I am a citizen of these United States. I respect the "principles" by which we stand and hope that they will be upheld. But, when the time comes, in the course of history, to stand up and argue that the nation is on the wrong course, I pray that I will have the courage and the moral fortitude to stand up and be counted, just as our fathers did in the recent past as well as our forefathers did, many years and yes, centuries ago.This article from the WaPo brings to mind the paradox we are embroiled in with recent events. The values we espouse as well as promote around the world can seem contradictory. We state, by 19th century law that we justify expansionist ideals yet we will not stand for interference by an oveseas power in our own national affairs, nor in the internal affairs of another country in our hemisphere. And, the paradox is that we frown upon that same philosophy of expansionism being employed by other countries in their own regions. This is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. It casts a pale over our relations with other nations and diminishes our national esteem. Barack Obama has tried to address this issue but he is limited in what he can say and do to influence foreign opinion of the US, or the tension in the Black Sea region until he is sworn in as president in January 2009.
Harold Meyerson wrote an article about such a situation which involved Russia and the country of Georgia.
Here is an excerpt.The Drums of ChangeBy Harold MeyersonWednesday, August 13, 2008; Page A15......Russia's invasion is surely the most shocking of these developments but also the least ground-breaking. It fits perfectly into that most ancient of great-power traditions -- asserting semi-sovereignty over its immediate neighbors.The United States even has a name for its right to intervene in its n eighbors' affairs: the Monroe Doctrine. And just as Russia moved to undermine a militantly pro-American government on its borders, so the United States moved to overthrow Castro at the Bay of Pigs and depose the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and green-lighted an attempted coup against Venezuela's Hugo Ch�vez in 2002. None of these interventions brought any credit to either the United States or Russia, but neither were they something new under the sun. Read the full article and catalogue it, for it will be a milestone in the affairs of our country and the world.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/12/AR2008081202826.html?nav=slate
Yep, I finally got a little bit of money so I could send a $10 check to the campaign without it bouncing. This, by the way, is the first time I've ever donated to a political campaign (aside from the caucus and county convention where I dropped some cash). Anyway, I couldn't help but to enclose a handwritten note which said:
Just thought I'd share that with all of you in blogging land.
They keep bombarding us with this early morning call and still when Hillary is wide awake she is making extreme decisions that reflect on her ability to control her immediate environment. How does someone poised or believe themselves so poised to take up the mantle of Presidency in the USA be surrounded by so many lies and disloyalties. In the last month alone there have been enough reasons to doubt whether the errors committed around the Clinton Campaign are merely a coincidence of unfortunate circumstances.
That Early Morning Call
There is much talk of that early 3a.m ring
Hillary says it would be she answering
And she wants us to think that she’s ready
To take that call and resolve the emergency
Emergencies that must have the president’s voice
A decision that would need the ultimate choice
Ready for this but still didn’t recollect
Landing in Bosnia in the safety of the army jet
You’d think that when caught in such obvious deceit
More credible excuses would be there at her feet
One would expect her to be right on the ball
Ready even when groggy to take an emergency call
Not sure though cause when she is wide awake
Is excusing herself with she’s only human and can mistake
No one could feel comfortable with such blatant fabrication
Getting in the way of a more serious decision
Clinton says she is ready now but during debate
Answers she’d rather respond second and rather wait
Life comes at us fast and the American President must be
Like the truly ready wisdom of Barack and not Hillary
According to CNN:
Bill: "And some of them when they're 60 they'll forget something when they're tired at 11 at night, too." Hillary: "... later said she 'misspoke' about the trip, and attributed the exaggerations to exhaustion."
My word. What will she say or do when she is exhausted at 3:00 a.m. and the phone rings?
Did anyone else see the irony of Hillary putting out an ad saying she should be the one to answer the call about an economic crisis when she can't even manage the money of her own campaign?
We all know that the Clinton camp has had a hard time paying the bills since Iowa (bankrupt from state one) so we did a spoof on her new economic 3 am ad.
Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPIt7Sv_blE
Then comment, favorite, send to a friend...you know the drill.
We need to change the narrative that the Clintons are the authority on economic policy.
Ok, time out, everybody. It actually IS 3:AM here in New York, and I'm a bit down.
The tension of the Bear Stearns debacle, tornado in Atlanta, crane crashing down on NYC buildings, economy in the crapper, Gov. Spitzer's demise, endless railings about Obama's Chicago preacher - all these have my teeth on edge.
So, time out for a little humor. We could all use some right about now.
Tonight's topic: NY Governor Elliot John Spitzer's demise. When the NYTimes posted a web article blowing open his secret sex life, so to speak, the NYPost quickly followed suit with an online contest to write the next morning's headline. People really had fun with it. Some were predictably filthy, some were uncommonly clever. Some even tried to faithfully imitate the Post's doo-dah headline style: "Headless Corpse in Topless Bar", doo-dah, doo-dah, "Coed Jogger Shot in Bed", oh, doo-dah day. You get the idea.
Here, for your viewing pleasure, is a selection of some of the (cleaner) submissions. My favorite was the one clearly from an Obama fan, riffing on the "who is more qualified to be president" theme.
HOOKED! (the winner, used by the NYPost the next morning)
End of the Line for Client #9
Luv Gov Faces Big Bust
It's 3 AM, who would you like to answer the bone?
Spitzer Nailed
Oh Ho He Didn't
ELLIOTT . . . Phone HO-mmme!
Gov's Wanky in Hanky Panky
Say it ain't HO
Client Number 9 in Deep Number 2
Sherriff of Wall Street Hooked
Elliot Mess
Diamonds Are The Guv's Best Friend
Hillary Blames Spitzer Scandal on Obama's Lack of Expertise
Spitzer's Hand Caught in Nookie Jar
Hook, Line and Spitzer
Ho-ston? We have a Problem
A HO Lotta Lovin' Goin' On
Emperor's Club Shut Down for Good. In other news, Chelsea Clinton unemployed.
That's Itz for Spitz!
Spitzer: The Lust Days
Spitzer Dis-GOV-ered
Going, Going, John!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWgw8ePyRTg
I just saw this and thought i'd pass it on ... such irony.
Senator Barack Obama, I see your greatest strength as having a beginners mind (aka open mind).
No man is an island and the US president does not lead alone. As the nation's leader the president has unlimited resources in the people that he turns to every day for information and advice to make his decisions. This calls for wisdom and good judgment more than experience. Too much experience can lead to decisions without adequate consultation. A good manager, president or leader should gather information and make decisions with tempered personal bias rather than knowing what to do from experience. If experience is so important then how did the country get into it's current difficulties? People who are 60 think they know better than people who are 40 because of all their experience but now that they are 60 can they listen as well as someone in their 40s? The longer you are in government the more likely you are insulated from the first hand reality of the average person's life. It's not easy to bridge the gap and too much experience doesn't help. About that call at 3 in the morning: By the time the president is awoken there are unlimited resources at full alert ready to consult and advise. Good organization and good judgment are what is needed. Experience is just rhetoric. All too often experience can only tell you what didn't work last time. This country needs something far more powerful than experience. Remember the old adage that history repeats itself and what is experience other than history?
Often one is in the position of assisting others with much greater experience who couldn't fix the problem because it was one that they had not yet experienced. Experience has value but more important is understanding and good judgment not to mention the integrity that it seems Senator Obama alone demonstrates every day.
Senator Obama, please consider campaigning on these strengths that far outweigh your opponent’s experience in any situation, even at 3 AM.
This matters.
Use it wisely.
Distribute to personal contacts and MSM outlets.
Blog on it, Email on it, Call on it.
End the false story line.
Work with the truth - he is the person of character and judgement who can handle it.
She has not handled it, has falsely claimed that she has, and has never shown the character or judgement needed to handle these moments.
As someone else asked on some blog I read - when the phone rang at 3 AM in the white house...were she and bill even in the same bedroom, let alone bed, post all that transpired? That is crass but also as close as she would have been.
What follows is a much more thoughtful and analytical approach to her false claims.
Move it around folks.
JWZ
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. ChinaSenator 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.
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.
From the Washington Post:
Richardson, who has not endorsed either Clinton or Obama, warned both candidates about negative campaigning. He was outspoken in his criticism of Clinton's new "ringing phone" ad, which suggests that Obama is not ready to become commander in chief.
"I happen to disagree with that ad that says that Senator Obama is not ready," he said. "He is ready. He has great judgment, an internationalist background."
There's a lot of talk about people feeling sorry for Hillary. Rush Limbaugh, the strident ultra-conservative talk show host, gleefully told his listeners to vote for Hillary today so they could watch the Democratic party tear itself apart. Democrats in Ohio are feeling mad that the media supposedly has anointed Obama.
Are we going to let this happen? Let Hillary pull out a surprise victory again? Hear that wicked witch cackle again as she blathers on about how "she's a fighter" and she's "just getting warmed up"? Are we going to give the election to the Republicans because of party infighting?
Please, if you are voting in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, or Vermont - or if you have friends there - let's support Barack Obama today. One voice. Una voz. Slam the door shut on Hillary Clinton today.
In the last few days we have seen new campaign ads from the Clinton campaign. It’s 3 am in America. Your kids aren’t safe from all the bad things in the world. Who will protect you? Clinton 3 am ad = http://www.youtube.com/v/M70emIFxETs
I expected fear would be used in this election cycle as it has in the past. Bill Krystol recommended it after all. What is surprising is that a democratic candidate would be the one using it. The Clinton add is similar to the Red phone Mondale ad of years ago which also failed
Mondale Red phone ad = http://www.youtube.com/v/3fu-2Ew1ijg
Who do I want answering the phone at three in the morning? That's easy: Dominos.
Man, dumb question and yet another lame strategy on the part of the Clinton campaign. Wonderful response ad by team Obama.
