First described here.
Working to figure out why....
Update:
A Clinton aide said the ad was not intended to air for long, had finished its rotation, and had yielded its space to a "closer" ad that focuses on policy.
« Obama's Feb 5 Strategy Develops.... | Main | McCain Is -- Finally -- In The Money » (Updated) Clinton Campaign Pulls The Misleading South Carolina Ad....24 Jan 2008 12:44 pm Comments (22)
Well first of all there was nothing dishonest about the ad. And they are pulling it to save money. The ad did what was needed. Obama's poll numbers are dropping among blacks to the benefit of both Edwards and Hillary. With one out of five black voters in SC still undecided the possibility is that Obama may not even get 50% of the black vote on Saturday. It looks like if the trend hold that the majority of voters in South Carilina will reject Obama in favor of Clinton or Edwars. This will give Obama the win but leave Clinton with a moral victory to keep her momemtum going into Feb 5. 
Ken, you are an idiot!
Ken is right. Hillary ran a straightforward, honest, "compare and contrast" ad that successfully manipulated black voters--who are poor and ignorant and need things to be kept simple-- to swing her way just enough so that she can claim a moral victory in SC. GO HIL! READY ON DAY ONE! YEAHH!
Actually, the ad did its job effectively which was to bait Obama into launching an extremely negative and personal attack against Hillary Clinton. There goes the politics of "hope and unity" and the politics of "new tone." Obama has basically shown himself to be a pol like anyone else. Particularly a hypocritical pol who says one thing and does another. He played right into Hillary's hands.
I agree with Texas Star: Ken, you are an idiot.
Marc, I see by your update my belief that Clinton was giving up on South Carolina was wrong. I really thought they were going to give Obama an easy but not significant win here. I was wrong. It looks like Clinton intends to fight for every vote. South Carolina's final numbers may be a lot closer that anyone think right now. Clinton has proved the polls wrong in the past and can do so again by capturing a large portion of the 20% who are still undecided. I think this could get interesting.
Ken,
I don't think the ad was intentially baiting to Obama, but I do think that Obama has reacted poorly to the ad. His response should have been to launch an attack on republican ideas to take the sting out of the Clinton ads use of his words against him. Instead he launched a personal ad hominum attack on Hillary that contained absolutely no reason to support Obama, but was designed strictly to tear down his opponent. Talk about the Rovian politics of personal destruction. Obama could give Rove a lesson on how dirty politics is done, Chicago style.
Those ads weren't negative, just anti-positive. Just keep beating each other up, because Mac is back
I don't necessarily think people believe that Obama is being as negative as the Clinton campaign. Yes, one might say that he is "abandoning" the politics of hope, but there are few who blame him for responding angrily to blatant lies (in all honesty, it would be stupid not to respond forcefully). The only comment I would venture to categorize as "personal" was the silly attack about Hillary sitting on the board of walmart as a corporate lawyer. However, nearly all of his anger has been directed at the obvious Clinton misleadings...Lies which have been documented and exposed by both sides of the political spectrum (typical Clinton parsing will claim otherwise). Nothing wrong with that kind of response at all! It remains to be seen whether this is a Clinton blunder or genius political move. I personally hope it's a big fat blunder
Ken is right. All Obama's add did was point out that Hillary and Bill Clinton have a record of lying when it is in their interest to do so. But who doesn't know that already? And does anybody really care? In addition to renouncing Republican ideas--which voters might think Obama espouses--I think he should have taken the opportunity to clarify his relationship to Islam. "I do not believe in Republican ideas, and I am not a Muslim." That would have been a much more positive and effective ad.
No need to run it anymore. That Obama’s a flip-flopper on health care and more has taken hold and got covered well too. Like when people saw Meredith Vieira confront Obama with his own words – people draw their own conclusions.
Obama is merely being held to account for his past words and for his actions. The truth about Obama is that he is all bullshit rhetoric with no substance who resorts to lies whenever he is challenged. Bill Clinton pointed this out with regard to Iraq. Have you noticed that Barack Obama no longer claims to have 'judgement' in that regard? He can't because now the voters are better informed about Obama's actual record of votes. So what does he do? He starts lying about Bill Clinton. And when Obama says 'republicans are the party of ideas' Clinton runs an ad using his own words against him. Fair enough. He needs to own up to his own words as well as to his own record. But what does Obama do? He launches an ad hominum personal attack on Hillary Clinton. And in the debate when Hillary challenged him on his refusal to take a stand whenever tough choices need to be made what did he do? He lied claiming that he sponsored the legislation in question when clearly he did not; his name is not on the bill as sponsor.
Clinton pulled the ad because it's main purpose was to get Obama to respond with negativity, which he did. Even if his negative response is considered justifiable self-defense, it still pulled his positivism down a rung. I think he would do better with a more indirect attack message like this: I'm Barack Obama. During the course of the 2008 presidential campaign, you will hear some of my opponents try to misrepresent and mis-characterize my record and my words. This is the tried and true tactic used by politicians who are afraid to run on the merits of their own records and ideas. This is what brought us eight years of George W. Bush and is responsible for much of the rancor that makes it impossible to get anything done in Washington. If you want to know how a candidate will perform in office, take a look at how they run their campaign. A candidate who is willing to play fast and loose with the truth during a campaign isn't likely to stop when they attain high office. This year we have a rare opportunity to change politics-as-usual. We have the opportunity to move away from the deceitful politics of division we are used to, toward a new politics focused on strengthening America by recognizing our common bonds and working together to address the serious problems that will face us in the coming months and years. If you want real change - not just more of the same wrapped in a pretty new package - vote for me, Barack Obama, for president in 2008.
Ken is, again, right on target. 1. Obama should have know that his words would be taken out of context. Cleary his error. 2. Obama spoke against the war when it was politically dangerous for him to do so, then recognized that, having gone to war, it was necessary to fund it. Clinton voted FOR the war, and then FOR funding. She is more consistent. 3. Obama has claimed that Bill Clinton is making statements that are factually inaccurate. This is a lie. Clinton's statements are fully accurate, in keeping with his past character and record.
Grant, That Meridith Viera interview with Obama is being called 'Obama's Groucho Marx moment.' Obama is standing there telling Meridith: "Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?" Obama is toast.
Meredith Viera is hot
Bill Clinton's record of truth telling hardly survives analysis. Do we have to discuss the perjury? As for the Vieira interview, it shows Obama dealing perfectly sensibly with an attempted ambush. The only story in it is one being fabricated by the Hillary shills. Now, let's talk about Hillary's failure to deal with healthcare in the Clinton White House, her failure to read the intelligence before voting for war, her failure to fight for liberal causes when Bill made nice with Republicans over DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell.
The Clintons are so dishonest, I just cant see them winning in the end. For the good of the country, I sure hope Obama gets the nomination.
Why do people continue to discount the importance of the ability to make a powerful speech? I want to ask supporters for Hillary what they think of Obama's ability on the podium. Do you believe in what he says or do you roll your eyes? Why do people put so much emphasis on experience? Experience doesn't give you the ability to make the right decisions, it only gives you the historic pattern to make decisions. It's like when people say "practice makes perfect". It's a false statement. PERFECT practice makes perfect. I'm a New Yorker in Manhattan that is probably more jaded and cynical than the average American, however I finally believe in a political candidate, (and I hate politics and politicians). I finally want to call someone a leader. I want to be proud of the person who represents me in the eyes of the world. I believe that Barack Obama whether experienced or not, has the ability to lead not only our nation, but emerge as an iconic figure in world history. When I think of Hillary, am I as motivated to support her? Does she seem like the person who could lead a movement? Will she really do whats best for all people instead of doing the best to cement her own legacy? Now, let's define the term "insanity". Insanity is performing or doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. How would electing Hillary change the way a government would be run? She may change the policy between Iraq and health care reform, but she won't change the way people view government in the U.S or around the world. She won't change my skepticism of politics. Her personality and history of judgment is suspect. She and her husband are experts at bending and manipulating the truth. If you argue that they have not lied, then you are discarding countless and proven times they have been caught. I understand that people want to support her and are vigorous in doing so, but don't pretend that you don't see their faults. I want charisma, not political spin. I want hope, not a reality check. I want movement, not stagnation. If Barack Obama doesn't win, I'm not going to vote in the presidential election. I wonder if other people, especially the young voters will turn their backs on politics as well. To me, it doesn't matter if McCain or Romney or Clinton wins because they represent the same pattern of the failure of our government. It's a loss to the world in either case.
I have a totally different take on the 'dueling' ads. I think Obama took the Clintons very much by surprise with his hard-hitting counterpunch, making them pull *their* ad AND drop the "he likes the Republicans" line. In other words, the Clintons 'blinked'. --- How is it descending into the politics of negativity to respond to a lie by saying, quite clearly, that it *is* a lie and the people telling it are liars. Obama is still safely on the high road because he pulled his ad as soon as the Clintons pulled theirs and made it clear that their action was the only reason he'd run it in the first place. So he wasn't starting or continuing the negative assault -- he just wasn't rolling over and acting like a doormat, either. The Clintons now know that he's quite capable, and by this point willing, to meet them and raise them one if they want to continue in this direction. (Think about it -- the simple fact that the Clintons aren't screaming about his ad, however short a time that it ran, is enough proof to me that they really, really, really don't want people listening to the radio to even *hear* things like "she'll say anything to get elected". It's okay for the pundits to talks, but the voters they are increasingly leaning on aren't going to hear much more than what they get on their radio....) So, from here, it looks to me like Obama may well know just what he's doing. He's now saved the party and the voters twice: 1) single-handedly putting a stop to the savageness of the 'race war' the Mon. before the NV caucus - the Clintons had NO choice except to say "we agree" and 2) now putting a stop to this continual lying and escalating nastiness about his "Reagan/Republican" comments. If the campaign continues for a while, and it looks like it will, I suspect there will be more nasty wars started by the Clintons (does the bear.....). If Obama succeeds in spiking their guns each time (effectively if not instantly - timing is critical to what I think he is doing), then folks are going to perhaps get a different idea about which candidate is "just words" and which one is capable of "effective action." You can't convince me that Sen. Obama didn't know precisely what he was doing when he said (accurately) that Bill Clinton hadn't changed the trajectory of the country or been transformative like Ronald Reagan had done. He wasn't starting a fight but, well, sort of waving a red flag in front of a bull, perhaps? The Clintons didn't *have* to react, of course, and no one would hever haver heard about his interview ... but they did. In fact, they overreacted: lying repeatedly about what was said, being corrected by any number of fact-checkers, Bill dropping any pose of statesmanship and plowing in like an enraged bull in a china shop, being chastized publicly by their own party and friends, running an ad they had to then pull, and most recently this over-the-top defense of the 90s by Bill and Mark Penn. None of this is going to help Hillary in the long run -- and they are all self-inflicted wounds. Just another view.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
see your previous post. how much sharper and crisper has Obama become? "Hillary won't change anything" "The clintons will say and do anything"
They pulled the ad and she returned a day early to SC because they're playing into Obama's hands by attacking him.
Posted by Brian | January 24, 2008 1:36 PM