News-Record.com

Actually...the RNC has asked the NC GOP to NOT run the ad, according to MSNBC and others.

I'm voting Saturday, and I long ago stopped watching ads. Actually, I stopped watching or paying attention to political ads 16 years ago. They contain no useful information, and are put out to appeal to emotions rather than reason. Debates are the closest we can get to any presentation with useful content, and those are hard to dig through. These people really don't make it easy to make a choice, when they spend all their time sounding exactly alike, trying only to be the loudest.

Crying shame, that.

You're right, Mark. I misread Richard Prince's Web site. My bad.

What's wrong with the ad? The State GOP is simply noting that Perdue and Moore have both endorsed Obama and questions whether or not their presidential candidate of choice reflects the values of North Carolina voters. It's a valid question. It's quite possible that Obama's appeal could actually help Perdue or Moore.

Likewise, if the Democrats want to tie state Republican candidates to President Bush, that's fair game, too.

Nothing, I guess, if you like scorched-earth campaigns.
But as Mark points out, now seems a silly, wasteful, ineffective time to run the ad ... during the primary, when it possibly could benefit the Democrats it targets.

The GOP would be smart not to run the ad. It sounds like it's too blunt, and the blowback would outweight any advantage.

On the "underpolling" issue, the media favorite always overpolls. Since that's Obama this go round, you can subtract 3% from his numbers or, if the poll doesn't push, put most of the undecideds in his opponent's column. Underpolling is indexed by undersigning: take a look at the Obama signs relative to Hillary signs (or McCain signs next fall): Obama wins by a landslide! But the results won't mirror the sign ratios. That's because an Obama sign is implicitly coded as a sign of enlightenment, whereas one wonders about the Hillary sign owner: closet racist or not??

Yes, race is a factor. Obama was wrong in San Francisco to suggest that "bitter" whites "cling" to religion, guns, and xenophobia. That list is both condescending and incomplete: if you believe in it, you'd have to add race to the list. Similarly, "bitter" blacks "cling" to race as well: the parallel number among black voters would be much higher than 16%. The "bitter" whites will find it ironic and maddening that no one asked black voters the same question. So goes racial tribalism in the year 2008.

The best way for the best candidate to win is to get out and get the message across. Challenge lies and propaganda with quick replies and honesty. I wonder to what extent OPERATON CHAOS impacted the Pennsylvania vote. Will Operation Chaos and the PA Primary results influence North Carolina?
www.springfieldmedia.com

Mr. Johnson, question please. Who writes the titles and subtitles on the front page of the N&R?

Today's title: Clinton's victory deepens split among Democrats.

I especially liked the subtitle: Party's breach could benefit Republican John McCain in November.

Why is Hillary Clinton's decisive victory in Penna referred to as a "breach"?

Why so negative for Hillary Clinton? Is her victory bad for the Democratic party and good for Republicans? What happened to voters deciding the issue?

It seems the N&R staff is in the tank for Obama after reading these headlines, unless of course David Lightman of McClatchy Newspapers wrote the title and subtitle.

I'm just curious about where these titles originate.

Dan, the N&R has appointed Obama as its candidate of choice, as have most major media outlets. It should be no surprise that coverage will be slanted in his favor. This is just one more example.

The News Department is in charge of the front page and the other news pages.

That said, "breach" means "rift." That is a factual characterization of the party right now, which is sharply split between the two candidates.

The reason it was perceived as a rift is because Howard Dean, Patrick Leahy, Bill Richardson, etc. etc. and the media want Hillary out of there so they can unite the party behind their chosen candidate.

What they don't seem to remember is that the Clintons fight to the bitter end, giving up is not an option for them.

*********************************************

Next subject. Mr. Johnson, why is the N&R censoring political letters in the Letters to the Editor blog?

There were three political oriented letters in today's N&R print version which are all absent in the blog.

1) Obama will be the right leader at the right time.

2) The winning ticket: :Clinton and Obama.

3) Democrats beginning vile attacks on McCain.

Those letters get more posts than any others, the bloggers don't seem to interested in letters about Coach K.

As a blanket policy we don't post election letters in the blog.

What is the logic/reasoning of this policy please? Does that mean no election letters will be posted until after the general election or will they resume after May 6 and then be censored again at a later date prior to the general election?

It's a shame, political and election related letters by far get the most posts.

The policy has been in place for nearly four years. It prevents specious charges and allegations among the comments, especially where local candidates are concerned.

The DNC started their ads against McCain. The GOP is starting ads against Obama who has some less than desirable associations, if we judge by the ad with Rev Wright. When Obama makes a mistake he will bring it up again, explain the context, laughs and defend it or have one of his speechwriters craft a speech to deliver. He is still explaining his comments on his statements in San Francisco about many Americans in the small towns across the Midwest "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment" because they are "bitter" over economic anxiety.