Login HereOn a conference call with Ann Lewis and Howard Wolfson of the Clinton campaign this morning, Lewis hit Obama hard for repeating Republican talking points and reinforcing the GOP frame in attacking Hillary Clinton on healthcare and other issues. So I got a chance to ask a question as to why they chose to run the "phone ad," which reinforces the the Republican "be afraid all the time" frame? And isn't John McCain ultimately the winner in that argument?
The response was unsatisfying -- Lewis said that using fear to divide us or suggest that there are threats that don't exist is wrong, but that she thought it was fair to say that every president in their tenure faces a security threat that is legitimate. She said that since Democrats had been taking it on the chin over national security for so long it was good to take the issue on up front, which might have made sense if it was a general election ad but since the implicit message was that Obama's not ready to do that, and thus that we are subject to threats he can't face, it does reinforce the "Democrats are soft" messaging.
Wolfson said that what they were trying to say was that Hillary Clinton is prepared using good judgment and all the tools at her disposal, which I took to mean not resorting to war first, but the ad doesn't say that. It says there are bogeymen in the night who will threaten your kids and you should be scared. It's a Republican message and the ultimate Republican frame that has been used to justify interminable war and to uncontrollable defense spending. It's what makes members of Congress terrified to end the war by defunding it. It's a destructive message at a time when people want out and are open to new ideas and new leadership.
I will say, however, that the Clinton campaign has been much more open when it comes to letting people ask tough questions of them. Something like what happened the other night -- when Obama general counsel Bob Bauer got on a Clinton conference call and hammered Wolfson -- could never happen in reverse. I've asked to be on the Obama calls and they've never allowed it, because I certainly would've liked to ask similar questions of them about the Harry & Louise ads, so points to Clinton for transparency.
They also said that Clinton had raised $3 million in 24 hours and that they were open to do-overs in Michigan and Florida.
Share This 
Spotlight
Zed?
Jane!
Jane!
Did you ask them about the tax returns? And yes, a 3AM ad was already up on Saint McCain’s website. I wish Obama’s team would be more open. Anyone know what Obama raised since Tuesday? He seems to be able to raise a lot when the chips are down.
Do-overs my aching back!
“The response was unsatisfying.”
But I’ll bet confronting them was satisfying.
I’m very upset with the Clinton campaign for resorting to bald faced FEAR tactics. The week before last or so, Hillary was accusing Barrack of using Rovian tactics. Well, one of the primary hallmark of a Rovian tactic is to accuse your opponent of what you, yourself, are guilty of. In a marvelous bit of irony, Hillary does just that since she has been the most Rovian in many regards, the phone add being only one example. I become more disillusioned with her “end justifies the means” campaign every day. She thinks getting into the White house again will make it all ok; but she will accomplish nothing other than aiding the Republican effort.
Robert Creamer makes an excellent case:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....90115.html
Boo!
What Swifty said.
Hillary has been aiding McCain lately. It may not be by design but that’s the effect, and I wish someone would tell her to knock it off.
Jane Are you comfortable with Clinton and the DLC in her campaign. Im not
Democrats are soft on national defense. After all, they keep caving in to the Republicans and let an idiot like George Bush do whatever he wants. That’s not just soft. It’s weak and stupid.
I don’t understand why there is any difference between Clinton vs. Obama at the “phone answering” moment. Is there an explanation for why Senator Clinton has an advantage there?
Strictly OT:
From the Department of Karma is a Bit*h:
Sob, sob,…
Clinton had raised $3 million in 24 hours and that they were open to do-overs in Michigan and Florida.
Open? - hmmm - certainly not as a Plan “A”, I would think.
More like - if that’s the only possible way left, well, ok, we’d consider it, I guess.”
imho/ymmv and all other applicable disclaimers, since it’s just a WAG.
digg Boo! not poo!
Or blatantly complicit! The Rahm Emanuels of the world might amount to nothing more than wolves in sheep’s clothing.
are complete transcripts or audio of their conference calls released (not just clips)?
.
Steny Hoyer is reserving his right to play kingmaker as a superdelegate no matter what the people say. He was on squawk box this morning making Democrats look bad.
I think the 3 a.m. ad has been parsed to death. This was a flea bite on the dog of the political universe. Obama has been shielded by a Clinton hating press. Once she is out of the way it will be him and the McCain/Republican slime machine.
I just read “Team DLC” at DailyKos about the DLC being buried in the Clinton camp. That’s enough for me. DLC has made the Dems what they are today. GOP lite and Bush toadies!
did it look as bad as when hoyer soiled his shorts when impeachment was brought to the floor?
The tenor of the Clinton campaign, even as it fluxuates, seems more
suited to one against a Republican opponent, they don’t really have
any other experience base to work from and the Obama campaign has a
different pace that highlights the shrillness of the Clinton attack.
The apparats in the HRC campaign are all the New York rough you up
style that seems unsuited to a debate within a party trying to choose
between good candidates. Too much apple pie, you say? When the debate
of a month ago took place the Democrats were able to frame the election
on their terms rather than answering Reaganite slander that will be
typical of the McCain effort. The Clintonistas have been overtaken be
time and circumstance and must limit the damage they have done to the
party already. The times, they are a’changin’.
The 3AM ad is inexcusable! As pointed out in the post, we’re talking about a Dem primary and not the General Election.
I don’t think there’s any comparison between 3AM and “Harry and Louise.” The Obama ad states simple fact, and that is Hillary’s plan FORCES all of us to partake in the flawed system without first fixing the problems. This mandate issue is an extremely important point and that’s all his ad points out. Hillary’s plan is fake universal health care in that they will claim they cover everyone like in Canada, when it’s not like Canada’s system at all.
CTBob has the best spoof version of 3AM in all the Toobz, and points out how the ad doesn’t even really make sense. Just stupid all around:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99oat5t-w9w
If you want more fear mongering and dirty political tricks that we’ve all complained about for years, by all means vote for Hillary.
the reason i ask about transcripts and/or audio of the conference calls is that without them, the whole process looks as opaque as ever to me. (although i can see why it would look transparent to those who are allowed to participate).
hope that there are transcripts and/or audio files available.
shield? hardly
I just read that too. what do you think of the DLC, Jane?
Harold Ford for chair?
I think it is more about the lead up to such a moment. For instance, would the phone be red or black, landline or cellular?
srry, that’s a states’ secret.
Here is the Kos link
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....438/470435
I’m sure the “reporters” at the McCan’t BBQ say now that St. John is so much more open than the others. Clinton or Obama would never invite them over for a meal.
After this is over, the Democratic party needs to rationalize their nomination process. This so-called nomination processs is as f’ed as a stack of coat hangers.
As far as this cycle, in terms of Michigan and Florida, the only reasonable
resolution is to find the money [in the great scheme of things it won’t be that much-about what we spend in an hour or so in Iraq ]and then reschedule the primaries a week or so after Pennsylvania.
Ensure just does not buffet well.
this has probably already been covered here (and if so, i’d be happy to be sent to the correct thread) but since almost the only tv i watch is c-span, i don’t see the ads…
kos has a post up about a doctored ad to make obama’s face look darker and wider. is this really true?
So why did Hillary leave her name on the MI ballot after all? Don’t remember seeing much discussion about this.
Nobody else did, yet here we are in this supposed predicament now. Interesting…
Adjusted for enhanced truth value.
Getting worse by the nanosecond
Hillary Spokesperson Compares Obama To…Ken Starr!
wow.
they should be last after all other primaries.
Speaking of the DLC, have you looked at Obama’s chief economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee? In addition to his position in the Obama Campaign, he is also Senior economic advisor for the DLC and the PPI. The PPI is the DLC’s “think tank”. Oter member of the Obama economic team, Jeffrey Liebman and David Cutler are not exactly economic populists.
truthiness *g*
I think it is debatable. Ill be glad when this one goes away.
BTW -WaPo reports this morning that Bu’ush says the 2002 AUMF gives him the authority to remain in Eye-Rack FOREVER absent any further congressional approval.
John McBu’ush smiles sanguinely.
Quail wings, perhaps, from the HRC campaign? ;-)
So what did you or any of the other reporters do on that call when Wolfson equated Obama with Ken Starr?
This “openness” is nothing more than Republican-style media manipulation, and that crack is a perfect example: with one hand she plays the victim card, with the other she flings whatever shite she or her punks decide to fling — and if you allow them to do it, it sticks and she gets to live her own double-standard.
Just like Bush.
Is there any wonder there’s a rift developing in the Democratic Party? It’s because Penn and Wolfson and their ilk have the jackhammers and pickaxes.
Clinton or Obama would never invite them over for a meal.
Perhaps that is a display of their better judgement. They would never invite such riff raff to the house.
I agree..The Obama DLC’ers are out in the open. Austan Goolsbee, for example.
It’s a pretty big stretch to call any campaign “transparent” when they refuse to allow public scrutiny of their tax returns. Especially when they are the Clintons, with their sleazy history and amazing “good luck” in investments.
I added some scales to this one of Same McCain.
Please tell us what you think of the 3AM ad.
Boy, Congress sure authorized a hell of a lot with that thing. What’s next–the AUMF gives Bush the authority to tap-dance at photo ops?
Some good Dems here seem to be overreacting to what was only a fairly noncontroversial ad by Hillary which sought to underscore her experience and steadiness at the helm. And it’s hardly being Repub or Rovian to go about highlighting a candidate’s national security strength in this way. A similar ad was used, effectively, by the Mondale campaign in 84 against the younger, less experienced Gary Hart (the same ad guy for WM is on the HRC communications team).
Politics is not a friendly gentle game of badmitten, and playing it tough doesn’t always mean someone is going Repub or Rove.
Good grief, this is nothing compared to what Lyndon did against Barry with the Daisy Girl ad (ordered up and supervised by one Bill Moyers, btw). That might have been Rovian (or Nixonian) — way over the top, in the view of some.
Also kinda fear-mongering in a Rovian sense was the Dean=Osama ad run by some group associated with Kerry and Gephardt before Iowa in 2004. That one was truly nasty.
Now, as for DLC, I read somewhere that Obama’s economic advisor, Austan Goolsby (sp), is on the board of the think tank for the DLC (Progressive Policy Inst), so both candidates, it turns out, have their share of ties to that mostly outdated and barely influential centrist org.
Thanks for the report, Jane. Otherwise, anyone who hasn’t already decided who they favor and is susceptible to convincing by other commenters, please raise their hand.
Now, anyone who doesn’t think emotional accusations against the other candidate are ultimately going to make it more difficult to unite and beat Republicans, raise their hand.
Oh well, there appears to be no hope for it.
LOL, yep.
BTW- Linky.
Why did Hillary command Laxio release his tax return but hers is secret?
love it.
Obama is obviously no Noam Chomsky, but there really is no comparison between Hillary and Barack on the DLC issue. Obama has one (maybe a couple more?) with DLC ties, whereas Clinton was the head of the DLC and is still on their “Leadership Team.” Her staff is mostly DLCer and her husband was a central figure in the DLC’s creation.
When the DLC tried to attach themselves to Obama, he immediately told them to buzz off.
Hey, here is a SVG of McCain’s head!
I’ll take your word…besides, I already saw the AP version. I’m not on speaking terms with the Washington Post-It.
Jane, your question and analysis will see you treated as the “media” during this summer’s convention in Denver. Access to the Clinton campaign will be denied. Guess it will be the bathroom for FDL. Rove wins again…
No poo was used in the writing of this post.
So there’s a case for precident. Well, if the precident was crap, then it’s time for a change away from that. I’m ready for a change and I hope that isn’t too audacious to expect. Funny, it is usually the conservative mindset that rails against change, even for the better.
i haven’t decided, and probably won’t.
all i’m sure of is that i want mccain to lose.
With Clinton, I’ll get a DLC candidate and a boatload of DLCers. With Obama, I might get some DLC-influenced policies. That choice isn’t the best, but is easy to make.
According to TPM yesterday, it was the Clinton campaign who told the Canadians to take campaign rhetoric against NAFTA with a grain of salt.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....pleak0305/
BNStory/National/home
Breaking: Leaked secret meeting memos reveal that both Clinton and Obama wanna replace NAFTA with NOTMBFTA.
North Of The Mexican Border Free Trade Agreement.
;)
Nope. He already had the powers of tap dance through his inherent Constitutional authority to make a supreme a** of himself. /s
OT: more winger love.
Picking Losers:
I hope you stick to that decision, because I personally think all other considerations, aside from replacing Republicans in Congress, are secondary for the next nine months.
if jane finds the convention boring, she can always meet up with those who are protesting in the streets.
About the subject of this post, I can’t figure out why so many people seems to miss the fact that the world is no more dangerous now than it has been since Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Oklahoma bombing, or at any time since man discovered he could destroy the entire world in one fell swoop. What did people expect? You could see all this coming a mile away. I still remember the Achilles Lauro and the loss of Mr. Klinghoffer. If it comes down to it, the world has always been a very dangerous place, and it has been up to us to make it less so. Imagine a caveman coming out of his cave and facing so many fierce forces of nature, wild animals, other tribes. I’m just so tired on the fear mongering! It’s gotten ridiculous.
Speaking of conference calls, I’ve been wanting to mention the call I got last night from my Congressperson, Trent Franks. He’s a conservative Republican all the way, so you can imagine that it was quite disconcerting to hear some of the spiel, but I guess I have to give credit that his campaign called me, a registered Democrat, and there were also a few other Dems that were allowed to ask questions and speak. From what I could glean, people in my district want the double fence to be built, regardless that Chertoff doesn’t think it’s a good idea, Franks really wants to drill in Anwar and is just certain it will not hurt the ecology there. The man sounds like a sincere fool where it comes to warrantless wiretaps; he doesn’t believe for an instance that GWB has ever lied to us about anything. I wanted to ask about warrantless wiretaps also, but time ran out. Luckily a fellow just before the end of the call (I was on the phone for about an hour) did ask that question and was pretty good at parrying the answers.
“it was good to take the issue on up front, which might have made sense if it was a general election ad but…”
I strongly disagree with your assessment here.You know that frankly, because this is such an open primary election, with Independents and crossover voters being allowed to have a say in who the Democratic nominee will be, the smart strategy is to run just as if it WAS the general election.
The ad used Republican framing. That’s the problem. What’s next, each accusing the other of raising taxes?
And Senator Clinton is a member of the DLC herself!
i’m sorta keen on oversight of the dems we already have in office too.
Speaking of quail wings, did you see the touching moment between Hillary and Karl Rove the other day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTGbI8pzvqk
She goes on Pox all the time. Bill just did a one-on-one interview on Limpballz show with Lush’s fill-in host. Up until yesterday, Lush’s site had a large button on his frontpage with Hillary’s logo with “Vote Hillary.” They’ve now changed it to a Photoshopped photo of Hillary with the words, “There Will Be Blood…We Got What We Wanted: Chaos.” If there are more open primaries I assume they’ll start this Vote Hillary thing again.
Hillary has virtually no chance of winning now. I could understand fighting it out until Mar 4th, but now she is hurting Dem chances in Nov with each week she stays in.
I agree that it’s silly to compare this to the daisy ad, but it’s not silly to talk about whether a primary tactic damages the Democratic brand and thus harms whoever is nominated. The Dean=Osama ad definitely crossed that line, talking about McCain as being more qualified than Obama does too. I think the 3am ad did, but it certainly can be debated whether it crosses the line.
The point is not that some tactics are “too nasty,” the point is that some tactics, by reinforcing right-wing frames and attacks, are harmful to our general election chances, and harmful to the chances of downballot Democrats. Any Democrat who uses such tactics is throwing other Democrats (not just their opponent) under the bus for their own benefit, and should be smacked down for it.
I guess my point is that they are all politicians and if you look behind the curtains about who is in each campaign, they all come from the same roster. A lot of the old Clinton crowd is with the Obama campaign now. The earlier Obama comments about SS that caught so much heat weren’t a rookie mistake; that was Jeffrey Liebman’s thought s on SS.
link
I’ve asked this several times over the last few weeks and haven’t noticed an answer.
Why did Hillary leave her name on the MI ballot when everyone else took their names off?
Word!
I find Bill’s visit with Rush’s standin and now lauded by Rush the most despiciable act of all.
Oh, fuck.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/.....dm-fallon/
she said she didnt campaign there but wont answer the question.
bonkers March 6th, 2008 at 9:08 am
31
I’m sure the “reporters” at the McCan’t BBQ say now that St. John is so much more open than the others. Clinton or Obama would never invite them over for a meal.
__________
did he serve quail wings?
Obama needs to be wary of his whiz kids, they can put him at odds with
the groundswell that propels his campaign, it is his call to make, but
he better get it right, the DLC is out of touch with the democracy.
When I see/hear complaints about Hillary “going Karl Rove” on Obama, the answer is invariably, “The GOP will do this so it is good to get it out of the way.”
Let me say, just once, that I thought we were replacing the GOP because they SUCK. If I wanted to my candidates to prove how “GOP” they can be, I would vote for John Freaking McCain.
The Democrats are supposed to be better than that, so be better dammit!
It’s another infringement on the sole power of the Congress to declare war but shows why the War Powers Act or the AUMFs are inherently bad idea because any give to the Executive branch on this power has been abused by the Executive, every time.
Hole card just in case she was behind, lawsuit grounds, etc.
October surprise, anyone?
Who called Canada about Nafta?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....ional/home
That’s what I was thinking as well. Some will probably defend that as “smart” and being a “fighter.” I call it being a traitor to the DemocratIC Party.
It matters little to me HRC’s ties with that group, mostly because a lot of good major Dems have the same (Bill and Gore, e.g.) and because she hasn’t been out there aggressively promoting a cautiously centrist approach on certain key issues like, say, Obama has on SS and health care reform. Instead, HRC on health care has a far more progressive plan than Obama. They both also have similar approaches to pullout from Iraq. Very little separates them on substantive issues apart from SS and health care.
But Obama did go DLC with his talk of postpartisan/bipartisan governance, such that he’d want true conservative Repubs in his cabinet — Hagel and Lugar. He also wants Arnold in his admin. Such aggressive affirmative outreach to the Repub conservatives by Barack must have warmed the hearts of Al From and other DLCers.
What you are talking about comes from the bottom up. The national candidates just divide up the advisors, consultants from the “pool”..the politics are just the same. When it was a three way, I was always amused that Edwards supporters (My choice) projected virtues on him that were fictional..same with Obama now.
She agreed to the rules… and then she broke them now she wants to rewrite them and as leader of the clinton party does she have the right?.
As an edwards supporter I say let him have his name on the MI and FL ballots if they do a redo. Let him win some delegates. Heck he could probably win both states now.
That’s bad. Maybe there’s some hope that Gates, and perhaps a few others, would have enough integrity to resign over the matter.
link?
Maybe so, but I can just see her sitting there wringing her hands and chuckling!
Her logic was that by staying on the ballot, it gave the MI democratic party faithful a chance to get everyone in the state revved up and excited about supporting the Dems in the 2008 election. From the AP, Oct 11, 2007 (via the WaPo):
Another piece from the University of Michigan Daily reflects some disappointment from the UM students, in that the request of five other candidates to have their names removed from the ballot damped down interest in the campaigns:
I don’t know how much I buy her argument, but at least one non-Clinton supporter agreed with her logic.
FWIW, YMMV, etc.
Dream on.
They are a lot better..just not as good as they should be or that we want them to be. Political indifference by “real” Democrats for the past three decades, me included, has put us where we are now. I hope it is not too late.
Adendum: He has only suspended his candidacy so why not have his name included.
“So I got a chance to ask a question as to why they chose to run the “phone ad,” which reinforces the the Republican “be afraid all the time” frame? And isn’t John McCain ultimately the winner in that argument?”
Jane, thank you for initiating this conversation at FDL, it’s much appreciated.
I wish I agreed with your sense of “transparency” - I only feel the strong winds of a spin storm.
What we agree on is the call for both camps to be open to any and all questions concerning their judgement, tactics, and overall leadership.
No shit. The GOP did promise more war.
What drug would you have to be on to think starting a war with Iran is good for McCain when most of the country is against the war in Iraq. The republics are truly insane.