OH MY GOD! HOW LOW WILL SHE GO…
New Hillary Ad Shows Bin Laden, Asks: “Who Do You Think Has What It Takes?”
Hillary’s up with a new, last minute spot in Pennsylvania designed to swing the late-breaking undecideds — and it includes a brief appearance by none other than Osama Bin Laden.
Though there’s no mention of Obama here, the crisis imagery, combined with the line “who do you think has what it takes,” are clearly designed to sow last-minute doubts about Obama’s fitness to be commander-in-chief, just as the “red phone” ad did…
Late Update: The Obama campaign is already out with a response: It’s directing folks to this video of Bill Clinton saying the following in 2004:
“Now 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. That’s the best.”
Late Late Update: Hillary’s new chief strategist says that there’s “nothing negative” about the new ad.
Tags: 2008 Presidential, 9/11, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Politics
OMG, DV! I just watched this! Has Hillary become a republican?? Maybe, because she’s scaring the hell out of me!
on a totally seperate note
OMG, DV!
not the first time I’ve heard that…..
insert popeye chortle please….
Let’s see – 39 voters in your poll in 3 days. You must be overwhelmed by the readers. Tee-hee-hee
yeah, but the Obama camp has a video of Bill Clinton with Rendell, Street etc in Philly. HA
Bill Clinton stumping for John Kerry in 2004 transcripted:
Now one of Clinton’s Laws of Politics is this:
If one candidate’s tryin’ to scare you and the other one’s tryin’ to get you to think…
if one’s appealin’ to your fears and the other one’s appealin’ to your hopes…
you better vote for the one who wants you to think and hope. That’s the best
http://delawareway.blogspot.com/2008/04/clintons-disagree-about-politics-of.html
I’m guessing that there about 10 of you that like to type notes to each other and discuss your utopian socialist society. Why don’t you just get a party line, or all have the same cellphone service so you just chat live???
The Hillary desperation is pretty unseemly. But I just love how quickly the Obama team trotted out Bill to reinforce the Democratic values. Fear is supposed to be a Republican thing and they can certainly have it.
Fear comes from both parties. Stop being such a liberal
jessie –
That’s the kind of out of the box thinking we value here at Delaware’s seventh best blog.
Welcome to the team!
Amick is out. ..
You’ve got a socialist cult going, not a team. And how do you judge “best?”
And stupid doesn’t count.
And stupid doesn’t count.
Obviously, otherwise no responsible person would have let you behind the keyboard.
So much for liberal ethics. Cassandra, shut your pie hole also – what’s the “m” stand for – moron?
___________________________
Last week’s ABC debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton made lots of liberals unhappy. In particular, they did not care for the questions that moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos posed to Barack Obama, including the one we noted Thursday about his friendship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers.
We learn from blogger Tom Maguire that a group of 41 “journalists and media analysts” have signed an “open letter” to ABC in which, according to The Nation (with which five of the signatories are affiliated), they “condemn the network’s poor handling” of the debate. Here’s how the letter closes:
Neither Mr. Gibson nor Mr. Stephanopoulos lived up to these responsibilities. In the words of Tom Shales of the Washington Post, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos turned in “shoddy, despicable performances.” As Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher describes it, the debate was a “travesty.” We hope that the public uproar over ABC’s miserable showing will encourage a return to serious journalism in debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees this fall. Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public.
Let the record show that this journalist thought the Ayers question was a good one and that Obama’s evasive answer was revealing. (We don’t have an opinion on the debate as a whole, as we were out Wednesday night and neglected to set our TiVo.)
Maguire notes that the signers of the letters are not exactly journalistic all-stars:
There are precious few of what would normally be considered actual journalists, and many, many left wing bloggers and advocates passing themselves, for today’s purposes, as “media analysts.”
It’s true that only two of the 41 signatories list affiliations with mainstream media outlets: a guy from the Baltimore Sun and a guy from the Guardian (a foreign newspaper!). There is also a person with an epicene name who claims to be with “former Chicago Tribune.” The rest are affiliated with left-wing opinion magazines, blogs and universities.
Yet you don’t have to be on the payroll of a major publication or broadcast outlet to be a journalist. What you do have to do is do journalism. And this is where the 41 signatories fall pathetically short.
So much for liberal ethics. Cassandra, shut your pie hole also – what’s the “m” stand for – moron?
