Hillary on Daily Show Monday, Releases Tough New Ad

Hillary Clinton will be on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart Monday, March 3, at 11PM ET. Here's the press release.

And check out her new ad on national security that began airing in Texas today. Big Tent Democrat wrote it up earlier but comments came in so fast, the thread had to close early. Here's a place to continue the discussion.

The ad says:

Itís 3am and your children are safe and asleep

But thereís a phone in the White House and itís ringing. Somethingís happening in the world

Your vote will decide who answers that call.

Whether itís someone who already knows the worldís leaders, knows the military - someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.

Itís 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?

< Rockefeller Endorses Obama: Now About Telecom Immunity | Delegate Narratives >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    NO!!! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:54:28 PM EST
    See subject line.

    I can't believe it!

    God, she is not afraid of anybody, is she?  I thought Tavis Smiley was brave.

    Man, I love this lady.

    I agree, she is fearless (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by stillife on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:24:11 PM EST
    A friend just e-mailed me about this, after I had e-mailed her complaining about the bias on TDS.  I had just finished watching Wednesday's show which featured Jon mocking Hillary for complaining about media bias, with not a word about the inane questions lobbed at Obama.  I said I was through watching TDS, but I'll have to tune in for this!

    I hope she (none / 0) (#32)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:28:10 PM EST
    verbally spanks the cr@p out of him.  I can't watch TDS anymore with its bias, but I'll sure tune into this one.

    Neither can I (none / 0) (#35)
    by stillife on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:31:11 PM EST
    My daughter, who is not quite as partisan as I am, refuses to watch TDS with me anymore because I keep interrupting with expletives.  ;)

    And yes, I hope she gives him h***.


    Press Release (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by KevinMc on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:55:45 PM EST
    Press release says Monday March 03, 2008.

    Thanks, the email I got was wrong (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:04:47 PM EST
    I've fixed it now in the title and the post itself. You guys are quick!

    May we anticipate Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:21:28 PM EST
    and BTD live-blogging The Daily Show?

    With her sense of humor this should be great..... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:56:49 PM EST
    Knowing her, she will give as good as she gets....

    It's not THAT easy.... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:04:08 PM EST
    depends on whether or not he wants to make trouble for her.  Remember the inteview with Tweety re his new book?  He's an on-camera pro, but was blindsided and crushed by the onslaught.

    Hope Hillary gets a rehearsal over the weekend with some wacky staffer or friend...maybe Carville...another fast talker.


    omigod (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:14:42 PM EST
    that Tweety interview was freakin' hilarious!  He kept screeching about how "this is the worst interview I've ever had!" and all I could think was, "Best. Interview. Ever."   Remember when Rather thumped Stewart over it the next night, though?  You don't attack your own, I guess.  Right up there with Barbara Walters taking up for Shuster.

    Have you seen HRC on Letterman?  She's got some funny stuff, and she really knows how to let folks know she's in on the joke.

    I was so disappointed when Stewart waxed nostalgic about his "dream" of Obama and McCain conducting a civilized and gentlemanly campaign that would be a pabulum for our nation.  Apparently, just recently, Stewart made a joke on Larry King about how "Obama cured my leprosy," so maybe he's regurgitated a bit of the kool-aid.  I hope he redeems himself.


    nope (none / 0) (#105)
    by Nasarius on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:53:19 PM EST
    He reiterated his love for Obama/McCain to Madeleine Albright a couple days ago. Unfortunately, she didn't use the opportunity to take a swing at McCain, other than noting that she was a Democrat and would of course support the nominee. Somebody needs to, before TDS viewers get the idea that McCain is a decent person.

    And if you've seen one of his standup gigs, Jon really does buy into High Broder/Obama-ism.


    That Ad is terrible (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:01:58 PM EST
    I'm appalled and offended. John McCain would NEVER run an ad like that. [/snicker]

    Can't wait to see her on Daily Show, for better or worse. Has Obama shown up on the Daily Show yet, or is he waiting for the GE to do that?

    Oh I'm sure he'll be on next. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:04:17 PM EST
    "I agree with Hillary on that."

    yea he was on... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by americanincanada on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:05:24 PM EST
    Jon has had a bit of koolaide. It was a vomit inducing show when Obama was on. Mostly stump speech.

    But Jon is always great with Bill and I can't wait to see Hillary. She has a great sense of humor, it should be good.


    Hillary expands on the 3am Ad (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:08:56 PM EST
    in an appearance to day in Waco, TX


    The guys behind don't seem to be frightened by the ad.

    Obama's Abdication: What Judgment? (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:15:11 PM EST
    Where is Obama's judgment when he blows off his subcomittee chairmanship and ignores issues under its jurisdiction, i.e., NATO in Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc.?

    He doesn't respond to crisis when it's right under his jurisdiction NOW.


    if i lived in one of the buildings (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:21:31 PM EST
    in chicago that had no heat in obama's district that obama's supporter owned, i wouldn't be too sure obama would be there for me. in fact, i am not too sure obama is there for me now.

    "Answer the Phone" (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:22:56 PM EST
    If I was Hillary, I'd run an ad that says "Answer the Phone" and call Obama to task for abandoning his subcommittee work (which deals with national security issues) to run for President.

    Athena, send that idea to Clinton's website (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:00:32 PM EST
    Yes, I Will (3.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:07:04 PM EST
    I sent it to the blog; also posted it on the Daily Frat:

    I can really see how infested DK is now - there was a panicked attempt to annihilate the diary I wrote on this just now.  The site is completely degenerate.


    Athena, you've cheered me up (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:18:43 PM EST
    Hostile Territory (none / 0) (#151)
    by Athena on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:32:42 PM EST
    Yes, I just went to war over at DK - and have the scars to show for it.  But I'm still standing.

    Athena, another ad riff idea (none / 0) (#165)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:03:52 PM EST
    What about a version of that same Clinton ad with an ending where Obama picks up the phone.

    The script writes itself. Oh please, can't some YouTuber do it for us.

    Obama picks up the phone and says: "bone headed judgment...hope...change...yes we can...just words".


    A fellow traveller says hi!! (none / 0) (#181)
    by ghost2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:53:43 AM EST
    you are great.  Those guys are idiots, most of the front pagers are included in that description (exceptions: plutonium page, brownsox, and maybe one more that I have forgotten).

    Back at You (none / 0) (#187)
    by Athena on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:24:25 PM EST
    Hey to you too.  Glad to find other refugees over here.

    Ooo, that's be a good one. (none / 0) (#34)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:30:45 PM EST

    Actually, anyone can make that ad.  Just point a camera towards an unoccupied desk with his name and title on it and have the phone ring...and ring....and ring....

