Scared Of An Image Of bin Laden?

By Big Tent Democrat

I am with Kevin Drum on the Obama campaign's overwrought reaction to the latest Clinton ad:

Are the pro-Obama forces seriously trying to get their troops outraged over this latest ad from Hillary Clinton? Just because it contains a ten-second sequence of presidential crises (Depression, Pearl Harbor, gas crisis, Katrina, etc.) and flashes a half-second clip of Osama bin Laden as part of it? Spare me. Are Democratic political ads no longer even allowed to mention the fact that the next president is going to have to deal with the war on terror?

The reaction is overwrought and I think politically obtuse. It makes it seem like Obama really is afraid to discuss the war on terror and we know he not only is not, but it is one of his strongest arguments - that we need to fight the war on terror not the Debacle in Iraq. Strange reaction from the Obama camp and his supporters.

Update (TL): The ad is below:

< Clinton Conference Call Live Blog | SUSA PA Internals >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    They seem to be on (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:06:04 PM EST

    I'm sure we'll see a wonderful display of this... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:12:29 PM EST
    ....on Countdown tonight.

    Oh yes... (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:16:30 PM EST
    Olbermann is on auto-outrage too.

    If Hillary rescued an orphaned cat, the Obamans would be outraged and claiming she only did it so she could brew it in her witches' cauldron.


    Funny you mention that. Hillary must (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:17:28 PM EST
    have known about today's ad when she agreed to be on Countdown. Is she intending to provoke a meltdown in KO?

    She does not have to do anything (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:18:36 PM EST
    to provoke a meltdown in KO. He is in perma-hysteria mode. :-)

    Do you think he's going look her in the eye (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:20:52 PM EST
    and sternly tell her she's no Harry Truman?  Hee hee

    I think he will roll over and lick her hand (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:22:01 PM EST
    when she spanks his nose with a rolled-up newspaper.

    The tide at Orange will roll if he does (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:25:39 PM EST
    something insane and horrible like that.  Of course I'm all for discovering that his feet are made of clay because I already know he's just a bad dog who barks a lot ;)

    She could always point out to KO (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:46:25 PM EST
    that the ad also celebrates strong, democratic presidents who took stands during challenging times and lead the country into greatness.

    Maybe Obama will come out with a response ad showcasing Reagan and Bush 1's stellar greatness...


    Sigh. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:19:57 PM EST
    If only you were joking...

    Applause for the admakers! (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:51:27 PM EST
    On message on experience, toughness, steady hand, wisdom and solutions.  The timing is perfect.  Too late for the Obama camp to come out with a response ad.

    Congratulations to the Hillary team.


    Meltdown (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Athena on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:06:12 PM EST
    All I'm seeing is hysteria and rage from the Obama camp.  Last week really unnverved them.  I'm still thinking that Hillary will pull out a significant win.

    They were raging long before last week. (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Joelarama on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:09:57 PM EST
    The "Hillary is a monster" incident, in my view, said a lot about the attitude in the Obama camp.

    They take politics personally as a rule, when it ought to be the exception.  


    I think they have gotten so involved in (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:28:04 PM EST
    winning that they have totally lost all perspective on what this campaign was supposed to be about for them or at least what they were selling it as at the begining.

    They got like this before and after Ohio too (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by echinopsia on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:57:58 PM EST
    Completely batsh*t crazy. Like little kids throwing tantrums because mommy said they couldn't have candy.

    It's embarrassing, really.

    I shudder to think what will happne when he doesn't get the nomination - but like Paul Lukasiak says, all you can do with tantrum-throwing children is let them scream themselves out and fall asleep.


    Who knows? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:06:39 PM EST
    They seem to be reactionary and fearful since the ABC debate.

    It seems like a characteristic reaction, (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Joelarama on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:07:15 PM EST
    i.e. a characteristic overreaction, from the Obama camp to me.

    Sounds like (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    they're feeling the heat in the kitchen.

    Yes! Slightly OT but (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by nashville on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:29:08 PM EST
    an Obama supporter from PA on MSNBC (I know, I know, I torture myself) said for her to "win" in PA she needed to win by more than 20 points, no by 33 points or more because that was where she first polled.  Me thinks they're scared.  Talk about lowering expectations.  

    33 points?! lol~! (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:37:54 PM EST
    couple weeks ago, 10 would have been a loss, then 20 and now it's jacked to 33?!

    Boy, that Obama camp sure has some funny numbers and 'math'.


    sports math? we now give 150 percent? (none / 0) (#87)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:40:07 PM EST
    oooookay...(deep sigh).

    MSNBC is in the bag for Obama. (none / 0) (#172)
    by AX10 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:56:51 AM EST
    They have been since Iowa.

    sounds like.. (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by kc on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:40:06 PM EST
    ..to me there may be a slight dawning 'over  there.'  A little taste of the GOP apple has them nervous.

    So are you saying that Obama is (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:10:44 PM EST
    afraid of fear itself?

    NO GAS (none / 0) (#112)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:56:29 PM EST
    I think that's what really scared people.

    Osama?  The bogey man.
    No gas?  The end of the autocentric culture?


    hehehe. you make me laugh, mark. (none / 0) (#169)
    by kangeroo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:21:48 PM EST
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:13:00 PM EST
    I guess Kevin and I are just making it up.

    You are right.

    My apologies to you (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:17:26 PM EST
    I misunderstood your reaction.

    "How DARE Hillary Clinton bring up one of (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by tigercourse on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:15:57 PM EST
    the biggest issues our next President must face! SHAME!"

    Come on, Democrats have to face national security issues head on, not howl in distress when they are brought up.

    skittish aren't they (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:19:59 PM EST
    perhaps the Clinton campaign should send them a truck load of diapers. LOL.

    I'm sorry, but Obama's reesponse to the (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:21:03 PM EST
    Clinton ad just sounds desperate and grasping-at-straws, but then, I think he always gets kind of testy when she has the audacity to remind people that we have real problems and all the hope in the world is not going to solve them.  I mean, if only she would just shut up already about reality, he could get back to basking in the glow of adoring faces lit up with hope.

    Maybe it's just me, but I see so much more value in her let's-roll-up-our-sleeves-and-get-the job-done approach than in his believe-in-Me-and-all-things-are-possible message: we have real work to do, and as my mother would say - "if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride."

    The only glimmer of "hope" that I see, in the event Obama is the nominee, is that McCain seems to be having extreme difficulty holding onto a position for more than a minute, to the point where McCain's age is going to be a significant problem for him.

    It doesn't change my feeling that Clinton stands a much better chance of beating McCain than Obama, and a decisive win in PA tomorrow ought to make a difference to superdelegates who actually want to win in November.  We'll see.

    [Posted this in the Clinton live-blog thread, but it fits better here]

    It's the 3am ad version for Pennsylvania. (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:34:01 PM EST
    They are afraid it might do the same as what it did for the last minute surge in Texas and Ohio.  This might explain the kneejerk outcry.  They have a feeling it will work again.  The truth hurts.

    BTE, I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by superjude on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:21:12 PM EST
    I do not see how you can say the "war on terror" is 1 of Obama's greatest strengths. Because his words say we shouldn't be bogged down in Iraq does not in any way imply what his actions would be. He has no experience that I can think of that lends me confidence in the decisions he would have to make re the "war on terrorism". His too brief list of accomplishments and his campaign mode of hysteria both lead me to believe he is not actually a clear and strategic thinker able to choose between the options that would be presented by his staff for his action.

    He has been quite hawkish on bin Laden (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:22:53 PM EST
    and al Qaida.

    The party will have a hell of a time (none / 0) (#69)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:32:08 PM EST
    squaring the intellectual circle on Al Qaeda.

    We need to go back to the drawing board about making sure people do not conflate Iraq and terrorism.


    They could just be reminded (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:43:25 PM EST
    that the Taliban is yet again demoralizing, abusing and killing women who do not comply with their archaic laws, and that electing a woman president will send our enemies a strong message.  

    Oh, wait.


    I agree (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by Steve M on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:24:03 PM EST
    The media has gotten the Obama camp into some very bad habits.

    One of them is that the Obama campaign can respond to anything with substance-free outrage, and the media will reliably channel the outrage and make the whole story about why Hillary is so gosh-darned mean.

    Voters get tired of that.  And more to the point, he's not going to get the same treatment in the GE.  Surely no one thinks the media will suddenly start writing story after story about John McCain's unfair attack ads.

    Nothing Hillary has done in this campaign is comparable to Bush/Cheney-style fearmongering ("my concern is that if we make the wrong choice in this election, we're going to get hit again"), and that is true regardless of whether the media wants to try and make it the same.  Regardless, one of the lessons of 2004 is that even if you think someone is engaging in unfair fearmongering, whining about it is not an adequate response.

    Long after this election is over, the iconic takeaway from the 2008 primary is going to be Hillary's 3am ad, whether she wins or loses.  And the reason is not that it was such a powerful ad that everyone was talking about it; the reason is that Obama's campaign MADE it into a front-page story by complaining about how negative it supposedly was.  Ten times as many people saw that ad because the Obama campaign made it into a controversy, and now the "3am phone call" is a common catchphrase on everyone's lips.  It's like a textbook example of how you're not supposed to respond.

    Can't watch from where I am (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:30:59 PM EST
    but I'll tell you this: if the media keeps showing the ad today--for free--it doesn't much matter how they analyze it. HIllary gets free media.

    Correct (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Steve M on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:36:55 PM EST
    It cannot be good for Obama to have the entire narrative be about Hillary's "controversial" ad, the day before the election.  Yet they've made the puzzling choice to go full-out nuclear against this ad that no one would have heard of otherwise.  Did they learn nothing from the 3am ad controversy?

    Apparently they were too high (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    on their own "we won Texas, really!" kool aid.

    Is someone going to remind them that the general election doesn't work like this?


    The answer is "No" they haven't learned (none / 0) (#91)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:42:49 PM EST
    because they think they did the right thing in responding to that ad the way they did.

    It also hasn't probably occured to them that if they spend tons of their time talking about and defending Reverend Wright including scheduling a special speech after fumbling the issue early on, that he will be a point of discussion at any debate that is held.


    The Obama campaign's tendency (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:36:48 PM EST
    to make mountains out of mole hills is definitely a problem IMO.

    It is like they are over compensating for Kerry's failures.  There is a middle ground and picking your battles is generally smarter than getting into a dust up over every single little thing.

    They seem to take local problems and make them global.  I honestly don't think Clinton would have made it this far had it not been for the Obama campaign's inability to restrain themselves where it comes to talking about the Clintons.


    Yes (5.00 / 7) (#86)
    by Steve M on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:39:17 PM EST
    Perfect example, the "flag pin" controversy.  It wouldn't be a story at all if Obama had responded to some reporter's stupid question by saying "no reason, I just don't happen to have it on with this suit."  Instead he had to try and make it into some big teachable moment about how true patriotism isn't in a flag pin, and so forth, and now we have to hear all this BS about how Obama supposedly refuses to wear a flag pin.  Completely self-inflicted wound and it's all because they feel this compulsion to seize on each and every issue.

    You know I don't know that I (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:56:14 PM EST
    disagree with taking advantage of a teachable moment as much as I believe that Obama is quite clumsy in his phrasing and emphasis; and not skilled enough to essentially shove the media onto other more important issues - which would have been the point of that teaching moment.  

    Having said that, moving the media onto a topic you do want to talk about requires that you have another topic you want to talk about.  Obama doesn't seem all that interested in policy or issues - he is big on philosophizing and pontificating - but he doesn't come out with much concrete stuff to go with his platitudes.

