home

The Overwrought Reaction To The Clinton Ad, Part II

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:35:48 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Josh Marshall gins up the overwrought reaction to the Clinton ad calling the Obama's camp's link to a Bill Clinton 2004 statement a "gotcha" moment. Just absurd. Obama supporter Steve Benen says it well:

The initial response from the Obama campaign directed reporters to a video of Bill Clinton in 2004 saying, “If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think; if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” True enough. But I’ve seen plenty of demagogic fear-mongering, and this ain’t it. There’s a touch of the “fear card” there, but it’s so mild, it maybe registers a two on the political Richter scale.

(Emphasis supplied.) The Obama and ObamaWorld overreaction was quite absurd and not smart politically.

< For Declaring A Winner Tomorrow, The Popular Vote Trumps The Delegate Count | Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Overwrought Reaction To The Clinton Ad, Part II | 158 comments (158 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    If you don't unilaterally praise (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:38:19 PM EST
    everything Obama does, you're no longer a part of ObamaNation.

    Cue the Obamans' outrage at Benen in 3...2...1...

    No it'll be about how (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:43:43 PM EST
    Clinton overreachs to everything as well...5432_

    [ Parent ]
    You got it in one. (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:51:57 PM EST
    Over at DK they are accusing her of everything - including high gas prices.

    Yes, Clinton is single handedly responsible for everything that the Bush administration did, and Congress and let's not forget Poland!

    I'm tired of it.  I told a couple of people to get with the program - gas prices aren't going to come down.  What's Obama going to do - wave his magic Unity wand and get the oil fields flowing again?

    [ Parent ]

    No, there is no outrage for Steve, (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:56:20 PM EST
    because that wasn't the totality of his reaction - there was some negative in there for Hillary, too, enough so that if you read the comments, you'll see that that is where they have chosen to direct their focus.

    Watching Obama's performance since the debate has been, for me, anyway, like watching a small child ratchet up the tantrums in the belief that it's how to get one's way.  Anyone who's ever spent time with a 3 year old knows what I'm taling about.

    But, he's not 3, so what would make someone depart so radically from his message of hope and unity and change? Fear, that's what.  I think we're going to keep seeing that, which is a big, big risk for him going forward.

    [ Parent ]

    This is why (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by pie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:01:03 PM EST
    I've finally had to take ten giant steps back.  The vitriol and insanity has reached fevered pitch at some of the lefty blogs, including my favorite one.  :)  I noticed there was a post about this there, but I didn't even bother to read the predictable comments.  It's like an oasis over here, and my blood pressure has been normal for days.

    This latest manufactured outrage is just stupid.  The more they feel threatened, the louder and more irrational they get.

    Not doing Obama any good at all.

    [ Parent ]

    Hi pie! (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:04:39 PM EST
    Good to see you here. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Hi, madamab! (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by pie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:06:34 PM EST
    Nice to be here.  I've spent less time blogging and more time doing yardwork, too.  So it's all good.

    [ Parent ]
    Good for you! (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:08:12 PM EST
    The weather has been great. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    yard work is a good thing (none / 0) (#107)
    by kredwyn on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:50:20 PM EST
    to work with. I'd planned on taking a bike ride today. But it's been on/off raining all day. So that waits for another day.

    [ Parent ]
    And Don'tThe Obamaholics Seem More Like Repugs? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:00:54 PM EST
    They are doing the exact same thing rightwing nuts do everyday.  It is especially telling on the cable shows where they talk over people, interrupt, talk louder and no matter how wrong they are, they act dismissive and believe everyone has swayed over to their side.  That is how I feel when I am on DKos and HuffPo.  What anyone says has no relevance if it is not a glowing endorsement for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Off Topic But (none / 0) (#115)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:59:23 PM EST
    CSPAN has a forum on women presidential politics and there are some great discussions on women in politics, even touching on Hillary's candidacy. FYI only.

    [ Parent ]
    The problem is that Obama supporters (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:38:45 PM EST
    are allergic to any suggestion that maybe he just isn't ready for this job, which is the suggestion Hillary's ad seems to make. I think it's completely within bounds for her to make that argument, no matter how much it pisses off the cultists.

    It's the most dangerous argument (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:01:07 PM EST
    They have to tear down anybody who makes it, because they can't counter the argument. Obama really is inexperienced. They have to turn this election into a referendum on "change", or "hope", or race, or personality, because if they allow the "experience is necessary" argument to take hold, they lose.

    And the media play along. I was just reading a story about Axelrod:

    The firefighter asked Axelrod about Obama: Everybody's raving about him, this new black guy, but he doesn't have any experience. Not everyone's in love with him, you know." And the guy grinned, confrontationally, and it just kind of hung there, like race sometimes does in Chicago, somewhere between tolerance and menace.

    Note that the reporter empahsized the racial aspect of that comment and ignored the major point of the speaker: that Obama didn't have enough experience. You can bet that the right wing will be hammering on "experience" from the day Obama becomes our nominee forward.

    [ Parent ]

    That's Awful (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:06:40 PM EST
    I find that really disgusting.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, Axelrod Brought MA Deval Patrick... (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:04:25 PM EST
    and they can't stand him.  MA can't wait to get rid of Patrick.  Axelrod's Obama campaign is a carbon copy of Patricks.  I don't know if anyone asked any relevant questions about Patrick, but I know Obama supporters sure don't cotton to any of Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Not only that, but he is recycling (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:27:00 PM EST
    Patrick's speeches for Obama. I remember on DKos, when Edwards was still in, a big brouhaha about Obama plagiarizing his speeches. Turned out it was "ok" since he was using the same campaign manager. I personally saw it as cheating, but that's just me.

    [ Parent ]
    Is DP the reason BHO is doing so poorly in MA (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:40:34 PM EST
    I guess this is off topic, but I was totally shocked to see that Obama is barely leading McCain in massachusetts (http://www.pollster.com/08-MA-Pres-GE-MvO.php) while Clinton is way out in front there (http://www.pollster.com/08-MA-Pres-GE-MvC.php )

    Is this because people are associating Obama with Patrick, and taking out their anger at Patrick on Obama?

    (and does that explain why Obama lost so badly to Clinton, despite the support of Kennedy, Kerry, and Patrick?)

    [ Parent ]

    A Couple Of Commenters From MA (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:46:41 PM EST
    on another blog were putting forth the theory that people in MA were comparing Obama to Patrick and saying "No Thanks."

    [ Parent ]
    Bet this is one of KO's attacks tonight (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:56:16 PM EST
    when she comes on his show, since he is so scripted by the Boyz in the Blogz.

    [ Parent ]
    The boyz on the blogz (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Dave B on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:58:16 PM EST
    Is how he does research for his show.

    I've been convinced of that for 6 months now.

    [ Parent ]

    If he writes his own show (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:01:26 PM EST
    many hosts do not.

    [ Parent ]
    He does write his own stuff. n/t (none / 0) (#81)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:31:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, there are a ton of Kossacks who (none / 0) (#134)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:29:01 PM EST
    email Keith daily with screeds on what they think he should mention, or on who they think the worst person in the world is..etc. etc. So it's not surprising that his tone is similar to DKos, they are always yammering in his ear.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes well that is a different issue - (none / 0) (#154)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:54:20 PM EST
    where he gets his material - his fodder - is a completely different question than who writes his show when he is hosting.

    [ Parent ]
    It really is a bit pathetic. It actually makes me (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:42:16 PM EST
    mad that the Obama camp and some of his supporters think making a stink about this is a good idea. It's just dumb and when they try these tactics in the general election they are just going to look weak and foolish.

    I think sexism is what allows this whining (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:46:23 PM EST
    No mere WOMAN ought to be able to use the fear tactic against a manly man like Obama!
    Can you imagine Obama's camp using the same response against Edwards? I can't---I think it would seem "womanish", frankly.

    [ Parent ]
    agreed (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by proudliberaldem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:56:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    As For Masculinity, Obama Is Sadly Lacking (1.00 / 3) (#122)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:07:23 PM EST
    Even Dowd refers to him as effete.  He is either that or just plain lazy.  My guess would be that Michelle rules the roost and he has just given up asserting himself.  But, when he does it kinda seems like "the woman scorned".

    [ Parent ]
    PssttCmere08 (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:32:58 PM EST
    I've been sitting here trying to think of a polite way to say your comment is sexist. And stupid.

    But there is no way to do that politely.

