Apart from the well know attacks like the Fake News Update ad about NAFTA, leaking of Somali garb to DrudgeReport, this did not get that much coverage (originally reported on the liberal blog DailyKos):

Questions Raised Whether Hillary Ad Darkened Obama

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/04/questions-raised-whether-hillary-ad-darkened-obama/

"Whatever the case, one posting on the DailyKos site charged that while darkening footage may be considered standard practice for political ads trying to “cast the target as sinister,” it is “not an acceptable excuse.”"

Hi Gotham,

"I always knew at some point we'd get the "Do you really want this negro in the White House?" I just never thought it would come from another Democrat."

I am surprised you said that.

love,
~ Kate

"After all, she's clearly the type willing to pick up the red phone and obliterate half the planet if need be."

Gotham
please-
that seems to be irresponsible to say,
you can't know this
really

I am surprised,

sad tonight,
~ Kate

"I am surprised you said that."

I am not surprised you don't get it.

That's what the Clinton's sublime strategy has been ..pushing Obama the Muslim (Hillary: "I take his word" that he is not a Muslim. "As far as I know" he is not a Muslim. and the photo leakage to Drudge)...Obama the racist...(South Carolina...Pushing Farrakhan and 60's Terrorist stories...)

Gotham,
on second read,
are you being FUNNY
or just
cutting
?
~ Kate

Gotham,
on second read,
are you being FUNNY
or just
cutting
?
~Kate
***

So the author should come here and explain whether he is funny, witty, stark, serious, sarcastic or cynical? Really, can't you use your intellect to make an interpretation which is not whimsical?

~Personal attacks sway a lot of voters~

Hi Gotham,
I was just thinking of you recently and wondering how you're doing with fatherhood, and that you must be busy because you haven't posted much lately. Glad to see your post again, and I'm with you - I really think Obama would be the best next president. I'm really enjoying and learning alot from his book "The Audacity of Hope".
Best,
M:)

Uh....Chris.....speaking of personal attacks....

Its not winning but how you win that matters.

Its about having commonsense and the greater goal that matters.

"And she wants to be president. I guess that's admirable. I guess that sort of determination and focus is what we're supposed to want. After all, she's clearly the type willing to pick up the red phone and obliterate half the planet if need be, all before my kid even wakes up in the morning"

I have a daughter, Gotham. I want her to awake to a wonderous world, full of discoveries to be made. You really think this 'chick' as you call Hillary Clinton, wants to annihilate 'half' the world. ?

I don't understand your post tonight.
this is low,
I am sorry,
~ Kate

Gotham,
sexist or racist,
which are you?

Kate, it is up to the reader to get/not-get or interpret whatever he/she can/wants. But remember the golden rule: NEVER question the author's "intentions." You should be ashamed of yourself.

Hello Gotham and Everyone,

Gotham, I hear what you are saying and I would feel your disappointment if it were Hillary who lost Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, tonite, but she didn't even though she has been running against a rival who HAS been given a "extremely kid glove treatment" from press and media all throughout this campaign and a rival who is "extremely comfortable" in eating up every last bit of the unscrutinized love and acceptance bestowed upon his persona in this race and this is the real strength of Barak Obama, imo, and one that, now, hopefully, is beginning to wear at the seams.

As a Hillary supporter, I too have hope, but I also know with her possible nomination and win that there WILL be very good changes to come. Maybe not "the great sweeping" changes "wished" for and associated with a Barak Obama win but changes that will set this Nation on course of stability, domestically, and abroad. Hillary Clinton does have the EXPERIENCE to strengthen, mend and prepare the way for those "great and sweeping" changes that need to come but can only come once this Nation is once again set on the "right track."

Barak Obama, it is, now, coming to light(a bit too late, in this race,)through various articles, by those that have done their fact checking, does not, in fact, have the record or the experience that would in any way guarantee him being able to fulfill the "inspiration rhetoric" he so easily delivers at his rallies.

About the red phone, maybe, you and your family feel completely secure, in your world, and feel completely comfortable placing the keys to the Presidency in the hands of one many feel is so inexperienced, in everyway, politically, as Barak Obama is, but there are those of us who want someone we absolutely KNOW can handle ANY challenge that may arise whether at home in the US or Abroad. I do not think there is any problem at all in asking who do you want to be at the "controls" in times of possible emergencies? It is an extremely important question and one that mothers ask all the time if they have to leave their children in someone's care, usually, their answer is with someone, you know, can handle anything that may come up and one who will also love and be respectful and careful with your loved ones.

It is funny but I turned off the TV tonite, before the results started to come in because I couldn't watch after listenting to nearly all the commentators, on all channels, speculating on when Hillary should bow out, they were so sure of her political demise and that is how this whole campaign has been from the start, for Hillary Clinton, she has got the -hit end of the press and media stick since Barak decided to run against her.( I might add that Barak and his supporters have been quite comfortable with this aspect of the campaign since it helped enormously in lifting his popularity so both sides are very comfortable using whatever works even if it is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but) it was very disappointing.

I do not know where the campaign will go from here but I am relieved at tonite's results I feel Barak Obama is too inexperienced, his actual capabilities too unknown, to be handed the keys to the most imporant job in our political arena
his actual resume too weak and I am very, very relieved tonite, but I know we still have a ways to go before I will feel I can rest easy and know that the most experienced, most capable, Candidate with an actual resume of qualifications will be awarded the position of taking care and guiding my Nation through the next four years of very challenging times.

have a great day....ruth

You said it, Gotham: she wants to be president and is willing to do whatever it takes. If I thought ANY of her motives were altruistic, I wouldn't be so uneasy about her taking Ohio and Texas.
Don't think Obama's skin tone is the hot button issue you feel it is. Sadly, his biggest hurdle is probably any Muslim connection, after years of White House propaganda equating terrorists to Muslims.

"Kate, it is up to the reader to get/not-get or interpret whatever he/she can/wants. But remember the golden rule: NEVER question the author's "intentions." You should be ashamed of yourself."

Chris- are you being serious?

Hi again,

WOW, Gotham, you write, - I mean really do you want some chick in the White House when the red phone rings?

I always knew at some point we'd get the "Do you really want this negro in the White House?" I just never thought it would come from another Democrat

Gotham the answer to your questions...

as to the CHICK thing I really do not think she wants to nuke my child any more than her own...and as to the NEGRO thing, yes, we would love to have him in the White House just as soon his EXPERIENCE matches his verbal skills, four to eight might do it for him, although he has already proven what a "quick study he is, an extremey fast learner, so I think in about four Democrats will have gotten to know him a little better and where the love and adoration might really be based on something besides the "Obamamania."

again have a great day...ruth

"Kate, it is up to the reader to get/not-get or interpret whatever he/she can/wants. But remember the golden rule: NEVER question the author's "intentions." You should be ashamed of yourself."

Chris- are you being serious?
Kate- I, too, am suprised at Gotham's words but his views are up to him as we know.
Ruth- ditto

Shanna = troll!

Goodness! Although I read Intentblog every day, I RARELY post. Now, having been called a "TROLL", perhaps I shall post comments more often! Love & Light to you Chris!

Goodness! Although I read Intentblog every day, I RARELY post. Now, having been called a "TROLL", perhaps I shall post comments more often! Love & Light to you Chris!

the longer this bout goes on between HC and BO, the more I'm reminded that American politics still works. choice and fighting it out publicly and term limits are what it's about, as opposed to sneaky snarky coups and backroom dealings that install figureheads and dictators into power for months, years or decades, without the populace's having any say in the matter.

let's hear it for:
(1) term limits! YAAAYYY!! (no more W, that should make you happy, Gotham, ya?)
(2) fighting it out publicly! YAAAYYY! (and let's please reform campaign finances, please please)
(3) choice!!!! YAAAYYYY!!!! (that's American politics, at work. imperfect, but better than the other brands)

as for bringing race into it, arre, Gotham, I am surprised at you. a low blow indeed. but that's OK, it's American politics, which still works, rough 'n' tough edges and all.

love, h

what strange golden rules are stitched up out of rags of feelings and tatters of thought and bitter threads, then flung at others like soft ammunition, when grapes turn sour... (this to Chris's trying to control the dialog here)

Okay so I haven't a clue about US politics but, from what I see just at IB, America needs a woman.
In astro-terms, Saturn and Uranus are coming to uneasy terms here, culminating November.
I think Hillary has both. I pray for her, because I note the fear in her eye in unguarded moments. This passage is not without some danger to her life.....Uranus and US, on the record.

My feeling view,
Ed.

Gotham's letter is a reflection of the passionate voice of his generation, the hearts & minds of those who yet haven't been numbed by the narcosis of the most powerful system of indoctrination in the world, where the latest technology paired with the psychological infiltration implied on the workings of the mind, to twist people's brains, by making them believe they were born to be the certain class of consumers of a certain brand.

