campaign, and the attacks on him about this are not "rank political bullshit". It's fair here, and Obama has only himself to blame.

by 4justice on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:56:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But MOOOOOM!?!, Obama started it! (none / 0)

by dystopianfuturetoday on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:13:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think JRE will stay neutral (none / 0)

which I think is the right thing to do.

by 4justice on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:51:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: curious about Edwards (none / 0)

I don't think it impacts. As far as I can tell, Edwards is not going to endorse.

by TomP on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:45:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not having a favorite... (2.00 / 1)

...you figured you'd stir more shit for no damn reason, is it?

Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.

by Quicklund on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:47:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Given that she has less than a 5% (none / 0)

chance of being the nominee... she should be a little hesitant to spread Right Wing Attacks against the presumptive Democratic Nominee.

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:11:52 PM EST

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 1)

Then call this prep time or a warm up for Obama. Should be no problem for him.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:19:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 1)

Well, even Ed Randell said it shouldn't be an issue. But branding is done by volume. If Obama, (who only payed off his college loans 2 years ago), is somehow branded as an elitists by a first-lady worth 105 million and a 3 decade Senator who is married to a women worth around 200 million it would be a shame. Which is why I think Clinton will come out of the Debate looking like a fool. The moderators will probably even do Obama's Job for him. But if Clinton calls him an elitists he can respond with,

"For a year I've been inexperienced, and now I'm a member of the D.C. elite? Lets talk about not connecting with the American People. How about the Clinton making $800,000, more than most people in Pennsylvania make in 20 years, in a single day for giving a speech to those backing a Columbian Trade Agreement. Then Sen. Clinton has to fire, no wait demote, her chief lobbyists or strategists for lobbying Senators, like Sen. Clinton, for the very same trade deal. I've been on the street, working in closed plants, people are angry and bitter at Washington Politicians telling them one thing, and then giving speeches and paying lobbyists to do the exact opposite."

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:30:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 2)

A millionaire Harvard law graduate recently paid off his student loans. Hmmm. Do you think he's bitter?

by ChitownDenny on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 1)

Obama only became a millionaire three years ago when the reprinting of his book sky-rocketed, and Michelle got a promotion.

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:38:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 1)

And your point? Because Hillary has more millions than Barack means he can't be elitist?

by ChitownDenny on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:44:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 2)

Really the Clinton's are worth 105 million dollars. They have 105 million dollars in assets. Could you post that link because i think you just misspoke. Funny how that happnes.

By the way was that HRC whinning about this

I know we're spending -- I added it up for the first time -- we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we're spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth," Mrs. Obama tells the women.

Really it must be rough. How do the Obama's make ends meet. I wonder how many of those working class voters BO insulted spend 10k on private lesions.

david

by giusd on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:49:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 1)

I have two boys and probably average $500 a month on just sports(memberships, equipment, YMCA) so that is $6000 a year....I see it as an investment in my sons' future...Do you have kids??

I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!

by hootie4170 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (none / 0)

Yes i have childern and i dont go around whinning about how much money to cost for private lesions to people who make considerably less than i do. That is call rude, disrespectful, and elist.

david

by giusd on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:43:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 1)

I think $5,000 a year is what a lot of families spend on their average Child. That is about right for what my mom spent on me in the 90s. She was a single mom, struggling to make it alone - I had football fees, summercamps, gold lessons, ect. I think my mom would scoff at anyone suggesting she is anything but middle-class

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:08:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 1)

man, I grew up in the 1970's - my parents would NEVER spend that type of money for stuff that I could do at the playground.

I went to school and played in the summertime with my friends and when I was old enough, worked locally to save money for college.

by colebiancardi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:11:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (none / 0)

oh, and I did pretty well for myself in my adult life. Had to fight up the ladder, but I don't think that my parent's lack of shelling out major bucks for after school sports, music lessons, summer camp hurt me one bit.

by colebiancardi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:13:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (none / 0)

Well, I'm thankful that my Mother gave up a lot for me.

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:16:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 1)

Oh, I wasn't trying to slam your mom. I just think back at my childhood and my friends and we never did anything like that and we all went on to live productive lives.

I think if your mom did all those things for you, wonderful.

by colebiancardi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:20:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 1)

Gotcha, well I did grow up in Bowling Alone America. Even though I really don't like Putnam

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:23:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I came of age in the 1970's... (none / 0)

my parents gave me a ride to school maybe five times in the entire twelve years I went. All that was quite changed by the time I had children in the 1980's. A single dad I couldn't be home after school when they got there, had to get daycare. Playgrounds were in shorter supply than when I grew up in the same neighborhood. And, the playgrounds that were still around had a lot of late teen and early twenty somethings looking for some anti-social way to pass the time.
I understand walking uphill both ways in the snow to get to school, but the world has changed. Probably your parents wouldn't do it the same way now either.

by tonedevil on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:14:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My wife's parents did though (none / 0)

My father-in-law was a gym teacher in New Jersey. Her parents spent more on their kids than most people in their neighborhood spent on their mortgage.

