Clinton Runs Ad Using "Bitter/Cling To" Words

Is it me or, content aside, it is not even a very good ad ? The people in it are horrible actors/script-readers. Who says "the good people of PA" anyway ?

Posted by Benjamin | April 14, 2008 6:44 PM

Hillary has all the right in the world to question Obama. When Obama spewed his condescending remarks to all those millionaires in San Francisco he directly accused the Clinton administration for "small town folks" clinging to religion and guns. If he accuses the Clinton years as the reason for their bitterness then why shouldn’t Hillary strike back? WHY? She kept quiet when the Wright controversy erupted. She made only one comment. "Wright would not be my pastor." That was it. But this "bitter/clinging" issue is pure politics, it’s about policy, honesty. Its goes straight to the reason why democrats have lost the last two elections. It is fair to argue Obama’s condescension to the small town folk because it goes directly to issues like religion, xenophobia, gun ownership and culture.

Posted by Floridian Lady | April 14, 2008 6:54 PM

That's a really first rate ad for John McCain. His campaign must be thrilled he didn't even have to pay for it!

Posted by Callimaco | April 14, 2008 6:59 PM

Wow, there's something weird in the water in Florida. Maybe the water tastes bitter.

Give me a break with all this. Clinton is overplaying this hand, big time. Even Ed Rendell agrees.

If it's truly about policy, Ms. Floridian, then why you on here ranting about a media distraction?

If you really believe Obama thinks less of the working class than Senator McCain, then be my guest and vote for McCain. Talk about a total lack of perspective.

Any real Democrat would put down the false outrage and work to make the primary about the issues, which is really what Obama was talking about, an environment where angry voters dont know who to trust.

Ugh.

Posted by Joe Justice | April 14, 2008 7:01 PM

You know the difference between biased comment and spin ?
Spin repeats the same string of facts time after time after time after time, whatever the topic of the blog entry, whatever was said beforehand.

Clinton supporters should try to make arguments instead of repeating the same three ideas every time.

Tell me the ad is awesome and effective or something

Posted by Benjamin | April 14, 2008 7:03 PM

Since it is clear that Hillary and Bill are convinced that Barack Obama is unelectable/unfit to be President, I can only hope that they have the courage of their convictions--and keep this up, keep their War Room running just this relentlessly all the way through Election Day.

Even though I am a state convention delegate for Obama, I will contribute to that cause, keeping the War Room open, keeping Hillary out there reflecting her constant shock and outrage at Obama--so that the truth is known. The American people deserve nothing less.

There is no earthly reason that this should stop at the end of the convention. You go, girl!

Posted by Wendell | April 14, 2008 7:14 PM

Enough is enough. Hillary just went too far.

This kind of right-wing attack ad has no place in the Democratic Party. Hillary is now openly helping John McCain.

It is time to say enough.

Posted by Karl | April 14, 2008 7:16 PM

So, the Hillary camp's "exactly" would translate as--"see, these attacks we're running are just what the Republicans will do in the fall, and the fact that we can run these ads shows how vulnerable/bad a choice Obama is"??

The problem with this approach is...

a) it's a lame line of attack, as even Gov. Rendell, Hillary's chief cheerleader, has acknowledged; might work with a few low-info voters who are addicted (cling to??) to CNN and/or Fox, but that's about it

b) the fact that Hillary is shamelessly and cynically using Republican "memes" against a fellow Dem can hardly endear her to the superdelegates, not to mention active/engaged voters. Or anyone with a brain or a conscience.

Hillary really has jumped the shark with this one, IMO...

Posted by Ruth | April 14, 2008 7:18 PM

Actually, I think this ad is fine. I suspect that most people won't get it, though. I think that they just don't find it credible that the Clintons, who are not exactly famous for their piety or support for gun rights, are sincerely defending piety and gun rights.

Posted by alex | April 14, 2008 7:23 PM

This ad is going to hurt. Sigh...

Posted by Korha | April 14, 2008 7:27 PM

I can just see it in November, Hillary explaining why she's supporting John McCain: "Well the Republicans are going to vote for him anyway, so I'll vote for him also just to show the Democratic Party how unelectable Obama is."

Posted by Hillary Oh Ate | April 14, 2008 7:28 PM

i was also thinking about how superdelegates are lifelong democrats who have had to endure these kinds of attack on their party every single election season for as long as they can remember. They are disgusted by them. Seeing this from Hillary Clinton is not going to endear them to her. A vote for her will be a vote for those kinds of tactics and it's hard to imagine that happening.

Posted by blue MN | April 14, 2008 7:30 PM

Hillary Clinton in November 2007:

'During the 1990s, I cannot remember being asked about immigration. Why? Because the economy was working. And average Americans didn't have to go around looking for others to blame.' - Time Magazine

Posted by kid oakland | April 14, 2008 7:30 PM

Wow. If someone told you a year ago that Hillary Clinton would be running ads talking up God and guns, could you have possibly believed it?

Posted by baudelairien | April 14, 2008 7:32 PM

So what? Obama gets to have his defensive "bitter/clinging" ad and Hillary is suppose to keep quiet?
Hillary has all the right to defend herself. When Obama spewed his condescending remarks about the "small town folks" clinging he accuse the Clinton years as the reason for their bitterness then why shouldn’t Hillary strike back? WHY? She kept quiet when the Wright controversy erupted. She made only one comment. "Wright would not be my pastor." That was it. But this "bitter/clinging" issue is pure politics, it’s about policy, honesty. Its goes straight to the reason why democrats have lost the last two elections. It is fair to argue Obama’s condescension to the small town folk because it goes directly to issues like religion, xenophobia, gun ownership and culture.

Posted by Lowry | April 14, 2008 7:34 PM

Again, just goes to show that Hillary Clinton is not interested in her party or her country, but just her own ambition.

She is a pathetic excuse for a human being, and frankly I'm disappointed so many democrats are still supporting her. Seriously, if this is the way she treats people she actually agrees with on the issues, how do you think she's going to end the divisiveness in Washington. She's not, of course. She needs it to survive.

It will be a great day for America when the Clintons the Bushes are out of the news and out of power.

Posted by The Double Man | April 14, 2008 7:40 PM

"Exactly."

That's quite right. Hillary Clinton seems to have convinced herself that only she can save the Democratic Party -- by running a test GOP campaign against Obama.

I see her (this is the best light she may try to spin after officially losing) as trying to imagine herself as embodying the Maureen Dowd-we-need-to-toughen-up-Obambi self-congratulatory impulse.

But, since Clinton is clearly running the GOP campaign -- and has been since the "naive" days of summer -- and since Obama is still winning...

One can only conclude that Obama's been tested and has succeeded against John McCain already.

There's some kinds of help that we all could do without.

Posted by Vermonter | April 14, 2008 7:43 PM

I've really come to think that this isn't the Clintons being fake, it's them being real. The whole "liberal" thing was just a front. When they get in power, they vote like Republicans (DOMA, NAFTA, welfare reform, the Bankruptcy bill, welfare 'reform', voting for war with Iraq and Iran) and they campaign like Republicans. I'm just waiting for Hillary to run as McCain's VP after flipping off the DNC at the convention. Three months ago I was defending these people and, because of crap like this, I can't stand them.

Posted by ben | April 14, 2008 7:43 PM

First, I'll say that I have no idea what the impact of this ad will be in PA (and I grew up there).

It does raise a more important point, in the long term. Does Clinton think that Obama's supporter's (and many other Democrats) will continue to support her even if she does win the nomination?

She has pretty much alienated HUGE swaths of the electorate that she needs to get elected. When she talked about Obama at a San Francisco fundraiser, San Francisco sounded like an epithet.

The Clintons have disparaged African Americans, "elites" (although I'm not sure what they mean by that exactly but it seems to imply people with at least a 4 year post HS education and people who go to Starbucks), and people from small states.

It seems to me that these demographics will no longer turn out for her in November, no matter what she does between now and then. Or, at least, won't turn out in the numbers she needs to beat McCain.

Specifically, McCain seems like the nightmare candidate for Clinton. She is a relatively conservative Democrat. He is a relatively moderate Republican (and I stress relatively). After the disparagement of what needs to be her base, why does she expect these people to turn out for her when they can vote for someone who appears to be relatively moderate without any of the baggage that she carries with her - Tuzla, Whitewater, Cattle futures, etc., etc.?

Posted by John B. | April 14, 2008 7:49 PM

It's clearly problematic that one of the Democratic candidates is running more negative attack ads than those run by the Republican candidate, using Republican frames.

Posted by ben | April 14, 2008 7:51 PM

Let me get this straight.

A bitter candidate is running ads of people who are bitter about being called bitter.

When will the sitcom finally get cancelled?

Posted by RKA | April 14, 2008 8:02 PM

Is SHE running this ad?

There's no evidence that this ad will actually be airing through use of Clinton's own funds.

There is, however, the known fact that was cent to CNN, MSNBC, and Fox who are not giving Senator Clinton millions of dollars in free airtime the week before an election.

Posted by Klaus | April 14, 2008 8:10 PM

Good point Klaus--who knows how much cash on hand Hillary has at this point, since we haven't seen any numbers lately (has anyone even asked them about this??).

So, with the media eagerly lapping this all up and regurgitating it 24/7, they get this ad to run for free. Sweet deal for them. Too bad the ad reeks and the whole approach is (literally) self-defeating!

Posted by Ruth | April 14, 2008 8:27 PM

Ha...ha...ha...Hillary has spent the last 7 years selling us out and making promises to the tune of at least 111 million dollars. And that doesn't include the untold contributions to the Clinton Library or Foundation.

BTW, where are those disclosures, Hillary?

The Clintons have sold so many promises to foreign interests, big money, and in general, people who want to screw us over, that they are irritated that their dream of selling us out big time may never come true.

The Clintons are all about money; that's one of the main reasons they don't want to drop out.

Posted by cm | April 14, 2008 8:29 PM

Minor quibble: Bitter is absent, but "bitterness" is in there.

Posted by mf | April 14, 2008 8:55 PM

The point about the Republicans running this ad underscores how silly the "toughening him up" argument is at this point. At least make John McCain pay for the ads.

Posted by Deborah | April 14, 2008 9:27 PM

god damn I hate her guts.

Posted by Ted B. | April 14, 2008 10:05 PM

Those people in the ad look pretty bitter to me. Ha, are they her campaign workers? I'd be pretty bitter if I were part of her campaign.

Posted by Morg | April 14, 2008 10:37 PM

I wonder where they found those typical Pennsylvanians, bitter about Obama, so quickly, to make that ad?

Central casting?

-

Posted by Danny C | April 14, 2008 10:40 PM

Wendell must be off his meds.

-

Posted by Danny C | April 14, 2008 10:46 PM

I wonder if a reporter will find these 'typical Pennsylvanians' and find out who in the world they really are. All folks who have given to Clinton?

What party do I turn to if the Democrats turn to Hillary?

Posted by Eileen | April 14, 2008 11:08 PM

More than ever it appears that the possibility for a big win for progressive democratic policies ended that night in Iowa when Edwards came in second. Am I bitter. Yeah, a little.

Posted by iowaended | April 14, 2008 11:17 PM

Sorry, but this ad is complete bullshit. It'd be really swell if Senator Clinton didn't talk to voters like we're imbeciles. It was perfectly obvious what he meant by that statement, and this kind of crap smacks of Republican tactics. It's beneath us as Democrats, but seeing as herr main priority is hself, not the party, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I'm a Pennsylvanian whose vote she lost a long time ago, and whose vote Barack Obama has since earned.

Posted by Scientific | April 14, 2008 11:18 PM

Yes, John B., "elites" is being used for those who go to Starbucks and/or have college degrees. It would be silly to imply smugness on the part of any on the Left, especially those who write posts like yours.

Posted by Geico Caveman | April 14, 2008 11:55 PM

The hysteria that Clinton has whipped up over Obama's remarks is pure politics. Obama is insulting? He's condescending? Of course she only focuses on the sound bites of what he said so that his entire speech was taken out of context. See http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/04/11/transcript_of_obamas_remarks_a.php

A point that Hillary fails to grasp is that he did not make broad, sweeping statements that indicate that ALL people in small towns are bitter, etc. He said "it depends on where you are," and in "some of these small towns" people feel this way. And guess what people, it's true! It's true, becuase the people in SOME of these towns have come out and agreed with him. It's also true that SOME people in those towns don't. That's legit. But what Hillary is trying to claim is that when Obama says SOME it must be read as ALL. This is ridiculous. Aren't the following true statements?: "some of these small towns are...bitter, racist, content, religious, apathetic, hunters, patriotic, fearful, etc. Hillary has taken a true statement and has twisted into an insult that it applies to all voters in small towns. She is using this to make people angry and offended, when no offense was intended and when the truth was being told. Negative, desperation politics at it's finest.

Posted by S | April 15, 2008 12:16 AM

Who says the good people of PA? NYC politicians who are looking down their noses at hard working Pennsylvanians. It should be noted that Hillary Clinton has not driven a car in 16 years! And she cares about gas prices? Yeah.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | April 15, 2008 12:33 AM

How soon until we find out that the actors and actresses in the ad are actually Obama supporters who did the ad because they're broke.

Posted by Elrod | April 15, 2008 12:48 AM

We learned long ago the Clintons have no shame, will do anything to win this election, and that it's all about them and they could give a damn about the Democratic Party.

The question I have at this point is, what about her supporters? If they're really Democrats, how can they support this nonsense?

Even Ed Rendell is saying it's a bunch of bunk, and wouldn't affect Obama in November in PA.

It's as if Dick Morris or Karl Rove were running her campaign...

Posted by mhallville | April 15, 2008 1:35 AM

Wait a second. I just found out that Obama made these statements about small town USA not only in front of elitist rich people in Pacific Heights...
But it was a fundraiser at a multi-millionaire's mansion with many millionaires present and the media was disallowed. So, he was speaking as though no one else would find out.
The mansion is owned by multi-millionaire "Pakistan native and ardently Muslim Sohaib Abbasi (CEO of Informatica)"....
Here. Look at all the pictures of the string of millionaire and billionaire fundraisers Obama went to in San Fran:
http://savagepolitics.com/
http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/
______________________________________
He didn't just say people are bitter because they lost jobs.
He said people in small towns in PA and the mid-west cling to their guns, and their God, and they don't like anyone who is not like them, and they don't like immigrants, and they are against trade.
___________________________
He called small town USA a bunch of gun-toting bigots and xenophobes who are isolationist religious zealots and bitter people.

Posted by Katherine | April 15, 2008 4:37 AM

Wait a second. I just found out that Obama made these statements about small town USA not only in front of elitist rich people in Pacific Heights...
But it was a fundraiser at a multi-millionaire's mansion with many millionaires present and the media was disallowed. So, he was speaking as though no one else would find out.
The mansion is owned by multi-millionaire "Pakistan native and ardently Muslim Sohaib Abbasi (CEO of Informatica)"....
Here. Look at all the pictures of the string of millionaire and billionaire fundraisers Obama went to in San Fran:
http://savagepolitics.com/
http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/
______________________________________
He didn't just say people are bitter because they lost jobs.
He said people in small towns in PA and the mid-west cling to their guns, and their God, and they don't like anyone who is not like them, and they don't like immigrants, and they are against trade.
___________________________
He called small town USA a bunch of gun-toting bigots and xenophobes who are isolationist religious zealots and bitter people.

Posted by Katherine | April 15, 2008 4:37 AM

Wait a second. I just found out that Obama made these statements about small town USA not only in front of elitist rich people in Pacific Heights...
But it was a fundraiser at a multi-millionaire's mansion with many millionaires present and the media was disallowed. So, he was speaking as though no one else would find out.
The mansion is owned by multi-millionaire "Pakistan native and ardently Muslim Sohaib Abbasi (CEO of Informatica)"....
Here. Look at all the pictures of the string of millionaire and billionaire fundraisers Obama went to in San Fran:
http://savagepolitics.com/
http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/
______________________________________
He didn't just say people are bitter because they lost jobs.
He said people in small towns in PA and the mid-west cling to their guns, and their God, and they don't like anyone who is not like them, and they don't like immigrants, and they are against trade.
___________________________
He called small town USA a bunch of gun-toting bigots and xenophobes who are isolationist religious zealots and bitter people.

Posted by Katherine | April 15, 2008 4:37 AM

WHO is behind the Barack Obama for President
"moo-vement"?

.................. GE ......................

and a gaggle of other corporate elitists.

Are a lot of working class Americans Bitter?

Well, they SHOULD be: Another GE candidate for President SOLD to the public by the Corporate-Controlled "Mainstream MEDIA ... Ronald Reagan ... began the MASSIVE Robbery of the American people that has continued to this day.

About every day & sometimes several times a day the TV Talking heads say: "The Rich are getting richer and everybody else is getting poorer"

... & You'd Think ... after nearly 30 years they would FINALLY ASK: WHY?

The answer is simple: Reagan cut the top tax rate down from the 70%'s to the low 30%'s.

(If you made $$$ 100 million & your tax rate was 70% you would pay $70 million to Uncle Sam & keep $30 million ... earning interest, or dividends, or capital THE NEXT YEAR on that $30 million. If, instead, you paid $30 million in taxes and KEPT $70 million --- You'd make a lot MORE money the next year on that $70 million - in interest, dividends, etc.)

