Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Campaign Pulls Negative Spot, Too

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama participates in a roundtable discussion about the state of the U.S. military January 24, 2008 in Beaufort, South Carolina. (Getty Images).

By Alec MacGillis
BEAUFORT, S.C. -- Just like that, the airwaves of South Carolina got a lot friendlier.

Hillary Clinton's campaign announced earlier today that it was taking down the radio ad it launched yesterday hitting Barack Obama for his recent comments about Republicans being the "party of ideas" for the past few decades.

And now, Obama campaign officials here say that they have given instructions to radio stations to stop running an ad that they rushed out today to rebut charges in Clinton's ad and call her someone who will "say anything, but change nothing."

By Web Politics Editor  |  January 24, 2008; 5:31 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Kucinich Withdraws From Race
Next: Wanted: A Lawyer for Bernie Kerik


Obama can say anything for election, but he couldn't change anything. Why? he already got stupid Kerry and Ted Kennedy for his side. Kennedy and Kerry are unable to do anything for our Country, Kennedy lived in Washington whole his life but what did he do for our Country, except he is JFK's brother, they just play the game with Obama. Obama is a big liar, what he wants to change? Change the name of White House to Black House? I don't think it happens.

Posted by: kreisch | January 28, 2008 5:17 AM | Report abuse

I am amazed that people are so upset at what tough campaigners the Clintons are. While I might wish that Bill would butt out (I don't think Hillary needs his help-- she can win this campaign on her own), it should be a wake-up call to Obama to see what it is like to be a candidate in a national campaign. If Obama gets the Democratic nomination, he's going to face a lot more viciousness at the hands of the Republicans than he is experiencing now with the Clintons. This is a classic case of 'if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen'. Idealism and inspiration are all very well, but no one is going to get elected president without going through a down and dirty national campaign because that's how what the Republicans are like. Look at what they did to Gore and Kerry.

Posted by: viewfromVancouver | January 25, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton is a convicted liar. He lost his right to practice law and was fined almost a million dollars for lying under oath.

Why would we want this man back in the White House? Doesn't anyone remember that the last two years of Clinton's administration were basically lost to scandal?

Does anyone really believe that Hillary can bring people back together again?

Obama hasn't hit the Clinton's on ANY of this stuff because he vowed to run a positive campaign. If Hillary wins the nomination, the Republicans will launch the dirtiest campaign EVER. And we will be left with a country even more divided.

Obama is an outsider to Washington, which is exactly what we need right now. The "insiders" like Hillary and Pelosi, etc. haven't done anything to significantly change our country's direction.

Posted by: mngtscrwdup | January 25, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

For days, I have been reading people's responses to political articles and news reports and becoming more and more perplexed as time passes. The reasons people are using to support or to lambaste one candidate or another are, at best, questionable.

Supporting or rejecting someone on the base of race or gender is asinine. One would hope that voters would look at the candidates' POSITIONS on important issues in our country and then would and analyze the SOLUTIONS they offer. Unfortunately, it seems most people are more interested in propagating mud-slinging and who said what than in which person is the "best" to run our country. (What a sad commentary on America, don't you think?)

Saying that the Clintons are racists because they are calling Obama's comments, votes, and stances into question is absolutely juvenile. The Clinton camp is doing what it is supposed to do--show how they differ from the other candidates' positions, while pointing out comments and stances they find questionable.

Saying Obama is a sexist because he has challenged Clinton's stances and statements on many occasions, sometimes in less that a flattering or sensitive manner, is also ridiculous. Again, he is only doing what he needs to do to show how his approach is "better" than Clinton's.

Contending that Bill Clinton, as a former President, should not attack Obama's positions and comments on the campaign trail because it could hurt his legacy... PLEASE! Bill Clinton, although a former President, is also a candidate's spouse. He is supposed to stump for his wife. He is supposed to be passionate about her and her stances. He is supposed to champion her as the best candidate. If he gets angry with another candidate's comments or calls that candidate's voting record on a specific issue a "fairy tale", should we immediately cry foul and infer that what he REALLY meant was that Obama is living in a fairy tale because he believes he would make a good president? Come on now...

We, the people, should be smarter than this. We shouldn't be voting for someone (or not) just because of race or gender (or religion, etc.). Instead, we should REALLY look at each candidate's positions and solutions and make the the best decision we can, without sinking to name-calling or hate-mongering.

When the time comes for me to vote in my state's primary, I hope that I will weigh Edwards', Obama's, and Clinton's stances very carefully before I "pull the lever." And I pray that others will do the same.

Posted by: directorcommunications | January 25, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Awesome article to help us analyze the political fiasco at the BlogZine SAVAGE POLITICS.

"The Boom Generation and their Pathetic Spawn" at

Here is an excerpt:

"Although lately it has been in vogue to criticize the Baby Boomer Generation for their role in mudding the political discourse in this Country, it has to be admitted that their generational offspring are even worse. The last couple of days has seen an increase in the discussion of generational conflicts and its effect upon the history of politics in the United States, engaging the Media in the affirmation that Senator Obama represents a "new generation", no longer "stuck" in the fight of the 1960's, always missing the fact that Barack Obama IS a border-line Baby Boomer himself (born 1961) and is only using this rhetoric for his convenience. Obviously, the fact that his principal speech writer (Jon Favreau -not the actor-) is himself a member of the 13th Generation (Generation X) is an important influence in the message that the Obama Campaign is reverberating throughout their advocacy for the White House. Contextually, in the last couple of days we have also been inundated with discussions regarding the supposed improper campaigning in which ex-President Bill Clinton has been engaging in, all in support of his wife Hillary Clinton, and to the detriment of the Obama Campaign. Claims of unjust favour and unfair practices have been pouring from those affiliated with Obama's camp, creating a bad taste in the "mouth" of many voters. How did our recent generations develop this drastic apprehension towards competition, strength and power?

American Baby Boomers experienced many changing events within their sociological habitat which can rapidly be utilized to explain this phenomenon. After all, their epoch gave birth to the Civil Rights Movement, the development of actionable Woman Rights advances, as well as other assorted international military conflicts which increased the strain upon their social fabric. State-Socialism (incorrectly still called Communism) was a competing ideological alternative to the Third World, which greatly increased the economic and Geo-Political stress laid upon them by their parent's interests, most of whom came from the famous Silent Generation, a group still bearing the wounds of the Second World War. And it was in this historic trauma, World War II, that all of this fear mongering and collective faintness was truly born. Firmly based upon comprehensive (some innocent others malicious) exaggerations of the true ideological cause of the horrors inflicted upon the world throughout its engagement and aftermath, the Era's financiers gladly took advantage of such dread and took aim at traditional Western Values, which were slowly beginning, for good or bad, to assume the blame for the incitement of the War and all the other social ills which prevailed at the time. And even though most of these problems were squarely founded upon the after-shocks of the Industrial Revolution, values such as Strength and Power were vilified within social and individual contexts..."

Get the rest of the article at

Posted by: elsylee28 | January 24, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

It would be nice if the Clintons would apologize for their obvious distortion (and its obvious hypocrisy), rather than just going home once Obama punched them back. I guess that's just classic bully behavior. Still, it was nice that Senator Obama had the graciousness (once again) to call a halt to a fight he didn't start, even when he was winning it.

Posted by: arbite1 | January 24, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

New Bloomberg / LA Times Poll:

Presidential General Match-ups:
The poll tested Clinton and Obama with the four leading Republican candidates. Except for the match-up against McCain, Clinton and Obama bested Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee by more than 10 points each. McCain is another issue. If Republicans are looking for a strong candidate to put up against the Democrats, it looks like McCain may be their candidate. Clinton leads the Arizona senator by four points and Obama and McCain virtually split the vote (42% for Obama, 41% for McCain) although both match-ups are well within the poll's margin of error. Interestingly, independents are split between Clinton and McCain and Obama and McCain. Independents make up a good portion of both McCain's and Obama's vote, so if it were to come down between these two candidates, how would this affect the outcome of the election.

If the November 2008 general election for president were being held today and the choices were (Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama), the Democrat, or (Mitt Romney/John McCain/Rudy Giuliani/Mike Huckabee), the Republicans or would you vote for a candidate from some other party? (Includes leaners)

Clinton vs. Republican candidates: (Split Sample)

Clinton 50%
Romney 39
S/Else 5
D/Know 6

Clinton 46
McCain 42
S/Else 5
D/Know 7

Clinton 53
Giuliani 37
S/Else 5
D/Know 5

Clinton 51
Huckabee 38
S/Else 5
D/Know 6

Obama vs. Republican candidates: (Split sample)

Obama 46
Romney 35
S/Else 7
D/Know 12

Obama 49
Giuliani 32
S/Else 8
D/Know 11

Obama 41
McCain 42
S/Else 5
D/Know 12

Obama 47
Huckabee 37
S/Else 6
D/Know 10

Posted by: priusdriver | January 24, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

I am very saddened by the behavious of the Clintons. Actually it is very shameful and I hope they stop. The way the Clinton campaign is attacking Mr Obama is very sad. I see that the Clintons are only concerned about themselves and nobody else. Bill Clinton is really behaving childish. Someone should talk to him. I will never vote for her . I am a democrat.

Posted by: fchrappah | January 24, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

My goodness, am I on a Republican thread? You Obamians sound like Limbaugh and Hannity.
If I remember corectly, at the urging of MSNBC, Edwards and Obama double teamed Clinton in the debate. They called into question her honesty and morals. Edwards was my first choice,Richardson second, and Clinton just ahead of Kusenish and the old guy. Why am I, seemingly, the only one who noticed this. I changed to Clinton that night. When she fought back, Obama started whining. What have the Clintons lied about? Statement about Reagan. I heard the statement and thought "How stupid". Drugs, Why would any politician write this in a book. Is his drug use a lie? Stand on Iraq. I was real proud of his initial stand and became disturbed as his stance and statements changed. His initial stance did become a "fairy tale". I'm not relying on someone elses words. These are statements I heard with my on ears. I listen, and don't forget previous statements. I'll support the Democratic nominee. Anyone would have to be better than any Republican, even Obama. Come on Democrats. "Ain"t no politician an angel", even Obama.

Posted by: BNW173 | January 24, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

I'm on board with JakeD and helenlrader! I'll take the pledge. I'm a lifelong Democrat and have never voted for a Republican in any national election. If Clinton wins, I will NOT vote for her. She and Bill have purposely misrepresented Obama's comment about the Republicans being the party of ideas. They also misrepresented his "changing" his position on the war. They will do anything to get elected. The sad part is, there are a lot of Obama supporters like myself who really did admire Hillary. Not any more. Vote Obama! If that fails, take the pledge! Vote no to Hillary!

Posted by: chisoxfan8 | January 24, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Listen up Democrats before it is too late. Obama voted "present" well over 100 times. Obama made an error and ticked off the wrong answer on key votes a total of 5 times! Good grief.

He needs to be stopped, not because he's a bad guy, or a black guy, or a regular old politician. He needs to be stopped because he's not capable of the job he is running for.

Posted by: audart | January 24, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Bubba is not just supporting his wife, it's clear now that she is just running as a surrogate for him to get back into the White House. He has always worn the pants in family while she has always been subservient to him. Two President Clintons back in the White House is not something I consider as exactly advancing the feminist cause any more than Lurleen Wallace or countless other subservient frau's who ran as surrogates for their term-limited men.
America is sick of Bushs and Clintons both and the Democratic party is about to commit suicide. (ps- I have been a life-long Democrat and a Clinton supporter but I'd vote for a dead dog before I'd vote for the Clintons again.)

Posted by: coumaris | January 24, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

I hate reading these bitter comments. Democrats simply can't keep tearing into each other. We look childish and spiteful, making the Republicans laugh themselves silly.
I have a feeling Dean and some other key Democrats sat on both candidates and told them to chill. I surely hope they get this nomination process back on a dignified and respectful track. Frankly, I'll gladly take any or our candidates over any of the Republicans.

Posted by: gailkate | January 24, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

I think the media is trying to blow this out of proportion too much. There is nothing wrong with Bill Clinton supporting his wife. Remember when Theresa Heinz was criticized for talking her mind to a reporter. I do not think Bill and Hillary are at fault here at all. The media gave a pass to Obama without grilling him just as much as they have grilled Dean, Clintons, Edwards etc.

"I Hit the wrong buttons 6 times". Can you believe that Obama voted 130 times "Present" and made mistakes by pushing the wrong buttons on 6 crucial votes. Thats a joke. Is this too much of a fairy tale now? We do not need a TS Eliott or a Shelley for president...we need an experienced Leader like Hillary to beat the republicans.

Posted by: skpanda | January 24, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse


If enough Democrats take the pledge to NOT vote for Hillary Clinton, even if she gets the nomination, they won't ever get that 51%.

Posted by: JakeD | January 24, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

I am afraid that the Clinton strategy has worked. After Obama won in Iowa, Bill Clinton became the lead strategist and carefully and methodically shredded him. He has gone all across South Carolina planting enormous seeds of doubt and I sadly am predicting that Hillary Clinton will win the state. I am no longer a Democrat if that happens. I will not support the Clintons anymore. But they actually do not care, as long as they have their 51%.

Posted by: helenlr | January 24, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama has shown and continues to show that he can win with more than one block of voters. It wasn't black voters that won him Iowa. It wasn't black voters that almost caused an unpset in New Hampshire. Let's turn the page on fear and vote with our hearts!

Posted by: crews2me | January 24, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

It is time for Obama to remind voters that Bill Clinton has a history of telling lies to Americans. In fact Bill Clinton has been convicted of telling lies under oath. Bill is a convicted felon who lost his license to practise law. Clinton has no shame telling bald face lies such as " I never had sex with that woman" Monica, while looking straight faced into tv cameras. Obama should tell voters that if Bill was giving testimony in court, his statements would be discounted as coming from a convicted felon for perjury. Clinton is testifying to the court of public opinion and Obama should tell voters to ingore his negative statements because Bill Clinton is a convicted Liar.

Posted by: ellisc007onMaui | January 24, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

At one of Bill Clinton's appearances in SC on Wednesday, an elderly black man stood up and said "black people are voting for Obama because he's black. But he can't win and he will make sure the Republicans win in November." Clinton showed "concern" while a few others nodded.

After it was over, reporters tried to get the man's name. He refused to identify himself and left with his BODYGUARD! Now, tell me. How many people attend town hall meetings with bodyguards, especially elderly black men in SC? This guy was a plant by the Clinton campaign used to continue to play the race issue.

Now can someone tell who in the past tried to scare black people from doing something?

Wasn't it called "KKK"?..........

The Clintons are now resorting to staging, having black people show up at rallies saying Obama can't win and can't help up. This is a scare tactic to steal your vote!

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 24, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

There is evidence in polls of an Edwards rise that could threaten Clinton's hold on second place, which could be a powerful blow to the NY Senator's momentum heading into Super Tuesday. Poll link:

Posted by: campaigndiaries | January 24, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company