was actually placed on TV - seems like cutting the ad was only a means of extending the story.

but Obama's was pretty effective.  If you already support one or the other, this won't change your mind.

For the reasons you stated.

I think the Obama ad is amazing - but I'm an Obama supporter. This was like gravy for me (seeing Hillary booed for stepping over the line and attacking a fellow Democrat with right-wing frames).

The Obama ad is more in tune with the "youtube" era of politics, in that is shows a live event with visceral reactions from real human beings.

The Clinton ad, while unquestionably effective at it's target audience (the relatively small segment of voters who were offended), seems scripted as hell.

Obama has the upper hand on this narrative and he does well to stick to it.  Never mind that it is mindless hyperbole and he is happy to dish it out whenever he gets a chance. The add is effective.

Now if he can just convince all those small town Pennsylvanians to stop clinging to religion, guns, xenophobia, and racism to vote for him

I find Obama's ad hypocritical in the extreme.  Politics as usual?  He's the one has been using an Republican attack ad almost verbatim.

He has his own financing/PAC/suppporter scandal.

He has his own personal recollection and personal vs. public positions controversy.

He has his own spousal loose cannon problem.

He has his own public/private policy agenda problem.

Seems like A WHOLE LOT OF THE SAME politics as usual, to me.  I find it disingenuous at the least and pretty much same ol' spin politics at the most.

It's pretty funny to see Barack Obama dueling himself.

These aren't Hillary Clintons comments, they're Barack Obamas...Fess up Barack; you are divisive.

How about this one...

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/g uide_ad

Hillary fell for it. Now she's provoked Obama to explain himself fully, which is his strength. The mountain out of a molehill ultimately will benefit him because it brings up the subject of economic disparity which needs to be discussed and his rhetoric will win out.

It will be interesting to see they both handle it in the Debate. Obama should talk about the issue, but refrain from mentioning Hillary, thus taking the high ground. It worked before...

If Obama is smart he will pay extra money to have his ad directly trail Hillary's.

If you can watch both ads back to back and still support Hillary, you really need to change parties.

I would suggest reading this blog which covers this EXACT topic, of using republican framing to attack fellow democrats.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/15/1538 7/8944

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

I think Obama can't get past it, and when he blames Hillary for calling him on his words, it's clear that far more people than Hilary are talking about it and are thinking for themselves, she's not driving this story. But she'd be wrong to let it go, Kerry lost the last election over the same perception, and she needs to come out against that kind of 'I'm better than you' thing, for the good of the party, and even for the good of Obama if he can still be the nom.  I don't think attacking Hillary will make him seem more in touch, I don't think anyone can win the 'who's more out of touch' contest in a way that would work in the GE.  I don't think rich people are necessarily more out of touch either.  

McCain assumes he'll be our nom anyway and it's his main subject, she's alluding to it but mainly sticking to the issues, giving us her plans and her responses to national and world events.

But, we'll find out when the voters vote in PA.  He does seem elitist, even in his speeches, he presents as himself as a moral leader, and that already is a problem.  It's his plus with those who want to be inspired, but it's not a plus to those who want just a regular person to be president, who'll just get the job done and not try to drive culture.  I mean, my soul is my own business.  

I think the Obama ad will be very effective. It reminds people of Clinton's attacks and immediately pivots to real issues and how they would be addressed. It also does not hurt to remind voters of the PA endorsements he has received. Obama never ran any negative ads on the whole Bosnia thing though he could have. There is a difference in class and it shows. It is also very unusual for the candidate leading in a state to run negative ads. It smacks of desperation.

Just released. In Pennsylvania Clinton has a 5 point margin. 46-41 In Indiana, Obama leads by 5 points 40-35.

"There's a reason people are rejecting Hillary..."

Aren't the "people" rejecting HRC in Obama's ad  actually Obama supporters?  If they are, his ad ought to say:  "There's a reason Obama's supporters are rejecting Hillary..."

Otherwise, this is a misleading, disingenous, distorting and outright untruthful ad put out by Obama's campaign.

When I hear Obama say,

When we get past the politics of division and distraction and we start forcising on what we have in common, there's nothing we can't accomplish.

I recall Bill Clinton's inauguration speech and quote many times afterward:

There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.

Bill Clinton 1993 Inauguration

It's not plagiarism, but darn it all, he's saying almost the same thing.  At the same time, he praises Republican presidents and Republican decisions.  I haven't heard him say good things about Bill Clinton - maybe I just missed it, so I'm not saying that he doesn't.  But it seems that many times he is using Bill Clinton words in a slightly different way - while ignoring his accomplishments.  "The man from a place called Hope."

Even Obama supporters low-rate Bill Clinton as having done zilch, nada for the average Americans, that he was Republican-lite, etc.

How can he almost quote the man, and all the Obama supporters quiver at his words, and then turn around and ignore or dis his accomplishments and Obama supporters do the same?

I am supporting Hillary now.

I know in my heart of hearts that had Hillary been the one to say the "bitter remarks", it would have received alot more negative media coverage.  If it were Hillary's people who were saying that she was raised by a single mother - leaving out all the great stuff of grandparents, etc. (and I'm NOT knocking Obama's upbringing) and that her mother remarried within a few years, the media would be screaming to the tune of Sniper Fire.

I don't like it.  I don't think it's fair.  I wouldn't like it - and I'm not going to like it IF and when the media does the same to Obama.

Fair is fair.  And the MSM sucks at fairness.  FOX news - FOX crappy news of all things - have more positive things to say about Hillary!  Sheesh, I can't watch that crap, not after all the crappola they dished and still dish on Democrats!

Look at the incredibly low production quality of that Clinton ad.  Did she produce that in her bathroom?  WOW.

Sen CLinton has been reduced to the kitchen sink for what?  Over a month now?  The public didn't buy into the Rev Wright flap.  Well, the public sure as hell is not going to abandon Sen Obama because he said the public is mad as hell at its incumbant politicians.

I do not see what is smart about the Clinton ad. It shows no imgination.  It's just screeching to the (ever-shrinking) choir.

HRC commercial seem scripted and negative. I hope those were real PA residents in the commercial.

I just got off the phone with my mom.  She asked me about the election and before I could get two thoughts out, she went on a long rant about how much she hates the tactics that Clinton is using now.  She voted for Clinton, was talking about doing volunteer work for her, but the PA speech started to move her and now she sounds like me a month ago.

Sure it's just one example and it's dangerous to generalize from that but there is serious backlash potential to the kitchen sink.

You don't call in the artillery until the opponent has wandered into the kill box. And a barrage just caught Hillary in the open.

Obama just ran an incredibly disciplined campaign, refusing to be baited and letting Hillary get more and more provocative until public opinion started to turn against her, then WHAM, countered with a big overhand right that put her lights out. That "thud" was Hillary hitting the canvas as Mark Penn scurries to the exit.

Think about it, if Hillary wasn't out there being so obnoxious, Obama would have no ad. Nope he just let her go on and on, letting her think she was gaining ground. Her pattern has become too predictable - every time she has overplayed her hand and rubbed these non-issues into the ground, ignoring the fact that she is delivering these lines into dead silence as the crowds refuse to respond. So Axelrod waited for her to do it one more time.

And that is the consequence of her playing to Fox News and relying on them to edit out the lack of positive response from the crowd.

prediction is worth looking at from Madonna and Young about Pennsylvania why Obama will lose:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2008/04/obamas_feet_of_clay.html

"All of these foot-in-the-mouth moments ended badly for the offending candidate--causing or contributing to their defeat. Pennsylvania journalist Al Neri has neatly summed up the lesson to be learned here: "... as Pennsylvania history shows, when you did have to admit an error, apologize and ask for forgiveness, it always meant one thing: you were going to lose."

Here's a YouTube video that puts what Barack said into context:

Barack's Bitter Bigots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHhd1inex mk

...that Clinton is running a 1st rate 20th century campaign and Obama is running a 1st rate 21st century campaign.

What we're seeing here is two candidates who have clearly learned a lot from mistakes made by Kerry and Gore.  The problem is, they learned different things and the things Clinton learned may have worked well against Republicans but won't work as well against Democrats.  

While Clinton learned that it was important to go on the attack instead of ever being on the defensive, she didn't learn that going on the attack is only effective if it's perceived as a measured response.  

If, however, it's perceived as an over the top response, she looks out of control, and we've seen this a couple times now-- in the Ohio Debate when Obama was grilled about his (fake) connection to Louis Farrakhan, and Clinton could have taken the high ground but decided instead to go on the attack.  It didn't serve her at all and probably hurt her because she opened the door for Obama to show what he learned from those elections, which is that when you are attacked, you find a way to diffuse the attack.  In the debate case, he did so by making Clinton look small and petty.

I don't know what's going to happen here with the "bitter" comments, but I think we're going to see it play out in the same fashion: in the short term, the comments may hurt him a little in Pennsylvania, but the more Clinton harps on it, the more opportunity Obama has to make it look like something silly and over the top, and soon enough everyone's just inured to it.

either one will have much effect except for what the talking heads talk about but I agree with Todd. Obama's ties into a bigger theme and therefore is probably more effective then Clinton's.

Is it just me, or is the Clinton campaign saying that "regular people" are fat?

Interesting tidbit:

You can post a comment to Obama's ad on YouTube, but you can't do that on Hillary's ad. There are 2 comments posted and they didn't take the comment I posted several hours ago. The 2 comments are the same 2 that were there this morning.

Doesn't exactly exude confidence from the Hillary camp.

Obama's ad really does nothing to help him. He's blaming Hillary once again for his own mistake. Stupid. He's trying to ignore what he has done and pretend it goes away. Bad decision.

Hillary's ad shows how people are genuinely reacting in Pennsylvania.  For detached people who know nothing about the state firsthand to dismiss it as "faux outrage" just twists the same knife that Barack put there in the first place.

Barack's ad looks like he sent people to a Clinton speech and had them jeer.  He's on the defense and Pennsylvanians can sense it.  

Hillary 61%
Barack  38%

Bruce Springsteen has endorsed Obama! Read all about it at

http://raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=13821

As usual, the media and Hillary Campaign underestimate the intelligence of most VOTERS (and I do want to stress the voters aspect as opposed to other Americans who do not vote).  I am in Pennsylvania right now and have done canvassing (door knocking) for the Obama Campaign for the last 5 days at hundreds of doors in working class neighborhoods (including some very poor neighborhoods) and NOT ONCE have I heard a single person mention this issue in a negative way, and the few people who have mentioned it have either (a) joked about how the Hillary Campaign thinks they are stupid, just like other politicians and media, or (b) acknowledged that they are bitter because of decades of economic decline and neglect and they are ready for a real change.  And the two Obama Campaign offices' staff and volunteers here have discussed the "bitter" issue a lot and I have not heard of anyone else canvassing or phonebanking on the thousands of houses and calls who made a big issue of it.  

So, my guess is that the longer Hillary keeps milking this issue, the more of a NET LOSS this will be for her campaign.  Meanwhile, the Obama Campaign will keep doing what we do best, respecting voters' intelligence, talking with them one on one at their door and on the phone about the real issues that matter in America.