    BrandingIron too, send your idea to Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:12:16 PM EST
    I teach Visual Communications, not a point that might be of much consequence. But, your ideas have  great potential, vis a vis building on the success of the current ad - funny as well - which can be even more effective than fear.

    Crisis (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by 0 politico on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:05:05 PM EST
    But, he was job searching!

    Surely, if he were on Oprah's staff, she would applaud his initiative.

    Then, she would fire him.


    Love the line ... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:24:11 PM EST
    "I don't think people in Texas scare all that easily"

    Hope that gets played on local news in Texas.


    I say (none / 0) (#133)
    by tek on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:25:08 PM EST
    if Obama can lie to the American people, Hillary can scare them!

    They also don't (none / 0) (#170)
    by Foxx on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:55:54 PM EST
    seem real happy to be there.

    I like Obama (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:11:01 PM EST
    I really do, but you know she's right; I'd rather have her answering the phone when something happens in the world. The blogosphere is all crazy about this ad, but I actually think it's good.  Nothing more powerful than the image of moms and dads wanting to protect their kids. I trust she more prepared, but I really do like Obama...

    Are you one of those (none / 0) (#37)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:32:17 PM EST
    "I think she's more prepared for the job, but I'm still voting for Obama!" people?

    no (none / 0) (#61)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:55:25 PM EST
    Just recognizing Obama's likability.

    Lil, what qualities of Obama's do (none / 0) (#131)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:18:36 PM EST
    you find most likable? I mean that to be conversational not confrontational. I would appreciate hearing about it from the perspective of a Clinton supporter.

    Hello Foxhole (none / 0) (#149)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:29:08 PM EST
    I think he's smart, smooth, doesn't rattle easily.  He can take a punch. He fights back without coming off obnoxious.  He fights back period, something Kerry and Gore didn't do so well. He's very cool.  He's a Democrat and I agree with most of what he says and his Dem values and I think he'd represents Democrats well. And his speeches are inspiring.

    I do worry that he has managed to hide his slick political side and is probably a lot more cut throat than his affable appearance. I also think he's a little young and doesn't know what he doesn't know yet (I'm 48 myself)> I think if he gets the nomination the Republicans are going to cut him up, so I worry about electability. I also worry that he will capitulate to the right. His fondness for reaching out to Republicans scares me, as my belief is that usually bipartisanship means doing what the Republicans want.

    I am completely dismayed by Dems so easily attacking the guy or gal they don't want to see win. I think that gives way to much fodder to the right wing when this is settled.  Plus a lot of people are going to have to eat crow and get behind their second choice if we want a win in Nov. which is the most important thing to me.

    Thanks for being interested in my opinion. What's yours?


    So that she can poll the Republicans? (none / 0) (#155)
    by sphealey on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:41:51 PM EST
    > I really do, but you know she's right;
    > I'd rather have her answering the phone
    > when something happens in the world.

    So that she can poll Republicans about what to do before making a "decision"?  Sort of what she did with the Iraq vote? It was crystal clear to me (and I said so in a letter to my Senators at the time) that there was no justification for an unprovoked attack on Iraq.  Senator Clinton took counsel not only of her own fears but of Republican (that is, the party of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney) fears and voted for war.  That was good judgment?  Do tell.



    Did you support Kerry? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:55:43 PM EST
    As a non supporter of the war, I think this idea that voting for authorization for the war was the same as saying do it is nonsense. I could be wrong, but I don't think lots of folks who voted expected this administration could be so evil...and stupid at the same time.  And I'd take her or Obama in that order anyday over anyone the right would put up.  I'm a partisan Dem. And I'm proud of it.  I used to think we should try to all get along until I realized that basically means do what the Republicans want.  Also, It has not been clear to me that Obama has done much different in terms of decision making, since he didn't have a chance to vote. I think she is more knowlegable and will give her some credit for a the learning curve, which he hasn't had the opportunity to achieve yet. Obama doesn't know what he doesn't know. Or something like that...it's getting late.

    Judgement (none / 0) (#182)
    by sphealey on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:28:53 AM EST
    > but I don't think lots of folks who voted
    > expected this administration could be so evil...

    Except that there were people who were saying exactly that, and also pointing to the heavy PNAC influence in the Bush Administration and the general incompetence already on display by that time.  As Duncan Black has documented those people were not only marginalized and ignored but ridiculed and accused of treason.  Turns out that they were right - and that Senator Clinton listened to the wrong people.  In fact Senator Clinton took counsel of the fears of the Radical Right and the PNACers, which to me shows very bad judgment.



    Senator Obama's campaign has their own (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:15:13 PM EST
    It's a response to this, and it's already running in Texas.

    Personally, I disapprove of both: they're too close to the fear-mongering that I'd prefer to see remain the exclusive province of the GOP. (In part because I find it exasperatingly silly, and in part because I think we can run against it.)

    But it's worth noting that the speed of the response indicates something: the people running that campaign have clearly learned from prior ones, such as Kerry 2004, and are more than ready for the kind of attacks they may face during the general election campaign.  It will not be easy for the GOP to swiftboat this time around. When this becomes a combined effort, the nominee would be wise to take advantage of that expertise.

    It helps to have a money advantage... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:17:16 PM EST
    ..as the Dems do this year.

    The DEFINITION of AWOL (none / 0) (#31)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:25:45 PM EST
    For the record, in reference to my post on the prior thread about the new Clinton ad...

    AWOL means: Absent from one's post but without intent to desert.
    (It's an acronym for absent without leave.)

    Maybe Obscure and Squeaky would like to apologize to Mr. Obama for all the terrible assumptions they made about him when I used this word to describe Mr. Obama's abdication of various responsibilities.

    Now, I am going AWOL for awhile: which doesn't mean that I'm going to be "lazy" or "shiftless" as Squeaky and Obscure previously suggested in relation to Mr. Obama.


    In response: (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:32:53 PM EST
    * * * * * *

    Aha! AWOL means absent without leave ... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by cymro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:46:46 PM EST
    ... who knew! Thanks for explaining that.

    actually it means (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:40:47 PM EST
    Absent Without Official Leave

    I think you mean (none / 0) (#150)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:29:18 PM EST
    Absent without (official) leave. Meaning that, the word "official" is presumed to be implicit.

    That's all.


    no that is not what I mean (none / 0) (#153)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:38:48 PM EST
    Tano, You're all wrong, but that's alright (none / 0) (#167)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:14:23 PM EST

    Cymro, re. AWOL (none / 0) (#113)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:30:41 PM EST
    It's a long story that carried over from a prior thread today where a couple of people were insisting that a reference to Obama being "AWOL" was somehow racist and equivalent to calling him:
    "a deserter...unpatriotic..cowardly..lazy... shiftless" etc.

    Ergo, the apparent need to to point out the actual definition of AWOL: absent from one's post without intent to desert.

    I included the more self-evident definition (absent without leave) to pre-empt any ensuing snark.



    Apologize? (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:31:24 PM EST
    You are the one who said that Obama would not answer the phone at 3AM in response to a national emergency. Because he would be AWOL. That is absurd.

    Utter and Total BS (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:45:53 PM EST
    Hillary and Obama's record is almost identical. FHA just repeated HRC talking points.

    And to equate voting present to a bill that had no chance of ever becoming law to being AWOL during a national emergency is beyond silly.


    Can you ask FoxholeAtheist to explain ... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by cymro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:52:23 PM EST
    ... what BS means?

    Lord help us - never thought I'd say that (none / 0) (#120)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:48:00 PM EST
    Sarcasm alert! Actually, ... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by cymro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:16:32 PM EST
    ... I was not questioning Squeaky's comment. I was giving FoxholeAtheist -- who thought we needed to be told the definition of AWOL -- another opportunity to educate us.

    just so you know the backstory... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by tree on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:30:34 PM EST
    on "AWOL-gate".

    FHA said that he(she?) worried that Obama might be AWOL for that 3am call(re the ad). A poster named "obscure" claimed, and Squeaky echoed the claim, that FHA had implied that Obama was "lazy and shiftless". A few of us called them for shameless race-baiting. I don't think either one of them(O or S) quite know how to gracefully admit they were wrong.

     That's why FHA is giving a definition of AWOL.


    Thanks Tree - I intend no snark/condescension (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:45:05 PM EST

    Cymro I wasn't underestimating you (none / 0) (#115)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:33:36 PM EST
    NIce Try (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:10:46 PM EST
    A metaphor?  Backpeddling out of the kitchen, are you?

    CIC AWOL during a national emergency. Some metaphor.


    Just A Joke (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:41:35 PM EST
    Hahahaha. You all are like cultists, not much different from Obamamaniacs.

    No kidding (none / 0) (#143)
    by obscure on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:53:04 PM EST
    Would I like to apologize? No, I don't think so. I understand what AWOL means, and I think that to use it the way you did was insulting. If I remember correctly, AWOL isn't a term that is used lightly, it's a serious offense.

    Your comment was offensive because you're saying that Obama is a bad person who would take his oath of office lightly. That's very different from arguing your opinion of his abilities to handle difficult situations.

    As for the race-baiting charge, your original message didn't explain why you thought he'd be AWOL, and it is not unreasonable to see it as your calling him lazy or shiftless. Now since you've clarified your position, I apologize for my interpretation of your comment.


    A few reasons why the ad is dumb (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:43:54 PM EST
    First, it makes me think of what Hillary did when she had to make a big decision on national security, she voted for the war in Iraq.

    Second, it leads to a question they apparently cant' answer:

    "What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?" he said.

    Silence on the call. You could've knit a sweater in the time it took the usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein, Clinton's national security director, to find a cogent answer. And what they came up with was weak -- that she's been endorsed by many high ranking members of the uniformed military.

    From hotline (which has the audio)

    Third, she just finished accusing Obama of Rovian tactics and does something that looks just like a Rove ad. No substance, just try to make people afraid.  I seriously doubt this is going to work on democrats.  I assume everyone has seen enough of this from Bush to see right through it.

    It clearly pleases those who already like her but who else does it get her.

    (The idea that it is offensive strikes me as silly, its just not very good, but she is clearly desperate.)

    People need to stop parroting (4.33 / 3) (#76)
    by mg7505 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:07:25 PM EST
    the Obama line about 'judgment' and 'the decision she made about Iraq.' That strikes me as code word for 'Barack is smarter than Hillary,' and potentially a sexist undertone to the tune of 'women's judgment periodically fails, men are more rational' etc etc. It's sickening to hear Obama talk about 'judgment' all the time, when he and Hillary have voted the same way in the Senate on national security issues.

    Hillary may or may not have been tested on a specific national security crisis; few Senators have, besides McCain. But she has traveled far more widely and, as the ad says, actually knows world leaders. If you think national security threats are as simple as casting a vote, think again; more often than not they're about diplomacy with people whom you need to know really well. The last thing we need is someone with practically no foreign policy or diplomacy credentials to back up his rhetoric. Moreover, military endorsements do matter because they are probably more qualified than us civilians to judge who's better able to handle a national security crisis.

    Clinton has shown she's a hard worker; she even put a bill on the floor last year while on the campaign trail, during the same time that Obama couldn't hold a single meeting of the committee he decided to chair. If someone's going to be up at 3 am, it's Hillary Clinton.

    If you really want someone with the experience and testedness (not to mention testosterone) on foreign policy, vote McCain. Otherwise stick with Hillary; at least she's been on the Foreign Relations Council and showed up, for what that's worth.


    What makes me giggle... (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:15:50 PM EST
    Is that Obama has accepted the endorsement of Senator Kerry and Senator Dodd, as well as others I'm sure, who voted the same way as Hillary on the Iraq War Resolution.  Shouldn't he be questioning the judgment of those who have endorsed him and voted for the war?  I mean, if a vote for the war is such a failure in judgment, then I should assume Kerry and Dodd have terrible judgment and use that as a reason to NOT vote for Obama.

    Not to mention, Daschle. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:18:16 PM EST
    And people complain about Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:05:31 PM EST
    playing the race card.  Please give me a break.  She was for the war, he was against it.  Its one of the few things they have ever disagreed about.  She made a decision on national security.  It was a disaster.

    Unlike some of the rabid partisans on both sides I think either would make a good president. But her ad invited this response.  Just another example of why she is losing. Her terrible campaign is reason enough to hope she loses.  People who worry about how Obama would fear in the GE baffle me given the job Clinton has done.  This is her first real contest (she had no real challenges in her Senate races) and she is coming up short.

    The idea that you can't question her judgment in voting for the war without being sexist is just absurd.


    Well, there is also that thing called judgement (none / 0) (#159)
    by sphealey on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:46:06 PM EST
    > If you think national security threats
    >  are as simple as casting a vote, think again;

    Well, there is also that little thing called "judgment" which involves, among other things, being able to estimate which votes might have a direct bearing on how long the United States survives as a nation (it being my opinion that the Iraq fiasco has done permanent and possibly fatal damage to the US as a nation) and also whether or not to trust the word of an administration that is staffed from top to bottom with PNACers.



    I Love That Ad (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by xjt on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:49:56 PM EST
    That's my favorite ad of hers so far. I don't understand why he's so upset about it, except that it's very effective. I mean, it's a campaign. Is she allowed to promote her strengths? Should she be required to clear every ad with the Obama campaign to see if they approve of it?

    This is a GREAT ad.

    Uhh (none / 0) (#154)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:40:33 PM EST
    I don't know who the he is that you are referring to but if it is Obama he is most certainly NOT upset about it.

    Maybe the ad is great but so far I haven't seen anyone, who isn't in the Clinton camp already, say much positive or negative about it.


    Jor I cannot you believe you are still posting (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:00:01 PM EST
    after being told you are banned for the day

    Judgement (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Paladin on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:10:33 PM EST
    It's clear that judgement is the key word the Obama campaign is using to differentiate itself from Clinton. It's repeated over and over again. It's very effective, because she will always have that vote hanging around her neck like an albatross.  

    But be warned.  Just as the Repubs went after Kerry's perceived strength (war hero with medals), they ripped that strength to shreds.  Didn't matter that it was all based on untruths.

    They'll try to make his "Judgement" a weakness.  Rezko anyone?  And that's just a start.

    Judgement (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by 0 politico on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:53:21 PM EST
    No, the ad does not offend me.  It is still a valid concern for many people.

    No, I do not consider myself paranoid, even if i did grow up during the Cold War.

    As to Obama's judgement and readiness to lead, the Republicans will cut him to pieces on this.  As I noted in another thread, they will use his shirking of his responsibility on the sub committee dealing with Europe, NATO and Afghanistan, for over a year, while troops are in the war zone, against him.  He was, "a bit busy"?

    Personally, as a veteran, I will have trouble accepting any national security or foreign relations argument from his campaign after that admission in the last debate.

    This will be a problem for him down the road.  Perhaps not next week.  but, it will catch up to him.


    Wow, at the end of the day (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:13:23 PM EST
    Ya gotta hand it to the Obama camp. Incredibly fast turnaround, and a better ad to boot.

    Its often said that the way you run a campaign may give lots of insight into the way you would run the WH. Its on a much smaller scale of course, but this is effectivly the first executive experience for each of them. He has run the best campaign I have seen in a long time.

    I keep reading this (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:28:05 PM EST
    And my mind always goes back to the same thing that no Obama supporter every responds to:

    This can be said of George W Bush. He ran a lot better campaign than Al Gore. So by your logic he was the better candidate?

    Did you vote for him then in 2004?


    Of course not... (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by fiver5 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:42:57 PM EST
    George W. Bush was an inexperienced fool who owed every position he had ever held to nepotism.  Sure, family connections gave him a springboard position which enabled him to claim he was qualified and "experienced" enough to be president, but not only did he not deserve the Texas Governorship, he did nothing of substance as governor and only spent his time cementing the connections necessary to run for president.  How could anyone support such a candidate?  I still couldn't.

    Also, aside from using his family connections to amass a formidable war chest and lock up the party's insiders, what about GWB's campaign was so special?  


    Well ok (4.00 / 1) (#158)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:45:03 PM EST
    So George Bush got 8 years of Republican rule in the White House and 6 years of Republican rule in Congress.

    From a partisan standpoint he was an extremely effective politician.

    So if Barack Obama will be able to have that kind of domination yet push a Democratic agenda, I think we might get this country back to where it needs to be.


    Because (none / 0) (#184)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:22:59 AM EST
    George Bush damaged his party because of bad ideas.  They were very supportive of those bad ideas, except perhaps the Medicare bill.

    Being a good politician is not a bad thing.


    wash your mouth out (none / 0) (#156)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:42:20 PM EST
    or your fingers, whatever.

    I think its just that Gore ran a really bad campaign.


    Partly (none / 0) (#163)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:51:14 PM EST
    But looking back I have to say the Bush camp ran a much better campaign. That really didn't translate into a better candidate.

    Which was my point. I understand you support Sen Obama. He may very well be a better president. But to keep saying he would be because he is running the better campaign is a bit of weak argument imo.

    And that was my point. A good candidate does not a good president make (necessarily).


    Oops! They did it again! (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by The GrandPanjandrum on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:56:59 PM EST
    Clinton may answer the phone but once again proves she hires a lot of inept idiots:
    Responding to the release of HRC's new TX TV ad, which asserts in no subtle terms that only she has the experience to deal with a major world crisis, and, relatedly, to keep your children safe, Slate's John Dickerson asked the obvious question: "What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?" he said. Silence on the call. You could've knit a sweater in the time it took the usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein, Clinton's national security director, to find a cogent answer. And what they came up with was weak -- that she's been endorsed by many high ranking members of the uniformed military.
    Once again her staff snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. Are you really sure she's ready on day one? Her Presidential campaign isn't ready on day 405. I look forward to Senator Clinton and other senior Democrats working with President Obama on serious foreign policy matters.

    Am I going senile? (none / 0) (#173)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:09:46 PM EST
    Or is this an exact replica of another post?

    unfortunately, it's an exact replica (none / 0) (#179)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:14:42 AM EST
    thankfully, it's no more convincing now than the original  :-)

    Have we noticed that Obama's campaign seems to be only about his "campaign".  Pretty empty otherwise.


    Dueling Ads (1.00 / 2) (#89)
    by 1jane on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:27:34 PM EST
    Clinton's campaign is throwing everything they've got at the wall to see what will stick. Obama quickly produces a new ad to parry Clinton's ad. Blogs start voting on which candidate has the better ad. Desperate campaigning is simply desperate campaigning. No matter what the Clinton campaign does, Obama's campaign is nimble, quick to respond and takes the high road.

    What's interesting about these dueling ads (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Paladin on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:37:33 PM EST
    is that if one were to look at them separately, without any knowledge that Obama's was a response to Hillary's, it would have a completely different meaning.  His ad would  appear to be fear mongering by lots of people.

    Oh, the irony.

    But it's a good response.


    she'll be on Monday (none / 0) (#5)
    by along on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:00:28 PM EST
    via satellite. those kind of appearances generally don't pack much of a punch.

    Very likely right. (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:14:34 PM EST
    That;'s disappointing (none / 0) (#160)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:46:31 PM EST
    While I am an Obama guy I would like to see Hillary bring out her best.  A satellite appearance will almost certainly be nothing more than some bland platitudes.  

    I'm not crazy about the ad.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:12:15 PM EST
    ..but hey, it's not a mushroom cloud. I actually think that with a few changes this ad would actually work better against McCain.

    Not at all (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:14:15 PM EST
    It was duplicative in pointing out for the third time that she's on Monday not tonight. Feel free to post the rest again. Sorry about that.

    I suspended jor for the day (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:18:24 PM EST
    I have no idea why he is commenting. All of his comments should be deleted for the rest of the day.

    Jor didnt BTD ban you earlier for the day??? (none / 0) (#21)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:16:09 PM EST

    Who/where is Jor? (none / 0) (#121)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:49:25 PM EST
    HRC ad. (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:22:50 PM EST
    Text reads like the trailer for a horror movie.  Haven't heard/seen the ad yet though.

    I've answered phone calls at (none / 0) (#33)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:29:44 PM EST
    3 a.m. It's not that big a deal. You just have to wake up. I imagine whoever is in the White House they'll have a pot of coffee going.

    Are you serious or kidding? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:35:00 PM EST
    This is a serious question from me; I can't tell.

    I think it's a valid point. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by fiver5 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:35:20 PM EST
    If the focus of the ad is supposed to be: "Who's more qualified" then the 3:00 a.m. time is irrelevant because anyone can answer a telephone even though it's late.  If, however, fear mongering is the main objective, then setting the scene at 3:00 a.m. (and immediately mentioning "your children" and "safety") is the way to go.  

    I would hope (none / 0) (#162)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:49:05 PM EST
    that by the time the President is in the Sit Room, the National Security guys have been up for a long time and are preparing a full report to give to him or her.  

    It's a kind of silly ad in the sense that President of the United States isn't a 9 to 5 job.  Even our current slacker still probably works 60-70 hour weeks.


    The more I think (none / 0) (#40)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:33:39 PM EST
    about all this, the more I find myself wanting Hillary to win. I flirted with the idea of jumping on board with Obama as many of my acquaintances have already done. But the more I look the more I think she is the most qualified to be president. Unfortunately, this has become more of a popularity contest of who is the coolest, etc. Looking at the polls and trends I don't see how she survives though.

    Lil (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:37:41 PM EST
    the very fact of her survival is enough for me.  Being president is about being tough and not backing down when the b*stards are after you.  She was able to get Newt Gingrich to work with her after all the impeachment crap.  Actions speak louder than words.

    Survive (none / 0) (#49)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:44:28 PM EST
    the presdiential campaign, I meant. I agree with actions being louder than words, which is why I think she should be president; I just don't really think she can pull it off at this point, although I hope I'm wrong.

    she can pull it off (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:47:19 PM EST
    if people like you don't give up.  If you think Obama is going to overwhelmingly win, then voting with your mind for Clinton won't matter.  Of course, if lots of women like you do it, then she's got more than a chance--she's got the potential to make history.

    (but, as you might have gathered, I am a firm Clinton partisan!)


    Kathy (none / 0) (#59)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:52:56 PM EST
    I already voted for on 2/5 in a state she won. The weird thing is I'm more convinced now that I want her to win, while it seems so many others went the other way...what am I seeing that others don't and vice versa. I sent her campaign some money today, but it still feels like hoping against hope (unintentional pun). Sometimes i feel like I come here just to catch a glimpse of hope that she can pull it off, since Talk Left is one of the few places left where it isn't a complete Hillary bash fest.

    you are not alone (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:01:45 PM EST
    We can't give up because Hillary hasn't given up.  I know what you mean about feeling down, though.  I remember what it was like to be a democrat during the early Bush years, when saying you were a dem was almost like saying you were a child molester.  The repubs weren't content to win the election--they had to tear us down, then spit on us, then do a victory dance.  I guess that's why I have such a negative reaction to Obama people-some here, but mostly on the other blogs (which I have stopped reading)-because they aren't content to just have Obama win; they want to grind our faces into the dirt in the process.

    I'm not going to be made to feel ashamed because I support Hillary Clinton for president.  She is more qualified, she is more experienced and I, along with millions of other voters, proudly back her.  Did you see how much money she raised?!  35mm in 14 days!  That's because people out there need her to win, and they are putting their money behind it.

    Don't let anyone else convince you otherwise.


    I salute you (none / 0) (#83)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:12:23 PM EST
    This is almost exactly how I felt when Nixon beat McGovern.  And I know it's hard to stick with your convictions sometimes under the best of circumstances, let alone difficult ones.  But it's great to see -- it gives me hope for the future.

    (And my response to those who try to label me by using "liberal" as an epithet instead of a compliment is to tell them that no, I'm a radical. ;-)  Keep the faith, brothers and sisters!)

    So I agree with you: you've no reason to be ashamed and every reason to be proud, win, lose or draw.


    Lil, I loved the unintentional pun (none / 0) (#66)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:00:19 PM EST
    and keep the faith.

    In the meantime, I find some comfort in Al Gore's ascension to Goracle status after giving up on the White House. He's bigger than the Pope now and something like that is foreseeable for Hillary as well.

    Obama's response ad (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:35:58 PM EST
    Here is Obama's response ad:

    Points to Obama for responding so quickly.....They have their act together....

    That's his response? (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:57:28 PM EST
    a noun, a verb, and a 2002 speech.  could there possibly be anyone in the country who doesn't know about that speech?

    Oh, I forgot!  I didn't remember from the first 4000 times I heard about the speech. wow  :-)


    when did (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:03:41 PM EST
    "I told you so!" become foreign policy experience?

    When few spoke out (4.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:07:18 PM EST
    when everyone else was cowering and kowtowing to Bush and Cheney.....

    I was against the Iraq War (none / 0) (#80)
    by mg7505 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:10:22 PM EST
    from the start. And I opposed a lot of the war funding bills that Obama and Clinton BOTH approved as Senators. Am I qualified to be President?

    If you were a public official (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:13:10 PM EST
    who has served in the Senate for 3 years and helped passed loose nukes legislation, yes, you would be qualified...

    Yikes....some minimum! (none / 0) (#108)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:13:32 PM EST
    Just when was it that (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:21:56 PM EST
    Democrats became so fascinated with experience....

    That has never been a basis for selecting a nominee....If experience were the key, then why did Biden, Richardson and Dodd all fail?  Hillary is doing well because she is a woman.  If a male had her resume, he would no longer be in the race....


    Disagree. Dems have always (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:33:23 PM EST
    been influenced by experience with few exceptions...John Kennedy was an exception and a rare, successful one who put Lyndon Johnson on the ticket as 'experienced backup' and it worked.

    Re Biden, Richardson, Dodd...sometimes experience of certain kinds is not enough in a national campaign.  All 3 are popular in their states for various reasons but surely you saw their failings and shortcomings in debates and on the campaign trail?  No?

    Hillary is not "doing well because she is a woman."  Few statements in political history are more demonstrably absurd.  ie.  She is the FIRST woman to ever even get this close to a nomination by either major party!  Hello?  She is doing well because she is an accomplished woman who has stood the tests of all candidates and is still standing.

    If a male had her resume, it would mean he had been married to a female president!  Not bloody likely, eh?  Not yet, anyway.  And even if you were right, it would depend entirely on his skills, talents, personality and whether he had the backing of the Dem establishment and the press, as Obama does.  If so, he'd still be 'in the race.'


    What? (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:57:23 PM EST
    Dems have always been influenced by experience with few exceptions...John Kennedy was an exception and a rare, successful one who put Lyndon Johnson on the ticket as 'experienced backup' and it worked.

    1968 - The only thing that prevented the previously unelected for any job ever Bobby Kennedy from being the Dem nominee was a bullet.

    1972 - George McGovern?  Experienced?

    1976 - Inexperienced Jimmy Carter

    1984 - Democrats wanted Gary Hart.  The Democratic Party mistakenly picked Mondale.

    1988 - Hart was an experienced beltway guy.  Dukakis was the idealistic liberal from Mass.

    1992 - Arguably the least experienced guy of the 7 dwarves was chosen.

    So basically the last 2 elections were examples of picking the experienced guys rather than the right guys.


    I gather you don't (none / 0) (#177)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:45:30 PM EST
    think of governorships as qualifying experience for POTUS.  Most people do.

    '68 ... probably ... we'll never know so it's pretty easy to make the assertion.  Just prior to Bobby's death, tho, he had lost Oregon to McCarthy.  Who knows if he would have won California, the nomination, the presidency?

    '72  McGovern had the same experience JFK had but more of it.

    '76  Jimmy Carter - Gov. of Georgia  he wasn't inexperienced...he was a Washington outsider, a 'hick from the sticks' and 'not our sort,' just like the Clintons and John Edwards.

    You left out '80  Jimmy Carter reelection...obviously experienced...undermined by Ted Kennedy and the Dem. establishment...and events beyond his control.  

    '84  Gary Hart had little experience, little money, poor organization... Mondale had a lot of experience...it was close.  

    '88  Dukakis was the Gov. of Massachusetts and father of what was then thought to be 'the Massachusetts miracle.'  Hart committed political suicide by daring the press to follow him around.  They did.  Hello Donna Rice on the aptly named 'Monkey Business.'

    '92 Bill Clinton 3-term Gov. of Arkansas is not experience?  Of course, he WAS the insurgent and never the darling of the establishment in either the Dem. Party or Wash. DC.  Oh, well.  He won anyway.  Twice.  And that's why they hate him and must take out his wife.

    Funny how few Democrats know class war when they see it.


    In truth (none / 0) (#183)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:19:50 AM EST
    I don't think being governor means all that much.  Regardless it doesn't change the fact that other candidates were more experienced, in many cases, than the guy who won.  

    I have no idea what your class warfare comment was in reference to.


    Class warfare 'at the top'... (none / 0) (#186)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:47:31 AM EST
    In DC, class warfare extends to social acceptability as well as old money and/or insider connections to the powerful.  

    New arrivals need the 'stamp of approval' of the movers and shakers, especially the permanent residents in the powerful media...WAPO, Sally Quinn, Andrea Mitchell Greenspan.  

    The Democrats who have been rejected (see Jimmy Carter ref '76 above)...let me spell it out for you...are working class people like Carter and Edwards and 'trailer-trash, wrong-side-of-the-tracks' usurpers like Bill Clinton.

    For a look at the Dems who have been accepted, take a look at the photos on MTP's website at their anniversary party...yup, there they are!  The Dem establishment...same guys who drafted Obama to 'get rid of the Clintons once and for all'... Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle (and his DC lobbyist wife).

    Clearer now?

    Democrats should not wear blinders if they want to be part of the reality community.


    Hillary's time as First Lady (none / 0) (#180)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:23:48 AM EST
    She was not President and didn't make decisions, etc....But if one is to give her credit for being First Lady, then a generous analogy would be as a member of the cabinet.  Her resume would then be 7 years in the Senate, and time in the cabinet.  Bill Richardson has more experience than Hillary:  Energy Secretary (responsible for nuclear power and Los Alamos), UN Embassador, Special Envoy, and executive experience (which Hillary has never had) as a two-term Governor.  Hillary cannot touch that experience.

    Richardson was likable and experienced but could not crack 10%.  I think that is good evidence of what Hillary would poll if she were a man.

    Hillary is not doing well because of her experience, but because of her lead among women...Her gender helps her--it is a net plus in spite of any disadvantages it may bring, especially in a Democratic Primary.....


    Hillarys fortune is because she's a woman? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:17:45 PM EST
    You are kidding, right?

    Not at all (none / 0) (#178)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:13:24 AM EST
    Women are holding Hillary up....If she were a male, she would have been out of the election race by now.....

    The fact that Sen. Obama has a thinner (none / 0) (#137)
    by LatinoVoter on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:36:22 PM EST
    resume and is the "front runner" totally debunks your claim.

    Whaaaat? (none / 0) (#148)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:28:25 PM EST
    Is that all there is?

    That depends... (none / 0) (#97)
    by fiver5 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:41:02 PM EST
    Are you willing to at least read the available intelligence before helping send your country to war?

    lol (none / 0) (#69)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:02:42 PM EST
    And, "Ready on day (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:05:55 PM EST
    one."  Heard that too, and this is just another iteration of it....

    The point of Obama's ad (none / 0) (#74)
    by sar75 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:06:16 PM EST
    Obama's counter-ad (which demonstrates some really amazing organization and efficiency) effectively blunts Clinton's ad.  The talk will not be about who has the stronger point (which is open for debate) but that Obama is running a similar ad (and probably more often and in more markets) as Clinton. It changes the subject from who's more experienced to "Hey, they both have the same ad up!"

    Personally, I'd feel perfectly fine with either one answering the phone. They're both smart, judicious people.  Besides, I don't think this is actually how presidents respond to most crises... there is usually a meeting and seldom split-second decision making.


    I don't know if the response matters that much (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:00:15 PM EST
    just because it's fast, if it's as weak as that one.

    It takes away his opportunity to make a stronger response to it later.  Taking the original footage and then overlaying it with black and white photographs with text about the same ol' stuff isn't exactly awe inspiring.  One of his campaign's mac addicts probably put that together in final cut in 7 minutes.


    The first half (none / 0) (#73)
    by Lil on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:06:05 PM EST
    was weak. The second half makes him look pretty presidential. Wouldn't it be great if her camp had a really fast response to his really fast response. I can't imagine watching TV in Texas right now. My head would be spinning. I'd probably be thinking, "wait was that an Obama commercial or a Hillary commercial?"  McCain should make one too, just for the hell of it.  Can I say that here?

    It's really just about product placement (none / 0) (#78)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:08:50 PM EST
    at this point.  Both candidates should shy away from using each other's images and names.  TX, OH and the others are probably so sick of ads that they just mute them.  That's always the test of how well ad ad does--can you still understand what they are selling when the sound is muted?

    (now, if you want to really have fun, you can show really nasty, negative photos of your opponent, but I haven't seen either of them do that much this season)


    "Loose nukes" (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:08:03 PM EST
    More people need to know about that....

    Sam Nunn (none / 0) (#95)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:36:35 PM EST
    He can't help but plagiarize, can he? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ineedalife on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:34:57 PM EST
    He just took her ad and replaced the voice-over. It is the exact same kids.

    He did it fast but it is the usual disregard for doing it right.  He violated someone's copyright here.

    And I can't believe he brings up Afghanistan when he has been AWOL on his own Afghanistan duty.


    Copyright violation (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:41:04 PM EST
    I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that he did or didn't; this could quite easily fall under "fair use".  As I've learned (through experience) (long experience) (long bitter experience) trying to figure out what's covered by copyright is not an amateur sport: even the people who are qualified to practice law in that field sometimes disagree, and sharply, over the issues -- even when they have no dog in the fight.  (When they do, all bets are off.)  So maaaaaaybe it is and maaaaaaybe it isn't.

    parody. Fair use. (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:26:01 PM EST
    or, you know... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:38:07 PM EST
    someone at the tv station who screened it leaked the ad so they'd have enough time to respond.

    Got link? (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:40:06 PM EST
    link to what? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:45:38 PM EST
    The ads have to be screened by the station before they are run.  Usually, some goober intern gets the job, but political buys are screened by the editorial board.  You've got folks at every step of the way who could pretty much tell the Obama campaign the contents of the ad, allowing them to throw together a response so that it's ready.  Barring that, many ads are pre-screened for the press.

    I'm not saying it's nefarious, I'm just responding to folks here who think the Obama campaign was able to put together a response ad in two hours.  I'm sure they got a heads up, just like I'm sure Clinton's camp gets warnings, too.

    I could be wrong, but based on my experience with networks, it makes sense that it was leaked.


    You're right about the chance for leaks (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:02:00 PM EST
    I've worked in television and radio, so I've seen how this plays out.

    So let's suppose you're right.  How much lead time did they have?  (Which I suppose we're unlikely to know until someone writes a post-mortem on the campaign years from now, but let's indulge in some speculation.)  A day?  Two?

    The point I was making is that in 2004, moves like this went unchallenged for considerable time, which is part of the reason why they worked.  Whether this response came out in 20 minutes or 2 hours or 2 days isn't as important as noting that it didn't come out in 2 weeks.  It demonstrates agility, which is a handy attribute for a campaign running in 2008 (as opposed to 1968 when news cycles were much longer).

    McCain is going to go off-message.  He's going to screw up (as he has nearly every day this week).  If the Democratic nominee's campaign can turn every one of those to their advantage fast, while it's still fresh in the public's mind, still getting replayed on TV, then they can repeatedly hammer him with his own mistakes and make him spend his time explaining, apologizing, revising, evading, etc...instead of promoting himself.


    yes, of course (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:06:03 PM EST
    Rapid response is key.  Clinton's War Room proved that.

    I was speaking to one issue, though, which was that these ads get leaked all the time-and sometimes they are pre-screened to the press.

    It wasn't an indictment against one campaign or praise of another.  I made it clear that BOTH campaigns probably get tips from the inside.


    The Republicans are the (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by mg7505 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:13:12 PM EST
    perfect shark: fast, creative, deadly man-eaters. Don't let McCain's appearance or his campaign staff fool you. Once he has the Republican machine behind him, they'll attack so fast our heads will be spinning.

    I have no doubt you're right... (none / 0) (#103)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:52:50 PM EST
    ...which is why that needs to met head-to-head.  Or -- even better -- anticipated with pre-emptive strikes.  I think part of the reason Kerry lost in 2004 is that he didn't hit back -- and hard.  I'll point to Rick Noriega's campaign in Texas this year as the antithesis of that, and suggest that it provides somewhat of a blueprint for beating back the swiftboaters.

    Yes, because its not possible that (none / 0) (#55)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:49:25 PM EST
    the Obama campaign is just more competent than Clinton's.  No evidence to suggest that.

    Oh and his add slams the softball her ad put up right out of the park. What did they think he would do.  Everytime she claims to be more competent to be CinC they get to hang her vote around her neck again.  Another reason why he is a better GE candidate since McCain will do the same thing to her.  Clearly her vast experience has not enabled her to figure out an answer that works.


    Kathy, good behind-the-scenes info. (none / 0) (#161)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:47:54 PM EST
    Still, I find it amazing that Obama cribbed the essence of the Clinton ad.

    I know he's audacious and all. But is Obama entirely correct to assume that none of the MSM will tie this back to his general Plagiarist Proclivities.

    Surely McCain will make the point that Obama can't make an attack ad without resorting to plagiarism.

    Off topic: isn't it odd how the name Obama still comes up red as a spelling error? You'd think that would be resolved by now.


    Maybe too fast (none / 0) (#100)
    by ineedalife on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:42:40 PM EST
    Alot of people will only see his ad and not see it as a response ad.

    Out of context it, could generate an unintended reaction. It is so jarringly different from other things I've seen from him. Pretty dark, not alot of happy shinyness there.


    I don't view Hillary as competition (none / 0) (#58)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:52:49 PM EST
    so this ad doesn't get under my skin.  I think it's pretty tame ...at first I thought the voice said "world's evils" but it doesn't say that, it says leaders.  It's not bombarding you with code words or anything.  And there will be plenty of people who say, NOT HER!  

    Also, when have either of these candidates been tested by a foreign policy crisis?  Hillary probably could've answered herself with something from her days in the White House.  

    And a question I asked in the other thread - did someone actually say Al Qaida is rooting for Barack???!!!

