It must really piss off Republicans, but Bill Clinton is hugely popular, so using him to campaign for Obama is just good politics.

CLINTON: This election, to me, is about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment. This is a clear choice. The Republican plan is to cut more taxes on upper income people and go back to deregulation, that's what got us in trouble in the first place. President Obama has a plan to rebuild America from the ground up, investing in innovation, education, and job training. It only works if there is a strong middle class. That's what happened when I was president. We need to keep going with his plan.

It's especially smart to use him in this spot, which is targeting middle class voters. Right now, they prefer the Democratic ticket 52-42 over the Romney-Ryan, and the Democrats clearly think they can build on that margin now that Paul Ryan and his zeal for slashing middle and working class programs is on the ticket. And very few politicians can articulate the issues as clearly and compellingly as Clinton.

One unfortunate thing to note about the ad is that it was President Clinton who signed the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act which repealed Glass-Steagall, as well as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated the derivatives market. Clinton, to his credit, later admitted that was a mistake.

But he's absolutely right -- the entire Republican economic plan consists of repealing Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, and pretty much anything else the US Chamber of Commerce wants, plus cutting taxes for rich people. We've seen that movie before. And by just appearing in the ad, Clinton will remind everyone who doesn't have an offshore bank account that their lives got better in the 1990s, and got much worse in the Bush '00s.

Designer Kenneth Cole is passionate about liberal causes.

But he occasionally goes about advocating for his causes in ways that could best be described as...ham-handed. Back in 2005, Cole thought it would be a good idea to take the stigma of HIV+/AIDS status away by producing t-shirts that read "We All Have AIDS" to the unsurprising consternation of many. Gosh, why didn't that take off?

He also ended up apologizing when he tried to ride the coattails of the Egyptian Uprising and tie it to his new fashion line.

So maybe it shouldn't come as a surprise that Kenneth Cole has come up with the wrong end of the stick on the education battle. The brother-in-law of NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, Cole ran a billboard in NYC tying his fashions to the false dichotomy of serving teacher's unions or the interests of children.

A billboard advertising Kenneth Cole — the clothing company owned by Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s brother-in-law — puns to southbound commuters, ”Shouldn’t Everyone Be Well Red?” In smaller lettering, the billboard says, “Teachers’ Rights Vs. Students’ Rights …”

The second line evokes a tension drawn out repeatedly by some critics of teachers unions, including Cuomo, who say that unions’ support for teachers’ job protections can stand in the way of students’ education.

The billboard also invites viewers to visit WhereDoYouStand.com, a website maintained by the city-based company, to weigh in on “Issue in the News.” This spring, one of the issues is “Should underperforming teachers be protected?”

That question attracted the company’s attention this winter, as media attention turned to efforts underway across the country to toughen teacher evaluations. Locally, a breakdown in negotiations over evaluations late last year and the controversial public release of reports on teacher performance in February were both accompanied by criticism of teachers unions, including from Cuomo.

This is one of those things that has me shaking my head at the progressive communities. We want teachers to teach our children, to expand their minds and get excited about a lifetime of learning and yet we think they can do it as we demonize them at every turn and take every measure of control away from them. Why do we continue to buy into these Republican/ALEC-fueled tropes? We 'wait for Superman' and wonder why our schools are failing.

If Cole was legitimately interested in bettering education, perhaps he might look into the example of Finland, which is now ranked #1 in education worldwide:

Continue reading »

Rape, apparently.

I'm not sure who the ad wizards are that came up with this one, but they've clearly modeled themselves after Don Draper and his well-known respect for women. Reportedly, the Draper-wannabe is with Last Exit Agency.

With all the controversy over attacks on women's rights and slut-shaming of women in the media for daring to speak out for their rights, I have to wonder why Belvedere Vodka (@belvederevodka for those of you active in the Twitterverse) would come out with an ad showing a man grabbing a woman with a horrified look on her face from behind with the copy, "Unlike some people, Belvedere Vodka always goes down smoothly."

Unsurprisingly, people who find rape an unpersuasive marketing ploy for alcohol took offense and started tweeting Belvedere Vodka with their displeasure.

This sent Belvedere HQ scrambling—something that layers of bureaucratic approval might have mitigated before releasing the ad—and they released this statement:

I am Jason Lundy, SVP of Global Marketing for Belvedere.
Unfortunately, a Facebook & Twitter posting was made today that has offended many of our fans and followers – and indeed the people who work here at Belvedere. The post is absolutely inconsistent with our values and beliefs and in addition to removing the offensive post we are committed to making sure that something like this doesn’t happen again. As an expression of our deep disappointment and regret, we are making a charitable donation to a women’s support cause. We deeply apologize to our fans & followers.

Gosh, I hope they're not donating money to Susan G. Komen. That would be really ironic.

I never thought an attack ad produced by Republicans that attacks another Republican would ever make me mad, but I was wrong—even if the attack is directed at Newt Gingrich.

Republican hypocrisy is frustratingly typical and we often write about it on C&L, but this Romney Super PAC ad is disgusting because it exposes just how far these allegedly non-affiliated groups will go, as it accuses Gingrich of the exact character flaws that define Romney as both a man and as a politician. Namely, flip flopping on all issues and supporting a health care mandate, which is a key component of Romney's own health care bill in MA.

Voice over: And Newt was a long-time supporter of a national health care mandate, the centerpiece of Obama-care. The Gingrich record, thirty years in Washington, flip flopping on issues...

I was on The Alyona Show on RT television to discuss the two year anniversary of the Citizens United decision. Alyona asked me if Newt was really angry over the Super PAC ads that have been hammering him, and I said "Absolutely."

Republicans love the Citizens United decision because it allows them to buy our political system like never before, and Newtie supports that. However, when a person is on the receiving end of the attacks, it stings. That's human nature.

I doubt he expected to be on the receiving end of Super PAC attack ads when the court handed down its decision, or if he did anticipate it, he probably thought he'd be able to out-spin them. It hasn't worked out that way, as these types of ads defeated him in Iowa. Newt fell flat on his face in the Florida debates and these ads will help cement his defeat there too, if the vote turns out the way the new polls are showing.

Continue reading »

I have a Muslim uncle. He and my aunt raised their children in the Muslim faith and they would invite us over to share in their holidays, so while not a practicing Muslim, I respect and find much to appreciate about the Islamic faith. I couldn't be more impressed by the sincerity of their faith or the amazing strength that they--and my cousins, impressive in their own right--have exhibited in the face of ridiculous Islamophobia since 9/11. And it grinds me to the point of lashing out when I hear people spout off ignorance about Muslims. One billion people globally cannot be judged by a small handful of extremists any more than Christians should be judged by Fred Phelps or Mormons by Warren Jeffs.

I admit that I've never seen TLC's "All American Muslim." Unless it's a cooking competition, I tend to shy away from "reality" shows. But based on the trailer above, it looks like an excellent way to bust through some stereotypes and look at people who may share similar likes, values, fears, goals and lifestyles, if not a place of worship. And that's something that we should never be fearful of.

So it's disappointing in the extreme for me to hear that Lowe's Hardware has succumbed to the ignorance of those who pretend to be followers of a rabbi who preached tolerance, acceptance and the need to care for one another:

Here’s another reason to shop at Home Depot: Big-box hardware store Lowe’s decided to pull its advertising from TLC’s All-American Muslim because of unspecified complaints about its content. The series profiles several Michigan families who happen to be Muslim but are [not] otherwise very different—and it’s one of TLC’s better series.

The conservative/crazy Florida Family Association (“THOUSANDS OF SUPPORTERS across America who share in the same goal of improving America’s moral environment”) asked its supporters to contact advertisers to complain about the show, arguing in an insane post that the reality series

“is propaganda clearly designed to counter legitimate and present-day concerns about many Muslims who are advancing Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia law. The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish.”

Continue reading »

But curiously in the age of Citizens United attack ads, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority found the ad a little too political for its taste:

350.org was given very little information regarding the rejection. I am informed that they simply received the following email, from the contractor that handles advertising for the T:

From: Titan 360

Date: Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:05 AM

Hi All,

Unfortunately, the MBTA did not approve of this creative due to its political stance, and we will not be able to install the campaign.

Sorry for the long wait and inconvenience. We will issue our own internal paperwork to cancel the contract.

Obviously, there is nothing indecent about the ad. Some riders may disagree with 350.org’s point of view, but so what? Do we really want the MBTA – a government agency – deciding which viewpoints are suitable for advertising, and which aren’t?

You know, if the MTBA simply rejected any and all advertisement that is political or controversial in nature, it might be understandable. But look at what did pass muster with MTBA's editorial board:

[A]s you may recall, the rapture was supposed to happen on May 21, according to a rather extreme interpretation of certain biblical writings by a guy who also happened to have a lot of money. He plastered ads announcing the event all over the country, including on MBTA buses. But when it turned out that – surprise! – Family Radio also harbors certain anti-gay sentiments, the T’s general manager came out with a series of muddled responses, first saying that the T took down the ad because of Family Radio’s views, and then later claiming that the ads actually came down because the campaign expired, but that “content of future ads to undergo more scrutiny.”

I'm sure that the MTBA got some complaints over those Family Radio ads, and it may be that which has caused them to be more careful about the kind of ads they will allow. But given sheer number of astroturf groups that will not hesitate to pile on Democratic candidates as we near the election, I think there needs to be a fairly consistent application of the eidtorial guidelines.

The new Romney ad is very slickly produced. Ads like these can work up to a point, even if the ad is dishonest, as Matt Finkelstein explains that it indeed is.

The ad features audio of the president saying, "There are always going to be bumps in the road to recovery." However, while Obama did make those remarks on the day the employment report came out, he was actually referring to "disruptions" that have added to economic uncertainty, such as the disaster in Japan and the Arab Spring,
{}
As USA Today reported, "The president did not...specifically address the bad jobs report in his remarks."

Americans are concerned with high unemployment because it means they are not working and the "throw the bums out" mentality steps in and that's not an ideologically driven sentiment.

Sure, we can make the case and demonstrate that Mittens also used the same terminology in 2006:

Before Romney’s consultants decided the phrase would be a potentent polical weapon, he used it himself in the same way as Obama. From the AP, May 1, 2006:

Romney Warns of Potential ‘Bumps in the Road’ for Health Care Law

Massachusetts faces potential “bumps in the road” as it tries to turn the promises of its new health care law into a reality, Gov. Mitt Romney said Monday even as he announced another crucial step in the state’s experiment with near universal coverage. [...]

One of the most daunting tasks is the creation of an entirely new state bureaucracy, known “Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector” the bureaucratic infrastructure on which much of the new law’s innovative reforms rest.

And in reality Romney had a terrible job-creation record in his home state.

Throughout his 15-year career at Bain Capital, which bought, sold, and merged dozens of companies, Romney had other chances to fight to save jobs, but didn't. His ultimate responsibility was to make money for Bain's investors, former partners said.

Much as he did when running for Massachusetts governor, Romney is now touting his business credentials as he campaigns for president, asserting that he helped create thousands of jobs as CEO of Bain. But a review of Bain's investments during Romney's tenure indicates that job growth was not a particular priority.

Bloggers likes us have been saying ever since Obama was elected that job creation was always going to be his biggest challenge because of the destruction of the global financial markets caused by the Bush years.

It's so easily exploitable that I often wrote that Obama should have been giving fireside-like chats explaining to America the difficulties ahead for the nation's economy. Republicans knew this too. But the President also put his trust more in Tim Geithner than anyone else from his economics team and so we're here now with over 9% unemployment. Creating the Cat Food Commission over, let's say, a Jobs Commission didn't make much sense to me. The Obama administration needs to get busy and promote job creation, if it's not too late already instead of focusing on deficits. Even Bernanke is making the case not to cut spending too soon:

Don’t cut spending too fast or you’ll kill the economy.

So Mittens gets to produce an ad attacking him on jobs and the Beltway Village will swoon over it, but in the end results do matter, not ads.

I tells ya, you gotta give it up for the brilliant strategist that thought this was the winning campaign to put the GOP over the edge in the mid-terms. Perhaps miffed over Franken's call for an FEC investigation into campaign cash from the US Chamber of Commerce, the GOP has launched NoMoreFrankens.com. And I quote:

“With Democrat lawyers, liberal shadow groups, and labor unions organizing to challenge the Election Day results, it is more important than ever that the American people deliver a decisive victory for Republicans up and down the ballot in all 50 states. In order to protect our hard-fought victories, we must fund and operate a winning 72 hour ground game which puts the margin of victory out of reach. The election of Democrat Al Franken to the United States Senate serves as a glaring and painful reminder to voters as to why it is so important to support our Republican Victory program and show up on Election Day.” ~ RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

I don't know how to break it to the GOP, but FRANKEN IS NOT UP FOR RE-ELECTION THIS YEAR. Seriously, this is the best you can do is to get out the vote? Invoke a senator still four years from his own re-election campaign? And the insinuation of voter fraud is based on...?

Earlier today I wrote about a new Republican National Committee fundraising website called “No More Frankens,” which says, “We now know that Republicans should have won the 2008 Senate Race in Minnesota – Act immediately to prevent another Franken!” and also makes reference to the “illegal votes of convicted felons.” To me it seemed to be implying that Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) stole the election, but not so, says RNC spokesman Doug Heye.

“I don’t think it says that,” he told me when reached for comment. “There are a lot of people on both sides who would say that Franken won in the courthouse after the election and in the weeks and days after. We want to have every resource on the ground so that we’ll be able to get people there quickly to ensure that we hit the ground running this time.” The appeal on the website indicates that the funds will go to the RNC’s Get Out the Vote program, but this doesn’t appear entirely accurate either...

What a surprise, the money isn't going where it's implied. Instead, money is allegedly getting banked for potential vote challenges.

And oh! the irony of the GOP getting up in arms over a close election being decided by a legal challenge.

The Republicans never, ever stop rebranding themselves. When they fail they come back with a new name, but with the same sad old song. It's too bad many people are tone deaf or just can't tell one tune from another. The latest incarnation is led by the mumbo-jumbo economy hack, Paul Ryan. Since George Bush is gone, guess what they do: They attack him for betraying conservative principles.

Former president George W Bush and the Republican party hierarchy have been denounced for betraying conservative principles by a new generation of congressmen bidding to convince voters that the Right can offer real change. ---

----
The Young Guns book recognises "high profile ethics lapses" and "an inability to rein in spending or even slow the growth of government" led to a breakdown in trust in the party.

During the previous Republican rule, Tom DeLay, the former majority leader in the House, was prosecuted for money laundering and violating campaign finance laws, though he was never convicted. Several other members of Congress were embroiled in scandals involving favours for lobbyists.

"The fact is, we had our chance, and we blew it," wrote co-author Eric Cantor, the party's chief whip.

Critics have pointed out that Mr Cantor, 47, from Virginia, was a member of the party's leadership during the era he is now criticising.

Right, Paul Ryan pushed as hard as he could to pass TARP and most of anything else Bush put out there, but the truth doesn't matter for Ryan and his posse.

Americans Untited for Change has just produced a new ad that's very good.

Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy are gunning for Social Security and Medicare. Middle aged men with ideas that were young...when they were young.

Another typical right wing con job.

It sure is funny how none of these visionaries managed to utter a peep about Bush's "betrayal" when he was, you know, in office and running the country into the ground, isn't it?

Out here in California, eMeg is spending up a storm -- over $100 million so far. That's before Jerry Brown cranks up his campaign machine.

Problem is, no one likes what she's saying. The more money she spends, the higher her unfavorable ratings go up, and not just with liberals and moderates.

According to SF Gate, the (euphemistically labeled) "conservative wing" of California's GOP plan to call her out on her mixed, muddled messaging around Arizona's AB 1070.

Whitman, who remains in a dead heat with Democrat Jerry Brown despite spending a record-busting $104 million of her own money, will face criticism from some of the 1,000 grassroots party members descending on the Manchester Grand Hyatt starting Friday.

Much of the blowback will come from members of the California Republican Assembly, a group of activists that former President Ronald Reagan called "the conscience of the Republican Party."

Conservatives want the state GOP to approve a resolution backing Arizona's law targeting illegal immigrants and a similar California law, Proposition 187, approved by voters in 1994 but later overturned by a federal judge. Whitman opposes both measures.

The debate could be toxic for Whitman. As far as I can tell, her campaign has been based on a few weird promises to increase state unemployment rates by terminating 40,000 state employees and a lot of vague promises to run the state like a corporation. As far as her views on immigration are concerned, it seems that Whitman adopts whatever position will garner her the most votes. On that score, the conservatives have it right:

Greig isn't worried that a high-profile conversation about the divisive issue will hurt the party's chances in November. "We are standing on principle here," she said. "I do not think pandering to the illegal alien community will help us. They don't vote."

That may be true. But Hispanics vote, and there are a lot of them here in California. Legal ones. With the legal right to vote, and they might not take kindly to the xenophobic attitudes that eMeg and her party espouse.

Bring it on.