    I always sort of think of Lyndon Johnson when the question of teachable moments comes up.  He had a way of either sweet talking or bullying people into his position.  Obama's whole persona and campaign is built around being some sort of wet sponge that just absorbs everyone else's ideas and I get no sense that he has any comcrete framework for the direction in which he suggests he wants to go.  You have to assume a convincing "alpha" position in order to lead and Obama always sort of says, "Here I am - take it or leave it."  Teachable moments in politics require a bit more force than Obama carries imo as well as carefully chosen words crafted to make an attack impossible.  GWB is actually quite skilled in this area.  So is John McCain.  Obama better learn quick or he is going to very likely get beaten in the general.


    Did Kerry fail? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:47:30 PM EST
    Any other pol would have been crushed by 100 Electoral College pts.

    He needed Ohio and he kept the big blue states blue.

    Also 2004 three years after 9/11 was not an ideal time to run if you wanted to win above all else.  The odds were stacked against Kerry and he NEARLY won.  He's had certain tactical failures laid at is doorstep that were not decisively wrong or even pertinent to the results.

    The overall problem for Kerry was that the Senate and House was hostile and the incumbent had 9/11 to fall back on.  Strategically he was always playing catchup.

    Right now the odds are stacked against McCain and he's on course to beat Obama and closely contest it with Clinton. Niether Dem is polling above 55%  or even 505 and that is chilling.


    Kerry failed. (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    He tried to be "above it" and lost.  They wore purple bandaids at the RNC convention and Kerry did not even deign himself to fight back.   Kerry LET the Republicans smear him and did nothing about it.  

    he lost but (none / 0) (#145)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:55:58 PM EST
    you are asserting he lost for one reason.

    I think he looked like Frankenstein's Monster.  and he lost.

    We shouldn't have nominated a strange looking fellow like that.

    See how easy it is?


    eh (none / 0) (#158)
    by Nasarius on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:43:03 PM EST
    Except the SBV nonsense was practically the centerpiece of media coverage of the 2004 campaign for weeks, whereas Kerry's ugly mug didn't get nearly as much play (I forget, who said "he looks French"?)

    Yes I think he did fail. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    He failed to respond and by the time he did respond it was too late.  He failed to see how dammaging the Swift Boat attacks could be even though his entire "show" at the convention was all about his military service and little else - which IMO was another failure on his part.  He is advising the Obama campaign now on "swift boating" attacks and I think he and they are over compensating in their responses now.  Honestly, I wouldn't let Kerry determine what is a potentially dammaging attack because he was IMO truly blind to the attacks made against him.  He had NO imagination where it came to people buying into the Swift Boaters' BS stories.  

    I saw Bob Dole in an interview suggest that Kerry was lying about having been wounded in Vietnam.  Kerry didn't say a damn thing about it.  He should have throttled Dole, but he didn't.  He was "above those kinds of attacks"...


    The military bio floor show (none / 0) (#125)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:20:52 PM EST
    was his main mistake. McCain would be a fool to repeat the spectacular  display of comradeship and bonnehommerie.

    Armchair generals hate a hero.

    But agian Kerry came awful clos ein a year that i'd not have expected a Dem to come close to winning.

    he didn't tank like McGovern or Dukakis.


    He did come close, but I will say (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:47:24 PM EST
    that he came close because there were people even in the Republican Party who were ready to give up Bush at the time.  I have several Republican friends who told me that they definitely considered voting for Kerry, but that he proved himself to be a poor "fighter" - and even though he seemed more sane to them - they still felt too vulnerable after 9/11.  Kerry launched his campaign around being a "warrior" and kept running from every "battle" the GOP challenged him to.  That and he never could just say something directly and convincingly - everything had to have endless caveats.  He has a diary on the wreck list at kos right this very minute encouraging people to weigh in on net neutrality - filled with caveats and concessions throughout.  His style just doesn't inspire confidence or give the sense that he has clear convictions.  It doesn't really mean that one shouldn't be confident about his skills or that he has no clear convictions - more that he just can't seem to articulate a vision without stumbling over his own internal dialogue.

    Personally, I think his daughter who told the dead pet story should run for office.  She delivered that story convincingly, succintly and directly in a way her father never could I suspect.  She was also very funny - always a plus in politics.


    yes (none / 0) (#146)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:56:52 PM EST
    That's a fuller account. I agree with most of what you said.

    Exactly, and I'll add (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:23:34 PM EST
    that even though Obama made fun of it, the 3am ad did gain her votes in Ohio, or that's what they said anyway.  I expect this ad to do the same in PA.  

    Obama's camp keeps quoting Clinton about 'the candidate that asks you to think' - that's exactly what this ad does.  Asks you to think about who is really more qualified.

    If Obama had made an ad like this, you know he would have put in some Republican presidents too.  Good for Hillary for sticking with the Dems.


    par for the course (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by karen for Clinton on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:24:40 PM EST
    They have grasped at straws all along and have been rewarded for it by the press.

    They took "jesse won" and "lbj" and made it into an excuse for the south to ditch the Clinton's!

    So sure, they will try anything, sometimes fluff works in extrodinary ways to stick like glue.

    She must be tired of being his scapegoat.

    From the campaign's own mouth... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by americanincanada on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:26:33 PM EST
    "When Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network. It's ironic that she would borrow the President's tactics in her own campaign and invoke bin Laden to score political points.  We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, and we don't need another," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

    Do we need to send them some Xanax?

    No,we should keep it for ourselves (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:28:56 PM EST
    because the hysteria is beginning to stress me out.

    mother of god. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:32:50 PM EST
    They interpreted that advert as an attack on Obama?

    Isn't everything? (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:36:15 PM EST
    Nah, they're just going negative (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:37:02 PM EST
    Except that Clinton could not have known (4.25 / 4) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:35:35 PM EST
    at that time that Bush was going to send what number of troops where or when or how.  She gave permission to fight fights......she has no say over how he fights fights or even if he finally decides to fight them.  She's only allowed him to consider it.  Being a spouse has brought me a new understanding of what Commander in Chief really means, when it comes to deploying troops the President puts the final seal of all approval coming out of the Pentagon right down to the nitty of the gritty and Congress gets to say squat about any of it Mr. Obama.  I know you have a hard time grasping the military intricacies of being President of the United States verses being a Senator but I wish you didn't.  You inspire no confidence in me.

    Instead of all this s___ (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by MMW on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:32:25 PM EST
    Why don't they just put out all the things that Clinton, McCain, the GOP, the general citizenry etc, can discuss, or ask questions about or contrast with regards to Obama?

    Personally this is tiresome. How anyone can remain on this one wheeled bandwagon is beyond me. Good Luck in the GE! (I wish I could say I'm sincere, but I'm past the point of giving two S___s about this candidate.)

    Obama's campaign always signals his weakness (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Jim J on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:43:15 PM EST
    by their overreactions. They would make horrible poker players.

    They know he's not up to the foreign policy aspects of the job. Hence they cry foul over a tame ad like this.

    I wonder how much longer they will try to milk the victim thing before they see it only makes him look even weaker.

    Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:48:56 PM EST
    that it wasn't even an attack toward him! She didn't say :Obama is awful about national security. She just is selling herself. Literally asking you who you think is qualified to deal with it. It's a POSITIVE hillary ad, NOT a negative Hillary ad attacking Obama. Geesh.

    But (5.00 / 5) (#141)
    by Nadai on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    a positive Hillary ad is an attack ad according to the Word of Obama.  Her ads are supposed to be about what a great candidate Obama is and how she's not worthy to kiss his feet.  Anything less is an outrage.

    Huh (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by chrisvee on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:49:26 PM EST
    This ad doesn't even register on my internal fearmongering scale. Am I just desensitized?  It seems pretty tame to me.  So now even referencing that a POTUS may be called upon to deal with problems is fearmongering???  If the Obama campaign needs a refresher course on what fearmongering ads look like, they can check out some of Giuliani's primary ads.

    I can always tell when the Obama campaign is feeling the heat -- the faux outrage peaks.

    I think I get it.... (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Oje on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:54:39 PM EST
    The reaction of the Obama campaign reflects its deeper disassociation with the Democratic party and its former accomplishments. Great Depression, WWII, Cold War containment, etc., etc. An image of bin Laden and home foreclosures (a mix of domestic and foreign policy imagery) is clearly an indication that America needed, and needs, a Democratic president to surmount its twofold challenges.

    But, the Obama campaign has made a conscious effort to conflate the Democratic and Republican parties, as the joint authors of all that is good and all that is bad. It does not acknowledge particular political realities as the accomplishments of the Democratic party, and only the Democratic party. Consequently, when the Obama strategists watch this video, they do not see the Democratic party, they see the "politics of Obama bin Laden." Their reaction is facile, and it one again captures the anti-Democratic ideology at work in Obama's campaign.

    FDR and Harry Truman were neocons (none / 0) (#128)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:22:39 PM EST

    After (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    a time doesn't all the "outrage" over ever word or ad or comment start to grate on people's nerves? And doesn't he and his surrogates begin to sound like whiny little kids?

    Hillary's ad showed an image of OBL. OHMYGOD that's an insult to Obama and playing the "fear" card. I thought it was a reminder that current administration hasn't caught the perpetrator of 9/11.

    Isn't Obama in danger of becoming an outrage caricature?

    Depends on who you ask. (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:12:02 PM EST
    There's no shortage of outrage in Team Obama.

    Myself, I indulged a bit yesterday at the great orange.   I smirked an evil smirk when one commenter said she just could't take these attacks on Obama.  This is at the great orange - quite possibly the most Obama friendly blog on the intertubes.

    If she can't handle "the attacks" that she sees there, whatever will she do if Obama squares off against McCain?


    Great ad, effective and to the point! (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by mexboy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:05:23 PM EST
     The ad doesn't invoke fear in me, but reminds me of real threats and who can best handle them.

    The fear Obama's camp must be talking about is the fear it will remind people of his lack of  experience.

    They must  fear the ad  will snap some people out of the hope and unity spell back to reality.

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:10:43 PM EST
    is trying to raise a million dollars in one minute right now.

    Maybe to counter this "brutal" and "unfair" attack.

    Let's see if we can help HRC!

    Is he running short of funds? (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:15:13 PM EST
    Or just trying to use his supporters to make some news?

    What are the rules regarding (none / 0) (#161)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    campaign funds after the election is over? Or in this case, the primaries. Does Obama get to keep the money?? If so, that may explain the fundraising now instead of when he has the nomination. It's not like he is short of funds at this time. And it does look like his nomination is getting less and less likely. But no, Mr. Hopes and Dreams couldn't be that mercenary, could he?

    Already debunked (none / 0) (#154)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:31:10 PM EST
    they actually started taking donations at 9:00am.  Ooops.  :)

    Since Obama's communications director created (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:12:46 PM EST
    the Osama bin Laden ad used against Dean in 2004 in Iowa (to benefit Kerry) -- a real classic of fear mongering Republican type attack against a fellow Democrat -- and is probably coordinating the outrage now, this is especially hypocritical and dishonest.

    One of the things I've come to dislike the most about the Obama campaign is their cynicism and  conviction that the best way to communicate with voters is with the assumption that they all are easily duped, easy to manipulate fools.  

    well slap on my thigh (none / 0) (#131)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:23:40 PM EST
    quite true.

    The question really is (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:22:22 PM EST
    Is the image as it's used in the ad above constitute "using terrorism to scare up votes."

    Is the image obsessed over?

    Is it the Obama campain's contention that using the image in any way shape or form constitutes fearmongering?

    Real problems (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Truth Partisan on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:22:53 PM EST
    Clinton has the plans, the experience and the courage to handle problems. That's what this ad is about.
    It is a mistake to think that Obama is above the history of our elections and the GOP's depiction of the Democratic Party that people know well--however false it is. He's trying to play ball by himself--there are a lot of things he's been that way on, not touting the home team, the Dems--but it's been a mistake all along I think. By criticizing the ad this way he's not helping himself either.
    These are real problems our country faced--and faced well. We are facing many of the same problems again right now.
    We have to face the threat of war and of terrorists. There are soldiers being hurt in Iraq right now.

    What would be dirty pool (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:31:27 PM EST
    Would be if when the picture of Osama Bin Laden was flashed, the announcer happened to be saying "and Obama...."

    that's what the Republcian ads will look like.

    Man up, Obama. This ad is nothing.

    this isn't a fear ad (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:35:54 PM EST
    This stuff doesnt work anymore and thank goodness it doesnt.

    What evidence do you have that playing on fear doesn't work anymore? That it would not work in a Democratic primary? I agree there, but do you really think it won't work in the general election?  Why not, if it worked for Bush?  What do you think has changed so dramatically?

    He was told this in Camp Obama (none / 0) (#149)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:01:54 PM EST
    fear not little Democratic Lambs walk in the steps of the Lord.

    Fear ads do not work today...hey presto!


    This was pro Dem (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:43:25 PM EST
    All  positive Democratic images.  Are they nuts?  First they tell us how bitter people are then when Hillary points out why people are "bitter" and should be scared, the economy wars etc, they go nuts.  I tell you creativity has gone to their heads.  They are paranoid.  

    I thought the ad was fine. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:52:15 PM EST

    Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by nell on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:10:12 PM EST
    healthcare ad was the real fear ad, saying that Hillary will force you to buy health coverage even if you cannot afford it. I knocked on one door where a woman was for Clinton because of her health care plan, but then she got confused becuase of what Obama was saying about it and she was scared....

    HE is the one that is really fear mongering...and fear mongering isn't just related to international terrorits, it can be done with bread and butter issues here at home too.

    What kills me (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by echinopsia on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:28:33 PM EST
    is Obama supporters who say neither one of their health care proposals will get passed, so why worry about the difference.

    Then Obama has to go and do a fearmongering ad about her plan "forcing" people to buy insurance.

    Which is it?


    Let's remember that ... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:33:07 PM EST
    Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, created so-called "Osama Ad" which attacked Howard Dean's foreign policy creds, using a much longer shot of Osama.

    Obama's campaign so far (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    has been the epitome of projection.

    So very, very ... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:01:28 PM EST

    I wanted to say (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:38:14 PM EST
    The ad reminds me of one of my favorite music videos.

    I think it's an excellent ad.

    to many of us it displays strength not fear (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:47:27 PM EST
    Democratic Strength and Democratic Leaders.

    Responding to this is against my better judgment, (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:27:10 PM EST
    but here goes:

    Any chance you get to slam Obama and his supporters you take happily huh?
    The only one I see happily slamming anyone these days is Obama, from his not-at-all-subtle bird-flip, to the Jay-Z references, to the Harry and Louise woefully untruthful ads, to the NAFTA mailers - it's been nothing but attack, attack, attack - and when he could make it personal, he has - usually while grinning from ear to ear - so please, stop trying to make Obama out to be some sort of above-it-all candidate.

    When he has been saying ALL campaign long that he will not use images of terrorism or terrorists to scare up votes and his main opponent then does.
     You haven't actually seen the ad, have you?  If you blinked, you missed the Osama clip - literally.  Bin Laden wasn't even the point of the ad, and you would know that if you actually saw it.  

    Of course he is supposed to just take it.
     Yes, he is - because he who dishes it out ought to be able to take it.

    This is the PREMISE of his campaign. He has been saying from the get go that the politics of fear have gotten us in the situation we are in. You just cant cut him any slack though can you. It has to be a move out of "fear" or being "scared" which is exactly his point.

    Again, you need to watch the ad - this is not a fear ad at all.  And it certainly isn't centered on or focused on terror or terrorism.  It's about the enormous challenges that can confront a president, and the need to be prepared for anything.

    Clueless people see these things and think, "oh no, Im scared and I think Obama is too so I better vote for McCain, oops I mean Hillary". She is just helping Obama with his narrative and sooner or later you will figure it out too! This stuff doesnt work anymore and thank goodness it doesnt.
     "Clueless?"  I can't believe you want to even use that word, because it's the only word I can think of to describe your comment.  Again, it wasn't a fear ad. It wasn't about scaring people - it was about asking people to think about who they believe will be prepared and able to face the challenges of the next 4 years, and shows the challenges other presidents have faced.  

    It so hilarious to read you parsing this and trying to justify it. You know exactly what its intent was and that was to scare people into not voting for Obama because he cant handle Osama. No one is scared though except for the last bastions of Hillarys supporters who think this ad is just great!

    Again, watch the ad, unless you're too afraid to see that you have completely misrepresented it.  It had nothing to do with scaring people into not voting for Obama on the basis of him not being able to handle bin Laden.  
    Your candidate, in his poor debate performance and in his post-debate whining, earned the right to be challenged, and Hillary has the right to ask voters to think about who is up to the task of being the next president; that's what this ad does, and does very effectively.  My guess is that more people will see the ad for the truth it represents, and conclude that perhaps Obama isn't The One.

    indy, geez... (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:46:09 PM EST
    you complain about BTD insulting and degrading people then turn around and do it yourself: "The only "lambs" i know are the ones on this site who so blatantly follow their fearless leaders..."

    And c'mon---did you feel fear when you saw the picture of Osama bin laden in the ad? Do you really think people are so clueless that they want to hide under their beds when they see a picture of Osama bin Laden?

    Do you really think we (that includes me and you, my friend, and my aunt Marilyn, who is a total hardass) are all such cowards?

    Or perhaps his face is a symbol of all the work we need to do.

    We need a multi-phased approach to solve everything that leads terrorism. I say solve because I don't think military action is the only action required. I say solve because like a lot of troubles, it will take time and work and there will be setbacks and tragedies.

    But if you want to solve the problem, you better have the courage to look it in the face.

    really? (none / 0) (#5)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:08:58 PM EST
    then can someone really tell me what was wrong with Bush ads in '04

    they weren't REALLY that negative were they? I mean we were in a war the ads only reminded people of the dangers we faced.

    so now I would love for someone to tell me the difference, I will see if i can find some of his ads  from '04 that were called "negative"

    You won't have any trouble (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:10:57 PM EST
    finding a fearmongering ad, which is what the Obama camp is saying.

    Try "wolves" from 2004.

    Then see if you can tell the difference.


    Hmmm (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:12:03 PM EST
    I am not sure if I follow your argument. which Bush ad are you talking about? Speaking for myself, I do not recall criticizing any ad from Bush that has an image of bin Laden.

    I do remember criticizing the ad run by Kerry and Gephardt against Dean because it implied bin Laden was rooting for Howard Dean.  

    I hope you can see the difference.

    But perhaps you like the idea that seeing an image of bin Laden frightens a Dem Prez candidate. I am not happy with that myself.


    Your take (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:29:31 PM EST
    is even harsher than mine! LOL

    I don't think his reaction shows fear of OBL, just fear of HRC.

    Either way, the overreaction doesn't exactly paint Obama as a winning frontrunner. He seems very skittish.


    You still refuse to concede Bin Laden WAS rooting (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jerry on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:44:16 PM EST
    for Howard Dean....

    LOL! (none / 0) (#97)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:46:36 PM EST
    I'd like to know (none / 0) (#132)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:25:08 PM EST
    what might have happened if someone with Gephardt's guts and nastiness had been sicced on Obama in Iowa.

    Would Obama have melted away like Dean?


    I am still shaking my head (none / 0) (#135)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    trying to figure out why Edwards didn't win in Iowa. Had he done so, this whole story might have turned out completely differently.

    Obama and the caucuses...


    Edwards failed to connect (none / 0) (#147)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:59:19 PM EST
    and he failed to get nasty.

    You know he could have stared a brutal campaign based on Ayers and Wright.

    too much of a gentleman I suppose.


    Oh, Edwards was nasty (none / 0) (#150)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:02:18 PM EST
    but to HRC, not Obama.

    I'm not sure why he failed to connect, myself. I was definitely in his column till he dropped out.

    Maybe he was just too handsome.


    Oh Please (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:14:14 PM EST
    Bin Laden is on the screen for one second alongside the great depression, pearl harbor, Katrina......anything can happen when you are President is the message.  Osama did happen and he is still a factor and he a one second factor on that ad.

    then why do they (none / 0) (#30)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:18:19 PM EST
    even waste the time to cut it in there.

    please I know you guys want to defend Hillary but its the exact same! they are using the image to create a response otherwise why even put it in?

    are you telling me no one realized that the image of Osama just HAPPENED to make the final cut?


    Have we caught OBL yet? (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:20:16 PM EST

    Then isn't he a problem for the next president?

    Using the twin towers for political purposes is reprehensible. Showing that we will need to deal with OBL after Dumbya exits the Oval Office is plain reality.


    Ok wise guy, educate us (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by ineedalife on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:31:24 PM EST
    If you had to make and ad with the 10 biggest challenges faced by Presidents in the last century would Bin Laden make your list?

    Yes, he would; more lives lost than Pearl Harbor! (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by alexei on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:40:25 PM EST
    Of course I would (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:27:30 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's foreign policy team told Bush's during the transition that Al Queda was the biggest threat he would face.  Too bad he didn't listen.

    here I found this (none / 0) (#16)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:13:10 PM EST
    Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, accused Bush of "trading on the heroism" of the firefighters who responded to the Sept. 11 attacks -- even though Bush's new ad does not show any firefighter clearly identified as being part of the 9/11 rescue. It does show 9/11 images -- an American flag waving in front of a damaged building -- and a brief glimpse of firefighters who are not clearly identified.

    in '04 Bush used Images of 9/11 and got hounded for it, here is what they replied with.

    Bush campaign responds

    Bush adviser Karen Hughes, defending the new Bush-for-president ads, said Sept. 11 is "difficult to ignore."

    "It's the defining moment for our generation," she said in a Thursday morning Fox News interview. "It's almost inconceivable to me that the next president can't talk about that day because it did have such an impact on all of our policies."

    following the logic here, I now can't really say much about him using the images, I mean in light of what Hillary did here he does have a point now, and technically back then I was wrong to say it was wrong to use the images.

    but I stick by it, I say he was wrong then and she is wrong now. I'd post more examples but I dont want to spam.


    the IMAGES (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:14:56 PM EST
    of that day was the issue there.

    you really do not see the difference between showing the carnage of the WTCs with an image of bin Laden?



    oh please (none / 0) (#26)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:17:19 PM EST
    they both are trying to do the same thing.

    you SEE the image and react to it. what was wrong with him using the image it IS hard to ignore.

    and no I don't see a difference between using the images of 9/11 and using the image of the man responsible for it.

    or what do you think of when you see Osama?


    A guy we haven't caught yet (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:18:19 PM EST
    That is exactly what I see!

    and (none / 0) (#32)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:19:30 PM EST
    why do we want to catch him again?

    whats the big deal about Osama?

    oh yeah the guy who PLANNED 9/11.

    you right big difference using images of 9/11 and using the image of the guy who planned it.

    my mistake.


    Now THERE (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:20:56 PM EST
    is an answer I pray to God Obama will NEVER EVER give.

    the difference is (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:20:25 PM EST
    showing the carnage of the day is in horribly bad taste. that is the point.

    My gawd, forget about what the ads are trying to do, it is the offensiveness of using images of the deaths of 3000 to wave bloody shirt.

    If the ad had used an image of bin Laden, there wouild be nothing to say.

    Consider this, what if Obama used an ad that said "we need to go after the perpetrator of 9/11 instead of wasting our precious lives and treasure in Iraq" would that be offensive? If not, then why would using an image of bin Laden be offensive.

    Honestly, the reactions are beyond knee jerk and stupid.

    Politically stupid especially.


    If she's destined to lose... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:28:22 PM EST
    ...to Obama, I think she ought to put him through his paces and jolt him and his team into readiness.

    He's a big lad.  


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:37:52 PM EST
    the SDs need to know the campaign can handle mccain and admittedly go offensive when needed.  The passive-aggressive "i'm not playing dirty" routine just will not work in the GE when he's actually fighting for media support.

