[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3QaUwLNN5g]
Here’s an excellent parody on the attack ad Hillary Clinton is running in Wisconsin. Hillary Clinton’s ideas might not be very good, but at least she is finally good for a few laughs. Don’t let Barack Obama hide behind another victory speech.
I hesitate to place too much significance on these polls, but it is impossible to ignore them when in the heat of a tight race such as this. The Gallup Tracking Poll continues to show Obama up by one point as yesterday, with Obama leading 46% to 45%. The Rasmussen Tracking Poll also show Obama ahead of Clinton for a second day, now leading by 49% to 37%. This includes a lead of 46% to 41% among women voters. In the match ups against McCain, Obama leads John McCain 46% to 42% while McCain leads Clinton 48% to 41%. Take a look at those comparisons, super delegates!
In addition to these daily tracking polls, American Research Group released a new poll today with Obama leading Clinton 47% to 45%, representing a twenty point increase for Obama in the past month.
Obama has picked up some additional endorsements today. Lincoln Chafee became the latest former Republican to back Obama:
‘‘I believe Senator Obama is the best candidate to restore American credibility, to restore our confidence, to be moral and just, and to bring people together to solve the complex issues such as the economy, the environment and global stability,’’ Chafee said in a conference call with reporters.
Obama has also received the endorsement of the Food Workers Union and SEIU. Despite his leads in the national polls, Obama remains behind in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The higher number of blue collar workers in these states works to Clinton’s advantage but these endorsements might help Obama close the gap.
In light of these obstacles, Clinton has made clear her willingness to do anything to get the nomination, including what The New York Times calls “potentially incendiary steps.”
With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules.
The word “potentially” can be dropped. Apparently Hillary Clinton has forgotten the lessons of the 2000 election. Seeing yet another stolen election would be far worse than the prospect of John McCain becoming president and if Clinton wins by stealing the nomination I’ll be voting for McCain. The integrity of the Democratic process is far more important than which party wins any given election.
One of the annoyances of the Clinton campaign and and many supporters is that they often ignore the real differences between the candidates and create distractions over phony issues, such as the claim that Obama’s support is a cult. I’ve already discussed this in this post last week. Sara at Orcinus looks in detail at the characteristics of cults and finds that “Obamamania doesn’t come close to making the cut as a “”cult.'” Sara then looks at why Obama is successful:
What’s going on is that we’ve finally got a Democratic candidate who understands exactly how the Republicans did it. As I pointed out my very first week on this blog, the GOP didn’t come to power by talking about plans and policies; they did it by using strongly emotional appeals that grabbed people by the gut and didn’t let them go. Theirs was never a movement based on reason. It was, from the very beginning, a movement of hearts and souls. And it was that deep, emotionally sustaining commitment that drew people in so deeply that they were willing to give 25 years of their lives to bringing about the New World Order their leaders promised them. We may hate what they’ve accomplished — but we’re never going to be able to do better until we can inspire that same kind of passion for change.
And Obama’s doing just that. He’s tapped into a deeply pressurized seam of repressed fury within the American electorate, and he’s giving it voice, a focus, and an outlet. Are the results scary? You bet: these people want change on a scale that much of the status quo should find terrifying. Are they unreasoning? The followers may be — but as long as their leader keeps a cool head, that’s not as much of a problem right now as we might think; and the heat will dissipate naturally in time. Is this kind of devotion even appropriate? You bet. You don’t get the kind of deep-level change we need without first exposing and channeling people’s deep discontent. Obama’s change talk may be too vague for most people’s tastes (including mine); but the fact is that if we’re serious about enacting a progressive agenda, rousing people’s deepest dreams and desires and mobilizing that energy is exactly how it’s going to happen. And Obama’s the first candidate we’ve had in a generation who really, truly gets this.
The energy of Obama’s rallies scares the hell out of reason-bound, well-educated liberals; but it’s nothing new to anyone who’s spent time in the overheated revival-meeting atmosphere that conservative politicians have used to rouse their voters for decades. Stirring up their base in exactly this same way is how they won. Our chronic inability to move people like that is why we’ve continued to lose.
Hillary is going the old route, with more plans and promises. And she’s losing. Obama is trying something that’s new to Democratic politics — but that also has a proven track record when it comes to raising and consolidating truly transformational movements. In fact: that kind of change simply does not happen unless you’ve got this kind of committed mass movement.
This misguided “cult” talk not only misunderstands how social change occurs; it’s also giving the GOP a weapon it will use to the hilt if Obama is the candidate in the general election. They’re going to demonize those energetic kids as the re-animated zombie ghosts of the dirty fucking hippies of the 60s. And, in a historic sense, they are. They’re our own children, emerging to finish the work that their parents got too tired and too disillusioned to finish. For us old Boomers, they’re our very last shot at the dream.
Obama does concentrate on more inspirational appeals in speaking out of the realization that this is what motivates most people to vote. This does not mean that Obama is any weaker than Clinton on the issues. Obama has discussed the issues in depth in interviews, and has detailed policy proposals posted on his campaign web site. There are numerous issues I’ve discussed, including here, where Obama has been on the right side and Clinton has been on the wrong side. Obama’s policy positions also come out much stronger. For example, The New Republic has reviewed Clinton’s plan on dealing with foreclosures and called it “dishonest, a fairy tale that won’t come true.” The Washington Post compared the economic stimulus plans of each candidate. Obama’s plan earned an A- while Clinton’s plan received a C-, barely beating John McCain’s D+. Obama also has the stronger plan on health care reform despite the attempts of the Clinton campaign to create distractions over mandates.
We support Obama because he is right on the issues, has better plans, and, as Sara discussed, better understands how to get elected than Clinton does.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI7WwY4a9ro]
The Republican response to Yes, We Can
The previous post shows the latest Clinton ad in Wisconsin which looks like the work of an amateur. An example of an Obama ad airing in Wisconsin is posted here. (I’ll add the actual video once it is available on YouTube.)
The ad is far superior to Clinton’s dishonest attack ad. Being a thirty second commercial it doesn’t attempt to provide details of his policy plans, but such details are easily available at his web site for those who are interested.
A comparison of the two ads provides an excellent example of the difference in quality between the two campaigns.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8TbUsvDyJo]
Apparently this ridiculous ad (video above) really is what Hillary Clinton is trying now. I agree with Atrios that “the narrator sounds like he’s a bad parody of political ad narrators.” The content is pretty lame also. It’s also dishonest.
The gist of the commercial is to attack Obama for not agreeing to a debate in Wisconsin, ignoring the fact that Obama has agreed to a large number of debates. There is no need for him to go along with Clinton’s strategy of constantly debating to the point where it would seriously interfere with his campaigning. After all, Clinton and everyone else now realize that the more the two candidates campaign in an area, the more the voters prefer Obama over Clinton.
Clinton claims that Obama would rather give speeches than answer questions, but what is really important is the content of their campaigns. It is Hillary Clinton who shows herself to be afraid to answer real questions when she resorts to Bush-style staged town hall events and planting questions during campaign appearances.
While Obama has given concrete solutions to our problems, the Clinton campaign has concentrated on attacking Obama with dishonest misrepresentations of his views. She has also devoted a considerable amount of time to side shows like criticizing Obama for a kindergarten paper and attacking journalists who displease her. When she does take a stand on an issue, she is all to often on the wrong side.
Clinton mentions two issues in the ad, but the facts go against her. She claims to have the only health care plan that covers every American. Her plan will attempt to force every American to join, but Obama has the superior plan to actually provide health care coverage to everybody who desires it. As mandates do not guarantee universal compliance, many such as Robert Reich actually believe Obama’s plan will cover more people than Clinton’s.
Factcheck.org has already criticized Clinton for the untrue claims she makes in comparing her plan on foreclosures to Obama’s. The New Republic has reviewed Clinton’s plan and called it “dishonest, a fairy tale that won’t come true.” The Washington Post compared the economic stimulus plans of each candidate. Obama’s plan earned an A- while Clinton’s plan received a C-, barely beating John McCain’s D+.
If a commercial like this is the best Clinton can come up with, it is easy to see why Obama has the momentum. Clinton continues to play politics while Obama shows why he is ready to be president. Clinton continues to try to perfect the art of Swift Boating, while Obama vows to end it. We don’t need a debate every week to see which candidate is qualified to be president and which is not.
Updates:
Compare Clinton’s ad to this ad which Obama is running, along with this ad which directly responds to Clinton’s attack. There’s also a great parody on this ad.
