home

Republican Attack Ads on Obama

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:26:19 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The North Carolina Republican party unveiled an ad today against two Democratic gubernatorial candidates. The ad attacks Barack Obama because he remained in Rev. Wright's church. You can view it here.

John McCain and the national Republican party are calling for it to be removed. But, it's nothing compared to the Willie Horton ad by the 527 group the National Campaign Fund (Floyd Brown)attacking Obama for refusing to vote for a bill that included the death penalty for gang members. You can view it here.

Brown says the initial effort, a 60-second spot called "Victims" will be aired later this month in North Carolina and e-mailed to between 3 and 7 million conservatives this week, with a plea for more funding to further spread the message. "All of the efforts I have ever done in my life have been significantly funded," Brown claimed, though he declined to describe the size of the purchase. "This is going to be the most Internet-intensive effort for an ad debut ever."

Barack Obama should be praised for his vote against the death penalty for gang members. Similarly, I praised him for his vote against the federal anti-gang bill here. ABC News reviews his objections to the Illiniois bill:

At the time Obama argued that the bill would disproportionally impact African-Americans and Hispanics. "There's a strong overlap between gang affiliation and young men of color," he said. "I think it's problematic for them to be singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the same thing."

Obama's right about that.

< How's A Unity Ticket Sound Now? | How Does John McCain Really Feel About Hillary's PA Win? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Republican Attack Ads on Obama | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I agree with Obama (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by themomcat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:38:17 PM EST
    100% on his opposition to the gang bill. It is discriminatory. But this is what he will be confronting if he is the nominee. McCain may be publicly asking that the ad be withdrawn but privately, he is laughing his way to the White House.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:41:44 PM EST
    On the Wright ad the NC GOP declined McCain's "request" to not run it and McCain conceded that he "can't force them not to run it."  As wrong as both ads are, they are a sure sign that Obama is not guaranteed the WH against an old dinosaur with this economy & this war. Sheesh -- 2008 really should have been a cakewalk for the Dems.

    Parent
    Those ads (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:41:59 PM EST
    showing down-ticket dems spliced alongside Wright could be a death nell for super d's.  Anyone up for election next year is going to be watching the fall-out very closely, and wondering how long before their face is spliced into a similar ad.

    As for the other ads, they are going to frame it in such a way that it looks as if Obama is another soft on crime, idiotic liberal--I daresay Ayers will help with this tremendously.  It will play nicely into the "out of touch elitist" theme McCain has been hitting on hard lately.

    And, everyone predicted weeks ago that "Clean Hands" McCain would denounce these sorts of ads, but that they would still run and still do the damage.

    Agree! (none / 0) (#5)
    by alexei on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:44:05 PM EST
    SDs should now be very afraid.  That is why I am predicting a mass exodus to Hillary - or the Dems are really lemmings.

    Parent
    well... (none / 0) (#18)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:01:26 PM EST
    I would prefer that it be demonstrated that these types of attacks have little to no value because they don't simply disappear because we don't like them.

    You may recall that one of the county GOP organizations in Washington front paged the e-mail slurs against Obama a few months ago.

    This type of stuff is going to go on...best that it not mean anything and the only way for that to occur is for it to not mean anything.

    While I appreciate that my partisanship in favor of Hillary over Obama might want this to cause pause to SD's, my wish truly is that Democrats everywhere regardless of who they prefer say 'no mas'

    As for 'Clean Hands' McCain...the guy already publicly asked them not to run them.

    Of course, as Atrios points out, the main stream media then gives them free play for days while publicly 'analyzing' them which seems to be even worse.

    Parent

    If they find even one former student.... (none / 0) (#64)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:36:21 PM EST
    or colleague of Bill Ayers that will say they heard him say something complimentary about the Oklahoma City bombing, or about the Unabomber, it is game over. I can see the ad showing the smoking rubble in Oklahoma City saying that less than a year later the unrepentant terrorist Ayers was hosting fundraisers for his good friend, Obama.

    Parent
    gore Vidal (none / 0) (#67)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:53:25 PM EST
    was overly nice to McVeigh.

    Was it a crush though? or serious political analysis?

    Parent

    I had a thought when I heard (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by leis on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:43:53 PM EST
    that McCain was demanding this ad be withdrawn.  Is it possible he wins two ways by taking this position? One: he looks like a good guy because he wants to run an "issues" campaign and two: he doesn't really want Obama to lose the nomination.  I believe he'd rather run against Obama. Win-Win

    Same thing with the Obama ad in Nevada (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:25:55 PM EST
    by the union there, the ad that called Clinton a -- in Spanish slang -- "f***king whore."

    Obama did not even try to stop that ad.  I wonder if that occurs to him now, hearing about this one.

    Parent

    Did KO and Maddow (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by leis on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:31:29 PM EST
    demand Obama denounce that ad? Nah, that's what I thought.  Cause why should Obama denounce something that is so clearly true. What a bunch of hacks.  

    Parent
    OBAMA DESERVES WORSE... (none / 0) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:03:40 PM EST
    I didn't know about that ad in NV.  Could Obama be more loathsome.  He is the classic "Do as I say, not as I do" buffoon.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#9)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:47:53 PM EST
    Thats what the talking heads have been saying all day long.  It's the same thing with 527s really, this will probably be the mold.  527 releases awful attack ad, McCain feigns a "No, don't do thaaaat, that's mean and divisive."  The 527 responds "Pfft, we do what we want!" and unless Obama or Clinton can shape the message that McCain can't even control his own supporters, McCain will come out looking like the good guy while the damage from the ads will still be done to his opponent.

    Parent
    nah, really? ;-) (none / 0) (#21)
    by Nasarius on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:04:33 PM EST
    It's pretty much the oldest political trick in the book, and just a taste of things to come. "Independent" groups will be airing these ads 24/7 nationwide as soon as the nominee is determined.

    McCain, like Bush to the Swift Boat Vets, will continue to disavow the ads without disputing their content. It's win-win for the GOP, and Obama has helpfully provided enough exciting content (with video!) to keep it all fresh for months.

    Parent

    Eh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:46:35 PM EST
    I don't agree with calling it a Willie Horton ad.  That's another term we risk defining down through overuse, much like Swiftboating.

    What I do think is that a number of superdelegates seem to prefer Obama because they fear the sort of ads that will be run linking them to Hillary if she's the nominee.  While I wish these anti-Obama ads didn't exist, I think it's useful for the elected superdelegates to understand that Obama's coattails carry baggage of their own.

    Potential Hillary/SD ads pale in comparison.. (none / 0) (#19)
    by alexei on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:01:45 PM EST
    particularly since these are actually pretty mild (comparatively speaking for Repugs).  Thing Wright with his 9/11 comments and the planes flying into the Towers and the Pentagon (already was one on YouTube).  What are they going to have, Hillary in Bosnia and the SDs - yeah that will be just terrifying.

    Parent
    are you seriously comparing (none / 0) (#32)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:22:51 PM EST
    her exaggerations about Bosnia to "God d*amn America" and saying whites created AIDS to kill black people (pesky white gays got in the way, I guess) and calling us all part of the KKK and saying that Natalie Holloway deserved what she got?  How about that footage of Wright humping the podium while he derided WJC--think that's the same visual as Clinton laughing at herself during the debate for letting herself get carried away with the story?

    I mean, for real?

    Parent

    I think you misunderstood (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:25:14 PM EST
    Have another look at that comment.

    Parent
    Right now what's important for me (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:51:58 PM EST
    is how is he and his campaign going to react to this.

    Good point, FL Res (none / 0) (#15)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:55:13 PM EST
    It'll be interesting to see.  I really can't take a bet on it now, because it's tempting to say they'll do their usual over reaction (perhaps find a way to paint it as racist) but sometimes--granted, rarely--they brush off stuff like this.

    Still, it won't be good for NC to have Wright all over the place.  A good glimpse of what the ge might be.  I'm sure they're using the inflammatory video judiciously so folks aren't tired of it should Obama get the nomination (fairly unlikely at this point)

    Parent

    Do you know (none / 0) (#17)
    by themomcat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:57:25 PM EST
    if NC is a closed Primary, i.e., Democrats only can vote for Democratic contestant?

    Parent
    I believe that new voters can register (none / 0) (#20)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:02:27 PM EST
    until May 6th, but if you are already registered you can't switch parties.  That deadline is already gone.  

    Parent
    I thought (none / 0) (#29)
    by sas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:16:05 PM EST
    people could change their regis on election day and vote whatever party they wanted in NC?