    It's true he does real well (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:05:48 PM EST
    With the independents.

    Maybe not Al Qaeda (none / 0) (#107)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:08:18 PM EST
    but I'm pretty positive that Odinga in Kenya is.

    "Present" (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarahfdavis on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:52:58 PM EST

    Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid (none / 0) (#79)
    by Gritsforbreakfast on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:09:02 PM EST
    This ad is disappointing. Is there any substance here but fearmongering?

    I've now seen,,,, (none / 0) (#88)
    by robertearl on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:21:13 PM EST
    everything. This ad is straight of of the GOP playbook. FEAR! FEAR! FEAR!
    I thought we as democrats were beyond the politics of fear.

    This is hardly fear... (none / 0) (#176)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:27:07 PM EST
    It's a soft and rather innocent reference to national security. It is certainly not the center of her campaign, but she has been consistent with her views on national security.

    Besides, totally ignoring national security neither gains any votes nor makes the issue go away!

    And, please. This is mild. No atomic bombs, no references to 9/11, no terrifying images (unless you're afraid of the dark?). It was all rather generic.


    Where's the Obama ad? (none / 0) (#101)
    by 1jane on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:45:04 PM EST
    Why isn't the Obama response to the Clinton ad up? Oh yeah, that would be fair, I forgot.

    Turn on your TV (none / 0) (#111)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:23:06 PM EST
    I just saw it on CNN...it's all over the news.

    Or, you could google for it...

    Not everything needs to be spoonfed, hmmm?


    oldpro (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:45:52 PM EST
    just saw "the ad" on NBC nightly news, too.  They presented it pretty fairly with no editorializing and then showed Obama's response at the rally he was doing.

    I have to say, it's one of the first even-handed NBC pieces I've seen in a while.

    Whoever said (Cream?) that this was genius because of the free advertising the ad is getting all over the news was spot on.


    NBC (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:47:01 PM EST
    One of the people in McCain's 'biography' ad praising his heroism is TIM RUSSERT.  

    Just in case there's any doubt that Obama's media darling status is temporary ...  :-)


    Poor little jane1 (none / 0) (#102)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:51:58 PM EST
    There's a link to it in the previous thread pertaining to the ads.
    Or you could go to Obama's website.

    The link to Obama's response ad (none / 0) (#104)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:53:02 PM EST
    is at the very end of the previous thread.
    Wouldn't want you to miss it.

    Pretty tame ad (none / 0) (#119)
    by s5 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:46:23 PM EST
    And it takes 6 rings for her to answer the phone! I hope the White House phone doesn't go to voicemail before then.

    Well, duh! (none / 0) (#123)
    by chemoelectric on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:56:37 PM EST
    Duh! I want Al Gore answering that phone, but Barack Obama also will do.

    Are you sure this isn't an Obama ad?

    Letterman, Colbert and Stewart (none / 0) (#127)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:09:22 PM EST
    are all in the tank for Obama.

    It's pretty disgusting, actually.  

    Leno, Conan and Jimmy Kimmel are the only even-handed ones. She really should do one of those shows instead.  

    Don't reward the jerks who are trying to determine our election for us.  

    Teresa, is Colbert as bad as the others? (none / 0) (#132)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:22:22 PM EST
    Whether a person is (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by fiver5 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:28:38 PM EST
    "bad" or "disgusting" depends on his/her support of Hillary Clinton?  Wow.  

    In the tank. (none / 0) (#136)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:32:26 PM EST
    Not quite as bad, maybe.

    Letterman, however, is definitely as bad as John Stewart. He has literally never done a derogatory joke about Obama.  Of course, Hillary pantsuits and cheating husbands are everywhere.

    Here's a link to latenight political humor:  Link

    Really, it's spooky, downright scary IMHO the way that even our comedy media wants to choose our prez.


    I'm usually up at 3AM. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:10:06 PM EST
    Just forward the call. Hell, it's probably Bill Clinton robocalling.

    The Daily Show (none / 0) (#139)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:38:40 PM EST
    does Obama jokes.  I don't think I would stop watching a comedy news show because they were being "unfair" to my candidate.

    Once again, (none / 0) (#141)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:46:51 PM EST
    Obama's response was more effective than the ad

    Letterman (none / 0) (#152)
    by ruthinor on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:38:45 PM EST
    Did you see HRC on Letterman a few weeks ago?  It was a lovefest, right before super Tuesday.  So what if he makes jokes about her...they all do, but he seemed to really like and respect her.  As for Jon Stewart, he does seem to favor Obama (his audience is young and probably mostly in his camp), but when he says things like "Obama cured my leprosy", I don't see that as favorable to BO, rather it's a sarcastic look at the Obama phenomenon.  I think he will treat HRC with respect.  He usually does a great job with his guests.  Chris Matthews was an exception, I think because he doesn't like him much.  Hell, he always fights with Wm Kristol, but it's usually preety funny (the only time I come close to liking Kristol because he's pretty funny).

    He makes NO JOKES (none / 0) (#174)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:15:19 PM EST
    about Obama.  Don't you think that's telling?

    Of course, he was nice to Hillary.  It was New York, (her home state) and she was on the show.  

    He also trashes Oprah completely then is nice to her when she appears.

    Again, it's the fact that he has NO derogatory JOKES about Obama -- NONE.  Don't you think that says something?  Don't you?


    Has anyone (none / 0) (#166)
    by pavaoh on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:07:23 PM EST
    else ever read this transcript of an interview of Obama in November of 2006?  Interesting answer to the question "Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton, politically?"


    New post on that interview (none / 0) (#172)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:04:52 PM EST
    is here, thanks for the tip. Please comment on it at the new thread.

    after gwb......... (none / 0) (#175)
    by thereyougo on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:16:16 PM EST
    Hillary answering the  phone gives me comfort.
    Obama's people want to keep hammering her with the Iraq vote, but hers wasn't the defining vote and they had every opportunity to reverse it, and GWB didn't.

    and Obama kept voting to keep funding the war. enough said.

    Hillary 4 me. Obama for VP to schmooze the Arabs and bring back diplomacy to the mess in the middle east.

    who knows, maybe he'll bring down the price at the pump in the process. Man that would be something.

    These 2 people should be working for the American people together. I like them both. They're an asset sorely needed now.

    She should have (none / 0) (#188)
    by wrkn129 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:54:10 PM EST
    also added: "And who do you trust to push the right button?" Given that Obama pushed the wrong button at least six times while voting in the IL Senate, I don't think I would want this to be one of those times he went, "Oops. I pressed the wrong button on that one."