Obama Launches First Negative Ad

Does anyone know what happened to Obama’s campaign of hope? Lately, all he’s doing is whining and going negative complaining about everything! It seems clear the celebrity campaign is running out of luck once the people started focusing in the real issues and demanding real answer not just slogans and hyped words!
Obama has not chance to win the nomination and not matter how much money they get from the big pocked corporations, Hollywood celebrities at the end is the candidate who has to answer those question. The Obamarama days are numbered! Yikes!

Could someone tell me what is “NEGATIVE” in Obama’s message? Sounds like a straightforward correction. What is wrong with that?

This add simply is not Negative! Shame on you ABC for going with such a biased headline.

What is it with you Obumites & your shift keys.
It’s not about black or white – but rather, about ‘fluff’ and substance.
Obuma gives great speeches – why not elect Denzel Wahington? He is better looking…and I’m sure his wife doesn’t wear the pants in the family.
Get a jumbo size Kleenex – you’ll need it when he loses.

It’s the first negative ad by democratic candidate in New Hampshire. You can easily tell its a negative ad because the Obama camp didn’t nofity the media about it and its a radio ad which is less circulated than a TV ad.
Face it Obama numbers are sinking like a Rock!

It is a shame to modern day journalism. How is correcting misinformation going negative?
Just say you want to sink the campaign of a Black man who is running for President in a majority white country.
I am white and i am sick of this injustice in this country. All men are entitled to that throne.

Obama is wrong on health care, wrong in the way he attacks his fellow democrats, wrong on his hypocrisy and on his own flip-flopping positions on Iran, lobbyists, and big money, on running a positive campaign…
It’s bad that Obama’s inexperienced, but it’s inexcusable that he’s a hypocrite and a self-serving, over-ambitious party-divider.
This isn’t about race. In the future I see possibilities for Harold Ford Jr., Jesse Jackson Jr. – there are many potentially great African-American political leaders, Obama is not the only one who might break the race barrier. Let’s look to deserving candidates and not reward this egomaniac’s premature and dubious power-grab.
Hillary is the one! Though Edwards has my vote too if he gets the nod. Obama: no way, I’ll write-in someone else before I vote for the whining Chicago fraud.

It’s not a “negative ad” to defend yourself from the unrelenting unfounded claims from your opponents!
It’s about time Obama addressed this!
Not only has she been purposefully misrepresenting Obama’s plan, Hillary has totally mislead everyone into thinking that her plan is a single payer plan like Kucinich’s when it’s actually just a law to force everyone to buy insurance. At least Edwards has been honest enough to say he’d garnish people’s wages if they didn’t buy it on their own.
By the way, Obama has just been shown leading in Iowa by 7 points, in the most respected des moines register poll.
Obama also does the best against the republicans.
(Hilary loses to everyone but Romney)

Folks…ponder this, please
Despite the Barack Obama zeal, I believe Clinton will prevail. And if she is the nominee, I believe she is the most electable and least vulnerable Democratic candidate to face the Republicans.
I was more uncertain a year ago when she announced her candidacy. Then she had recognizable strengths but at the same time possessed familiar handicaps both political and personal. She was routinely portrayed as contrived, a woman whose high intelligence had an impersonal edge and whose real identity was difficult to locate.
That was then. Today Clinton has forged herself into a formidable political leader. She has undergone a remarkable journey. In the face of unending autopsies on her personal and political past, unrelieved targeting at both Democratic and Republican debates, the punishing demands imposed on a woman candidate, she is still standing unflinchingly in place.
This is the mark of thoroughbred candidates. They take the fire. They survive the wounds. And while voters relish the spectacle of office-seekers squirming under adversity, something else happens at the same moment. If candidates demonstrate they can bear that kind of public barrage with conviction and ready composure — and Clinton has done that — they cross a crucial threshold in the public mind. They are viewed as able to compete and win a national election and able thereafter to govern in perilous times.
Why the most electable Democrat? Because after a year of being tightly measured, Clinton has won a public acceptance that she has the intellect and inner confidence to do the job. She has reached beyond her political inheritance and shaped a political presence all her own. Hillary belittlers still abound, to be sure. She is still caricatured as calculating. But the senator has taken on some different markings. Gone is the defensive bite, on hand is a new openness to concede mistakes, often with glints of humor.
If she does capture the nomination, she will see her standing soar overnight. Nomination is a transforming passage. What was viewed by some as calculation becomes smartness, impersonalness becomes thoughtful deliberation.
Once nominated her campaign will undergo another transformation. Her candidacy will take on an historic aura as it confronts an historic question — can a woman, this woman, be elected president? Americans will be caught up in crossing one of the country’s great divides. Voters of both parties, not just proud women, will be favorably disposed to make that crossing. Americans like the good feeling of removing barriers.
This gender phenomenon showed up in the Geraldine Ferraro campaign, which I managed. At every stop, huge crowds turned out, eager to be part of history in the making. By campaign’s end, two things seemed clearer to me: there is inherent goodwill for a woman seeking power but a far sterner demand she be up to the challenge. That higher bar asked too much of Ferraro. Clinton has already cleared the bar.
Why the least vulnerable Democrat? The day the Democratic nominee becomes obvious the Republican attack machine will spring to action. Always, the opponent is a target to be eviscerated. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, a man less intimately understood and less defined, Republicans will rush to manufacture their own brutal definition. Can Obama withstand that kind of barrage? Does he have the personal makeup to be as relentless as his opponents? Do past political positions leave him vulnerable? Because the risks are sky-high, these questions need to be reasonably raised and answered beforehand.
Clinton is well past negative redefinition. Unlike John Kerry’s 2004 campaign in which veterans opposed to Kerry’s candidacy challenged his war record, it will be difficult to ram a Swift Boat into her candidacy. If there is a convict in her political past, as with Willie Horton during the Dukakis 1988 campaign, he will already have been exhumed. Besides, the Clintons are veteran enough to mount a withering counterfire of their own.
The most vulnerable Democrat, Hillary Clinton is not. The most electable, she is. America’s political landscape, this time around, looks fertile for the right Democratic candidate. But one day, surely, the country will elect a woman president. I sense that moment – and that woman – Madame President Clinton- has arrived.

I hope America has enough time to realize that forcing everybody to buy healthcare coverage at current costs only stacks the pocket books of insurance company CEO’s.
Forcing health insurance companies to lower premieums so it becomes affordable ($2500 less per annuam per fammily) really is the only way to cut into the insurance industry’s bottom line.
Ask yourself why the major healthcare providers are funnelling money into HRC and Edwards campaigns. Ask why Hillary refuses to stop taking lobbyist money or why she failed to pass her “universal healthcare” in ’93.
Clinton = Agent of change.. I don’t think so.

so now abc is ‘foxxing’ us too?
i dont own a tv, and i get better and more varied news sources than people who do.
get the hint, ditch the tv. i regret checking in with abc nbc cbs cnn and fox online….
back to the net, where i can get news on both sides of EVERY issue, minus the aggressive hostile advertising, time constraints, and for only a few clicks…

How is this a negative ad ? I expected better journalism form ABC. What a misleading story line ! Now I know to approach future ABC headlines with skepticism.

Obama’s healthcare radio ad can hardly be considered an attack ad. For a pundit, you’re pretty thin skinned. Hillary and Edwards have been blanketing IA and NH with marketing materials that have been HARSHLY critical of Obama’s healthcare plan. Hillary even went so far as to say Obama was betraying democratic principles by not having a mandate. They’ve really been trying to skin him on this healthcare issue. All Obama does in his ad is mention what Iowans already know – that Hillary and Edwards have been criticizing him over the mandate issue – and he tells voters WHY he doesn’t feel mandates are appropriate at this stage (i.e. before costs are under control). He doesn’t try to caricature them.
Hillary’s plan estimates premiums of $12k/yr for family coverage – according to the US Census Bureau, the average American family makes $48k/yr (Gross). The issue is affordability first. Most people don’t have the insurance because they can’t afford it, not because they don’t want it. Once they’ve got the costs under control for the average family, they can impose a mandate. Massachusetts’ mandated program has had to exempt 100’s of thousands because people can’t afford it, and they’re beginning to fine others. We already have an example of a mandated program that doesn’t ensure full coverage, largely because it’s too expensive. Frankly, I think it’s the insurance companies who are working with Hillary to push the mandate issue. They want to be assured of profits, regardless of whether people can afford their premiums. When they get their premiums under control, they’ll have a captive audience of 300 million Americans to make money from. They should not be allowed to impose a mandate until the premiums are within reach of average Americans. As an aside, the president of AFSCME, the group backing Hillary that is sending out the healthcare attack mailers against Obama, testified earlier this year that they don’t believe in mandates – so they are only sending out those attack ads because they have pledged support to Hillary.

This is not a negative ad by any means. Please, ABC, revise the title.

I would expect this type of trite reporting from CNN, but not ABC!
How on earth is this Negative AD? You guys are really going below the belt. It’s pathetic.

Can you say Yellow Journalism??

It’s interesting to find read all the negative and anti-Obama spin coming from people who characterize this ad as negative.

Are you proposing ABC that making comparisons and distinctions amongst candidates PER SE constitute NEGATIVE ADS??? Please point out what is NEGATIVE about the ad because you seem to define that word as mentioning other candidates by name. All the campaigns at this point are trying to make the Americans understand the differences in policies. Hillary has been MISCHARACTERIZING Obama’s policies and Obama is DEFENDING and trying to make clear what the REAL differences are. DO YOU GET IT? And you guys call yourself news? SHAME ON YOU, ABC!

“The ad — coming on the eve of Thursday’s caucuses — seeks to rebut a central critique of Obama’s healthcare plan. ”
So this is negative because? And you didn’t know that it wasn’t new because Obama didn’t tell you? So are you guys journalist, or do you just regurgitate press releases? I think we just got our answer.

It is very important to remember that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have NEVER PASSED ANY OF THEIR OWN BILL IN THEIR LIFE. Obama has.
Barack Obama is a fine Christian family man. He worked helping poor people for 3 years on the dangerous streets of inner city Chicago.
Barack Obama helped over 150,000 people get healthcare in Illinois and passed ethics reform and racial profiling laws there, plus a lot more.
In Congrees he has already passed laws, including the biggest Ethics Reform Bill since Watergate.
Barack Obama is a wonderful human being and gets real change done. Please support him.
He is a good man that works for the people. Thank you. OBAMA ’08.

Is this a NEGATIVE ad just because Barack Obama is defending is healthcare plan from ‘attcks’ from both HRC and JE? If ABC didn’t have such a short memory, they would remember that HRC and JE were spreading false information about Obama’s healthcare plan first…and now are using 527s to do their dirty work. COME ON ABC, stop being so biased toward CLINTON!!!!!!

Thank you Obama for telling us the diference between the plans.
As for those who call this a “negative ad” – all I can say is “the truth hurts”.
Folks are not insuring their families because they don’t want to – they can’t afford it. Geez, givce me a little credit for being a good provider and parent. I just can’t afford $850 a month, so we hope and pray, and tread very carefully. We buy generic over-the-counter meds, and stock up on antibacterials in bottles – we’re very careful, but still, even with clipping coupons – we can’t afford health care.
Obama gives me hope to better be able to protect my loved ones. I’m ready for change. Are you?

Hillary had her shot at a Nation wide Health Care and it Failed, yes It failed!

Explaining the difference between his plan and those of his opponents is not negative. Had Obama called Edwards “soft” or Clinton “irresponsible,” then the ad could be considered personal in nature and negative. With all of the questionable 527 expenditures on behalf of other candidates and the avalanche of hit pieces being launched against him, it is appropriate that Obama continues to set the record straight about his positions on major issues.
This story is yet another example of alarmist headlines placed atop text that does not bear out the exaggerated claims being peddled. How about less hyperbole and more factual reporting? GObama 08!!!

Hillary Failed on her Nation wide Health Care when her hubby was in Office.Hillary Voted for the War In Iraq, and how many Soldiers have died there? do you see her trying to get them out? NO! Obama is the Future, he believes in the Constitution, which I think most Politicians forgot about.This is a very Critical time in our History, a wrong vote for anyone else and our Government may not be the same any more! Look at all the changes in the past 8 years. VOTE OBAMA IN 2008 lets bring back the good times

Hillarfy ads say she supported this and she supported that. OK, so she supported them. Did she ever initiate any legislation and get it passed? Show me.
Obama introduced toughest legislation against lobbyists since Watergate in his 3 years in US Senate. He went to Illinois legislature with intent to bring about change and he did. He didn’t just “support” things. He got 150,000 Illinois folks health care, he got racial profiling bill passed, etc. etc.
You want an electibile nominee, read the polls. Obama beats EVERY Republican by more than any other Democrat nominee beats any Republican.
First, it was “where has the hope gone” (guess what, it’s still there), then it was all about a hidden Muslim agenda (give me a break, playing the FEAR CARD here on a nice Christian man) and now a last minute try at changing the discussion.
Obama is THE MAN for the 21st century for US of A. He shifted the discussion to CHANGE, then the other candidates came out with their change slogans. Copying is the highest form of flattery.
Don’t let the media make up your mind. TTHINK America and then go caucus for Obama 08.

I’m voting for Barack Obama .
Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.
It’s time for America to Rise and Shine again.

I GUESS WE’LL HAVE TO DONATE TO OBAMA’S CAMPAIGN TO REBUT SOME OR ALL OF THESE NEGATIVE CLAIMS.

How is it negative to clarify one’s position in the face of intentionally misleading mailings?
HRC has really lost me in recent weeks with her surrogate attacks on Obama. Shaheen, then Kerry play diry pool … Nixon would be proud.
Edwards was my second choice until he started using similar tactics.
Obama has attracted many moderates; Democratics, Independents and even Republicans who are sick and tired of a dysfunctional system. If he loses, most of us will not turn to HRC. I certainly won’t.

Politics is not pretty … never has been and probably never will be … like religion, it divides us .. and that’s just the way it is.
Hillary will make the world a better place for you and me … it is that simple.

A man with the middle name of Hussein has no chance of being elected President in 2008. The voters of Iowa better wake up- and vote for someone other then Mr. Obama- or they shall have another 4-8 years of republicans in office.

Oh my gosh – there is nothing NEGATIVE about that ad – he was responding to criticism of his health care proposal. Absolutely nothing negative about it – they’re running for president for heaven’s sake – do you want them to just walk along singing kumbaya and not standing up for their proposals/policies. Please revise the title of this post or I’m through with you for good – this is just an aweful headline.

This is the Harry and Louise ad that Paul Krugman was taking about. It’s horribly deceptive, and sounds like something a Republican would say, not a Democrat.
It is also horribly inaccurate, and the central attack in the ad is a quotation from the flipping student newspaper!
To say that Edwards and Clinton’s plan to covering everybody is to make it illegal to not have health insurance is just wrong.

ABC is so blatantly pro-Clinton that it is absolutely disgusting. The unfair sminutes of coverage that you give her is only second to a state mouthpiece in some kind of totalitarian government.
Making a comparison is not an “attack”. In democratic politics, voters have a right to compare and analyse what the candidates are saying and their records. Clinton attacked Obama persoanlly when she called him “naive and inexperienced”. Yet ABC did not identify her attack as that. What is Clinton’s experience? Why doesn’t she release her WH and Arkansas records? Her vote lead us to the war in Iraq.
She doesn’t allow her well-educated urbane 27 year old daughter to answer questions on the campaign trail, yet she has placed 18 and 19 year olds in harms way in “Bush’s war”.
Your pathetic type of pseudo-journalism is outrageous and it is very harmful to our country’s growth and development. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! The American public deserve better as do our men and women who are fighting for us.

ABC isn’t ‘Foxxing’ us, rather they’re CNNing us. Just check out those ludicrous headlines CNN puts out nowadays. At least ABC isn’t a total Clinton campaign tool like CNN…yet.
Back on topic: I don’t see anything NEGATIVE about that ad! It’s ridiculous what lengths the mainstream media will go to get people to watch/read their news! ‘Obama Goes Negative’ will certainly catch someone’s eyes more than ‘Obama Clarifies Health Plan’

Obama has a very ‘right edge’ to restore the status of America and Americans, internally and internationally. American needs such a sort of new and freshly figure to reshape the Washington to new hope and new destiny.Your VOTE for Obama, means vote for NEW AMERICA. Vote OBAMA!!

NO OTHER PERSON CAN DO IT RIGHT FOR AMERICA AND AMERICANS FUTURE THAN BARACK OBAMA…VOTE HIM AND NEVER LOSE YOUR VOTE OTHERWISE!!
VOTE BARACK OBAMA FOR NEW AMERICA IMAGE & DIGNITY!!

When people say that Mr. Obams has taken moneys from BIG Interst groups, your wrong !!!! None of his money has. His money has come from the people that stand tall for him, and yes from some stars. BUT and it is a big one !!! He has sent back all the money from those Intrest groups your talking about. Unlike , Edwards that just said he intends to take money from the goverment funds after this Iowa vote. And Mrs Cliton already take from this fund why would she not when her husband did. Did you realy fell that she would not when She has been taking from it all alongas her husband did. You should not be able to ride the coat tails of you’r husband into offic, But should stand on your own feet when it comes to goverment. I can not say that Presadent Cliton was a bad Presadent, But Hillary is NOT Bill. Our goverment is broken, what we need is something New something that is a CHANGE.

WHAT’S THIS TALK ABOUT EXPERIENCE? THE BOTTOM LINE IS IF YOU YOUR PERSONAL SELF HAVE NEVER BEEN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THEN YOU HAVE NO EXPERIENCE AS PRESIDENT. Therefore that makes everyone equal as far as experience. Just because my daddy was an engineer does that qualify me?

Ronald Reagan was an actor, Bush was a Governor of Texas, and the list continues, and they had no more experience than Obama. I’m sure Obama will surround himself with strong, confident leaders,who will help, as historically others have to lead this country in the right direction. FINALLY. Let’s get ready for change.

People don’t realize that with all those powerful people supporting Obama that they want someone in the White House they will own. Notice the change in super-delegate votes and you can see the shift,thinking they (the supporters will be able to influence every aspect of government.

yurdygkjhoiutgyfrtgbkjio7rershglkjpoiuoyuhfcgdtretyh jm.