Wisconsin voters are savvy enough to realize that when a candidate is running an ad calling on his or her opponent to hold a debate in the state but is not personally campaigning there him- or herself that there's some cognitive dissonance there.

Not bad. It's on the offense, but not over the top negative. Let's hope both sides can keep at least some measure of civility.

Is this the kind of defense Obama is going to put up? Sounds like a college lecture with a droning voice. If I was in the room not looking at the TV, it wouldn't cause me to turn my head. It's wimpy.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 208/SEIU_set_to_endorse_Obama.html

This is a big one, if it happens...

Since when can you cite as a source your own campaign's web site?  

Outright lies about his healthcare plan.

LOL.  He just smacked down Hillary's weak ad, which talked about nothing that Wisconsin voters cared about, and in the same ad reached out to the voters.

Perfect.

Obama took the bait.

Now the discussion about his lack of willingness to debate will go on for a few more days.

"Why is he so afraid of debating...blah blah blah"

This is the kind of mistake that he will make in the general election.

Without the fawning media at his back he will be ripped to shreds when goofs up like this in the fall campaign.

Hillary's Wisconsin ad is at the top of you tube, though the Obamafans are down rating it but can't stop people from watching it.

Obama's response is lame. Does he really think saying "same old attack politics" is enough to cut it? Holier than thou dismissiveness?

Sounds like John Kerry's response to everything in 2004.

Then again I see Obama's general election campaign following that same lame path once he finally receives and is forced to confront criticism from the right that isn't PC-sanitized by the traditional Obama-love-fest media.

If that is an attack ad I can't wait to see Obama hug someone to death.

Did Jerome listen to any of the ads in South Carolina? Those were far worse from both sides.

Obama's ad is weak. Plan covers "more people". "Stems foreclosures"? please.

They may have had 18 debates but they have only had one, ONE, where it was just the two of them.

WI voters will see past this bullshit. Especially given that Hillary will be there all weekend and right through to the primary.

In addition to the single one-on-one debate, there have been two other debates with only three participants (Obama, Clinton, Edwards) and one more with four candidates in New Hampshire. So, it's not like all the others have been extremely crowded.

I don't think any of us really thinks that another debate would be all that helpful. In the general election, there will probably be no more than 3 debates, so 20 will strike most people as being more than sufficient. Moreover, the press seems unimpressed, to say the least, by Clinton's request for a debate per week.

It would have been nice to end the debates with the last one in Hollywood. Everyone came away from that feeling confident that the party would unite after this is all over. Now, we may potentially end with another Myrtle Beach. Great.

I think the ad is great and I don't find it to be defensive.

Disingenuous? As the Clinton team would say, "we all do it."

Hillary supporters will agree with Jerome, Obama supporters won't agree with Jerome.

I look for HRC to come out punching in Texas and Ohio.. thinking she has a punchers chance of decking Obama. She is George Foreman to his Ali..I think he will be fine.

But Wisconsin is an uphill battle for Obama and he has to hope to come close there.
Ohio and Texas look much tougher. Obama needs to win Hawaii and try to break even on the rest, if possible. Then on to better states for him again in NC and Indiana.

What country have you been living in for the past 20 yearss?

I think all these ad wars are kind of moot.

The real slowing of Obama's momentum will come down to.

1) republican attacks.  they are unintentionally helping hillary.  Clinton cannot attack obama w/o Obama resorting to the old washington tactics defense.  Clinton has always had a catch 22 in regards to that.  McCain bringing out Obama's flaws is implicitly helping hillary.

2) Mavens (blogosphere/opinionated news) attacks.  Gladwell's tipping point illustrates that.  In March 07, obama was ahead of clinton in the predictions markets.  Slowly the "mavens" (5% who really keep up with election)  slowly turned towards hillary.  The next group that gets involved got involved in early december.   As time passes, it should fade as well.

I don't get it. CNN, NBC....most have been nationally televised debates, and the ratings have hit record highs this cycle. Is Clinton upset about the physical locations of the TV studios for the debates? Would she prefer that the candidates only meet in studios located in significant states?

Jerome,

I respect your commitment to Senator Clinton.  But you're grasping at straws if you think that this ad does anything other than point out that the debate ad from Hillary is lame.  Unless you really think that Wisconsinites haven't bothered to watch any of the earlier debates.  Heck, I'm in Pennsylvania, and I've easily watched at least a half-dozen.  Not to mention watched excerpts on that newfangled invention the "internets".

But the fact is that the campaign to date has left you with nothing but straws to grasp at.  I say that, respectfully, as one who was committed to Edwards.

Obama has a bottomless pit of cash.  Hillary is spending money whining about his not debating her in Wisconsin.  He easily answered that claim, smacking her down, and getting in a few shots about policy at the same time.  A real two-fer.  Meanwhile, she blew some cash she won't be able to use in Ohio or Texas.

calling it so is just reaching and smacks of desperation.

Obama's campaign indoctrination sessions specifically urge his volunteers not to talk about issues.  They are to stick to their "conversion stories".  Debates are minefields.  They can only muddy the message and scare off potential converts.

As a campaign strategist, would you advise him not to respond to her charge?  Once she's laid out the attack, this is more properly characterized as a response, or a counter-attack.  Obama has always said he will not stand by idly, he will respond.  Especially since he's moved to making the GE electability argument, to not do something would be viewed in a poor light.

Asking a not entirely facetious question here:  Has any candidate ever run a "he/she is afraid to debate me" advertisement, and then gone on to win the election?

This is always the tactic of a desperate candidate.  And is this really the best they've got to attack Obama with?

Ps.  Jerome and the Clinton campaign have some fascinating rules on how to count.  Small states and caucus states and states with black people don't count.  And now we realize that debates with more than two people don't count either.

Wisconsin voters are smart enough to know someone claiming wisconsin deserves its on debate, but not campaigning there is making an issue out of nothing.

They will three head to head debates in a month.  About what you get from a GE campaign.  On top of that they have had eighteen debates: 3 with four candidates or less.

Why don't you jut blog, instead of spin?  Don't you get tired?  Or dizzy?

I'm sick of Jerome's consistently negative spin of all things Obama.  Occasionally, you provide a new insight.  Usually, you appear to drum up or fabricate "there" when there's no there there.

I can't read this blog anymore.

Would any response by the Obama campaign have been deemed a negative ad by you? Would you, if there was no response, have called him a pussy?

A neophyte has built a grassroots system from scratch and caught her. In fact, he's surpassed her. That's really all that needs to be said about his abilities and her own.

Gloves off? Think back to the swift boat liars for Bush and try again. If this is gloves off they're wearing mittens under their gloves.

Each and every single claim made in the Obama commercial can be refuted in less than thirty seconds.

The Clinton ad was weak with no clear message. I think it was a mistake for Obama to respond. The ad would be perfect if he cut out the front bit about the debates. Who cares? He is just taking her ad which sucked and giving it some credibility by responding to it.

It would be a different story had it been an effective ad that required a response.

Debates aren't equal to campaigning and taking questions directly from the audience. Go back to linking to right wing nutters from the WSJ to support Clinton. Laughable.  

OBAMA08

Clinton has ignored Wisconsin for three days! The real disingenuousness here is from Clinton and Armstrong. I have come to expect this. Politico and its readers point out strongly how Armstrong and this website have lost it:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 208/Calendar_notes.html#comments

I think it is a bad ad. Even if Obama is right about the debate issue, it makes him look like he is "ducking" her by refusing to debate. Why would a candidate ever want to highlight the fact that he is refusing to debate his opponent?

Nor do I think it is effective to accuse Hilllary, who wants to debate, of playing the "same old politics." Savvy voters will know that they are both playing politics, the frontrunner refusing debates, and the trailer insisting on them. So, they will feel that their intelligence is being insulted by the ad. Less sophisticated voters will feel that the candidate refusing to debate is the one playing politics, and that the accusation in the ad. against Hillary actually fits Obama better.

Finally, I think it is a mistake to combine the refusal to debate pitch with the health care pitch. I think the average voter will say, "If his health care plan is really better than hers, why won't he debate her about it?"

This site is certainly dominated by HRC supporters. If she does not win the nomination, we will see how it impacts this site. I doubt many Obama supporters will be around. Maybe the HRC supporters will stick around, we shall see.

Excellent response ad.

Let's debate in Hawaii, Vermont, Rhode Island and every state that will hold a caucus or primary. Why didn't she propose this right after Super Tuesday? Why wait for 8 defeats in a row before whining about debate? Get real! Who's "disengenuous"?

Dude, she was calling for a debate a week before Super Tuesday.

Also, there's a lot of Hillary personally based vitriol coming out on this page.  Very very upsetting.  I am also a bit upset about Obama's line of attack on the Clinton Administration and implying that those years were bad for America, when in fact virtually every economic indicator of prosperity showed improvement.  Someone please tell me why they were a step backward.

"It comes off as disingenuous to any that's been paying attention, as Clinton and Obama alone, have only debated one time; and there's also a certain amount of dismissal of Wisconsin that's going on by Obama. It seems like an opening for Clinton to air a follow-up ad, maybe saying that Obama and Clinton are debating in Texas and Ohio, but Clinton feels that Wisconsin is just as important"

It seems like you are the one making really bad assumptions here. First of all, the Clinton ad said "Barack is dodging debates". It never said he's dodging debates with Hillary. His response: We had 18 debates, plus 2. So take it as it is my friend.

You made a terrible assumption here. Let them play. Stop injecting your personal interpretations.

Jerome:

If you haven't read this, please do.  Your comments would be appreciated.  Thank you.

http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Arch ive/Winter08/2008Election.html

The reason he's not debating her is because he is BEATING her.  He has a nearly insurmountable lead in primary delegates.  

HRC is lucky that he agreed to two debates, quite frankly.