It's hard to quibble with the Clinton's assertion. Still, even though he is right, the MoveOn ad was lame. Decide for yourself.

If you live in Iowa or New Hampshire you already know. Floridians, too, have an inkling. South Carolina senses something big on the way. It's called the fourth quarter advertising blitz, and come Sunday it will kick into high gear. Yes, with the official end to the third quarter, it will be time to start spending all the money in the presidential war chests. That means a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam of television ads from several well-funded campaigns.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have already begun. In Iowa, Both men have so far laid out $2.7 million for air time, and Romney has also spent another $1.7 in New Hampshire. Giuliani and Thompson are poised to pour their cash into Florida, South Carolina, and California, risking that early Romney victories in the first two states won't amount to much in the end. While Romney trails badly in national polls, if he notches a win or two, he'll have that much more free advertising. For a man with an estimated net worth upwards of $250 million, that's a whole lot of Romney on the tee vee.

Meanwhile, though Obama has outspent his rivals in Iowa, he has yet to see it translate into a first place standing in the polls. Clinton still has the lead, with Edwards and Obama in a virtual tie for second. But because it appears that Clinton has a stranglehold on the nomination, an upset in Iowa would have enormous repercussions.

So get ready, America, you're going to be hearing the following phrase more than a few times in the coming months: My name is (insert candidate's name here) and I approve this message.

Democratic presidential nominee John Edwards purchased airtime on MSNBC to provide a response to President Bush as a way of boosting his position in the Democratic primary polls where he is stagnating in third place. Well, if he wants to go up in the polls, this advertisement/address will not do it.

Mainly this is because Edwards' address repeats generalized talking points that do not distinguish him from others at all. Furthermore, he essentially says that de-funding the war should be the direction congress takes. This is a problematic suggestion to say the least.

Edwards fails to address one thing: how could he expects a plurality of Democrats to go along with complete troop de-funding. Other than with a very small percentage of the Democrats in the House, complete de-funding has never been a plurality opinion in the Democratic House. The Dems have instead advocated a phased withdrawal - a slow withdrawal over a period of time.Additionally, many Blue Dogs are nervous about voting for a phased withdrawal feeling that it would kill their chances for re-election.

Hiding in plain sight is one of Sherlock Holmes's villain's favorite tricks. A group that is launching a $15 million dollar ad blitz is chaired by Ari Fleisher, Bush's former press secretary, so any suggestion the group has ties to the White House would seem pretty valid. The ads are going to run in areas where Republicans want to shore up support for the Iraq war among, well, Republicans. This could well be trying to put fingers in a dike that no longer exists and I wonder if the campaign will work. Sure, most people 'support the troops' but supporting the troops doesn't mean supporting the policy that put them where they are or coming home maimed or in a coffin. Could each of us sit with a flag draped coffin and not feel absolutely terrible or question the deciders that sent another member of our military to his or her death? Yesterday's report that we lost another 14 caused me to pull over and hit my steering wheel in anguish. When is enough just enough?

Will the images in the ads boost support for a war that clearly isn't working (we are well past the 4 year mark) with no end in sight, or will the ads boomerang and lower the already low support for this war? The ads will ask voters to call their congressmen and senators but the operators will only connect callers to their senator's office if they take a pledge to support Bush. Of course, voters can choose to call their Senator directly and not go thru the rigmarole of a patched thru call. Surprisingly, almost all the ads will run in Republican held districts. Again, I'm not sure if it helps to remind voters again and again about the endless war at a time when the traditional media is covering it less. It's their money, they can spend it this way but it could be as badly planned as the war. We'll see.

You can watch the ads yourself. They're not bad but, again, which message do they reinforce? Watch the poll numbers in the key states where they are run and that will tell if they prop Mr. 25% numbers up.

Hillary Clinton believes the path to the White House goes through George W. Bush. Perhaps her advisers have not let her in on the secret that Bush can't run again and the GOP front-runners have not exactly been rushing to be seen with him.

The video below is interesting on several counts; first she attacks a lame-duck president to shore up the nutroots anti-war vote who see anyone taking shots at the president as "speaking truth to power, man!" But it's wasted bullets as Rudy Giuliani is much more socially moderate than Bush and Fred Thompson is a conservative, which Bush is not. They are different people and will make that clear when the time comes.

Second, there was once a time when saying what Hillary said about the president (or any other elected leader for that matter) would result in a sharp rebuke from the press or members of their own party. Those times are long gone as the things that have been said about President Bush are so disgusting and reprehensible in other media outlets that Hillary didn't even raise an eyebrow with this ad. That's another reason that it's interesting she hit at Bush and not at her opponents in the donk primaries. The people that ad was aimed at are Iowans who tend to be conservative folk. The ad just may backfire on her. I could see her running an ad like that in California or New Jersey and getting results, not in Iowa.

H/T: AP

Okay, I'll admit, it's a pretty savvy turnabout. The John Edwards campaign has released a nifty little ad to the title song of the musical "Hair."

It works on several levels. It pokes fun at the candidate himself, for what undeniable gaffe of having his campaign pay for very expensive haircuts. This strategy might be called, turn a negative into a positive. We've seen it with Hillary Clinton, too, who has released a series of very funny sketch comedy routines to dispel the notion that she has no sense of humor. Next, the Edwards ad asks the question, what is really important, how much money you spend on your locks, or what you'd do as president? The images of bombs going off in Iraq, and American poverty echo themes found in "Hair" itself.

Edwards is best when he's hitting his critics head on. And that head has a nice bit of hair on it, too.

...but if what you report implicates a minority, the Democrats want to make sure that you can be sued. After the CAIR sued numerous "John Does" in their lawsuit against US Air in the "flying imams" case, there was a huge push to get immunity for reporting suspicious behavior anonymously.

Makes sense right? There's people out there who are trying to kill us, and we would like anything suspicious to be reported without fear of retaliation. Well apparently it doesn't make sense to the Democrats. From the Washington Times:

Congressional Democrats today failed to include a provision in homeland security legislation that would protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leaders.

...

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, initially opposed the legislation, expressing concern that it would lead to racial profiling.

And if people die from a terrorist attack, well that's better than having Muslims profiled. Sheesh, trust the American people, trust the cops. The flying imams case raised warning bells on all sorts of levels CAIR wants it to be about racial profiling, but many people suspect they acting suspicious on purpose in order to test America's judicial system.

Bottom line is that the Democrats just handed the Republicans another club to beat them with on the national security issue. The Democrats always seem to prefer their own liberal sensitivities over doing anything real about terrorism and they are true to form here.

Two recent stories from Chris Cillizza spell trouble for Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman. First off, in the second quarter of 2008, funnyman and former collegiate wrestler Al Franken outraised Coleman by $400,000. With his name recognition and deep pockets it appears certain that Franken will be the Democratic challenger for Coleman's seat.

Second, as the Senate prepares to debate a new bill proposing the withdrawal of our soldiers from Iraq, Coleman, along with three other GOP senators, will find himself the subject of a spate of unflattering ads sponsored by the DSCC. All four of the senators -- Susan Collins, John Sununu, Mich McConnell and Coleman -- are up for re-election, and considered vulnerable on this issue. Then again, what politician who has stood in lock-step with the president all this time is not vulnerable considering that new surveys suggest that 70% of Americans now want a pullout by April.

On Monday the Supreme Court eased rules on political ads targeting specific candidates in the weeks before an election (yet another blow that controversial campaign finance law President Bush signed while holding his nose). You can bet within minutes of the Supremes' decision, the NRA, Sierra Club, Emily's List and dozens of other advocacy groups were firing up their media machines.

The ruling will make it easier for them to jump into the political fray as an election nears without worrying that their ads could land them in prison, and the airwaves will almost certainly be more crowded with direct political appeals identifying politicians by name. ...

Indeed, said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president, if candidates made claims that angered his organization "within 60 days of an election, you can expect to have the NRA on the air, in their face, with an ad."

"On the air, in their face, with an ad." Sigh. It's gonna be a long election season....

There's been a lot of buzz over the last week or so about the Hillary Clinton campaign ad based on the last episode of 'The Sopranos.' While I think the ad is very well done, and it did make me laugh, I also wondered the first time I saw it if Hillary really wanted to compare herself and Bill to the mafia, even in jest. In addition to evoking memories of the Clintons playing fast and loose with the law, it also provides great fodder for opposition ads. Think about what Rudy Giuliani's campaign could do with that image if he and Hillary square off in the presidential race. Remember, he made his name before becoming mayor of New York fighting (and convicting) organized crime figures. The 'Sopranos' parody gives him a month's worth of potential ads, at the very least. Same thing with Fred Thompson, a former real (and TV) prosecutor.

I find myself joined in this opinion by a very unlikely ally (for me) Margaret Carlson, formerly of Time Magazine and now of Bloomberg News:

Yet the Clintons have too much in common with the Sopranos to risk parodying them. Through eight seasons of mob life in New Jersey and eight years in the Clinton White House, America has been gripped by these two couples. Much of the fascination is with the wives: How much does she know? Why does she stay? In the last two seasons, Sopranos writer David Chase made sure that Carmela was held to account. She'd become the person she denied she was to her therapist and priest -- a co-conspirator who turned a blind eye to her husband's sins to enjoy the fruits of his crime.

Carlson is a well-known very liberal feminist columnist, and someone who I think would be in the forefront of the media figures who would naturally support a Hillary candidacy. Reading her column as a warning, perhaps this should be the last of the Sopranos-Clinton "collaborations" during this campaign.

Political insiders place Chris Dodd in the second tier of Democratic presidential hopefuls. But in his new TV commercial, the Connecticut senator says it's the front-runners that are following his lead.

Dodd's new spot calls out Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama by name, saying that both had come around to support an Iraq funding amendment co-sponsored by Chris Dodd. Take a look:



AP reports that the spot will run in New Hampshire and Iowa, costing the Dodd camp about $120,000 in television time.

Mitt Romney also has a new TV spot out today. The gist of it? If the former governor of Massachusetts can wield his brand of "conservative principles" there, he must be able to do so anywhere. Give it a watch below, and get more details from AP:

We have many names and slogan attached to the 2008 presidential candidates. But I find it interesting how Mitt Romney especially sees himself. Yesterday we found out that he is a "Strong Conservative Leader" -- according to himself. This is striking because many would describe Romney as a "Flip Flopper" on issues like gun control, gay rights and abortion. I personally see those issues as the keys to getting people to go to the polls in this upcoming election.

Next the Romney campaign declared their guy as the "Winner" of yesterday's debate. And he also wants to become the "Record Holder": His campaign wants to sign up 24,000 more people to "Team Mitt" within the next24 hours.

And why not, he must wonder. According to his presidential ad below he is the "Problem Solver," a "Business Legend," the "Savior of the Olympic Games," the "Changer of a Democratic State" and the "Republican Governor of Massachusetts."

But heck in order to become "The President of the United States" one must be the "Creator of Solutions" and not the "Record Holder of Complaints" like it is presented in this ad because nothing in this ad suggests to me that Romney has solutions to the problems he has listed. We know the problems. We want to know the solutions "Mr. Romney".

When the leaves on the tree start to fall to the ground, Newt Gingrich will announce that he is the messiah for which conservatives have been praying. Recently, in an interview with Diane Sawyer, Newt indicated that there was a great liklihood he would be running.

Gingrich does his best when he is out of power. It was the Gingrich revolution in 1994 that brought the Republicans into complete control of the United States Government. Based on his plan, the Republicans controlled the U. S. Supreme Court (7 Republicans and 2 Democrats), the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Presidency. However, he wasn't there to lead the charge.

His Contract With America was broken by his own party. The balanced budget that was dear to his heart was almost achieved by Bill Clinton. Instead, President Bush created one of the largest deficits ever.

According to the article, Gingrich has been critical of the way Bush has handled the Iraq War and believes the U.S. should just get out. He has held this position since 2003. Unlike others, he is not taking a position because of the polls.

Tip to Hotline. Governor of New Mexico and Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson is trying the humor gambit in what is a great way to introduce his great resume.

Funny, effective, gets the point across. This advertisement gets an A grade from me and proves that whatever Bill Richardson is lacking in the polls, he has some smart people on his staff and a sense of humor.