home

Another Republican Attack Ad Airs Against Obama

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:53:40 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Politico reports on a new Republican attack ad on Obama that is airing on television in Mississippi.

A television ad from Southaven Mayor Greg Davis tells viewers that his Democratic rival, Travis Childers, a realtor and Prentiss County official, has accepted the endorsement of "liberal Barack Obama." Then, with Childers' face beside footage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it says, "When Obama's pastor cursed America, blaming us for 9/11, Childers said nothing."

Then: "When Obama ridiculed rural folks for clinging to guns and religion, Childers said nothing." "He took Obama's endorsement over our conservative values. Conservatives just can't trust Travis Childers," the ad concludes.

Politico says:

The ads are a mark of how difficult, with the nomination apparently within his grasp, Obama will find it to stay above or outside the traditional, bitter partisan divisions he so often deplores. [More...]

On a related note, the Washington Post reports on the toll the grueling campaign is having on the candidates and their staffers. It seems like Obama is feeling it more than Hillary.

< Justice Scalia on "60 Minutes" | Rev. Wright Fights Back >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Another Republican Attack Ad Airs Against Obama | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Obama Wanted To Go Into GE Mode (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:00:39 PM EST
    Now he knows what he has to look forward to....

    This is bad, very bad for downticket Dems (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:05:23 PM EST
    and clearly is going to be rolled out in every state.

    Parent
    I was wondering (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:08:17 PM EST
    why they were using the big guns now instead of saving it for the ge.  I think that Clinton doing better meant they had to strike now--also, let's be honest, whether or not Obama gets the nom, Wright is going to be used against every single person who ever publicly endorsed Obama.

    UGH.

    Parent

    Plus (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Step Beyond on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:18:35 PM EST
    They get the added benefit of anything else that occurs gets automatically tied to their Democratic opponent. And the longer they can put the connections the more likely they are to take.

    McCain was in Florida today and talked about Wright as well.

    Parent

    The focus group testing... (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:23:22 PM EST
    ...must have been off the dial.

    Who would have thought that the GOP could mount this sort of  theological assualt on the Dems?  

    I thought we were secularist at best or athiests at worst.  We have our own kooks as it turns out.

    Parent

    I think they're using it now (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Benjamin3 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:21:55 PM EST
    Because they think the Democratic Party doesn't have the guts at this point to give the nomination to Hillary.  And you're right - I suppose any elected official who publicly endorsed can expect this stuff  from the GOP.

    Parent
    I am sure that if a MS Republican was (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by hairspray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:31:46 PM EST
    running against a candidate that had Hillary's endorsement it would have been "Kuzla".  Problem is that Kuzla and Wright are not comprable.

    Parent
    It's not a matter of guts (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:38:37 PM EST
    it's a matter of finally using their brains and accepting the inevitable, which is that Clinton will get the nom.

    Even Eleanor Clift is seeing the writing on the wall (via Newsweek):

    I'm beginning to think Hillary Clinton might pull this off and wrestle the nomination away from Barack Obama

    These ads are the death nell.  Mississippi already voted, folks.  Obama won the state, and they are still using him to beat down other dems.  Super D's are watching this crap and waiting to be targeted the same way.

    Parent

    Was Shocked Eleanor Said Something Nice (none / 0) (#60)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:52:50 PM EST
    about Hillary.  Now that she is starting to come to her senses, I won't be forced to slap her...lol
    There is going to be a huge case of buyer's remorse out there for Obama.

    Parent
    The guns and god comment (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:08:40 PM EST
    will be used to crucify politician lower down the totem pole.

    Obama will be left alone because Tweety and Pumpkin head will cry RACIST! if it's directed at Obama--but every other Dem will have to pay his pound of flesh for the Presumptive Nominee's indescretions.

    Parent

    They should look to Obama first (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:32:58 PM EST
    to denounce the practice.  After all, it is on account of their support for him that they are getting this kind of treatment.  Let's see if Obama will fight for them.  Until Obama makes a move, I don't see how they can expect someone else to do what Obama won't do for them. After all, Obama is the recipient of their support.

    Parent
    I giving up on my district and not going to invest (none / 0) (#79)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:08:33 AM EST
    the emotional capital required for my district, my candidate is white, female, wonkish, over 40 and experienced that demographic which has been so villainized by non Clinton Democrats add that this Clyburn, Sharpton, Wright now Chicago Race grievance activisim is getting more play than gay marriage did and the conservative turned out in mass for that one.

    Parent
    Here's some more stuff (none / 0) (#81)
    by abfabdem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:10:04 AM EST
    from the Chicago Sun Times today entitled "Obama'a Sub-Prime Pal"  

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/919177,CST-NWS-pritz28.article

    Parent

    The sad thing is it's accurate. (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Lysis on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:07:25 PM EST
    Like many commenters have noted before, they don't need to Swift Boat Obama.  They can just tell the truth.  That it's being done to bring down those he's endorse is a bummer.   But more Dems should've denounced the comments vocally, even if they still chose to support Obama.  Their silence connects to Obama's silence way too easily.  

    They'd be called (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:10:37 PM EST
    racists if they spoke up to chastize Obama.

    They'd also look like tools for not doing their homework.

    Parent

    exactly! (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:06:57 PM EST
    that's why the media conceals Obama's lie about the Kennedys bringing his father to America - and the Kennedys went along with it.
    What?! the Kennedys can't google?


    Parent
    Obama claimed he didn't have baggage, but (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:11:08 PM EST
    man.. making the other Dems handle his carry-on items is gonna KILL them.

    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:16:06 PM EST
    Little Lord Fauntleroy's traveling light on his grand tour of the Clingtowns of Bitterlachia.

    See the mound of Carriage and Samsonite cases?
    yes, you local rubes! You are going to porter this baggage for M'Lord so he can have the weight lifted a bit.

    Parent

    Cmon Salo, you know it is Louis Vuitton! (none / 0) (#61)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:55:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Despicable people doing despicable ads... (5.00 / 11) (#14)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:11:29 PM EST
    we all should denounce activities like this, regardless of the fact that they are targeting Obama.

    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:15:05 PM EST
    Race baiting in a Mississippi election, I'm shocked, shocked.  The GOP sucks.

    Parent
    Baiting in Bitterlachia. (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:17:29 PM EST
    ...no one could have anticipated this.

    Parent
    Mississippi Is It's Own World (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:22:48 PM EST
    And a very sorry one at that.  The poor people there - white and black - deserve better than what they get, which is divisive politics pitting them against each other.

    The poverty and politics of Mississippi are something every American should feel ashamed about and every American should take responsibility for.  We've allowed it to continue.  Hell, we joke about Mississippi.   There shouldn't be people living in this country in the conditions that a lot of Mississippians* live in.  

    * I know there are awful living conditions and poverty everywhere, but it's particularly bad in Mississippi.  I remember driving to New Orleans from Alabama, hardly a rich state, and knowing immediately when we'd crossed into Mississippi.

    Parent

    A Haley Barbour billboard? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:25:23 PM EST
    leering down at you?

    Parent
    not that different, imo (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:18:39 PM EST
    then when Obama told AA crowds in MS that Hillary released the picture of him in Somali garb "to scare people" (especially after he said at the debate that he took her at her word that she had nothing to do with it). That was "race-baiting" too, IMO. But yes, we should condemn all of these kinds of attacks on Dems -- especially ones from other Dems.

    Parent
    I Could, Obama & His Camp Play The Race (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:56:23 PM EST
    card quite regularly.  You know what they say...payback is a biatch.

    Parent
    Puhleez... (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:37:09 PM EST
    I mean, fine, I officially denounce the ads being put out by local GOP candidates that tie those candidates to Obama and Wright.

    But that isn't really the issue here.  A bunch of progressives on a blog denoucing the ads of some local candidate in Mississippi is meaningless.

    You want meaning?  Denounce Politico for giving this ad national exposure.  Denounce the "news" shows that will repeat the ad, while "tut-tutting" about it.  

    And denounce Barack Obama for endangering downticket Democrats by indulging his narcissistic ambitions.

    Parent

    I don't usually go to Politico (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:07:15 PM EST
    I really don't want to see people on TalkLeft rejoicing because this might impact the race between Obama and Clinton...I don't want Republicans influencing the outcome/affecting the choice for the  Democratic nominee.

    I want meaning - meaning that I want voters to reject this tie-in to render any down ticket impact meaningless...I want backlash against the thugs who are using this political calculation to score.

    Parent

    Too late.. (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:23:53 PM EST
    I don't want Republicans influencing the outcome/affecting the choice for the  Democratic nominee.
    The Republicans are the ones who set the FL primary date, which the DNC disallowed. So, the Republicans, with help from the DNC, removed the FL delegates from the slate. That is a much bigger influence on the outcome than some ads in Mississippi. And if the people who endorsed him didn't check him out, more fool they. Yes, the ads are not nice, but who ever expected the GOP to be nice?? Not me, that's for sure!! Obama and his endorsers are politicians, they should know that too.

    Parent
    But but but... Paul (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ChrisM on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:20:14 PM EST
    whatever happened to the super-magical awesomest coattails???

    Parent
    The Unity Pony pooped on them. Heh. nt (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:24:31 PM EST


    Parent
    You Forgot One Denounce (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:49:18 AM EST
    Denounce those in the Dem establishment who decide the party absolutely needed a power play during a critical election year more than they needed the WH and a stronger Congress. Those who either didn't vet Obama enough or brushed off his baggage as no big thing.

    Parent
    This (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by sas on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:14:46 PM EST
    is what we will get with Obama.  He has only himself to blame.

    Unelectable imo.

    Agree (none / 0) (#80)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:40:55 AM EST
    with you.  This situation with Wright was known.  Whether Wright gets a standing ovation from the NAACP is beside the point.  Obama is now linked to anti-American ranting.  

    I read yesterday that Obama actually worked for Ayers for 8 years.  Once again, he tried to minimize the relationship.  This type of lying doesn't work on the national level.  Maybe on the state level it does, but I'm amazed he set himself up yet again.  I'm waiting on the next expose to hit about how he lied about that.

    Parent

    Well, Obama and his supporters have said (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by leis on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:16:18 PM EST
    that he will get more people out and that would be a  benefit down ticket. We just didn't know that it would benefit R's downticket.

    This kind of stuff (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:26:39 PM EST
    was exactly what people were saying would happen.

    What does this say about downticket candidates?

    So much for Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:05:35 PM EST
    coattails and downticket races.  I confess it hadn't occurred to me the Republicans would use Obama and Wright in those campaigns.  They would use Hillary, as well, if she got the nomination.  But I think this puts an end to the idea that Obama would have longer coattails.
    Not sure that (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by americanincanada on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:11:11 PM EST
    Hillary has such a GLARINGLY obvious hot button issue to use against people staring them in the face.

    That's why the McCain camp says privately that Clinton would the the tougher opponant to beat. they just don't think the dems will have the guts to nominate her. That's why they feel comfortable, the state GOPs, in going after Obama now.

    Hell, even McCain now says Obama made Wright a campaign issue. And he did! I read the transcript.

    Parent

    look (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by sas on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:11:07 PM EST
    I'm not getting worked up over Rep attack ads against Obama that are racist.

    Do they suck?  Are they awful?  Of course....but he has chosen to play the race card against Hillary at every turn.

    You reap what you sow.  He made his bed now he has to lie in it.  Etc

    There are a dozen cliches that fit this situation.

    Look again at the targets of the ads (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:16:48 PM EST
    it's other Dems.  Soon, a lot of other Dems.

    Obama sowed that, but other Dems reap it -- not just the Dems who won't be elected but, far more important, the people who need to elect them but will be represented by Republicans instead.

    I also could give a flying you-know-what for Obama in this.  He is not the concern here.  

    Parent

    Obama should have been vetted earlier. (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by ig on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:28:17 PM EST
    Next we will have ads saying Obama is friends with a terrorist (Ayers) who bombed the Pentagon, and XYZ didnt say anything.

    Its time for party leaders to encourage Obama to pull out of the race.

    Parent

    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by janarchy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:21:48 PM EST
    they should have waited to endorse the Dem candidate until after the convention, not to rush in before he was properly vetted? While I feel some sympathy for the situation, the word "schadenfreude" does come to mind.

    Parent
    Chickens (none / 0) (#63)
    by Iphie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:21:19 PM EST
    coming home to roost...?

    Parent
    formerhoosier (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by formerhoosier on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:44:18 PM EST
    The comments about blue collar workers voting against their interests is one of those CW points that is wrong.  The data actually supports the view they do vote in their economic interest and it is the well educated and/or elite who vote issues.  Time to put that canard to rest.

    I hate this so much. (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:06:49 AM EST
    And I'm torn between wanting to defend Obama from the sleazy Repub attacks and being mad as hell that he didn't wait until Wright was behind him. Eight or even four years from now, Wright would have been long-retired and much less damaging. And the Rezko thing would have been settled too. How did his backers not see this coming? The NYT talked about Wright's sermons last fall, but I just assumed the Obama campaign had it covered, had a good plan to deal with it. I'm sure they'll find stuff against Hillary too, they always do. But hopefully it won't be big, obvious gimmes like this one.

    Oh No! Republicans Say Mean Things About Dems (3.28 / 7) (#15)
    by Oliver Willis on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:11:42 PM EST
    You guys understand this is the template, right? If the candidate was Jesus himself they would run ad asking "If Joseph wasn't the father... who is?". In 2004 Sen. Kerry won the nomination in part because people believed his military record would protect him from the noise machine. That worked out well. They're going to attack and distort any Democrat who runs for anything from dogcatcher to president.

    How about we not wet our pants every time it happens?

    Wait a minute! (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:15:06 PM EST
    First Obama supporters claim everything Sen Clinton runs is NEGATIVE. No this is a NEGATIVE ad. Its Obama supporters who tend to need a fainting couch on every thing.

    Secondly: yes Republicans do this. But you know what? Its much more effective and harder to negate when you hand them this kind of ammunition.

    Parent

    My how things have changed. It used to be (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by tigercourse on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:17:14 PM EST
    that one of the main arguments against Clinton was that Republicans would run these kind of ads against her and Democrats who supported her. We were told by the Obama camp that this was a big reason to support him. Now that the shoe is on the other foot it's "Never mind the attacks ads, buck up!".

    Parent
    I thought the GOP loved the guy. (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:29:18 PM EST
    Now it's all batten down the hatches! No this is going to systematically crush us down ticket.

    Also Rove, tat magnificen bastard but Affirmative Action propositions on ballots nation wide.

    They saw this coming with Obama and Clinton as the nominees.

    Parent

    Are They Nationwide? (none / 0) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:55:54 AM EST
    I know Affirmative Action propositions will be on our ballot in MO and I heard CO. Didn't hear that it was going to be more widespread.

    Parent
    I'm not surprised (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Benjamin3 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:34:31 PM EST
    that the GOP is doing this.  I knew they would when the Wright story first broke.  It's the Obama supporters who have insisted that the Wright issue is nothing and would simply go away - that make me want to wet my pants.  And what's worse is Obama's political judgment in not getting out in front of the Wright issue way before the primaries started.  He "knew" Wright might become an issue.  He should have thrown Wright under a freight train long ago.

    Parent
    if anyone ... (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:43:13 PM EST
    had unearthed the wright tapes and posted them on Dkos they would have been autobanned within a day. Now we are stuck with GOP ads that Wright themselves.

    The level of censorship and literally FEAR over there prevented this from being hashed out and factored into Obama's performance in Iowa.

    It's sickening to think about how Edwards had to defend himself over haircuts and Clinton had to deal with non-tips for waitresses, when Obama had a 20 year relationship with a preacher who
    G-damned America.  It so utterly cuts into his post racial schtick that is makes him dishonest and/or foolish.

    Parent

    Thought you were smarter than that (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:00:16 PM EST
    but you really don't get where this is going.

    Parent
    yeah, i'll remember not to (none / 0) (#50)
    by english teacher on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:14:41 PM EST
    wet my shorts as soon as childers cleans the cr@p stains out of his.  

    thanks for the tip, oliver.  and bless your heart i know you mean well.  

    Parent

    I'd talke the suggestion not to wet our pants (5.00 / 10) (#43)
    by tree on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:06:38 PM EST
    a bit more seriously from someone who hasn't soaked his shorts so much over Bill Clinton mentioning Jesse Jackson back in late January that he feels the need to relink to it today, three months later. Yes, lets get incontinent about non-attacks from the Clinton campaign instead. That's a winning strategy.

    IMO, Clinton supporters aren't wetting their shorts over this, but they are saying "We told you so."

    Parent

    excellent point... (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:12:17 PM EST
    Oliver...you are so blind over your candidate that you have lost all perspective.

    Parent
    Yeah, we are.. (4.00 / 0) (#57)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:35:34 PM EST
    but it's from laughing. I am just chortling over this. Did the Obama supporters really think that he and his endorsers would get away without having to deal with Obama's negatives? Hey, people, this is politics!! And politics get down and dirty really fast. The best way to keep from getting covered in slime is to make sure you don't have any in your closet that they can toss at you. Obama figured he would get by without anyone questioning him and his past associations or actions. He was wrong. Unfortunately, he is going to take down all the people he conned into believing in him. Many of them are good public servants who deserved better than to be smeared with Obama's dirt. Don't expect him to come to their defense. He won't. He only defends himself, and doesn't do that very well. Say good bye to The Precious. He won't be around much longer. And he did it to himself through arrogance and more hubris than I have seen in a politician in my lifetime.

    Parent
    Hilarious! (none / 0) (#67)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:46:22 PM EST
    that Joseph comment KILLED me! LOL!  As an atheist/secular humanist, that line is AWESOME.

    And you're right.  The republican party has no shame, at all.  And this is the part where the Obama supporters will start to get really upset and wonder why the GOP is so mean to their candidate?

    Rude awakening coming to Obamaland...and it's starting now.

    Parent

    If this is the kind of stupidity (2.33 / 3) (#1)
    by halstoon on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:56:00 PM EST
    that blue collar white people vote for, then I'm glad to be counted among the elitists!!

    that's the Unity spirit! n/t (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:57:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, actually... (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by Lysis on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:09:35 PM EST
    ...blue collar white people have been voting for intelligence, choosing the brightest and most experienced candidate over an inexperienced hopechest.   I'm not blue collar, but my Dad was, and I'm honored to stand with them.

    Parent
    Actually they voted for Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Lysis on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:40:40 PM EST
    He won blue collar voters.  

    Parent
    Blue collar whites voted for Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Ed on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:48:17 PM EST
    not Bush I or Dole, get your facts straight.

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#65)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:40:24 PM EST
    don't Democrats vote against their own financial interests regarding taxes?  Yes there is talk for a tax break for us little people, fortunately.  However, people LIKE the Clintons, who, through their own magnanimity, will vote for higher taxes on themselves 'for the greater good'.

    ...just sayin'....

    Parent

    said Halstoon... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Marco21 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:09:51 PM EST
    posting from David Geffen's yacht. :)

    Parent
    If this is the kind of stupidity (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:19:39 PM EST
    that a candidate is going to keep providing to the Republicans, you better count on the smart blue-collar people who built this nation -- smart blue-collar people of every skin color -- to save the Dems everywhere.  He and his comments and his friends and his mentors and his minister's yen for publicity probably have cost us the White House, no matter the nominee, so we have to hope that we can save seats in Congress.

    Parent
    That comment would make sense (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by rooge04 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:11:23 PM EST
    ....if you meant the blue-collar voters that voted Republican. But since Obama was referring to blue-collar voters that voted for Hillary....they actually WERE voting their best interests. See? What's good for Obama is not exactly what's good for blue-collar folk.

    Parent
    Uh? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:05:23 PM EST
    who are you labeling as blue collar? and why? (ugh)


    Parent
    Here are the usual definitions for you.. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:41:46 PM EST
    Blue collar people are people who don't have to wear a suit to work. White collar people do, hence the term "white collar" since one used to wear nothing but white shirts, and collars, with a suit. The plumber who lives in the biggest house on the block and employs 20 people is a blue collar person. His accountant is not. See?

    Parent
    people do vote their interests. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:06:10 PM EST
    If they are interested in guns and their churches, the constitution points out that they can do so with gusto.

    They consider themselves an elect!

    Parent

    Childers is about... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kredwyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:30:50 PM EST
    to put a very large amount of distance between himself at Obama.

    that would be weak... (none / 0) (#59)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:45:02 PM EST
    he must stand his ground and not cave in...he was within a few hundred votes of winning it outright without a runoff.

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#70)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:07:43 AM EST
    sometimes sucking it up and apologizing is the way to go.  Did you watch the focus group on Clinton's response to the Tuzla situation at the last debate?  When she said she was embarrassed the line spiked up but when people realized she wasn't admitting an error and she kept talking it went way down.  It was the lowest rated point of the debate.  The public wants an apology.  If they admit an error on the small stuff instead of insisting they never make a mistake, people will trust them more on the big stuff?

    Parent
    Wow, Obama said that Wright is (none / 0) (#68)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:53:59 PM EST
    a legitimate election issue?  That sounds WAY too calculated.  I know that Wright was out beating his chest against the corporate owned media tonight at the NAACP.  Wonder if all these media spots he's doing has some other agenda.  Since the MSM is so in the tank for BHO, they may start painting Wright as a victim in all this.  After all, his campaign and their supporters are ALL victims.

    Every. Single. Last. One. Of. Them.

    They have to get their licks in now (none / 0) (#71)
    by daryl herbert on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:45:25 AM EST
    Because they can't run "X endorsed Obama and Obama's a big fat liberal" ads in the fall if Sen. Clinton is the nominee.

    They can run them now until Nov (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:32:43 AM EST
    no matter who the nom is if they endorsed Obama. It's that lil' thing called "Judgment".

    If the nom is Clinton, they'll try and swift boat her and also run the Obama ads against the down ticket folks. All out attack against everything Dem.

    Parent

    We're all on Bizarro World (none / 0) (#77)
    by janarchy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:25:23 AM EST
    It's the only explanation. If someone had told me 3-4 months ago that I'd be watching Fox News with regularity over "Countdown" for some semblence over reality, I'd have said they were on crack.

    Scary when about half of what comes out of Hannity's mouth is actually more truthful than what comes out of KO's.

    It looks like this (none / 0) (#78)
    by Arcadianwind on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:41:17 AM EST
    rather precludes the "unity ticket" arguments.

    Too bad... That hasn't looked too good since the Ides of March anyway.

    Lets just say--it lacks synergy.

    Another Republican Attack Ad Airs Against Obama | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment