Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with the substance of a GWB comment. (Never thought I'd find myself typing the word "substance" when referring to a GWB comment). But he's right that they are both pandering on NAFTA for political gain. Both candidates, whose positions are identical btw, understand that trade liberalization is the better economic orthodoxy, that it improves all parties in the big picture, and that it causes suffering in the small picture, as in the 67-year-old steel worker from Ohio, who's told to train for a new "career." It's a real conundrum and calls for much more than sound-bite politics. Hillary and Barack are doing the best they can, but it didn't surprise me in the least to read about the rumors that both campaigns had called Canada before their Ohio stint and asked that trading partner to please ignore their upcoming threats to withdraw from NAFTA.

Thanks for the book recommendation. I like Thomm Hartman.

I agree with KStone that there's nothing racial about this ad--or at least no more than any single ad anywhere could be interpreted as racial. Because absolutely anything can.

That having been said, wasn't Wilentz making the argument, KStone, that the whole backdrop of Obama's campaign has been racially charged?

I think the ad is bad b/c of all the reasons everyone else mentioned:

1. I don't like fear mongering in general. I find it reductive.

2. I don't think the answer to her question is in any way obviously herself. In fact, I think the answer is far more obviously Obama or even McCain, at least given his "platform." That's why she had to prominently feature a woman all through it--so viewers didn't assume early on that we were talking about McCain.

3. I think McCain's own ad (someone posted the link) is more effective.

But I also ask: What on earth else is Hillary supposed to do at this point? I honestly don't know what I'd advise her to do. She has truly been beaten by Obama on most levels, mostly because he did the winning, not b/c she did the losing.

Now that's funny, burlydee, given that post's title. Was that a Freudian slip or what? :)

And you definitely meant "who" b/c it's it's the subject of "is." "Whom" is an object.

(friendly advice from your English major friend.)

accidentally posted "it's" twice in a row in her last post (while giving grammar advice.) :)

If your post was to suggest, AKA Smith, that national security issues are a legitimate basis for campaign advertising--and I think they are--perhaps some of us are offended that one Democratic candidate is using them on the other.

I don't adhere to every Democratic position, but for the most part, that party reflects my world view. I think it's reprehensible that Hillary Clinton is suggesting that Barack Obama represents a "dangerous" choice in protecting us from whatever nuclear or terrorist situation would prompt that night-time phone call. I agree with burlydee that this ad is intended for people who live in fear of the big bad OTHER. and that's exactly how the right operates. That's why Mitt Romney dropped out, remember? Because he didn't want to contribute to the dangerous world that would result if his staying in kept Republicans from winning the White House?

I am concerned about the themes emerging against Obama in the Republican camp, and this ad plays directly into them. I have heard you say that you will support the eventual nominee, and I think you should be concerned if Clinton strays too close to the Republican playbook on this national security issue. The right is clearly coalescing around the following against Obama:

1. patriotism/nationalism

2. national security/experience issues

2. anti-Semitism

If you think there is a difference at all b/t Clinton and Obama on these issues, fine. But there is a world of difference b/t Republicans and Democrats on these issues. Republicans play the simplistic game of black and white. If you don't wear a lapel pin, then you are not patriotic. If you don't accept unconditionally the agenda of AIPAC, then you are anti-Semitic. If you were against the war in Iraq or think there is/was a better way to execute it, then you are a commie-pacifist-chickenshit wimp who hates the troops.

This is how it's going to look this summer, and it's already making my blood boil. The last thing we need is for Republicans to start playing Hillary's commercials for their own benefit.

It would be different if there was any truth to the fact that Obama would be a dangerously naive man in the White House. Most of us think that his thoughtful, unflappable personality in combination with demonstrated judgment on international affairs make him the BETTER candidate. But surely you don't actually think he would be a dangerous leader, do you? Because that would really surprise me.

If you're willing to take a bone that I'll throw your way (and I mean that sincerely, no snottiness intended): I think some of us are starting to see what Clinton supporters warned would happen. The right is becoming a bit gleeful to see these emergent themes to use against Obama, a candidate who has not been thoroughly trashed by them already. Hillary's vetting is old hat and kind of boring, but this stuff is shiny new and they get to drag out the flag over it! If Obama is the nominee, we need all the help we can get from former Hillary supporters to combat this jingoistic faux patriotism and nationalism that has in fact made our country less safe. I have done everything in my power not to alienate Clinton supporters on salon while remaining intellectually honest about my own increasingly robust confidence in Obama. We will need the hell out of you.

I shamelessly use Wiki as my first hit on almost anything I want to know about. I found this man and his article delightful. This is a keeper.