It wasn't spent on toys or anything like that. They sent their two kids to the best schools they could afford. They paid for them to go to CTY camp every summer. When my brother-in-law got beat up badly on the playground, they paid for Tai Kwan Do lessons (sp?) twice a week. It goes on and on.

These days what they spent would easily eat up $10,000. I really don't know how they did it on his salary.

by professor on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:41:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (none / 0)

"one or two points at the margin" in the Keystone State primary....But by the time November rolls around, I think this comment will be long forgotten."http://thepage.time.com/

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:25:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 1)

Not really all that different. And I'm not sure why you keep threatening smiting

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:07:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 1)

... or a swan song for Hillary - when is she up for re-election in NY? It will be interesting to see how she is treated after her behavior in this campaign.

by ruskin on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:32:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 2)

Nice try dude. The person in trouble is BO. When he comes up for election in 2010 it will be interesting to see how he is treated after his behavior in this campaign.

david

by giusd on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:56:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 1)

He won't have to come up for re-election until 2012 ;)

I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!

by hootie4170 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:02:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 1)

No, he was elected in 2004, so he will run for reelection in 2010.

99% perspiration

by DaveOinSF on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:45:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 1)

I was talking POTUS....

I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!

by hootie4170 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:02:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 1)

You have to be kidding. Obama is wildly popular in Illinois.

If by some miracle he's not president I doubt the GOP would even bother running against him

by CaptMorgan on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:25:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 2)

Cardboard,

I was born & raised in PA.

Insensitive,racial remarks are not the exclusive property of right wing conservatives.

Obama made an insulting remark.

As a lifelong democrat, I am not going to look the other way just because Obama happens to call himself a democrat!

7 elected Puerto Rican, Dominican, & Mexican elected officials in Philadelphia & its suburbs are speaking out tomorrow night to condemn Barack Obama.

Two of the eight who were supporting Obama are switching to Hillary.

This may not be a big deal for you. Sorry it is for us.

Democrats should & will be joining hands with conservatives in condemning Obama.

He deserves everything coming to him.

Hillary should run ads like this until June.

Stop your excuses! Stop defending the insult.

by latinfighter on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:45:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (none / 0)

I'm from PA where were you raised?

I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!

by hootie4170 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:03:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 1)

Here's an idea: paragraphs. All the cool kids are doin' it.

Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.

by fogiv on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:40:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (none / 0)

Here's an idea for you: attack the message, not the messenger.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:42:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

pretty presumptive of you (2.00 / 1)

to call the campaign before its over. And I'd put HRC's chances higher than you do.

by 4justice on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:57:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Given that she has less than a 5% (none / 0)

chance of being the nominee... she should be a little hesitant to spread Right Wing Attacks against the presumptive Democratic Nominee. I think this will backfire after the debate Wen.

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:12:13 PM EST

Re: Given that she has less than a 5% (2.00 / 2)

Obama isn't the presumptive Democratic nominee.

and I don't see you that upset at Obama's shots at Hillary

by colebiancardi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:22:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is because I think the (1.00 / 1)

Clinton Campaign are little more than pest right now feeding off the party.

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:31:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is because I think the (2.00 / 2)

pest feeding off the party?

lol. I find Obama's campaign to be a pest, feeding off the party, as more democratic voters, not republicans or indies, voted for Hillary.

by colebiancardi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:49:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think it's fair and will be effective. (2.00 / 2)

by JimR on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:13:23 PM EST

Re: New Clinton ad about small town values and Oba (2.00 / 0)

The good Senator from New York crossed another line with this one. Good on you Senator, you're making us all proud.

_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents

by lizardbox on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:21:36 PM EST

Re: New Clinton ad about small town values and Oba (2.00 / 2)

I guess that memo from David Axelrod telling BO supporters to play up five comments made by the Clintons and then to suggest that these comments were racially insensitive was not crossing the line.

The sad thing this is about BO rules. That is BO and his campaign can say or make any smear against HRC that they want. But any criticism by HRC is wrong, over the line, she is not a democrat. What a bunch of nonsense. Right now BO looks like he got caught and he is acting like a little spoiled whinner.

david

by giusd on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:00:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Clinton ad about small town values (2.00 / 1)

i think its fair in the sense that its her money and she can spend it how she likes. but she took obamas central point which is a generally accepted claim and made what could be an ad by john mccain. if her reception at the Alliance For American Manufacturing forum is any indication, i dont think it will be effective. new gallop tacking poll still has obama with a 10 point lead.

by aaaa05 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:26:02 PM EST

Re: New Clinton ad about small town values (2.00 / 1)

Does that tin foil hat ever make your fillings hurt?

When you get into bed with evil incarnate, it always takes the covers.

by thatpurplestuff on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:38:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Clinton ad about small town values (none / 0)

But why weren't there any Clinton supporters there clapping for her?

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:32:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Clinton ad about small town values (none / 0)

Or is it, as NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports, per the Clinton campaign, an organized effort in the crowd by Obama's union (SEIU) supporters.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/04/14/888068.aspx

you forgot to mention it was per hrc's campaign....so the clinton campaign says that it was organized and i should believe them why?

by aaaa05 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:36:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

its fair, Obama is the one who messed up. (2.00 / 3)

politics baby, he used her Bosnia gaffe in his radio ad, saw no outrage over that! Effective? the voters will tell us!

DEMOCRATIC 08!

by rigsoHC on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:26:52 PM EST

Re: its fair, Obama is the one who messed up. (none / 0)

Two main differences.

Radio vs. TV

Bosnia was a BOLD-FACE lie.
Obama's words were not.

I predict a swarm of SDs....for Obama...soon.

We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)

by Newcomer on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:37:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its fair, Obama is the one who messed up. (2.00 / 2)

Then why is he saying he "misspoke"?

by ChitownDenny on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:40:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its fair, Obama is the one who messed up. (none / 0)

Actually he said he didn't chose the best words, but stands by the comments

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:42:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its fair, Obama is the one who messed up. (none / 0)

I think I just said potAYto and you're saying potAHto. They both "misspoke". Hillary's "misspeak" calls into question her truthiness; Barack's "misspeak call into question his opinion of white working class. You make a gaffe, you pay the price.

by ChitownDenny on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:50:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its fair, Obama is the one who messed up. (2.00 / 1)

No there is a big distinction, I hate comparisons like this... Obama said he did not use the best words, but stand by the idea in a statement on one occasion. He did not lie, he used poor words to surround the idea he was trying to convey. Like calling somebody "Fat" instead of "Chubby" they mean the same thing.

Hillary, on multiple occasions, said something that was flat not true. The idea was not true, the words were not true. If the Obama campaign held itself to the same low-bar of ethical standards as the Clinton Campaign we would have seen Bosnia Ads three weeks ago.

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:14:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its fair, Obama is the one who messed up. (none / 0)

If you want to call Bosniagate a lie, when Hillary calls it "misspeaking" and I call it an exaggeration, so be it. The voters will decide. But I think you are deluding yourself if think the comments about blue collar rural Americans being bitter, clinging to God, guns and antipathy toward people different from themselves are innocent misspeaking. Obama is referring to a segment of the population he can't penetrate in the Primary, probably won't be able to penetrate in the GE. This is the same segment of the population that Jeremiah Wright has attacked. It doesn't take a Republican Pol to connect the dots. And frankly, I think calling Barack's statements elitist is being generous. This is a gaffe that the voters will have to judge.

by ChitownDenny on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:15:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

meh, he misspoke and its been a bigger (2.00 / 1)

controversy so far than Bosnia in terms of media and such, so its not quite so harmless. many don't think it's true, thats why its a controversy!

I suspect SDs in red districts who once thought Obama was better, may actually be rethinking it....

DEMOCRATIC 08!

by rigsoHC on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:01:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I love the way my candidate charges into (2.00 / 2)

...big primaries and wins. She's tough, she's strong. She wins when the chips are down. It's simply a mystery that the netroots doesn't actually like a fighting Dem over a guy who wants to put aside partisan divides. It's also a puzzle that the netroots seems so utterly irrelevant to the 53% of Dems who keep voting for Clinton. But that's *okay*. The orange wreck list didn't make any sense during TX, and it won't start making sense now.

by Pacific John on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:27:38 PM EST

"Fighting" (2.00 / 0)

Like she fought NAFTA, welfare reform, and DOMA?

I admire Hillary's ability to fight for herself - the rest of us? Well, see above. Screwed, screwed, and screwed.

I'd rather not be the victim of her willingness to take the easy route to protect her political career again, thanks.

by Drew on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Fighting" (2.00 / 2)

Like BO sets and listens to 20 years of racist hate speach and thinks it is ok. And then makes excuses for hate speach. Sorry i forgot BO thinks were are rules and then different rules for BO.

david

by giusd on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:02:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Fighting" (2.00 / 1)

Seriously. Consider hitting the preview button before you post. Your comment doesn't make much sense.

Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.

by fogiv on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:49:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Fighting" (none / 0)

Had to troll rate for the personal attack on a contributor. Attack the message, not the messenger.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:49:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Fighting" (none / 0)

It's not an attack. It's a suggestion to read over what one intends to post to ensure that it's message might be clearly conveyed. Ham-fisted sentences that fail even in subject-predicate structure serve no purpose.

It's advice. TR if you must.

Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.

by fogiv on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:45:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hate Speech (none / 0)

For one, I think it's a stretch to consider Wright's speech to be hate speech.

But if I have to choose between hate speech and hate law like DOMA, and to an extent, welfare reform - well, I'll pick the former.

You, of course, may choose the latter.

by Drew on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:25:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hate Speech (2.00 / 1)

You need to shut your computer down if you can make this statement: "For one, I think it's a stretch to consider Wright's speech to be hate speech." That's just dumb!

by ChitownDenny on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:37:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's funny because Barack voted (2.00 / 1)

to extend NAFTA to Peru and he allowed his donors in the Crown Family to shut a Maytag plant in IL and never even bothered to ask them to keep the jobs. It was too much work for him to even speak up for workers in IL when he was busy counting campaign donations from the Crown Family

"Barack did the Constitution just like he did Hillary. He was riding dirty."

by LatinoVoter on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:10:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So your argument is (none / 0)

That Barack is as bad as Hillary. Which, granted, does appear to be her argument as well.

by Drew on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:23:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My argument is that Barack (none / 0)

is a hypocrite.

Hope I cleared that up for you.

"Barack did the Constitution just like he did Hillary. He was riding dirty."

by LatinoVoter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:04:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Prosperity" (none / 0)

For whom? For the workers who lost their jobs because of NAFTA? For the poor who were scapegoated for the sake of welfare reform? For the gay families who were scapegoated and deprived of their rights by DOMA?

Prosperity for you, perhaps.

Otherwise, "peace?" Yeah, like Clinton brought peace to Iraq.

by Drew on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:22:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I love the way my candidate charges into (none / 0)

Well, she writes off lots of states so that she can fight in a few large ones (where she already has political machines working in her favor). I don't know if a "selective fighter" is all that great.

by rfahey22 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:39:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dude! (2.00 / 1)

You have no idea what you are talking about. TX, where I volunteered, hardly has a machine for either candidate. Obama *does* have an excellent machine for caucuses, but Hillary is all about regular volunteers like me. (And CA, where I live, is has the polar opposite to a machine). The problem was that, as we know, Hillary expected to have the nomination in Feb., so had no organization in most caucus states. Less than a month later, there was a grassroots that won OH and TX. In the part of TX where I was, we took somewhere around 69% of the popular vote and 77% of caucus preference. Not bad for a volunteer organization less than a month old. Our machine is still just learning how to roll. But we'll be okay ;)

by Pacific John on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:01:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dude! (2.00 / 1)

You may have volunteered in TX, but I live here. The only parts of Texas where Clinton did well are precisely the parts of the state that have a strong machine. In the parts of the state that Obama won (the cities) there's not much of a machine; I know that's the opposite of a lot of places, but that's how this state works.

In smaller towns, and in some of the more Hispanic parts of the state (particularly El Paso) there's a very definite Democratic machine.

Some of the machine shenanigans pulled in San Antonio and El Paso may cost Clinton a delegate to Denver.

by Texas Gray Wolf on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow. (1.00 / 1)

I think its time for the gloves to come off. I would start running an add with a family tree of the Clinton campaign...signaling hires/fires, lobby firm ties and CAFTA, sprinkle in some hits on her money woes and loan...then I would move to Bosnia - use the JED Report - (with permission of course) - and then cut a NAFTA add.

Obama has tried to be a democrat through this process. Hillary deserves no respect from here on out.

We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)

by Newcomer on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:36:02 PM EST

Re: Wow. (2.00 / 3)

You live in a fantasy world. Obama went negative on Clinton long before the Iowa caucus. You just don't see it or hear it because you don't want to.

by dhonig on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:45:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow. (2.00 / 3)

Fine how about a HRC running an ad that starts off. BO belonged to Rev Wrights church for 20 years and give 10 to thousand of dollars to Rev Wright. Then zoom in with God damn america and some other white hate comments. I assume you think this is ok.

BO and his ilk have done nothing but smear my candidate.

david

by giusd on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:09:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow. (2.00 / 1)

I have no idea what you're talking about. You made a comment that was simply wrong- that Obama had not gone negative a long time ago- and I corrected it. Then you came on with an attack, deciding in the process to use my first name, not my blog ID (a blatant violation, BTW, of blog etiquette). You need to get yourself under control. Your love for your candidate has blinded you to reality.

by dhonig on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:47:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Clinton ad (2.00 / 2)

it's a fair ad, even though she will take abuse for running it.

It makes the 3am ad seem like "disneyland".....

by nikkid on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:36:57 PM EST

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

Would it be fare for Obama to run adds on

A. Columbia
B. Sniper-Gate
C. Nafta
D. Borat-Gate
ect?

by CardBoard on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:39:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Clinton ad (2.00 / 2)

If he wants to, but is that "new politics" or the "politics of hope?"

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:09:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by nikkid on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:53:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

absolutely.

It's totally fair.

But he might appear to be a hypocrite since he's running on a campaign of "hope" and changing Washington....

Hillary didn't box herself into that one.

Well... (none / 0)

...if the test of good or bad is effectiveness, then the answer is absent until we have more data as to how it plays. Me, I think she's making a mistake with this, but I'm not impartial. In a perfect world, this kind of Bushian positioning should blow up in her face.

In terms of messaging, it's a strategic blunder, and here's why: it reinforces republican frames that are going to be used against other Democrats. She's essentially running against the Progressive wing of the party with this, and that's already causing bad blood, and will cause more.

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:39:09 PM EST

Right-wing crap (none / 0)

Reminds me of the Club for Growth ad against Howard Dean.

Honestly. Take a step back. Would this influence your vote? I don't think so. I think the whole issue is ineffective but this is even more so. It seems like it was slapped together and ends very abruptly.

"The good people of Pennsylvania deserve better then what Barack Obama said"

That doesn't even make sense.

I don't know. I guess I'm biased but this just seems like something to play on the cable talk shows to keep the issue going.

"Live your beliefs and you can turn the world around." --Thoreau

by Populista on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:48:22 PM EST

Re: New Clinton ad about small town values and Oba (none / 0)

She is so terrible ... and stupid because she is overplaying her hand.
What is she thinking. Even if she manages the 1% chance to get the nomination SHE CAN'T PUT OBAMA ON THE TICKET by winning this way and without Obama, she loses the general because enough African Americans, young voters, liberal Dems and others will stay away, or be so pissed off that they will vote McCain.
This is stupid, stupid, stupid.
If she doesn't win the nomination - the likely outcome - and still continues to do this, she will go down as a real villain in Dem history.
Unbelievable.

A former hillary supporter.

by Cristalgirl on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:52:36 PM EST

Re: New Clinton ad about small town values and Oba (none / 0)

The ONLY good thing about this ad is it will burn people out on bittergate. By the time November comes around the Republicans will have nothing left to use against Barack-and, whatever they do try to use will have been so overplayed by Clinton and her surrogates that the effect will be all but gone. If you think about it and try really, really, really hard to find a silver lining for Clinton's unbecoming behavior, you might come away with a realization that everyday she is doing her part to turn Barack into the "teflon" man! Barack Obama, now NEW and IMPROVED. Sorry, I have to find some sort of humor in all of this or I'll start getting mad again...

A former hillary supporter.

by Cristalgirl on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:57:09 PM EST

It isn't one of her best, imo (2.00 / 1)

but we'll see if it has the desired effect.

by Coldblue on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:01:02 PM EST

Re: New Clinton ad (2.00 / 2)

Way to go Hillary! No-Bama 08 :)

Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008

by zcflint05 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:01:53 PM EST

Re: New Clinton ad about small town values and Oba (none / 0)

This ad is the lowest of the low.

by wasder on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:06:36 PM EST

Re: New Clinton ad about small town values and Oba (2.00 / 2)

Remember "Harry and Louise?"

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Clinton ad about small town values and Oba (none / 0)

I do. I also remember Obama's mailings, which were nothing like Harry and Louise, despite the best attempts of Clinton and her campaign to frame them that way.

If they were really all that outrageous, why didn't Clinton even object to them in the debate, after her "shame on you" outburst? Because she knows they were perfectly fair game and not at all a right-wing frame.

by Texas Gray Wolf on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:23:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't like it (2.00 / 2)

I'm a Clinton supporter but this ad smacks of opportunism. It seemed very negative.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:11:07 PM EST

Re: New Clinton ad (2.00 / 1)

The add is the highest of the high.

by Scotch on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:11:42 PM EST

by wasder on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:37:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As in somebody needed to be high to think that this is the kind of thing that Democratic party primary voters want to see. Maybe in a republican primary somewhere but not here.