This is how we know you are a wingnut, jessie: you post anonymously, you have nothing but insults to throw around, and you are incapable of engaging anyone on a topic of substance. The freeper site must be down for maintenance.
She must have been right – stands for moron. And your moniker is not annonymous? Good use of cut and paste. I like that.
Oh, to be elite
______________________
In the 20th century, it is said, there lived a scientist who gained a reputation as an insufferable braggart. At cocktail parties, this man would introduce himself by saying, “Hi, I’m Albert Einstein.” His interlocutor, if he had a mischievous sense of humor, might reply, “Pleased to meet you. I’m Napoleon.” But most people were just taken aback, even offended. Who did this guy think he was?
But it was all a misunderstanding. The scientist was actually both amazingly accomplished and quite humble. It just happened that his name was Albert Einstein.
Some people take the wrong lessson from the story of Einstein. They think that brilliant people boast of their brilliance, that people who boast of their brilliance are brilliant, and that they, by boasting of their brilliance, will thereby ensure that they are brilliant.
Take Meghan Daum. (Please.) She is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, and when she was young, she thought it was OK to make fun of intellectuals. She even said so at a dinner party. Oh, how wrong she was! Now that she has matured, she realizes how difficult it is to be an intellectual, for–and she wants to make sure you know this–she is one:
As dumb as things were back then, it’s fair to suggest today’s culture is even dumber. Granted, the police aren’t raiding highbrow cultural events and arresting anyone who uses a three-syllable word, but something uncannily similar is playing out, minute by minute, on television and the Internet. . . .
What’s more, a lot of people who harbor an intolerance for complexity see it not as a character flaw but a cognitive virtue. That’s because they’ve fallen into the trap of believing that complicated ideas (“complicated” now constituting anything that requires reading, watching or listening to in its entirety) are the purview of the “elite.”
The effect of that trap has been on a continuous loop in recent days, following Barack Obama’s ill-chosen remarks about bitter rural Americans clinging to guns and religion. The takeaway, of course, is that this sentiment proves once and for all that Obama is an elitist fatally out of touch with the average American. But in deference to my onetime dinner companion, let me ask this: Is he vulnerable to the out-of-touch charge because he is an elitist, or because he is usually (even if not in this case) comfortable with and in command of nuanced ideas? Is he bashable because he’s a snob or because he’s an intellectual?
Now this is very complex and nuanced, so let us spell it out. Obama is really, really smart. So is Meghan Daum. You bitter people who cling to your guns and your religion–well, frankly, you’re just not very bright. Try going to college sometime, and maybe you’ll be able to do a better job voting.
Pleased to meet you, Meghan. We’re Napoleon.
Well, looks like McDowell’s sockpuppet army has showed up, all three of them.
Welcom ron, essie, and William R! Are you all related by birth, by marriage, or both?
We’re from southern DE, so we’re related by incest.
_________________________
Does a Little Obama ‘Elitism’ Go a Long Way in Politics?
With: Joan Juliet Buck, Lesley Stahl, Liz Smith and Whoopi Goldberg
AP
Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama
JOAN: What is this thing of Obama being perceived as an elitist? Is it important? Is it going to harm him? What do you think?
LIZ: I think it does harm him. And the National Review story on Michelle Obama complaining to ladies in Ohio about how could the two of them live on $500,000 a year, and how they couldn’t pay for their children’s tennis and dancing lessons, or piano lessons, or something. But, honestly, you have to admire the Obamas. They’re an upscale, young American couple. They’re a model for every downtrodden person in America. So, I think a little elitism goes a long way. I think it both helps and hurts. It’s like people having money or being rich. Well everybody wants that. The public wants the same thing. So I think it’s sort of a two-edged sword. But do I think the Obamas are intellectual elitists, probably. They’re smarter than the rest of us.
LESLEY: You come at this issue the way we come at the whole campaign now – now that we’re this deep in. And that is with certain preconceived opinions. If you like Obama, I don’t think it bothers you at all. If you don’t like Obama, it’s a huge thing. And this is why, to me – and I’ve always said this to some criticism – when it comes to the president, the most important thing the people vote on is likability. That you get down to hearing these discussions about the issues and they get so confusing. Sometimes the difference between the candidates – and this is true between Obama and Hillary Clinton – the differences on issues is so small that it’s very difficult to listen, where you can’t go back and re-read and figure out exactly who said what. And then, if they disagree, the argument goes back and forth and back and forth and you agree when this one says it and then you agree when the other one says it. You get lost. So you end up making your decision on whether you trust them, whether you’re comfortable with them, whether they convey a sense of confidence, comfortableness in their skin. And I think that Hillary Clinton runs the risk, in this particular question of whether he’s elitist, of being too heavy-handed. And I noticed the other day there was a new poll. It said that her negatives on this likability factor have gone way up as she keeps pounding away at this. It could end up where, yes, he’s painted as an elitist. But she gets hurt more than he does by it.
JOAN: Whoopi?
WHOOPI: I just think it’s the most ridiculous thing in the world. You know, it’s a phenomenon which, had both candidates been white, wouldn’t be as big an issue as it’s become, because they painted John Kennedy the same way, that he was an elitist. So now they’re saying Obama’s an elitist because he pretty much said that when this is happening and this is happening and this is happening, people cling to those things that they know best, that they’re most comfortable with. He didn’t say, “Only people in Pennsylvania.” He said, “Folks who have gone through this kind of experience.” He didn’t say, “Only white people.” He didn’t say, “Only poor people.” And it’s the same with rich white folks. They cling to what they know. All of us do it.
LESLEY: Whoopi, I think the fear the Democrats have with this issue is not because he’s a person of color. It’s because the Republicans latch onto this exact kind of argument time and again and make it work for them. As with Adlai Stevenson, with Dukakis, with Kerry, with Gore …
WHOOPI: Well, what’s the matter is the Democrats are an elitist group. That’s the truth.
William – on a scale from zero to ten – with ten being “infallible” –
How much credibility to you assign to WHOOPI FREAKING GOLDBERG?
I need to know, because then I will know what you think of lots of other Whoopi quotes that I will be happy to provide.
We’re from southern DE, so we’re related by incest.
This is why, anon, you shouldn’t even ask. The sockpuppets are looking up “infallible” as we speak.
But if you got the McDowell sockpuppet army in the same room as the Protack sockpuppet army, you still wouldn’t have enough brainpower to finish a game of Hangman.
jessie
stick around, we need someone to hear our echoes!
I think they are also having problems with the “scale from one to ten,” with the sixth finger and all.
Maybe Jessie, William and Ron are employing the politics of fear.
More like the politics of beer.
Now that makes sense.
Bin Laden is still at large because of the Iraq war diversion she supported. Our economy is in shambles because of the mix of a war economy, tax cuts and the spineless congress leading us into a crippling debt.
And she is bragging about her skills in the kitchen.
BTW heavy troll traffic means you guys are a threat (to GOP and DLC, not sure which is infesting).
They are, in fact all the same person. I wonder if they are McDowell. Certainly they(he) has an ax to grind somewhere.
He sounds bitter, that’s for sure.
Easy to get you morons worked up, huh? Cassandra, again good with the cut and paste. I can now assume you have passed the second grade.
Oh my God will you folks grow up I watched the ad and there is nothing in it that suggest obama is any where near bin laden look the Repuk slime machine will morf obama into Bin laden like they did senator Max of Georgia . So it once again appears that the obama supporters are over reacting .
I’m sorry – I haven’t been myself lately. Comes with being a socialist
Somebody is hijacking my moniker. So much for free speech on this site.
No, I’m stealing Truth Teller’s moniker back. One more gets you banned.
Jessie says: I’m guessing that there about 10 of you that like to type notes to each other and discuss your utopian socialist society. Why don’t you just get a party line, or all have the same cellphone service so you just chat live???
Isn’t it impolite to barge in, uninvited, acting obnoxious??? No one will feel bad if you go to a right-wing blog, where you would probably be more comfortable and feel at home.
“So much for liberal ethics. Cassandra, shut your pie hole also – what’s the “m” stand for – moron?”
I never knew the name Jessie was a synonym for “asshole dickwad” or the colloquial, Delaware variant of “pighead nutjob.” Thanks for clarifying the issue.
Thanks, but no worries, Brian — these sockpuppets just haven’t finished their five stages of grief at the terminal state of their party.
Uncle Jessie? Is that you Denver Pile? Stars and Bars and shackles in the basement! Vote GOP, Whitey!
WOOHOO!!!
Jessie experiences Socialism every day (as we all do); he’s just too stupid to realize it.