    [ Parent ]

    Unlikely that Michelle rules the roost.. (none / 0) (#138)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:32:07 PM EST
    since she once told someone where she applied for a job that she would have to get Obama's approval before she could take it. I think it was a job at City Hall or something. I think he just doesn't like confrontation that isn't set up for him to win.

    [ Parent ]
    Correction "we" are going (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:34:21 PM EST
    to look weak and foolish... sigh - I'm a Democrat and so if he gets the nod, I'll have to defend him and that won't be easy with some of the rocket scientists he has "helping" him these days.

    [ Parent ]
    That's one big reason I'm becoming Indy (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by kempis on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:40:24 PM EST
    After 32 years of being a Democrat, I'm done. And one reason is that I don't want to feel obligated to  carry water for Obama in a general campaign.

    Another reason is that I'm merely obliging Markos and Co.: they want party purity? They want to purge the despicable centrists from the Democratic ranks? Fine. I don't stick around where I'm not welcome, not even  if I've been a Democrat almost as long as some of these boyz have been alive.

    So, I'm outta this party. Maybe the loss in November will be a little less painful.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm staying with the party (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:44:57 PM EST
    ...but I might have to find a word other than "progressive" to describe myself, after watching the ethical/intellectual implosion of the "progressive" leadership of the blogosphere.

    I adopted "queer" to describe myself way back when doing so was considered transgressive ... maybe I should call myself a liberal, just to freak people out now ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    LOL! (none / 0) (#159)
    by kempis on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:57:37 PM EST
    I adopted "queer" to describe myself way back when doing so was considered transgressive ... maybe I should call myself a liberal, just to freak people out now ;-)

    I was "queer" way back before the damned deconstructionists started spouting off about "queer theory." That soured me on the word. These days, I just call myself "a retired lesbian."

    ;)

    [ Parent ]

    I really don't know how to defend him from (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by tigercourse on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:44:04 PM EST
    most of his problems. I'm not going to go out there and argue that experience  doesn't matter with a straight face.

    [ Parent ]
    no defense (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:54:16 PM EST
    you don't get it.

    The reason why the Obots act the way they do is because there is no real rational defense for Obama.  

    We're going to be stuck employing the same tactics they are using now when it comes time to discuss Obama v McCain.  

    McCain will have to be the anti-Christ, just like Hillary Clinton is.  There really isn't an affirmative argument to make for Obama, he will have to be the "not-McCain" just as he is now the "not-Hillary"

    And what bugs me is that I really don't want to have to go there.  At least with Clinton, I can say "yes, she's got flaws, but..." and then list a lot of good reasons to vote for her.  I can't do that with Obama.  A couple of months ago I could, but now all I can come up with is "yes, he's got flaws, but...he's not McCain" and lull myself into a stopor by chanting "supreme court, supreme court, supreme court..." every time I think about Obama as the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    Neither will I. (none / 0) (#129)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:16:59 PM EST
    I am back to the old stand by - the not particularly convincing stand by - "He's not as bad as the other guy who really is a nightmare beyond your wildest dreams... etc."  Didn't work well in 2000 or 2004 though and McCain is a clever opponent with much better media skills than Obama has.  I will still try though as McCain would, I believe, be a threat to this nation in far more significant ways than we can even possibly imagine right now.

    I have a young woman staying with me at the moment who told me that she thought that McCain would be a huge improvement over Bush.  To me that means that neither one of our candidates is doing their job right now.  McCain would be worse than Bush of that I am certain.

    [ Parent ]

    the dems in congress would unite and fight (none / 0) (#140)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:32:59 PM EST
    against McCain.  Obama, not so much.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (none / 0) (#145)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:44:41 PM EST
    I haven't seen much fight out of the 110th Congress and they won't even hate in the 111th McCain which will be worse.

    Anybody counting on our Congress to protect us from another insane Republican, is smokin' something imo.

    If McCain gets in, five years from now we'll be in some god awful war with Iran and who knows what other countries obsessed with primarying one stupid irrelavent Senator again - as if that is going to help...

    [ Parent ]

    I won't bother defending him. (none / 0) (#87)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:38:06 PM EST
    He may get my vote, but that's about it.

    [ Parent ]
    Marshall is so sad these days.. (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:44:40 PM EST
    I wonder if he can ever come back.
    He's a ghost of his former self.

    That Koolaid must be really, really sweet. (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:46:58 PM EST
    He's staked his entire career on Obama being the nominee. But what will he and Kos and Aravosis do if that doesn't happen? Will they man up and support HRC?

    They've left themselves no outs here.

    [ Parent ]

    It's not like Obama is going to make their (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:48:13 PM EST
    lives so sweet if he is elected, IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    It's hallucinogenic Koolaid. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:48:52 PM EST
    It allows you to see ponies everywhere!

    [ Parent ]
    What if he does get the nod and (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:55:21 PM EST
    then turns out to be everything I suspect he will be - which is a not so friendly to the grassroots character who is pushing an updated version of the DLC's "Third Way" politics now cleverly called "Post Partisanship" politics?  What about those years of beating the drum for clear definitions between Democrats and Republicans which Clinton seems to do and Obama avoids at all costs?  What about liberal policies that they all keep saying he "secretly" intends to enact but may well not?  None of them seem capable of insisting on at least one particular policy from Obama; and therefore it is entirely possible he won't feel the need to deliver much of anything at all... What happens when Obama doesn't make any meaningful moves to get us entirely out of Iraq?  What then?  What happens when he appoints a centerist Supreme Court Justice and tells them that he is doing it so as not to upset the Republicans?  What happens when he tells his Attorney General to leave the BushCult crimes alone?  I think we'll see a lot of heads exploding.  Or maybe they'll just yield to Obama and continue to cheerlead as if nothing in the run up to this election ever happened - as if they never challenged the establishment - as if what they really wanted all along was nothing more than to be on the insider's list inside the Beltway too.

    [ Parent ]
    My biggest fear... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Dawn Davenport on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:16:25 PM EST
    ...is that Obama wins in November and his presidency turns into Jimmy Carter 2: Electric Boogaloo.

    We can't afford an ineffective one-term Dem presidency that will give the spot to the Republicans for the following 12 years, as happened after Carter.


    [ Parent ]

    Yes and it took (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:30:30 PM EST
    a Clinton to win the WH back for the DEMS.

    In 12 years Sen Clinton will be too old.... So we will have to run Chelsea to get the WH back!!

    [ Parent ]

    Don't (none / 0) (#160)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:33:43 AM EST
    you think the TPM, kos and Huffington et al believe that once a Democratic candidate is chosen we will all come trotting home to the left because we will find the right so evil?

    The same applies to KO. They probably believe that once the dust has settled if they pound on McCain the way they pounded on Bush all the house-broken little lefties will come back.

    I think what they have all underestimated is the amount of loathing coming from both sides of the lefty community towards each other. Add that to the lack of loathing towards McCain.

    That may change in time. Right now it appears to me that Obama supporters and Hillary supporters hate each other and the respective candidates more than the Republican candidate.

    I know that I do and I'm constantly trying to talk myself out of it. But then a McCain supporter hasn't been insulting me and my candidate for nearly a year.

    [ Parent ]

    thought it was a joke... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:46:05 PM EST
    ...but did he actually say that about eating his waffle?

    Someone made it up surely.

    Apparently it's true (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:52:46 PM EST
    Why Can't I Just Eat My Waffle?

    [ Parent ]
    omfg. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:55:14 PM EST
    That's unbelievable.

    Can I Eat my Waffle?

    [ Parent ]

    no one ever did more for waffles (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:49:57 PM EST
    than Barack Obama

    [ Parent ]
    And No One Did More 4 My Pet Goat Than Bush (none / 0) (#135)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:29:51 PM EST
    I can see it now...we've been attacked by terrorists sir....can't I just eat my waffle?

    Obama's My Pet Goat Moment

    [ Parent ]

    Was it an ironic joke perhaps? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:57:06 PM EST
    any context?

    [ Parent ]
    Not a joke, a Repub GE ad. (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:41:04 PM EST
    we all know what flip/flop looked like. Do we really want to see what waffle looks like?

    He's let enough waffles on the trail, I could do the ad myself.

    [ Parent ]

    Per A More Detailed Account On No Quarter (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:43:46 PM EST
    the reporter asked Obama about Carter's meeting with Hamas.

    [ Parent ]
    Please, let me just kill myself now. (none / 0) (#101)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:48:00 PM EST
    Israeli-Palestinian relations are going to be one of the most important things we will have to repair after eight years of damage by Dubya.

    We've had it if this man is the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    Not So Great (none / 0) (#130)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:18:39 PM EST
    During the Clinton years either.

    From a review of Carters book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

    Stripped of its self-referential passages, the real point of the book is that peace doesn't have a chance without an active commitment by the United States that includes a readiness to lean on Israel. He praises Bill Clinton for his "strong and sustained efforts to find some reasonable accommodation," then complains bitterly that in the Clinton years "there was a 90 per cent growth in the number of settlers in the occupied territories," most of whom would have remained on the West Bank under the terms that Clinton blamed Arafat for rejecting at Camp David in the summer of 2000.



    [ Parent ]
    What is wrong with this man? (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:56:14 PM EST
    Why can't he answer a damn question?

    Was it more than eight?

    [ Parent ]

    Gives a new definition (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:02:05 PM EST
    to waffling!

    [ Parent ]
    My son at 17... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:40:55 PM EST
    "mom, I am eating now, I cannot talk about college applications, leave me alone"  So, I can see how the Boyz relate.  I know...I am not nice.  

    [ Parent ]
    Evidently He Couldn't Answer The Foreign Policy (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:57:03 PM EST
    question.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't understand how ... (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:59:06 PM EST
    people don't see how Bush-like Obama is.

    He's just another elitist who hates answering tough questions.

    We've been through this before.  And it wasn't pretty.

    If he gets elected I predict years of "waffle-time." (Double-meaning implied.)

    [ Parent ]

    The US votes for cocky cocksure (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:01:29 PM EST
    middle aged men like that.

    It's in the DNA of the Republic.  I often wonder what guys like Jefferson were like.  Probably insufferable. But at least he wrote the Declaration.

    [ Parent ]

    We've had more discerning taste in (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:02:30 PM EST
    the past.  Like we used to demand to know how they would apply their cocky energy - Jefferson wrote a document that made him famous - his document expressed his views.  Obama says "hope" and "change" and everyone just falls over themselves to chase after him even though he continues to insist that we hope for the change we want rather than insist that he articulate his vision of exactly what kind of change he is proposing.  Not all change is good as evidenced by the past 7+ years.  I'd like to know a bit more about how Obama really defines change in practical terms - in well thought out policy terms.  But he wants to keep that a secret or something because like many of his supporters suggest he is trying to dupe some Republicans into voting for him - problem is I think he is probably trying to dupe the liberals into voting for him and that the Republicans will be happy as clams in the event that he is elected.

    [ Parent ]
    I eat your waffle (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:26:10 PM EST
    I'd like to see a new Clinton ad with a play on that 'There Will Be Blood' line "I drink your milkshake."  Daniel Day-Lewis in his best John Huston voice : "Obama, I eat your waffle!!!"

    [ Parent ]
    oh wow - from the Waffle article (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:37:41 PM EST
    Obama is avoiding small towns!

    >>On the day before the Pennsylvania primary, Obama is campaigning in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas, avoiding the so-called "T" section of the state dominated by rural and conservative voters.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm going to start calling him (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:39:27 PM EST
    Brave Sir Obama!

    A chicken on his shield and everything.

    [ Parent ]

    He seems to have a basic adversion to (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by tigercourse on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:55:35 PM EST
    answering reporters questions. Given that McCain basically treats reporters like royalty, who do we think they are going to favor?

    [ Parent ]
    It' a no brainer. (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:59:37 PM EST
    Well, thwy have their unfair mocking insult for obama now.  I'm thinking they will have mini bowling balls held aloft, a set of those finger holders and they will chant in unison. "Eat my waffles."

    doh.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:01:04 PM EST
    I'm glad you don't work for McCain's campaign!

    [ Parent ]
    I'm doing oppo on him and his missus (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:10:03 PM EST
    here at the library at the U of A.

    All sorts of interesting mafia connections.

    [ Parent ]

    Honestly... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:12:35 PM EST
    he's a terrible candidate with lots of unsavory connections.

    Keep up the good work! :-)


    [ Parent ]

    Haven't they been criticizing "gotcha" (5.00 / 13) (#12)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:47:04 PM EST
    ...politics?  Or does that just apply to everybody except them? I'm sick of Obama's hypocrisy.

