Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama

There's a lot of hand-wringing on the tubes today about Hillary Clinton's latest ad that asks voters who they trust to answer the "phone in the White House" when it rings at 3 AM.

Does it play to people's fears? Of course. Is it a last ditch act of desperation? Probably. Will it work? Probably not. Look, the fact is this ad merely brings to the surface what has been the subtext of Clinton's "ready on day one" argument from, well, day one. It isn't working not because voters don't hear the argument, it's not working because any fears people have about Obama as commander in chief he has apparently assuaged. So I don't think this ad does much of anything for Hillary Clinton, other than confirm the left's worst assumptions about her.

What this ad does do though is give Barack Obama the opportunity to show how deft he is at hitting back against this sort of campaign tactic, which no doubt John McCain intends to use this year no matter who the nominee is. I'm actually glad we're seeing this argument play out now, maybe we'll be spared it later on once it is proven to be ineffective as I expect it will. Barack Obama likes to say "I look forward to having that argument." Now we get to see what he means.

First, he responded in his usual "you're sort of right but let me tell you why actually you're wrong" way:

I do want to take a moment to respond, because the press is, I'm sure, curious, to an ad that Senator Clinton is apparently running today. It asks a legitimate question. It says, who do you want answering the phone in the White House when it's 3:00 a.m. and something has happened in the world. It's a legitimate question. And we've seen these ads before. They're usually the kind that play upon people's fears and try to scare up votes. [...]

I don't think these ads will work this time because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is, what kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone. In fact, we have had a red phone moment; it was the decision to invade Iraq. [...]

I will never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, because it's a threat that should rally the country around our common enemies. That is the judgment we need at 3:00 a.m., and that's the judgment that I am running for as president of the United States of America.

Next, the campaign released its own response ad that both parodies Hillary's ad and communicates in a compelling way Obama's central message about his foreign policy asset: it's about judgment, stupid.

So in the end, all Clinton's ad really accomplished was to give Obama the opportunity both to show what an agile campaigner he is, but also to make the case that judgment is what's really important when dealing with global threats, allowing him to hit back against not only Clinton but McCain as well. And I have to say, Obama scored on both counts. Seems to me the Obama campaign should be sending Hillary Clinton a thank you note right about now.



Display:


Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 1)

You have been wrong a lot of times this election season.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:40:11 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 1)

Indeed
Such as when he described Clinton as 'holding steady' in Ohio, while citing a poll that showed her dropping 10 points
Such as when he cherrypicked polls that showed Clinton up nationally
I don't agree with Todd on his choice of candidate, but I think he's unbiased most of the time, and the few times he is, he is towards Clinton and not against her.
John McCain
by MILiberal on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:45:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 3)

"I think he's (Todd) unbiased most of the time, and the few times he is, he is towards Clinton and not against her." Look, for the past couple of weeks and until now, I had MyDD contributors pretty much sized up. Any article by Johnathon Singer = usually pro-Obama. Any article by Todd Beeton = definitely pro-Hillary. This article shows that Todd isn't just an HRC shill pandering to the (covering their eyes and ears) HRC crowd. This was an intelligent analysis of why this tactic, particularly on this subject, will blow up in HRC's campaign's face. I'll send a Thank You card to HRC myself if Obama hasn't already.
*VOTE DEMOCRAT! - HRC or BHO* Obama '08 - Full of reason / Hillary '08 - Full of treason (Gallup Poll, March 26 2008) / McCain '08 - Diaper's full of Bushit.
by VT COnQuest on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:57:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You Must Be Kidding Right? (2.00 / 0)

I'm actually glad we're seeing this argument play out now, maybe we'll be spared it later on once it is proven to be ineffective as I expect it will.

The ENTIRE Republican campaign will be one big Wolves Ad, combined with McCain talking about how great the surge is working, and touting his "experience." If it doesn't work immediately, they will only throw more money at it and try different variations on the same theme. "Be Afraid! Be Very Afraid!"

That's all they've got. That's all they ever do.
To paraphrase the first Terminator movie:
"Those Republican 527s are out there. They can't be reasoned with. They can't be bargained with. They don't feel remorse, or pity. And they absolutely, will not stop. Ever. Until Obama is defeated. Or McCain is."

They certainly can't run on "4 more years of Bush!"  What do you expect them to do? Campaign on the issues? Bwa-hahahahahaha!


by Cugel on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:18:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't understand why these feature (2.00 / 1)

he supports clinton you twit


by Lazeriath on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:53:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't understand why these feature (2.00 / 3)

hunter thompson: "I don't understand why these feature articles are Hillary hit pieces one after the other. Shouldn't there be some kind of balance over here?" - Lazeriath: "he supports clinton you twit". CLASSIC!!!
*VOTE DEMOCRAT! - HRC or BHO* Obama '08 - Full of reason / Hillary '08 - Full of treason (Gallup Poll, March 26 2008) / McCain '08 - Diaper's full of Bushit.
by VT COnQuest on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:02:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fair and balanced (2.00 / 1)

LOL!


by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the facts... (2.00 / 2)

...clearly have a pro-Obama bias. The facts is a cultist. The facts is a ass.
by BlueinColorado on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:20:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Break on through to the other site (none / 0)

Link

YouTube for: "Break on Through to the Other Site"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tah0OnS3n BU


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Break on through to the other side (none / 0)

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


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:09:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

At 3:00 am we don't need no (none / 0)

stinkin' committee meetings.

Hillary does do that whole meeting thing better. I'll agree with that. But all that means is that she would be a better Senate Majority Leader than Obama. I'd agree with that to.

But "doing good meetings" is not what we need in a  President.

Anyway, is that really Howard Wolfson playing the actor who is loading $50 worth of hay into a $30,000 truck that uses 20 cents of diesel for every mile driven?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjDKOqI-0 lw

Only a "George Bush Texan" would deliver hay in a Nissan truck like that . . .


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 09:20:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes (2.00 / 4)

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?


by BBCWatcher on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:58:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes (2.00 / 1)

A bit off balance?  Armstrong is a Clinton supporter.  Susan Hu has been posting two or three angry polemical hit pieces on Obama per day.  Where is the bias in favor of Obama?  I don't see it.

I thought this Hillary ad was a really sad descent into the politics of fear--the very thing we so often revile in Republicans.  But, I'm an Obama supporter, so I'm biased.  So, I asked an Edwards supporter I know who isn't enthralled with either Obama or Clinton, and she agreed with this assessment.


by leveller on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:17:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK, Rephrasing... (2.00 / 0)

MyDD has been "way off balance," and now Todd is bringing the blog back to "a bit off balance."

:-)


by BBCWatcher on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:23:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, Rephrasing... (none / 0)

The goal should be "fair-and-balancest."  :)


by leveller on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:54:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Politics of fear... (none / 0)

The word "change" sounds vague at times.  This is a wonderful reminder of what kind of change people want, after eight years of Bush/Cheney's terrorist-Islamofascist-boogieman rhetoric.

They really thought they could harness it and use it effectively?  We have had the crap scared out of us by better frauds than these!  If you want to get a rise out of us, you better raise the ante a little higher.  Duct tape and Code Oranges and Aquateen Hunger Force only make us yawn, we are so numb to this.  You need to raise your game, Hillary!


by Dumbo on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:39:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Politics of fear... (none / 0)

now, now, no need to bash ATHF, not their fault some suits in adult swim are idiots.


"Katie, i'd like to use one of my lifelines, i'd like to phone a friend." "governor Palin"
by Doug Tuttle on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:09:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 1)

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.


"No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." -Hillary Clinton
by fugazi on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:30:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lets look at Hillary's judgement shall we? (none / 0)

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


by mageduley on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:51:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure Patti Solis Doyle was the problem (none / 0)

From what little I know, Patti's strategy was to
take the harsh edge off Hillary's reputation.  The
way the campaign rolled out a year ago was smooth as
silk.  People like me who didn't want to see Clinton
run because we didn't want to live through a replay
of the 1990s Clinton bashing were impressed.  In
fact, the PSD strategy allowed Hillary to show
herself to be the compassionate, intelligent,
knowledgable candidate that she is.

With PSD now gone, Hillary's campaign has gone
 aggressive and negative and downhill.  As long as
Hillary stayed positive she stayed even in the polls.  
Now that she's gone aggressive, she's sinking.
I don't know who convinced Hillary to go down this
path.  But they were kept at bay as long as PSD
was running the campaign.


by dbrown04 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:59:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Eh, letting the phone ring six times (2.00 / 1)

is not a sign of competence.


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:13:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (1.00 / 0)

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.


by mikes101 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:01:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, there is a Santa Claus! (2.00 / 3)

"Obama is going to get eaten for lunch."

This seems to be one of the favorite lines of those of you who support HRC.  You never support the assertion, you just throw it out there as if it were a fact.  You may be right, but the best available evidence is that you are very wrong.  

Obviously Team Hillary badly underestimated Obama. He is a tremendously effective counter-puncher.  Hillary tries to hit him, and he hits back fast and hard.  Because she initiates the negative stuff, he can hit back without damaging his "new politics" style.

Your basic prescription seems to be that Dems should continue to surrender to the politics of fear and smear.  Obama is showing how to stand up to the politics of fear without being hyper-partisan.  Obama is the one who is attracting most of the indies and disaffected Repubs so I don't get your "centrist" comment at all.


by upper left on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:38:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, there is a Santa Claus! (none / 0)

>> You never support the assertion, you just throw it out there as if it were a fact.

See John Kerry circa 2004.  Hey, I will agree with you that Obama's position may be enough to win the primary.  But I think if we are going to look at which candidate truly represents the majority of Americans wishes on security and foreign policy, we are not looking for "radical change" from the status quo, we are looking for "incremental change".  End the Iraq war - we agree on - but how to do so, and to what extent we need to engage other enemy states,
- is a big question.

>>Your basic prescription seems to be that Dems should continue to surrender to the politics of fear and smear.  Obama is showing how to stand up to the politics of fear without being hyper-partisan.  Obama is the one who is attracting most of the indies and disaffected Repubs so I don't get your "centrist" comment at all.

Hehe - I hardly think that electing a Clinton is a "return to the politics of fear".  Yes, Bill and Hillary Clinton - warmongers!  Hehe....

>>Obama is the one who is attracting most of the indies and disaffected Repubs so I don't get your "centrist" comment at all.

I am speaking about foreign policy issues.  Hillary is the centrist candidate who will best be able to neutralize McCain's position.  Obama is drawing Repubs and independents right now because of other things he may represent, like "turning the page on the past".  But I do not think that such naive optimism on foreign policy / security will win over independents and Republicans once the RNC / McCain take off the kid gloves and go after this guy with all they've got.  


by mikes101 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:13:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, there is a Santa Claus! (none / 0)

Thanks for a reasonable, non-snarky response.

I think you are missing a couple of points:

1) Obama is less inexperienced than is often understood.  He majored in International Affairs at Columbia.  Which means that he has a long standing interest in IA and has an intellectual framework for understanding IA issues.  He is by all accounts a voracious reader who has followed foreign policy debates closely for over two decades.  He has been on the Foreign Affairs committee for almost as long as HRC has been on Armed Services.  Obama's advisers are credible people with broad experience.  Bottom Line:  He is not some doe eyed innocent, nor an ignoramus like GW Bush was in 2000.  He is not a radical, and McCain will have little luck trying to portray him as one.

2) Obama is in a much better position to hold McCain and the Repubs accountable for the disastrous Iraq war because he was not complicit in authorizing it.  He and McCain are going to have some big disagreements over the surge and Iran, but Obama shows every indication of being able to go toe to toe with the old neo-con.   He is demonstrating how to stand up to the fear-mongering without being labelled as weak.  He is doing a good job of re-framing these issues using terms that are far more favorable to Dems.


by upper left on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:04:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 1)

Agreed. I think this ad got right to the core of the issue many voters - particularly older voters - have with Obama. His continued answer that he was "right" about Iraq wore thin a long time ago. He was "right" when all it was was a speech to get himself elected, but he had absolutely no responsibility to vote on. So what? He even said a number of times later that he had no idea how he would have voted had he seen the intelligence that those in office were actually shown. So that speech means absolutely nothing to me.

What does matter is whether that speech shows he has any judgment. It doesn't, since it could just as easily be seen as a pander to get himself elected. It doesn't prove judgment. He has done plenty of other things to prove that he doesn't have good judgment - such as his relationship with Tony Rezko, for one. His little speech means nothing when a real crisis happens. He has yet to prove to me that he could handle it. He has himself said that he isn't a detail guy, that most of the real work of the presidency will be done by his staff. That's what the 3 am call is all about. Because sometimes you don't have time to call up your staff so they can tell you what to do. We need a president who can best figure out what to do. Being able to get a bunch of kids excited at a rally have nothing to do with his fitness for the presidency. Maybe in 8 years he'll have that. Right now, he does not.


by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:27:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Flaws in your logic. (2.00 / 1)

First of all, older voters' children are adults.

Secondly, you can't agree that most people agree with Hillary's vote for the war in Iraq and then say Obama's campaign speech against it was pandering.  I mean if Hillary's position was popular, pandering would have been to agree with her.

Third, you make the erroneous assumption that Hillary doesn't rely on her staff to advise her whereas Obama does.  Using their campaigns as an example, Clinton has relied heavily on her staff and consultants to advise her (to her detriment) whil Obama has relied on his own experience as a community organizer to set the direction of the campaign.

The ad was just an ad, trying to convince people of her slogan that she would be ready on day 1.  Her supporters believe that, Obama's supporters think he is the one who would be ready on day 1.

Unfortunately for Hillary, Obama has more supporters.


No Way, No How, No McCain!
by GFORD on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:52:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Flaws in your logic. (none / 0)

>>Unfortunately for Hillary, Obama has more supporters.

This is not really true.  They are statistically even against McCain right now, both drawing 50%, and Clinton fares better in some of the major battleground states like OH, PA, and FL that will be crucial to winning in November.  Not Wisconsin, not Idaho, not Mississippi - OH, PA, FL.


by mikes101 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:16:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Flaws in your logic. (2.00 / 0)

National polls this far out don't tell the story. Obama has come from 20 pooints behind to crushing victories in state after state. The fact that national polls now show Obama as the strongest among the 3 still do not reflect what will happen come November.

The ad is a tired retread of Republican talking points. Anyone still convinced by this sort of pathetic scare mongering will be voting for McCain anyway. The majority of the country has already moved on. Hillary is frozen in a past where Republicans where the majority party and the party with all the energy and the unbeatable ground game and fund raising advantage.  The energy, the ground game and the fund raising advantage? That would be the Obama campaign today.


by hankg on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:15:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Flaws in your logic. (2.00 / 1)

This is not really true.  They are statistically even against McCain right now, both drawing 50%,

There are two polls on RCP that show Clinton beating McCain, and both of those polls show Obama beating McCain by larger margins. If this were one or two polls, you might have a point, but it's every poll.

...and Clinton fares better in some of the major battleground states like OH, PA, and FL that will be crucial to winning in November. Not Wisconsin, not Idaho, not Mississippi - OH, PA, FL.

1. It's very doubtful that either Democrat wins FL -- Clinton may hold a small edge over Obama, but she's still trailing by a lot to McCain. 2. The differences between Obama and Clinton in PA and OH are very small. 3. Clinton's problem IS swing-states like WI, MN, IA, WA, OR, NV, and CO -- states the Democratic nominee should win and states where Clinton performs significantly worse than Obama. In my homestate of Minnesota, for example, the difference between Obama and Clinton (according to SurveyUSA) is 20%.  


by RP McMurphy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:46:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Petty (2.00 / 2)

What a bitter, petty post.  Your apparent unwillingness to give Obama any credit at all for his courage and his prescience makes it clear that you are either blinded by your candidate preference or just plain intellectually dishonest.

Go look at the tape of Obama in 2002 (particularly the in depth interview he had on the Chicago public affair program), he not only stood up and called it a dumb war. He went on to explain his reasoning, and he was spot on on every aspect of his judgment.

Throwing in an ad-homonym attack like Rezko is incredibly petty.  As if guilt by association attacks could not be made on HRC or BC.

Here are a couple of substantive points I made in an earlier comment:

1) Obama is less inexperienced than is often understood.  He majored in International Affairs at Columbia.  Which means that he has a long standing interest in IA and has an intellectual framework for understanding IA issues.  He is by all accounts a voracious reader who has followed foreign policy debates closely for over two decades.  He has been on the Foreign Affairs committee for almost as long as HRC has been on Armed Services.  Obama's advisers are credible people with broad experience.  Bottom Line:  He is not some doe eyed innocent, nor an ignoramus like GW Bush was in 2000.  He is not a radical, and McCain will have little luck trying to portray him as one.

2) Obama is in a much better position to hold McCain and the Repubs accountable for the disastrous Iraq war because he was not complicit in authorizing it.  He and McCain are going to have some big disagreements over the surge and Iran, but Obama shows every indication of being able to go toe to toe with the old neo-con.   He is demonstrating how to stand up to the fear-mongering without being labelled as weak.  He is doing a good job of re-framing these issues using terms that are far more favorable to Dems.

I enjoy substantive discussion and debate with people who have well informed opinions and the intellectual honesty to acknowledge when the other side has a legitimate point.  I find posts like yours, sadly lacking.


by upper left on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:17:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 1)

Hillary hasn't a prayer of winning the 'national security' argument because she accepts the Republican narrative complete with the scare ads. She is fighting the fight on Republican terms and accepting their phony talking points. Voters are ready to move past that. They have seen the emperor has no clothes and that we are not safer and that the war is a failure. They want more then tough guy rhetoric and scare tactics they want straight talk, judgment and a new direction.

Why vote for Hillary's pale imitation of a discredited Republican talking point when they can vote for McCain and have the real thing. Hilary is so stuck in the 90's. She is fighting the last war not realizing the electorate has moved on. She is way beyond the curve on this.


by hankg on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:29:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 2)

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.


by swarty on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:10:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 2)

Funny, I didn't catch that!  I just thought she looked gay, not that there's anything wrong with that... This is what I saw:

Wholesome child, cuddly baby, cute ethnic child, fully-dressed lesbian aunt, Century 21 agent Clinton, fully dressed at 3am.

Mark Penn is a genius.


http://www.yawnmccain.com
by enozinho on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:28:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 0)

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.


by upper left on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:26:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't understand why these feature (2.00 / 1)

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

if you want "balance" watch Faux News.


The sleep of reason begets monsters. -- Francisco Jose de Goya
by joe in oklahoma on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:00:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Gift To Todd (none / 0)

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


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:08:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton's basic mistake: leading (2.00 / 1)

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.


by fladem on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:05:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 4)

He said it best in Ohio today when he said that call did come at 3am in 2002, and Hillary Clinton sided with George Bush.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:40:34 PM EST

Bill Clinton endorses Obama? (2.00 / 2)

Or at least, the Clinton of 2004 seems to.

One of Clinton's laws of politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you, and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears, and the other one's appealing to your hopes; you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope

From a late campaign rally with Kerry.


John McCain
by MILiberal on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:41:49 PM EST

Re: Bill Clinton endorses Obama? (2.00 / 3)

Here it is in on video:

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


by DemsFirst on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:50:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton endorses Obama? (2.00 / 0)

I've been saying it for a while: The Clintons 2008 are running against the Clintons 1992. It's interesting, from a distance. I just hope they (assuming things go as they look like they will in this instant) are able to get over any bitterness and lead their supporters back to the greater cause.
by BlueinColorado on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:41:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (none / 0)

I will never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, because it's a threat that should rally the country around our common enemies. That is the judgment we need at 3:00 a.m., and that's the judgment that I am running for as president of the United States of America

- So why did he make his own so called " fearmongering ad ".

Thats how ridicolous the whole thing is.

You say it won't work and you do't want to " scare " voters with the " fear of terrorism " then he went right ahead and cut his own ad.

Does anyone find that bizarre , lol ?

If he didn't think he was vulnerable he won't make his own ads , he'll have just let it go.

He is playing exactly where Clinton wants him to .


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:45:42 PM EST

The HRC campaign is desperate (none / 0)

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.


by johnnyappleseed on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:04:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (none / 0)

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


by swarty on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:04:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 0)

sure there is...just ask any Hillary supporter. I am surprised they are not talking about how unfair it was and how this is just another example of him being a hypocrite. Thats the rules of the game. She gets to fight. If he doesn't cower in the corner it is because he is a big mean jerk who is trying to steal HER nomination.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:47:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 0)

And it contradicts their claim that Obama will get beat up by the Republicans in the GE.

These guys are not just good,they're incredible - Getting that response ad up in a few hours and lots of other rapid response.

A campaign can't do that if they're fighting among themselves.  They have to be working really well together and have a huge amount of trust with each other.


by mainelib on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:02:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I said it before and I'll say it again (2.00 / 4)

Clinton is actually doing Obama favors and immunizing him to the typical GOP crap. She's doing him a real service.

Heck, he should pay her campaign to stay in the race all the way because she can attack from the same angles as McCain and continue opening these opportunities wide open.


Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.
by Walt Starr on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:46:29 PM EST

Re: I said it before and I'll say it again (2.00 / 0)

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.


by mageduley on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you're being optimistic (none / 0)

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),

I haven't seen a relevant poll out recently, but when the next one comes out, I would be surprised if less than a third of respondents thought that Saddam had WMDs or was trying to get them.

Before the 2004 election, a majority of the US population thought that was the case.


John McCain
by MILiberal on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:09:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I actually laughed when I saw her ad. (2.00 / 4)

It was so over-the-top that I laughed out loud.

I can't tell you how many times I've peaked into my kids' rooms late at night and thought to myself, "Gee, I hope whoever is answering the hotline at the White House right now is experienced!"

And then I go to my room and drift off to sleep, dreaming of not being killed by a suitcase nuke.


by Bob Johnson on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:47:06 PM EST

Re: I actually laughed when I saw her ad. (none / 0)

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?  


"No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." -Hillary Clinton
by fugazi on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:41:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I actually laughed when I saw her ad. (none / 0)

answer: yes


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:48:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Best response mash-up video yet (none / 0)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceN8geCDb Fg

Anyway, dressing Hillary up as a Century 21 real estate agent (at 3:00 am no less) will not be sufficient to replicate the Gary Hart hit.

Besides, why does the phone ring six times? What were Bill & Hillary doing?


No vetting is complete until we've seen the tax returns.
by Bill White on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was very active in the '84 (none / 0)

race, and Mondale's ad had nothing to do with Mondale's comeback.

He ran that ad in several states (Indiana, Ohio, California) where Hart absolutely crushed him.


by fladem on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 01:08:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 5)

Obama doesn't do something I haven't seen for a VERY long time.  He fights back and never goes on the defensive.  He's cogent and to the point and strong.  The Republicans are SO toast.


Scy
by scytherius on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:48:00 PM EST

Exactly, Todd (2.00 / 2)

"Judgment" is winning over "experience," so why should anyone expect a "scary" ad with exactly the same message to make any difference?

To Mark Penn: "It's the strategy, stupid." Hillary should have concentrated on the "fighter" theme. That's when she's at her best. He's an idiot for going with "experience" in a throw-the-bums out cycle. This isn't 2002, and that dog whistle won't blow, especially in the Democratic contest.


by BBCWatcher on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:48:37 PM EST

Fire Spence, Too (none / 0)

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.


by BBCWatcher on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:05:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fire Spence, Too (none / 0)

I live in Texas and I think Hillary's ad plays well here.  Even the Democrats here are sort of conservative.  I think this was a strategic ad to help shore up Texas.


by mikes101 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:05:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fire Spence, Too (none / 0)

That is clearly what it is...but will it work?

Or will Obama's counterpunch be effective?

Or will it not matter because of the differences in ground game?


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:50:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fire Spence, Too (2.00 / 1)

I don't think Obama's ad will be effective here.  Hehe - I am personally nauseated by all of the Obama ads I see here in the Houston market.  But, I think in this particular case, Hillary finally has hit on the over-arching message "Who do you trust?"  Obama points to specifics of why you can trust him more.  But so far in this campaign, the side having to resort to details is the losing side.  The question still lingers.... can we trust this guy?  He's an unknown.

Sure, if you go to DailyKos or online boards, they are saying "I trust Obama to answer the phone".  But, that's not a scientific sample.  I think Hillary's ad plays better to Democratic fears of being "swift-boated" again by the powerful Republican machine in November.  And in Texas, Democrats do not underestimate the power of Republicans to fight back and destroy us.


by mikes101 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:22:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fire Spence, Too (none / 0)

Not being from Texas I can't argue with you...but I guess we'll know for sure on Tuesday. Any predictions?


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 0)

pwnd


NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:54:06 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 1)

I totally disagree with your analysis of this ad as desperation or playing on people's fears. It asks people to consider who they would like to have in the White House IF an emergency occurred. That isn't playing on fear. It is asking people who would be the most competent person to handle an emergency. Because emergencies happen all the time. Katrina was an emergency. The taking over of our embassy in Belgrade was an emergency. And yes, the attack on 9/11 was an emergency.

It sickens me to see a front page poster that I generally respect falling into the trap played by the Obama campaign and repeating their lies.

National Security competence is not playing on people's fears. Obama is playing it this way because he admitted that he held no meetings concerning NATO and Afghanistan in the whole year plus that he has been Chairperson of the committee with oversight over them. If you watched Obama's outrage over this ad it was almost too funny. He read his outrage from a carefully crafted speech he had to keep looking down at that he sounded bored giving. This outrage is so fake it is almost Republican.


by Fleaflicker on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:54:49 PM EST

Re: Are you sure? (2.00 / 1)

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.


by upper left on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:52:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you sure? (none / 0)

To answer your question. No, I would not consider it fear mongering in the least. I don't sense that in the ad. I remember the daisy ad. This is nowhere near that.

Since when is it fear mongering to ask the American people who they feel most comfortable with in a crisis? Seriously, some of you folks are acting as if crises never happen. They do. And all the time. And all the frickin hope in the world won't change that.

During a crisis like Katrina would you rather have an inexperienced buffoon like Bush (or fill in the blank) or a proven fighter like Hillary that has actually been through a crisis first hand (9/11) and knows what it takes to get a city back on it's feet?

Experience matters. As does competence. We have seen direct results of having neither in a President for the past 7+ years. Enough is more than enough. Way more.


by Fleaflicker on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:29:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you sure? (2.00 / 0)

If you think that ad was not fearmongering, then seriously, you have to take off your partisan glasses. It's not fearmongering of its worst kind, but there is absolutely no reason to go with sleeping children unless you want to speak on a very emotional, fear-of-a-mother level to people. Sorry, failed.


by marcotom on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:05:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you sure? (none / 0)

And Obama making it seem as if Hillary led us to war and will lead us to war. What do you call that?

Hillary Clinton alone has done more for children than the entire Obama machine put together. Mothers should feel safe about their children with Hillary as President.


by Fleaflicker on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:11:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you sure? (none / 0)

So an ad framed about the welfare and safety of our children is not fear-mongering?  

Either you are being intellectually dishonest, or you have a much different definition of fear-mongering than I do.  Going after the safety of my kids and my grandchild is about as fear inducing as it gets.


by upper left on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:29:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you sure? (none / 0)

Boo hoo hoo, that mean old Hillary Clinton reminded mothers that she has been there for their children time after time. And when she is President mothers should feel safe and secure that their children's interests will be Hillary's interests too.

Boo Hoo Hoo

Oh, it's so scary.

Damn you folks are a bunch a wimps.


by Fleaflicker on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:15:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you sure? (none / 0)

Trying to have meaningful substantive conversations around here is a bit difficult.  I get very tired of name calling, opinions stated as though they are facts, and unsupported assertions.

It is not about being wimps, it is about using fear as a political tactic.  When Dems use fear in this way they validate the Re publican's frame on national security issues.  This is why Dems have been getting there asses kicked since Vietnam.  Obama is trying to show Dems that you can stand up to the Republicans without being labelled as weak.

HRC supporters complain bitterly about the smear tactics that the Repubs have used against the Clintons, Gore and Kerry and then stand by and cheer as their candidate does the same thing.  Time to learn how to think strategically.


by upper left on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 10:59:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (none / 0)

Another possible way to view the Clinton strategy with this ad:

Say the campaign is seeing movement back to them from women. The ad is obviously targeted to females.   Say the movement is enough  to make Ohio and Texas close, and the exit polls say:  she won back women voters she was losing in Virginia and Wisconsin.

Then the ad is used to say the results proved there are concerns about Obama's lack of experience. It helps them write their pre-Pennsylvania story.

You are right that Obama won the skirmish, that the ad is running against the current. People don't want be kept in the fear box, and that's one reason Obama has been successful. Hillary's campaign faltered in part by trying to do just that. And again with this ad.

But, this might just be a more desperate and more sophisticated, or at least more complicated play than it first looks like. Just saying...

Am I giving the Clinton campaign too much credit? Probably. But it's interesting to think about. If I'm right, they're probably being too cute by half. If I'm wrong, I've been too cute by half. I can live with that.


by Glenn Smith on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:57:42 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (none / 0)

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.


by elrod on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:00:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (none / 0)

I'm saying it's part of a future press play. It is, apparently, not running with many points behind it, meaning few will see it except on the news between now and Tuesday.

It was done, as someone above said, as a closer. The only reason to drop an ad the Friday before an election is you hope your opponent doesn't have time to respond. But there was no new charge in this ad, really. Obama has responded plenty of times, and is winning with his response, to the experience issue.

No, I think it's a kind of narrative set-up.


by Glenn Smith on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:25:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (none / 0)

i vote for "too clever."  This was a very risky ad to run.  They had to run it.  I tuned in to MSNBC tonight to see Olberman, because I KNOW Olberman would have had a shitfit over this ad.  He hates Democrats playing the fear card, and he has called out Hillary on it before.  But Olberman wasn't on tonight.  Lucky Hillary campaign.

I see much downside and little upside potentioal to this.  Furthermore, the ad was guaranteed to suck the oxygen out of the day's news cycle, as it idd.  If it didn't succeed on its own merits, it was bound to backfire.


by Dumbo on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:59:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (none / 0)

I can't really disagree with you. Still, it's fun to speculate, like outguessing "Autopsy" or something...


by Glenn Smith on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:45:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well said, Todd (2.00 / 3)

This is about media message. The initial Obama responses complaining about fear tactics was weak and typical of Democratic politicians, though he followed it up with a great comment about Hillary missing her red phone moment. But the response ad was brilliant. It mocks the first ad and then responds - in real time - with actual facts (votes on Iraq, Lugar bill).

Remember, like most political ads, what matters is what the talking heads say about it, not the people seeing it on TV. These ads are missed by most people because, well, they're advertisements.  But the media will present this now as 1) Obama fighting back immediately (symptomatic of how he would answer the 3am call, I suppose), 2) Obama fighting back effectively, and 3) Obama fighting back with facts. Big win for Obama. He's shown, once again, that he has temperament to win in the general election but also to be Commander-in-Chief. This kind of stuff is very revealing.


by elrod on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:57:52 PM EST

Re: Well said, Todd (2.00 / 1)

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.


by Dumbo on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:01:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

part of the reason Obama will win this skirmish (2.00 / 1)

is that the media, as usual, uncritically relay his claim to superior judgment.

He coasts on a speech he gave five years ago. Will the media ever point out that he pulled that speech off his website in 2003, when he thought the war was going well?

Will the media ever point out that on all things related to Iraq, Obama's voting record in the US Senate has been EXACTLY THE SAME as Clinton's? Of course not.

What has Obama done, since getting elected to the Senate, to get us out of Iraq? Nothing more than what Hillary has done. In other words, pretty much nothing.

But I agree with you that Obama is going to win this ad war.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:01:44 PM EST

Re: part of the reason Obama will win this skirmis (none / 0)

to be fair, voting while in war is a different matter then voting to go to war. but yeah, I personally wish obama had done more to end this war.
!
by alex100 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

my opinion of him changed for the worse (none / 0)

last May when he sat on the sidelines during the debate over the Iraq War supplemental funding bill. As a candidate for the US Senate, he talked about Democrats not getting "steamrolled" by Bush, then he turned around and voted for several war funding bills.

Under a political spotlight in May, Obama didn't even say how he would vote. He and Hillary sat there until almost everyone else had voted and they knew the bill would pass. Then Obama got up and voted no.

Real profile in cowardice there. Of course, the media never inform people of how the supposedly anti-war Obama has the exact same voting record as Hillary on Iraq.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:10:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: my opinion of him changed for the worse (none / 0)

again, voting while in the midst of war is different then voting to go to war. The dynamics are different. but again, yeah, I wish he would have done more. but in all honesty, how many "liberal" senators have come through for us regarding iraq these past 3 years?
!
by alex100 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:59:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's Speech Wasn't Pulled (none / 0)

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


by BBCWatcher on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:09:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it went back up on the website later (none / 0)

but my understanding is that he pulled it from the site in 2003.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:10:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your Understanding? (none / 0)

I would assume you didn't watch the whole 20 minute video then, but the video goes into great detail about how the speech stayed right where it was in all the archives.