    Obama doesn't have a single strongly contested win in his history, and that's a serious problem in terms of campaign experience.


    Well, there is one... (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:12:06 PM EST
    he lost to Bobby Rush for Congress. Bobby Rush just kept pointing out how inexperienced he was and that he wasn't ready for the job of Congressman. That was in 2000. Since then he has been a part-time state Senator, they are only in session four months a year in Ill., and has not finished one term in the US Senate yet. So now he claims, eight years after he wasn't ready for a congressional seat, that he is ready for the biggest job in the world. I wish I had an ego like that..LOL I would feel oh so much better about myself, as the young say.

    oh please (none / 0) (#53)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:26:32 PM EST
    yes just the image itself is not offensive,

    but is that what this ad is? especially when it occurs, when its giving us a LIST of things we need to worry, about. watch when it occurs and what else is around it.

    the image of Bin laden occurs right when we are being told of all the other stuff that makes this a TOUGH world.

    This is a standard there are things you need to fear and worry about, and only I will solve it.


    Perhaps it's just a matter of perspective. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Iphie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:56:10 PM EST
    My perspective as someone who lived in the so-called "red-zone" around the WTC, who watched the attacks from my bedroom window and who breathed the dust and fumes from the burning pile for months after the attack, I can tell you that images of the burning buildings are considerably more offensive and upsetting to me than images of Osama bin Laden.

    The images of the buildings are of the event itself and serve as an immediate, visceral invocation of that day. The images of bin Laden are at least one step removed -- I can make the intellectual connection of him to the event, but it is much different than the emotional and physical reaction I have from seeing images of the act itself.

    I don't think that is such a difficult concept to understand, and I hope that you are not just being willfully obtuse and I'm not just wasting my energy here trying to explain it.


    Editing (none / 0) (#119)
    by Iphie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:09:44 PM EST
    Yeah, that should be "evocation" not "invocation."

    Giantic difference. (none / 0) (#76)
    by ding7777 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:35:58 PM EST
    the Republican ads were about the WOT and using 9/11 as the focus to promote FEAR.

    Hillary's ad is a collage of 75 years of unexpected events in which the POTUS had to deal with (Stock Market crash, Pearl Harbor, WWII, Cold War, Cuba, oil embargo, Berlin Wall, Osama, Katria, gas prices, city slums, home foreclosure) to promote Hillary "being ready on day one"


    also it shows democratic courage. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:53:55 PM EST
    over a century of conflict and challenges.

    Once again (none / 0) (#116)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:03:37 PM EST
    HRC shows herself to be a true Democrat, despite what the ObamaNation contends.

    Yup. I react MUCH differently to (none / 0) (#92)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:43:08 PM EST
    images of that day than I do to an imagine that shows we have failed to catch the guy.

    Huge, huge difference (none / 0) (#79)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:36:35 PM EST
    I don't know about you, but for me bin ladin stands for "terrorism", not "9/11". He represents the forces that currently oppose us. Putting pictures of fallen buildings, where people died, on a commercial is in incredibly bad taste. But showing an image of a man who represents a political crisis is a good way of communitcating that we need to deal with terrorism without showing the fearful images associated with terrorism - bombs and blood.

    Were they that big a deal? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:50:10 PM EST

    The Obama Campaign response to ad (none / 0) (#13)
    by 1jane on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:12:13 PM EST
    "If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidates 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."
    Bill Clinton 2004

    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    that is a crappy response to THIS ad.

    that is my point.


    Bill vs Hillary (none / 0) (#37)
    by 1jane on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:20:20 PM EST
    The response tells the tale of mixed messages and ever changing messages from the Clinton's.

    You really do not get it (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:22:11 PM EST
    THAT reaction may be a good one to a different ad or issue, for this ad, it is horribly stupid imo.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Steve M on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:29:17 PM EST
    The Obama campaign seems to believe they can get away with calling ANYTHING "negative" or "fearmongering."  Why?  Because they've gotten so much positive reinforcement whenever they've done so.  In the process I believe they've lost their good judgment and become entirely too dependent upon getting friendly media.

    When the media is against them and refuses to reinforce Obama's frames - as with the recent discussion of McCain's "100 years" comment - they seem to be completely at sea.


    That's the danger of BTD's media darling (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:32:08 PM EST
    theory. If the people disagree with the media, as, for example, in 2006, Obama's going to have a problem.

    It's like having the Court Jester... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:35:46 PM EST
    ...as Chancellor or Vizier.

    They have MSNBC to translate every Gaffe, but the rest of the press will start to get aggressive.


    Bill vs. Hillary get real.. (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by kimsaw on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:38:12 PM EST
    Yes he was President, but this is about her and how she will govern. I do things very differently from  my husband. Am I supposed to blame Barack for Michelle's first time proud of her country comment? Oh I hear all the but buts cause she takes credit for what happened in the 90's but she sure takes a lot of garbage for it too. It's all out there. This woman stands on her own. Listen to her and what she is offering. 90's was Bill's campaign this is hers. She is RESPONSIBLE for this time in history. Bill had his time. So give it a rest.

    This ad is not fear mongering and Obama best come up with an answer to it more than whining. This isn't about the growl of fear, this ad refers to what a PRESIDENT has to face. And Obama better man up, cause the lady has got him beat.


    it's good for a primary (none / 0) (#62)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:29:18 PM EST
    lousy fot he general election.

    I know which candidate wants me to think. (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:13:41 PM EST
    There's no debate about it.

    But wait.... (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:14:38 PM EST
    ...I thought they already discredited Bill Clinton as a liar and a racist. I'm confused.

    LOL. Exactly. (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:20:02 PM EST
    I thought Bill was a liar!  

    About the ad, it's great.  For too long Democrats run away from national security issues. The same way Kerry did in 2004.  I'm GLAD she is using this. She should. I love that she's not afraid to go after being strong on national security and the military.

    And Obama's faux outrage will only serve to appease the choir.  Why doesn't he talk about national security? And comparisons to Bush's wolf ad are just silly. Bush was trying to say that Democrats were wimps when there is danger. Running away from the real issue of terrorism is what had us lose in 2004. Not very smart for Obama to go the Kerry route.


    Does he need to talk about National Security? (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:24:12 PM EST
    I thought after his 2002 speech, we should know all we need to know about his take on National Security.

    Don't forget his childhood! (none / 0) (#104)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:51:23 PM EST
    That's all we need to know, trust him when he says this  ;)

    Biden or Dobbs experience challenge (none / 0) (#56)
    by bison on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:27:01 PM EST
    In the early debates, Biden or Dobbs should have challenge her assumption that her husband's administration, accomplishments, and experiences were her own.  We wouldn't be here if they would have been tougher on her experience claims in the earlier debates.  If she could have bush off their challenges, she would have been in a stronger position.  McCain will eat her alive with this natural security stuff.

    No he won't. (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:34:59 PM EST
    McCain has that he's a veteran. And like a smart politician, Hillary always shows respect for that.  She is a member of the Armed Services Committee and has been very involved in troop support and national security in general.  She's got so much more to stand on in that regard than Obama. Obama is silly to criticize this because all it does is highlight his weakness in yet ANOTHER aspect of being President.  Closing your eyes and hoping it away will not work for Mr. Obama. He is a fool to run away from matters of national security.  The Republicans managed to make a war hero look like a wuss. They'll tear obama to shreds if he's going to be acting this wussy before he's even the nominee.

    agree! (none / 0) (#90)
    by kimsaw on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:41:34 PM EST
    That's pretty funny (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Trickster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:50:48 PM EST
    I think this is the first time they have claimed that there is any value at all to anything Bill Clinton has ever said or done.

    Am I the only one who finds it disturbing (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:51:13 PM EST
    and telling that the only time Obama wants to invoke Bill Clinton is when his words or actions can be used - so he thinks - to bludgeon Hillary?

    What does that say about Obama?  Nothing good, in my opinion; it's very immature and passive-aggressive.  Seen quite enough of that these last 8 years, thanks.


    It's the same (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:52:54 PM EST
    thing as when he claims Hillary served tea as First Lady but still blames her for NAFTA.  

    what it tells me ... (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by kimsaw on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    Obama and Russert are kindred spirits...they use up a lot of air time but say little of substance.

    And yet again (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:15:37 PM EST
    He can't be original. Sorry - we don't need another president who can't have an original thought.

    This sounds bad... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:26:42 PM EST
    ...when you realize that Obama has been running ads trying to scare people into rejecting Clinton because of her health care plan, while Clinton has been running ads telling people that she is better qualified to lead the nation through the challenges it now faces. Of course, I'm sure that the media will not spin it that way. Obama is the candidate for "hope", even if the only hope he seems to offer is the word itself.

    Why, that woman will garnish your wages! (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:30:43 PM EST
    Let's get real (none / 0) (#39)
    by bison on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:20:37 PM EST
    This is not about winning.  Clinton has won the Pennsylvania primary.  This is about real people, a war, a declining economy, and a real  erosion of our civil liberties.  The Pennsylvania Primary is an exercise.  The North Carolina and the Indiana primaries will be exercises. This long protracted Democratic Primary needs to find an exit strategy.  It needs to be brush off our shoulders.

    We have an exit strategy (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:29:21 PM EST
    It's called a "convention". During the convention, all of the delegates will gather and make a great deal of fuss about announcing their preference for our candidate. Negotiations will happen in back rooms and passionate speeches on the floor. They will have red, white, and blue banners and balloons and lots of flags, and silly hats and confetti. It will be quite a spectacle, and the eyes of the entire world will be on it this year because for once it won't be just a show - it will mean something.

    Ooh, I hope so! (none / 0) (#72)
    by nashville on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:33:58 PM EST
    My sister & were just hoping that the Convention would be in early August so we could vacation somewhere & immerse ourselves in fromt of the TV.  But alas, school will have started so we'll just have to watch and hopefully celebrate from home!

    whoops - BTD!! (none / 0) (#44)
    by superjude on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:21:59 PM EST

    Knew this would happen watch KO sputter tonight (none / 0) (#48)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:23:02 PM EST
    this sect in the Party always has a extreme stress response whenever Iraq the Prince of Saudi are mentioned by Senator Clinton it seems to threaten their safety and makes them feel helpless.

    BTD, I haven't been on the site for a while so I'm (none / 0) (#78)
    by Angel on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:36:22 PM EST
    wondering if you still support Obama or if you have gone over to Hillary's side.  Not trying to be off topic or flippant, just wondering because some of your posts are very critical of Obama and his campaign. Thanks.

    i'm critical of him (none / 0) (#105)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:51:43 PM EST
    but I think on balance he will get to make a better case on Iraq than Hillary Clinton.

     that's all he's worth in my opinion.


    That's only because we've internalized (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:44:44 PM EST
    The REPUBLICAN talking point that you can't criticize the war if you "voted for it."

    It's a shame that we did internalize that, there's no logical reason for it.

    You can vote for funding, and criticize.

    You can vote to confirm Condi, and then criticize her policies.

    All of that seems to go without saying for me.

    So it seems to make equal sense to me that you could have voted to give authority, and then criticize how that authority is used.

    But I do realize someone such as myself lost that framing war a long time ago.

    So.  Why did Dems internalize this REPUBLICAN talking point?

    I think I know why we gave up on refuting that talking point.

    I think it has to do with certain people who have figured out how to make a lot of money by waging a war for the soul of the Democratic Party.


    Yes (none / 0) (#167)
    by chrisvee on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:42:01 PM EST
    It has always seemed to me that continuing to fund the war is much harder to justify than the initial vote for the AUMF but I realize I'm out of step with conventional thinking on that point.

    My question was to BTD. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Angel on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:54:13 PM EST
    Sensitive. (none / 0) (#148)
    by kayla on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:59:29 PM EST

    Salo is self-taught, guy. (none / 0) (#153)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:27:47 PM EST