Moreover making the people of its own country and the rest of the world believe America as the USA has a special role to play in shaping the destiny of the planet. How strange, where the last empires of an old and outlived world have collapsed, and now going through a painful process of rehabilitation to redefine its purpose within the historical context of its evolution. US America as a country and its people, instead of recognizing the bankruptcy of its role as the leader-teacher of democracy in the world, carries on in blind believes to the hyperbolized myth of a democratic utopia. It is the hypocrisy of
at its utmost, and one doesn't need to be a scholar, its enough to look back to the history of the external politic of the united states in the world and above all in the most troubled area's.

The ''self-assumed'' role of the Godfather to the Nations has worn itself out. Within every campaign to purge the world from the wicked, there is another agenda. Trying to eclipse the public awareness from what's happening nearer home, by instilling fear deep into the heart of people, so that the role of the ''defender of the democracy'' remains unchallenged. Every witch-hunt is a conformation of the total denial of any religious or spiritual laws. To speak plainly, it is an utter interference into the affairs of the Natural Law, where man is but a subject.

Gotham's voice is an angry one and so it should be, sometimes an anger can be productive, when it expresses what's been brewing deep underneath the surface of things. Even if to challenge the status quo. It could act as an emotional purgative to rid one off the sluggishness of perception, just like bitter tonics act to purify the body of the toxins.

That anger is productive but only if backed by firm inner conviction that deep down it doesn't really matter who's going to enter the White, Red or any other House to lead the nation. For as long as the collective mass of consciousness reflects the ignorant in the electorate there is thin chance for having an inspiring, let alone enlightened ruler. That's where I wish Gotham you go straight to your own roots and realize that utmost good in all spheres of life is rests on the basis of one's level of awareness - the unchanging truth in its essence. The life of beings like Sri Aurobindo Gosh are prove of that timeless wisdom.

There is no chance for the improvement in one's society, in one's environment, in the world at large without the personal transformation of one's awareness. May the words of a great seer, who was the guru to the house of the ancestors of the Solar Dynasty, be the guiding light for you and your generation:

''THE WORLD IS AS YOU SEE IT''.

Jai Guru Dev

P. S. Don't loose yourself and your precious life in paying too much attention to what's taking place in the relative plane of existence, take care of the purity of your heart only. When the waves on its surface are stilled they'll reflect nothing but the peace and serenity of the Absolute Awareness, instilling those qualities into the stormy and often conflicting surface of life. When the heart reflects nothing but the light of pure consciousness it will effortlessly help to transform the outwardly phenomena. In fact, there'll be no distinction between the inner and the outer, that's when the world is becoming a better place, nowhere else. Our awareness is shaping our reality at every instant. Lets take care of our perception first so that we see a better world.

Watching HC from the other side of the world - I can't get over how aggresive and pompous she sounds - in stark contrast to Obama....

Thanks Igor for reminding us of the real impetus
for a better world and universe.

Love, Love

Thanks Igor for reminding us of the real impetus
for an enlightened world and universe.

Love, Love

It's 3 a.m. and Hillary's Dreaming-

To be a winner you have to win. And Tuesday night Hillary Clinton unreservedly won three out of four states...

...After the confetti is swept and the champagne bottles are tossed a more sober reality will take hold. Not just that her net gain of delegates this week will be, at most, in the single digits. But worse. There is no plausible scenario in which Clinton can win the nomination. At least not democratically.

...Clinton regained her footing this past week primarily by running a classic, Republican-style campaign of negative, fear-based ads. She blanketed the airwaves with a detestable spot that, stripped to its core message, warned that if Obama were selected, your children could be murdered in their beds in the middle of the night. Somewhere up above (or more likely from down below), departed GOP mudmeister Lee Atwater is cracking a grin.

The spot worked so well - with exit polls showing that voters who made a last-minute decision went in droves for Clinton-- that she couldn't resist reprising the line during her Tuesday night victory speech delivered to a cheering throng in Columbus. "When that phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House," she said. "There's no time for speeches or on on-the-job training."

Perfect. Clinton's done McCain the favor of cutting his best general election campaign spot for him. All he has to do is cut her answering the phone out of the last 5 seconds of the ad and splice his own mug in there instead. If Clinton succeeds in making what's politely called the "national security issue" the center of the campaign by arguing she's a safer choice than Obama, then why wouldn't McCain argue that he's even better than she? McCain's already begun that effort. If Hillary's nominated, he'll most likely succeed.

--Marc Cooper

Ref. 27
Link to the full post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-cooper/its-3-am-and-hillarys_b_89936.html

No comment

Just wanted to say "hey" to ya Gautham!! : )

Love,
North

nicely said, Gotham!

It’s 3:00 a.m. And We Have a Crisis

It is 3:00 a.m. and we have a crisis. Hillary Clinton did well enough in Tuesday’s primaries to remain in the race. Clinton won the popular vote in three out of four states after a string of twelve consecutive defeats. This poses a real danger to America.

So far every day that delegates have been awarded, Obama has either won or, as in New Hampshire, tied Clinton. We might not know until the end of the week, and the results of the caucus portion in Texas are tabulated, who won the most delegates.

Obama’s lead in pledged delegates will be approximately the same regardless of who wins the most delegates in Tuesday’s primaries. The math will still show that it is extremely unlikely that Clinton can go into the convention with a majority. Just as after Super Tuesday, we now go into another round of states which favor Obama. If Tom Brokaw’s information is correct, Obama might also be picking up another fifty superdelegates, increasing his overall lead.

One winner tonight was Rush Limbaugh, who urged his listeners to vote for Clinton. The big winner was John McCain. He both clinched the Republican nomination and should benefit from Clinton’s victories. At very least he will still have Hillary Clinton launching more negative attacks to damage Barack Obama. There even remains an outside chance that Clinton could win the nomination, giving McCain a much more beatable general election opponent than Obama.

Written by Ron Chusid
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/

How quickly the politics of hope turn into despair. Perhaps we should call this politics of Naivete.

Wake up, memo to the Obama Followers, you are running against a Clinton!

Good luck,

Steve

"Wake up, memo to the Obama Followers, you are running against a Clinton!"

Sure we know. Its still desperation time for Clinton, not for Obama. We will see more attacks form Clinton, but Obama still has the high ground. Just have to see how low can she really get. Its all fine, Obama will prevail but at the end of it all she will make a further fool of herself and does injustice to her supporters.

Clinton's lesson: Attacking Obama works
Ben Smith
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8843.html

"Gotham,
sexist or racist,
which are you?"

Kate is showing her true colors by attacking Gotham Chopra again and again (directly or vilely ) in this thread. She showed a similar streak when she sided with Chopra's critics during the Spoon Bending fracas.

Passive Aggressive behavior at its best from Kate... and from Hillary of course...

It is interesting to note that about 60% of the democratic primary voters in Ohio and Texas are women(this won't be the case in general elections.) Also interesting to note that it is "married women" rather than single women or married men or single men who preferred Hillary over Obama. Wonder how many of the married women feel victimized in their relationships. Note their husbands don't feel the need to vote, but they do. And Obama wins among voters below 65 years. There is something working for Clinton among these women and older people and their psyche (sexist or racist or both or neither- just pure identity politics) but has little to do with being informed in politics.

Talk about passive-aggressive, IW!! Pot calls kettle black, except the kettle isn't black at all and the pot is (metaphorically speaking).

You must be gettin' paid for this. No other reason to unreasonably attack.

My sympathies.

love, h

Irvine,

Boy you get pretty mean when things don't go your way pal, of all people you attack Kate!!

This Obama thing seems to be the last hope for the weak in character.

Gotham's post was lame, he gets cranky and upset when his team loses.

Of course Irvine is getting paid for this Heather, I wonder if it leads to George Soros, ha!!

Deal with it pal.

Steve

You can't fight in here, this is the war room

he-he

Dear Gotham and All

After reading this post, I feel a sense of sadness that I am having a difficult time in explaining.

Gotham, you state "I actually believe words make a significant difference.......it would be incredibly meaningful to have someone in office whose message can inspire." So what or who inspired you to dismiss John McCain [an honorable man, whether or not you agree with his politics] as simply .." that old man Mcain?"

Where is the inspiration in saying "I just don't believe in the American political system anymore?"
I will tell you where it is. It is in the genius of our founders in setting it up the way they did because IT DOES WORK! And cannot be changed easily for expediency's sake simply because Obama lost a primary. Oh yeah! Change.

And I can't even begin to address the disappointment in the statements " I mean really do you want some chick in the White House when the phone rings?" and "Do you really want this negro in the White House?" Remember who those statements came from.......it was from another Democrate but it wasn't Hillary.

bonnie

"he gets cranky and upset when his team loses."

dude, this red phone thing and Hillary's behavior was condemned much before sh won. Win or lose is not the point.

Honesty is always honorable.

Bonnie: First he never said..."that old man Mcain?" He did say, he was a true American hero who gave 50 years of service to the country and that he was Past not Future (because of his continuation of Bush polices) I think you are picking up talking points from Hillary spin machine...

"I just don't believe in the American political system anymore?" He never said that/ Stop distorting and spinning. And making false statements. At least get the quotes right then we can have a healthy debate. You utter bias against Obama is clear. Stop disgracing yourself any further.

btw, what about the experienced Clinton on foreign policy who said Putin "as no soul" in NH? I heard a few weeks ago, you got some great Russian humor when he relied, "At least heads of states should have a head."

"And I can't even begin to address the disappointment in the statements .."

You are so ..may I say dumb...that's how people are/will be defined by negative ads and Rovian politics of smear and personal attacks. That's not what Gotham thinks absolutely. You people should get your faces out of your asses.

Irvine

Do me a favor.....go back and read Gotham's post again...and then tell me those statements are not there in black and white.

Then come back and tell me who is the dumb one and who is doing the smearing, distorting, and spinning. Look in the mirror dude!

What does Gotham's posts has anything to withwith Hillary's attacks and smears(unless you get your info from Intenblog and hillary's website..), and with what Obama say or not say? Beats me. And proves again your utter lack of critical thinking.

Oh and Irwin

"That's not what Gotham thinks absolutely."

How do you know? Why would he say those things if he wasn't thinking them? How are you going to spin what Gotham thinks? You might ask yourself who is the fool and who is the fooled here and whose ass your face is up.

"What does Gotham's post 'has' anything to with...." DUH dude

I realize you are having a hard time but let me spell it out for you. I was addressing Gotham's post...yo!

I amazed at the low level comprehension skills of some readers here and their fast judgment of spiritual people like Gotham. AGAPE

Bonnie says, "I was addressing Gotham's post...yo!" I guess you already expressed your views about Gotham's post and why you are offended by its content (apart form making personal attacks.) Keep focused on that, instead of trying to be a smart aleck by knocking down straw men about Obama's words or positions. Then you don't have to address my comments which you are having a hard time doing the verbal gymnastics.

#22--Heather..very poetic, totally awesome wordsmithing there girl... brava!! You should be writing love-letters/diaries of Elizabeth in Part 3!! : ) for Shekhar!!

otherwise, still no comment! Just wanted to say "hey" to Gautham again...

because I can! : )

Love, North

"what strange golden rules are stitched up out of rags of feelings and tatters of thought and bitter threads, then flung at others"

This part is great. I would change the second part as it seem cliche filled ...the images don't seem to work:

"then flung at others like soft ammunition, when grapes turn sour... (this to Chris's trying to control the dialog here)

Something like:

"then flung at others like gifts of infested blankets, when the Indian says no..."

"then flung at others like a monkey throwing feces at devotees who are unwilling to part with prashad in the temple street...(this to Chris's trying to control the dialog here)"

...anything other than "sour grapes." It is both cliche and doesn't apply to me.

Instead of attacking Gotham, I suggest they direct their ire towards the tactics of Clinton which is wwhat Gotham's post is all about.

FFrom DailyKos blog...

""The Clinton Plan to Victory" reiterates what GGotham suggests...

CCAPTURE. DESATURATE. DARKEN. WIDEN.

Obama "blacker" ad no accident
by kos
Wed Mar 05, 2008

From a reader:

I just wanted to leave a remark about this "blacker" issue, and comments that it is somehow something that just happened in the video editing process. I work in advertising (copywriter, [Big national advertising firm]). I sit in the rooms where the post production occurs, and this includes color correction. While things look different on many TVs, they don't look this dramatically different. Nothing that you see in a final advertisement is accidental. These things are looked at (or should be looked at if they are doing their jobs) second by second. Even more unforgiving is the stretching of the footage. It is possibly the result of laziness on the part of the editor, but it would have been easier to actually not stretch it, and just crop it.

Nothing in advertising is accidental. It is over-thought and then subjected to second thoughts and second guessing then over-thought and re-looked at again. I've been doing this ten years. It is my professional opinion that the film was made darker, and it has obviously been stretched. I will not comment on their reasons, as I can't offer an informed case for that.

Remember the "RATS" ad used against Gore in 2000? The Bush campaign was mocked in its claims of ignorance because ad makers pore over every detail of their ads before releasing them for broadcast. There was a concerted effort by Clinton's ad people to make Obama look darker, more sinister, and with a wider nose. The evidence is indisputable.

SEE THE IMAGES IN QUESTION HERE:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/3/5/131156/5021/51#c51

"CAPTURE. DESATURATE. DARKEN. WIDEN."

In my graphic there, "the first picture is how it looked on the actual debate, the last picture is captured untouched from Hillary's website, and the middle parts are the steps needed to get from picture #1 to picture #4."

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/3/5/131156/5021/51#c51

Link to the Kos diary; Obama "blacker" ad no accident

You can follow the discussion here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/5/14345/50395/126/469746

Ambasteve: "of all people you attack Kate!!"

It okay if you attack Gotham -- Kate has earned it with her good behavior(and the sympathies she mustered) at intentBlog. Just like Hillary has earned her right to attack Obama any which way she wants by throwing away any and all principles. She will keep America safe and everything is unfair if she loses and fair if she wins.

Hi all,

just dropped in to read a few and this made me chuckle....Gotham writes, "since she claims to have so much experience"(OUCH)...actually, I think she is the Candidate that REALLY does have reams of it and it is the other Candidate whose supporter's claim....he's just sooo COOL...so inspirational that he is actually beyond the NEED for it..EXPERIENCE, therefore the American voter can completely disregard the E word when it comes to Barak Obama, I mean....the Audacity of Having to have Experience when one is running for the Presidency of the United States of America....good golly miss molly what is the World coming too? :)))))))))

by the way... Gotham writes,"Indeed it promises to be a battle to get the nomination. But take the high road Hillary because there's no glory in winning the battle, only to lose the war"........I think this is one area where her "make believe" experience has kept her on her feet, after taking shots to her head and heart....direct hits....mind you....the lady is tough....and, then, well...what did she do?....oh, just run for a Senate seat, win...and do such a bang sass job she was re-elected to another term....AND she most likely will...if not elected President have the job as long as she wants....why....because of her "make believe" constituents....like her work...yes....they really, really like and trust her job performance.....go figure

I am feeling fiesty tonite after the big win, just like Barak Obama has been feeling...up until last night that is...:)))))))))))))

really....just a funnin with.. I mean a couple of days back I was as down in the dumps as Gotham is...and I am well aware that the war is not won but a tough battle we did fight last night....:)

have a great evening,....ruth

Ruth writes...
"I mean a couple of days back I was as down in the dumps as Gotham is.."

Gotham is not down in dumps like you because his candidate lost. He is down because of Clinton negative tactics like the Red Phone ad which won't help the Democratic base.

Talking about EXPERIENCE, it is important what kind of experience you are talking about. She has ZERO executive experience, just like McCain and Obama (all three are senators in their elected life.) There is more bad experience for Hillary with corporate work, disastrous health reform bill, bad voting record on iran, iraq, cluster bombs, flag burning, video games than Obama's good experience in public service as a community organizer, civil rights lawyers, in teaching constitutional law, and in passing bipartisan Laws . She is still a junior senator compared to vast Washington and legislative experience of McCain. Obama has very little Washington experience but has many more years as a state legislature than Clinton where he authored an d sponsored many bills. Many of the best presidents of the US have short experience at Washington like Obamma and the worst had decades of experience.

Clinton has come across as snide, sarcastic, and personal in her attacks. She’s been behaving in a manner that reinforces all the negative stereotypes the unhinged right have perpetuated for years. It’s not very becoming. But what’s even worse is that Clinton has in effect endorsed McCain over Obama, which not only hurts the Democratic Party, but makes her a traitor in my opinion. It’s like she’s saying, if she can’t be the winner, then she’ll do everything possible to bring down Obama. Sorry, but I’m just not feeling particularly warm and fuzzy towards Senator Clinton. Seems to me she’s quite willing to bring down the Party and the country for her own ambitions. When the primaries were held in Va, I was more on the fence, but the more I’m seeing of Hillary, the more bad taste she’s leaving in my mouth, and I honestly hate to say that. To the person who suggested Obama was splitting the Party. How do you figure? He’s been winning all the primaries by large margins, and it now appears he’ll get more delegates in Texas. Are you suggesting that Clinton is entitled, and how dare Obama have the audacity to run against her? Haven’t you figured out that the Republicans want Hillary to to be the nominee because they think she’ll be much easier to beat. That’s why Rush was on the airwaves encouraging rethugs to vote for her. Not only does she give him and his ilk (Coulter, Malkin, and all the rest), but no one (and I do mean no one) mobilizes the unhinged right like the Clintons, particularly Hillary. Even if Hillary could pull it off, nothing would get done because it would be 24/7 rehash of the 90’s. The unhinged right will be dusting off all the old ghosts for recycling. I’m pretty sick of it all, and just want to move forward, not look back. Obama is an extremely competent, intelligent, charismatic and thoughtful man. He’s handled himself with a lot of class during this campaign, and I unfortunately can’t say the same about Senator Clinton.

This entire discussion is an excellent example of how politics can bring out the worst in us!

Especially when we are not informed, sock-puppet Shanna.

Hi Gotham,
red phone ire aside,
It's good to know Fatherhood is great for you!

Thanks for responding to my comments and for clarifiying the focus of your post and the 'chick' reference.

Time will tell who wins the democratic nomination - it's still not decided as of today.

~ Kate

Gotham,
Here were some of your thoughts from your post dated May 29, 2006 - Elections 2008
(interesting now, nearly 2 years later :)

~ Kate

Elections 2008
"This shit could be really fun. I mean this could be the most star-studded American Idol style election in, well, ever! Think about it! Check out this line-up. Hillary Clinton: that's happening. John Kerry: Dude should know better but he totally doesn't. Al Gore: I got no inside info but big Al is more envogue these days than Vince Vaughn.

More: Barak Obama - probably more a 2012/2016 guy but a trial run to get the ball rolling? And then the reds: McCain: still lots of Vietnam war stories to milk. Condi: Single black republican woman - that's totally hot. Jeb: Bush dynasty lives. Guliani: for some reason people love this guy though I cannot stand him. Bloomberg: Billionares make presidential runs fun. Mitt Romney: this super white (mormon) guy is the ultimate dark horse. Conservatives from liberal states (he's the Gov. from Massachusetts) can make interesting runs plus I went to highschool with his son - hey Josh :)

So seriously - how much fun could this all be? I mean subplots galore: Clinton vs. Gore equals awesome. Kerry vs. McCain equals whose war stories are more bloodier. Hillary vs. Condi: that's got limitless potential. Screw it: Hillary Clinton vs. anyone would be totally awesome. Bloomberg vs. Guliani: endless September 11th footage and paranoia. And don't forget Romney: that means great mormon jokes about how many wives he has and all the strange shit they do: sorry Josh :(

Poor Jeb. He married a mexican and all that but being related to his crazy brother looks like it may actually end up hurting.

There is so much potential here. Think about: Bill Clinton as first man. That's gonna really improve his social life if you know what I mean."

Who would have thought, going back a couple of years ago, that it would come down to Clinton using the Red Phone ad and negative attacks on a fellow democrat?

The more they know about Obama, his principles, record, polices and experience, people like him. The more they see Clinton in desperation mode (from her "inevitable" mode a few years ago,) they detest her.

Chris,
Why you have chosen to resort to name-calling is rather transparent. Perhaps you should pick a fight with someone who will come down to your level and spar with you. I will not. But I will send you lots of love!

hahha, nice Shanna!

It isn't namecalling,(btw you started the sparring...)

Wikipedia defines Sockpuppet (Internet) as an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet.

In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company."

The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym (sometimes termed an "alt") is the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer....

Chris,
I think you need a hobby!!!! Perhaps something physical like tennis or ........... water aerobics!

#67 whoaaaaaaaa, Chris {m.or f?) I wish Diablo was as well informed!

An excellent Must Read DailyKos post in the context of Clinton campaign's exploitation of race:

NOTE: I didn't call Clinton a racist..Similarly Gotham is certainly not a racist as some immature people suggested or stated in this thread out of their ignorance and color blinded vision.

Racism in 21st Century America
Wed Mar 05, 2008

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/6/1735/10696/636/470253

Not so very long ago, there was a great deal of talk around various progressive parts of wwwLand about how the "half-white, half-black" Barack Obama had "transcended" race and racism. Well, actually, not so much talk about that, but rather talk about why talking about racism is by its very nature divisive.

Racism is divisive. However, not talking about it doesn’t make it go away.

Many people find straight-up discussions of the subject uncomfortable. Or irrelevant. One expression I have heard for the past 20 or so years from whites – both friends and others – goes along the lines of: 'why do black people (Indians, etc.) keep bringing up racial issues? Things are different now'....

...In a perfect world, perhaps, we'd all be colorblind. But in my experience it's mostly been white people who have claimed to be colorblind and black people who have said they want their blackness to be acknowledged. Black and proud. I've heard black people lament how many times they've been told, "I don't think of you as black," as if that's supposed to be a compliment or as if they're being separated out from other blacks and praised as "one of the good ones." If you're a light-skinned Indian, you get the other side of this: "You don't look Indian."

Since the launching of the Democratic primary campaign, a number of accusations of racism have been made, some of them this week. I’m not going to reprise them and all their nuances now. But if, as seems likely, the presidential contest this fall is between a brown-skinned black man and a cream-colored white man, we can expect more of the same and worse. Perhaps we won’t get force-fed slurs along the lines that Obama fathered a white child, but the idea that race won’t matter in the contest for the Presidency, that it’s been transcended, has pretty much been debunked by events.

...Four years ago, the late, great Steve Gilliard had some excellent commentary on this matter which deconstructed the bullshit going on around Obama at that time...

...The "half-white, half-black" theme simply fails to acknowledge the reality that both Obama and Gilliard pointed to.

...The response to Barack Obama’s campaign from voters of all colors is pounding another stake through the withered heart of old Jim Crow this week. But racism in America isn’t down for the count yet.

Click my name to read the article:

So now the Obama campaign is stooping to the level of playing the race card, displaying the same level of perception as the racist.

It appears it is they who have not transcended race. The American people have displayed great integrity in this matter, not so the Obama campaign.

"So now the Obama campaign is stooping to the level of playing the race card, displaying the same level of perception as the racist.

It appears it is they who have not transcended race. The American people have displayed great integrity in this matter, not so the Obama campaign."

I guess people have enough sense to understand that a blogger or people expressing their views on Hillary playing the race card and sex card is not the same as Obama campiagn using the race card.

If this the level of critical thinking skills, which is of Hillary supporters, no wonder Hillary will rake up votes by accusing the other camp of what they do.

She Stoops to Conquer
by Beth Broderick

Girl rage ...it's all the rage. Hillary Clinton and her supporters have won exactly 10 delegates by assaulting their opponent with the kind of tactics that warm Karl Rove's heart. Ah the sweet victory of vitriol. These folks really will say anything, do anything to win and that is why they lost me long ago. I don't take to being threatened, so all you gals who are reading this and sharpening your knives can just save it. If the Hillary Clinton campaign is an example of true feminism then I hereby and happily hand over my membership. I am not one of you.

The whining, spitting, savage God awfulness of Hillary's campaign can only be seen as bad intent and that is not good for anyone, not for women, not for democrats and not for the Country. We must turn the page on this kind of politics or risk being thrust into a dark age that will fill us with longing for the simple stupidity of the past eight years.

It was embarrassing to hear Mike Huckabee aver proudly that the Republican contest has been more civilized and more productive than its opponent and to have to admit that he is right. This will come back to haunt us in the general election and deservedly. The Democrats are doing it again, standing in a circle and shouting "Fire!!!!" The McCain camp must be giddy with delight. Hillary's repeated claims that she can take a punch, get down and dirty and fight the Republican attack machine do not hold up. In actuality she fights like a girl in middle school... breaking down in tears, spreading stupid hateful gossip, claiming that she is being picked on by the boys and stamping her feet when things don't go her way.

All of this talk of the fight misses the larger point that most of us are tired of fighting. We are weary of partisanship, worn out by the petty bickering and hate-mongering. This weariness has no party affiliation. It is felt by Democrats, Independents and Republicans in equal measure. We are tired of being hated and even more tired of hating.

So, for the record I am not a "Hillary hater". I did not vote against her because she is a woman, I did not vote against her period. I voted for Barack Obama because we desperately need a new direction and it is time to set a new tone. It is time to take the gloves off and speak to one another with civility I for one could use a good dose of inspiration. I do not think it is silly or empty to want to hear from our leaders that yes we can come together and yes we can dream again. Call me crazy but I'm for hope.

In recent days as her campaign smeared and jeered, Hillary was quoted as saying "This is the fun part". This begs the question ... fun for whom? It was certainly not fun for the Democratic Party to see the blood of our own on the walls. Maybe Bill's pal George Bush Sr. got a kick out of it. The rest of us... not so much. A lot of us just got kicked. Hillary's campaign manager Terry McAlluffe said he was just kidding when he stood in a room full of donors and warned "You are either with us or against us". I didn't get the joke then and it is even less funny now. The specter of a democratic party deeply divided by these high jinks is just not any fun at all.

These are serious times and we must hold ourselves to a higher calling if we are to unite this country and face our future. The contest between Barack Obama and John McCain holds the possibility that we can conduct a civilized conversation about how to shape that future. The Republicans wisely chose a candidate who is not overly combative. He is notoriously committed to fair campaign practices. McCain is no angel , but he has proven that he can forgo partisanship for the greater good. When he co-authored McCain/ Feingold he was taking aim at the very "attack machine" that Hillary claims readiness to fight. Ironically that legislation is what made it possible for the small money behind Obama to topple the big money Clintons and that folks is CHANGE.

Neither, Obama or McCain have any love of swiftboating, they will both strive to stay above the fray, though they will not always succeed. This could make it possible for the people to actually choose their own leader. For the first time in recent history it will be mankind over political machine. Hillary did not lose because she is a woman. She lost because she did not believe this was possible, she did not believe in change. She has been running so hard, raging so loudly that she was simply not listening. The American people have spoken. She can mud wrestle all the way to Pennsylvania, but it will only further sully her legacy as the first serious woman candidate.

A lot of very good very smart women support Hillary, but a lot of very good very smart women did not. It is time for us to unite and heal this divide and then the fun part can begin in earnest. She keeps saying that 'she can take a punch" It's time to prove it ... you got knocked down Hillary ... take it like a woman.

http://tinyurl.com/3da4af

"So now the Obama campaign is stooping to the level of playing the race card,.." TheShadow

Please explain when and where "Obama campaign" used the race card. And please also explain why Hillary campaign did not.

"The American people have displayed great integrity in this matter, not so the Obama campaign."

Yes, the American people did, and 90-10% of AA vote favoring Obama after seeing Clinton Campaign tactics is no coincidence at all.

You seem to be passionate but also a smart person.

Waiting for your answer...

Thank you,

Chris

Dreams of transcending racism or is it nightmares of the kitchen sink?

I agree with Chris, it's more than the AA community who can't and won't forget the race card being spit out of that ugly sink's garbage disposal.

Count me as one white woman who can't erase those images. Count my sister as two. Mom is three. Oh, neither my dad nor my stepfather buy into this sh@t either.

So, -5 votes is the count in this family, across three states. Times how many families?

So now you wish to *blame* Hillary Clinton for your own devolution. The infectious meme is that of blame...the weak person's substitute for integrity.

I don't blame Hilary Clinton for everything, but then she is the most responsible person for her campaign (just like Bush is the most responsible person for his Administration.) You can shift the blame to Mark Penn and Co. whose strategy for the campaign is his brain child "Micro Trends" splitting up people into voting blocks and sending all sorts of messages, and now their attempt to throw the kitchen sink as the last ditch effort that something might stick.

TheShawdow it is easy for you to make straw man arguments by misstating positions. You are only convincing yourself.

"So now you wish to *blame* Hillary Clinton for your own devolution. The infectious meme is that of blame...the weak person's substitute for integrity."

I may be a weak person, but that doesn't change the facts. There were instances where the Hillary campaign did the same by blaming Obama outright (in a hypocritical way, I must say.)

"So now the Obama campaign is ...

It's not the "Obama campiagn..."

"So now you wish to *blame* Hillary Clinton

It doesn't really matter what "I personally think."

so now TheShadow do you have anything more to add?

so now, so now, wow!

You sound like "my friends, my friends..." McCain! wow!

Irwin Welsh

Your pious purported innocence cloaked in "It doesn't really matter 'what I personally think.'"
is equally nonintegrous and sly, pretending non-responsibility for your dialogue and paid cut and pasting here.

Your personal dialogue is not even on the level of simple arithmetic.

TheShadow: Of course opinions are educational when they are balanced and based on facts. Although you disagree with me, I am glad my personal opinion means so much to you. But it doesn't really matter for me what 'you' think of what 'I' think. That was my point anyway.

My suggestion to you: Stop acting and making arguments for the sake of argument.

Irwin

My suggestion to you: *Heal Thyself* and take the pill of your own advice.

Give away the things you don't need
Let it all go and you'll soon see
You'll wash your spirit clean.

I don't pick fights with intellectually bankrupt midgets ...

I understand now Irwin, you are just s(low). I can promise no furthur conversation with you.

Dear all,

Let us eat together,
Let us live together,
Let us meditate together,
Never shall we betray each other,
Never shall we entertain negativity.

Rig Ved

"I understand now Irwin, you are just s(low). I can promise no furthur conversation with you."

Good, because your cover has been blown, sockpuppet.

TheShawdow, go have an arguments with midgets and dwarfs. I only hope your ego is as long and lonely as an evening shadow...

UPDATE on NAFTA-GATE
which was damaging for Obama in Ohio.

I seems that some people in the Conservative Administration of Canada planted this deliberately to help McCain by extending this fight between the Democratic rivals:

Surprise Surprise:

So who the hell called the Canadian embassy re: NAFTA?

According to the Globe and Mail this morning, *it was Clinton's campaign* that called.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wnafta06/EmailBNStory/National/home

"The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.

The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."

****

The CBC exonerates the Obama campaign:

According to CBC, all the details were wrong. Canada contacted the campaigns. Michael Wilson was not involved. And, most damning, they are now admitting that the memo at the heart of the controversy "may not accurately reflect what they were told".

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/112926/0842/300/469572

Read the in depth analysis of events...

The Canadian govt. has begun an investigation into the leak and lies...but the damage has already been done. Informed voters know the facts and what's at stake... and how the Clinton campaign shamelessly exploited this on the election eve by making the Fake NAFTA NEWS Election Ad.

From the DailyKos artcile, "CBC Exonerates Obama: A Post-Mortem":

...Now, finally, the memo is out. Not only does the memo not even approach the level of duplicity implied by the original CTV story, but according to CBC, after the Embassy staff reviewed the notes about the meeting, they now believe they may have misrepresented Goolsbee's comments.

Given this timeline, and the drastic change in the story, it is very easy to see why Obama was comfortable with a blanket denial. The claims of the original story bear so little resemblance to what eventually surfaced that it is unlikely Obama even connected the story to Goolsbee's meeting, given that the talk of NAFTA took up only a few minutes of that meeting - even if Obama knew of the particulars of that meeting. (Given his schedule, also not a given.)

In the end, the leak by the Harper government achieved its goal - it helped Hillary on her offensive and has helped ensure that the Democratic primary will drag on, causing Democrats to spend money fighting each other instead of John McCain, and giving McCain more time without a clear Democratic nominee, allowing him to catch up to our fundraising ability.

I don't think any of this casts any aspersion on Hillary's campaign or candidacy. She was the unwitting beneficiary, but not the cause. However, I think the eagerness of some to attack and tear down our candidates is something we - as people who want to see a Democrat in the White House - need to be cautious with. Having a spirited debate over an issue - like the difference in our candidates' health care plans - is one thing. Letting conservative forces drum up outrage with fake news stories, on the other hand, does not serve our interests. This will not be the last time we see tricks like this.

It is to the Republican advantage that we become so committed to our candidates, so myopic, so hateful of the "other side" that is keeping our candidate from their rightful nomination, that we are unwilling to use our vote or our money wisely in the general election. The Republican base is scattered. They are disorganized. They are dissatisfied with their nominee. Their last, best hope for a win relies on Democratic bloodletting reaching a historic level, leaving us too bloodied and battered to be on our game for the General Election.

It isn't fair to expect either candidate to bow out at this juncture. But I am coming to terms with the need to make a commitment to maintain a certain level of respect, so that if the "other candidate" is the winner, I am mentally and emotionally ready to take the fight where it belongs - to John McCain and the failed and irresponsible policies of George W. Bush. I firmly believe that if we put our hearts in the right place, we can make it to the convention and pick a nominee there, and still be united and ready to win.

Whatever we do, let's not let dirty tricks like the "NAFTAgate" scandal distract us from our ultimate goal.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/5/112926/0842/300/469572

Gotham, this one says it best:

Arianna Huffington: Democratic Scorecard: The Lizard Brain Wins Again!

With the media in full CSI: Ohio and Texas mode, slicing and dicing the body politic for clues to Hillary Clinton's latest resurgence (don't forget to check under the fingernails!), theories abound:

It was the economy, stupid. It was the Latino/African American disconnect. It was the media finally giving Obama some heat. It was Saturday Night Live (all hail Amy Poehler, Lorne Michaels, and Jim Downey -- political kingmakers).

But the real answer is to be found deep in our lizard brains. Clinton won by dealing from the bottom of the deck -- and the bottom of the barrel -- and playing the fear card. And, as happened in 2002 and 2004, Be Very Afraid proved to be a very effective campaign pitch.

After her New Hampshire comeback, Clinton famously declared: "I found my own voice."

For this latest comeback, she found Karl Rove's voice.

People aren't currently stocking up on Cipro and duct tape but, as the cable channels' hyped up reaction to the Times Square explosion showed, these are still jittery times. And appeals to voters' lizard brains still move the needle.

After an 11 state losing streak, Hillary Clinton didn't suddenly transform into a more compelling candidate. Only a spookier one.

So we got the 3 a.m. phone call, making no real argument about preparedness to lead, only the shadowy insinuation that bad things will happen to your kids if you vote for Obama. Trailers for slasher movies have less of a creep-you-out factor.

We got Hillary's ready-to-lead scorecard: "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." This scorched earth pronouncement led Air America's Rachel Maddow to tell Keith Olbermann, "That's what you say when you want to be John McCain's vice-presidential choice. That's not what you say when you're trying to become the Democratic nominee for president." Olbermann's take: "Unbelievable."

And we got that jaw-dropping moment on 60 Minutes where Clinton generously announced that she takes Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim and rejected rumors that he is with the so-big-you-could-fit-a-madrass-in-it caveat, "As far as I know." What's next, "Obama is a human being... as far I know"?

It's worth remembering that earlier in the campaign, when Clinton was still pitching the inevitability of her candidacy and fending off attacks from her opponents, she roundly disavowed these kinds of tactics. "I'm not interested in attacking my opponents," she claimed in Iowa in November. "I'm interested in attacking the problems of America and I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans." Terry McAuliffe reiterated the do-no-harm-approach: "We're going to focus on the Republicans. We're going to focus on winning the White House. We're not going to attack our fellow Democrats. That's not what we want to do."

That is, they didn't until the high road looked like it would turn into a dead end. Then out came the fear-mongering playbook and the phone started ringing at 3 a.m.

I've written before about how fear-mongering works, causing voters to react not with their linear and logical left brain but with their lizard brain and their more emotional right brain.

Deep in the brain lies the amygdala, an almond-sized region that generates fear. When this fear state is activated, the amygdala springs into action. Before you are even consciously aware that you are afraid, your lizard brain responds by clicking into survival mode. No time to assess the situation, no time to look at the facts, just: fight, flight or freeze.

When we are in this state, we are biologically programmed to pay less attention to left-brain signals -- indeed, our logical mind actually shuts itself down. Fear paralyzes our reasoning and literally makes it impossible to think straight. It's the neuroscience, stupid!

After Tuesday's success, you can be sure the Clintons' march through the mud will continue over the seven weeks until Pennsylvania. Bill Clinton understood the potency of playing to voters' lizard brains -- it's why he started rolling the fear dice back on the Charlie Rose show. How to counter this kind of fear-mongering without kicking off a round of Mutual Assured Destruction for the Democrats is the Obama campaign's greatest challenge.

They ran the Mondale ad on Jon Stewart's Daily Show, demonstrating what a complete plagiarism Hilary's ad was. For all the tragedy of the negative, fearmongering intention of the ad, what stuck me the most was - Geez, do they have ad-people trawling through every campaign ad ever to see what shocker they can drag out again?

Hey Gotham and All, you will love this:

On the Red Phone
Larry David

Posted March 6, 2008

Here's an idea for an Obama ad: a montage of Clinton's Sybillish personalities that have surfaced during the campaign with a solemn voiceover at the end saying, "Does anyone want this nut answering the phone?"

How is it that she became the one who's perceived as more equipped to answer that 3 a.m. call than the unflappable Obama? He, with the ice in his veins, who doesn't panic when he's losing or get too giddy when he's winning, who's as comfortable in his own skin as she's uncomfortable in hers. There have been times in this campaign when she seemed so unhinged that I worried she'd actually kill herself if she lost. Every day, she reminds me more and more of Adele H., who also had an obsession that drove her insane.

A few weeks ago, I started to feel sorry for her. Oh Christ, let her win already...Who cares...It's not worth it. There's not that much difference between them. She can have it. Anything to avoid watching her descend into madness. So I switched. I started rooting for her. It wasn't that hard. Compromise comes easy to me. I was on board.

And then I saw the ad.

I watched, transfixed, as she took the 3 a.m. call...and I was afraid...very afraid. Suddenly, I realized the last thing this country needs is that woman anywhere near a phone. I don't care if it's 3 a.m. or 10 p.m. or any other time. I don't want her talking to Putin, I don't want her talking to Kim Jong Il, I don't want her talking to my nephew. She needs a long rest. She needs to put on a sarong and some sun block and get away from things for a while, a nice beach somewhere -- somewhere far away, where there are...no phones.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-david/on-the-red-phone_b_90338.html

David was Emmy®-nominated seven times for his writing on "Seinfeld", and won in 1993 ("Outstanding Individual Achievement in Writing in a Comedy Series") for the now classic episode "The Contest." He also shared an Emmy® in 1993 for "Outstanding Comedy Series". (He has shared a nomination for this award six times.) David won WGA awards for his work on "Seinfeld" in both 1994 and 1995.

These images will make great ad for the GOP(although Obama won't stop that low):

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/14085/original.jpg

Jon Landau: The Ad

My fundamental belief about the current election is that change in the White House is so important, that once again we should support the Democratic nominee, no matter how egregiously he or she imitates the people that they are hoping to replace. Hillary Clinton's recent campaign approach has put my belief to the test.

The now famous "3:00am" ad is actually a piece of Republican propaganda. First and foremost, it postulates a problem: a nameless crisis that has disturbed your home and our country at 3:00am. Intended association: a looming foreign threat. It invites you to share the fear it wants to create. And then it puts forward a single individual, some sort of magician, who at 3:00am is going to save the day, presumably by some strong, confidant military action somewhere, anywhere, to overcome the nameless fear. The experience being referenced in the ad is the experience to be tough enough to attack, not the experience to accomplish. The entire subtext of the ad is, in my opinion, war-like.

The ad is also designed to create a fictional picture of an all powerful president who holds your personal fate in her hands twenty four hours a day. It is not an invitation to think or reflect on the question of Ms. Clinton's actual experience -- what it really is and what it really means. It is an invitation to descend into a fantasy terror world for which she is portrayed as the only "realistic" solution. Problem: the unknown. Solution: "Strong," " tough" Hillary Clinton.

Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan (for those of who us who remember the "bear in the woods" ad), George Bush (both) and John McCain would all be utterly comfortable with this ad. It is the opposite of what Franklin Roosevelt meant when he told the nation that "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

This ad is also a distraction from a discussion of the problem of the United States' over-reliance on the military, the problem with our continued involvement in a three trillion dollar war that will help to prevent passage of the social programs that Ms. Clinton claims are her priorities, and the problem of the erosion of our constitutional form of government.

Many in the pundit community who know better (and I guess I am trying to be a pundit here) will forgive or approve of the ad because they subscribe to a cynicism that postulates that anything that works is smart. Dan Abrams is on MSNBC saying that exact thing right now. Next we will hear: "Sure the Swift Boaters were creeps, but you really have to hand it to that Karl Rove...he knows what works" -- win at all costs and the ends justify the means.

My belief is that you can't be a progressive and resort to these kinds of right wing propaganda techniques. Bill Clinton's administration floundered much of the time because he was usually the electoral pragmatist, and seldom tried to truly lead the public on any issue that was too challenging. If this kind of television ad is what gets Ms. Clinton elected, we can count on more of the same from her administration in the military sphere, because she is exhibiting the same mindset as the people already in power. Having run on a parody of being a Republican president, if elected, she will find herself forced to govern that way.

It's clear Gotham that you and others are in major denial about the Democratic leadership and the party in general. You mention that just wait until McCain goes after the Dem nominee, well let's see what has he done so far in the dirty tricks category? That would be nothing. So far all the crap has come from both Hillary and Obama's campagin, yes indeed, all the racial remarks , the red phone ad, etc. you guessed it Dems. Superdelegates, nullified primaries, secret meetings in Canada about NAFTA, the list goes on and on.

Oh I forgot, firings for calling Hillary a monster, yea that's just good clean fun I guess, because the Democrats are above it all, pure and good.

Eating their own is more like it, but I'm not a a Democrat just a by-stander.

Enjoy the weekend all,

Steve

Girl in Red Phone Ad wants Obama to pick up the phone...

From the New Argument:

Casey Knowles, a High School Senior in Washington state, recently discovered she was one of the sleeping children in Clinton's controversial "Children" ad appearing prior to the Texas primaries.

Knowles, a supporter of Barack Obama was shocked that she had contributed to the national security message of a candidate that she passionately opposes.

When asked by The New Argument, this is what Knowles had to say about her appearance in Clinton's ad:

"While I love Hillary, I would much rather hear Barack Obama's voice at the other end of the phone at 3am.

Obama supporter shocked to see herself in Hillary ad...

http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_030708WAB_hillary_ad_KC.328ab14f.html

Clinton lies on her foreign policy claims to pick up the Red Phone...

Nobel winner: Hillary Clinton's 'silly' Irish peace claims

Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.

"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."

Mrs Clinton has made Northern Ireland key to her claims of having extensive foreign policy experience, which helped her defeat Barack Obama in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday after she presented herself as being ready to tackle foreign policy crises at 3am.

"I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland," she told CNN on Wednesday....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

Hillary: Obama Not Ready For Red Phone, But Would Be Awesome Veep
--Andy Borowitz

Hillary Clinton's latest game - when she's not busy saying that Barack Obama isn't a Muslim "as far as I know" - is tantalizing supporters with the idea that Obama could wind up as her vice-presidential choice on a so-called Dream Ticket.

It's a genius strategy: Democrats, forced to choose between Hillary and Barack, don't need to choose after all, since they both could run together - as long as Barack is at the bottom of the ticket, of course.

Let's leave aside for the moment the question of why the candidate who has more delegates would somehow be relegated to the vice-presidential slot. That's the kind of Clintonian logic that I'm too unsophisticated to grasp.

Let's focus, instead, on this puzzle:

In her relentless attack ads before the Texas and Ohio primaries, and in public comments since, Hillary has said that Obama is not ready to pick up the "red phone" and serve as Commander-in-Chief. If that's true, why would she imperil the nation by choosing him as her vice-president?

Last time I checked, the vice-president was one heartbeat away from Commander-in-Chief. Which means, if anything should happen to Hillary, Barack Obama would be picking up that darned red phone.

Oops.

Now, before I get accused of misogyny - which seems to be the reflexive response of certain Hillary supporters whenever she is criticized - let me say that her talent for making blatantly contradictory statements without any sense of irony or shame makes her every bit the equal of a man. In this case, the man I'm talking about is Bill Clinton.

(Oddly, Samantha Power's "monster" comment was slammed by some Hillary supporters as being misogynistic, too - kind of a reach, given that it came from a woman. My only beef with Ms. Power is that her comment demonstrated too much restraint. I guess she already used "a problem from hell" to describe something else.)

So let's get back to Hillary's selection of a not-ready-for-red-phone-maybe-a-Muslim as her vice president. Instead of trying to sell us on the Dream Ticket, why doesn't Hillary call her accountant at 3 A.M. and ask him to email her a PDF of her tax returns? Sharing them with us shouldn't be such a big deal. Unless - and this is just a wild guess - is there something in those returns, say, about where her 5 million dollars she loaned herself actually came from, that might torpedo her candidacy?

Not as far as I know.

http://tinyurl.com/yof4zp

Dick Morris (that dick morris) has a suggestion for Obama:

"The next time Hillary uses the recycled red phone ad, counter with one of your own. When the phone rings in the middle of the night, have a woman’s voice, with a flat Midwestern accent, answer it and say, “Hold on” into the receiver. Then she should shout, “Bill! It’s for you!”

Because with Hillary’s complete lack of any meaningful experience in foreign affairs, and her lack of the “testing” that she boldly claims, she’ll be yelling for Bill."

It’s over
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/its-over-2008-03-06.html

Seth Greenland: Hillary Clinton: Tested in a Crisis

Much has been written recently about Hillary Clinton's ability to manage a crisis and she and her surrogates regularly tout her vast experience in this area. These bona fides were recently questioned in a Chicago Tribune piece. Here's what I learned when I read it: Yes, she was peripherally involved with the peace settlement in Northern Ireland. George Mitchell, the one who actually managed that particular crisis, said she was "Helpful." Others, (i.e. those not involved in her presidential campaign) considered her role be more, well... "ancillary."

As for Kosovo, where she is also claiming credit for crisis management, her visit apparently consisted of a one day drop-by in Bosnia where she was accompanied by Sheryl Crow, Sinbad, and Chelsea. Then there was Rwanda. Her role in that situation? Apparently she had a couple of things to say, but we will never know how she "managed" that one since the position of her husband's administration was to wring their hands. And I gather she is particularly proud of a speech she gave at a women's rights conference in Beijing -- although I'm not sure why she would cite a mere speech given the disdain she generally shows for the form and it's more gifted practitioners. Others with more of a bone to pick have said her vast international experience consists largely of riding elephants in eighty countries. Personally, I think that is unfair. However, an objective person would conclude Hillary Clinton has no more practical experience in this vital area than either Senator Obama, or her new best friend, Senator McCain.

But, wait! There is one area where she has vast experience in crisis management, and it is in the interest of national security that I raise it: her marriage to President Clinton. He has admitted that he behaved badly in their marriage. I think it is safe to assume that Monica Lewinsky was not the first person with whom he created...what? A crisis! The reality -- oh, you skeptics -- is that Hillary has vast experience dealing with crises. And how did she deal with that one? By throwing a lamp across the East Wing at the Leader of the Free World's head.

Please, Hillary-lovers, I am not saying her reaction was unjustified. I think Bill's
pizza-fueled, pants-around-his-ankles shenanigans were deplorable and ultimately set
progressive politics back a generation. But in terms of crisis simulation, he provided an
unintended boon to the nation.

Cut to 2009. It's 3:00 a.m. and it's a particularly bad one. North Korea is threatening to bomb the South, Pakistan has descended into chaos, Iran has attacked Israel. President Hillary Clinton answers the ringing red phone. As she says "Hello", she looks over her shoulder. Oh, no...where the hell is Bill? He said he'd be back from that fundraiser in New York by midnight. Then she barks into the receiver, "Damn it, what?!"

If Hillary Clinton is elected President, America can breathe a sigh of relief. She's already been tested.

And let's save Dolly Madison's White House china while there's still time.

"Gotham,
Here were some of your thoughts from your post dated May 29, 2006 - Elections 2008
(interesting now, nearly 2 years later :)

~ Kate"

Like Gotham there are others who turned their badge:

Seth Grahame-Smith: The Monster: A Loyal Clinton Soldier Turns in His Badge

She has no idea.

She has no idea how many times I defended her. How many right-leaning friends and relatives I battled with. How many times I played down her shady business deals and penchant for scandals -- whether it was Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Cattle Futures, Web Hubbell, or Norman Hsu. She has no idea how frequently I dismissed her husband's serial adultery as an unfortunate trait of an otherwise brilliant man. For sixteen years, I was a proud soldier in the legion of "Clinton apologists" -- who believed that peace and prosperity were more important than regrettable personality traits.

And then she ran for president.

After seven years of George W. Bush, America is hungry for change. Big change. And let's face it -- Hillary Clinton, the party standard-bearer and former White House denizen -- isn't it. But even after voters coalesced around Barack Obama, handing him eleven straight primaries (twelve, if you count Vermont), she refused to accept the possibility -though math, money and momentum were clearly against her -- that the Bush/Clinton Family Band might not be #1 on America's Billboard chart anymore.

So, rather than step aside and become the hero of her party, she made a strategy decision to go negative in advance of Ohio and Texas. Not just negative -- personal. She cynically chided Mr. Obama's message of hope. She played the victim card. The gender card. The Muslim card. She cried "shame on you, Barack Obama" for his campaign tactics, while (if we're to believe Matt Drudge) simultaneously floating a picture of him in Somali garb to stir up questions of his patriotism.

She accused Mr. Obama of his own shady business deals (the irony of which nearly ripped a hole in the fabric of space/time). She accused him of being two-faced on NAFTA, when it was her campaign that had winked at the Canadians. She demanded that he "reject" the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, but remained silent when Rush Limbaugh stirred up votes for her in Texas. And she crafted the now-infamous "3am" attack ad -- which used scare tactics to highlight Senator Obama's perceived lack of experience in foreign affairs. Straight out of the ol' Atwater/Rove playbook. Of course, all of this paled in comparison to her husband's patronizing, racially insensitive comments earlier in the primary season.

Was this the same Hillary Clinton whose husband ran on the idea that hope was more powerful than fear? The wife of a president who had less foreign policy experience than Barack Obama when he was elected? And exactly which crisis is she referring to when she claims to have more experience? And while we're at it, where the hell are those tax returns?

It's clear that Hillary's back in this thing, at least for the time being. But at what cost? Short of some cataclysmic event, there's no way either she or Mr. Obama can reach 2,025 delegates in the remaining contests. That means she's accepted the inevitability of a brokered convention. A convention she'll almost certainly enter with fewer delegates than her opponent. That raises some important questions:

Will she subvert the will of the voters? Will she turn Denver into a series of shady back-room deals and arm twisting? Will she dispatch her husband to pressure superdelegates into switching allegiances at the last minute? Are we in for, as one pundit put it, a good ol' fashioned "knife fight?"

And if she does manage to secure the nomination, what about the scores of disenfranchised Obama supporters (many of them young people with little loyalty to the Democratic Party)? How will she bring them back into the tent? Hillary seems confident that this can be remedied by offering Mr. Obama a spot on her ticket. Really? And what would his motivation be for accepting? Playing third-fiddle to Bill?

However, if Mr. Obama goes on to secure the nomination, she'll have handed his rival a treasure trove of sound bites. All John McCain has to do between August and November is play clips of Hillary questioning Obama's experience and belittling his platitudes. In a way, she'll have become Mr. McCain's second running mate.

She's proven that she cares more about "Hillary" than "unity." More about defeating Obama than defeating the Republicans. She's become a political suicide-bomber, happy to blow herself to bits -- as long as she takes everyone else with her.

On Friday, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors, Samantha Power, resigned after calling Senator Clinton "a monster" during an off-the-record exchange. It was an unfortunate slip, but one that echoed the sentiments of many Clinton apologists like me -- who've watched Hillary's descent into pettiness and fear-mongering with the heartbreak of a child who grows up to realize that his beloved mother has been a terrible person all along.

Are the conservatives right about the Clintons? Will they do and say anything to get elected?

I don't know.

All I know is...I'm through apologizing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-grahamesmith/the-monster-a-loyal-clin_b_90632.html

Greg Craig, former director of the Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department sent out this memo today:

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader – an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

Color-coded Hillary Alerts

http://tinyurl.com/2yfkop

"Clinton is unwilling to sully her own hands with these absurd references. Like Rove, she relies on surrogates to go out and fire the gun. After the targets are wounded or dead, Rove had his clients come in and call for gun control and explain how they admired the political victim. Not Senator Clinton. She does nothing to denounce the nastiness. By pretending Obama is not prepared to lead, she proves her own desperation to acquire power and she denigrates the remaining historical reputation of her husband's administration. Historians might look beyond this dust devil she has spun, but the general public won't be able to see through the dirt flying through the air.

We are all tired of this. We all have Bush-Clinton fatigue. We need a hopeful, fresh start. Hillary might have made a fine president. But she has turned into an ugly campaigner.

This is not her time."

When Sinbad knows you're full of crap...

It's time for Hillary to stop the endless parade of crap emanating from her mouth region. Because not only are high-profile international politicos calling bullshit on her threshold, Sinbad is telling it like it is, too:

'In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, [Sinbad] said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"

In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."

Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"'

The guitar player is Sheryl Crow. I think we can safely say that Sinbad and Sheryl Crow have crossed the "where do we eat" threshold along with Senator Clinton. Senator McCain has probably also crossed that threshold. Not so sure about Senator Obama, though, right Hillary? I mean, he's probably too busy making speeches to talk about where to eat.

Posted at bobcesca(dot)com

The Red Phone in Black and White

By ORLANDO PATTERSON

NY Times Op-ED

ON first watching Hillary Clinton’s recent “It’s 3 a.m.” advertisement, I was left with an uneasy feeling that something was not quite right — something that went beyond my disappointment that she had decided to go negative. Repeated watching of the ad on YouTube increased my unease. I realized that I had only too often in my study of America’s racial history seen images much like these, and the sentiments to which they allude.

I am not referring to the fact that the ad is unoriginal; as several others have noted, it mimics a similar ad made for Walter Mondale in his 1984 campaign for the Democratic nomination. What bothers me is the difference between this and the Mondale ad. The Mondale ad directly and unequivocally played on the issue of experience. The danger was that the red telephone might be answered by someone who was “unsure, unsteady, untested.” Why do I believe this? Because the phone and Mr. Mondale are the only images in the ad. Fair game in the normal politics of fear.

Not so this Clinton ad. To be sure, it states that something is “happening in the world” — although it never says what this is — and that Mrs. Clinton is better able to handle such danger because of her experience with foreign leaders. But every ad-maker, like every social linguist, knows that words are often the least important aspect of a message and are easily muted by powerful images.

I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image — innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger — it brought to my mind scenes from the past. I couldn’t help but think of D. W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,” the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society. The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.

The ad could easily have removed its racist sub-message by including images of a black child, mother or father — or by stating that the danger was external terrorism. Instead, the child on whom the camera first focuses is blond. Two other sleeping children, presumably in another bed, are not blond, but they are dimly lighted, leaving them ambiguous. Still it is obvious that they are not black — both, in fact, seem vaguely Latino.

Finally, Hillary Clinton appears, wearing a business suit at 3 a.m., answering the phone. The message: our loved ones are in grave danger and only Mrs. Clinton can save them. An Obama presidency would be dangerous — and not just because of his lack of experience. In my reading, the ad, in the insidious language of symbolism, says that Mr. Obama is himself the danger, the outsider within.

Did the message get through? Well, consider this: people who voted early went overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama; those who made up their minds during the three days after the ad was broadcast voted heavily for Mrs. Clinton.

For more than a century, American politicians have played on racial fears to divide the electorate and mobilize xenophobic parties. Blacks have been the “domestic enemy,” the eternal outsider within, who could always inspire unity among “we whites.” Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy was built on this premise, using coded language — “law and order,” “silent majority” — to destroy the alliance between blacks and white labor that had been the foundation of the Democratic Party, and to bring about the Republican ascendancy of the past several decades. The Willie Horton ad that George H. W. Bush used against Michael Dukakis in 1988 was a crude manifestation of this strategy — as was the racist attack used against John McCain’s daughter, who was adopted from Bangladesh, in the South Carolina Republican primary in 2000.

It is significant that the Clinton campaign used its telephone ad in Texas, where a Fox poll conducted Feb. 26 to 28 showed that whites favored Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton 47 percent to 44 percent, and not in Ohio, where she held a comfortable 16-point lead among whites. Exit polls on March 4 showed the ad’s effect in Texas: a 12-point swing to 56 percent of white votes toward Mrs. Clinton. It is striking, too, that during the same weekend the ad was broadcast, Mrs. Clinton refused to state unambiguously that Mr. Obama is a Christian and has never been a Muslim.

It is possible that what I saw in the ad is different from what Mrs. Clinton and her operatives saw and intended. But as I watched it again and again I could not help but think of the sorry pass to which we may have come — that someone could be trading on the darkened memories of a twisted past that Mr. Obama has struggled to transcend.

***
Orlando Patterson is a professor of sociology at Harvard and the author of “The Ordeal of Integration: Progress and Resentment in America’s ‘Racial’ Crisis.”

Bottom of the Ticket, Back of the Bus: Hillary Clinton's Racist Campaign...

Where did it begin? Pick a time. How much can you stand to remember without getting nauseous? Back to Bob Kerrey, an early proponent of the slimy and absurd Muslim slurs? Back to the porcine Mark Penn, and his portrait of Obama as a shiftess cocaine fiend? Back to Bill Clinton, and the ghetto-izing of Obama's victory in South Carolina as just a Jesse Jackson thing? Or just two days ago, to the crafty ravings of a second-rate ex-ward-heeler named Geraldine Ferraro? Instead of asking when did the racism of Hillary Clinton's campaign against Obama begin, one is now forced to ask: has it ever been run without racism?

Pick a few random examples.

* The Muslim Thing: Hillary Clinton is not a lesbian, as far as I know. But -- for anyone who's never sat down in a middle-America shot-and-a-beer bar, or roamed a trinket-shop next to a highway diner over the past 20 years -- millions of blue-collar Americans think she is. What if the Obama campaign were to keep that absurd "slander" alive by digging out a photo of Hillary with a bad haircut and a flannel shirt and circulating it to the Drudge Report with a nod and a lascivious wink? And yet Clinton doesn't even bother to pretend to deny culpability in her sub-McCarthyist tactic with the Obama photo, with its open appeal to racism.

* The Experience Thing: What if a black man were to pull a Reverse Hillary? What if a black man, formerly married to a president, was to claim that his eight years of being publicly cuckolded in the White House constituted valuable "experience" that helped qualify him to be president? You can write the SNL skit for yourself.

* The Michigan/Florida Thing: What if a black man had won a primary in which the white woman's name wasn't even on the ballot, and yet demanded that the votes count for him? What kind of contempt would Clinton, and her surrogates in the media, pour down on that black man's head? We'd be hearing about Stalinist Russia. We'd be hearing dark mumblings about how "they" think "they" can change the rules in mid-stream because "they" think they're entitled to win, and the hell with the rules.

* The Bottom of the Ticket Thing: Everyone knows how to get to the bottom of the ticket -- you just get on the bus, and even if you're first, you wait for the conductor to tell you where your place is.

It goes on and on. The mind reels. The heart sickens. The campaign implodes. It's not an vicious conspiracy -- nothing that grand -- it's what Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil." In a way, that makes it even worse: it's nothing but a series of cheesy tactics. And a generation of young voters is left to wonder what might have happened if the Clinton campaign could've run on merit instead of race...Or just found a better tactic than these supremely cynical -- and ultimately doomed -- appeals to the worst in us.

Written by John Eskow, a writer and musician.