Ads The GOP Would Run Against Obama - #1 "Ooops!"

Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 'yeas' for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident" he said. - 'Obama Said Oops on 6 State Senate Votes' - L.A. Times January 24, 2008

TV COMMERCIAL - "OOOOPS!"

Ominous music...

Video of terrorists, buildings on fire, missiles being launched, mayhem etc etc

Narrator: (deep gravelly baritone)

"In a dangerous world where our Commander-In-Chief has the lives of 300 million Americans in the palm of his hand - we need a seasoned, tested, sure-footed leader. Someone who has been through the fire and is ready to defend our nation using all the mighty weapons that God Almighty has put at the disposal of the most wonderful country on God's own planet. Including the awesome power of nuclear missiles to defend life, liberty and the American way. Someone who knows that you can't mistakes when you're President..."

Video of black hand wavering over two big buttons

Caption:
State Senator Barack Obama
February 24, 2000

Voice of Obama (impersonated):

"I pressed the wrong button by accident!"

Narrator:

"Are your ready to risk your kids' life?"

Caption: VOTE RAMBO!

..............ROOM SERVICE................................NUKE 'EM!...............

Follow Martin Lewis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheMartinLewis

Comments

[m4me08]

I refered to myself as a reader so that would imply that I indeed read the article. I clearly stated that if you were to dish it out to both candidates, I would believe your reasoning.
Whether Obama has faced the same scrutiny is subjective. There have been many articles which I thought were slanted to make Hillary look good. But maybe I'm not the best judge since I'm biased. You on the other hand, as a journalist, should at least TRY to remain impartial - unless you clearly state your support of one candidate.­(dont you guys take an oath or something);)
I realize that youve stated that you will support whatever candidate. But much as I feel about your candidate, I simply dont believe you. Im not calling you a liar, just dont think you are being honest with yourself and it shows.

===========MARTIN RESPONDS==========

I wasn't suggesting that you restrict your reading on the topic to just this post - which is obviously a mixture of polemic, salutary and satire. Try this - and the links at the foot of it. Let me correct a misapprehension you have. My posts on HuffPo are rarely written as a journalist. I am an activist, columnist, agent provocateur and occasional satirist. And sometimes I mix those roles up. The link I've sent you to is a piece I've written that has barbs at both Obama AND Bill Clinton. Neither will be wild about it. But I'm not seeking to curry favor with Obama or either Clinton. In my role as an activist I am dedicated to the Party - not an individual candidate. In the 2000 election I supported Gore very vigorously (and critiqued him when he was wishy-washy). I did the same with Kerry. MSM journalists have NOT scrutinized Obama as intensely as they have done with Cinton and Edwards. That is therefore OUR job. To ensure that we don't choose another Adlai Stevenson, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry.

==========­==========­==========

[EtOH]

I think he pushed the correct button.

[m4me08]

Since you seem to have lost my comment I'll repost:
Repeat after me, "Hi, my name is Martin and I am a HRC supporter.­" See, that wasnt so hard was it? Feel better now?
Please, please, please have enough respect for your readers not to lie to us or yourself. This is truly your "Willie Horton" moment. Why should Obama worry about the Reb in Nov when you can do it for them now? Besides it wont really matter what they do to us if the Dem party is in shreds.
You claim your purpose is alturistic. I'll believe that when I see an equal # of slash and burn articles/"ads" vetting HRC. But shes already been "vetted", huh? That explains the Rezko pic with Prez and the Mrs back in the wonderful 90's.
Please respond and tell me why I'm just another college educated, upper-middle class, white woman who has been brainwashed by the Church of Obama. I have obviously lost the ability to think for myself. How else can you explain my utter lack of adoration for your queen?

===========MARTIN RESPONDS=========

If you read more and rant less then perhaps you will learn more. My sole declared passion is to see a Democrat elected president. If Obama is the candidate I will work tirelessly for his election - just as I will for Clinton or Edwards. Just as I did for Gore and Kerry. Those of us who are concerned - and I'm sure that includes you - have a duty to play devil's advocate and ensure that every potential candidate is examined vigorously. Clinton and Edwards have been put under the media spotlight. For multiple reasons - it is apparent that Obama has not been under such an intense spotlight. I will not be part of that negligence.

==========­==========­==========­====

[Bagger]

How many people use the term "Reagan Conservatism". Not saying it's good or anything but how many people believe in that philsophy? About 1/2 the country right?

Now, how many people say "Clinton Liberalism"?
That's what I thought.

============MARTIN RESPONDS===========

I agree. Very few. But certainly more than Dukakis Liberalism, Gore Liberalism, Kerry Liberalism. The point is moot because the Left made a huge mistake in the 1970s and allowed the right-wing to demonize liberalism. What is incontrovertible is that Bill Clinton is the only Democrat since FDR to win two presidential elections. And Democrats forget or arrogantly belittle that at their peril...

==========­==========­==========­=

[Demsneed2win]

Thank you for finally addressing this. The media is so pro Obama, they have barely mentioned it. If I hear one more story of how Bill is ATTACKING poor Obama ....
This is a big story but the MSM won't tell it.

Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.

But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics. On Nov. 14, 1997, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.

The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, "I'd like to be recorded as a no vote," explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group on a 1998 campaign questionnaire that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

The senator who led the opposition to the gambling measure, Republican Todd Sieben, said he took Obama at his word that the initial vote was an error. But Sieben also said the thin margin of victory was a sign that perhaps there was more to the vote than met the eye. "He was obviously paying attention to this vote. It was a major, major issue in the state, and it was a long debate," Sieben said. "The inadvertent 'Oops, I missed the switch' -- I'd be kind of skeptical of that."

[AnninCA]

Funny....

[Lon]

You know it immediately occurred to me that this was a silly issue that you did believe had anything to do with who is the better candidate, but it took me a while to realize why it was a necessary silly argument from the Clinton perspective.

After all Clinton recently made her odd claim about one bill that she voted for it but was relieved when it failed to pass. Talk about a line that is tailor made for this years "I was for it before I was against it."

Now I don't think that comment would be a major factor in the general election anymore than I think this one from Obama would be. But the Clintons do seem to be basing their campaign on being the anti-Kerry. So Clinton's aping of Kerry's worst line would certainly be something that they would see as requiring a pre-emptive strike.

Apparently everybody "oopses" occassionally. In fact I first saw the Obama comment in a Post discussion with the congressional reporter who noted that such things are very common on Capital Hill, but there is a better system for correcting mistakes there. Or one can simply pray the bill one voted for gets killed in committee. The advantages of gridlock.

[Lon]

In the summer you claimed that democrats should not attack democrats because doing so hurts the democrats. I tried to point out the problems with this at the time, but it turns out that was silly of me because I was taking your post more seriously than you were. Now you are claiming that making attack ads for the republicans helps democrats. I doubt you really believe that either. Making attack ads against Obama helps Hilary. At this point it is silly for you to pretend you have some other motivation.

At least, "I think Hilary would be a better president than Obama and so I will do what is necessary to get her elected" has the advantage of being an honest argument.

[Lon]

There is an interesting op-ed by E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post today. He notes that when Clinton won in 1992 he ran a campaign much more like Obama's than Hilary Clinton's now. That is not surprising. After all, what you are supporting now (in sharp distinction to what you were supporting in the summer when supporting Hilary meant claiming different things) is running as a copycat republican.

It is possible that in 2008 the electorate will be looking for a candidate that refuses to admit his or her mistakes after they are made. Possibly they see Bush doing it and think it looks cool. So while they see Hilary Clinton hemming and hawing over why she voted to give authority for the greatest foreign policy blunder of the last 40 years (conservatively speaking) they will say, boy she is cool she is almost as strong a leader as George W. Bush.

But it seems unlikely that Democrats will ever be able to out republican the republicans. The idea that we should run on the slogan that we can be as slimy as them, does not actually seem to be one with the interest of the democratic party in mind. It might work to get Hilary the nomination. And given the state of the country with a shaky economy and an unpopular war, she might be able to survive this in the general election. But it will clearly cost the Democratic party.

It makes it less likely that whoever is nominated will win, so we will be reduced to hoping that the mood of the country is so good that the democrats can win despite themselves. And it hurts democrats in congressional races. (It is no coincidence that it is the democrats in vulnerable seats who have recently provided Obama with the spate of endorsements).

[JoDeeVa]

Yikes!! Yikes!! Yikes!!...­.As a nurse, I was pretty busy most of the time, most likely a lot busier than those on the floor of legislatures, casting votes with a touch of the finger. My finger only had:
~IV meds to be administered, wrong button deathly
~code in room 212, ALL kinds of buttons to save a life
~pain meds for IM. N. Agony, the right button alleviates
~IMEDs/IVACs to be set, correct buttons deliver correct dosages
~etc., etc.,..lot­s of buttons to be pushed, but ONLY the right buttons at the right time.
Uh..life, death and medical intervention issues for 12 hours at a time for over 20 years. And, I NEVER, EVER pushed the wrong button!

I guess political issues/ votes just don't carry the same weight or need for attention to the task at hand! After all, noone dies, eh? Well,..unl­ess you count the oops! button that sends Americans off to (enter foreign war zone here) or the red one on the desk or the one in the suitcase. Even if it's not those catastrophically wrong buttons in the future, one has to wonder if it was a convenient way to avoid being held accountable for votes cast in the past.
Thanks, Martin..so­me thing is just not right here and you put your finger on it..the panic button, that is! This is unnerving and cause for great concern. I know I have had it with a president not being accountable for his actions!

[RobtBrock]

Obama is starting to strike me as a whining incompetent.

[nuana]

You are the worst Clintonista that has ever posted anything anywhere. Your attacks or the so called 'views' lack perception­.....Do you want us to give you an ad against the Clinton camp-
Hillary-'OOps ! I went blind....I blanked out...I went illiterate for a moment there...I didn't see the NIE and sent the poor poor young men to Iraq...or is it Iran???...­Whoops y...you never know ..might happen again!!'

========MARTIN RESPONDS=========

Well I'm not used to being on the receiving end of such superlatives. However you are wrong in branding me. My only passion is to see a Democratic victory. If Obama is the candidate - my endeavors on his behalf will be Herculean. As they were for Gore and Kerry. However, I will not stand by silent in the debate by which we determine who would be best at winning the election. Your idea of ads that might be run against Clinton are absolutely welcome as part of the debate. However inartful the expression.

==========­==========­==========­====

[OSUMercutio]

Here's an ad that Rebublicans could run against Hillary:

Bill Clinton at a desk leaning back with a smile on his face. (70s porno/soft jazz music playing in backround)

Voiceover: I wonder what this guy's gonna be doing for the next 4 years.

[Countess]

The Clinton ads against Obama are as low as you can get. She has deliberately stirred up racist sentiment in South Carolina and apparently it is working as she has pushed Obama down to only 10 percent of the white vote there. The Clintons are the biggest hypocrites in either party.