    1. He is allowed to attack Clinton, she isn't allowed to attack him.
    2. He's allowd to say he's more qualified, she isn't.
    3. He can praise Republicans, if Clinton so much as compares herself favorably to a Republican she is hurting both him and the party.
    4. He is allowed to use race-based appeals to voters, nobody else is allowed to even mention that there are advantages to his being black.
    5. He is allowed to collect money from whomever he pleases, Clinton is selling her political soul if she takes money from "corporate interests".
    6. He is allowed to scare people into not voting for Clinton by lying about her health insurance plan, she isn't allowed to refer to anything scary in her ads at all.


    You've got the rules down pat. (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:51:34 PM EST
    He is also allowed to complain about the media, but she isn't.

    Oh, and drink beer without being accused of being fake.

    [ Parent ]

    She knows how to hold a beer glass/mug (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:44:38 PM EST
    he does NOT! I think it was the noon news they showed some weekend footage, and his beer glass holding skills were as lacking as his ability to talk to her voters.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (none / 0) (#103)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:48:53 PM EST
    That is petty, but funny. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, it was petty, but . . . (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:11:43 PM EST
    it really stuck out to me, and I'm a wine drinker, lol!~  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    This is the weird thing ... (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:50:48 PM EST
    about Obama world.  They jump to supposed gotchas before they've proved their initial point.

    And their points are almost always based on subjective analysis, which means they really have to prove those points first.

    Obama supporters are supposedly so educated.  But it seems none of them ever learned to write an argumentative essay.

    the ad (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by gnostic19 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:51:07 PM EST
    Obama would be good to agree with the ad, and point out that the world is in fact all the more dangerous because we followed Hillary & dubya's lead and went to war in Iraq.

    Yes, that would have been the smart thing (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:52:16 PM EST
    to do.

    [ Parent ]
    He could also go ... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:54:25 PM EST
    step-by-step, showing how his policies would be a better way to face all these issues.

    But that would require him to be specific.  And he long ago decided that he was never going to get specific in this race.

    [ Parent ]

    "require him to be specific" - lol!~ (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:45:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh I didn't realize (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:01:29 PM EST
    the war was started by Bush and Hillary. Until Obama told me it was so.

    [ Parent ]
    Problem is (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by nell on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:05:12 PM EST
    that is exactly what he did after the 3am ad and Hillary's team shut him down very quickly by releasing an ad about him never having held a single hearing on his foreign relations sub-committee...didn't work too well...

    [ Parent ]
    Is the media preparing to turn from OB to MacClain (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by feet on earth on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:54:22 PM EST
    While we are all furiously blogging before PA votes, did anyone else noticed the pro-Obama TV/Cable stations (ABS at the debate, CNN hiring Tom Snow ...) are quietly moving into a GE mode - aka turning into favoring McCain?
    Or am I just paranoid?

     

    Expecting the news media to turn on the (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by tigercourse on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:56:44 PM EST
    Democrats is never paranoia. That's just common sense.

    [ Parent ]
    Not paranoid. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:48:13 PM EST
    The ABC debate was a McCain favour.

    [ Parent ]
    Joe Conason has a piece in Salon.com (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by gish720 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:33:14 PM EST
    entitled "Obama, Get Ready for the Clinton Rules"

    [ Parent ]
    but if you say his name (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Turkana on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:54:29 PM EST
    the death eaters will know where you are! or maybe i'm mixing up my fantasy novels.

    candyman, candyman, candyman! (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:00:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I swear that I hear thrumming (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:00:22 PM EST
    across the sand dunes, every time I see W.O.R.M. here. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Me thinks thou protesteth too much! (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:05:18 PM EST
    For a "unity" candidate he sure knows nothing about picking his fights.

    He's whining and complaining about everything! and he looks like a wimp. Certainly too sensitive to endure the challenges of the President.

    Strong people don't whine - Go Hillary!

    Only reason to fear this ad if you're Obama (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by doyenne49 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:12:35 PM EST
    is because you know that voters actually do believe you aren't ready for he job. Fear-mongering only works if people see you as weak. Too bad for Obama.

    Haven't they 'won' (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:17:57 PM EST
    the nomination?  It's the math, the math, the math...  What is the problem if they have the math and the nomination is over?  Why all the angst.  I keep saying, for people who have won the nomination, they are awfully petulant and miserable.  What a let down when the nom is official.

    I just love that (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:18:00 PM EST
    Cinton ad. It actually addresses the issues!!

    May be that is the problem!!

    Discussing issues is just so OLD DEM! snark!

    The vapors (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:23:44 PM EST
    This ad is even milder than the 3AM ad, which I also thought was milquetoast.  The Obama campaign and its supporters have really exposed themselves as fainting nellies these last couple of days, first with the overreaction to the debate and now this.  Makes you wonder what they'll do if they're ever in the position of governing...

    There is a difference between (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by nellre on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:23:50 PM EST
    There is a difference between thinking and believing.
    Obama followers aren't thinking, because they're believing.
    Clinton supporters aren't believing because they're thinking.

    Same Reaction (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by northeast73 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:30:43 PM EST
    ...that they had to the 3am ad...call it fear mongering.

    More like EXPERIENCE mongering.

    And, one should add, the Obama (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Andy08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:30:49 PM EST
    candidate ain't asking/making anyone to think; at all.

    Ummm.... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by mattt on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:31:26 PM EST
    ...what outrage?  I don't see any at TPM, or at the Drum link, or at the pro-Obama blogs I happen to read.  All I see is the Obama campaign putting up the old vid of Bill as a response.  Are we so stuck on shrill now that any response = outrage?

    Me, I'm not outraged, just disappointed that Hillary would stoop to playing the same politics of fear we've seen from Bushco over the past 7 years.  It's not gonna work, not in the primary at least.

    Bushco politics of fear (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:33:09 PM EST
    would be to say that if you elect Obama, all these things will happen.  

    Not the same at all. You'll see in the fall.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#85)
    by mattt on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:37:06 PM EST
    I guess I was unfair by calling it the same politics of fear.  Really it's just a more watered-down politics of fear.

    [ Parent ]
    The real issue is this (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:44:29 PM EST
    Arguing that one is better prepared to handle crisis is in itself fearmongering.

    Because that means the other candidate will not handle the crisis as well, right?

    Anyway, that's the case Clinton is making.  And I think she's right to make that case.

    Call it whatever you want, I think Obama does not know how to handle a crisis.

    [ Parent ]

    The Great 2008 Debate Crisis! (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:44:21 PM EST
    You mean like that one?

    [ Parent ]
    OK, now I see (none / 0) (#84)
    by mattt on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:34:33 PM EST
    that in the comment threads to the original TPM post some people get a little hot.  I still don't see how that = Drum's post that the "Obama forces" are trying to "get their troops outraged."

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:38:28 PM EST
    You gotta be kidding me.

    [ Parent ]
    In my continuing attempts.... (none / 0) (#100)
    by mattt on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:47:53 PM EST
    to figure out what the heck BTD and commenters above are talking about, I have discovered that this was covered in more detail at myDD by a poster named Jerome Armstrong.

    A link would have been nice.

    I'm sticking with "watered down politics of fear" as a fair descriptor of the disappointing Hillary ad....and still fail to see any outrage or call to outrage in the Obama response quoted.  I think the Hillary fans are just trying to spin the Obama response - which with the vid of Bill must have stung - as whiny.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:49:23 PM EST
    You gotta be kidding me. Do you not click on links, or read?

    [ Parent ]
    I Think Mattt May Be Here To Stir The Pot (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:15:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    OK, (none / 0) (#114)
    by mattt on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:58:46 PM EST
    just clicked every link in the two TL posts on this - and every embedded link at those links - and still not finding anything properly called "outrage" except in the TPM comments section.  Looks to me like Hillary put up an ad that played to peoples' fears, of real threats and the unknown, and Obama's camp hit back effectively.  To blunt the sting of Bill's words used against them, Hillary boosters attempt to spin Obama response as whiny.

    Really glad I wasted half an hour on this....can't wait till this primary is over and we can focus on the biggest threat to America, the candidacy of John McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Nice of you to drop by, Matt. (none / 0) (#123)
    by pie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:08:30 PM EST
    Funny, I'm not scared at all.  

    We don't get to decide what pushes people's buttons, however.

    You'll learn.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:21:56 PM EST
    you gotta be kidding me.

    [ Parent ]
    I was just being polite. (none / 0) (#132)
    by pie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:24:55 PM EST
    I've seen this behavior way too often.

    [ Parent ]
    Unless you think the fear-mongering (none / 0) (#137)
    by pie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:30:44 PM EST
    won't continue to be an issue because Obama says so.

    Yeah, that'll work.  Te media will be right behind that one.

    Are you kidding me?

    [ Parent ]

    About Overreaction (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:41:35 PM EST
    The more the Obama camp over-reacts to every issue and concern, and makes it off-limits to ask or talk about anything, the worse it gets for him. Because, quite frankly, it makes it look like he doesn't measure up in those areas, or he has something to hide. If there is anything the ABC debate underlined, is that Obama has plenty to hide. Clinton has been giving him a pass on most of this dirt this whole primary. But if by some miracle he makes it to November, you can be very sure that the wingnuts won't. I can just imagine the fun they'll have making ads with the plethora of material that Obama has given them.
    What a farce (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Universal on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:57:54 PM EST
    If anyone is claiming to be upset by OBL being in the ad, then they are implicitly saying that they are weaker on the question of terrorism than their opponent.

    Not what you want to be broadcasting to the voters if you're a candidate who is the favorite to win the nomination.

    Barack Obama and his campaign are a joke. I have lost all respect for him in the last week. He is part Elmer Gantry wannabe combined with part pretty boy combined with someone who has relentlessly pushed the race card in a cynical, destructive manner.

    The thought of this man actually being elected to run the country scares the hell out of me, for reasons having nothing to do with his ethnicity, and I'm not faking it. He has no idea what he's doing and strikes me as someone who is highly relativistic and easily manipulable.

    Great final closing Ad! (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:47:28 PM EST
    If they are outraged, it was a great ad.  

    Obama's Stance on Securtiy Issues Doesn't Cut It (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Richjo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:51:07 PM EST
    Obama's approach to the national security issue being used against him has always bothered me. Obama is being attacked on national security because of his lack of experience. That is totally different from the attacks on John Kerry on national security. Kerry's credentials on the issue were impeccable. He was basically being attacked on it because he was a Democrat, and didn't want to sit by and rubber stamp every Republican power grab in the name of security. It is totally fair game to question Obama on this issue. Dan Qualye was more experienced then Obama when Bush selected him as a VP and the Democrats attacked him on lack of experience. Obama's defense on this issue has often been to smear anyone raising the question by trying to equate it being raised about him to it having been raised about John Kerry and others like Max Cleland. Barack Obama is no John Kerry or Max Cleland when it comes to national security, and the false equating of his situation to their's is a hollow argument that only people who are so desperately blinded by Obama' charisma that they want to vote for him would accept. The Republican's previous use of the fear card was morally disgusting because it was played by a bunch of chicken hawks or never fought and risked for their country (or had their children do so for that matter) against a brave and noble man who had. Barack Obama is not John Kerry, and John McCain is not George W Bush. He has a moral authority on these issues that Bush lacks. If the Obama strategy in a GE is to smear McCain as a fearmonger and warmonger, then he can count me out.

    Everyone's jumpy (none / 0) (#3)
    by bumblebums on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:39:23 PM EST
    Clinton having a cow over "all three of us are better than Bush" was a tad overheated too.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by nell on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:46:28 PM EST
    the problem with his statement was that it completely undermined the argument the DNC is poisted to make, which is that McCain is really McSame - just another 4 years of George Bush. They have an entire marketing campaign around this concept. It is not quite so powerful when McCain can run an ad showing his opponent saying that he, like his opponent, is better than Bush. When you combined that with all the questions swing voters are going to have about Obama's shady associations, you can see it is a real problem. Your average swing voter might think, gee, Obama hangs out with some pretty shady people who don't like this country and even he said McCain is better than Bush, I better go with the safe choice, I don't want to take a gamble.It is a problem because he undermined his message, along with the DNC's message in November.

    In constrast, the Clinton campaign has a pretty quote of McCain saying she would be a great president from an interview conducted while they were travelling in Iraq together.

    [ Parent ]

    Bill Clinton himself (1.00 / 2) (#33)