Obama's New Patriotic, Family Values Ad

Barack Obama has a new ad airing in battleground states touting his family values. Here's the script:

"I'm Barack Obama. America is a country of strong families and strong values. My life's been blessed by both.

"I was raised by a single mom and my grandparents. We didn't have much money, but they taught me values straight from the Kansas heartland where they grew up. Accountability and self-reliance. Love of country. Working hard without making excuses. Treating your neighbor as you'd like to be treated. It's what guided me as I worked my way up — taking jobs and loans to make it through college.


"It's what led me to pass up Wall Street jobs and go to Chicago instead, helping neighborhoods devastated when steel plants closed. That's why I passed laws moving people from welfare to work, cut taxes for working families and extended health care for wounded troops who'd been neglected.

"I approved this message because I'll never forget those values, and if I have the honor of taking the oath of office as president, it will be with a deep and abiding faith in the country I love."

The ad is running in Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.

It's goal:

By focusing on family and core values, Obama is trying to show voters of all stripes — Democrats, independents, and Republicans — that they have much in common. These issues transcend political preferences and Obama is seeking to win over independents and some Republicans unhappy with eight years of Republican rule.

The campaign chose to run the ad in traditional battleground states as well as some that have reliably voted for Republican presidential candidates in the past several elections, including Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Montana, and North Dakota. The intention is to test Obama's theory that his appeal allows him to make Democrats competitive in states that the party typically ignores and, thus, give Democrats better chances to rack up the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House.

Why it's a smart move: It will force McCain to spend money in states Republicans consider safe.

Politico has more on the ad. On a related note, Politico yesterday ran this article suggesting that Obama could win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote and the White House.

< Mass Mortgage Fraud Indictments | New Laws Coming? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    He forgot to mention he took the oath (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:18:36 PM EST
    on a Bible.

    It's his usual bio ad (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:19:25 PM EST
    I notice that he no longer says "community organizer" in reference to Chicago and that he emphasizes "welfare to work" and cutting taxes.

    Well, he would never have said that ... (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:39:47 PM EST
    during the campaign because it's a Bill Clinton line.

    In fact, I think that line was put in to pander to Hillary supporters.


    Does anyone know (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by suisser on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:25:36 PM EST
    exactly what work Obama did to put himself through school, as claimed in the ad?

    Good question. (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:40:14 PM EST
    Did he stay anywhere long enough (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:48:31 PM EST
    to "work his way up"?

    And then there's the accountability and self-reliance . . .

    Over-all, it's better than his previous ads. Reminds me of the Clinton PA ads, which I thought hit a better tone than his.


    He took loans (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by catfish on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:04:50 PM EST
    maybe that's the work he was referring to.

    This was interesting, from the NYT story (none / 0) (#198)
    by suisser on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:47:39 PM EST
    on Obama's Columbia/NYC years.  The comments from people who worked with him seemed authentic LINK

    Don't ads like this invite attacks (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by MarkL on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:28:46 PM EST
    based on Wright, etc.?

    Obama does not need (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:31:29 PM EST
    to invite those attacks. They are coming no matter what he does. McCain has already said so.

    It's how the Republicans roll.


    yes, but look at how Kerry's (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MarkL on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:33:43 PM EST
    "reporting for duty" set up the swiftboaters perfectly.
    Because he emphasized his service, he made the attacks that much more important.

    I know what you mean (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:37:10 PM EST
    but this ad is a bit of a pre-emptive strike, IMHO.

    Poor John Kerry, on the other hand, was just clueless as to how the Republicans were going to attack.


    Kerry played his War Hero card (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:54:33 PM EST
    a little too hard in the convention, and that was in part to defuse the elitist charge and in part because his team had decided not to spend one minute going after Junior -- one pollster told JK that such an attack might "upset the swing voters".

    It still wasn't bad strategy to play up how he acted courageously in Nam.  It's just that because he'd accepted public financing for the GE (stupid stupid move), his campaign would have squandered a good deal of fed resources fighting the battle in the ad wars prior to the fall.  

    So he had to basically sit back and take it, or so he thought, for several weeks as the Rs defined him and defined him with no response.


    No. (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    The attacks based on Wright don't need an invitation--they'll come regardless.  This is a good ad and one he needed to do.

    Yes, we do all want the same things (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:14:52 PM EST
    and that is what he is trying to say. When wingnut pundits call him "exotic" we need to counter with the fact that he is a father with kids and we all want the same things generally, healthy kids we can feed and educate and equal opportunity.

    A solid ad, which highlighted (5.00 / 0) (#180)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:59:53 PM EST
    the theme of I'm One of You -- pretty smart, and necessary move when you are the first AA candidate-nominee and with that funky name and all.

    Some great photos in there, too.

    And I don't mind his taking those 2 yrs being raised by a single mom (ftr, I'm a single parent too, and for much longer) and, being a pol prone to the usual political semi-exaggeration, driving a mack truck through it.  Provided of course he doesn't ever explicitly misstate the facts.


    They could splice this ad with Wright tapes (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by catfish on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:06:42 PM EST
    for an attack ad.

    I'm Barack Obama and I share your values. Cue Jeremiah.

    (I'm not a Republican, but the idea just popped into my head.)


    Not Wright per se... (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:59:35 PM EST
    But I see an ad discussing the "limited means" upbring...

    Unfortunately, I see it playing out in my head right now.


    This is exactly what he needs to do. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    I said this a while ago on TL - he needs to fly the flag and show the family. It will help a little bit IMHO.

    I would suggest that he needs to run on the issues, but he clearly does not do that well. His flip-flopping on Jerusalem, Iran and public financing are just three examples.

    No, better to play to his strengths, which have gotten him this far.*

    ***I still firmly believe he is unelectable, but strategy-wise, this is a good move.

    It's called "Change" (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:36:49 PM EST
    rather than "Flip Flop"

    LOL! (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:38:01 PM EST
    Well played.

    I am going to say something impolitic (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    But before I do, let me preface it by saying I think it is good politics, and I want the Dem nominee to practice good politics -

    That ad would never have run before the South Carolina primary.

    I concur (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by davnee on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:36:22 PM EST
    Who knows.  The Clintons' reputation may be quite well mended in certain parts after a few years under Obama rule.

    Very, very good point. (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:39:26 PM EST
    Only from the people I know (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    here in SC, winning Iowa was all he needed to do to get the AA vote.  We have a very different view on what went down in SC.

    then (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:11:49 PM EST
    The polling is something you do not believe then.

    Jim clyburn's attacks on the Clinton's destroyed Clinton's share of the African American vote in SC.

    I do not like discussing things with people who deny the obvious.


    The world's greatest pollster SUSA (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:34:01 PM EST
    Had Clinton up by 2 in Dec. and Obama +20 on their Jan 4-6. poll.

    I do not like discussing things with people who deny the obvious.


    Links to polls please (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:41:19 PM EST
    Or do you think SUSA was the only pollster?

    BTW, what was the final tally in South Carolina?


    For example (none / 0) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:42:33 PM EST
    I still do not understand why Hillary (3.00 / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:34:12 PM EST
    started talking about LBJ and MLK and comparing herself to LBJ.

    There was no need to go there.....That occurred early.


    Real simple (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:35:42 PM EST
    She talked about MLK because Obama, by sheer coincidence I'm sure, decided to cloak himself in the mantle of MLK as a response to Hillary's "false hope" comments at the NH debate.

    Weak (2.00 / 0) (#149)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:57:04 PM EST
    Obama made it clear he was standing on the shoulders of MLK.....Pretty innocuous stuff.

    After Iowa, Hillary and Bill started in on the empty suit, all-talk angle....And Bill said he couldn't make Hillary younger or taller, etc. They didn't like the adulation Obama was receiving in the wake of Iowa and tried to take him down a peg or two.  That is what I think they call negative campaigning.  


    Er, no (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    Hillary said we shouldn't go around giving people false hopes.  Obama's response was that gosh, good thing no one told MLK to stop spreading false hopes!  It's kind of hard to respond when the guy takes the position that if you insult him, you're insulting MLK.

    Perhaps Hillary should (2.00 / 0) (#164)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:32:42 PM EST
    not have tried to "insult" him in the first place....

    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by pie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:41:01 PM EST
    Seems she was right about the false hopes.

    Perhaps Hillary should just have not (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:59:50 PM EST
    done any campaigning at all.

    It was Mr. Hope who started the insults, buddy.


    She didn't start talking about it (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:57:41 PM EST
    There was some back and forth about Obama's lofty but vague "hope" "change" rhetoric.  Obama ridiculed that, citing Martin Luther King as someone who changed the world through "just words."  Hillary was asked about that by a reporter, and she responded quite reasonably that MLK didn't change the world all by himself, he needed LBJ in the White House to get Civil Rights passed.

    obvious to you (1.00 / 1) (#187)
    by tben on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:16:24 PM EST
    does not mean obvious, period.
    In this case, I daresay that most observers find your interpretation to be obviously wrong.

    Why not? (none / 0) (#31)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:42:32 PM EST

    I am going to say something impolitic

    Perish the thought!


    Was Obama "black enough" (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:46:20 PM EST

    Focusing on his white mother and grandparents was not something he was going to do before South Carolina.

    There, now you made me say it. It is part of what made Clyburn's behavior in South Carolina so despicable - the one thing for sure the Clinton campaign was NOT going to do in South Carolina was play racial politics.

    My disgust with Jim Clyburn is the deepest I hold for any Democrat from this campaign season.


    I find your interpretation bizarre (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by tben on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:54:15 PM EST
    Playing racial politics in SC was certainly not in Clinton's interest, if her goal was to win SC.

    But once she sensed that she would not win, then imposing the "he's black, of course he will win" line, with the implication that the Obama is the candidate for the blacks, and she is the candidate for the whites, is an obviously winning strategy for the rest of the race.

    I think you are being very grossly unfair to Jim Clyburn. Its like you cant imagine that he might sincerly believe what he said.


    of course they wanted to win SC (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:56:27 PM EST
    They spent lots of money and time there. Indeed, if they had been able to defeat Obama there, he would have been finished.

    In retrospect it is probably correct that they could not have won SC, but Jim Clyburn probably succeeded in racially polarizing the vote even more than it otherwise would have been.


    I find your comment bizarre (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:57:10 PM EST
    AFTER South Carolina, for example, when Bill Clinton made his comment, a comment I roundly condemned, THEN belittling Obama's triumph made sense. but PRIOR, it made NO SENSE.

    Clyburn's statements were a fairy tale he deliberately and maliciously concocted unless he is a moron. And I know he is not a moron.

    His behavior was utterly despicable.


    Michelle O. twisted the fairy tale (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by catfish on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:10:37 PM EST
    remark too. Don't know who did it first, her or Clyburn.

    do you think bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:11:14 PM EST
    was race baiting?

    Yes I do (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:16:38 PM EST
    His comment was despicable. I said so then and I say so now.

    I see (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:25:23 PM EST
    So you dont buy the "it was merely accurate statement in a historical context".

    I was wondering what your opinion of that was.

    Anyway, I disagree, but if mccain or mccain's campaign can avoid making such statements, statements that you believe are race baiting, then maybe sully's statement below has some weight to it.

    I mean from that perspective.   I mean at the very least you and sully both would agree on that very narrow point.  The race baiting bill Clinton in south carolina.


    As I understand it, the comment (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:38:23 PM EST
    was the one about Jesse Jackson?  And that somehow was supposed to insult Obama?  Having lived in this obscure corner of SC for more than 40 years (and if I'd known how long I'd be here, I'd have gone into hiding), I do know that Jesse is a legitimate hero in his hometown.  (As a 'typical white person,' I rather admire him--except that in the debate that year, I thought Sharpton was the sharpest.)

    The only thing I can see bad is if you took off from the original comment and decided Bill was really saying he expected Obama to do ok in SC and then proceed to tank everywhere else.  From that angle, comparing ANYONE to Edwards would be effectively the same thing.  Edwards could carry his home county here, but how much else did he manage?


    And I was just lectured the other day (none / 0) (#160)
    by riddlerandy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:20:37 PM EST
    (not by you) that the primary season was over

    prior it made no sense (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by tben on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:03:21 PM EST
    until there was a beleif formed about whether or not they would win.
    You think that they were surprised that they lost on Election night?

    You double down on the vehemence of your characterization of Clyburn, but it doesnt add any light. I'll accept that you really really feel that way. I'm not convinced I should.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:06:07 PM EST
    If you are not actually going to address what I write, then why respond at all.

    Losing is one thing, Clinton got blown out in South Carolina.

    And one of the biggest reasons why was Jim Clyburn's malicious mendacious smear job.


    I think that is totally false (2.00 / 4) (#97)
    by tben on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:17:55 PM EST
    Obama won in SC, by winning so handily amongst black voters, because after Iowa, the black community was hugely energized and excited by the understanding that Obama could actually win the presidency - he could actually win huge numbers of white voters - Iowa - (and NH too, even though he came in second).

    In other words, he was someone who could be seen by white voters as a credible candidate - he would not be another Jackson, or Sharpton, who would be universally seen as just a presence on the stage to raise the concerns of the black community.

    That is why there was so much bitterness and the percieved effort to put Obama back into that box.


    The polling says otherwise (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:20:43 PM EST
    Clinton's standing with African American voters collapsed AFTER Jim Clyburn set off on his mendacious, malicious smear campaign against the Clintons.

    But facts do not matter to you so why am I bothering with you? I am done discussing this with you.


    a smear campaign (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:26:58 PM EST
    that continues even as we speak.  see Sullys despicable remark above.

    Historical revisionism (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:29:44 PM EST
    is very, very popular with Obamans.

    Don'tcha know, Bill Clinton destroyed the Democratic Party?



    not true, once again (1.00 / 1) (#130)
    by tben on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:40:06 PM EST
    Clinton's standing collapsed (more accuaratly, Obama's surged) after Iowa. Was it also after Clyburn objected to some Clinton tactics? YEah, maybe, chronologically. But it seems ridiculous to claim that Clyburns comments moved such huge numbers.

    How could one congressman's comments move more black people than the suddenly emerging possibility of electing a black man president?

    Besdies, Clyburn's comments were not wrong.

    If Clyburn wanted to tank the Clintons, why wouldn't he have simply endorsed Obama - explicitly?


    Sharpton, (none / 0) (#137)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    thanks to the hash he made publicly some years ago, may have been a bit player on the stage.  I thought he was pretty quick witted in the debate, tho.  But Jesse, as I keep saying, is credible to me.  And is not the Rainbow Coalition his doing?  Did not the gays pick that up?  I was happy to see the rainbow flag flying at the church when my son was married.    I like rainbows a lot better than I like 'faith initiatives/dialogues.'

    me too, I like rainbows (none / 0) (#151)
    by tben on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:00:30 PM EST
    and I liked Jesse. I voted for him in the primary in my state. But he wasnt taken seriously in general.

    if he believed what he said (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:00:12 PM EST
    And you believed what he said then it follows that one is not sincere about unity.

    If you believe it, purging the clinton's is the right thing to do.


    sez you. (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by tben on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:06:03 PM EST
    I dont really follow your logic. People do all manner of things in the heat of a campaign - even the Clintons. Neither Clyburn nor I here are claiming that they are the spawn of satan that must be purged.
    The party is made up, 100%, of fallible human beings.

    yeah (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:08:01 PM EST
    but about race?

    as you said earlier edgar (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:30:16 PM EST
    the primary may be over but the war goes on.
    we will just see who ultimately gets purged.

    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by standingup on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:08:24 PM EST
    It really makes good sense for Clinton to "cut off her nose to spite her face" in the 3rd or 4th primary with the majority of the primaries yet to go.  Talk about a bizarre interpretation?  

    Why would she want to risk angering the black vote   in South Carolina when she had how many primaries left where the black vote could be important?  Can you explain that to me?    


    How would she win? (1.00 / 2) (#106)
    by tben on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:25:42 PM EST
    She lost Iowa - rural, white folks. She was in the process of losing SC. She won NH, but barely. Obama was on a roll. All her strategy and expectations were evaporting around her. What was going to be her path to the nomination?

    Once the black community began moving to Obama, after they percieved he could actually win, then she must have known that she would never get them back, not from Obama. So on some level, it seems pretty obvious that her campaign was willing to cede that vote to Obama, and focus on ginning up support elsewhere.

    Those are reasonable political calculations. But once your mind is thinking along those lines, then you are prone to make comments, if you are not careful, that reflect that - and which can come off sounding pretty harsh.

    Of course she had no wish to anger the black community. She turned away from them for very good, solid, political stratgic reasons. She went lookiing for some new constituency to become the champion of - some group that Obama was not necessarily connecting with - and she found one. She handled all that in a rather clumsy manner, and much bad feelings resulted.


    Do you have an honest bone in (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:49:56 PM EST
    your body?

    Look, the big primary facing Hillary after NH was OBVIOUSLY the SC primary.

    It made zero sense for her or anyone in her campaign to start engaging racial remarks at that stage: it would be pure loss for her. If the supposed pattern had emerged AFTER SC, perhaps you'd have an argument. But it was the Obama campaign that started alleging racial remarks. The Obama campaign was caught red handed with a memo outlining how that case would be made, using obviously contrived instances of that alleged pattern.

    Obama had everything to gain, and nothing to lose by stirring up racial resentments before SC; Clinton had everything to lose and nothing to gain.

    And yet, dishonest to the core, you want to pretend that the motivations were opposite.

    Really, how do you live with yourself if you're just going to make stuff up like that? How does anyone else live with you?


    look frankly0 (1.00 / 1) (#186)
    by tben on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:09:14 PM EST
    your implications about my honesty are not appreciated. You are clearly someone who has wrapped yourself in a littel cocoon-world here for the past six months, where a single point of view was relentlessly put forth in the comment section - one that was relentlessly cynical about anything and evrything that Obama said or did, and relentlessly positive and glowing about everything about Hillary.

    I'll grant you the honesty claim - I have no doubt that you came to sincerely believe the spin put out around here. But that doesnt mean it is anything other than extreme spin - the most ridiculouslly pro-Hillary interpretation of events. Or should I say, anti-Obama, since animus toward him seemed to be even more fundamental than Hillary love.

    You seem so far gone off the deep end that it is barely possible to reach you, I suspect. I would suggest that at some point, when you are ready to rejoin the real world, you go back and read about the events of the primary from MANY different sources. Including from people who you might otherwise respect, but who, since they werent fanatic Clinton supporters, you might have ignored till now.

    I can assure you that my opinions are sincere, and I am representing them as honestly as I can. I, and btw, the majority of people, feel that it was the Clintons who were playing the race card, not Obama. Getting beyond race was a major theme of his campaign, of his entire life.

    YOu may not be in the frame of mind to understand this, but there was NOTHING for Obama to gain by playing the race card. Putting himself in the 'black candidate" box - you seriously think that was in his interest?

    And you are seriously so blind as to not see how having Obama in that box was enormously to Clinton's benefit? Obama gets the black vote - he earns kudos and respect. Everyone will love him. He gets another major speech at teh convention. He is universally acknowledged as the new leader of the American black community. That is EXACTLY what Hillary would hope for, because it was only by moving him down that path that the path to her own nomination would reopen.


    Sigh (5.00 / 5) (#201)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:57:50 PM EST
    The fact that Obama supporters continue to push this bankrupt narrative is the #1 reason why I find myself completely unable to lift a finger to help Obama get elected in November.  You want to accuse a decent person like Hillary Clinton of race-baiting, fine, go elect your candidate yourself.

    It's completely obvious that the Clinton campaign had nothing to do with blatant dog-whistles like Jesse Jackson Jr.'s comment that "Hillary didn't cry over Katrina," let alone the 4-page memo from Obama's SC campaign detailing a whole ton of bogus racism accusations.  The suggestion that a majority of people agree with your narrative is, frankly, about the most irrelevant thing you could ever bring up.  More people agreed that Al Gore lied about inventing the Internet.  The fact that the media ran with an anti-Clinton narrative and persuaded a lot of people to buy into it doesn't make it true.

    If you care about getting Obama elected, I would suggest you just flat-out drop it.  Every time you open your mouth about the racism of the Clinton campaign, you alienate more and more people who by all rights should be voting for a Democrat in November.


    Yes, I'm sure that you are offended (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:01:40 PM EST
    by my suggestion that you are being completely dishonest here.

    And then what do you do? Engage in a large, unfocused attack on me because of my point of view -- namely that I'm steadfastly against Obama.

    Yes, that I am; that much is true.

    But, you see, there are reasons I am against Obama. All I do is present those reasons. I don't engage in arguments I don't believe have genuine merit. I try as best I can not to distort what really is going on. There are bad and dishonest arguments against Obama, and I do everything I can to detect them and avoid them.

    Your arguments, however, often have no merit -- and the particular argument you are putting forth now, that it was somehow in Hillary's interest, and not Obama's, to stir up racial issues before the SC primary clearly has no merit. It is a dishonest argument; you are being dishonest in continuing to push it when its obvious fallacies are pointed out.

    And, trust me, I am not in the least impressed that "most people" believe that it was Hillary's campaign, and not Obama's, who first pushed the racial issues. That shows nothing more than that the media, as per usual, took up cudgels against Hillary on Obama's behalf on this issue. If "most people" once upon a time believed that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11, does that mean that he was indeed? Are you that naive? Is this the sort of consideration that convinces you?

    Instead of focusing on my supposed overall bias, why don't you worry about the particular argument you have presented, and whether there's an honest way of holding onto it. I submit that there isn't. Certainly you haven't presented a reason to believe that you continue to offer that argument honestly.


    Get your facts straight (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by standingup on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:24:13 PM EST
    The white vote in Iowa was split three ways between Clinton 27%, Edwards 24% and Obama 33%.  Heck, the college kids in Iowa could have put Obama over the top.  

    Obama was the one needing the victory in South Carolina.  He won Iowa but lost New Hampshire and Nevada.  Even though the Michigan primary did not count, it was obvious he had not done well there.  He needed South Carolina and 55% of the voters in South Carolina are black.  And again, it was of no benefit to Hillary to alienate the black voters for the upcoming primaries.  Take Missouri for example.  If it were not for the black vote in Kansas City and St. Louis, he would not have won Missouri.  She had the rural vote sewed up here before South Carolina and did not need to do anything to appeal to them.  


    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:49:32 PM EST
    Appealing to white racism is not a winning strategy in Democratic presidential primaries.  That's just absurd.

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:06:24 PM EST
    Andrew Sullivan today:

    One thing is for sure: McCain would never run as racist a campaign as the Clintons just did.

    That may be the funniest (5.00 / 7) (#86)
    by davnee on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:11:43 PM EST
    thing I've read this whole election season.  There is no apparent cure for CDS.  We are going to have to start holding fundraisers and wearing ribbons for these people.

    Never (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by pie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:17:35 PM EST
    say nevwer, Sullivan.

    Gah.  The man's such an idiot!  He's been ridiculed by the Left for years.  Now he thinks he's one of the boyz because he's hitched his itchy pants to the Obama wagon?



    He is scum (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:13:15 PM EST
    Andrew Sullivan is a racist sexist piece of scum.

    The Bell Curve he championed and he calls someone ELSE a racist?

    He is the most racist respectable blogger there is. Period.


    WTF. (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Faust on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:26:00 PM EST
    Sullivan is a idiot (none / 0) (#183)
    by stefystef on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:07:34 PM EST
    Clinton didn't run as a "racist" and McCain doesn't have to... others will take care of that.

    Sullivan is a twit.


    More than Jesse Jackson Jr.? (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:48:09 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:54:50 PM EST
    Because unlike Jackson, Jr., whose reputation is crap anyway, Clyburn is treated as some type of elder statesman.

    Good answer. (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:58:11 PM EST
    John Lewis would be the counterexample, I suppose.

    BTD, (none / 0) (#141)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:48:35 PM EST
    here in the land of shrimp and grits (hate them!), Jesse is not crap--but Clyburn is, except in his little corner.  (And a quick look at the paper yesterday told me that Clyburn is going to be skewered for his earmarks that are kind of 'personalized.')

    Gotcha. (none / 0) (#48)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:53:53 PM EST
    I did, indeed, miss your point the first time around.

    Clyburn is in the news today (none / 0) (#184)
    by OxyCon on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:08:28 PM EST
    Seems he directed millions of taxpayer dollars to quite a few members of his immediate family. It would be a shame to see him indicted.

    BTD....have you read this? If you have, (none / 0) (#192)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:35:27 PM EST
    sorry for wasting space...



    Did Obama's mother divorce her second husband? (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by jawbone on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:35:47 PM EST
    Bcz she was a single mother for, what, 2-ish years, counting the time Obama Sr. went to Harvard without her? Or how long?

    She married her Indonesian husband when Obama was how old? 5? and they moved to Indonesia when he was still 5 or when he was 6?

    My mother was widowed when I was 12, so I guess I could say I was raised by a single mother--but I've never even thought of it that way for whatever reason. In fact, It just occurred to me as I was asking this question about Obama.  Altho, of course, my mother was indeed single after my father's untimely heart attack.  

    I realize Obama is building his "log cabin" with this story, but, somehow, it rings hollow to me.

    Funny, but as a parent (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by suisser on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:43:46 PM EST
    I kinda look upon "raising" my kid as an 18 year job.  So the idea that Obama was "raised" by a single mom who happened to have been married twice during his first 18 years just sits ill with me.

    So if... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:25:17 PM EST
    someone had a child who was mentally handicapped and had to raise them for 18 years, that would give them license to void the hardships you went through because they think theirs were worse?

    Theres always going to be someone whose had it worse than you, but that doesnt invalidate what you went through.


    And this (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by suisser on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:59:45 PM EST
    means what???????

    Thats my question to you. (none / 0) (#197)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:42:10 PM EST
    Or let me ask you this... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:48:39 PM EST
    why would this sit 'ill' with you?

    Didn't Obama's mother (1.00 / 0) (#163)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:31:42 PM EST
    get her PhD while collecting food stamps?  

    And wasn't his father a polygamist?  

    I'm not sure on any of these things but if they are true, it kind of makes that whole "family values" thing a little bit suspect.  


    She did, but (none / 0) (#25)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:38:41 PM EST
    I've been of the impression that happened when he was already living with his Grandparents.

    who did not struggle (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by ccpup on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:40:50 PM EST
    financially, but did very, very well.

    The GOP is going to have a field day with this bio and Obama will be on defense before you know it.


    Obama's passing himself off as working class (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:52:58 PM EST
    ticks me off.

    His grandmother was one of the first woman VPs of the Bank of Hawaii. She was able to afford to send him to Hawaii's exclusive prep school from middle school through high school. He reportedly had scholarships, too, but I suspect his bank vice president grandmother footed most of the bill.


    and it's unnecessary (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by ccpup on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    obfuscations like that which will be so unbelievably easy for the GOP to blow up into a HUGE issue.

    He doesn't HAVE to say he struggled financially.  He chooses to create this "I struggled just like you" mythology which is easily -- and devastatingly -- debunked with just a bit of cursory digging.

    Just wait for the GOP commercials highlighting those who are REALLY struggling juxtaposed with Barack's prep school and how his Grandmother's salary compared with the average salary in Hawaii at that time.  And then watch as the "um"s and "ugh"s spill out of Barack's mouth when he moves to defense and has to explain how he, in light of what the average family in Hawaii made at that time, can say he "struggled" financially.  

    This inevitable smear is so unnecessary and stupid.



    yep (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:30:38 PM EST
    And here's a story on his grandmother from USA Today, accompanying the same picture of young Obama seated with his grandparents. It's just accompanied by a different set of facts:


    I think this is a mistake, too. It gives the GOP an opening to question his credibility. Never a good thing.

    Oh well. At least he didn't try the old "I was raised by a single mother on food stamps" that he trotted out a few times last spring. Apparently his campaign has wisely decided that one was too big of a whopper.



    Very difficult to figure out (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:08:56 PM EST
    Dunham was born Madelyn Payne in Peru, Kan., on Oct. 26, 1922. When she was 3 years old, Payne's family moved to Augusta, Kan., where young Madelyn was raised, Soetoro-Ng said. She married Stanley Armour Dunham in 1940. Madelyn Dunham attended college at the University of Washington before becoming an aircraft inspector for Boeing during World War II.

    After the war, she attended UC-Berkeley, worked various jobs, then came to the Islands, where she joined the Bank of Hawaii in 1960.

    Where in the timeline could Barack's mother have been born in Kansas? His mother went to high school at Mercer Island High in Seattle (they've interviewed classmates in the past).

    His background becomes more and more confusing all the time, but it looks like it is Barack's younger half-sister is the one giving out the information. She may not have a deep enough understanding of the past.


    I can see those GOP commercials too (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:39:43 PM EST
    "While Barack Obama's mother collected welfare and food stamps and worked on her PhD in anthropology, I was sitting in a prison in Vietnam for five years, being held as a POW and eating crickets and dirt when I wasn't being tortured."

    There's a danger in McC (none / 0) (#171)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:48:25 PM EST
    constantly playing that POW card, by itself in bio material and to counter O's bio in some self-righteous I've Suffered More Than Thou way.

    People will begin to think at the least that he's a bit of a Johnny One Note, and they could get turned off majorly with egregious appeals to sympathy.  

    I Had It Harder Than You also won't play well in current economic conditions, where millions of middle class and below are suffering right now, with no relief in sight -- except for a new president representing a new party in January.


    affirmative action scholarships b/c of his skin (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:16:12 PM EST
    but smart, setting himself up as the model minority. Some schools offer those in traditional all white schools to boost their 'diversity' numbers.

    And those college loans, were probably partially forgiven if he put in time in a poor neighborhood as he claims to have done after graduation instead of taking a job at Wall Street. I think they're called fellowships.

    Some digging could clear that up.

    Obama seems like he's the opportunist kind. Nothing wrong with that, but unassuming people, working class types might get the impression he lifted himself by the bootstraps and he did, but he had lots of help.


    And he lived in a two bedroom apartment (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:38:15 PM EST
    when he lived with his grandparents....his grandmother was VP but it was not VP of the whole bank.  Every branch manager is a VP.  Nice acccomplishment for her, but not one you should assume carried a big salary....

    However, Obama could win PV but loose GE (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Saul on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:37:53 PM EST
    according to yahoo link

    I can certainly see that happening (none / 0) (#161)
    by riddlerandy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:22:45 PM EST
    Big wins in NY, CA, IL, etc., and McCain winning key state narrowly.  

    The safety zone I've heard is 5% (none / 0) (#168)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:41:59 PM EST
    If you win by more more than 5% of the popular vote a electoral loss is nearly impossible.

    not to be a fly in the ointment (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by ccpup on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    but doesn't his assertion that he was raised with little money invite the Republicans to remind people that his Grandmother -- who helped raise him -- was the Vice President of a bank and that Barack went to private school?

    In all reality, it's not a big deal.  But any opening he gives the GOP to make him look like a liar they're going to take.  And the last thing Barack needs it to be on the defense saying "well, yes, my grandmother was a VP for a bank and I did go to private school, but, trust me, we really struggled financially"

    A revelation as simple as that which makes him look even slightly dishonest will be enough to push those in the battleground States who already distrust him because of his Bitter-Cling comments -- fairly or not -- into the "I don't trust him, I'm voting McCain" column.

    obama apparently does not have any (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:57:46 PM EST
    qualms about appearing dishonest, as he does it repeatedly.  This ad won't help when you have newspaper articles saying you dissed muslims at a meeting, by not letting them sit close to you...what kind of character does that show.  To me it shows that the obama camp is still trying to distance itself from the claim obama is a muslim, in a less than polite way.

    as I said elsewhere in this Thread (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by ccpup on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:06:13 PM EST
    this is all so unnecessary.  The "I struggled, too" mythology is too easily disproved with cursory digging and, although it won't be THE thing that sinks his chances in November, it's just one more thing on the pile.

    They'll take any opportunity to make him look dishonest or not trustworthy, to make the American Voter doubt WHATEVER comes out of his mouth or wonder if what he's saying is really the truth.  Things like this Basic Bio stuff should be a no-brainer for Barack, but he's turned it into yet another Smear In The Making for a now jubilant GOP.

    Ugh, ugh and ugh again.  


    Gabriel....instead of lurking and troll rating (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:25:55 PM EST
    why don't you participate in the discussion?

    if you believe in the apostate theory, his life is (none / 0) (#99)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:20:56 PM EST
    danger after becoming a Christian.  This is hard to shake.

    It can't be dismissed, despite Rev Wright.


    if he never was a muslim, how can his life (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:16:43 PM EST
    be in danger?

    Apparently, Muslims trace (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:07:17 PM EST
    their lineage through the father, therefore if a father is Muslim, the child is born Muslim.  I don't know that for a fact myself, just repeating what I've read about this "apostate" thing.

    I seriously doubt Obama is in any danger from American Muslim ladies in head scarves on this account, and I'm sure it's not the reason they were pushed out of sight.  It's the same reason he never has any black people behind him for those pix, the same reason his meeting with AA leaders was barred to cameras, while his meeting with military guys was a giant photo-op the same day.


    aaah I see....panderer extradordinaire (none / 0) (#188)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:19:05 PM EST
    Just to clarify (none / 0) (#204)
    by CST on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:10:32 PM EST
    The whole "apostate" thing has been pretty well de-bunked.  Here is an interesting article that explains it pretty well.  I think that article in the times was written by someone who doesn't understand Islam very well.  Of course there are extremists who may think anything.  But that is not the main-stream muslim point of view.

    The photo-op thing really bothered me too.  The biggest problem with the whole "Obama isn't a Muslim" thing is that it kinda implies that's a bad thing if he were.  I realize that it's necessary, but I still hate it.


    Don't get carried away (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:04:28 PM EST
    with the bank VP thing.  Most banks have vast multitudes of them.  It's basically one step up from teller supervisor.  It's NOT a prestigious, high-paying job.

    The David Mendell biography (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by zyx on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:25:00 PM EST
    talks about his Hawaii upbringing. The grandmother still lives in that two-bedroom apartment, and Mendell interviewed her there. It's small, and a bit back from the beach, but it's not bad--hey, that's Oahu, and you can go downstairs and walk to the beach, and a kid DOES, you know? Anyway, Obama's mother realized that he wasn't getting a decent education in Indonesia and arranged for him to go to stay with the grands when he was ten, and the bank where her mother worked paid for that scholarship, according to the book--not much detail, but that's what it said. Then a couple of years later the mother came with the little sister and got an apartment in the same building and worked on her PhD, and separated from the stepfather, and eventually divorced. When Obama was near the end of HS, she went to do field work in Indonesia, and Barack didn't want to go with her, so he moved back in with the grands and finished the last year or two of HS. His grandmother said that they sacrificed a bit--that "school and travel were their priorities, not having a house". But a pretty nice apartment in Oahu isn't a hardship deal.

    Also, in spite of being a B-student party guy, Obama had that Punahou scholarship from sixth grade through graduation, and then had one, I think, at least partially, to Occidental, and then was a B-student party guy who was able to transfer after two years to Columbia. Just try to get into Columbia now as a B student whose professors say you don't really try very hard...


    pathetic ad. (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by cpinva on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:42:54 PM EST
    just more grist for the 527's to shred him on. oh well, what can one expect from someone with as thin a resume' as sen. obama?

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by riddlerandy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:23:32 PM EST
    I was wondering what the RNC reaction would be

    McCain (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:43:33 PM EST
    Meanwhile, while Obama is running the obligatory "bio ad", I've already seen two McCain ads: the "I hate war" one, and yesterday I saw one that makes it seem like he's a maverick and a champion of the environment.

    The Obama campaign is allowing McCain to define himself once more as a "maverick". I think they should have come right out and defined McCain before he had a chance to repeat his "maverick" shtick.

    Okay, Dalton... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:54:43 PM EST
    this is where I disagree with you.

    Obama is a political unknown. McCain is not. We know him and his narrative is set.

    McCain's "issues" ad WAS the olive branch - to Independents and Clinton Dems. Obviously, if we like Hillary, we preferred her issues-based approach.

    He is trying to prove to Clinton voters that he is more like McHillary than McBush.


    Uh... (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:58:58 PM EST
    McCain is a very, very high-profile politician.

    Sorry, but your mom must not watch a lot of TeeVee. Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily. :-)


    I don't think they know (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by madamab on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:15:05 PM EST
    the REAL McCain. They know the media narrative about him, though, just as they "knew" that Saddam attacked us on 9/11.

    Oh well - we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. :-)


    Yes, but they got that false impression (none / 0) (#157)
    by sj on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:15:31 PM EST
    by watching TV

    Pretty much everyone remembers (none / 0) (#191)
    by FemB4dem on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:32:27 PM EST
    "the straight talk express" from 2000.  That's the image of McCain the American public knows.  Funny thing, I haven't met a single Dem or Independent who dislikes McCain.  Even Obama voters are ok with McCain.  To find dislike for him, you have to reach out to rightwing republicans.  They don't like him much at all.  The big question is, will they vote for him?  After the 527s are done with Obama, you can bet your sweet bippie they will.

    Introductions, please... (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:06:40 PM EST
    Do you really feel that Obama has to introduce himself?

    Hasn't he been all over the papers and radio and TV for some time now?

    To whom is he introducing himself?
    Some cave-dweller who just got a TV?

    I think he's just stalling for time.
    Not taking a stand on anything.


    "Maverick" ad is playing in Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:39:08 PM EST
    for weeks now -- and Wisconsin loves mavericks, of course.  And in the closest state in the last election, a weak state at best for Dems, and a state already reeling budgetarily and economically even before the devastation of the floods . . . but a state where Obama didn't come to fill sandbags . . . see if polls change soon.

    I like the (5.00 / 0) (#185)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:08:36 PM EST
    "I hate War" ad and I don't see a way for the Dems to counteract it without looking like idiots.  

    McCain comes from a family that has a strong military background.  Obama has nothing similar and it would look bad to try to tear down a family's years of service to our country.  


    McCain already did that (none / 0) (#43)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:51:49 PM EST
    along with a "tour". This was before he went to the ME I believe.

    Both (none / 0) (#49)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:54:00 PM EST
    Why can't the Obama campaign run both a bio ad and one where they (politely) point to McCain's actual record?

    A recent poll of swingstate voters showed Obama ahead by a few points, but once their viewpoints on the issues were thrown into the mix, this extended to 13 points. The Obama campaign can't let McCain get away with securely re-establishing himself as a "maverick". Democrats are doing everything they can to tie McCain to Bush, and letting ads like this go undermines that whole process.

    I know the conventional wisdom about running bio ads, then issue ads, and then contrast ads. But I also see a good opportunity to damage McCains (totally false) "maverick" image wasted.


    I find Obama's words very (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:48:33 PM EST
    disingenuous..mostly spelled out here on this post as to all the reasons why. Talk about your "pandering." So once again, in chorus, will someone please enlighten me how Sen. Obama is "different" than any other pol and that "change" is commin'!!!

    he's not (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:52:22 PM EST
    there's been a complete and total concession on that issue now that the primary is over.

    I disagree. He is still running as the (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by zfran on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:01:10 PM EST
    change candidate...and he thinks he's still fooling people!!!!

    change relative (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:06:09 PM EST
    to mccain.  "we always new he was imperfect" is the line simply because he is now running against mccain.

    You're not in Kansas any more (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Dakinikat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:49:17 PM EST
    My family is from Kansas!  I know Kansas!  Believe me Senator Obama, your values do not come from Kansas!

    Can't you just see Bob Dole in an (none / 0) (#193)
    by FemB4dem on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:36:42 PM EST
    ad shredding this Kansas values meme?  The thing is, Bob Dole is another repub who has worn well on the American public, just like McCain.  The public knows who is is (another war hero anyone?), that he's from Kansas, has a wry sense of humor, and is a pretty honorable guy.  He could make mincemeat of this ad.

    Political ads - absolutely deadening. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:01:44 PM EST
    This is the Edwards, ad, rewritten.

    It's almost as if there is a set ad, approved by the geniuses at some think tank or other, and they leave blanks for the candidate's name and a few for personal information.

    And why does the music always have to be that same hokey semi-country-Western-Woodstock sentimental slop?  It's the same no matter who the candidate is.  

    Why do they need music?
    In a way, it's the ad makers' way of telling how we are supposed to feel about the crap that is being spoken.

    "America is a country of strong families" - as opposed to...whom?
    How can he stand to recite this drivel?

    The single mother thing (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:08:07 PM EST
    is the only thing in the ad that irks me, and I've written about this several times, having been one since my son was 2.

    Give or take a year or two since the numberous accounts in the media vary by a year or so, his parents split when he was 2, she remarried when he was 4 and the new family, mom, stepdad and son, moved to Indonesia where they lived as a family until he was 10. He then returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. His grandmother became one of the first two female vice presidents of a bank in Hawaii in 1970 -- when he was 9. His grandfather was employed. His stepfather worked for the oil industry in Indonesia.

    So the single mother, food stamp story could only have been from when he was 2 to 4. That's not being raised by a single mother. That's being raised by a mother who was single for a short time.

    And yes, it matters to single mothers like me.

    Other than that, I like the ad.

    The grandmother thing (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by standingup on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:21:40 PM EST
    hits me as wrong.  I can't resolve good midwestern values with the way he used his grandmother as a comparison to Wright in his speech on race.  I don't trust someone who could use his grandmother as he did for his speech on race and then turn around to use her again to convince us he has strong values and character.  I believe his treatment of his grandmother during the primaries has shown me more about his values and character than anything he could say in an advertisement or speech.  

    My grandmother still (none / 0) (#111)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:27:17 PM EST
    says things that make me cringe.  I love her very deeply. I've always understood what he was trying to say.

    I would not be surprised that (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by standingup on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:43:06 PM EST
    many people have grandmothers and other family members who have made racist or politically incorrect statements.  But that is not the same as using what your grandmother said as an example of racism to counter balance the racist talk that came from the mouth of a minister of a church that you chose to attend in a speech televised for the entire nation.  

    So now that he needs to convince people he has strong values like them he pulls out his grandmother again, this time for her strong midwestern values?  Please, he treats her like a Raggedy Ann doll.  

    And one more thing on his grandmother.  I will bet you many people of her age and background in Kansas would not have helped raise a bi-racial grandson.  He was fortunate as many women and children in the same situation found themselves ostracized and disowned from the family.  I saw it happen in Missouri and Kansas is not that different.    


    It also diminishes the step parent role. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Paladin on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:34:51 PM EST
    As a step parent, I find it a bit irksome too.  But then again, I have no idea what his relationship with his stepfather was/is like.

    But it's just an ad trying to create a brand and it does it well.  Time will tell.


    Ditto (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:50:40 PM EST
    I single parented 2 children for over 18 years. Their father returned to overseas employment, so I never got a break. It's the hardest job in the world. By the time my younger left for college my adreline level dropped and I could barely keep myself awake when I wasn't at work for a good six months following.

    His representation of a single parent household is degrading to those of us who really know what that means. Does he think because his mother got a PhD during that time that all single parents could?

    His mother refused child support from both of her husbands.


    This may be small of me, but I was a single (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by esmense on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:52:59 PM EST
    parent for more than a decade -- no child support, and no family support (both my parents died when my son was a toddler). Every time Obama claims to have been "raised by a single mother" it makes me wince. And it makes me think less of him what is a fairly deceptive exploitation of his own biography.

    Furthermore, I never collected food stamps or any other kind of public assistance. I worked hard to create a career, against the odds and at a time that of great resistance to women in the busines world, that would support my son. And I did so without a college degree or any kind of family support, inheritance or connections.

    I know that my success was the exception rather than the rule for single moms, and I certainly DO NOT hold it against other women raising children who must rely on government aid. I think we need MORE social support for single moms and families. But whenever Obama talks about his mom, a well educated woman with strong support from her middle class family, collecting food stamps, it reminds me of the many middle class and affluent people of my generation, most without children, who abused the system to collect government benefits while they attended graduate school or while they pursued their "art" or just lived an "alternative" life style. (Yes, I am old enough to have lived in the Haight Asbury BEFORE the Summer of Love.)


    "and my grandparents" (none / 0) (#103)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:25:08 PM EST
    he at least adds this in now. My mom was single for about the same amount of time as Obama's, and we were briefly on food stamps as well.  

    Obama's mom's time on food stamps (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:47:26 PM EST
    seems to have been, best as I can figure out from so many contradictory stories from the candidate, when he was with the grandparents -- and she was a student.  Most students qualified for food stamps then.  

    I share with Jeralyn a distaste for the continued misstatements on what was only a matter of months as a single mom.  I was a single mom of two kids for more than a decade, until my youngest was almost 20 -- and I also was a student for most of that time.  But by then, the backlash against welfare meant that no aid was available for us.  That's what the abuse of the meaning of food stamps and other forms of welfare can do, so I deplore Obama's duplicitousness for that reason as well.  

    And that's enough to make me not like the ad at all.


    Was your mom a student at the time (none / 0) (#134)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:43:24 PM EST
    going for her PhD?

    The real loss (none / 0) (#139)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:46:48 PM EST
    was not having his dad in his life, knowing his dad bailed....

    Well, I think it's a great ad! (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by miriam on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:15:41 PM EST
    I just wished I believed it.

    The first paragraph (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:22:30 PM EST
    to me is a real loser.  He weasels, to my mind.  I do not think in his primary campaign he exhibited those heartland traits he mentions,  Have not had time to read all the comments (just back from trip), but this ad all by itself confirms my decision as to what my action in November is going to be.  Bad taste in my mouth!

    His "I'm from the Heartland" nonsense (5.00 / 6) (#145)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:51:22 PM EST
    drives me nuts.  He's from Hawaii, he was educated in Boston, and he didn't arrive in the Midwest until he was in his mid-20s.

    Plus, Chicago by its very nature as the largest city by far in the Midwest is atypical and not very Midwestern.  It's Chicago, and there's nothing like it.  (For which some of us say . . . that's a good thing.  A great place to visit, but we wouldn't want to live there.)


    I ought to add (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:52:12 PM EST
    that he was educated in New York (after one year in California) and Boston. . . .

    I'm quite interested in knowing... (none / 0) (#174)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:51:17 PM EST
    ...why you consider Chicago to be "not very Midwestern".  

    Is it because they talk funny or what?


    Ugh! (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by BDB on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:23:07 PM EST
    The merger of the GOP and the Democratic Party continues at full speed I see.

    That's why I passed laws moving people from welfare to work

    Yes because without my passing laws forcing them to work, those lazy welfare queens would keep on sucking down tax dollars.  

    cut taxes for working families

    Because the best government program is a tax cut and only "working families" are deserving of help.

    extended health care for wounded troops who'd been neglected.

    You want healthcare, go get wounded in a war. I'm not against giving wounded troops healthcare, obviously, but their failure to get it is part of a larger failure of the American healthcare generally. They aren't the only ones who deserve healthcare.

    Sorry, I cannot get excited or call it good politics for Democrats to run an ad that makes them sound like a Republican.  First, because between a fake Republican and a real Republican, most people prefer a real one.  Second, because it legitimizes the framing Republicans have used for thirty years against Democrats - he's not changing it, he's claiming he fits it.

    Eh, maybe I'm just in a foul mood because I read the Black Agenda Report's piece on Obama lecturing black men to be better fathers because there's nothing more "courageous" than lecturing a community riddled with poverty and that's been subjected to centuries of oppression on their moral failings.  Because apparently white men have no problems in that regard.  Hey, Barack, you know what would help everyone be better parents? Universal healthcare.

    "We didn't have much money..." (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by bmc on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:26:58 PM EST
    We didn't have much money. But, we found a way to pay for me to live in Hawaii--we're not in Kansas anymore!--and attend Punahau, the priciest private school in the country!

    This canard deserves to be retired (none / 0) (#142)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:49:55 PM EST
    It was on scholarship that he went to Punahou.

    Conflicting stories (3.00 / 1) (#147)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:55:26 PM EST
    I read partial scholarship awhile back that was a reputable source, as I remember it, but with all the differing stories, it's hard to tell.

    I heard someone say (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:01:04 PM EST
    (at dKos, I believe) that after Michelle Obama said they she and Barack eat bacon on The View, anti-Obama forces will now rummage through their garbage looking for bacon wrappers and if they don't find any, accuse Michelle of lying...

    Do we know he was offered a Wall Street (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by Xanthe on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:33:43 PM EST
    job?  Now he may very well have been.  But do we know this.  I wouldn't mind hearing from his fans here.

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:38:23 PM EST
    If you're President of the Harvard Law Review, it's a certainty that you can have your pick of any number of big-firm jobs.  There was a time when that might not have been true for a black man, but in 1991 when Obama graduated, his race would have been an additional point in his favor rather than a minus.

    Yes, I understand (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by Xanthe on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:06:39 PM EST
    I worked for lawyers for 45 years and handled recruitment - but do we know for a fact he was offered a job with a prestigous law firm.

    As I say, he may well have been - but I've not seen names mentioned.  The law firm he worked for in Chicago is not a top tier firm \ not that it does not do good work - but one hears stories continually and believes them no matter the truth.

    As to President of the Harvard Law Review, is it true he never published an article.  I think there is some controversy here as to why he was chosen -  


    Imagine if he had displayed his (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:36:57 PM EST
    values by asking his supporters to donate the money they would have given to his campaign to the people who are so deeply suffering in the midwest, and he would do his best campaign on the public funding amount.

    I was just watching a news clip of Cindy McCain in Vietnam with the charity she has worked with for 7 years (Operation Smile, for children who have facial deformities). That's pretty good campaign stuff. It doesn't cost much, and it certainly shows values.

    I think the ad needs editing or (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:37:00 PM EST
    at least Kevin Nealon doing Mr. Subliminal:

    "I was raised by a single mom - well, she was single for 2 years and I was only 2, so I don't remember that - and my grandparents.

    We didn't have much money - well, my grandma was a bank VP and my grandpa had a good job, but we weren't rich - but they taught me values straight from the Kansas heartland where they grew up.

    Accountability - except when I don't want to be accountable - and self-reliance - unless I can get others to do it for me or take credit for what others have done - love doing that!.  

    Love of country. Working hard without making excuses - well that's kind of a stretch.

    Treating your neighbor as you'd like to be treated - unless her name's Hillary Clinton and she's so much better at what she does and you hate her.

    It's what guided me as I worked my way up -- taking jobs and loans to make it through college.  It's how I got to be president of the law review, even though I never published a single article - gotta love politics!

    "It's what led me to pass up Wall Street jobs and go to Chicago instead, helping neighborhoods devastated when steel plants closed - now, when they had no heat, I was kinda busy, so, whatever - hadda stay in good with my pal Tony, ya know..

    That's why I passed laws moving people from welfare to work, cut taxes for working families and extended health care for wounded troops who'd been neglected.  Then I decided to run for president, so I just really haven't had time for my Senate job and committee assignments."

    I approved this message because I'll never forget those values, and if I have the honor of taking the oath of office as president, it will be with a deep and abiding faith in the country I love.  And if you believe this, you are just the kind of supporter I'm looking for.  Say, got any spare change?"

    It would be so much better if the ad started with "once upon a time," instead of ending with "I approved this message;" at least people would know upfront they were being sold a bill of goods.

    So true...why didn't he include the part (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:46:25 PM EST
    about how he and his other half are realizing how hard it is to pay for the girl's dance lessons, summer camp, etc.  That will really win over the people who have to choose between eating and buying gas.

    ouch (none / 0) (#135)
    by Redshoes on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:43:59 PM EST
    Can't watch any political ads right now (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by stefystef on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:58:58 PM EST
    Honestly, it's too early for me.  I'm already tired of listening to Obama's voice.   I turn the channel every time he's on.  I was tired of his commercials back during the Super Bowl.  What will I do the next 5 months?

    I greatly appreciate the opinions and insight of the TalkLeft community because you are all sparing me the ordeal of actually having his voice grate on my nerves.

    With that said, it sounds like your usual "I'm-Proud-To-Be-An-American" commercial ~yawn~  Now, will it play in the "Red" States and bring Republicans over?  Only time will tell.

    'Typical white person' slam of gram still disgust (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:16:23 PM EST
    He called HER a racist, albeit with more filigreed fine work, when it suited his campaign needs, then further disgraced them by tweaking the bio to make it seem like he had the hardship.

    It's hard to convey -- speaking from a rigidly family-oriented background -- how deeply offensive that is. (My family's values, for life, is that we tend our babies and our old people FIRST, no matter what, and we never diminish or disrespect those who raised us, even if they were inept.)

    I don't begrudge anyone's steps to work through personal issues and traumas, as I've learned they can be plentiful in all inherited circumstances.

    But what Obama frequently has done is shuffle sacrifice and suffering into "his" column, degrading his mother's and grandmother's accomplishments when convenient, and even smearing their backgrounds, also when convenient.

    I think that was my tipping point, the moment I said, "What a selfish arrogant ungrateful snot."

    It's just low to treat his mom and grandmother that way, and it's plain mean to struggling parents.

    His Best Father's Day Speech Ever, starring him, struck me as more self-congratulation rather than genuine 'values'. If he really had them.

    He is such a friggin liar..... (1.00 / 0) (#207)
    by sas on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:36:08 PM EST
    He went to a private school....so much for having no money...hiswhite  mother is an accomplished professional woman, and his "typical" white grandmother was VP of a bank in Hawaii.

    I liked the ad (none / 0) (#1)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:17:26 PM EST
    It's kinda funny how as soon as the GE begins, the ol' flag pin goes right back on the lapel!

    Flag pin in the lapel. . . (none / 0) (#6)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    well before the general began, if I recall.

    Heh (none / 0) (#11)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:30:02 PM EST
    Come on, I'm not talking about the literal flag pin here.

    Poblano says... (none / 0) (#4)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:22:50 PM EST
    ...that scenario is only possible if the margin is within 3 points or less.  When the margin is greater than 4 points, it's pretty much mathematically impossible for the pop vote winner to lose in the Electoral College.  
    Gore's margin was about one percentage point.  Awarding the presidency to a guy who lost by three or more times that margin would be a disaster for our democratic system.  I don't think all parties would march in lock step if such an outcome occurred.  The biggest question is whether the media would put pressure on the EV winner to concede anyway in such a scenario.

    I am glad that several states are moving towards simply awarding their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote, and as soon as there are 270 EVs worth of such states, we won't have to worry about scenarios like that again.

    A competitive Presidential election (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:26:12 PM EST
    will be within that danger zone. Obama isn't getting a 5 point win.

    You're right (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    he isn't getting a 5 point win.  

    He's getting a 10 point win.


    Oh my God! (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:44:54 PM EST
    You are saying something, ah well....positive.  What is wrong with you?!

    I am a heretic (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:06:43 PM EST
    I can't help myself.  

    I tend to look at all available evidence and draw a conclusions.  Others here like to make assumptions about future events and make wild speculation that is not consistent with current empirical evidence.

    To each their own.


    Yeah Flyerhawk... (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:46:51 PM EST
    ...I come here for a daily dose of negativism and defeatism and you're all upbeat and positive.  What are you trying to do, mellow my harsh?  Geez...

    I don't know if I agree with you... (3.00 / 0) (#60)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:58:50 PM EST
    ...he's got more money, more volunteers, McCain has the Bush albatross around his neck, he's got a lead over McCain even before the party's fully unified, the media is much nicer to him than they were to Gore or Kerry, and he comes across as likable and charismatic, definitely more so than McCain.  

    So we could be looking at a Dem landslide in November (fingers crossed).  


    Fingers crossed, indeed (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:00:20 PM EST
    But let's just wait and see. I think Indiana is a good state for him to target, and I hope he gets some headway there.

    FYI (none / 0) (#10)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:29:22 PM EST
    Those state statutes seem pretty clearly unconstitutional under Article I, Section 10.

    Really? (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:33:50 PM EST
    I think the various state legislatures can designate their electors using whatever standards they want. They'd never get away with it, but they could even decide to award them themselves.

    Yeah, the states have pretty broad leeway... (none / 0) (#53)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:55:39 PM EST
    ...to decide how their electors are chosen.  Two states split theirs by district, and I think one chooses them according to their proportion of the vote.  

    The suggestion (none / 0) (#122)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:36:12 PM EST
    of several states to abandon their voters in the event of a popular vote/electoral college mismatch would be a catastrophe for our nation.

    If my state legislature decided to set aside the expressed will of the people I would be even more furious than I am about the nature of the just completed primary campaign.

    Expect that voter turnout, especially in those states that would adopt such a policy, would plunge.

    When I first heard of this asinine plan a couple of years ago I became convinced that we are indeed living in a nation that's gone mad.


    If one guy gets 5 million more votes... (none / 0) (#194)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:37:12 PM EST
    ...than the other, and the other guy wins because of the small-state-suck-up that is the EC, I will be the one who's convinced that we are living in a nation gone mad.

    Most of the time this never comes up, but a serious mismatch at the 3-4 point margin level would be an unambiguous disaster for voter morale.  "Wait, my guy got 5 million more votes...and still lost?  How is this remotely fair?"

    Removing the EC entirely would require an amendment, and there are too many small states for it to ever pass.  So this idea is the next best thing.  If it went into effect, the good part would be that the majority vote amendment could pass more easily.


    I don't get it (none / 0) (#196)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:41:03 PM EST
    Everyone knows it's a "race for electors."

    Has the RULZ argument really gone by the wayside already?


    I disagree (none / 0) (#72)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:04:53 PM EST
    There's an explicit constitutional prohibition on compacts or agreements between states without the consent of Congress.  I don't see how you get around that.

    Think about it this way.  We all know that the reason the Electoral College gives disproportionate weight to small states is because it was a compromise, designed to persuade those small states to join the Union in the first place.  You can't just throw out that compromise because you, personally, don't see the point to it any more.

    If a cabal of large states can effectively abolish the Electoral College compromise by agreeing to vote as a bloc, then we've basically lured the small states into joining our nation under false pretenses.

    That's the policy argument, not the textual one.  But honestly, while a state isn't forced to allocate its electors according to any particular method, there most certainly are limits.  For example, they couldn't say that only the votes of white people will count towards the selection of electors.  And more to the point, if a state decided to allocate its electors based on how other people from outside the state vote, you might even have a "republican form of government" problem.

    Basically we should not assume that the large states can abolish the Electoral College by fiat and no one will complain.


    Interesting thoughts (none / 0) (#90)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:14:26 PM EST

    I'm certainly not a const'l expert, (none / 0) (#165)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:35:58 PM EST
    but I wonder about your interpretation of the proposed state compacts and its alleged unconstitutionality.  

    The portion of the Con you cite would seem more geared to ensure the states don't encroach upon important federal interests.  But the Con already gives to the states full power to decide how to allocate their EVs.  

    And nothing in the states' proposed compact is inconsistent with other fundamental provisions of the Con either as to federal power or individual rights.

    There is also nothing in the Con which guarantees, to those cherished small states whose original motivations and interests you want to protect, that the Con itself will forever remain unchanged -- au contraire of course, as with the amendment process specifically provided for.  

    That's how I see it anyway.  And I seriously doubt the state compact to change EV allocation would have gotten as far as it has already (CA, thx to idiot Gov Arnold being the major disappointing exception) in several states if the const'l issue were as simple as you depict it.  


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:39:46 PM EST
    I think I just explained how the compact would, in fact, undermine the entire concept of the Electoral College compromise.  The evident purpose of the Compacts and Agreements Clause is to prevent states from entering into special deals among themselves to the detriment of other states.  Of course there's an important federal interest in keeping the Union together.

    As to the idea that the Constitution can be changed, there is of course nothing preventing an amendment from being passed.  But that doesn't mean states should be allowed to enter into a private agreement that would effectively amend the Constitution without actually having to go through the amendment process.

    It's also worth noting, in this context, the one part of the constitution that is forbidden to be changed by amendment, that being the provision which ensures equal representation for the small states in Congress.  The notion of protecting the interests of small states isn't just some offhanded thought I just came up with yesterday.


    They'd never get away with it? (none / 0) (#156)
    by tben on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:10:57 PM EST
    Unfortunatly, they might.

    If you recall, during the Bush-Gore postelection thing in FL, at one point, when the recount was going ahead and it looked like there was a path to a Gore victory, the FL. legislature passed a law that basically said - if the count shows Gore ahead, then we will retroactivly revoke the standing of the election as our designated mechanism for choosing electors, and will take upon ourselves the task of choosing the electors. GOP majority of course.

    The law passed - signed by Jeb. THey would have done it, and they would have gotten away with it, because the ultimate judge of who valid electors are lies with the Congress.


    That's (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:25:10 PM EST
    a much better ad than the others he's run in the primaries. His ads in the primaries were pretty bad. Anyhow, I know polling has shown that people are really suspicious of who he is and what he stands for so I'm sure this is an attempt to help in those areas. He's lost the arrogance and condescension too which is good. I wonder if this will be an opening for the GOP 52's to start? Or if they'll continue to wait until after the convention.

    Hit's all the points. . . (none / 0) (#30)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:40:51 PM EST
    just look at the last paragraph alone:

    I approved this message because I'll never forget those values, and if I have the honor of taking the oath of office as president, it will be with a deep and abiding faith in the country I love.

    Yep (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:43:12 PM EST
    Nicely done.

    Really. . . (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:52:10 PM EST
    I don't know why they bother will all the filler.  How about "Obama, honor, values, faith, Christian, values, values, young, youth, strong, family, values, Christian, Christian".

    And how many times do you think the phrase "same, old, tired . . ." used when talking about McCain's policies -- or anything associated with him?


    Why did you only put in (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by dk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:05:08 PM EST
    three "Christians."  Seems like you're missing at least 5 or so?

    One for every sermon (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:56:01 PM EST
    he actually heard? :-)

    Does this stuff work? (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:50:54 PM EST
    It seems so transparent.

    Those words jumped out at me during my first viewing of the ad.

    Of course, I'm not the intended audience for this ad.  But I believe those who care about this stuff are no less media savvy than myself.


    behold (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:50:16 PM EST
    The paragraph.

    I like (none / 0) (#69)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:03:16 PM EST
    that it's playing in Alaska.

    Achille's Heel (none / 0) (#112)
    by Redshoes on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:28:02 PM EST
    Is that the title of this ad?  The issue of whether he loves this country is really the narrative that's being written by the republicans -- can the son of a black Kenyan and a white woman, whose formative years were spent in Indonesia with a Muslim step-father, whose long-time mentors and friends destain much of what makes America America -- can he love this country like you do?

    So let's hope the campaign runs this ad day and night so that it becomes indelible that he does.

    And I Love How Values (none / 0) (#118)
    by BDB on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:34:10 PM EST
    and loves his country is now equated with welfare reform and tax cuts.  That's my problem with the ad.  It still uses the GOP definition of values, as opposed to say an FDR definition, to prove he's a good American.  

    Remember he's our puppet! (none / 0) (#132)
    by Redshoes on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:41:51 PM EST
    and it's okay when it's a Democrat.  I will vote for him but he doesn't make it easy.

    re: obama's new flick. (none / 0) (#208)
    by tek on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:21:12 PM EST
    Gag me with a spoon.

    Phoney Phoney Phoney (none / 0) (#209)
    by northeast73 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:20:31 AM EST
    Everything from the Obama Image Machine is sickeningly phoney....this ad included.

    Single Mom?  Who married an Indonesian Oil exec, sent her kid to private school etc etc etc.

    Kansan values?  I belive his mother was an atheist with communistc leanings.  Did he leave that part out??