Democratic Primary

Sidestepping the issue of whether he can stand the heat of the "Kitchen", Obama's response to Hillary's ad follows the campaign's usual parry to the the experience jab by highlighting his judgement and unifying quality. The reply seeks to shift the terms of debate from which candidate would be best in a crisis to which candidate can best bring about change.

And a quick side note, some in the media have disparagingly described Hillary's recent attacks as a "kitchen sink" strategy. Now, it's not a stretch to say that entitling an attack ad "Kitchen" seems to invoke that very characterization. Seems like a strange move on the part of the Clinton camp.

The Clinton campaign is now airing "Level" statewide in Pennsylvania. The ad opens with the line, "She's fighting for America's middle class" which is not only in keeping with the fighter narrative but, like the Obama ads, shows a focus on a key Democratic voting block in Pennsylvania, blue-collar workers.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, "The Barack barrage has begun." The Obama camp began airing ads in Philadelphia on Friday, which will run through today, March 24th, the voter registration deadline. The Inquirer goes on to report that the Obama campaign spent around $330,000 on this latest slate of ads.

"Opportunity", a minute-long spot, is aptly titled and mostly autobiographical. Using the same words as appeared in his speech on race, Obama shines the spotlight on his grandparents, painting the picture of a working class couple; his grandfather served in the army, while his grandmother worked on bomber assembly line and neither had much money. The Obama campaign is no doubt attempting to appeal to the large number of working class voters in Pennsylvania, which have thus far been a key voting block for Hillary.

Obama is also running two 30-second ads, "Carry" and "Toughest." The former focuses primarily on Obama's ability to be bipartisian and features Illinois Republican Senator Kirk Dillard, while the latter promotes Obama's push for ethics reform.

As a little bonus, here are a couple of radio ads the Obama campaign has been running in Pennsylvania. Click here and here to listen.

I have yet to see reports that Hillary has started running ads in Pennsylvania, but as soon as she does I'll be sure to post them.

In anticipation of the upcoming contests in Ohio and Texas, I thought I would give a little roundup of Obama and Hillary's ad campaigns in these two key states.

Both have been pushing hard to get their messages out over the airwaves.

Obama continues to court the Hispanic vote (you can read more about the Hispanic vote here). A Spanish language ad, "Como Padre", is currently running in Texas.

The Obama campaign is also airing "Need", "Enough", "Chances I Had", "Join", "Moment" and "Mother" in Texas and Ohioans can see, "Stock", "Enough", "Choices", "Join", "Need" and, an Obama campaign favorite, "Mother." Of note, half of the ads in Ohio deal directly with economic issues.

Hillary, by no means, has remained silent. Her latest ad, "Resolved", is a one minute segment from last Thursday's debate in Texas, which shows Hillary answering the question, "Describe the moment in your life when you were tested most?" Just yesterday, the Hillary campaign sent out an email asking supporters to donate in order for the campaign to expand the reach of this ad. It is running in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont.

In Texas, the campaign is also showing "Soldiers" and "Deliver" and for Ohio, "Nightshift" and "Proud."

I've already posted and analyzed some of these ads here, here and here.

For a more in depth look at TV ad buys, check out our memo on buying cable.

With Barack Obama's ten-state winning streak, and growing pledged delegate lead over Hillary Clinton, we are likely seeing the last gasp of the Clinton campaign in the run-up to the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4th.

If Senator Clinton doesn't win big in Texas and Ohio, the only real question left in this race pertains to the so-called superdelegates.

Will Clinton be able to hold on to the majority of her current superdelegate support, and then try to orchestrate some kind of "superdelegate coup" that would thwart the will of rank-and-file voters--in whatever way you wish to define that term (be it by Congressional district, state or national vote and delegate totals)?

That scenario seems less and less probable by the hour, with her superdelegate supporters slipping away, like so many water-torture drip...drip...drips.

What this whole situation calls for however, is a good hard look at the superdelegate process. At best, during the primary and caucus season, these superdelegates have been a superfluous distraction, confusing all concerned. At worst, the murky superdelegate system is an undemocratic way for Party power-brokers to maneuver behind the scenes--to scoop up PAC money and favors--and to possibly rig our nomination process.

Sorry, superdelegates. It's time that this bad idea meets with its demise. We don't need Super-Democrats coming in to make decisions for us. The people are perfectly capable of electing their own nominee for president.

While there's been much public hand-wringing and uproar about this superdelegate issue in recent weeks, there is only one grassroots project that has people all over the country engaging in a collaborative effort to introduce some sunlight into the shadowy superdelegate system. And, my, how our superdelegate friends have run for cover and made much ado about how they would never thwart the will of the people.

The Superdelegate Transparency Project (STP) began two weeks ago, and currently represents a partnership between my blog, LiteraryOutpost, OpenLeft, DemConWatch, HuffingtonPost and Congresspedia (which is a project of the Center for Media and Democracy and the Sunlight Foundation). Combined, these partners have brought nearly 300 volunteers to STP, folks that are concerned about what effect the superdelegates might have on our Democratic nomination.

These volunteers are putting in time to track down vote totals, district-by-district, along with pledged delegates. Then they are tracking down, interviewing and publishing stories about the superdelegates, recording how they are currently pledged, whether they've switched, and eventually what their vote will be.

A few blasé voices here and there have said we don't need to worry about the superdelegates this time around. But the point is: We should never have to worry about them again.

The Superdelegate Transparency Project, when completed, will provide evidence to make that argument forcefully. No longer will we have to speak in hypotheticals about what superdelegates probably did or didn't do. This time, we'll have a first-ever, complete set of data that tracks the nitty-gritty of superdelegate behavior--district by district.

As the New York Times said, "[STP] is the kind of tool that the back room bosses from 1984 could never have imagined -- and today's political bosses are probably horrified to see."

Rank-and-file Democrats will be able to make the case that early endorsements and pledges from superdelegates--those that are collected before the primaries and caucuses even begin--are only an unfair advantage for whomever the Establishment has chosen as the annointed and "inevitable" one. But guess what? It's not their call.

The Blasé Band can say what they like about how we didn't have to worry. But they miss the most important points. The Superdelegate Transparency Project moved people from concern, straight into action--and transparency is playing its very important role in keeping the superdelegates honest. Sorry, we didn't want to sit around on our couches, talking about throwing pies. We wanted to make sure this never happens again.

Next, we can use the STP data to bring all Democrats around to a necessary realization.

Superdelegates? We don't need no superdelegates!

We need a Democratic nomination process that is democratic.

[Note:If you have some time today, come join STP's Barn-Raising effort. We're trying to get the last bits of data updated, so we can begin releasing our findings to the media next week.]

[Cross-posted at HuffPO and LiteraryOutpost.]

Travis's post last week on the use of text-messaging in 2008 inspired me to provide a quick snapshot of Twitter, another way for presidential candidates to broadcast information to their supporters. The more tech savvy amongst you may already be updating your friends with important information like, "eating chinese" or "driving and should be paying attention to the road." For those that are not familiar with this web tool, here's a little overview.

Twitter is a free service that allows you to send messages to your friends which they can receive as an instant message, a text message or simply through their web browser. While it remains a niche phenomenon, a recent story in the Fashion & Style section of the New York Times has certainly given it some pedigree.

Twitter does more than just facilitate inane missives that keep you abreast of your friend's every move. It was put to use by local residents and news organizations in San Diego during the recent wild fires to provide instant updates ranging from supply needs to the status of the fires. More recently, tech political news junkies were getting their Super Tuesday election results and reactions from a Google Maps and Twitter mashup.

With the notable exception of John McCain, all of the presidential candidates have signed up. As a free service, it's a great way to quickly disseminate information to their supporters as short, 140 character "tweets." Here's a sample of what would show up in your Twitter feed if you were totally agnostic with regard to the candidates.

(I'm as surprised as you are at how active Huckabee has been. Maybe a little more. As I have checked my feed on and off throughout the month, Huckabee has consistently had the most posts.)

As a consequence of Obama's refusal to debate Hillary in Wisconsin, the two campaigns have been engaged in a back-and-forth via TV ads. Today the Hillary campaign has released a response to the Obama response to her initial ad criticising Obama's lack of desire to debate her in Wisconsin. Got all that?

It is not immediatly clear who is coming out ahead as a result of these exchanges, although given Obama's money advantage this can't be helping the Clinton camp's coffers.

 

 

And as a little bonus, here is Hillary's latest radio ad (it's a pretty raw copy so you need to skip past the first 10 seconds).

Yesterday, the Hillary campaign began to air an ad in Wisconsin critical of Obama's refusal to participate in a debate and already the Obama campaign has produced an ad of its own for Wisonsin TV, in an effort to parry the Clinton attack.

Obama also has a new radio ad running in Ohio that you can listen to here.

It looks like Hillary is really ratcheting up her investment in Texas with a new ad meant to appeal to military members and families. This marks the fourth ad that the Hillary campaign is running in Texas. Fair or unfair, that fact alone will only further foment comparisons to Giuliani's Florida firewall, although it need not be thought of as her only source of strength given that the latest polls show she is strong in Ohio and Pennsylvania (is the poll moratorium over yet Travis?).

You can take a look at the other ads she is running in Texas here. And while I have yet to see any Texas TV ads from Obama, you can find his radio spot here.

Barack Obama is bringing his economic argument to Wisconsin in an ad called "Enough". In the ad he decries tax breaks for companies that have shifted jobs overseas. It looks like Obama is trying harder to capture those blue-collar voters that have been such a large source of support for Hillary. First, the major policy speech and now this: