he supports clinton you twit

That's why Todd is trying to restore balance to MyDD. It's been a bit off-balance lately.

Although the truth is rarely balanced. See downthread for my other comments, but I think it's quite fair to slam Mark Penn (especially) for incompetently running with a losing strategy. Any reasonably paid idiot could have written the response to Clinton's original ad, because the response ("judgment") was already written and winning. Only an overpriced moron would think the original ad would be both effective and unanswered.

The original ad is now one big fat joke. Why oh why didn't Clinton fire Penn long ago?

It's a hail mary pass. It's the 4th quarter with 15 seconds left and she's down by 7. So in a sense she has nothing to lose. But given her Iraq vote, it's just not a winning argument for her.

Hillary values Loyalty above all else.

A very eye opening article passed my way. It really gave me a glimpse into the sort of management style and executive experience Hillary will bring to the table.

It explains the inner workings of the Hillary campaign staff, especially Patti Solis Doyle. Here are just a couple of choice excerpts:

Hillary's staffers were fiercely loyal. "My staff prided themselves on discretion, loyalty, and camaraderie, and we had our own special ethos," Clinton wrote in her memoir, Living History. "While the West Wing had a tendency to leak, Hillaryland never did."

and this:
"Concerns about Solis Doyle have preoccupied many in the campaign for several years. Clinton insiders say that her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, launched an unsuccessful bid to remove Solis Doyle while on vacation with the Clintons two years ago. Two top campaign officials told me that Maggie Williams, Hillary's former chief of staff (and, as of Sunday, her campaign manager), also sought and failed to have Solis Doyle removed two years ago. Last year, some of Bill Clinton's former advisers, known as the "White Boys," lobbied to oust her, too.

But because of Solis Doyle's proximity to Hillary Clinton, because she demonstrated the loyalty and discretion Clinton so prized, and because no one appeared capable of challenging Clinton's presumed status as the Democratic nominee-in-waiting, nothing was done. "What Patti has that is real power is the unquestioned trust and confidence of the candidate," Paul Begala, a veteran of Bill Clinton's campaigns, explained in an on-the-record interview last year. "That makes her bulletproof."

This one is particularly telling:
"Here, too, Solis Doyle was disastrous; her lack of skill in areas other than playing the loyal heavy began to show. The first public sign of this came just after Clinton's reelection to the Senate. Even though Clinton had faced no serious opponent, it turned out that Solis Doyle, as campaign manager, had burned through more than $30 million. As this New York Times story makes clear, the donor base was incensed."

But this really nails it:
"Rather than punish Solis Doyle or raise questions about her fitness to lead, Clinton chose her to manage the presidential campaign for reasons that should now be obvious: above all, Clinton prizes loyalty and discipline, and Solis Doyle demonstrated both traits, if little else. This suggests to me that for all the emphasis Clinton has placed on executive leadership in this campaign, her own approach is a lot closer to the current president's than her supporters might like to admit."

Check out the whole article in The Atlantic by Josh Green
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/p atti-solis-doyle

is not a sign of competence.

I disagree that this is in any way a gift to Obama.

This is going to shore up her support among "real people" - not college students and yuppies, but real people who actually have kids, can remember the times leading up to the Iraq war, etc.  

Really people... Obama is the guy you want going against McCain?  Obama is going to get eaten for lunch.  And all the great domestic ideas we have are going to have to take a back seat to a warmonger because we nominated Che Guevara when the country was ready for a centrist.

What Dems need to do is attempt to NEUTRALIZE the built-in Republican advantage on national security, and win on domestic issues and the economy.  Hillary does this.  Obama is attempting to win on national security - sorry but most people think "the surge" is at least ok, or maybe even working, and we should leave Iraq "with honor".  Hillary gets this.  Obama does not.  This is a losing battle for Obama.

The most important question this ad raises is: Why is the mother who opens the door at 3AM to look in on the kids fully dressed?  It's 3AM!!  

Or did she go out and party leaving her kids alone and just got home?  She's not dressed like one of those night shift workers that Hillary talks about.

This is a scandal I say.

Continuing to trash talk when you are down by ten with a minute to play is not real impressive.

You seem to have a habit of stating opinions as if they were facts.  Opinions are fine but not very compelling when they are backed up by neither facts nor analysis.

balance?
i wuld rather have fair and accurate reporting and insightful commentary in search of truth?

if you want "balance" watch Faux News.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdVjCXpbg 8w

with her chin.

She wants to take advantage of her experience, but on foreign policy this advantage is neutralized by her vote for the AUMF.  

The have been trying this argument since November and it isn't working.

All it does it tie her to the status quo in a change election.

If she were smart she would try and tie her experience to dealing with economic change.  Obama has no real counter to that argument, but the Clinton campaign is just not smart enough to undertand that they are framing their candidate in her least attractive light.

Here it is in on video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4b Jo

and are just trying to staunch the bleeding in Ohio. They are getting outmaneuvered daily. Whether it is the battle for delegates, endorsements or even a win in the news cycle.

Like a prize fighter swinging recklessly, the HRC campaign gave the counter puncher Obama an opening the size of a house to hit back in. Question his experience and he'll hit you over the head with the AUMF. She loses that battle hands down.

But HRC does have money and is going to fight and they took a chance. Can't go battle on the economy because that's going to towards NAFTA - which in Ohio is voodoo. Tried to go at it on health care, and she was scoring points here, but Obama had a good debate on health care so that lost its promise.

There is very little ground which the HRC campaign would consider high ground with respect to Obama right now. We don't see it because the HRC campaign doesn't see it.

And BTW - you're out of your mind if you think this is ground that HRC wants to play Obama on. Iraq is a huge loser for her. Really it is the number one reason why November 2007 prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination is now in March 2008, two Primary losses away from being an also ran.

He didn't make the fearmongering ad. She did. To allow it to go unanswered would be fatal.  Nothing bizarre about fighting back.

A service huh?

Tell me, the republican smear machine was debunked. Completely kaput. That is why everyone knew we are going to have a Dem in the white house in 2008. The only difference was which one.

The country has seen through the lies and deciet now. No one believes Saddam had WMD's. Everyone knows the republican machine lied to us. We rode Gonzo and Rove out of town. Rush, Billo and Fox noise are laughing stocks and we have given rise to Air America and Keith Olbermann (his special comments against Bush are especially good)

So the old republican smear machine was dead. But wait, here comes Hillary Clinton. She will give legitimacy to the lies. The new republican meme will be "See even democrats believe the garbage were giving you, there must be some truth to it"

Thanks alot Hillary for giving the republican smear machine credibility. Thanks to you, what would have been a rout, will now be a close race with a war mongering republican.

Please don't do Obama any more favors.

It really is laughable. It's amazing what a tin ear the Clinton camp has. Are they trying to emulate the LBJ ad against Goldwater?  

But it's "Chief Strategist" Penn who has set the campaign messaging. The original ad is simply yet another riff on the "experience" them.

And it's a big, fat, slow ball right over the middle of the plate for Obama.

If a similar ad came from a Republican, wouldn't you consider it cheap fear-mongering?

Be careful not to let your candidate preference blind you.  

This site has had a strong HRC bias for months.  It is nice to see that Todd is calling this as he sees it even as an HRC supporter.

But that's assuming most women view Hillary's ad in isolation. They won't. Most women (and men) will see both ads side by side on the evening news as part of the "latest political barbs" on the campaign and will conclude that Obama hit back right away. Hillary's ad would only have worked among "security moms" if Obama hadn't struck back. Then the media would have prattled on about the importance of national security for women and how Obama leaves voters in doubt, etc. That's how every other Democrat before now (excepting Bill Clinton) would treated this ad. They would have ignored it and would have been killed by it.

This ad got covered REPEATEDLY on all the news networks today.  It must have got more news coverage than actual purchased air time.  Consequently, it received just as much analysis, much of it unkind to the Clinton campaign and focusing on the swift Obama reply.

The speech stayed on his web site, and that's very easy to prove, as Professor Lessig does here:

http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_mi nutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html

The media repeats any BS narrative that they think will sell. Like Hillary is more experienced. Hillary is the incumbent. Hillary is next in line and the candidate to beat. That after 11 crushing defeats in a row you can't count out a Clinton. My favorite though was Barack is not Black enough and African-Americans would go for Clinton because Bill was our first Black president. That was a classic.

Yes Obama has had control of the spin cycle lately and that is something he had to fight to get but St. McCain, the media's favorite fake maverick and phony straight talker is already getting the red carpet rolled out for him by the media.

decertified, after this travesty.

Doesn't show real good judgment on her part to let a clearcut winning political attack (according to you) sit on the sidelines while she was in the midst of losing 11 straight primaries and caucuses.

Its a loser for them and they knew it. They were just desperate.

...He was campaigning for the U.S. Senate at the time. He was facing real voters, and despite all the political "pros" whispering in the ears of politicians (including Senator Clinton) saying it would be foolish to deny the President his stupid war, and despite public opinion polls showing a majority of Americans favoring the war....

Obama said, "No." He took a political risk, and Senator Clinton (she thought) didn't. (She also didn't bother reading the intelligence reports.)

There's never perfect evidence in politics, but that evidence is pretty darn good. And even if you're not 100% sure how Obama would have voted, that's at best only a hypothetical. We certainly do know how Senator Clinton voted.

Yep. Obama may be the best politician I have ever seen in my life.  McCain is no slouch either.  But Obama's good judgment in running his campaign gives me confidence he has judgment to be President.  When he does make a policy statement it is surprisingly nuanced, like his plan let extremely wealthy venture capitalists pay zero tax on their money.  The would mean for example that those investors that started Google would pay zero taxes on the billions they made, but those who invest in the standard 401k type investment will have their capital gains doubled. That is a fascinating and bold nuance.

No President - save maybe George H. W. Bush - has ever walked into the White House with significant executive-level military experience.

Well, except Eisenhower in recent times. To find a similar high-ranking officer in the White House one would have to reach back to Grant, then to Washington. While numerous president's have had military experience, not many have taken off the cap of General to head over. It's notable to mention, in 1864, Lincoln faced competition from his own former head-general George McCellen, and he STILL won (its also useful to note that election is where the phrase 'You don't change your horse mid-stream' comes from).

I agree with the premise of your argument but your grasp of history is failing you. Here is a list of some Presidents that went into office with some degree of executive Military experience:

George Washington
Ulysses S. Grant
(Okay these two clearly served in VERY different times, but still.)

Dwight Eisenhower
Jimmy Carter (some forget how important he was in the Navy before he was in politics.)
George H.W. Bush

I think there are some more but that was just off the top of my head...not trying to be a jerk but I like to point out inaccuracies regardless of where they are coming from.

Your right.  But I don't think it matters.  The public only pays so much attention.

The war and the economy will decide this thing not campaigns.  History is bigger than candidates.  

There is a lot of time between now and November for history to happen.

This was devastating.

That's not some surrogate, that's her campaign staff on they day they launched that attack.

I am curious why you say he was running in an "anti-war jurisdiction." Was there some polling that showed this?

You'd feel more comfortable?  I'd be frightened she'd consult the daily polls before making a decision on what to do in a crisis.  I'd be worried that's she's surrounded herself with most of the pro-war members of Bill's staff, while Obama's gotten most of the anti-war members.  What, exactly, do you expect him to screw up?

then for the Kyl-Lieberman fiasco.  When does disqualification based on terrible votes come in?  What will it take?

Methinks the Obama campaign would love some more throws their way like that one. A nice juicy slow ball right over the plate again would be great for them.

This is chess, not checkers. (I'm talking to you, Mark Penn. And whoever that guy Spence is.)

Just like she closed in Virginia & Wisconsin!!

Are you serious? You sound like Giuliani "I was there...so vote for me!".

Hmm.  I think I'm going to have to disagree with you there....

So 8 years (arguably 16) of national experience versus 3, you do not see as a huge disparity?

That is almost 3x, or around 6x (which is what I give her) the amount of exposure to the types of national and international issues that will confront her than Obama has.  I see that as a tremendous disparity.

As far as I'm concerned, Obama's experience in the Illinois legislature is great experience... for staying in the legislature.  If I was "Lord of the Democrats", that is exactly where I would keep him for the next 4 to 8 years.

Hmmm... maybe Obama and Hillary have worked out a deal and this ad is part of her payment for the VP slot.

According to those here, he's also too liberal and too conservative.

You've stepped through the looking glass, into the bizarro world.  Oh shucks, I've mixed a metaphor.

Not to mention that the mother in the ad is fully dressed, hair styled, not a yawn in sight, at 3 a.m., as she checks on her children.

Clinton has been a senator for 7 years.  Obama has 3 years in the senate and 8 years in the state senate.  His legislative record matches up well.  What major bills has Clinton passed, in your estimation?

In his 2002 speech, Obama correctly predicted all the reasons the Iraq war turned out to be wrong.  He said that from his point of view the case had not been made in 2004, while he was carrying water for Kerry, who had voted for the war.

Obama chairs a minor council on Europe.  Yes, some countries in Europe have troops in Afghanistan.

The present votes were as good as "no" votes and were undertaken as part of a broader legislative strategy or as protest votes against bills he supported in principle but thought were badly designed.  Obama has explained his vote in each example in full.  Several votes are unanimous except for his vote.

The press has run a number of hard articles on Obama.  Last week virtually every conservative MSM columnist tried his or her hand at a hit piece.  Rezko has been investigated to death by the Chicago media.  They simply haven't found a lot of real dirt or any negative frames that have resonated.  

The NYT did a poll and found that Obama supporters actually have highly realistic expectations about what Obama will be able to accomplish.

Piling up all of the unsuccessful arguments of the past month is no more effective than the original arguments were.

Well, there you go.  You have listed all the available talking points against Obama.  Not much to them is there? As far as devastating attacks, there's no there there.

Clinton is unable to make that argument because her ad is a copy of a 1984 Mondale ad against Hart and is made by the same media guy who made the 1984 ad.

" if I were Clinton's campaign I would have jumped all over this "response"."

Thank god for small favors then for the Clinton campaign that you're not a part of it.

Talk about taking a bad story and finding a way to make it worse. What you propose for response would have been perhaps the one way the Clinton campaign could have made this an even worse story that focused on process and didn't move on.

What poll?  Where?

And while people are selectively citing polls, here's another one:

Ohio
Clinton 45  Obama 45
Reuters/C-Span/Zogby

More important than that is that in recent polls http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primar y-263.html
Clinton is at or under 50% in Ohio.

Nice try, but in the real world of strategy and campaign consulting, this was exactly the right response, the right reply.

This is exactly the response ad that any qualified good campaign strategist would tell any candidate to have done.

hahaha, good reply, Sensible!  "So I have to ask Obama:  Who's ad is he going to parrot at 3:00am when the phone rings...

Does the man ever have an original thought?"

(Let me first apologize for the length of this because I only now realized my signature could only have 160 characters, not the 200 I swore I saw elsewhere--so all my comments have been getting rejected.  But they all essentially tie into this issue, so I've somewhat combined them.)  Now I might agree with the original poster IF in fact Barrack's claim in his parroted reply ad were true--but unfortunately it's based on the same faulty misrepresentation that the majority of his campaign seems premised on--that he is the ONLY candidate that opposed this war from the start.

But I urge any voters who are basing their vote on the Iraq issue to check Clinton's actual position on 10/10/02 about the Resolution--because there was far more to the resolution than simply the war or any black and white matter.  She CLEARLY opposed the war as well, and in comparing her speech to Barack's, I'd say far more strongly--but she wasn't just talking to an anti-war rally, she was speaking directly to the President and the Senate when she outlined the reasoning of the various options they were presented with as well as the dangers of going to war.  

Some specific words from her speech that accompanied her vote: "If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is NOT a good option. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. Resolution and will seek to avoid war if at all possible. My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war--it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, and we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.' And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein, this is your last chance--disarm or be disarmed' Thank you, Mr. President."  

I challenge anybody to read or view her entire speech and still believe she supported going to war, and didn't try to warn the President as strongly as I'm sure any were. The transcript of her speech to the President and the Senate that accompanied that vote can be found here: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_ 101002.html or video coverage of her speech is at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wyCBF5Cs CA&feature=PlayList&p=1D57FBDEB2 9740AF&index=6 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8fknhbB- Xo&feature=PlayList&p=1D57FBDEB2 9740AF&index=5.  

What she did demonstrate was a very well thought out and extremely comprehensive grasp of the difficult and myriad issues involved.  Knowledge and critical judgment that she'd garnered throughout her life that, yes, did include her time as First Lady.  Personally, I'll pray that she's the one answering that phone!

Also, the following is taken directly from both candidates' websites and closely resembles what both have been saying on the campaign trail.  If you look at the following, or listen to any of their comments on foreign and military affairs (including their speeches against the Iraq War and the latest debate question about Cuba), it is clear who has the greater grasp of what is involved:

From Barack's Iraq Plan:  "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq."

From Hillary's Iraq Plan:  "As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families."  

In addition, she has served on the Senate Armed Services Committee  (which oversees all the national security programs at the Department of Defense and the nuclear programs at the Department of Energy) since January 2003.  "I am delighted Senator Clinton will be joining the Armed Services Committee," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the senior Democrat on the committee. "I have known and worked with her for more than ten years. I have seen her strong commitment to the national security of this country and her deep understanding of the needs of the men and women in our armed forces and their families."

Additionally, while Barack's been too busy campaigning to even provide oversight to NATO in Afghanistan, in a Chairmanship he's held for over a year now--an issue he's spoken out so strongly about on the campaign trail--she's been both campaigning and being present on her job with the Senate Armed Forces Committee to implement actions aimed at better protecting and providing critical benefits for our men and women fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere--not to mention taking on the President and his Administration to stop the practice of demanding repayment of sign-on bonuses of those injured in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Are we supposed to wait a year when that phone call arrives because he's too busy on other things?  I don't think so--we need to hire the person who truly is on top of these matters, already has an in-depth grasp of the issues that will no doubt inform the opinions to be made when those calls arrive, and perhaps as importantly, has long ago learned to multi-task in such a way that she's able to tackle accomplishments on many varying fronts (something her opponent apparently hasn't yet learned to do).  PLEASE let Hillary Clinton be the one answering that phone!