Obama's response ad to Hillary's red phone is brilliant plus QUICK!!

[Joe the Revelator]

Thats the most amazing part. You can't swift boat a guy who gets on the air and completely owns you within 12 hours.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obama_Ringing.html

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Whoa

If Obama can do this when the GOP start attacking him in the GE, he will gain a lot of votes, I think.

[kentuck]

3. I think he can..

He has shown the ability to counter punch very effectively when attacked, unlike many of our recent candidates. He has been impressive in that regard.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. If he does,

he'll have this Kucinich supporter cheering him on. I'm tired of getting a candidate who wimps out when it comes to countering attacks.

[Common Sense Party]

2. That's gonna leave a mark. nt

[woolldog]

4. I love the voice of the guy

who does these ads. He did the Wisconsin "debates" ad also. He has a great voice.

[DesertFlower]

5. yep. he's quick and smart and

you know what else? he stays calm and cool -- an important trait for a president.

[damonm]

6. Obama's gonna do all right against the RW noise machine..nt

[npincus]

8. I think his toughness has been underestimated.

BAM!

[Kittycat]

9. His entire campaign is pure genius.

[ecstatic]

10. I agree they are brilliant and unstoppable as long as the MSM

remains enamored with him.

[Forkboy]

11. Like him or not, it was good.

Or at least I laughed, not always the same thing. ;)

[Zachstar]

12. Awesome ad!!!!!

Common Clinton supporters! Admit it! That HAS to give yall alot of hope that the Republicans can't pull a swiftboat this year!!

[yardwork]

13. That's a good ad, too. They're both good ads.

That reassures me that both Obama and Hillary Clinton can fight effectively against right-wing smears.

[Joe the Revelator]

14. I don't know dude

Hillary left herself open for Obama's left hook with her ham handed ad.

[yardwork]

38. You may be right, dude.

[blm]

15. swifts were an OUTSIDE group not connected to a campaign. You don't hear Obama going after

the Obama is a Muslim extremist schooled in a madrassa do you?

Responding to CAMPAIGN attacks is expected, and Obama does it VERY well.

[denem]

16. What I smell is Republican Fear

A team or teams that can outdo them any which way. Kerry's problem was he was on public finance, but damn Obama's team is hot.

[Joe the Revelator]

17. Kick because the ad is awesome

[kentuck]

18. Once he slaps the Repubs down a couple of times...

They will hesitate before they come out with their usual bullshit, perhaps?

[AtomicKitten]

19. Obama has run a brilliant campaign.

Absolutely spectacular!

[ArizonaJosie]

20. We do not know why Obama voted against the war

He says because he thought it was a bad idea. He may think ALL wars are a bad idea or he may have realized voting for it would not play well in his home state as Durbin voted against the IWR in 2002. We have no evidence except his own claim that he did it because of his so-called "superior judgment".

[Joe the Revelator]

23. If you'd do some reading, all your questions could have been answered

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

-Obama 2002

[ArizonaJosie]

24. Self-serving statements perhaps

That is just an elongation of his basic claim. We only have his word as to why he said what he said in 2002. We have no way of knowing how he would have voted, had he been in the U.S. Senate in October of 2002.

We have no direct evidence of his claim outside of his own, possibly self-serving, statements.

[Joe the Revelator]

26. Nothing would ever be good enough for you. He came out before the vote and went on record as NOT

supporting the war, as he was in the middle of his senate campaign.

[ArizonaJosie]

31. Well, actually, truth would be good enough for me

You are offering me your opinion based on nothing more then what could very well be Obama's self-serving statements. Wouldn't be the first time a politician acted that way.

[Cha]

29. It really helps to have reading

comprehension when you've asked questions and the facts are given to you. But, if you want to be willfully obtuse why don't you just say so instead of wasting other people's time?

[ArizonaJosie]

32. Please list the facts and number them if you can.

All that has been offered is one, lengthy, possibly self-serving statement.

[woolldog]

27. Not true.

He was clear as to why he opposed it, including predictions about what would happen with respect to Sunni and Shiite and Kurdish inter-ethnic conflict, that it would fan the flames of anti-Americanism, that it would distract from Afghanistan and so on...He also made clear at the time that he wasn't against all wars.

Look at his interview on the Jeff Berkowitz show in November 2002. Starting at 00:37 of this youtube link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om_lI115gvo

[jesus_of_suburbia]

21. I really like how he fires back at everything...

I guess after Kerry in '04 I thought we were going to let the Republicans run over us
forever.

This quick response to Clinton's ad shows that he might have what it takes to stand
up to the Rethuglican attack machine.


If he gets the nomination, he better stand up to every attack that comes at him, because I have a feeling the attacks will be relentless.

He can't back off if he beats Clinton when the attacks from the right wing start.

So far he has surprised me in a good way.

[Tatiana]

22. The Rapid Response Team is one of the best in politics I have ever seen.

I think Clinton's "I'm a fighter" as a reason to vote for her in the primary just went out the window. Obama can definitely take on McCain.

But I must confess, this extended primary race is growing on me. Clinton is truly making Obama a better candidate. And who knows? Maybe that's why this thing has gone on for so long, with only a trickle of superdelegates moving to Obama's side instead of the avalanche we're all expecting.

Nothing wrong with letting Obama get a little seasoning. It will serve us well in the general election.

[Cha]

30. Right..we wouldn't want him

to be tenderfoot for the general.

[ShadowLiberal]

25. Wow, that ad is a lot better then what parts of it I saw on the news

My local news station didn't show all of the response ad, I just saw the part saying "shouldn't judgment to oppose Iraq matter", and a clip of Obama saying that in his speech earlier today, and was like "that's not a very good response". They should have shown the rest of it where it says that we took our eyes off of the terrorists by invading Iraq.

[gravity]

28. The Hillary camp must be furious

They spent all their energy creating the perfect attack ad, just to be marginalized 12 hours later.

[DUyellow]

34. i bet they are

[PassingFair]

33. It also shows that they will take the McCain camp HEAD-ON!

He can do it, he comes from a position of strength,
not having authorized the ILLEGAL, IMMORAL and
INSANE invasion of Iraq.

Something Kerry was unable to do.

I'm glad he's coming out SWINGING on this!

:applause:

[Leopolds Ghost]

36. Apply directly to the forehead.

[Leopolds Ghost]

35. Pink Tutu Dems are angrily denouncing Obama for "hypocritically stooping to Clinton's level"

Saying he should have remained silent and let Clinton's negative ad, and his press release denouncing it, speak for itself:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obama_Ringing.html

Given how blatantly some of these pink tutu dems are concern trolls working for the opposing camp,

Could it be that the same "Dem Strategists" who undermined the Kerry campaign in the exact same way

(by attacking Kerry whenever he "stooped to Bush's level" and attacking him for "rashly drawing
attention to Kerry's shortcomings by attacking Bush on his strongest suits" on every possible issue?)

Could they in fact be Quislings of some sort?

Willing to play both sides by convincing one candidate to remain nonconfrontational and lose?

While failing to exert any penalties or expend any emotion on the enemy for playing by a different set of rules?

Willing to expend their anger on their own candidate when he threatens to do what they give
the other guys a free pass on doing (because they know it works and they know it will lead
to the other guy winning)?

[Scurrilous]

37. K & R

:thumbsup: