The Politics of Smackdown, Obama's New Radio Ad

Harry Truman:

I never gave 'em Hell, I just told the truth, and it FELT like hell

We have watched for the past week as the Clinton Campaign has time after time mischaracterized and lied about what Barack Obama said about Reagan.
I sat in my living room today and watched Pat Buchanon and Chris Matthews drool all over themselves, saying that the Clintons weren't Lying about Barack, but only playing "Hardball Politics" when accusing him of saying Reagan's Ideas were "Good"........
Right, More below the fold

Below, I will let you hear the Radio Ad the Clintons have been playing in SC. Then, right below that, You will hear Obama's new Radio ad that does not mince any words. Clinton's Ad

Sounds pretty bad right?
Well listen to this:

Obama's Radio Smackdown, "Anything Radio"
Ouch!
Text of ad:

60 Obama Radio Script "Anything Radio"

Barack: I’m Barack Obama, running for President and I approve this message.

Anncr: It’s what’s wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected.

Now she’s making false attacks on Barack Obama.

The Washington Post says Clinton isn’t telling the truth. Obama "did not say that he liked the ideas of Republicans"

In fact, Obama’s led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class.

But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote "paid tribute" to Ronald Reagan’s economic and foreign policy.

She championed NAFTA – even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs.

And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush’s war in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing.

It’s time to turn the page.

Absolutely no spin needed.
The TRUTH!
More of this please Senator Obama.

•  Tips for Truth!

  Thank You Barack!

  by irishamerican on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:13:44 PM PDT

  •  By the way....

    Can't help but admire your username. I hope to see Co. Roscommon and Co. Westmeath one day myself.

    by RDemocrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:17:40 PM PDT

    •  Thanks-:)

      by irishamerican on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:24:03 PM PDT

  •  Great ad!

    If Hillary was expecting Obama to roll over and play dead when she introduced lie after lie after lie about him, she has sorely miscalculated.  Now that she's got a bunch of recent lies about him on the record, he's free and clear to push the narrative that's already in the back of everyone's minds about the Clintons.

    by Troutnut on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:08:23 AM PDT

    •  I'm glad he still tied the whole message into

      change and hope, that he wants to get past the bickering and divisiveness.  He makes very good succinct points in shooting Hillary down which is important but I think his core message should still be his upbeat plan for the country.  It's what attracted so many people to him in the first place and it still resonates strongly with most people and it's important to emphasize.

      by vernonbc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:14:27 AM PDT

•  I am

  So tired of all the infighting!! This long primary sucks. Can't we all just vote for John Edwards now and get this crap over with?

  by RDemocrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:16:01 PM PDT

  •  I am voting for Obama

    but I like Edwards too.  I am for anybody but Hillary right now.

    by Drdemocrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:19:07 PM PDT

    •  Wow!!

      Our usernames are strikingly similar. I thought I had responded to myself for a second there.

      by RDemocrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:02:53 AM PDT

      •  That is weird, you guys...

        ... like the Doublemint twins.

        by highacidity on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:34:13 AM PDT

  •  Ok, you talked me into it

    Nah,

    I'd rather Fight than switch

    You get a cookie if you can tell me what product that advertizing slogan was for.

    by irishamerican on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:20:16 PM PDT

    •  tareyton cigs

      by rasbobbo on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:39:55 PM PDT

      •  Chocolate chip?

        Or Oreo?

        by irishamerican on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:42:11 PM PDT

•  This ad is just saying the truth

  Nothing false about this ad as oppose to the dumb Reagan radio ad that the Clinton camp has put out.

  by Drdemocrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:18:11 PM PDT

•  Obama's not taking the Clinton shit anymore

  good for him, if he loses he's going down fighting. All the Hillary people said Obama needs to attacked like this becuase he wil be attacked worse in the general. well hillary is percieved as dishonest and as a shameless power hungry monster. This Obama ad is nothing like she'll get if she's the nominee from Mccain.

  by nevadadem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:21:04 PM PDT

  •  Who said the Politics of hope

    means letting people lie about you?
    Obama owes US to stand up to this shit.

    by irishamerican on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:23:05 PM PDT

•  Obama led the fight to raise minimum wage?

  really?

  by nycstray on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:26:07 PM PDT

  •  In Illinois

    by irishamerican on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:27:52 PM PDT

    •  lol!~ ok. he might want to clarify that . . .

      just saying.

      and hillary may say some good things about NAFTA, but she has already talked negative about it and and has a plan on strengthening import safety that has some real teeth in it. but NAFTA is basically bill's to own, not hers as i recall . . .

      so hil (-1) obama (-1) on the SC radio ads for lack of full truths  ;)

      by nycstray on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:57:08 PM PDT

      •  She can't take credit for the good stuff and not

        ...the bad. imho.

        by nomes on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:24:08 AM PDT

        •  has she taken credit for NAFTA?

          i don't think she could if she tried. if folks what to bust her on stuff they feel she's taking undue credit for, have at it. but to pin NAFTA on her and say she championed it is a bit much.  especially if they are also signing the same trade deals . . . aren't clinton's and obamas the same on trade?

          by nycstray on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:03:14 AM PDT

          •  Didn't you know?

            Hillary was co-president so of course she deserves credit for anything that happened in the whitehouse.

            by vernonbc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:03:53 AM PDT

•  nice

  Obama supporter here..

  its about time Obama showed some spine. I mean he still needs to play the whole hope thing, but I was beginning to feel that Obama didnt have a plan for the mudslinging Hillary had coming to him. I really wonder sometimes how Obama could have not seen all this coming..I mean for Christ sake, Clintons have union busting Mark Penn, Carville, McAuliffe on their side. Did he really think they were not going to play nasty? I mean Obama had to have known Hillary thinks she is owed the presidency and she will tear anyone who comes in her way, even if its Jesus Christ himself. not just that but I am at loss of words for how they could have not anticipated that the Clinton camp would play dirty at the NV caucusing? I mean there is news coming out that Hill's supporters were misleading potential Obama supporters about where to caucus and such. Did he really not see that coming? i mean hope is a good thing no doubt, but being cunning in politics especially when playin with foxes, helps.

  I am really at a loss of words about the news stories that say Obama didnt have a plan to court the Latino vote. I find that hard to believe, but with the way his poll numbers are with that voting bloc, I wonder why he didnt pursue them more agressively. even he is not winning with the Asian Americans there. is there something in the Cali water or is Hillary just that popular in Cali?

  by girlyman on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:27:33 PM PDT

  •  I think it has been the plan

    All along...

    but I was beginning to feel that Obama didnt have a plan for the mudslinging Hillary had coming to him.

    I think he has been sandbagging.
    This sure looks to me like Billary really stepped in it with the response to the Reagan remarks.
    Every newspaper and TV news show has spent the last two days illustrating how dishonest HRC's attacks on Barack have been in this.
    Now, after letting the MSM show America how Billary have been dishonest, Obama move in and says, "Oh, by the way, she supported NAFTA and also is went along with GWB on Iraq".
    I think it's brilliant.

    by irishamerican on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:33:16 PM PDT

    •  i certainly hope you are right

      about the whole sandbagging thing...

      One thing I never seemed to understand. the unions know that Hillary has the union busting Mark Penn as their advisor. Why have most union groups still supported Hillary and why hasnt Obama exploited that?

      Its amazing to me how Americans are willing to vote against their own economic interests. the 90's dot com boom was a false boom, all an illusion created by corporations about the promise of dot coom and whose lies and false shenanigans were ignored by Bill. even Liberal democrats will agree that its was all just an illusion created by slick individuals to decieve investors, just the like the sub prime mortgage crisis we have now. did anyone really believe that people with less than stellar credit could really be eligible for loans? isnt that fooling investors by creating complex derivative packages that ultimately mask the fact that the loan was a bad loan? why cant Obama exploit that? why cant he say? the dot com boom encouraged by Bill was a sham just like the sub prime mortgage sham

      by girlyman on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:48:14 PM PDT

  •  I'm hoping that Hillary's support in California

    is similar to that in Nevada -- the old guard Democratic party fixtures in the urban jungle.  But the young and much of the rural will support him.

    And yes, there is something in the water here, thought you knew...lol

    by spotDawa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:35:00 PM PDT

•  I'll be honest...

  I'm not a registered Dem.  I'm an independent -- "Declined to State" in Cali.

  But I made sure today that I will be able to ask for a Dem ballot on Feb 5.

  My membership at My.BarackObama.Com is pending approval.  Gotta love that -- he is MY candidate.

  I'm not a believer, much.  I'm a cynic.  But never in my life has a politician inspired me to believe in the better possibilities of human governance than he does.

  I'm a little worried about "joining."  I'm not a joiner.  But I'm an American, dammit, and I won't be able to live with myself if I fail to support this man.  Even if it a little uncomfortable to cold call or canvas or whatever the campaign needs me to do.

  I won't stand by and just let the crappy old machine politics and lies of the status quo candidate hold sway here.

  Cheers!

  by spotDawa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:29:08 PM PDT

  •  Welcome aboard.

    You are what this campaign is all about.  

    by Fantastic on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:51:03 PM PDT

  •  Great post!

    I'm a lot like you, a cynic about the political process who sees Obama as the best person to repair it.  We need someone to fix not just what the government does, but how it works with sweeping ethics and transparency reform.  Better yet, he's run a people-powered campaign of unprecedented strength, and his policies will bring that same bottom-up approach to the government.  Obama's the only one who truly understands how important these things are.

    by Troutnut on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:15:40 AM PDT

    •  I still get reminded of your quote

      I don't just want someone who will not be like the Republicans.  I want someone who will make it so a George Bush administration and a Tom Delay Congress can never, ever happen again.  That doesn't just mean partisan victory, it means changing the hard-and-fast rules and shoring up our defenses against abuse of power.

      Still my favorite quote from DKos, if you don't mind my saying so.

      by barath on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:31:44 AM PDT

      •  Thanks :)

        I certainly don't mind!

        by Troutnut on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:39:42 AM PDT

•  Well

  I'll not disagree that "Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected."

  But they should've left this out: Obama "did not say that he liked the ideas of Republicans"

  I don't think it provokes the response they're looking for.  Just my advice.

  by cjallen on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:29:26 PM PDT

  •  I surely hope that

    "doing anything to get elected" is a disqualification in the minds of the voters! It would be a sweet irony.

    by spotDawa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:30:59 PM PDT

    •  That's one of the reasons I'm worried

      that we'll nominate her.

      by cjallen on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:32:39 PM PDT

  •  That

    was my first response too.  But upon further thought, Clinton has a huge lead among voters who consider themselves core Democrats.  Obama has to eat into that somehow.  The hope is that he doesn't lose too many independents in the process, especially in states with open registration.

    by muffie on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:44:20 PM PDT

    •  But that statement does nothing for him

      except repeat her attack.

      by cjallen on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:50:42 PM PDT

•  She also voted against CAFTA...

  as a senator.

  I guess there wasn't room for that point in the time frame, eh?

  by kredwyn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:33:55 PM PDT

  •  Now

    you are asking for full disclosure?????

    by jennybravo on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:35:28 PM PDT

    •  well...

      If you're going to use a Harry Truman reference about telling the truth...

      Is omission of information a lie? Or is it just neglecting to add information?

      by kredwyn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:38:01 PM PDT

  •  So did Obama.

    And most people would like that.

    So why would he point that out?  Their records on trade are pretty damn close.

    by cjallen on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:37:31 PM PDT

    •  That's why he pointed out

      the fact that she supported NAFTA (or as much as the First Lady with no vote in Congress could)...but neglected to say that she voted against CAFTA.

      It's about trying to draw distinctions between himself and her because their record on trade is so damn close.

      by kredwyn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:40:25 PM PDT

  •  I think you should maybe look ahead a little bit.

    It's not about CAFTA.
    Obama is going to tie NAFTA to the legs the Clintons like a boat anchor. He will Illustrate how NAFTA is not only responsible for these people's jobs going away, but it is NAFTA that is responsible for the destruction of the manufacturing base in the USA. And without the Manufacturing base, we have nothing to build with to grow our way out of recession.
    It is going to be about showing the long term effects of Clinton's DLC economic/trade policies.
    He is going to destroy the falsehood that Hillary is somehow "good on the economy".
    Obama's playing chess, while Penn is playing checkers.

    by irishamerican on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:39:10 PM PDT

    •  I know what he's trying to do...

      But at the same time, when you put him up there with Harry Truman and the whole "Truth" thing, even as he highlights certain parts to benefit his particular goal, meh...

      Is it truly the Truth when you leave stuff out that doesn't fit your particular goal?

      And trying to toss the anchor around her while neglecting to mention that her (and his) opposition to CAFTA came with an actual congressional vote, does that...sorta.

      by kredwyn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:44:45 PM PDT

      •  I'm not putting him up with Harry Truman

        It is an artistic illustration about how effective and stinging the truth can be without screaming or hyperbole.

        by irishamerican on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:50:40 PM PDT

        •  It's an associational argument...

          one that falls apart when you look at the negative space, the actual parallels in positions on trade votes, and so on.

          When he omitted pertinent information and highlighted other bits, truth got fuzzy.

          by kredwyn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:54:03 PM PDT

    •  But Obama seems to support those same

      kind of policies.

      by cjallen on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:48:15 PM PDT

    •  Oh...and as far as who plays what game...

      I could seriously care less.

      None of them is shooting tournament pool.

      by kredwyn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:48:41 PM PDT

•  Question

  Was that Obamas voice in that ad?

  Sorry I've been avoiding the pissing match between the two camps, but what the hell was he saying? Anybody got some context material?

  by LaEscapee on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:35:04 PM PDT

  •  context:

    It was Obama's voice - about 7 seconds from a 45 minute interview. The immediate context was that he was talking about transformational presidencies - mentioned JFK and then Reagan (that was the 7 seconds). Given that Reagan swept two elections by large margins and that rethugs managed to turn the word 'liberal' (for a while) into a smear, it seems like a reasonable assessment.

    But the Clintons have spun it into Obama's being pro-Reagan. Which ignores the fact that the first 10 minutes of the interview, which began with a question about government failure after Katrina, were given over to a lengthy explanation of how he wanted to be the president to "make government cool again" and a source of pride. The interview is littered with other Reaganite ideas like that.

    by scardanelli on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:50:34 PM PDT

•  I would just like to say...

  I heard John Edwards say on Keith Olbermann tonight that he would definately support the nominee as we all should. I know that Edwards has taken a swipe or two at both of them but this personal crap between both campaigns is getting taxing. This in not what we need to be engaging in.

  by RDemocrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:35:46 PM PDT

  •  I think it is exactly what we should be engaging

    in... who thought that a transformational candidate would just be allowed to sweep in unchallenged?  Sure enough the sheeple voted for GWBx2, they haven't gotten that much smarter since 2004.  Just more pissed off.

    It was always gonna be a fight.  And we're bringin' it.

    by spotDawa on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:38:42 PM PDT

    •  Ok

      I wouldn't want to interupt your bringing it.

      by RDemocrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:55:10 PM PDT

•  Obama Support Touching

  and beside the point.  The real deal is he finally woke up and pointedly addressed criticism.  He dropped the "I can bring everyone to the table" bullshit.  He can't  even bring enough democrats to the table without Edward's continued candidacy which splits votes HRC would otherwise get.  

  Love your hatred of HRC, by the way.  Don't you clowns EVER learn ANYTHING?  You can stop dirty tricks dead in the water by swiftly and forcefully responding.  Why the ad hominem attacks?  Oh, that's right ... there's Edwards (last name), Obama (last name) and Hillary, that uppity bitch.  Way to promote the agenda of "change," by adopting the right wing sexist, talking points.  

  Let's try something new this time, ok?  Insist on the truth.  Don't look for saints-there aren't any.  Support your candidates.  Attack on issues, on records, on statements.  Mobilize.  Don't burn your bridges.  2008 is for keeps.  

  by crescentdave on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:38:37 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    Oh, that's right ... there's Edwards (last name), Obama (last name) and Hillary, that uppity bitch.

    Do you realize that the banner on Hillary Clinton's own website reads: "Hillary for president"?

    Given the absurdity of that single remark, I think it's not worth anyone's time to debunk the rest of your nonsense.

    by scardanelli on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:41:54 PM PDT

•  Clinton's are playing Rove

  1600 reported instances of voter suppression in NV, Hillary pamphelts saying Obama is 'weak' on abortion choice, push poll calls repeating 'Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary campaign staffers telling people Obama is weak on abortion rights, etc.

  This isn't something I'd have expected from the Clintons.

  I took down my 'HILLARY' sign from the front yard and replaced it with an "OBAMA" sign.  

  I've been voting for 40 years.  I never expected fellow Democrats to do this to one of their own.  Disgusting!

  by DannyB on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:39:07 PM PDT

  •  Well

    My cousin in Reno said Obama supporters tried to supress her as an Edwards supporter. Just blaming everything out there on Clinton is wrong. It think you should take both of them down and put up an Edwards sign!!

    by RDemocrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:42:24 PM PDT

    •  My brother in Reno

      His precint had a total of 45 people in Caucus.
      First count was:
      22-Obama
      22-Clinton
      01-Edwards

      His neighbors were split, wife for HRC, Husband for BHO.

      Second Count:
      23-Obama
      22-Clinton
      00-Edwards

      He told me that they were all white, and it was friendly between the two sides.
      He also said that Obama and Clinton's supporters were rock solid, and didn't waver in support. The whole thing only took a half an hour.

      by irishamerican on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:47:39 PM PDT

  •  DannyB

    It would be great if you would write a diary on this.

    by Tom0063 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:38:21 AM PDT

•  Kerry

  i hope Kerry is giving Obama some good advice regarding the political attacks that are coming Obama's way. otherwise all these endorsements are useless. Obama will also have to get Oprah to Cali, maybe she can sway some latino votes towards Obama...
  ....(sigh)

  by girlyman on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:06:52 AM PDT

•  Has anybody seen

  The video about the single payer insurance he stated he never called for?

  Just a messenger, don't shoot me.

  http://www.youtube.com/...

  by LaEscapee on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:11:24 AM PDT

  •  Sen. Obama's position is totally consistent.

    In 2003 he say's he's for single-payer, but it that it is more important to get power in Washington first, and he says the same thing in 2007.

    And of course he doesn't engage in the sort of lies and distortions the the Clinton campaaingn engages in.

    As Sen. Kerry says: we must be determined never again to lose an election to a lie.

    by Tom0063 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:33:48 AM PDT

  •  This video splice

    Is just another typical Clinton attempt to mislead Americans into thinking that Sen. Obama is not consistent.

    The video proves he is totally consistent if you listen, and especially if you fill in the blanks for all the items they edited out.

    NO MORE CLINTON LIES!!!!!!

    by Tom0063 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:35:44 AM PDT

  •  hm.

    That's unfortunate. But I didn't think he was perfect or anything. And I actually wish he'd support single payer.

    Meanwhile, I'm not sure why you're spreading a Clinton-funded video. If she wins this, a lot of what Edwards stands for goes down the drain.

    by scardanelli on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:40:41 AM PDT

    •  Well I'm not

      really spreading it per se. I saw it and thought that maybe people would be interested in it, I could have embeded but thought not. Although it does seem that he said he supprted single payer, and in the debate he said he never.

      Obviously I think Edwards should be the nominee, and with what both of those camps have done and said he looks better all the time. Let's just say that I hope we still have a party when the finish bickering.

      by LaEscapee on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:03:50 AM PDT

•  The ad won't change the minds of committed

  Clinton supporters.

  Fence-sitters with a gnawing, hard to describe or justify, disatisfaction with the thought of another Clinton Presidency?

  Hells Yeah.
  Pretty decent political jujitsu.

  by SecondComing on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:04:18 AM PDT

•  she's so fucking evil

  i can't stand her.

  by thereisnospoon on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:07:22 AM PDT

  •  In a nutshell n/t

    by ParaHammer on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:05:50 AM PDT

•  He can use the same ad in California

  The Iraq war part will resonate.

  by ParaHammer on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:07:05 AM PDT

•  Audio is Available

  Here

  by ParaHammer on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:16:20 AM PDT

•  thanks for this post

  which so clearly shows us the difference between our two front runners

  by RunnerAAA on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:08:03 AM PDT

•  She championed NAFTA

  and Obama voted for Peru Free Trade. Pot. Kettle.

  by votermom on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:39:03 AM PDT

  •  I challenge you

    To lay out where the NAFTA and the PFTA are simalarily bad.
    I know that it is very conveniant to say they are both bad, but your argument lacks credibility without specifics.
    Make your case.

    by irishamerican on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:45:21 AM PDT

    •  As bad?

      They're both bad. It's not my job to educate you on the issues.
      But I misspoke, Obama did not vote because he was campaigning; but he spoke in support of it. Obama could have differentiated himself from Clinton on this, but he didn't. Now he raises NAFTA? Phhtt.

      At least these guys voted against it:
      Akaka (D-HI)
      Boxer (D-CA)
      Brown (D-OH)
      Byrd (D-WV)
      Casey (D-PA)
      Dorgan (D-ND)
      Feingold (D-WI)
      Harkin (D-IA)
      Klobuchar (D-MN)
      Kyl (R-AZ)
      Leahy (D-VT)
      McCaskill (D-MO)
      Reed (D-RI)
      Reid (D-NV)
      Sanders (I-VT)
      Stabenow (D-MI)
      Tester (D-MT)
      Whitehouse (D-RI)

      by votermom on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:46:48 AM PDT