    Parent
    That is not correct (none / 0) (#49)
    by barba on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:53:49 PM EST
    information.  I am in NC An unaffilated voter can vote for either a Republican or a Democratic ticket, they simply ask for one or the other when they vote in the primary.  I am and always have been an unaffiliated voter who always votes democratic.  This was the year I was going to switch affiliations to democrat, not now, not EVER after the FL and MI debacle.  No democracy in democrat any more in my opinion.

    If you are not registered you can register up to, 3 days before election, butonly at one stop absentee location and you can only vote absentee.  You cannot change your party affiliation, the cut off date is over, 25 days before election.  

    Parent

    NC primary registration (none / 0) (#56)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:05:28 PM EST
    Independents CAN vote in the primary.
    Registration is CLOSED - BUT on May 6 you can show up to your voting center and do same day registration and voting. This is for May 6 only; if you vote early you must be registered in advance.


    Parent
    But if you are a re a registered (none / 0) (#58)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:11:30 PM EST
    Republican then on May 6th you cannot show up to cast a Dem ballot -- correct?

    Parent
    He'll (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:56:26 PM EST
    probably ignore them. I'd be surprised if he responded.

    Parent
    the obamatrolls (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by karen for Clinton on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:17:01 PM EST
    are over at the Caucus blog on the NY Times saying it is Clinton's fault. They are so used to attacking Hillary they think she is behind it!

    It is amazing how they do not comprehend their guy will be mincemeat and how she has only slapped him on the wrist occasionally softly and how the GOP will go full TKO on him with glee.

    as soon as i saw this I thought (none / 0) (#63)
    by kenosharick on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:34:49 PM EST
    how long til they blame Hillary? She gets blamed for everything by the Obamamanacs, I truly think they would rather have the whole party collapse rather than have her as our nominee- and a real shot at the WH.

    Parent
    This Is How Desperate Obamabots Are: (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:09:39 PM EST
    They are saying Sen. Clinton won PA by 9.48%, not 10%, while complaining that people ought to learn how to round off numbers.  

    Parent
    Call me an optimist (none / 0) (#6)
    by themomcat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:45:43 PM EST
    I still believe there is a chance that HRC will get the nomination. That the SD's will realize that she is the better candidate.  Rise, Hillary, rise.

    Don't worry the MSM will find a way to blame (none / 0) (#8)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:46:50 PM EST
    these ads on Hillary.

    You mean... (none / 0) (#11)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:49:35 PM EST
    That wasn't her at the end approving the message?!  Well a couple minutes in Premiere will change that!

    Parent
    They already have (none / 0) (#12)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:51:22 PM EST
    because she hasn't loudly condemned them.  So it is all her fault per KO and Rachel Maddow.

    Parent
    Please, please, please (none / 0) (#23)
    by leis on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:05:23 PM EST
    tell me you are kidding.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#35)
    by IzikLA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:26:41 PM EST
    I just saw this and my jaw dropped too.  They praised McCain for condemning them and brought up how bad it was for Hillary that she kept quiet.  Maddow and KO are a joke and a disgrace to their network.

    Parent
    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:32:27 PM EST
    Did anyone even ask Hillary to condemn the ads?  Why would a Democrat be expected to distance herself from a Republican ad?

    Speaking of ads, I recall the Spanish-language ad from Nevada that said "Hillary Clinton doesn't respect our people."  The Obama campaign was asked to denounce that one and they flat-out refused.  You could look it up.

    Parent

    She doesn't have to be asked (none / 0) (#68)
    by Munibond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:56:52 PM EST
    I think it would behoove Hillary to speak up against these ads.  Only the republicans do this stuff, and it would be unifying for her to take a stand against them now.

    Parent
    I don't get it (none / 0) (#76)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:38:10 PM EST
    Every time a Republican attacks Obama, is she expected to speak out in his defense?  Is there something particularly special about these ads that I'm missing?

    I am trying to think of an example of Obama defending Hillary from a right-wing smear but nothing is coming to mind right now.

    Parent

    Don't you (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:57:45 PM EST
    know? Apparently Obama is too much of a wimp to do it himself so he needs Hillary to defend him. At least that's the message I'm getting.

