Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- President Obama Refocuses on Health Care/Stimulus
- Bob Woodruff Returns to Iraq
- President Obama Orders National Security Team to Review 2001 Afghanistan Massacre
- Will It Get Ugly? Both Sides Prepared for Start of Sotomayor Hearings Monday
- Obama in Africa
- Out of Africa
- Kenyan President should be “squirming”, says country’s political analyst
- An Emotional President Obama Tours Former Slave Port with Family
- O Baby! The Obamas Visit Maternity Clinic in Ghana
- In Ghana, President Obama Gives Tough Love
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Hillary Goes Negative on TV
February 13, 2008 11:19 AM
And so it begins…
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has launched a negative TV ad against Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.
As negative ads go, it's not particularly vicious. (You can watch it HERE.)
It slams Obama for not agreeing to a televised debate with Clinton in Wisconsin -- a perfectly factual hit.
But then the narrator says, "Maybe he'd prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions. Like why Hillary Clinton has the only health care plan that covers every American, and the only economic plan that freezes foreclosures."
What do you think?
- jpt
February 13, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (79)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I am a republican who has never voted for a democrat in presidential elections. I will vote for Obama though over McCain. I would not in a million years vote for Hilary though.
Posted by: DJ | Feb 17, 2008 10:38:40 PM
The Clintons had their chance, both did nothing to add value to the country. Looking back and wishing for things to be what they were pre-9-11 is fool-hardy. They had 8 years to offer Health Insurance. She has cried twice. They are both childish and immature and certainly not worthy. Only the poor don't get it, understandable. Women are finally waking up. Democrats are useless, really--look at Congress.
Posted by: Jack | Feb 16, 2008 11:07:26 PM
Amazing. Hillary cries about having a debate in a state in which she has completely neglected to campaign in. If she were so concerned about Wisconsin residents getting answers, she would be there to provide them with some. She's basically telling them that Texas and Ohio voters mean more.
Posted by: JD | Feb 15, 2008 7:57:22 PM
to Kimberly- I wouldn't worry about Sen. Clinton's ad not being negative enough. There seem to be no limit to the depths to which the Clinton's will stoop to secure the nomination. So the politics of personal destruction are just beginning- the worst is yet to come. That is the specific aspect of the of the Clinton's co-presidency I deplore the most. It's just so sad.
Posted by: davie | Feb 14, 2008 7:36:20 PM
Obama has authored more than one thousand bills during his tenure in the Senate, and seen literally hundreds of them transformed into law. The choice is not between substance or style - Obama has substance WITH style.
But more importantly, he dosen't lie to you.
Posted by: quill | Feb 14, 2008 5:50:33 PM
It's about time that ~someone~ begins taking this articulate but shallow lightweight to task. Do we want a President who makes eloquent speeches or one who ~gets something done~?
Posted by: LMcG | Feb 14, 2008 5:36:26 PM
I was thinkin about voting for Hillary until I saw this negative ad. I've been paying very careful attention to the news. Us Texan's see right through this hogwash.
The senator from NY is getting desperate folks. CNN's political team said a week ago when her campaign was running low on cash. Moreover,that she would probally want to schedule more debates. This is because she gets free airtime.
Let's face it Obama has already attended 18 debates and agreed to 2 more. Isn't that enough? Maybe not if you're strapped for cash.
Posted by: Pedro Ruiz | Feb 14, 2008 4:52:01 PM
Thank you for sharing Penny, but what needs to be straightened out is the Clinton's act. Their old-style politics of lying, spinning, twisting, changing the rules in mid-stream, and then laughing it off as 'the rough and tumble of politics' is over. What part of that do you not understand?
We are Americans first. We're voting for OUR government, not "my party, right or wrong". You want to make excuses for the Clintons' game-playing? Fine. We're not buying. Your time would be better spent emailing your candidate to either fight fair or get out of the ring.
And while you're at it, tell her to release not only her tax returns, but also her papers as First Lady and the Clinton Library donor list. This has NOTHING to do with Cheney - why are you dragging him into it? The only thing I can think of is that you've confused the role of First Lady with that of Vice President.
You said, "The delegates thing between Obama and Hillary will work itself out." WRONG. It will be worked out by the party sticking to the rules. If that means Hillary is toast, so be it. She's not bigger than the party.
Posted by: Tom J | Feb 14, 2008 4:43:20 PM
I think that people have a legitimate claim to request Hillary Clinton's tax returns. I support Hillary 100%. If I were her, I'd say, "fine, everyone can figure out I have more money than Obama. I'll disclose my tax returns if Cheney discloses his tax returns!" Now there's someone who is loaded and has made money with spilled blood of Americans and Irakis alike. The goal here folks is to beat the Republicans. They are the dangerous leaders in this country. Let's keep that straight. I get truly worried with folks who say things like "I'll vote for Obama in the presidential race if he's the Democratic candidate" THINK BIG! WAKE UP! Vote against the Republican machine! The delegates thing between Obama and Hillary will work itself out. VOTE for the DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE in NOVEMBER, DON'T BE SIDE TRACKED!!!
Posted by: Penny | Feb 14, 2008 2:02:04 PM
It's pretty bad when MSNBC has trumped FOX news for being the most "right wing" agenda driven cable station. Boycott MSNBC!!! It will be good entertainment when the start on Obama.
Posted by: PetefromMW | Feb 14, 2008 1:35:13 PM
Hillary is without hope and that is what we are hoping for. Hope that our servicemen and women will come home soon. Hope that Illegal immigration problems will be corrected. Hope that all Americans’ despite race or gender can server as commander and chief of this country. Hope for better schools. Hope to believe in the justice system of the U.S.A. Hope that tricks and superdelegates do not divide and concur the Democratic Party and thereby the United States. Hope that those we selected and elected to represent us will do the right thing and listen to us. Hope that are votes count for thing.
Posted by: Martha Ann, IN | Feb 14, 2008 10:58:41 AM
Of course he doesn't want to Debate her..He steals her positions and makes them his own! Then in front of his "followers" he distorts HER positions.
Follow the candidates: that's where the FACTS are.
Negative ad?
give me a break, it's time Hillary stands up for all the "negative" covering the press has thrown at her. Obama has been Much more negative about her and "where's the press" ????
GO HILLARY!!!!
Posted by: tory | Feb 14, 2008 9:51:31 AM
"As for the 'socialist' thing, really? The wealthy and educated, Obama's mainstay, are unlikely to back a socialist."
You are kidding? Right? Both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama are Socialists. While Sen. Obama has been careful to not blatantly advocate control over property, he certainly does advocate the redistribution of wealth. Sen. Clinton on the other hand not only advocates the redistribution of wealth but she has, in fact, called for the rejection of an ownership society.
Back in May, Sen. Clinton said that what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor. She also said: "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an 'on your own' society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society."
That is Socialism. In fact, Sen. Clinton's advocacy is Marxist and verges on communistic.
Posted by: James Danley | Feb 14, 2008 8:46:30 AM
The Clinton's are looking like bullies and whiners. If the Dems give us Obama, I will vote Democrat for the first time in 6 presidential elections. As for the 'socialist' thing, really? The wealthy and educated, Obama's mainstay, are unlikely to back a socialist. The Clinton machine will downshift and swerve to back Obama if he gets the nomination. She's a democrat first (then a mother, of course).
Posted by: Republican | Feb 14, 2008 8:02:40 AM
What I love about this election is that millions of Democrats are finally understanding why we Republicans all hate the Clintons.
They have no bottom; there is nothing they would not do to gain and keep power.
That includes the destruction of the Democratic Psrty or the the United States of America.
They are, indeed, trailer park trash.
Posted by: Shelly | Feb 14, 2008 4:45:35 AM
Raise your hand if you think Clinton's ad is a phony attack.
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial board interviewed Obama on Wednesday,
It's all in sections by topic, so you don't have to sit through the whole thing. MUCH better than a debate of dueling sound-bites with introductions and applause taking up way too much time.
Now I ASSUME Clinton will find time before the primary to do the same thing? So why is yet another debate needed? Watch the two interviews and get much more indepth answers in the same amount of time. They can put it on TV if they want to. Clinton is SO old-style politics!
Posted by: Tom J | Feb 14, 2008 3:20:36 AM
Obama has agreed to debate in Ohio and Texas because those are states he is not doing well in. Many of you are right, it is much more informative for Obama to stand in front of the teleprompter and say "change! change! change!" rather than debate the issues. "Change" must be the code word for his disciples to fall into line chanting "Obama, Obama" I think we need an intervention!!
Posted by: Firefighter | Feb 14, 2008 1:17:25 AM
He doesn't want to debate. He only agreed to those few as he was pressured.
He said he would rather meet the voters.
Please, millions of voters can meet him doing a debate.
What excuses will he have not to debate McCain?
Hillary can handle this kind of pressure.
Posted by: Janetberns | Feb 14, 2008 1:05:50 AM
Hillary's treatment of Tim Russert is rude??? He is so pro-Obama and anti-Hillary he can hardly contain himself. His glee is so apparent when he can report an Obama success or a problem in the Hillary campaign. He is so prejudiced in this race that it is unseemly.
Posted by: Lori | Feb 14, 2008 12:25:21 AM
lets be real here. there is no reason for any candidate to be particularly specific, since these are just proposals and posturing. before any bills are sponsored and passed, there are compromises, committees, drafts and god knows what else before final legislation is proposed. and often it is very different than originally presented. if hillary thinks all her details are going to wow us little people, she should remember that what gets passed may look an awful lot different than what shes talking about now. so it really is better for senator obama to talk in broad strokes right now, because he understands the process much better. the clintons are experts at playing people. and dont forget, making policy and implementing it are very different things. so she can talk all the details she wants, but its really a useless exercise. remember, these are the same people who promised health care within 100 days of the inauguration in 1993. 15 years later, she has the nerve to say well have health care by the end of her second term. win in texas or ohio first, then maybe you can talk about a first term... ive spent the last month looking at every youtube, msnbc, cbs, and abc clip i could find, and ms clinton is a huckster and a fraud. she repeatedly talks out of both sides of her mouth, contradicts herself and mocks those who disagree with her. her treatment of tim russert is simply rude. she cannot tolerate dissent. she may think shes the smartest lady in the world, but i think she talks loud, says nothing, and is unfit to lead this country because she is unable to accept criticism, admit errors, or compromise. nobodys perfect, but her flaws are fatal. if were not careful, theyll be fatal to us as well. ill take my chances with senator obama any day. and yes, i am a democrat who once worked for bill and now am so disgusted by the two of them that i wish they would simply go away. theyre like roaches though;l they just wont go away.
Posted by: jake | Feb 13, 2008 11:41:09 PM
Post a comment