There's no evidence in the archives that the speech was pulled. Do you know of anything else that would suggest otherwise?


by BBCWatcher on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:20:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lessig and the truth (none / 0)

Actually, this is what Lessig said:

"Think for example about the issues around the war: Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have launched an attack on Barack Obama, claiming he has been 'inconsistent' about the war. Here's what she said in one of the debates:

'It was after having given that speech, by the next year the speech was off your website. By the next year, you were telling reporters that you agreed with the president in his conduct of the war. And by the next year, when you were in the Senate, you were voting to fund the war time after time after time.'

"Now as Hillary Clinton knows, this statement is both false and misleading. It's false because in fact, the speech that she says was removed from Obama's website remained on Obama's website throughout the course of the next year. You can know that by going to this site, The Archive org's Wayback Machine, and you can actually see copies of the web taken in every couple of month intervals from 1996 on. And here's a copy of the Barack Obama website -- we have to decode it a bit by looking at the very top line -- this is a copy of February of 2003, there's Obama's speech.

"Here's a copy taken in April of 2003, there again is Obama's speech. June, it's still there... August, it's still there... October, it's still there. It was there the whole year."

So, what Lessig is actually saying is that the speech was on the website "for the whole year" from when it was given (October 2, 2002) until a year later (October 2003). Lessig is NOT vouching for the continued posting of the speech after this date. And, by the way, this demonstration by Lessig does not, despite his claims, show that Hillary's statement was "false and misleading." She said the speech was off the website "by the next year." Well, "by the next year" from October 2002 can mean anytime in 2003. If the speech was off the website by November 2003, and, since Lessig ends his recitation with October 2003, we can be pretty sure it was, then nothing Hillary said was "false or misleading."


by freemansfarm on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:15:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The "Missing Speech" True Story (none / 0)

The speech was on Obama's Web site linked from the front page during all 2003 scans in February, April, June, August, September, October, and December. Lessig is correct even beyond the horizon he looked at. In fact, the Archive.org evidence shows the speech only disappeared when the whole site disappeared, when ObamaForIllinois.com was redirected to BarackObama.com sometime in 2006.

But it appears Professor Lessig missed some evidence. Here's what actually happened.

Somebody running Obama's Web site — Obama is not a Webmaster after all — deletes a front page link (but apparently not the speech page itself, as we'll learn in a moment) sometime after "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003. (Why we know that will also be clear in a moment.) On June 5, 2003, a blogger named Bruce Dixon complains about the missing speech. A week later, Bruce says that Cheryl Matlock pointed out the speech is still right where it was, at the same (direct) Web address. (Bruce claims the speech went missing in late March or early April, but he must be mistaken because Archive.org had a scan on April 20, 2003, with the speech still linked from the front page. That squares better with Obama's claim that the link was removed after "Mission Accomplished.") Meanwhile, Obama read Bruce's June 5th blog, writes Bruce a letter, and says he's asked his staff to restore the link. Bruce reports the contents of Obama's letter and the fact the link is restored in his June 19, 2003, blog entry. That appears to be the whole story.

This episode would seem to strengthen Obama's anti-Iraq War credentials. Obviously neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama are Webmasters but, once somebody pointed out that the speech wasn't available from a specific front page link, in 2003 he asked his staff to put the speech link back up. That was no more than 6 weeks after "Mission Accomplished," still in the afterglow of "victory," when he did that.

My overwhelming reaction is that if the Clinton campaign is complaining about the absence of a Web link from the front page of a Web site for a maximum of 6 weeks in 2003 — think about the absurdity of that for half a second — then there's not much dirt on Obama to be found. Either that or Clinton has a really poor opposition research department.


by BBCWatcher on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:41:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: part of the reason Obama will win this skirmis (none / 0)

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.


by hankg on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:42:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 1)

well, i hope this is Penn's doing and I hope this seals his fate. May he never work on another campaign that matters again. What a disaster of a human. In fact, his best service to the Democratic Party would be to become campaign manager of a GOP hopeful.
!
by alex100 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:02:09 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (none / 0)

decertified, after this travesty.


by Dumbo on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:04:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (none / 0)

and my opinion changes not one bit. May Penn work for the GOP from now on. He makes liking Hillary hard work.
!
by alex100 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 12:00:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton's Gift To Barack Obama (2.00 / 2)

Obama is so underprepared on foreign policy, security, and military stuff it's not funny.  I would have been taking him on on this ground long before now.

Hillary's playing nice compared to what will be coming from McCain.

Obama's claim to judgment is pretty tenuous, stemming in large part from his statement about how he would have voted on a vote he didn't have to make.  His lack of experience and depth on these issues is kinda scary...Bush was as bad and look how that turne