home

Does This Ad Offend You?

By Big Tent Democrat

The Left blogs are in an uproar over this ad:

Not sure what offends in it. It raises a critical question for the Presidency. I think Obama has handled the ads better than the Left blogs: [More...]

Obama was not offended. He argued that the answer to the question was him - that is who you want answering the phone. Good for him.

Comments now closed, new thread on Hillary's ad is here.

< Why Polling TX And OH Is Difficult | Rockefeller Endorses Obama: Now About Telecom Immunity >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I was mildly amused (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:53:59 PM EST
    I mean, my god, this is child's play by Republican standards.

    Tylenol has been nastier about Bayer Aspirin!

    It is a legitimate question (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:55:24 PM EST
    even when the GOP asks the question.

    What is not legitmate is when you decide to argue Al Qaida is rooting for a candidate.

    2 different things.

    One is a key question., The other is McCarthyism.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, I thought you said it was good politics (none / 0) (#23)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:06:13 PM EST
    when Barack dissembled about Nafta. By that standard, isn't it good politics for Clinton to suggest that Al Qaida is 'rooting for Barack', as you suggest?

    [ Parent ]
    Different things (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:12:10 PM EST
    imo. A lie not directed at the patriotism of your opponent is not comparable to one directed at the patriotism of your opponent.

    [ Parent ]
    Barack Dissembled? Where's the proof? (none / 0) (#133)
    by AdrianLesher on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:02:04 PM EST
    All the Clinton people seem to be taking it as gospel that Obama lied about his Nafta intentions. Meanwhile, CTV now says that their source says he may have misunderstood Goolsbee, and no one has established that Goolsbee was speaking at the direction of the campaign. AND both Goolsbee and the Canadian government deny the allegations.

    [ Parent ]
    Adrian, you're not keeping up with the news (none / 0) (#159)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:20:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Wait (none / 0) (#252)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:37:04 PM EST
    has someone actually said Al Qaida is rooting for Barack???

    [ Parent ]
    The Grunts have been nastier (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:56:26 PM EST
    to the Zoomies :)  The Jarheads have been nastier to the President :)

    [ Parent ]
    I think it's a great ad. (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by vicsan on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:54:44 PM EST
    My answer is, I want Hillary answering the phone or her VP, Wes Clark.;)

    I'll get it, Bill. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:56:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Bill? Bill? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    It's 3:00AM, where the hell are you?! ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    why Wes why? (none / 0) (#57)
    by dwightkschrute on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:27:43 PM EST
    I've been a huge Clark backer for years. From the get go I was part of the push to draft him in 04. And then was very involved in his Presidential campaign. I've continued to support him and be involved in WesPac. But here's the thing that kills me. For all of us who put their heart and soul into his campaign there was one thing that always hurt and baffled us, Bill and Hillary Clinton's absolute apathy toward Clark's presidential run. They were virtually invisible and silent all through the primaries. No prominent stumping, fund raising, help, etc. And believe me, their support would have helped tremendously.

    Wes is a principled and loyal man, I understand why he continues to support the Clinton's. I'm just not sure I can ever accept how they could barely bother to lift a finger for someone who would do anything for them.

    [ Parent ]

    How could they actively campaign (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    for Clark when Gore was also running?

    [ Parent ]
    Umm huh? (none / 0) (#104)
    by dwightkschrute on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:45:16 PM EST
    Gore was nowhere to be found in 2004 when Clark was running. The field was Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clark, Lieberman, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn, please delete my comment! (none / 0) (#254)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:00:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Bill and Hillary were big supporters (none / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:47:25 PM EST
    of his candidacy.

    His non-Netroots fundraising came from their list.
    Weird comment from you.

    [ Parent ]

    He was also a Rhodes scholar (none / 0) (#123)
    by Chimster on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:56:52 PM EST
    gotta love that!

    [ Parent ]
    big supporters? (none / 0) (#197)
    by dwightkschrute on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:48:07 PM EST
    Neither Hillary nor Bill Clinton endorsed or made a public appearance for Clark. The campaign pleaded desperately for it from the Clinton's and it never came.

    [ Parent ]
    it's no scarier (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:55:22 PM EST
    than Obama telling people that they won't be able to pay their mortgage or feed their children if Clinton "makes" them pay for healthcare they can't afford.

    And about BO calling her "D-Punjab" (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:04:34 PM EST
    . . . I think Clinton could have done this sooner. His lack of experience in foreign affairs, his resistance to even call a single meeting of his Senate subcommittee on this crucial topic, leaves him wide open to this ad. He parried it, but I'm not sure he did so well; it sounds dismissive again -- and he can continue to be dismissive of Clinton, apparently, but it also sounds like dismissing concerns of voters on security issues.

    [ Parent ]
    Cream (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:16:12 PM EST
    there is a great clip going around about Obama missing these meetings (or, rather, not even calling them in the first place) because he was "busy" on the campaign trail (hey, Clinton has managed to introduce bills while she's out-but I digress)

    LINK at No Quarter.

    [ Parent ]

    Or (none / 0) (#121)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:54:01 PM EST
    It's going to be okay.  All you have to do is hope and believe we can. Go back to sleep.  I'll go to talk to them.


    [ Parent ]
    Funy to hear the campaign who said (none / 0) (#228)
    by LatinoVoter on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:36:43 PM EST
    there was nothing wrong with running the Harry & Louise style ad now complain about the daisy ad.

    LOL

    [ Parent ]

    agreed. (none / 0) (#230)
    by kangeroo on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:40:43 PM EST
    not to mention that locked-gate mailer about nafta.  talk about playing on working people's worst economic fears--and predicated on a lie, no less.

    [ Parent ]
    I am offended (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:55:39 PM EST
    that she didnt run it sooner

    ditto, much earlier (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:33:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I dont get it. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ajain on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:56:13 PM EST
    How is that ad fear-mongering?
    Where is the mushroom cloud?
    People just make a big deal out of nothing.

    Obama supporter's definition of (none / 0) (#180)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:35:49 PM EST
    fear mongering has come to include bizarre things, including the whole idea that saying "Barack Hussein Obama" is fear mongering.  Sad to say for these crazy Obama people who think so, IF Obama defeats everybody and becomes prez, that's the name they're going to be swearing in on Inauguration Day.

    [ Parent ]
    on one level (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:56:59 PM EST
    it could be fun to watch them find out what an "attack ad" is.


    I'd like to see follow-up ads from (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:18:54 PM EST
    both Barack and Senator Clinton. I'd like to hear what they each have to say when they answer the phone.

    If the White House phone were ringing late at night, I'm not sure that Barack wouldn't be AWOL.

    On the other hand, I 'feel' like a President Hillary Clinton would still be up, burning the night oil - like President Bill Clinton often was. The Clinton's are nothing, if not diligent and vigilant.  

    [ Parent ]

    Burning the midnight oil (none / 0) (#62)
    by obscure on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:30:18 PM EST
    Of course she would be. We all know that her pantsuits are actually a sophisticated cybernetic exoskeleton, pumping her full of crank so she can man the phones 24/7, while at the same time have complete world-wide surveillance shunted into her optic nerve, so nothing could get past her watchful eye.

    But of course it HAS to be the case that President Obama would have to be as lazy and shiftless as you suggest, cause he can't help but to be that way. Terra-ists be damned, I ain't answering that phone at 3am.

    [ Parent ]

    a fine example of race baiting (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by tree on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:34:52 PM EST
    No one claimed that Obama was "lazy and shiftless" but you. Peddle this cr*p somewhere else, will you?

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:42:58 PM EST
    If the White House phone were ringing late at night, I'm not sure that Barack wouldn't be AWOL.

    Sure sounds like FoxholeAtheist is suggesting that Obama would be, at best, sleeping on the job, and at worst an unpatriotic deserter.

    [ Parent ]

    can't speak for FHA (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by tree on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:53:05 PM EST
    But I'm sure he DIDN'T say

      "But of course it HAS to be the case that President Obama would have to be as lazy and shiftless as you suggest, cause he can't help but to be that way."

    Which would be a racist statement. But some people don't mind putting racist words in other people's mouth's.  Its called race-baiting.

    Are trying to defend it?

    [ Parent ]

    Obama Would Be AWOL (none / 0) (#129)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:58:40 PM EST
    During a national emergency at 3am?  What does that imply about Obama.  Lazy, shiftless seem like good starters for me.

    I am not sure why you would want to defend FHA's comment, unless you agree.

    [ Parent ]

    well-- (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:03:59 PM EST
    I'll defend it and add more: if Obama can't bring himself to convene hearings on his own committee, a committee that oversees an area of the world where our military men and women are actively engaged in war, then why would we expect him to pick up the phone at three am.

    Now, go ahead and spin that into some bass ackwards racist comment.  You are very good at dueling over semantics and charging people with being racist as a way of distracting from the real discussion.  I take some of the blame for falling into your trap in the past, but it ends here.  You are just ridiculous.

    [ Parent ]

    Real Discussion? (2.66 / 3) (#141)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:09:54 PM EST
    That is a laugh. There is no real discussion for you. All you have ever done here at TL is shill for Hillary. Almost 1600 comments in just over a month, all shilling for Hillary? I wouldn't be surprised if you are on her payroll.

    And I did vote for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    *ALERT: Squeaky, are you somehow (none / 0) (#196)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:47:34 PM EST
    equating "lazy" with being black. If so, your comments need to be deleted ASAP.

    [ Parent ]
    You Are Embarrassing Yourself (none / 0) (#202)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:52:26 PM EST
    Your comment was offensive and absurd, whether or not you were blowing your dogwhistle.

    [ Parent ]
    Right. (none / 0) (#143)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:10:00 PM EST
    So squeaky is ridiculous.

    But you are not ridiculous for suggesting that Obama would not answer the phone at 3AM in an emergency?

    [ Parent ]

    BUT... (none / 0) (#146)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:11:52 PM EST
    ... while I think the assertion that Obama wouldn't answer the phone is ridiculous, I also find squeaky's race baiting, that clearly did not exist in the comment, to also be offensive.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks (none / 0) (#153)
    by tree on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:16:54 PM EST
    for that, but also note that the original race-baiting remark was made by "obscure", not squeaky. Squeaky just defended it.

    [ Parent ]
    oops... (none / 0) (#163)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:22:18 PM EST
    ... let me rephrase that.

    obscure's race-bating remark was offensive, and squeaky's defense of the comment is ridiculous.

    [ Parent ]

    AWOL At 3AM (none / 0) (#173)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:28:12 PM EST
    During a national emergency? I found much of Obscure's comment silly but, the dog whistle part was right on.

    Others have called Obama lazy for voting present. Sorry I do not see what else AWOL at 3am could mean.

    [ Parent ]

    Race Baiting? (none / 0) (#158)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    Not me. Perhaps you were not following the thread.  I was agreeing with obscure's comment. I also found FHA's comment absurd and implying that Obama is lazy and would be busy sleeping rather than respond to a national emergency.

    [ Parent ]
    "Perhaps you were not ... (none / 0) (#181)
    by tree on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:35:54 PM EST
    following the thread." WTF????

    No, of course not, I was just waiting here for the cross-town bus. (snark, in case you can't tell)

    You responded to MY comment, or did you forget? FHA said he(she?) thought Obama might be AWOL for the call. I didn't presume to suggest what FHA meant by that, although his(her?) explanatory post was exactly along the lines that I supposed they would be.

    Obscure and then you were the only one's to inject "lazy and shiftless" into this discussion. Shame on you.

    [ Parent ]

    Not A Reponse To You (none / 0) (#194)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:46:16 PM EST
    That was a resonse to mindfullmission's comment. Maybe you need to adjust your preferences to threaded or something, so you can keep it straight.

    Obscure and then you were the only one's to inject "lazy and shiftless" into this discussion. Shame on you.

    My initial comment was a quote from obscure. Sorry to see that you are having so much trouble following the thread.


    [ Parent ]
    your initial comment was NOT (none / 0) (#205)
    by tree on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:56:39 PM EST
    a quote from obscure. It was you agreeing with obscure, after I called him out for rae-baiting. These were your words, not his(hers?)  

    "What does that imply about Obama.  Lazy, shiftless seem like good starters for me."

    Sorry you're having such a hard time remembering what you posted, or owning up to it.

    [ Parent ]

    Whatever You Say (none / 0) (#206)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:59:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    So apparently (none / 0) (#144)
    by tree on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:10:29 PM EST
    "lazy and shiftless" are some of the words YOU would apply. Then who is the one using racial stereotypes? YOU.

    [ Parent ]
    My comment #144 (none / 0) (#147)
    by tree on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:12:01 PM EST
    was intended for squeaky at #129. Sorry if there's any confusion about who I was referring to.

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#176)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:30:05 PM EST
    They were from obsure. But I agree that FHA was calling Obama lazy.

    [ Parent ]
    Your words (none / 0) (#187)
    by tree on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:39:08 PM EST
    "What does that imply about Obama.  Lazy, shiftless seem like good starters for me."

    You used both words.

    [ Parent ]

    squeaky, I said he would be AWOL per ususal. (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:15:13 PM EST
    ..."sleeping on the job" and "unpatriotic deserter" are your words. I don't foresee that he would be "sleeping the job", because he has a track record of not even showing up.

    [ Parent ]
    His Record (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:22:54 PM EST
    Is in no way unusual. Your AWOL  comment is absurd and offensive.

    [ Parent ]
    BS (none / 0) (#179)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    You said:

    If the White House phone were ringing late at night, I'm not sure that Barack wouldn't be AWOL.



    [ Parent ]
    obscure, way to go with race-baiting (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:07:58 PM EST
    Barack wouldn't be there to answer the proverbial late-night phone call in the same way he wasn't there to cast anything other than "present" on a slew of votes; in the same way he hasn't been present to call any meetings of the committees he chairs; in the same way he wasn't present at the Tavis Smiley black forum in New Orleans; in the same way that's he was entirely absent from the Senate until 2004; in the same way he's actually been absent from the Senate since 2004 in order to campaign for President. Do you think he's AWOL because he's black?  

    [ Parent ]
    You were certainly implying something (none / 0) (#190)
    by obscure on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    I'm not saying he'd be AWOL for any reason. I'm confident that he'd be there to pick up the phone and handle the situation competently. You appear to be saying that for whatever reason, he will not take the responsibility of being the President of the United States seriously, which is much more scurrilous than saying that you don't feel that he is qualified for the job.

    Lets posit for the time being that you weren't calling him lazy or shiftless. Perhaps you were calling him a coward, a neer-do-well, an idiot, or perhaps all you were saying is that he's a heavy sleeper. Either way, you were criticizing his character, rather than his ability. Your reply certainly backs up that theory.

    Speaking of spending time in the Senate, what exactly has Hillary done, other than play the fool with Lieberman and his video game obsession, her flag-burning amendment trivialities, or perhaps voting us into Iraq?

    [ Parent ]

    i don't see it in any of the (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by kangeroo on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:48:48 PM EST
    ways you see it.  i think you're projecting, big time.  i see all of the times obama's been awol--some of which foxholeatheist just listed--as his simply not giving a damn.  and that's not about race, as much as you might like it to be.  that's just about...well, not giving a damn.  some of us give a damn.

    [ Parent ]
    Obscure/Squeaky, you're digging yourself deeper. (none / 0) (#204)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:55:22 PM EST
    You're both in way over your heads...and now you are no longer visible to me at all.

    [ Parent ]
    AWOL ... (none / 0) (#217)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:17:29 PM EST
    would imply he was a coward.  Maybe you should have run with that rather than the tired "race-baiting" meme that no one buys anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    Now, should I be offended or not (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:03:48 PM EST
    when Jello Jay Rockefeller decides to endorse Obama?

    Mr. "Handwrite a strong letter of protest to Deadeye, then file it in a secret place"?

    His would be an endorsement I, were I a candidate, could do without.

    I'm waiting for the Lieberman endorsement....

    Meanwhile, McCaskill is (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:07:12 PM EST
    sponsoring a bill to make sure McCain, despite being born in Panama of U.S. citizen parents, qualifies to be President.

    Why the heck is shee, who endorsed Obama, sponsoring this bill?

    [ Parent ]

    feel the republican love (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:09:20 PM EST
    I live on the state line and many democrats in MO are pretty fed up with Claire

    [ Parent ]
    I saw the clip (none / 0) (#184)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:37:31 PM EST
    of her on Bill Maher and how she came to support Obama in the first place (great decision making by a Super D, BTW /snark).  If she were my Senator, I think I'd cry.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:11:09 PM EST
    that does not matter. He can be President without it.

    [ Parent ]
    Lieberman already endorsed (none / 0) (#30)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:09:48 PM EST
    Lieberman already endorsed.  He endorse John McCain a long time ago.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm expecting him to endorse a Dem, (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:26:27 PM EST
    too.  Just to keep that non-partisan, post-partisan odor flowing.

    After all, he's considered by most as Obama's mentor in the Senate and they are close.

    [ Parent ]

    Just posted aboiut it (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:10:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Jay Rockefeller and the 'red phone' (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by LadyDiofCT on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:08:24 PM EST
    Jay Rockefeller (let's give retro immunity to telecoms Jay) just endorsed Obama. His reason: because he had the judgement about Iraq before he was in the senate (but not afterword) and therefore would be ready by the 'red phone', a direct hit on Hillary's ad. Is this guy serious? The more ridiculousness I here from our so-called leadership, the more I understand why nothing has been accomplished on the war or anything else in this Congress. It has just dawned on me why they don't want Hillary in the White House. She may just start holding people accountable, calling hearings and calling for heads. And based on the positions taken by Sen. Rockefeller, he may not want any of his collusion and complicity in these debacles to be brought to anyone's attention. The democratic party is such a disappointment. It will be a long time if ever for this long time democrat to have any faith in this bunch of spineless do nothing blowhards! (Sorry, had to vent!) One more thing, I thought the super delegates were going to stay out of the primaries and let the voters decide. We pleaded with our senator, Dodd, to stay out until after the primaries, but No Way!! Yikes!

    Stuff is shaking out like crazy this weekend (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:17:25 PM EST
    between who is cosponsoring certain bills and who isn't.  I hope America is paying attention and I hope that it is reflected at the polls.  

    [ Parent ]
    Is it safe now for Richardson to (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:36:51 PM EST
    put a foot on the ground?

    [ Parent ]
    Probably not, IED's and stuff :) (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:47:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Haven't seen the ad and can't (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:17:14 PM EST
    from this location.  Did read about it and heard some of it on NPR.  Yes, I'm a Clinton supporter, but it got my attention; although national security is not my top issue, the question jolted me.  Don't like the thought of Obama in the driver's seat on national security.  

    The Obama NAFTA and health care mailers (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Manuel on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:25:26 PM EST
    also appealed to fear.  If anything, this add is tamer since it doesn't contain actual distortions.  To decry this ad while defending the mailers is inconsistent at best.

    the ad contains nothing at all (none / 0) (#65)
    by po on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:31:03 PM EST
    except fear.  and fear is about all we've been offered for the past 7 years.  

    [ Parent ]
    The ad raises a valid question (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Manuel on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:38:52 PM EST
    The mailers contained fear and distortions.

    [ Parent ]
    In the ad, is that a man or woman (none / 0) (#69)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:32:18 PM EST
    who comes into the kids room at the end?

    [ Parent ]
    New Ad (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by wasabi on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:31:40 PM EST
    Didn't offend me in the least.  I didn't conjure up mushroom clouds in my head when I heard it.  I just thought, yes, I'd prefer it be Hillary answering the phone.

    if not mushroom clouds (none / 0) (#79)
    by po on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:35:53 PM EST
    what did you conjure up when you saw the ads?  the WTC falling?  A USS Cole bombing?  Or a courtesy call from one of those world leaders she's met on her many travels calling to tell her they're coming into town the next day and asking her if she's got room on her lunch schedule.  

    The ad was intended to play to fear.  No amount of spin will change that. No even the absence of a daisy or a mushroom cloud.

    [ Parent ]

    Po, You're right and it works overtime. (none / 0) (#90)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:38:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Highly Amused By The Uproar (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:43:15 PM EST
    I agree Obama's response is much better than the blogs.  What has amused me about all the handwringing over this ad by so many Very Important Bloggers (and their readers) is not only what you said, BTD, which is since when is this not a legitimate standard to hold a presidential candidate to?  Surely, that's kind of a basic qualification for President, for Dems and Reps - that you're qualified to take those late night calls.

    But my other reaction has been to the idea that Clinton shouldn't do this because McCain will.  WTF?  First of all, McCain won't be this kind. Clinton's ad doesn't specifically say that Obama is unqualified to take those calls, only that she is.  That Obama isn't is, admittedly, implied.  But it won't just be implied in McCain's ads.  And, second, if Obama's campaign craters over this mild of an ad, he's dead meat in November and so Clinton would be doing the Democratic party a tremendous favor by showing that now.

    I cannot help but note that experience is usually a very important qualification for president, even among democrats.  It was one of the reasons why Kerry got the nomination last time.  It's funny that the one year so many Very Important Bloggers have decided that it's inappropriate to talk about experience is the year the woman is the one who has it.  Because nothing reminds me so much of my every day life as seeing youngish cool guys given the nod over more experienced women because suddenly expierence, the criteria used to previously deny the women the jobs, doesn't matter any more.  It's just odd how it always seems to work out that way.  A coincidence, I'm sure.  

    Finally, I also always suspect that whenever the Obama folks scream about the unfairness of a criticism, it indicates the criticism scares the hell out of them.  If they weren't worried this ad will be effective, they would be laughing it off instead of screaming about how unfair it is.

    Now if only they were screaming this loudly about Obama's lies about Clinton's NAFTA position and his apparent lies about his own intentions.  I agree that's politics as usual, but folks who really cared about policy would care about the candidates' positions on NAFTA.

    BDB, you rock (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:49:50 PM EST
       "It's funny that the one year so many Very Important Bloggers have decided that it's inappropriate to talk about experience is the year the woman is the one who has it. "

    I knew I was missing something.

    Re the ad:  I see it as just a reminder of the situation we're in.  It's mild.
    As BDB says, if the Leftie blogs are freaking out over this, they've got a long tough road to November.

    [ Parent ]

    In my opinion this is the only (none / 0) (#120)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:54:00 PM EST
    truly effective ad the Clinton campaign has ever done. It's a velvet hammer version of something Frank Luntz would dream up.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#134)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:02:13 PM EST
    Watching this made me realize how easy Clinton has gone on Obama and how very different the GE campaign will look.  

    [ Parent ]
    Between (none / 0) (#148)
    by americanincanada on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:13:02 PM EST
    this ad and the NAFTA/phone call dustup you would swear the world eas imploding by the response from Obama fans.

    Yikes...if he can't answer and handle thses few things it's goig to be President McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    The irony is that (none / 0) (#175)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:29:41 PM EST
    the bloggers you reference are employing the same type of knee-jerk emotional response for which they criticize the GOP (and now Clinton).

    First we had fear-mongers. Now we have hope-mongers, who god forbid you question their hope, do the political equivalent of an angry child screaming, "I don't want your candy, you are not my mommy, and I don't want to get in that van!"

    Please, can I just get a realism-monger?

    [ Parent ]

    The problem is (none / 0) (#203)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:53:35 PM EST
    that many of don't consider Hillary's "experience" legitimate.  You can only consider her an "experienced" candidate if you assume her time as first lady counts.  For many of us that is not impressive.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary's experience (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by cmugirl on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:04:58 PM EST
    I guess I feel more comforted by the fact that she won't take a week trying to figure out where her office is and how the phone system works and can actually start doing something (yes, on "Day One") (thank you, West Wing).

    I also think people are deluding themselves if they think she didn't have policy ideas bounced off her - you can argue she wasn't elected to the position, but then neither were the millions of presidential advisors there have been over the years.

    While I think her experience in the WH (besides the numerous other things she's done) is much more than an "internship" or "apprenticeship", how many people have HAD internships and then put it on their resume?  You really DO get experience from being able to observe how things operate and how things get done.  That experience can't be replicated by sitting in a state legislature.  She has experience that is unique to other presidential candidates in history (I would say GWB had the chance to have this experience, but I don't think he was paying attention).

    [ Parent ]

    okay, but hillary as first lady was more (5.00 / 1) (#251)
    by kangeroo on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:35:20 PM EST
    involved in substantive policy matters than any other first lady in our history.  this is a fact that used to be acknowledged by the press, although conveniently ignored in time for this election, of course.  if the press hadn't been obsessing for 8 years about her hair and blasting her for not being "feminine" enough, i can assure you we would have seen a lot more of her on a range of issues.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, not impressive at all (5.00 / 1) (#256)
    by joc on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:00:36 PM EST
    Here's a few highlights of her 'unimpressive' career before she joined the Senate:

    1970 - awarded grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, researching migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education.

    1972 - worked on McGovern campaign in Texas, registering latino voters (among other things)

    After graduating from law school, she did a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.  Her first scholarly paper, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973 and became frequently cited in the field.  During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children.

    1974 - worked on the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.

    1977 - joined Rose Law Firm, specializing in patent infringement and intellectual property law while also working pro bono in child advocacy.

    1977 - She co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund.

    1977, President Jimmy Carter appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation, and she served in that capacity from 1978 through the end of 1981. For much of that time she served as the chair of that board, the first woman to do so. During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million and she successfully battled against President Ronald Reagan's initial attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization.

    1978 - First Lady of Arkansas, appointed chair of Rural Health Advisory Committee, where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.

    1982-92 Chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992,[80] where she sought to bring about reform in the state's court-sanctioned public education system. One of the most important initiatives of the entire Clinton governorship, she fought a prolonged but ultimately successful battle against the Arkansas Education Association to put mandatory teacher testing as well as state standards for curriculum and classroom size in place. She introduced Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth in 1985, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.

    From 1987 to 1991 she chaired the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, which addressed gender bias in the law profession and induced the association to adopt measures to combat it.

    Clinton has served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services (1988-1992) and the Children's Defense Fund (as chair, 1986-1992).

    As First Lady:
        -She chaired the of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform,
        -Along with Senator Ted Kennedy, she was the major force behind SCHIP.
        -She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare.
        -She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.
        -She worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome.
        -Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.
        -She initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.
        -She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.

    [ Parent ]

    I undestand that flyerhawk (none / 0) (#209)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:00:34 PM EST
    and that's cool by me.


    [ Parent ]
    Do any of the candidates (none / 0) (#213)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:05:24 PM EST
    legit "experience?"

    [ Parent ]
    Offended? (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:21:31 PM EST
    Hell no....what offends me is that the citizenry let's freakin' tv commercials influence their decision.  You're not buying laundry detergent, you're picking a leader for crying out loud.

    join the club. (none / 0) (#240)
    by kangeroo on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:02:12 PM EST
    it bothers me too that the most viewed commercial of obama's on youtube is the epitome of effective marketing at its deceptive and manipulative worst (not to mention an apple ripoff).  smart and unscrupulous advertising, just like the rest of obama's campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Jor-- (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by NJDem on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:33:59 PM EST
    you do know that BO has spent more on pollsters than HRC, right?  I don't like Penn either, but facts are facts.

    Besides, (none / 0) (#247)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:20:35 PM EST
    I'd rather a poll to find out what the electorate thought rather than a quick text to Deval Patrick for his thoughts.

    [ Parent ]
    The Ad Isn't Offensive (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by kaleidescope on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:49:30 PM EST
    It just isn't very effective.  The Obama campaign's come back -- that HRC's "red phone moment" came in 2002 and she blew it -- could've been seen coming in the instant the ad was conceived.  It was a fairly devastating come back, I thought.

    Also, I agree with Atrios.  There should've been some wolves.

    Obama's answer ... (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:06:43 PM EST
    When they call, I'll refer them to a speech I made six years ago.

    Or maybe a speech Deval Patrick made two years ago.

    Is this his answer for everything?

    I gave a speech, I'm brilliant, vote for me.


    Even better (none / 0) (#220)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:23:00 PM EST
    with his real response ad  (see link below), it's "I'll take a nice chunk from Hillary's ad and tack on my own stuff."

    [ Parent ]
    He just has no shame ... (none / 0) (#227)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:34:32 PM EST
    about being the plagiarism candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Offended/Not Offended (4.66 / 3) (#34)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:11:06 PM EST
    As a progressive I'm offended by this ad.

    As a Democrat, I'm really happy to see this ad, because Obama has to deal with these questions.

    And "me" doesn't cut it.

    What about it as a progressive (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:13:24 PM EST
    offends you? The raising of the question? the President IS the Commander in Chief. Why does that offend you?

    [ Parent ]
    as a progressive... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:37:33 PM EST
    ... I don't like using raw, naked fear as a political weapon.  As a progressive I object when the GOP does it, and I'm not going to be hypocritical and say "its okay when the person I support does it."

    As a Democrat who doesn't want the party saddled with a nominee that is going to be extremely vulnerable to this kind of ad if he becomes the presumptive nominee, I see why its necessary.

    [ Parent ]

    aspects of the Presidency? Frankly,. I think Left blog outrage is due to the fact that the issue has cut against Dems because they cower in their boots over it.

    Obama provides a lesson in how to deal with it - embrace the question.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, the 'left' blogs are having a hissy fit (none / 0) (#157)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:18:37 PM EST
    because, for once, Senator Clinton has made an ad that works as well as some Republican ads do.

    [ Parent ]
    not embraced (none / 0) (#164)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:22:34 PM EST
    BT, Obama didn't embrace the question -- he rejected the question, and said 'here's a better question'.

    And quite frankly, I think that Freedom Watch will have no problem raising questions about Obama's judgement.  (even using that clip... "Senator Obama doesn't want to discuss his lack of experience to lead this country, he wants to make it all about 'judgement'. So lets look at his judgement...[usual distortions that are just true enough])

    [ Parent ]

    The ad is great (4.60 / 5) (#117)
    by Lena on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:52:50 PM EST
    because it makes you think of Obama sitting there answering the phone instead of HRC. And the internal comparison of those 2 images is much to Obama's detriment. Somehow the non-confrontational, inspirational, compromising style of Obama doesn't exactly evoke confidence in his national security credentials.

    And I suppose if the lefty internet (i.e. Obama supporters) are angry about this ad, then it's probably working.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#124)
    by po on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:57:23 PM EST
    The only way you can run effective US foreign policy is if you use a big stick constantly?  Let's just elect McCain then.  

    If HRC's WH phone is ringing at 3 in the morning it's not because some world leader or terrorist is calling to tell her in 15 minutes we nuke you.  Rather, it's some person paid to answer the phones at that time of night interrupting her sleep or whatever she's doing at that moment to say, hey, we've got an issue, the national security council has been called and there will be a meeting at 3:15, come on down.  The idea that she's going to fight on the phone to protect the US is laughable, but then so is the ad.

    [ Parent ]

    obama equivocates on everything. (none / 0) (#234)
    by kangeroo on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:57:14 PM EST
    that's what makes me wary about him, whether the topic is national security or domestic issues.

    [ Parent ]
    exactly! (none / 0) (#241)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:03:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah and at 3:00 in the morning... (none / 0) (#255)
    by Drew on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:00:24 PM EST
    he wouldn't have Hillary there to field the first question.

    [ Parent ]
    As soon as he mentioned exercise judgment (3.66 / 3) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:55:56 PM EST
    he made me think of Rezco.

    It made me think of Hillary's vote for the war (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:08:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]


    [ Parent ]
    In the words of a brilliant politician... (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by dwightkschrute on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:51:24 PM EST
    "If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."


    I reject your premise (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:53:55 PM EST
    Dwemocrats have been sacred to debate national securtity so they have always whined about nationa security ads. IT was nonsense then and it is nonsesne now.

    Take on the question.

    This is a good moment for Obama. He took on the issue instead of shrieking in outrage.

    The Left blogs have acted like fools on this forever.

    [ Parent ]

    Its not his Premise (none / 0) (#38)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:13:43 PM EST
    While agree its good to see Barack has answer for an ad that Mccain can basically run after redoing the last 5 seconds, the quote was from Bill Clinton less than 4 years ago I believe.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton's quote (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    is not about THIS AD, as you yourself admit. I reject