    Parent
    here we go (none / 0) (#10)
    by Lil on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:48:25 PM EST
    Even before Wright I worried about whatever we didn't know at the time. I prayed it would come out before the primary was over; there just had to be something.  After watching the ad, however, I still think Republicans are...well let's just say, "not nice". I don't like republican attacks on Dems, period, even if he's not my first choice.
    The woman on that ad at the end just made me mad.
    The message approval... (none / 0) (#14)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:53:52 PM EST
    What I found funny is usually on attack ads the approval is at the beginning of the ad, so by the time it's over you don't remember who was running it necessarily.  It looks like they took a different approach though, the approval blurb was at the end but it almost played as if it was a completely different commercial.  When I first saw them showing it on MSNBC, I didn't realize that the lady at the end was referring to the ad!  So, that was interesting and I think that's something to expect to see more often.  It's a first for me, at least.

    Parent
    Did that woman at the end remind (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by leis on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:10:12 PM EST
    anyone else of the woman in Poltergeist?  The one who says"don't go into the light."?

    Parent
    Nah..that's the Repugs tricks on robo calls as wel (none / 0) (#22)
    by alexei on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:05:15 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm sorry to comment (none / 0) (#24)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:06:16 PM EST
    But I have to comment to raise an objection to this:

    Barack Obama should be praised for his vote against the death penalty for gang members. Similarly, I praised him for his vote against the federal anti-gang bill here. ABC News reviews his objections to the Illiniois bill:

    As someone who lives in Chicago and who has lost family and friends to gang violence I cannot disagree with you more. Living in a neighborhood where your family and friends who aren't even in gangs are victimized puts a different perspective on things. I spent my H.S years dogging bullets on the bus ride home on an almost daily basis and it raises my ire to hear people who are soft on gangs.

    I guess you have to see your sister's car be fire bombed and your nephews red tricycle melt because some hood rat didn't like the way your sister looked at her for your perspective to change. It gets even worse when the police won't do anything because nobody will come forward and because the "suspect" has relatives that are police officers.

    Personally I am against the Death Penalty for (none / 0) (#26)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:11:42 PM EST
    anybody.  It has never been a proper deterrent for crime and can lead to wrongful and irreversible death of innocents.  The death penalty is attractive to some as form of vengeance not as a form of justice.  And I was raised in the inner city and lost a brother to murder.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#30)
    by themomcat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:21:03 PM EST
    with you. The death penalty is not a deterrent and can result in someone who is innocent being executed. I have worked in Emergency medicine for nearly 30 years in NYC and have lost co-workers and comforted friend who have lost loved one to the violence. There are existing laws that address these crimes. There is no need to create narrow laws that will discriminate against an ethnic group or economic class. Better policing and enforcement of those laws are the answer.

    Parent
    I'm sorry for your loss (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:13:35 PM EST
    but please read the "about page" of this site. You may be more comfortable reading another blog.

    Also, there's light years between between soft on gangs and urging the death penalty for gang members. TalkLeft is unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for anyone and opposes anti-gang legislation that overwhelmingly targets minorities and is the wrong approach to juvenile crime.


    Parent

    And might I add (none / 0) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:27:46 PM EST
    that gang membership (and gang killing) is often mandatory for kids' own survival.

    So agreed, punnishment is in order, but death penalty not-so-much.

    Parent

    My last comment on this... (none / 0) (#48)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:50:11 PM EST
    that gang membership (and gang killing) is often mandatory for kids' own survival.

    I, and many around me, managed to avoid that pitfall. And the only thing that has given me pause and kept me from doing something stupid when the criminal justice system has failed me and those around me has been the prospect of facing the death penalty. As I see it, it is a big deterrence.

    Parent

    As a former pro-death penalty supporter (none / 0) (#82)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:33:22 AM EST
    I understand where your passions come from.  I am also Latino who has lost two family members to gun/gang violence.

    I read a compelling paper by John Edwards that made me change my mind about the death penalty.  The 2 biggest thinga that moved me is that the death penalty creates another set of victims, the family of the convicted and how it is disproportionately applied to members of society.

    No capital punishment will ever bring back my uncle or nephew. I feel that a long sentence or  a lifetime of incarceration is much stronger a punishment than death.  And killing someone to tell them that killing someone is wrong...just isn't logical.

    Parent

    I've seen the about page (none / 0) (#46)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:43:18 PM EST
    and the other posts here where I just cover my eyes and avoid because I don't agree with them and just read the political stuff.

    I will say that I appreciate the graphics you use because after the first time I knew not to look at those posts.

    Parent

    I am so with Jeralyn (none / 0) (#57)
    by barba on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:08:38 PM EST
    on this. I'm with Obama too.  I'm a very staunch Hillary supporter but the ad is reprehensible.  

    It's my opinion that the death penalty should be completely, totally abolished.  There is absolutely no incident that could take place in my life, not one conceivable event that could shake my faith one iota that the death penalty is totally wrong. No harm perpetrated on any of my loved one's in any manner or myself...I don't consider myself "Christian", but how could anyone completely over look "though shalt not kill", Jesus said turn the other check, an eye for an eye is strictly Old Testament, not new, not Jesus' teachings...galls me so about the right, an unborn's life is somehow worth more than a living, breathing viable human being, the logic is so twisted...and yet they preach and believe in redemption!

    I guess everyone has their own opinion.  Incarcerated for life - yes, death penalty - no.  Not for a mere mortal to decide who dies when for whatever reason.  

    I have lurked here for a while and very much enjoy Jeralyn's legalistic views.  I think were I in deep doo doo legally I would definitely be looking for someone of her caliber/opinions.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#66)
    by Foxx on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:43:53 PM EST
    I don't imagine you will get a sympathetic hearing here. It's not an issue on which I have a strong, informed opinion. But it is a lot easier to be sympathetic to gang members if you are fortunate enough not to be dealing with them on a daily basis.

    Parent
    Aren't the republicans running (none / 0) (#28)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:14:11 PM EST
    a bit scared too? They've seen the numbers of new Dem registered in each state, including NC.  They've also seen people switching parties (and I DON'T mean Dems for a day) because they are disgusted with the Republican brand.  They will do whatever they gain to bring back republicans or try to convince those newly registered to not vote Dem.  

    And it really has nothing to do with who the nominee is, but more that the Republican party is losing support.

    As someone who finally switched parties (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:27:25 PM EST
    after 6 years of voting for the Democratic candidates.  My only fear is that the Obamabots and their attacks on Bill Clinton's and Carter's administrations sometimes make me wonder if I did the right thing.

    Parent
    I posted (none / 0) (#52)
    by barba on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:59:03 PM EST
    up above this, it was the year I was finally going to change.  I don't regret not doing it.  I don't think I will ever change at this point. I'm pretty bitter at this point about a lot of things with the democratic party, though I've never met a Republican that I would vote for.  

    Parent
    John (none / 0) (#31)
    by sas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:22:11 PM EST
    McCain is not your typical Republican in many ways.  His values and maverick reputation make him seem more palatable to many.

    Because of Obama's "clinggate" comments, and Wright associations, there are people all over this country (yes, Democrats, too) who will not support him ever.

    Those two things are what the Republicans will hammer home ad infinitum.

    You can talk the war, tax policy, gans, healthcare, the death penalty, 'til the cows come home.  They will not allow Obama to become President.

    Parent

    Hillary's guy McCaulife is praising FOX (none / 0) (#40)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:31:56 PM EST
    so how could I ever vote for her?  

    And then there is that Bosnia lie....

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:33:30 PM EST
    I doubt you will succeed in fooling anyone into thinking that you actually cast your vote based upon "issues" like those.

    Parent
    Of course not and neither (none / 0) (#43)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:37:18 PM EST
    will most people make up their minds based on these things for either candidate.

    But praising FOX (go see the video, it is hideous) is really really close to a deal-breaker.

    Parent

    It's not hideous (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:40:07 PM EST
    all he did was compliment them on being the first to call last night's election for Hillary.

    As far as election coverage is concerned, Fox is no worse than MSNBC and CNN - and sometimes it's a lot better.

    Parent

    He called them Fair and Balanced (none / 0) (#85)
    by lilybart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:17:26 AM EST
    just because they called a race before other networks?

    And they are using his statements as a promo for the network.

    Parent

    How about trashing and tearing down (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by leis on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:41:14 PM EST
    a staunch dem who has spent a lifetime working to further liberal values? Is that a deal breaker for you?

    Parent
    Oh please (none / 0) (#54)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:04:34 PM EST
    You really must not have much at stake in this election if you care that deeply about whether someone's campaign chair paid FOX a compliment.

    Parent
    Sorry, but recently FOX has been much fairer ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:43:45 PM EST
    ... than either CNN or NBC at times. Try flipping channels when there's election-related coverage, and you'll see.

    Normally I never watch FOX, but lately the other channels have become so stridently biased in favor of Obama and against Clinton that it's hard to watch without throwing something at the TV. Because most of the commentators on FOX are not actively promoting Obama, their observations on the Democratic primary are actually much more balanced.

    I'm not the first to notice this.

    Parent

    I Seriously Considered Slapping K.O. Last Nite (none / 0) (#72)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:18:09 PM EST
    What a marooooooon he has become.  Toward the end of his commentary for the night, he was going on about "did anyone notice that Sen. Clinton was mocking the Obama 'yes we can' mantra?  Talk about grasping at straws.  He must have a HUGE man crush on Obama.

    Parent
    If you have a way to slap him, please do so ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:46:03 PM EST
    ... twice -- once for me.

    Parent
    Because they want Hillary to win (none / 0) (#84)
    by lilybart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:13:33 AM EST
    Murdock, Rush all of them, want Hillary to win because they think she is easier to beat.

    Parent
    You may agree with his position but lets not (none / 0) (#38)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:31:10 PM EST
    condemn every add, that criticizes Obama for his position. Lets not forget, the add targets people that do think he is wrong, and those people have the right to have their opinion!

    Obama camp is falsely criticizing every that criticizes him.

    Let Obama defend himself first (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:56:17 AM EST
    before expecting others to do it for him.

    Parent
    consider this merely (none / 0) (#47)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:48:45 PM EST
    a taste, a hint of what sen. obama will face in the GE. with all the goodies on his plate, he'll be lucky if the angry villagers aren't calling for his head on a pike by the time nov. rolls around.

    nasty? you betcha! distortion of facts? yeppers! that said, it will be the standard operating procedure come the fall.

    Interesting that no one is asking (none / 0) (#50)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:58:08 PM EST
    why the republicans are attacking Obama and not Clinton.  I guess they have a different opinion about who is more electable?

    I assume (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:05:11 PM EST
    because, like everyone else, they think he is very likely to be the nominee?

    Parent
    They are attacking Dems that endorsed (none / 0) (#60)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:25:31 PM EST
    Obama who are running locally in NC. The ads are apparently aimed at the undercards, with any splash-over on Obama a bonus. Right now, they are using him to smear Dems who have endorsed him. You have to admire the chutzpah, smearing Dems by using their own endorsement of the "front runner" in the Dem primaries against them. It's positively Machiavellian. And in its twisted way, brilliant.

    Parent
    NoThey Want Obama As The Nominee, Easier To Beat (none / 0) (#73)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:19:35 PM EST


    Parent
    It is not a good thing (none / 0) (#51)
    by dem08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:59:00 PM EST
    how many people here accept any attack on Obama.

    And it is actually sad that LatinoVoter ignores Jeralyn's life work in fighting for the rights of the accused and those who are incarcerated because LV loves the anti-Obama tone of most posts.

    In my home town a diagnosed schizophrenic was convicted of rapes he did not commit based on three victims eyewitness testimony. He was refused treatment or parole because he would not admit that he was remorseful for the crimes he did not commit.

    DNA freed him, and the real rapist who was also a murderer confessed.

    The Innocent, Mentally-ill Man did several Decades of "hard prison" time.

    I know people love Hillary here, but don't throw away every liberal idea just to impress the Republicans.

    I Think That Blanket Stmt Was Over The Top Dem08 (none / 0) (#74)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:21:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Over the top? (none / 0) (#86)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:25:14 AM EST
    It was sheer lunacy. To equate support of Hillary Clinton with being for Republicans is a nasty and insulting lie.

    I have been against the Death Penalty my whole life. I have been a Democrat for over 40 years. How dare you even suggest, for one moment, that because I support a Democratic Senator, a Democratic First Lady that I would support Republican values?

    You owe every Hillary Clinton supporter an apology Dem08. It is you that allows your blind support of one Democratic candidate to make such insulting and dishonest remarks.  

    Parent

    kenoshamarge I don't (none / 0) (#88)
    by dem08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:44:56 AM EST
    owe you an apology. I was referencing Latinovoter who said s/he came to Talk Left for the anti-Obama stuff and wished Jeralyn didn't have the views she had that caused her to start this blog.

    My point was directed at how much posters here will get into such an anti-Obama rage that they validate and endorse any potential Republican attacks.

    I agree with Jeralyn about the rightness of President Clinton's pardon/commutation of the two Weathermen he pardoned/commuted, I agree that Ayres and Dohrn as model citizens who re-shaped their lives after being part of a miserable organization (the Weathermen)and that it IS legitimate to have doubts about Ayres over Israel if that is one's issue.

    What I think is foolish is working one's self into a high and holy dudgeon, demanding apologies for slights that are non-existent.

    Talk Left is a good place for conversation and I think it is sad LatinoVoter came here for her/his anti-Obama fix.

    Maybe apologies are in order (dudgeon is contagious): LatinoVoter owes Taylor Marsh an apology, since her site features all anti-Obama/all the time. And I owe myself an apology for reading anti-Obama things. And Obama owes white people an apology for implying that whites are racists even if he never said so. And the Cubs owe their fans an apology.....

    Parent

    McCain has 40 years of scandals (none / 0) (#53)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:02:04 PM EST
    Keating 5 anyone? How about his womanizing compared to the virtuous and faithful Obama? How about leaving his wife's hospital bed to hook up with a much younger woman? The same younger woman with drug problems and her own host of scandals, including theft of drugs.

    This is prurient and objectionable subjects to broach. But the point is Obama is Mr. Clean compared to McCain. The republicans cannot win a smear war. McCain even has his own pastor problem which is many orders of magnitude worse than Wright. And there is a core of conservative voters who will never vote for McCain. They'll just stay home and ride out an Obama Admin.

    Those type of scandal attacks (none / 0) (#61)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:30:32 PM EST
    worked well against Bill Clinton, NOT.  Go ahead and use that sex crap, if you want to give McCain a boost in the polls.  Heh.

    Parent
    Liberal 527's can hit him hard on these issues (none / 0) (#75)
    by Seth90212 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:30:09 PM EST
    and they will. Middle America will have a problem with a womanizing decrepit old man with anger issues. McCain also can be attacked on substance. This is a man who has violated his own reform legislation. This is a man who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. More importantly, most social conservatives won't vote for McCain. In fact, Obama is more attractive to many of them because he is perceived as good, decent, church going family man.

    The problem is we have to end this primary so we can begin to attack this crazy old man.


    Parent

    The republicans (none / 0) (#70)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:06:18 PM EST
    can absolutely win a smear war, because democrats don't know how to fight them...with the possible exception of Hillary.  She might be able to because she's been the focus of attacks for so long yet she has still managed to ascend the political ladder.  Even if she can't find a way to effectively smear McCain, there's little doubt she can weather his (or more likely, his surrogates and the 527s) smear attacks.

    Parent
    Two words to remind you (none / 0) (#80)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:27:01 AM EST
    that republicans do and CAN win smear wars:

    swift. boat.

    see 2004 elections for details.

    Parent

    Wait until Hillary is the nominee. Then (none / 0) (#81)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:30:28 AM EST
    she can deal with the mcCain campaign.  

    Parent
    Compare McCain's (none / 0) (#87)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:32:36 AM EST
    womanizing compared to the virtuous and faithful Obama?

    Okay then compare McCain the unfaithful to Senator Clinton's virtuous and faithful behavior.

    IMO most voters are not going to be much interested in how faithful McCain has been or is. Most of us think that's between a husband and wife.

    Media likes to peek in bedroom windows and far too many people are interested, but I don't think it affects the votes of most. At least not mine. I'm more interested in who is going to get me Universal Health Care than who is the more faithful spouse.

    Parent

    When perception counts, this is bad for Obama (none / 0) (#62)
    by ding7777 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:30:35 PM EST
    going into the GE: (link)

    CHICAGO (AP) -- Nine people were killed in 36 shootings over the weekend in Chicago, reflecting what some community leaders say is a deadly breakdown in discipline among gang members after a crackdown over the past few years put many of their leaders behind bars.

    "The older guys in the past looked out for the little ones. Now they're all locked up," said Nick Stames, a social studies teacher at Crane Tech High School on the city's gang-ridden West Side. "There's no sense of discipline in the projects. Everybody's doing their own thing."

    Now there is growing fear that Chicago could be in for a long, bloody summer.
    That ad was so pathetic. (none / 0) (#79)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:50:59 PM EST
    It's really a shame that sh!t like that works.

    How can this add be condemed? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Slado on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:02:56 PM EST
    His pastor said "F&*K America".

    Democrats amaze me.   Expect more of these adds and they are far from out of bounds.  It's funny that the very reason Hillary is still in this ellection is because of the point this very add is making.   Why else are "Reagan" democrats voting for Hillary?  Because she's more experienced?   Becasue of her health car plan?  We all know why and this pretend outrage over this add is amusing.

    Republican Attack Ads on Obama | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment