Obama Launches Attack Ad on Hillary

Obama: politics of change, hope and unity? Check out his new ad attacking Hillary Clinton airing today on television called "Hometown."

He accuses Hillary of taking the low road on the economy. Shorter version: Meet the new boss, he's the same as the ones he's trying to replace.

Text of ad below:

Announcer: A war that should never have been waged. An economy in turmoil. Record prices at the pump. America held hostage to foreign oil. And what does Hillary Clinton offer us? More of the same old negative politics.

Her hometown newspaper says she’s taking the low road. Her attacks do nothing but harm.

The same old Washington politics won’t fix our problems. We need honest answers — and a president we can trust.

Mr. Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message

The New York Times notes:

“Hometown” doesn’t explain why Mr. Obama doesn’t support the gas tax suspension — or even mention it — but it states that “the same old Washington politics won’t fix our problems.”

< SUSA NC Poll: Obama By 5 | Hillary Does Top Ten List on Letterman Tonight >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • so vague. (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:54:15 PM EST
    so passive aggressive.

    Apply directly to the forehead.

    Ha! (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:01:08 PM EST
    Even when Obama goes negative, he's inscrutably vague.

    Apply directly to the forehead indeed.


    it's like... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:10:22 PM EST
    ....hmmmmm wtf? Did he just insult her? Or did he just call the NYT a Hometown paper?  Was that a draft or a sweet nothing blowing my ear?

    If Hillary loses this, it's her fault (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by cpa1 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:33:47 PM EST
    Not even Bill's.  She needed to put Obama away and with all that has happened she pussy-footed around afraid to say anything negative about Obama when he and his team blasts her to liesville.

    If it was me, I would have responded to questions about Rev Wright, "What took him so long and if it wasn't for me, he might have been a presidential adviser.  Can we believe that after the election he won't be?"

    For all the attacks on her being a liar, I would have said, "According to what Obama said in Selma, he was born 4 years before he was conceived so he must be an immaculate conception.  He lied about his knowledge of Rev. Wright and he lied about Reagan."

    Then on the suspension of the gas tax I would have said, "Obama has made the gas tax his cause celebre.  He talks about it incessantly wherever he goes.  He once voted for a gas tax suspension in Illinois then he voted against the next one because he couldn't control that the oil companies would be honest about it and give the consumers a break.  I'd control it!  That's Senator Obama.  He knows how to get elected through this trick or that trick but when it comes time to actually do anything real, he's a no show, like he did with the Alito filibuster that John Kerry tried to put together.  Obama would not join us in at least attempting to block Alito.  Wouldn't an agent of change be there for those kinds of things?"

    She cannot let him and his team get away with murder. The gas tax removal is a good thing for the morale of the the country during a time when people look forward to travel and now are not even traveling too far for shopping or anything.  If they are so negative about travel, think about all the businesses that will suffer from the loss of an active summer season that carries them through the year.  It is incredible that she allowed Obama to get on top of this one.   She can agree with Krugman and then say that the country needs this because even though it's not a large amount of money, people's confidence builds when they think politicians are thinking about their lives, as it did in Bill's 2 terms.  Confidence is what Bush has leeched from every American with his stupid war and handing over money to the wealthy in wheel barrows and her wanting to give a little back to reverse that in some way, any way, has much larger effects, synergy.

    Then I would have blasted Obama the most for the lies about what Bill said in South Carolina and the way he and his team spliced out a sound bite to make Bill look like a racist when he was only answering a question.  The same thing he did to Geraldine Ferraro.  His actions were unconscionable and promoted by CNN.  Last week and over the weekend, CNN had on Clinton haters Jimmy Carter, Joy Behar, Michael Moore, Joy Behar again on Sat and Michael Moore again on Sunday.  Behar and Moore are parrots for the Obama South Carolina lies.


    Do you know how few people actually (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:40:38 PM EST
    watch these political shows?  Come on.  Nobody cares.

    They are all out at the grocery store or at the soccer game.

    She hit him hard for quite awhile about his energy bill vote.  That was relevant and worth the risk.  And the gas tax relief idea sells itself to real people.  Let the economists debate it.  They get to have their turn at showing off in print, too.  It's all about getting their name in print, anyway.

    The Clinton campaign is sharp right now in replying to unfair attacks.  See how fast that phony u-tube deal got fixed?  Within HOURS.  That's a rapid response.  She let him get by with that way too much a few months ago.  The campaign has sharpened up, particularly since Penn is gone.

    I can't see how she can touch the race card.  The message got out that his staff distributed the memo, and he slid out from under by feigning surprise.  It worked.  Sometimes, it's just smarter to know when it's a lost cause.

    She's gotten within 5 by some polls in a state where he was suppose to win handily.  In fact, just yesterday, the headlines were "expected to handily win," so it'll be shock if he doesn't.


    I completely agree.... AnninCA (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Mrwirez on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:53:08 PM EST
    Hillary is tracking up , Obama is tracking down. Hillary always closes fast during the last hours. I also agree Mark Penn was such a tool and did NOTHING to help her. I think it could have been over on Super Tuesday if she had someone else in charge with an actual plan. Look how smooth this campaign is running now. I just hope it is not to late.

    If she can pull off both states tomorrow, I think BO is in real trouble.


    About Super Tuesday (none / 0) (#137)
    by cpa1 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:11:18 PM EST
    Don't you all believe that Obama decided, in January, that he had to go super negative with serious character assassination by charging Bill Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro and everyone else related to Hillary as being racists.  I think he should have been pulled apart like pulled pork for that.  

    Penn was a jerk but if you are going to go negative, you can't do it half way.  She should have exposed Obama for what he did because all his supporters are more anti-Clinton than pro Obama because he turned her and her husband into mud with lies and misleading sound bites.


    Jeeze.... (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:13:50 PM EST
    I watched in amazement as Ferarro let the press blister her and she STILL refused to shut up.  LOL*  Can't think of how she could have been clearer.

    Sometimes, the "untruth" just gets support.  Obama's campaign has been distinctly tailored on old Republican talk about the Clintons.

    Even this ad does what he's done all along.  He accuses her of what he does.  His ad is "Republican Talk" from 15 years ago.


    I don't think Obama had a real plan... (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:19:11 PM EST
    I don't think Obama actually planned on winning the nomination -- his original goal was to do respectably through SC, and then drop out after ST.

    But the media's hyping of him (and shutting out of Edwards) turned him into the 'anti-Clinton', so he decided to go for it.

    The racial allegations in SC (and since) were designed not so much to get black voters, as to make the issue of race radioactive.  Obama already had 72% of the black voter in SC before the race-baiting claims gained prominence after NH.  Obama was set to win big in SC well before the campaign pulled that crap, and Axelrod didn't want the analysts and pundits opening saying the obvious -- that he won big because of the black vote.  

    And Obama's race strategy has worked --- look at what happened to Bill Clinton when he made the obvious comparison to what Jesse Jackson had done in SC. and the dead silence when it comes to how Obama got his delegate lead (almost entirely from deep red states in the west and south, with his success in the south built on massive majorities of black voters.)

    If you exclude the victories in deep red states for both candidates, Clinton has 300,000 more votes than Obama total... but is behind in the delegate count by 15.


    Ferraro (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:24:17 PM EST
    I'm convinced that one of the reasons for "punishing" Ferraro for saying Obama had benefitted by being black was to keep any discussion of Obama's built-in primary advantage among black voters from taking place.  

    No kidding.... (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:54:55 PM EST
    and it's just NOW starting to lift because of Wright.

    PL, I agree with you (none / 0) (#207)
    by cpa1 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:02:57 PM EST
    Radioactive is a great adjective to describe what they wanted to do because then all those limousine liberals like those at the NY Times and the Washington Post would, as fast as they could, stand up for the poor black guy getting attacked by evil Democrats.

    But for me, I can't take the Obama lies.  It never stopped and they were camouflaged by what you call radioactivity.  I wrote a diary entry on the DailyKos, which the community there did not like because if you say anything bad about Obama, you get troll rated.  Anyway, the diary is about South Carolina and the way the Obama team misled the entire nation about what Bill Clinton said there because they so wanted Obama to win.  They so wanted a black president and so did I and there are so many great reasons for wanting a black president.  However, Obama could have been the one but not the way he did it.  Besides his lies, he and his surrogates have warned us that if Obama is not the nominee his supporters will not support Hillary and that will destroy the party.

    The diary entry is here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/19/7724/82674/535/498814

    I didn't think either Hillary or Obama should have been the nominee, as I was an Edwards fan but after Obama's chickening out of filibustering the Alito nomination and after that interview at the Reno Gazette, where he praised Reagan only to screw the Clintons, I saw Obama for what he was, a conniving liar.  If you have not seen the interview with the Reno-Gazette, please take a look at it here (It might open your eyes): http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026


    Clinton had to (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:41:36 PM EST
    know about Wright.  However she'd have raised a storm if she's pushed it before Iowa that's even if she understood how damaging he was.

    She'd have been accused of copying Hannity. She's only barely escaping those accusations now.

    Yes, Hannity proved to understand what would cripple Obama better than most Dems, and he knew how to use that ability.


    Hillary did open the door (none / 0) (#126)
    by cpa1 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:05:07 PM EST
    after Fox did the research.  But now the holier than thou liberals like the NY Times, Frank Rich, CNN, Keith Olbermann...etc, can't see the forest through the trees.  Wright is disturbing and I would not want him to have the ear of an American president.  Since Obama has no experience, we really don't know how much he agrees with Wright and maybe even Farrakhan.  I bet Michelle Obama does.  She seems to have the same not so patriotic feeling about America.

    America has done some stupid things but we are much better now and that should be celebrated, not only if one's husband was running for president.

    Obama just this second said, I think people find me trustworthy, more than the other candidate.  I think he needs to be buried for the that!


    cpa1 & others (none / 0) (#209)
    by Electa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:34:47 AM EST
    i've read on this thread.  The thoughts on this page are indicative to exactly what Obama called for during his speech on race...the need for raw and truthful dialogue.

    For instance, you write; "Wright is disturbing and I would not want him to have the ear of an American president. "  Didn't Wright have the ear of Bill & Hillary Clinton during the Monica incident of national disgrace.  Do you think for one minute that Wright's views on America's historical events were any different then than they were at the time of his sermon.  How many of you have listened to the entirety of the lecture?

    Unfortunately, the typical white person knows absolutely nothing about the culture or thoughts of African Americans.  When's the last time you visited a black family's home or hung out in the hood?  Ask yourselves the question what and how do African Americans think?  You're totally inept to what we think or speak in our circles and those circles are as diverse as this country.  Barack is reflective of this.  Case in point that Blacks folks are cut from the same cloth.  What is definitive to Whites carries a total opposite meaning to Blacks.  We speak an entirely different language regardless how flent we are in English jurisprudence.  Why?  Because of our life's DIFFERENCES NOT DEFICIENCIES.

    Unlike our white counterparts Wright's words were not out of character.  The problem with the AIDS allegation is that it's not been proven....YET!  Given African-Americans experiences with this country and its government it's no wonder they are suspect in that crack cocaine and AIDS came on the scene simultaneously, both having devastaging and disproportionate effects on the African-American population.  You cannot dismiss 400 years of slavery and it's antithetical impact to what is generally accepted as the norm, on Blacks in this country.  Jeremiah Wright is of the first generation out from Jim Crow.  His parents were slaves.  It's no wonder that his views of America, as the result of first hand experience, probably long before you were born, are bitter real.  As children and grandchildren of Rev. Wright's generation we too have our ideas and conspiracy theories about the AIDS infestation and disproportionate effect on Black peoples globally.  

    Fortunately, we've etched out just enough from that era to weigh the variables and place them in the balances according to their significance.  Just enough time has expired that Barack's generation and the future will expand the scope of our history from an intellectual perspective which is allowing us to spring forth from residual effects of slavery that continues to confine us to America and maintain a disconnect from the global community.

    You further state, Since Obama has no experience, we really don't know how much he agrees with Wright and maybe even Farrakhan.  I bet Michelle Obama does.  She seems to have the same not so patriotic feeling about America.

    Are you therefore indicating that the millions of people who have rallied around Obama are anti patriotic?  It is this type of slanderous speak that widens the divide between Blacks and Whites in this country.  How can someone who has lived in a single parent environment being bi-racial and exposed to every culture except his indigenous peoples be inexperienced?  Please explain that for me.  I suggest that among the 3 candidates Obama is the most experienced in dealing with the realities of life.  Afterall the Clintons earned 114 million dollars over an 8 yr. period and has never known the challenges of isolation.  John McCain married into ultra wealth and has been a kept man for the past 27 years not only by his wife's money but at the behest of the taxpayers.  Before McCain/Feingold there's minimal legislation that contributed to McCain. Yet, suddenly McCain is the everso compassionate one.  His so-called HOME program is nothing more than HUD's existing HOME program which will be gutted as the income caps rise to accommodate the greed of higher income borrowers and their BIGGER is BETTER mentality.  

    Min. Farrakan has emphasized over and over that his opposition is to Zionism not the Jewish people.  AIPAC's influence over US foriegn policy is clear indication of the Min.'s stance on this issue.

    You state that, "America has done some stupid things but we are much better now and that should be celebrated, not only if one's husband was running for president."

    Stupid things.  Your minimalization of 400 yrs. of slavery is distestable and further defines your total ineptness to what matters to African American who are descendants of former slaves.  You minimize the fact that a people were brought to this country against their will, stripped of all visages of their history, culture, language land, and God.  A people who faced one of the greatest humanitarian tragedies in recent history including genocide and miseducation.

    Forty short years is miniscule since the passage of the Civil Rights Act to right the wrongs done to the African American peoples in this country.  The good thing that has evolved from this primary election is the America's and the Democratic Party and so-called Liberals/Progressives true colors.

    Should Obama not win this primary the change has already taken place.  The hour is ripe for a falling away from the so-called Democratic Party and start anew.

    Lastly, your statement, Obama just this second said, I think people find me trustworthy, more than the other candidate.  I think he needs to be buried for the that!

    What you're really saying is that the millions of people polled who statistically ranked Obama as more trustworthy than Hillary needs to be buried.  The American made this acclaimation,  Barack simply repeated the findings.  



    playing the victim role is easier for Obama (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Josey on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:26:27 PM EST
    than actually producing solutions.
    Obama casts Hillary as "Washington politics" - while the DC establishment supports HIM.
    Obviously, they could never "change Washington" without running a newbie naive senator for president.

    The DC estab in the tank (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by magisterludi on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:44:39 PM EST
    for change, right? They need Obama to tell them how to change? Kerry, Kennedy, Rockefeller, etc couldn't figure this out all those years in the Senate until Obama came along? Only thru the One can these heathens be healed, by their own admission? Totally believable, huh?

    One thing this election cycle has done is crystallize how incredibly empty-headed and self-serving our Congress and the DC Elite is on both sides of the aisle.

    I reserve particular animus towards Sally Quinn, too. Her Obama paeans are so transparent and treacly... retch.


    They aren't in the tank for change, (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:38:37 PM EST
    they are in the tank for their own little puppet. They want their version of GW Bush. Someone they can control who is disposable after being used. It's not about change, it's about the Dems getting a piece of the pie. Hillary is not a puppet. And she will do what she can, which is considerable, to see that her policies and plans are implemented. Obama is just an empty suit full of hot air, and the Dem establishment knows it. That's why they are behind him. Not because they believe in "hope and change" but because they want more of the same, just for them not the Republicans.

    The ad that is. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:54:31 PM EST
    I Tell You, obama Thinks He Is E.F. Hutton (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:01:02 PM EST
    and whatever he says is what we should do...NEVER!!  Why even bother putting out that type of ad unless you have something to back it up.  When obama goes away; I will not miss him.

    All that was missing... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:12:40 PM EST
    was him saying that he's disappointed.

    or betrayed. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:18:23 PM EST
    Did Tony Blair ever authorize ads like this?

    I recall you worked for Labour at one point.


    Me? (none / 0) (#59)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:21:22 PM EST
    Irish Parliament in Dublin and the FG party.

    I don't recall Blair doing an ad like that in '96. He ran a pretty upbeat campaign against the old stodges of the Conservatives.


    That's right (none / 0) (#73)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:28:46 PM EST
    But there was some connection as I recall. Ah well scratch that.

    Remember that discussion (none / 0) (#87)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:35:38 PM EST
    about party line v. conscience voting going on some months back?

    I think I was deep in it with the discussions on that and the differences between here and on the other side o' the pond.


    no not really (none / 0) (#88)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:36:31 PM EST
    tell me more.

    I don't remember most of it... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:43:42 PM EST
    but there was something going on re: votes and frustrations because it seemed like trying to get Dems to vote as a large block was almost as effective as herding cats.

    Mostly my additions had to do with the need for a whip with a really stiff spine.

    My boss shared an office with the party whip. It was fascinating to see how people would try to get out of votes and then be reeled back in by the very same guy they'd just left cigars for. He was really good at yanking recalcitrants back in.

    But my boss and I were trying to figure out if there was a way to modify the system so as to allow "some" conscience voting. I think the Brits were trying to do something similar.

    Most of the discussion was pre-primary nightmare.


    There's a conscience vote (none / 0) (#108)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:51:40 PM EST
    on the Death Penalty, and it's supposed to be so for war.

    Blair apparently whipped the Labour party into voting for the war.

    But that refreshes the memory now.


    ah... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:09:20 PM EST
    The Blair of 2002 always struck me as a totally different person than the Blair of 1996.

    I kept hoping that he'd pull one of those "Love Actually" moments. But it never happened.


    Cameron seems to be trying (none / 0) (#149)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:24:10 PM EST
    to do that. It's his Hugh Grant Manifesto.

    A Dem would of course make the whole Transatlantic pact work again. Even if it's a Toryboy running the shop.


    Did you check his website? (none / 0) (#178)
    by mulletov cocktails on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:19:28 PM EST
    Just click the WORM tab.

    Haha (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:54:33 PM EST
    They think NC is going to clutch the pearls over something the NY Times says?

    Love the xylophone, though.  Good music.

    Xylo (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by DFLer on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:22:22 PM EST
    tapping out a subliminal message in morse code?

    "her hometown newspaper" (none / 0) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:56:15 PM EST
    I am sure the NYTimes loves that adjective.  Why, it's America's paper.  

    The Hometown that Never Sleeps. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:08:03 PM EST
    The World's Biggest Apple.

    A Hometown Minute.


    Biased here, obviously, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:54:56 PM EST
    but I like her closing ad a lot better.

    this ad is just ... (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by ccpup on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:55:27 PM EST
    what?  I mean, really, this ad is just the opposite kind of ad they should be running right now.  Policy?  Nope.  how to get people work?  Nah.

    Hillary's evil!  I'm better!

    Don't think it's gonna work.  In fact, I see a huge increase in Head Scratching WTF-ery.

    Where is this running, by the way?

    A Process Ad. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:58:32 PM EST
    That's more or less how it's done.  

    It implies:

    New Yorker
    or anything at all that you might negatively think about Clinton.

    without actually saying anything.

    Is this what 2009-2013 is going to look like?


    Well, finally (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Nadai on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:56:05 PM EST
    We need honest answers -- and a president we can trust.

    Obama has finally said something I agree with.  I guess I'm starting to feel the Unity.

    backfire (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:17:12 PM EST
    I think this could backfire...

    after the whole "wright" thing, he's got a lot of "trust" and "honest answers" issues himself.  And since the ad doesn't tell people anything about Clinton that they haven't heard before, "trust" isn't a word that Obama should be throwing around right now.

    especially in a negative ad that is about negative campaigning...


    I thought (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:19:41 PM EST
    of that immediately.  He's on shaky ground here as far as credibility goes.

    Agreed. I thought that it was a terrible ad for (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by DeborahNC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:25:30 PM EST
    him. He should not put his name in the same sentence as the word trust...Rezko, Ayers, Emil Jones, you know the rest.

    I think Hillary ought to come out with an ad (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:54:01 PM EST
    with the question, can you trust Obama? Then list all the people who did..and what happened to them..like the people in the housing that Rezko built, they trusted Obama to represent their interests..he didn't. Then talk about how Wright trusted Obama, and what Obama did to him. Then talk about the bills he claimed to pass, and then say who really did pass them. Perhaps a couple of the Senators who are pissed at Obama popping up at the pressers could say something about that. And at the end, ask if this is what the viewer calls an honest and trustworthy person. I am a mean b*tch and I have no qualms about fighting dirty to win. That's in a real fight, mind you, not games..LOL Obama is lucky I am not writing Hillary's campaign ads, because I would have buried him by now.

    I think you have a future in advertising! Call the (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by DeborahNC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:46:17 PM EST
    campaign and offer your services. When in a fight, I'm not opposed to vicious. And with your hypothetical ad, you'd just be getting the information out to the electorate, right? ;-)

    alas (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:56:05 PM EST
    the highroad is less traveled when you are no longer winning.

    Shrug (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:56:11 PM EST
    I don't believe this kind of process-based attack ("my opponent is using negative attacks!") has any impact at all.  As Markos and Jerome explained, though, consultants get paid for producing ads, not necessarily for producing effective ads.

    This much I know: if a Clinton ad had made the point about foreign oil by including a brief shot of an Arab sheik, the allegations of race-baiting would deafen the blogosphere.

    Deafen what? (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by hitchhiker on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:16:12 PM EST
    Deafen the blogoshpere?  

    A big hunk of the blogosphere has its fingers in its ears and its eyes squeezed shut.  A major swath of the human beings formerly known as the reality based community has its tongue stuck out while it says la la la la la.

    They lost their willingness to hear.  Deafness is a choice for them.

    Sorry, couldn't resist . . . I know you were saying that there would be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth throughout the land if a shiek appeared in an HRC ad, and you're right.


    yup (none / 0) (#105)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:49:55 PM EST
    Communications doesn't require a listener.  

    NYT is her "hometown newspaper"? lol!~ (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:56:41 PM EST
    don't think so.

    interesting how they left off "her attacks" in the floating newspaper quotes. They could have clipped those from anything or totally taken them out of context. I'm sure the politics of "change" wouldn't do that . .. .  .

    I think you and I (none / 0) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:58:55 PM EST
    need to stop laughing at the same things...LOLOLOL

    two threads in a row now...


    {grin} hopefully we aren't the only ones ;) (none / 0) (#20)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:00:05 PM EST
    Isn't it off? (none / 0) (#30)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:07:59 PM EST
    Why wouldn't you name the paper? It sounds like a small-town newspaper, that no one would put stock in?  It also gets to remind a southern (with lots of northerners there) crowd that {gasp!} she's from New York City! and can't possibly be for the little guys.

    She doesn't live here (NYC) for starters (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:20:04 PM EST
    even though it's the NY Times, the rest of NY does have "hometown" newspapers. I'm sure her town does also, or something else that would be considered 'local'.

    Maybe they don't name it also because a "hometown" paper may imply those that 'know' her. Kinda like her neighbors are 'disappointed' in her? Implied intimacy . .   ;)


    True (none / 0) (#90)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:37:03 PM EST
    But how many people outside of NY are going to make that distinction - (that she lives in a 'burb)?

    Which is why I still don't understand why he didn't mention the paper's name - it makes it sound like some backwoods small town paper. (Not that there's anything wrong with those - I LIKE small town papers)


    It might be for all the rural voters (none / 0) (#121)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:59:27 PM EST
    they identify with hometown? Much of her narrative is about being in touch with them because of her past and experience. I don't know if many people identify her as a NYC senator when she's called the Senator from NY (we sure don't). When she talks about the economy and health care relating to NY, it's geared outside of the city. And I think NYC's identity is pretty much Bloomberg these days. Even with President Clinton, it wouldn't fly. His identity here is Harlem, not NYC. Aside from 911 issues, we don't see Senator Clinton much here in the City :)

    I think it's their desperate attempt to undermine her small town voters. Ya know, the ones he can't reach with his 'words' . . .


    That brought back (none / 0) (#42)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:14:30 PM EST
    the Pace ads.

    Well ok (none / 0) (#49)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:18:16 PM EST
    then she can't have authentic salsa, at least.  :)

    Don't you think (none / 0) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:41:56 PM EST
    that's kind of funny coming from a guy from Chicago? Chicago is just as bad as NYC to the types of voters Obama is TRYING to appeal to here.

    maybe Clinton... (none / 0) (#195)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:09:11 PM EST
    maybe Clinton should do an ad in which she quotes something from Obama's hometown paper...the Manila Times! ;-)

    "NYT hometown newspaper" (none / 0) (#145)
    by Josey on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:18:03 PM EST
    is a rightwing talking point against Hillary that plays well in the south.
    Those good old boys didn't like NYT reporters descending on the segregated south and telling the truth about the conditions during the civil rights marches, etc.
    NYT is code for that dirty word {{{LIBERAL}}}!!!
    But we're accustomed to the "unity" candidate's  use of rightwing talking points to attack Democrats.

    yes, right wing smear tactic (none / 0) (#183)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:29:21 PM EST
    but it's like a double negative.  They are saying the NY Times does not approve of Clinton.

    That's like saying Hitler doesn't like her.

    So, so out of touch with what works in small town America.


    It's my theory about the new progressive (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:57:38 PM EST
    My definition is evolving.  They are united by who and what they don't like.  They don't like Bush, they don't like the Clintons, they don't like the war, they don't like the working class, they don't like not cool or hip people.  But ask them what in God's name do they like?  and what do they propose to do about things they don't like?  And they will come up with some ironic, pop culture sarcasm and a whimsical outfit to wear for the event.  They will spend more time on the look, than on outcome.  
    Heh, check out their comments.  They all mimic each other.  It's a movement based on excluding rather than including.  That is why they killed the unity pony.  

    *nodding* (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:24:17 PM EST
    in agreement.

    Clearly, the support he's gotten has nothing to do with his actual platform.  It's fairly weak.  So it's all about getting rid of the status quo.

    Except that doesn't work.  Kennedy is as status quo as one gets.  

    So it's all about hating Hillary.  blink

    Why?  They bought the Republican slime machine stereotypes of 15 years ago?  It's a head-scratcher.  Now, she's made mistakes.  But no worse than Obama has, too.  Neither has been so ham-handed that it should have polarized people quite this much.

    So what is the core difference and why the animosity?

    The only thing I can come up with is that the attitude of "hate everything" is so off-putting that it stiffens the back, so to speak.  That and the over-exaggerated reactions that shrilly announce an attitude of disdain and intolerance.

    I just can't get behind that spirit.


    True (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Josey on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:30:39 PM EST
    and Obama blogs ooze with Hillary-hate because Obama is high on hype and low on substance.

    they like themselves (4.50 / 2) (#40)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:12:47 PM EST
    and they are falling head-first into the water.

    Hence, we are the ones? got it (none / 0) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:18:47 PM EST
    yep, that sounds about right. (none / 0) (#188)
    by kangeroo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:53:46 PM EST
    this is what i see too much of in my generation.  it's often much more about the superficial--finding things to deride while contributing no solutions or anything productive of their own, and glibly admiring and congratulating themselves on how clever and ingenious they are--while real-world problems, issues, and even crises be damned.  

    so it's not surprising that the candidate so many of them cling to is the candidate of superficial and worthless rhetoric.


    Obama is a hypocritical SOB (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:57:55 PM EST
    but you know what, Kid Oakland could have written the copy for this.

    this is what turned me away from his campaign (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by oldnorthstate on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:09:33 PM EST
    these politics of unity have really shown his ass.  it is a shame really, he could have been something special, but he's just another one of the same.

    I'm positive (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:12:30 PM EST
    that Unity in Obama's use of the word means something like:

    "She's a polarizing harridan. Vote for the nice chap on the GQ cover instead. he's not hated by teh right wing."


    You could not produce a more condescending ad (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by boredmpa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:58:02 PM EST
    "More of the same old negative politics" "Her attacks do nothing but harm"


    It will backfire because it's obviously hypocritical (they don't need to know anything outside the content of the ad to get that), and because it will remind some people that there are trust issues with Obama (it should not have ended with that phrase).

    Well (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:02:03 PM EST
    It's not as hysterical as the ad that says you should vote for Obama because he respects your intelligence and won't pander, AND because he'll give you a $1000 tax cut.  Seriously.

    I Don't Think I've Ever Laughed (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:12:36 PM EST
    as hard at any political ad as I did at the one about how Obama wasn't about gimmicks, yada yada yada, and then out of nowhere, he'll give the middle class a $1,000 tax cut.  It was the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.

    and it's a weak pander at that! (none / 0) (#81)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:31:55 PM EST
    $1,000 = unimpressive token gesture.

    well, (none / 0) (#196)
    by boredmpa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:15:41 PM EST
    if it was a 1k increase in the earned income tax credit (read: flat wealth transfer to poor working class), it might have been impressive and progressive.  Provided he didn't cut food stamps to pay for it :)

    OMG. (none / 0) (#128)
    by pie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:05:44 PM EST
    A $1000 tax cut?  And they call Hillary republican-lite?

    Wow.  Just wow.


    what was the message again? missed it (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:58:14 PM EST
    oh, no there there? figures.

    Hey didn't you know Sen. Clinton is not only (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by FLVoter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:58:33 PM EST
    single handedly responsible for the war in Iraq, but also the economy, foreclosures, high gas prices, NAFTA, global warming, bees abandoning their hives, and I personally blame her for my flat tire yesterday.

    She responsible for the loss (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:05:36 PM EST
    of the British empire too. And the breakup of the Beatles. Worse than Yoko.

    Don't forget (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:10:21 PM EST
    She's responsible for obesity, poverty, acid rain, global warming, crime, and high cholesterol.

    Have you been reading (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by TomP on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:16:03 PM EST
    the front page of Daily Kos again?

    All that sounds just like it.

    I think they have this "Eve and the serpant" thing going.  Did you know Hillary Clinton is a woman?  


    Whoops. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by TomP on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:18:08 PM EST
    That's serpent.

    It is so weird nowadays.  Having no preference makes one the enemy to some Obama supporters, especially on Daily Kos.    


    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:20:15 PM EST
    I'd say I was somewhat hostile toward Obama's platform.

    Not terminally so...but a bit hostile.


    It's HillObama to me. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by TomP on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:22:25 PM EST
    She's better on some issues; he's better on others.

    That typo? (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:25:06 PM EST
    I heard Hillary was behind it.

    I noticed that... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:31:25 PM EST
    And you forgot (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:29:33 PM EST

    That whole "movement" post made me think of it ;-).


    well (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by boredmpa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:21:14 PM EST
    MAYBE cell phones really do scare off bees, and it IS hillary's fault.

    I mean she has been using her blackberry a lot and touring the country. It not impossible.  :P


    My radiator light came on... (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:33:17 PM EST
    It's her fault.

    (Never mind that it comes on every year just when the weather starts heating up...)


    I spilled my drink last night (none / 0) (#198)
    by lookoverthere on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:16:11 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure it was her fault. Gravity could've been behind it, but if it was, it was in cahoots with that beeyotch.

    She's just generally in cahoots with all the evil all the time.


    For a candidate that talks about change, (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:59:02 PM EST
    he seems incapable of it himself.

    He is foundering badly because of Wright, and this is his answer?

    Look, he's not going to win the GE with his current campaign strategy ("But-but-but CLINTON!"). And frankly, that ad is idiotic.

    Working-class voters want to know, what is your plan, Senator Obama? They're not getting any answers; just bumper stickers.

    That's why they won't vote for him.

    clinton (1.00 / 1) (#109)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:51:48 PM EST
    hasn't discussed any policy over the last month.  just take down Obama, take him down - the only way to win (although she can't, and won't).  Oh, wait, she mentioned a gas tax fallacy and the obliteration of Iran.  Nice.  

    You really think that? (5.00 / 9) (#114)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:53:54 PM EST
    This comment section is not large enough to recap all of Hillary's statements on policy issues over the last month.  The statement you've made is simply not defensible as a factual matter.

    Like the Israeli (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:59:18 PM EST
    alliance isn't a huge topic.

    Or the nature of energy policy.

    Obama's supporters are baffling.


    Methinks it time to step in . . . (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:06:13 PM EST
    and cut off the Kool Aid while taking away the keys.

    I do blame part of it on MSM though. I was up late with the TeeVee on and they were talking about how the 2 were sharpening their attacks in the crucial days before the primaries. Pretty much standard for all news casts. Film that followed showed no attacks, just bits of stump speeches. But the words of the talking heads are what's going to stick.


    Clinton has been talking policy (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:58:31 PM EST
    constantly.  She's not touched Obama on character issues at all.  That's frankly his schtick.

    O'Reilly......the Town Hall deal with George....her stump speeches......all about her ideas.

    So what specifically are you talking about?


    So (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:02:25 PM EST
    She discussed an energy policy (LT) and a foreign policy (which Obama says has no place in a primary).

    2 major policies in a month and you say she didn't discuss anything??? Please turn off MSNBC....


    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:05:59 PM EST
    Make that three major policy plans in a month - she announced her breast cancer fighting plan on April 7th.

    Her talking points are pretty much outlined (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:08:38 PM EST
    congrats (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by eric on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:03:23 PM EST
    you hit on two major talking points while keeping you comment within the "Clinton will say anything to win" narrative.

    The only problem, really, is that this thread is about Obama and his TV ad.


    That was a major policy (none / 0) (#117)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:58:11 PM EST

    What is the nature of the US alliance with Israel?

    Also anything about energy prices is a huge political topic one way or another. teh debate over the Fed Tax exposed the reality that High Oil Prices are current policy.

    I can't think of two larger topics off the top of my head, other than mortgages.


    Obama's talking points... (none / 0) (#136)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:11:17 PM EST
    Oh, wait, she mentioned a gas tax fallacy and the obliteration of Iran.  Nice.


    just because all Obama and his supporters seem to want to talk (aka lie) about are the gas tax proposal and Clinton's comments on Iran (which I thought were appropriate -- if you nuka another country, you will suffer massive retaliation.  Period.) doesn't mean that is all she talks about.  


    It's a basic tenet of Collective Security (none / 0) (#154)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:28:16 PM EST
    that a breach in the peace is a breach everywhere.

    That retaliation with equal force is warranted should be a fairly well understood by now.


    That is a blatant lie. (none / 0) (#159)
    by DJ on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:30:29 PM EST
    rural backlash against Obama in IN (none / 0) (#146)
    by Josey on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:22:38 PM EST

    but Obama dribbles! and texts! and is sooooo cool!


    if Sodrel wins tomorrow (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by ccpup on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:07:12 PM EST
    you can almost plan a huge exodus of SDs away from Obama and towards Hillary.

    Nothing more bracing than the ice cold splash of water that is a down-ticket Dem losing a race because of their support for Obama to bring one back to Political Reality.  If they STILL make Obama the Nominee after that, then they deserve to have Wright/Obama hung around their necks and lose their seats in the Fall.

    Stupid is as stupid does, you know?


    hmmm (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by Turkana on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:59:58 PM EST
    so, this ad is different old washington politics?

    i'm glad obama shows some fight- he'll need it, if he's nominated; but it does, yet again, put the lie to the "hope and change" schtick. not that the obamabots will notice- after all, he doesn't go negative, he just tells the truth!

    LOL!! (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by TomP on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:19:28 PM EST
    Yes, it's not a personal attack when Obama does it (or when an Obama supporter attacks a blogger).

    It is interesting to watch.  


    shows some fight? (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:35:08 PM EST
    There's acting like a fighter and then there's actually being an effective fighter.  John Kerry sounded "tough" and assertive in many of his ads and speeches but in reality his fighting didn't actually land the punches.

    When is going negative (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by eric on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:00:34 PM EST
    not really negative?  When you accuse your opponent of being negative.

    In that case, its the politics of Hope, got it?

    lol* (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:29:56 PM EST
    That's the irony of his entire campaign.  It's been nothing but negative.  


    I'm too old.  I think you have to have zip commonsense to play this game.


    Once again I ask (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by DJ on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:01:17 PM EST
    What is HE going to DO?

    And what (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:15:47 PM EST
    exactly, does Obama stand for?

    No..it's not about doing (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:48:10 PM EST
    it's about trusting.  He never promised to do anything, But we can trust him to do nothing.  Then, there is nothing to blame him for, see?  The new politics.  

    hey, the only thing he promised is (none / 0) (#193)
    by kangeroo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:01:01 PM EST
    change...  he just forgot to mention it'd be change for the worse--because he's devaluing our brand and the goodwill that comes with it.  grr.

    IN analyst on NPR said Obama made huge Chi (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jawbone on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:05:13 PM EST
    market ad buy -- this late in the campaign suggests clear tightening in his base area around Chicago.

    Guy said that having indies and R's able to vote makes any predictions dicey.

    in other words (none / 0) (#172)
    by ccpup on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:09:05 PM EST
    they're going to lose Indiana tomorrow.

    No (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:51:40 PM EST
    it indicates that he's losing his base area. If you are ahead you don't spend money on a huge ad buy.

    With apologies to Brenda Lee... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Anne on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:09:45 PM EST
    Who's bitter now, who's bitter now
    Whose campaign is achin' for breakin' each vow
    Who's sad and blue, who's clingin' to
    Their guns and Bibles and arugula, too

    Right to the end, just like a friend
    I tried to warn you somehow
    You had your way, now you must pay
    Too bad that you're bitter now

    Right to the end, just like a friend
    I tried to warn you somehow
    You had your way, now you must pay
    Too bad that you're bitter now

    I got my own song parody (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:14:21 PM EST
    That's what you are..."

    thats is the funniest... (none / 0) (#89)
    by nic danger on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:36:54 PM EST
    five words i've read today.i am so stealing that...

    Help yourself! ;) (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:14:14 PM EST
    I love Nat Cole.
    Hope he is not offended, wherever he is.

    If he is offended... (none / 0) (#167)
    by white n az on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:53:38 PM EST
    he's gonna have a hard time expressing it but Natalie might have an opinion.

    In the mean time, the Autumn Leaves...


    Lame (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:15:26 PM EST
    Just as I thought the Clinton "bitter" ad was lame in Pennsylvania, this ad from Obama is incredibly lame.  

    The best negative ads, IMO, are the ones that counter-punch, but this isn't an effective counter-punch because the campaign has shifted to bread and butter issues and this one is still talking about fixing Washington.  Dude, if we have to wait to solve the foreclosure crisis and the energy crisis until Washington gets fixed, then we're basically writing off several generations of Americans.  

    heh (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:24:05 PM EST
    What do we want!?

    A reform of the process by which laws are made subject to the committee's motion to move to new discussions.

    When do WE want it?!

    In due course and with consideration for all interested parties, over the course of a trial period whereby all such refom can be tabled.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:25:48 PM EST
    ok, THAT was funny! (none / 0) (#173)
    by ccpup on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:10:18 PM EST
    Her hometown paper? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by A little night musing on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:20:18 PM EST
    Much as I find it amusing to imagine how chuffed the NYT must be to be described as anyone's hometown paper...

    She actually does not live in NYC.

    She doesn't even represent NYC, specifically. It's a big state. She's a Senator.

    Yeah, I can't help seeing this as another kind of dog-whistle for NC.


    The Chappaqua Gazette. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:25:14 PM EST
    That's what I thought...oh never mind.

    Not the Point (none / 0) (#68)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:25:23 PM EST
    Southerners hate New Yorkers.  This is a reminder that she represents New York.  It might work if it weren't for the fact that her Arkansas connection is so well known.

    Also, if she's using any of our (none / 0) (#74)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:29:18 PM EST
    upstate and rural NY issues in her stump, it's a positive for her. There's a whole state right outside of the city that many would relate to quite easily.

    Well (none / 0) (#75)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:29:22 PM EST
    this looks like an Indiana ad to me.

    They Hate New Yorkers, Too (none / 0) (#83)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:32:45 PM EST
    Come to think of it, other than New Yorkers, who doesn't. ;-)

    That just shows. . . (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:37:12 PM EST
    how little you know about New Yorkers!

    We are very lovable :) (none / 0) (#93)
    by A little night musing on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:39:32 PM EST
    Too bad we are seen as the source of all evil some places.

    Like Connecticut? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:43:11 PM EST
    Lovable, that we are!! ;) (none / 0) (#138)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:11:20 PM EST
    Adorable, eh? (none / 0) (#142)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:15:52 PM EST
    Two words...

    Egg Cream.


    2 buildings down from me . . . . (none / 0) (#153)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:27:53 PM EST
    Brooklyn Egg Cream. There was an OLD diner by the park that also had them. Not sure if they are still serving them since it changed hands, think they are though. I'll have to check tomorrow when I'm there :)

    Fresh mozzarella is another big hit for me  :)


    And real bagels n/t (none / 0) (#205)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:49:54 PM EST
    Now now (none / 0) (#164)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:37:17 PM EST
    I fell in love with Manhattan when I moved there at age eighteen and never got over it, never will.
    And don't forget, when September 11 happened, we were all New Yorkers.  I'm in Atlanta now, and I know y'all are just kidding around. ;)

    I love New Yorkers (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by facta non verba on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:23:36 PM EST
    it's New York that I can't stand. I love spending weekends there from time to time but as I tell my boyfriend, I love going to NY, I love leaving NY.

    It's not for me. SF is more my speed.


    I'm that way with LA. (none / 0) (#157)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:29:35 PM EST
    Have many years of fond memories from my SF living days though :)

    I am still (none / 0) (#199)
    by facta non verba on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:30:43 PM EST
    a NY Football Giants and NY Mets fan though.

    Strictly for Indiana (none / 0) (#98)
    by wasabi on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:43:02 PM EST
    The last screen shot directs you to his website: INBarackObama.com

    Heh, the SUSA poll only had 1% undecided (none / 0) (#134)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:10:29 PM EST
    not sure how effective it will be ;)

    Heh, the SUSA poll only had 1% undecided (none / 0) (#135)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:10:45 PM EST
    not sure how effective it will be ;)

    I live here and it's not even MY hometown (none / 0) (#71)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:27:02 PM EST
    paper, lol!~ Yes, we have our own publication right here in our 'hood that deals with our local 'hood and city news  ;)

    Doesn't America now think her hometown (none / 0) (#80)
    by Joan in VA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:31:55 PM EST
    is a small town in PA? Cause of all the gun-learning there? America will just be confused.

    I can't believe (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by stillife on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:22:15 PM EST
    they're quoting that horrid Op Ed piece from a couple of weeks ago.  Well, actually, I can believe it.  

    Smells like desperation to me.

    What a comedian (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:24:00 PM EST
    Who doesn't see that this is the negativity he is criticizing? That he was so busy slamming Hillary, he forgot to give his "straight answers" on what he plans to do.

    Anyone who watches the Clinton stump speeches is well aware that she is ONLY discussing issues.

    Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:32:07 PM EST
    the negativity he's been waiting for.

    him and Joe Andrew (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:41:27 PM EST
    They are pre-emptive negative campaigners.  Indignant at their imaginary foes and their imaginary words.

    Obama the closer (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:39:07 PM EST
    This is his version of closing the deal.

    He had the judgement to choose this ad.

    I learn more about Obama every day.

    Bad ad (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:42:46 PM EST
    isn't it?

    Hers is a lot better.  Very focused, sharp, and simple.


    Victim Obama (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:52:28 PM EST
    he seems to think he does better when people are feeling sorry for him.

    Confused child never quite found his maturity.


    Pathetic. (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by pie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:44:03 PM EST
    This is the best he can do?

    I really hope he doesn't win the nomination.

    this ad sure bothered me (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by karen for Clinton on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:51:32 PM EST
    whomever said it might back fire was right.

    I was active on the NYT Caucus blogs since I lived in NY for 47 years and it was also my home town paper.

    I now live in PA and awoke the morning after her 10 point victory and looked at the NYT and read their hit piece on her and was quite miffed.

    Then the blogs didn't print my highly emotional rant even due to their obama fan moderators.

    So his ad hit me the real wrong way.  As soon as I saw it here I went to the Caucus blog with another rant against their hit piece.

    Go Hillary and don't pay no mind to the clown and his followers who are trying to push your buttons.

    Rise Hillary Rise.

    I do still have a sense of humor.  Primary eve requires a few drinks and a candle.

    I feel better now.  :-)

    oh and (none / 0) (#113)
    by karen for Clinton on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:53:12 PM EST
    Their editorial was about her going negative.

    Ironic.  Karma.  I told them long ago it was him but nooooooo they kept blaming her.


    I thought Sen. Obama disowned attack ads (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by daryl herbert on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:56:44 PM EST
    Sen. Obama said he would not reject Rev. Wright--until it became politically necessary for him to do so.  Then he did.

    Sen. Obama said he wouldn't wear a flag pin, because they were being worn by fake patriots--until it became politically necessary for him to do so.  Then he did (about the time he gave the 2nd Wright speech).

    Sen. Obama said he was against negative campaigning--until it became politically necessary for him to do so.  Then he did (he's scared about the upcoming primaries in IN and NC).

    What other heartfelt positions does Sen. Obama have, that he will never, ever, ever compromise on . . . until compromising helps to get him some votes?

    Maybe I am too in the "tank" (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by FLVoter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:57:39 PM EST
    for Sen. Clinton, but I just do not see the purpose of this ad.  Anyone that has seen Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton debate know that she has offered detailed solutions to the problems we are facing.  I have found some of his "solutions" rather vague.  So what gives with this ad?  Is it going negative for the sake of going negative?

    It's not even a good GOTV ad. (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Fabian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:05:34 PM EST
    In fact, it's pretty lousy.

    It doesn't highlight Obama's anything.
    It doesn't make a single concrete claim against Clinton.

    BTW - I'm totally tired of the OMG! - Clinton is going to destroy our nation's infrastructure via a gas tax holiday! meme.  Her proposal is so simple that there's no excuse for misrepresenting it - outside of deliberate deception.  The worst you can say about it is that it is pandering.


    I agree with you! (none / 0) (#132)
    by FLVoter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:08:54 PM EST
    Good One (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by hummingbirdv on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:01:38 PM EST
    "He is the negativity he's been waiting for"
    So true.

    It's just a silly ad.  It won't work.  Overload, oversold, B O ver.  

    Massive popular vote count just around the corner and more SD to come Hill's way.

    Once again (none / 0) (#125)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:04:09 PM EST
    My Obama supporting co-worker pointed me to this ad.  Even he didn't like it - said it was too "dark".

    Sort of reflects his mood (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:11:22 PM EST
    lately.  Even Dowd commented that he looks grim.  :)

    I love the fact that (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by pie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:17:06 PM EST
    Obama and his supporters have doen nothing but decry the horrid tactics and mud-slinging by the Clinton campaign when in reality, they've tossed out the most vile crap I've ever heard directed at a member of their own party.  We don't often see a primary go on this long, but this has been a nasty one in the blogosphere.

    The Obama crew have certainly learned from the republicans, who have honed it: A+ for projection technique.


    oh for the love of peeps! (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:17:26 PM EST
    Too dark?!  When did the dem party turn into a bunch of pussycats?  I am so sick of that lay down and take it attitude.  This is the real world, folks.  Why is it unseemly to fight to win?  Why is it wrong to have open ambition because you think you're the right person for the job?

    Do latte dems feel that they are so evolved they choose the latter when given a fight or flight situation???


    Quite right, Kathy (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:29:10 PM EST
    You gotta fight to win.  But if I may be so bold, and in reference to Obama's ad, that's the problem.
    It ain't a fighting ad.  

    It's a whining ad.  It says to me:  "Clinton's a big meanie who's practicing the old politics and not embracing my Unity Pony and she's talking about issues and stuff and she's not climbing my ladder into the sky and this campaign's going on too long and I'm tired of it, dammit, so please vote for me so I can take a nap!"


    Absolutely agree with you. n/t (none / 0) (#162)
    by DJ on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:33:50 PM EST
    I started to post something (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by pie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:32:58 PM EST
    about what wimps people have become.  After 9/11, it was a shocking revelation.  Isn't the America I thought it was.  The media have perpetrated this, but I also had friends in the past tell me, "Anything to keep us safe."  WTF?!  Hopefully, they've come to their senses.

    Now, da poor widdle peeps don't like nasty politics.

    Yet they're the ones spewing the worst garbage.

    As I said, projection.


    Bush did not "win" (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:14:08 PM EST
    because he was smarter, or a better speaker or even a better politician.  He won because he looked strong, and the media helped Gore and Kerry look like elitist boobies.

    The funny thing is that WJC is arguably the smartest president we have had since Kennedy--the man is just freakin' brilliant--but he also comes across as a normal guy.  He can hold his own whether he's talking about macro economics or the latest Elmore Leonard novel.  This isn't something he "plays"; it's just who Bill is--truly a Renaissance man, and the republicans didn't know how to fight that.

    And now our girl is presenting that same thing: smart as heck, but still able to understand what the average folk are going through.  She connects with them on every level, and she doesn't intimidate them with her brain power.

    Let me ask y'all this:  do you think Bill Gates would ever win the presidency?  People want folks they want to be like, not boobies who think they're better than everybody else.


    Uh, Kathy, I hate to disagree with you (none / 0) (#200)
    by lookoverthere on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:31:01 PM EST
    But all Bill Gates would have to do is fill his swimming pool with $100 bills, shoot video of it, and cut it into ads.

    Then he'd buy all of teevee and play the ads over and over.


    Gas Tax Must Be a Winner for Clinton (5.00 / 6) (#148)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:24:10 PM EST
    Her closing ad hits Obama on it, his hits her back without mentioning the gas tax specifically.   Doesn't sound like that issue has become a winner for Obama.

    Which is one reason why she would be the stronger nominee.  She took McCain's pander and turned it into a better, more progressive pander by making oil companies pay for it.   And by pander, of course, I mean something that voters want on an issue they care about.  Which, of course, is something democrats should never give them.  Better to have the principled loss than gasp pander.

    Panders are endangered (none / 0) (#150)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:25:13 PM EST
    and America is the worse for it.

    after 7.4 years of chimpie... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by white n az on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:55:08 PM EST
    Pandering to me sounds pretty good actually...just keep doing it.

    See I agree with you! (none / 0) (#158)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:29:40 PM EST
    This is the one time we get pandered to by these jokers.  Let them pander.  More!  More!

    It's a dry spell between the election and 4 years from now.  :)


    Yes (none / 0) (#163)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:36:51 PM EST
    And on my day off I'm going to go see the "panders" at the zoo.

    So you're coming (none / 0) (#192)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:57:43 PM EST
    to Boston?  We're the ones with the panders and the good idears.

    Nothing wrong with pandering. Every once in (none / 0) (#155)
    by FLVoter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:28:19 PM EST
    a while a girl wants to be pandered to. I know I want to matter to someone.  Since I live in Florida, the DNC has made me feel unwanted.  At least Sen. Clinton's pander makes me feel "loved."

    Whatever happened to irony? (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by dianem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:11:28 PM EST
    Does anybody else see the irony of an ad that starts off talking about how bad things are, then criticizes the other candidate for being negative?

    Gee, I wish Barack Obama would have given (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:23:46 PM EST
    me an honest answer to anyone of them there problems....but nope....he just wants to promise to do that at some later to announced date, or maybe not.  Who knows?  All I know is that THAT is just more of the same.......livin in LIMBO.

    O/T But I Want To See How He Does On Bill-O (none / 0) (#28)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:06:02 PM EST
    yes, the "me too" candidate is going into the den and I am fairly sure he will not do as well as Hillary.  Maybe Bill will ask him about his comment "when you lose your job, you lose your dignity".  What an assinine thing to say.

    when? n/t (none / 0) (#29)
    by DJ on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:07:14 PM EST
    when h*ll freezes over (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by stillife on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:20:56 PM EST
    Not Sure When....He Said He Was Looking (none / 0) (#186)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:45:58 PM EST
    forward to going on Bill O'Reilly during his interview this morning on Fox News.

    Really? KO will have to do a 180. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Joan in VA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:27:53 PM EST
    And can't wait to see the backpedalling at the Big Orange.

    Obama, apply directly to your hindbrain. (none / 0) (#32)
    by blogtopus on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:08:27 PM EST
    "Her hometown newspaper says she's taking the low road. Her attacks do nothing but harm [...]"

    To his vanity campaign! Maybe Hillary should be asking why Obama has such a hard time finishing his elected offices, or the promises he makes to finish them off. Ambitious, indeed. Welcome, President Stillwell.

    I think we should go full rage (none / 0) (#102)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:45:47 PM EST
    See, they identify her as a New Yorker.  They are trying to marginalize her by painting her as an elite New Yorker. Please insert mock outrage:________.

    Great ad... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Addison on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:48:22 PM EST

    Really? You thought so? (none / 0) (#106)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:50:44 PM EST
    The whole "going negative" to decry "going negative" didn't undermine the ethos factor for you?

    But... I read that Obama is (none / 0) (#161)
    by MarkL on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:33:47 PM EST
    running a high-minded campaign!
    Josh Marshall sez so!

    friends... (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by white n az on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:57:19 PM EST
    don't link friends to lousy lekking sites like DK, HuffPo or TPM without extreme caution signs/warnings to take my word for it or I go there so you don't have to. Better yet, get a picture of it and put it into photobucket or flickr and link to that instead of driving up their traffic.

    CNN headline (none / 0) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:51:01 PM EST
    Clinton goes negative in last-minute ad

    No foul language (none / 0) (#171)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:07:43 PM EST
    It messes with the filtering software.  Your comments will be deleted if you use foul language.  Use * etc.

    Variation (none / 0) (#174)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:11:00 PM EST
    On the six degrees of Kevin Bacon game.

    6 or less is the amount of "logical" steps one may take to turn anything Sen. Clinton says into a "Washington style" "smear" and "Probably racist" attack on Obama.

    6 is way too many steps (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by dianem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:27:54 PM EST
    Any Obama supporter worth his salt can do it in 1.

    How much did the campaign spend... (none / 0) (#179)
    by kdog on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:22:52 PM EST
    on this piece o' crap.  How much do they all spend on their various piece o' crap commercials.

    It would be better spent, and win more votes, if they took the whatever hundred k the commercial cost (or gasp, million)and went to a couple major cities, called the local news, went to where the homeless congregate and gave 'em each a c note.  Am I wrong?

    Hm (none / 0) (#191)
    by lilburro on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:56:42 PM EST
    That ad does seem pretty crappy.  For an ad about how much we should trust him, it hardly features him.  That doesn't seem like a good sign.  And the NY Times dig kind of cuts both ways IMO; while it may remind people of her ties to bip-bopping NYC, it also overestimates how much people across the country care about the NY Times.  To many people it's a newspaper of elite or at least out of touch interests.  Why trust a newspaper with the NYT's share of scandals and breadth of irrelevancy (I fondly recall a lengthy rhapsodic article on beefeater tomatoes, and from whence it came, many more on creative class styles)?  Maybe it would've been better to quote a local paper.

    Obama just aired an ad in NC that IMO was much better.  It ended with an upbeat montage of images of excited people of all ages in different settings, Obama walking around on a farm, with him saying something to the effect that he can't wait to help us, if we give him the opportunity.  It was prefaced by the normal stuff about changing Washington, but it hit a nice ending note.  I like seeing good ads from Obama because they make me like him more.  

    Allright, now I have to figure out who else I want to vote for on the NC ballot!

    This is not an attack ad (none / 0) (#194)
    by obsessed on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:04:24 PM EST
    What kind of Orwellian world is this?

    Here's the type of reasoning you're following

    --you slap me in the face and punch me in the gut
    --I complain
    --you accuse me of being negative

    Hillary is the batterer in an abusive relationship and you're her enabler. Look in the mirror.

    ...fascinating, Captain.... (5.00 / 4) (#197)
    by Fabian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:16:05 PM EST
    I believe we've discovered a new species:
    Astroturfus victimus

    We must report this to Star Fleet at once!


    LOL Thank You N/T (none / 0) (#206)
    by Marvin42 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:44:57 PM EST
    I say Go! (none / 0) (#201)
    by MichaelGale on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:36:35 PM EST
    Speaking for me, I say use the ads......Hillary should tell it like it is.

    And...they work.  

    The MSM is setting the narrative, reframing any ad as an attack ad. Ever say the football cheer; "hit him again harder, harder."  That's my new cheer for HIllary.

    Go Hillary Go.


    you have to back that up (none / 0) (#202)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:39:13 PM EST
    with a specific example.

    I can point to three abuses by Obama's campaign:

    1. The resurection of Harry and Louise

    2. JJJ complaining about Hillary crying and pointing out that she never shed a tear for NOLA.

    3. Using Ferraro* as a substitute whipping girl for Clinton.

    Obscure* comments in a local California paper after the California primary can't seriously be considered fodder for a serious high minded campaign. Obama is dirt dregder.

    dredger. (none / 0) (#203)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:43:47 PM EST