Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Democrats Slam Coleman On Iraq

For the last month -- at least -- the Minnesota Senate race has featured some of the hardest hitting television ads in any contest (the presidential included) in the country.

After Sen. Norm Coleman's campaign released an ad late last week that painted Democratic challenger Al Franken as temperamentally unqualified to be a senator, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee struck back today with an ad that will likely be equally controversial.

The ad features an older couple -- Nancy and Claremont Anderson -- who lost their son in a Blackhawk helicopter crash in Iraq.

Among the extremely tough lines delivered by the tearful couple:

* "I don't blame the Army for our son's death, I just blame the bad policies on President Bush, Norm Coleman who voted for this." (Nancy Anderson)

* "I have no faith in Norm Coleman. He has no ability to make up his own mind." (Claremont Anderson)

* "If Norm Coleman would have stood up to the president and said this is not a good idea maybe he would have listened." (Nancy Anderson)

Wow. WOW. The ad all but blames Coleman for the death of the Andersons' son, arguing that Coleman had the power to stop it by opposing the war in Iraq from the start.

It's an extremely powerful charge and one that has the unique potential to damage either Coleman or Franken badly depending on how it is received by voters.

On one hand, a testimonial from two native Minnesotans about the true cost of the war in Iraq helps make clear what is at stake in this election. And, putting the blame on Coleman for not stepping in to oppose the conflict, is a sound strategy given the anti-war bent that Minnesota showed in the 2006 midterm election. The ad is also well-conceived, running 60 seconds in order to stand out from the scads of other advertising in the state in the final 49 days of the campaign.

On the other hand, the ad runs a real risk of being seen as an attempt by Democrats to score political points on the back of a personal tragedy. The image of a physically shaken Nancy Anderson on screen walks right up to the line of what is acceptable in the realm of politics.

But, does it go over that line? Or, in a race that has been defined by its nastiness and negativity for weeks, does this ad make clear, in an emotionally powerful way, what's at stake on Nov. 4?

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 16, 2008; 4:43 PM ET
Categories:  Ad Wars , Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: CA-GOV: The Next Big Thing
Next: Wag the Blog Redux: What Should Hillary Do?


complications gastric bypass complications gastric bypass [link=]complications gastric bypass[/link]

Posted by: complications gastric bypass | September 23, 2008 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Well, now that her email is out in the open documenting her clear abuse of the law, I'd say she is done. From today's Washington Post:

Posted by: Illumination | September 18, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Let's just face the facts. The GAO has issued report after report this year supporting the economic proposals of Obama as 100% in line with what the US Economy needs. How did they rate McCain? 42%. Since that's about what share of the popular vote he should expect, we need not concern ourselves with this too much, but it is worth taking note of these hard facts before arguing about it.

Up is not Down, regardless of what the GOP Operative Hordes would have us believe.

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 18, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Move on Chris. Palin is old news! The economy is all that matters now. Haven't you been reading the news?

Posted by: Doug in Nashville | September 18, 2008 8:06 AM | Report abuse

While the Neocons have their heads and eyeballs up their Iraq ass looking for more Al-queda (but NOT Bin Laden) Putin and the Russians are on the brink of declaring the Cold War II complete with thousands of REAL WMD's pointed at us and all of our allies at once...and what do the Neocon's think?...Jesus, if i could think like a greedy murdering hyprocrite (Pro-Life unless it's Muslim babies!) then I could tell you. But I'll leave you with "Blessed are the Peacemakers for they shall inherit the Kingdom of the Earth"...NOT "Blessed are the Warmongers..."

Posted by: mynamesyow | September 17, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be! We know things are bad - worse than bad, They're crazy! It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone!' Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone! I want you to get MAD! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad! You've got to say, "I'm a HUMAN BEING, GODDAMNIT! My LIFE has VALUE!!" So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now, and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!!"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Why not also blame Norm Coleman for the bridge collapse? He should have focused more on the issues in AMERICA, and instead to just be a total phony.

Also a hypocrite pothead, if you ask me.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

It seems that some of you have forgotten that The War is not the war in Iraq, but the War declared on the USA by Islam.

It's going to be a very long war and many more of our loved ones will be killed in many theaters of war... The fact that the President of the US was saying the same things as the leaders of most other countries with intel gathering capabilities about Sadam's Iraq escapes about 50% of the population.

Most of the Senate and House were in agreement. There were a series of sanctions and warnings ignored by Sadam leading up to the invasion. The ramp up was long, and scrutinized on an international scale. Allied troops were committed to the effort by their governments.

Are we to believe that GW was the only one who really knew there were no WMDs (as though that was the only reason we went), and he was able to fool every other player - even Norm Coleman?

The family in the ad has good reason to be embittered I suppose. There was nothing said, though, about the son except that he was a Major and that he died. He attained the rank of Major. That is a career - level rank. What would he say if he could?

Posted by: Bob T Guy | September 17, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Our we soposed to pretend that the lack of taking a stand against this illegal and immoral war did NOT have an impact on the lives of shattered families? Coleman is only one Senator....but that is NO excuse for his not doing the right thing. Perhaps if he, or any of a number of Republican senators had shown the guts to take a stand, others would have followed their lead. Then there would have been no commercial to complain about... and this family would still would have their son. Want to bet against the idea that they would trade their new found "fame" for that result? Al can be crude, he can be loud, but he sure will NOT be hesitant to take a stand when needed against any party and against any president. He would be a wonderful senator.

Posted by: waynep | September 17, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Gee to all of the blood-thirsty Democrats out there. I'm sorry I returned from Operation Iraqi Freedom alive. I know you all would have loved to use my potential death for political purposes, but sorry I'm still alive and kicking. Then to make matters worse, under the troop surge recommendations of General Petraeus and John McCain, our forces are now victorious. Sorry my fellow troops and I came home alive and with (gasp!) success. We won you lost get over it. Think about that the next time you bet against America.

Posted by: Pennsylvania Penguin | September 17, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

It's below the belt or over the line or whatever the phrase du jour for describing something that goes too far.

First, the skeptic in me immediately wonders how the Andersons came to be involved in an ad like this? The answer I come up with leaves me feeling a little "icky" about the exploitation of their son's death to elect Al Franken to the U.S. Senate.

Second, with the current turmoil in our nation's financial sectors, is Iraq even the correct place to hit Senator Coleman?

Third, if it is the correct place to hit him, I'm not sure I buy Mrs. Anderson's statement that if Senator Coleman had stood up to President Bush, the President might have listened. The better ad was the one that ran a few weeks ago that used Senator Coleman's own words ("uh, no") to make him look inept and unaccountable for his vote to authorize military action in Iraq.

Posted by: Billy | September 17, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Democrats for Norm Coleman in 2008

Posted by: Julie | September 17, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

This ad like so many try to pull at our "heart strings", but the reality is that this soldiers death is not a result of Senator Coleman or President Bush.

The men and women serving in the military today are all volunteers, if they don't want to be put in harm's way or be a US "weapon of mass destruction", then resign or don't re-enlist.

If parents think that "Al Franken" is going to keep us out of wars, you are badly mistaken.

These people in the ad, are nothing more than political pawns, being used to get people elected at any cost....and certainly, once in power, will be just as bad, and just as undistinguished as those before them.

Posted by: Michael E | September 17, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Coleman's support of Bush's Iraqi war had and has consequences.

Considering the flim flam that Bush used in his run up to his Iraqi "crusade", that there are parents of military members who feel thier son or daughter died in vain while serving this nation in uniform, should come as no surprise.

Hard hitting ? You bet.

Is it over the line ? Considering what the RNC did in 2004, and what it distributes these days as campaign spots, not at all.

Posted by: MA | September 17, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse


Chris Why don't you do an expose on CNN - last night they had an entire commentary-advertisement for Obama's talking points - it was so blantantly biased I was actually amazed.

Jeffrey Tobin and Campbell Brown led this biased discussion.

They must have attempted to call McCain a liar about 10 times - saying what McCain has said is far far worse than anything Obama has done. Nothing about Obama claiming to be the post-racial candidate and then PRESSING RACE AS AN ISSUE.

Nothing about the lies about Bill Clinton in South Carolina.

What Obama did to Gerry Ferraro last spring takes the cake - Obama has NO COMPLAINTS AT ALL WHEN IT COMES TO THE ISSUE OF TWISTING WORDS AROUND. OBAMA'S PEOPLE HAVE SPENT THE YEAR CALLING INNOCENT PEOPLE RACISTS for not liking Obama's ultraliberal views.

The thing is with hillary's people Obama was able to get away with it.

With the Republicans Obama is upset because he gettting his medicine handed to him.

CNN's producers are absolutely out of their minds to bring up this issue - it actually comes off as hypocritical to complain about McCain when so much of Obama's campaign this year has been false charges and PRETENDING TO BE OFFENDED BY INNOCENT REMARKS.

There should be SHAME AT CNN TODAY - Chris show your bipartisan nature and CALL THEM OUT !!!!


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | September 17, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse



McCain's economic policies are better for the nation.


Obama has no economic or business experience except for buying cocaine.



Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 7:41 AM | Report abuse


McCain has the better Economic policies by far.

The message is that Obama is out of touch with the economic situation of Americans - Obama is more concerned with Hollywood glamour and his celebrity friends.

McCain has the gritty style to make the tough decisions which have to be made to get the economy roaring again.

Does anyone believe that Obama's proposals for additional giant government programs are going to help the economy - seriously Obama's inclination is toward government assistance.

McCain has the right advisors around him to create the economic strategies which will fuel this country's economy.

Obama's high tax proposals are going to hurt the economy and make it harder for Americans to pay their bills.

McCain's proposals to fight the lobbyists in Washington will create significant
GROWTH EFFECTS within the eocnomy - GROWTH will be spurred as inefficient economic drags are reduced industry by industry by MCCAIN'S STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS POLICIES WHICH MCCAIN HAS BEEN PRESSING FOR OVER 10 YEARS.

McCain's economic program is much better for the economic growth of America.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | September 17, 2008 7:20 AM | Report abuse

Just a note here, the ad was not sponsored by Al Franken. It was not placed, paid for, and for all we know run without Franken's approval. It was run by Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. This is the kind of thing that can backfire on a candidate. Its why candidates don't necessarily like 527 groups placing ads on their behalf. Al is having to face a "how" question right now. How do I respond to this ad without getting slammed?

Posted by: Fremont Paul | September 17, 2008 1:56 AM | Report abuse

A recurring failure of the press so far in this election is the seeming reluctance to distinguish between negative ads that are based on serious issues of concern to voters and anchored in verifable facts, and those that are pure sleaze.

This ad focuses with stunning power on the most serious of issues in any election: an incumbent Senator voted to authorize a war that has claimed the lives of 4,000 real Americans including a beloved son. The raw emotion of this American family may make viewers sqirm, but how can one suggest the ad is not legitimate? How can one say it is even "nasty" or prattle about "lines being redrawn?" Sen. Coleman voted for this war and the ad shows, in stark terms, the views of two of his constituents about one consequence of that vote. (To say his vote did not have that consequence is absurd; a war cannot just "happen," and every Senator who voted to authorize war in Iraq knew at least some of their young constituents would die as a result.)

In comparison, there is another ad -- from McCain, falsely claiming Obama wanted to teach kindergartners about sex before they learned to read. It was 1) trivial as an issue, at least when compared to the stakes in an election where the country is at war and its economy is on the ropes; and 2) false. Obama wanted to be sure schools teach children to be aware of sexual predators. It is exactly the kind of dirt that should have serious repercussions for a candidate desperate enough and amoral enough to air it. So far, he has paid little price.

But ads like this one, focused on serious issues and anchored in fact, should be applauded. I watched this ad and yelled "finally!" Many want to debate this war while tiptoeing around its most serious consequences. If those who think the dream of spreading democracy through the Middle East was worth the cost to the Anderson family in Iraq -- and continues to be, let them look this couple in the eye and tell them so.

That, too, I'd like to watch.

Posted by: Bill W | September 16, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

When the going gets tough, the Republicans leave for Crawford, or Aspen. No worries there, as its a Democrat's job to save the country. Again.

The correlation between hard work and success is limited. Obviously, Obama is where he is because he worked hard and earned it. Bush and McCain are where they are because their fathers and grandfathers worked hard.

McCain has never even paid a bill in his life, so why should we trust him to protect our money? I don't think we need another silver spoon republican trying to run the economy. Just look at what happened under Bush: 56 million Americans who were middle class in 2000 are now out of work and considered below the poverty line. 23 million Americans who had health insurance in 2000 now do not.

McCain actually wrote the bills that caused this. Look it up! This is so basic that it hardly gets any attention. Obama is from a food stamps family, and federal assistance combined with his drive and natural ability helped him pull himself up by the boot straps. McCain was a bottom of the barrel student, mediocre officer, and quickly corrupted legislator. Had he not been born with high social status he would have never been able to land back asswards where he has.

Maybe you missed this. McCain owns at least seven houses and counting. It strikes me that these uber-rich Republican elitists who own so many houses are a real problem for the rest of us in that they drive up real estate values by gobbling up land and hoarding away homes. We wouldn't have had a banking meltdown if we hadn't had a subprime meltdown. We wouldn't have had a subprime meltdown if the average American had been able to afford a single home. The average American can't afford a single home because these chablis swilling country club loving Republican elites collect homes like the rest of us collect credit card bills.

Just so these crazy Bushies and McCainiacs don't pull the wool over your eyes on de-regulation ...

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. Some provisions such as Regulation Q that allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Other provisions which prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Yes, that Gramm.

First repeal of the Glass-Steagall act allowed banks to determine what interest rates they could pay on savings, thus eliminating from our society sensible government oversight by the the Federal Reserve banks.

Second part repealed by the Gramm-Leahy act was that of the idea that a bank should be FORCED to not be able to invest in other forms of business. This was yet another portion of the bill aimed at preventing the government from protecting average Americans by maintaining a strong and balance economy by preventing companies over reaching.

The entirety of this bill is correctly attributed to our current sub-prime mortgage problem. This problem started on the banking side through de-regulation and led directly to predatory lending practices.

The Gramm-Leahy-Bliley act was signed into law by a Bill Clinton, who did not have the votes in Congress to prevent it.

It had positive economic results, allowing some finanacial companies to consolidate their resources and operate more efficiently, thereby saving money and increasing the value of their companies and increasing the value of the shareholders holdings in those companies.

Prior to the repeal of this law, foreign bankers held a financial edge against US banks because they were free to diversify their investments. Repealing this law allowed US banks to catch up with foreign banks and increase their value as a company. Again, increasing the value of their stocks to their stock-holders, but also removing necessary regulation to prevent predatory schemes.

Yes, it did allow companies the freedom to make good and or bad investments, just like any other company, but without necessary regulation to prevent abuse of the system.

The vast majority of banks are at risk, but are currently stable because they made wise investments. Some are not doing so well because they got caught up in too risky of deals, such as interest-only loans. They took a risk, they lost.

Buyers were duped into accepting these risk terms on their loans. That is the fault of predatory lenders.

Democrat president Bill Clinton had the option of veto-ing this bill but chose not to. He supported the bill and signed it into law in 1999 because the Republicans had the votes in Congress to ignore the veto.

One of the prime sponsors of the bill was this man, also a REPUBLICAN.
John McCain

Posted by: Nick Collins III | September 16, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Double-Dealing Diplomacy
1 hour, 52 minutes ago (9-16-08)
Investor's Business Daily

Election '08: Barack Obama premised his campaign on calling for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. But now he's been quietly telling Iraq "not so fast." It's part of a deceptive pattern.

Election: Barack Obama, who premised his campaign on calling for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, has now been quietly telling Iraq "not so fast." It's part of a deceptive pattern.Iraq's Foreign Minister Moshyar Zebari told the New York Post's Amir Taheri that Obama made delaying the troops' return a key theme of his talks with Iraqi leaders during his campaign stop in Baghdad last July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the U.S. elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari told Teheri, on the record.

Funny, that's not what Obama told voters. He has made an immediate pullout the cornerstone of his campaign. Taheri's report signals the Democratic standard-bearer would manipulate the war's end for political advantage and is willing to deceive voters to do it.

This in itself is reprehensible. But his secret calls also leave U.S. troops unnecessarily in harm's way. It's the kind of foreign policy meddling that serves Obama's interests over the national interest.

"Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America," Taheri reported. "To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years."

Can Obama be trusted? We ask because he's shown a pattern of secretive double-dealing with voters, not just in his talking about small town voters one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco, as Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin pointed out, but particularly in foreign affairs.

It dates back to at least February, when Obama's economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, secretly told the Canadian embassy that Obama's demagoguery against NAFTA in the primaries was just a Styrofoam-pillar bid to win the Ohio vote.

Obama's pattern of deception continued. In March, Colombian troops raided a FARC terrorist camp in Ecuador and recovered a terrorist computer belonging to a top FARC warlord, Raul Reyes.

Computer e-mails revealed that someone who knew Obama's positions had secretly met with the terrorists and assured them Obama would cut U.S. military aid under Plan Colombia and veto its free trade pact. Both are major goals of the Marxist terrorists aligned with America's enemies.

Subsequent events confirmed this. Obama did come out in favor of shutting Colombia out of free trade. More disturbingly, Obama adviser Daniel Restrepo last week told Colombia's Radio Caracol that Obama planned to convert the military aid Colombia needs to crush terrorists into social aid programs that don't.

That's not the end of it. Now Obama is double-dealing with Iraqi officials to leave American troops in harm's way and prolong the appearance of war long enough to call it a failure and win votes.

The astonishing thing about Obama's deals is they're the very thing Democrats accused Republicans of without a shred of proof.

They accused Richard Nixon of making a secret deal with the North Vietnamese to prolong the Vietnam war enough to presumably win election in 1968.

Years later, in 1980, they accused Ronald Reagan of making a secret deal with Iranian terrorists holding U.S. diplomats hostage to win election over incumbent Jimmy Carter.

Neither of these claims, often repeated by leftist historians, has ever been proven. But the statement of Iraq's foreign minister, speaking to a leading writer on foreign policy, is considerably stronger as evidence. It signals that Obama places politics over the national interest to the extent that he would work against his own public positions to gull voters into electing him.

It's the absolute opposite of John McCain's courageous position supporting the surge in Iraq, even as politicos were warning him he'd lose the election for it. "I'd rather lose an election than lose a war," McCain said.

With Obama's promises to sit down with dictators in Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and Iran, voters have a right to ask if he's made any deals at odds with his public condemnations of them, too. Before he starts acting like president, he needs to come clean to voters and reveal his true positions. Whatever they are, voters have a right to know.

Posted by: Scott | September 16, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

my nephew leaves for Iraq soon,this horrid and ill concieved war should be done with.It never would have started without empty suits and war mongers like Bush,Cheney and Coleman.How could an ad like this be over the line?Are the American public that insulated from the pain caused by feckless decisions and opportunistic Politicians?

Posted by: j setala | September 16, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse


Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:

Bookmark it now !


Voted One of the Nation's Best Blogs for the Election of 2008:

Bookmark it now !


Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

I think it is a good ad.

People like Coleman need to take responsibility for their actions.

I am sick of seeing McCain blame Obama for not supporting the surge, but not taking any responsibility for leading us into this war in the first place.

Everyone who supported Bush in this folly has blood on their hands.

Posted by: Teresa | September 16, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Is this really over the line, given how enthusiastically the Republicans propped up deceased soldiers at the RNC? I think the GOP might have left themselves open for this line of attack.

Posted by: John | September 16, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

A rising tide lifts all ships... but the invisible hand of the market swamps an ungodly number of them in the process. Unfettered laissez-faire economic theory is one of the foundations of our modern global market, but we have never been willing to go with it 100% because it destroys lives. Laissez-faire creates money, and there is no question about that. But simple people in small towns go to the voting booth to stabilize their way of life. An economy based on most of the principals of laissez-faire with regulation thrown in to mitigate instability is what allows business and citizen to cohabitate in an open society like ours. This combination allows both innovation and protection. Going hardcore protectionist just stifles innovation (look at healthcare in social welfare countries), while lurching the other way in favor of hyperinnovation simply leads to social instability in favor of corporate profit (look at China). So there is my ten cents. Oh, and another thing...

Here's the central issue of the campaign: Media inattention to the real issues. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who only picked Palin because she appears young and pretty (to someone his age). You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife after she was disabled in a car wreck. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who dumped his wife for a super wealthy fembot. You can put lipstick on a pig, but he's still a 72 year old pervert who cheated on his wife after she waited for him while imprisoned in Vietnam.

While reading that, and getting fired up, McCain and Bush were shaking in their boots about this election. They've been called on the carpet as the pigs they are. They'll be out in the cold come November.

Pigs in a blanket.

Game over Repugnantcans. You're time here is done. Thanks for the memories, but it is time to step aside and let us adults take over and fix what you broke.

Posted by: Flavius Belisarius | September 16, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Norm Coleman I believe killed Paul Wellstone at the behest of Dick Cheney

Posted by: Herb C | September 16, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

In 2000, I would have said that this ad was over the line, but the line has clearly been redrawn several times since then. Now, it's as if each campaign needs to outdo its predecessors in pushing the envelope. I'm surprised we haven't seen a "Daisy" ad yet. This DSCC ad is actually less offensive to me than some of the tripe the Presidential candidates are running.

Thank goodness for DVRs.

Posted by: mnteng | September 16, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

It's about time those who make the decisions are held accountable for the results.

Posted by: FlownOver | September 16, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Big mistake on Franken's part. As you said, it looks like he's capitalizing on a personal tragedy. If the father had been less specific, if he had said that the senators who backed the war share some of the responsibility, that would have touched the line and not crossed it. By saying, "Norm's got to go," it crossed the line.

Good concept, but over the top. Subtlety was called for, but instead Franken tossed a grenade.

Posted by: scrivener | September 16, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

the trend is clear - McCain's selection of Palin gave him one hell of a convention bounce. What is not at all clear is whether this bounce is long-lived. Thinking Republicans will not yet count their chickens.

Posted by: bsimon | September 16, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

These are extremely effective ads. Coleman is on his heels and reeling. Amazing job by Franken, hopefully he can do it for 7 more Mondays

Posted by: mitch | September 16, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

In this latest adjustment of the Zogby map, Obama has lost 26 Electoral College votes from two states—Pennsylvania and New Mexico – both of which were moved from the Obama column into the toss-up column.

Meanwhile, McCain has gained enough ground to have—at least for now—captured a definitive lead in seven new states: Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, South Carolina, Montana, South and North Dakota. McCain’s gains total 54 Electoral College votes. Based on a Zogby analysis of other credible polling and demographic trends, the Zogby map is also moving four other states – Montana, South Carolina, South Dakota, and North Dakota from toss-ups into the McCain column.

Posted by: the trend is clear | September 16, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Great job by the dems.on this one,do you
chris,actually think Coleman would have voted against the authorization to go war,
hell no this chickensh@t,draft dodger got
appointed to Sen.Paul Wellstone seat to
do exactly what Cheney wanted him to do
and that was to vote for the war,Wellstone
defied all of them neocon's and sayed no to the invasion.Coleman can't even come
to a VFW or Americian Legion Hall with
a straight face. He is a coward with
a very sinister heart. we love you paul.

Posted by: Anti-neocon | September 16, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Great job by the dems.on this one,do you
chris,actually think Coleman would have voted against the authorization to go war,
hell no this chickensh@t,draft dodger got
appointed to Sen.Paul Wellstone seat to
do exactly what Cheney wanted him to do
and that was to vote for the war,Wellstone
defied all of them neocon's and sayed no to the invasion.Coleman can't even come
to a VFW or Americian Legion Hall with
a straight face. He is a coward with
a very sinister heart. we love you paul.

Posted by: Anti-neocon | September 16, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

There's some interesting spin coming from ol' straight-talker Johnny McCain today considering that he has voted with Bush over 90% of the time the last eight years and that McCain's economic advisor, Phil Gramm, was the biggest player out there in the deregulating of Wall Street.

Posted by: say what? | September 16, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

This is not "Mud" and it is not the DSCC.

It is two real parents sharing their pain with voters who may not have experienced the terror of having a child in Iraq. These are real people... not actors.
Jersey John

Posted by: John Cadmus | September 16, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

The DSCC is blaming Norm Coleman for the death of this poor couple's son?! What the heck was Schummer thinking?! I hope Franken is prepared for the backlash on this ad.

Posted by: Peter | September 16, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

WOW! Very powerful. Bet that is worth a 3-4 point shift toward Franken. Could be the gamechanger--and I wouldn't be surprised if other candidates didn't start using it. Wow!

Posted by: Michael | September 16, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

The biggest beneficiary of the ad might not be Al Franken, but (Accidental) Senator Dean Barkley.

As Al & Norm get busy slingin' mud back 'n forth, only one candidate's going to come up smelling like roses - the one that didn't lie with the pigs.

Posted by: bsimon | September 16, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Presidential campaign ads are kids' cartoons compared to what's run in state and local races. The Dems can do this and get away with it because of the equally strong stuff coming out of the other side.

Posted by: mpp | September 16, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company