Ad Wars: Episode V – Hillary Strikes Back

A brand new poll in Pennsylvania shows Obama beginning to close the gap with just two weeks to go. The Quinnipiac University poll shows Obama now trailing Senator Hillary Clinton by just six points, 50 to 44. Just a week ago, Obama was trailing in that poll by nine. And a month ago, many polls showed him down by almost 20. Which takes us to…drumroll please…the ad wars! Clinton and Obama are now blanketing Pennsylvania with them. Obama is reportedly shelling out more than $2 million, while Clinton unveiled five new ads yesterday.

One of the ads highlights Clinton’s childhood roots in the Keystone State (I know what you’re thinking, but apparently the Senator is not only from the Empire State but also from Pennsylvania).  The ad has plenty of footage of baby Hillary traipsing around in a white cotton dress. How can it not be a success when it features baby videos!?

On a serious note, this may be part of the post-Mark Penn strategy, talking about softening Hillary’s image. But what’s remarkable about what’s going on in Pennsylvania is what Obama is doing. It’s unprecedented. $2 million. There are Democrats in that state who say  that NOBODY has ever spent that much. Not Rendell, not Casey, no one. No Democrat has spent that amount of money in one week. Obama is outspending Clinton at least three to one in Pennsylvanaia. I think you have to raise the question – is he trying to end it in Pennsylvania? All the pundits assume that Clinton has the advantage there, but Obama is pouring big bucks into the state, which is why she had to put out this new five ads.

It is certainly a very nice ad. Pennsylvania is one of the oldest states in the union and the folks there are very nostalgic. What she’s saying with that ad is, “I’m one of you.” There are two important considerations at play here, however. First, will the ad affect any undecided voters? Second, is it a waste of money. Then again, anything that even attempts to humanize Hillary is a good move.

Obama, meanwhile, unweiled a new ad that appears to be aimed at Pennsylvania women, a Clinton stronghold. The ad features all women, including his sister, wife, and…grandmother, the same woman he very publicly admitted uttered racial and ethnic stereotypes that, quote, “made him cringe.”

Exit polling has consistently shown that if Obama wants to win this nomination, if he wants to win in Pennsylvania, if he wants to win in any Democratic primary or caucus, he has to win women. That is Clinton’s advantage. So, by showing his half-sister, who’s half Indonesian, in the ad, by showing his grandmother, who he said he can no more disown even though she put forth racial epithets, the campaign is hoping that it will appeal to women voters in Pennsylvania. It’s interesting to note that Michelle Obama, who we haven’t seen much in the past couple of weeks, has been spending time in Pennsylvania, essentially making the case for her husband once again. Obama’s got to do better!

Next up, the new Clinton ad featuring the African-American mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter. The ad opens with the following line: “I know, you want to know why I’m supporting Hillary. Easy. She gets it, and she gets the job done.” OUCH! Nutter goes on to talk about how Clinton is best equipped to deal with issues like the economy and education. But what’s with the opening line? I think the Clinton campaign reached over way too far in that concept. Mayor Nutter should have just started off with, “Let me tell you why I’m supporting Hillary.” The ad is just filled with all kinds of wrong implications. And it looks like it’s some kind of attempt to get at Obama’s black vote, which is not going to work at all. This is the Mayor! This is a guy who’s involved in the nuts and bolts of government. And the ad goes on to talk about that, but he should have just stuck with that. This is clearly a defensive ad. He’s trying to hold – he isn’t trying to get votes. He’s trying to hold what she’s got (which isn’t much). The ad is trying to prevent a total landslide in Pennsylvania.

Finally, a new Obama ad is aggressively pursuing the youth vote in Pennsylvania. Here it is:

“Because with your power, it’s with your voice that we’re going to be able to make a difference. One voice can change the rules, and if it can change the rules, it can change the city. And if it can change the city, it can change the state. And if it change the state, it can change a nation. And if it can change a nation, it can change the world. Let’s go change the world.”

Obama is playing to his strength here, which is the youth vote. They helped him win in a place like Iowa. I think what’s fascinating here is that he’s been doing something with a small mention in one of the papers. He’s actually encouraging students to sign up 10 or 20 other students with a chance to get to play basketball with Obama. It’s registered thousands and thousands of people. And it’s just a different way that they run a viral campaign with young people. If he can turn out the youth vote in large numbers in Pennsylvania, it will be part of the larger story about Obama transforming politics. They are certainly trying to do it in a novel way again in Pennsylvania. And a lot of it is under the radar.

Here’s the problem with the ad though. It’s fine for the youth. But Pennsylvania is the oldest state in the union. Change for them means something very different. They are going to care about social security and Medicare. And I’m not sure if this ad does it for them. Old people aside (with all possible due respect), the ad has great appeal for the youth vote. But what it really is, is a winner ad. It’s aimed at the undecided voters who kind of want to pick a winner. And the ad makes the candidate look like a winner. It’s saying “get on the bandwagon, because this is the guy who’s going all the way.”

All in all, a couple of good ads from the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and a couple of duds. We’ll have to wait and see what impact, if any, they will have on April 22. What’s safe to say is that the battle for the Keystone State will only intensify over the next ten days.

Has Hilary Gone Too Far For the Democrats? Find Out Which Rocky Road She’s Chosen!

Democratic Party Leaders looking to avoid a prolonged fight continue to use coded terms such as “avoiding a bloodbath,” “timetables,” and “the will of the people” to subtly nudge Senator Hillary Clinton from the race. Despite that push, Clinton recently brought up a legendary boxer as she vowed to fight on:

“Could you imagine if Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum stairs and said, well, ‘I guess, that‘s about far enough.’ That‘s not the way it works.  Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common.”

Never mind that Rocky lost in that movie to his opponent Apollo Creed.  It sure feels like the ref, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, wants to call the fight early, asking the undecided superdelegates to make a decision well before the late August convention.

Said Dean: “We also have these unpledged delegates that have been part of the rules for 25 years.  There‘s about 800 of them.  About 470 of them have voted, I‘d like the other 330 to say who they‘re for between now and the 1^st of July.”

Chairman Dean may believe he‘s doing what‘s best for the party, but they created these rules and this schedule, and by expediting the race he‘s also basically ensuring that Clinton will have no chance. She will almost certainly be down in both popular vote and delegates at the end of the primaries.  She will have to hope to make a momentum argument to the superdelegates and hope for an Obama slip up. Time is her greatest ally, and it sure seems like the leaders in the party don‘t want to give that to her.

It certainly seems that the leading Democrats are all using coded terms — “it‘s going to be OK, it‘s going to work itself out,” — which basically means Obama‘s going to win and we‘ll be able to get rid of Hillary Clinton?

I don’t really have a problem with what Dean is trying to do. However, I do think it’s really problematic when people like Pat Leahy suggests she’s got to get out now before all the votes have been cast and counted. When people like Dean, or Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi start to suggest, well, maybe July 1^st is a deadline, well, they can say whatever they want. It’s certainly interesting. I’d like to know. It gives us all a deadline to look forward to. But the fact is that it’s not binding. The superdelegates can come out and cast their votes either way. Dean can’t force them. And if they throw their support behind Obama, then Dean can’t force them to stick with it when they get to Denver in August.

Now, no one is taking the position officially that Clinton should get out now. You’ve got Leahy saying it, but you got no sort of so-called objective observers out there. You don’t have Obama saying it, you don’t have his campaign officially saying it. But isn’t there a wink and a nod here when Harry Reid and Howard Dean are saying, you know, we’ll be able to fix this pretty soon, so don’t worry?

My problem is not with the intellectually honest ones like Leahy who’s saying, for example, you know what, get out. That’s fine. That’s Leahy’s opinion, and people can judge him on that. My problem is with the Democratic Party establishment. I mean, here’s Nancy Pelosi, who backed off from a previous comment she made which certainly sounded anti-Clinton, and here’s what she’s saying today:

“I believe that the elections must run their course, that the people’s voices must be heard, and that the superdelegates voting their conscious, but paying attention to the will of the people. We’ll come to a resolution long before July.”

Perhaps there’s something I’m not getting when I look at the will of the people, but paying attention to the will of the people when you know that Hillary Clinton has almost no chance to come away with a popular vote victory — it’s possible, but not realistic — and that her only real hope is with the superdelegates. Isn’t this effectively Pelosi, and I add her now to the group I mentioned earlier with the wink and the nod, saying that Clinton is done?

When this ends in early June, Hillary Clinton’s best hope is to say, you know what, we’ve got momentum, and it’s going to take some time to convince people. And if everyone is saying let’s cut it off June 15^th or July 1^st or whatever the date is, sometime before the convention, then that is bad news for Clinton. At this time, there’s no way that time is anything but an ally to Hillary Clinton.