Simple, tax the rich a lot less AND they damn sure WILL get a whole lot richer a whole lot faster.

There was 2 PARTS to Reaganomics tho. The second part was: The Two-Tier Wage Structure"
i.e. Pay the Top level "executives" a Whole LOT MORE; Pay everybody else a Whole LOT LESS. (Newspapers & TV in the early 80's had articles & coverage of the "Two-Tier Wage Structure" that CORPORATE America trotted out IN CONCERT with Reagan's election/tax cuts.)

IF its CORPORATE POLICY to PAY Everybody else a WHOLE LOT LESS ... everybody else is going to get ... a whole lot poorer ... huh.

a. It was deliberate. b. Its been going on for nearly 30 years.

Next Question: Is Obama likely to fix it?

Answer: Hell No. Because THE SAME PEOPLE are running him for President - The SAME WAY they got Reagan/ Bush1 / Bush2 elected:

MEDIA Propaganda. GE owns MSNBC & NBC. AOL Time Warner owns CNN. Westinghouse owns CBS.
(GE is the 2nd largest corporation on the planet).

They have interlocking directorships. THEY ARE the Corporate-Controllers of the Corporate-Controlled Media.

MSNBC/NBC have become the CHIEF propaganda mouthpiece of the Obama Pushers ... (BOPN - Barack Obama Propagands Networks) - just like FOX has been the the Bush Propaganda Network all these years.

There are no more Journalists, no more NEWS People. They have all become court jesters and clowns doing their bit to please their corporate masters .... Top Level PAID A WHOLE LOT MORE -------- Media whores.

Here's a glimpse of one of the $Billions of Dollars TAXPAYER RIPOFF Reasons GE wants to "elect" Obama President:

GE & Westinghouse are in the business of building nuclear power plants.

The Cheney Energy Bill passed in 2005 - made it possible for the nuclear industry to begin planning to build 29 new nuclear power plants (licensing hearings are already scheduled for the first few of them).

No new nuke plants were built for 30 years because the banks wouldn't loan the money - too risky. The Cheney Energy Bill solved that problem for them by Guaranteeing TAXPAYER PAYBACK of any of the nuke building loans that default (The Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default at 50% or greater".

Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill. Clinton voted against. Clinton says her Energy plan does not include nuclear & if they want to be considered in the future they will have to FIRST Make it Cheaper and find a safe way to dispose of the nuke waste.

McCain, this week on the Campaign trail said ... we just have to face it we need to start building new, CLEAN, nuclear power plants.

i.e. The Corporate Elitists are running OBAMA AND McCain for President.

("Getting off coal to go to nuclear is like giving up cigarettees to take up smoking crack".)

Posted by elme | April 15, 2008 5:11 AM

WHO is behind the Barack Obama for President
"moo-vement"?

.................. GE ......................

and a gaggle of other corporate elitists.

Are a lot of working class Americans Bitter?

Well, they SHOULD be: Another GE candidate for President SOLD to the public by the Corporate-Controlled "Mainstream MEDIA ... Ronald Reagan ... began the MASSIVE Robbery of the American people that has continued to this day.

About every day,& sometimes several times a day, the TV Talking heads say: "The Rich are getting richer and everybody else is getting poorer"

... & You'd Think ... after nearly 30 years they would FINALLY ASK: ( & Answer) WHY?

The answer is simple: Reagan cut the top tax rate down from the 70%'s to the low 30%'s.

(If you made $100 million & your tax rate was 70% you would pay $70 million to Uncle Sam & keep $30 million ... earning interest, or dividends THE NEXT YEAR on that $30 million. If, instead, you paid $30 million in taxes and KEPT $70 million --- You'd make a lot MORE money the next year on that $70 million - in interest, or dividends)

Simple, tax the rich a lot less AND they damn sure WILL get a whole lot richer a whole lot faster.

There was 2 PARTS to Reaganomics tho. The second part was: The Two-Tier Wage Structure"

i.e. Pay the Top level "executives" a Whole LOT MORE; Pay everybody else a Whole LOT LESS. (Newspapers & TV in the early 80's had articles & coverage of the "Two-Tier Wage Structure" that CORPORATE America trotted out IN CONCERT with Reagan's election & tax cuts.)

IF its CORPORATE POLICY to PAY Everybody else a WHOLE LOT LESS ... everybody else is going to get ... a whole lot poorer ... huh.

a. It was deliberate. b. Its been going on for nearly 30 years.

Next Question: Is Obama likely to fix it?

Answer: Hell No. Because THE SAME PEOPLE are running him for President - The SAME WAY they got Reagan/ Bush1 / Bush2 elected: MEDIA PROPAGANDA.

GE owns MSNBC & NBC. AOL Time Warner owns CNN. Westinghouse owns CBS.
(GE is the 2nd largest corporation on the planet).

They have interlocking directorships. THEY ARE the Corporate-Controllers of the Corporate-Controlled Media.

MSNBC/NBC have become the CHIEF propaganda mouthpiece of the Obama Pushers ... (BOPN - Barack Obama Propagands Networks) - just like FOX has been the the Bush Propaganda Network all these years.

There are no more Journalists, no more NEWS People. They have all become court jesters and clowns doing their bit to please their corporate masters ..Top Level PAID A WHOLE LOT MORE -----------Media whores.

Here's a glimpse of one of the $Billions of Dollar TAXPAYER RIPOFF Reasons GE wants to "elect" Obama President: GE & Westinghouse are in the business of building nuclear power plants.

The Cheney Energy Bill passed in 2005 - made it possible for the nuclear industry to begin planning to build 29 new nuclear power plants (licensing hearings are already scheduled for the first few of them).

No new nuke plants were built for 30 years because the banks wouldn't loan the money - too risky. The Cheney Energy Bill solved that problem for them by Guaranteeing TAXPAYER PAYBACK of any of the nuke building loans that default (The Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default at 50% or greater".

Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill. Clinton voted against. Clinton says her Energy plan does not include nuclear & if they want to be considered in the future they will have to FIRST Make it Cheaper and find a safe way to dispose of the nuke waste.

McCain, this week on the Campaign trail said ... we just have to face it we need to start building new, CLEAN, nuclear power plants.

i.e. The Corporate Elitists are running OBAMA AND McCain for President.

("Getting off coal to go to nuclear is like giving up cigarettes to take up smoking crack".)

Posted by elme | April 15, 2008 5:30 AM

Hillary is in desperate need of a 12-Step Program. And the DNC is long overdue on the intervention front.

"Hillary has been working for people like us all her life" just makes me laugh. And then groan ... And then wonder if it's too early in the day for a drink.

Bitter doesn't even begin to describe it. Not even close. She is craven ... and clueless.

Posted by charlotte | April 15, 2008 8:33 AM

Wow. You Clinton folks have really gone off the deep end. It's sad to see the derangement syndrome take such hold. How long before we see Hillary choosing Lieberman as her shadow VP? They can huddle together and shake with rage over how left-wing Obama is. To quote Hillary: Get real.

Posted by NHCt | April 15, 2008 9:48 AM

Hillary's ad? Condescending. Was anyone else annoyed by the calculated 'diversity, but not too diverse' collection of actors?

Obama's best counter-commercial would be a replay of what he said on Charlie Rose in 2004:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xkrL0G9wonE

A serious 2 1/2 minutes vs. a 30-second collage of soundbites.

Which could be rephrased as the serious candidate vs. the soundbite candidate - because that's really what this election is all about.

Posted by Tom J | April 15, 2008 10:32 AM

I don't get why so much of the focus is on the "bitter". Not many people of any class would disagree that they're bitter. What really tore it was the "cling to" phrase. Obama was clearly presenting religious belief, gun ownership and xenophobia as pathological conditions resulting from working class angst. And he really believes that. So does Clinton, of course, which is why ads like this are nothing short of disgusting. It goes without saying they're both above that and must be elected to save the workers trapped in their pathologies.

Working in Utah, -klr-

Posted by klr | April 15, 2008 11:39 AM

Just a technicality. Why do you say the word bitter doesn't appear in the ad, when Woman 2 says "frustration and bitterness." True, they leave it out of the quoted text. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make though.

Also, I agree the ad will probably do more damage to Clinton than Obama. If I saw an ad full of actors giving carefully worded line-readings being touted as the voice of my state, I would feel insulted. This is some of the best terrible campaign commercial acting since Ron Paul's New Hampshire gem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30yxHqSUva8

Posted by Bitter(ness) | April 15, 2008 2:44 PM

Clinton Runs Ad Using "Bitter/Cling To" Words

Comments (48)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives