Penn said the ad, which began airing Friday, effectively framed the question of "who's ready and prepared to be commander-in-chief." Penn added: "Just by merely asking the question and nothing more, millions of people understood what is the answer to that question." He called it a "tipping point" in the race that has signaled a "change in momentum."
Bloggers were certainly skeptical of the ad when it debuted last week. Most saw it more as a sign of Joementum.
Byron York says the only problem with the national security argument is that Democrats don't care about national security.
Meanwhile, Michael Goodwin argues against the conventional wisdom, suggesting that tomorrow may be Obama's third and final chance to show he can knock Clinton out of the race.
And MyDD's Jerome Armstrong says the Obama campaign is "crouched on the defensive" in light of the Canadian minister/NAFTA story and the Rezko trial.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
The story you linked to at WaPo by Chris Cillizza says "Clinton has avoided running any real negative campaign ads in Ohio" (but not Texas). Although the "3 AM" ad is not strictly a negative ad, I heard somewhere on the Internet that the "3 AM" ad is not running in Ohio (only Texas). Even if I'm misinformed about that, it's certainly true that Clinton's national security theme is being placed with more prominence in Texas than Ohio. However, Clinton has gotten more 'momentum' in the last few days in Ohio than Texas. I believe her recent strengthening reflects bad press for Obama over NAFTA. Obama has not been talking straight about trade, the voters now know it, and it hurts him in both Ohio and Texas.
Posted by: seanwal111
| March 4, 2008 9:48 AM
My source for the report that Clinton's "3 AM" ad never ran in Ohio is the generally reliable site http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=822
Posted by: seanwal111
| March 4, 2008 10:15 AM
Post A Comment