January 24th, 2008
02:25 PM ET
6 years ago

Clinton camp pulls negative ad in South Carolina

(CNN) – Just 24 hours after it was launched, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign pulled a South Carolina radio ad that targets Barack Obama for his recent comments on the Republican Party.

The ad highlights Obama's recent interview with a Nevada newspaper in which he said, "The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years.”

"Really? Aren’t those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we’re in today? Ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street," the ad's narrator asked. "Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis. Are those the ideas Barack Obama’s talking about?"

The ad immediately drew sharp criticism from the Illinois senator's campaign. Obama spokesman Bill Burton denounced the spot as a "negative, dishonest attack," and later said they were planning on running a response ad that said Clinton "will say anything to get elected."

Clinton's campaign maintained its ad was "straightforward."

Clinton's South Carolina spokesman did not provide a reason why the ad was pulled, saying only, "we are on schedule with our "Closer" ads starting."

UPDATE: Clinton's campaign has announced the release of a new radio ad, called "Closer," that features Bill Clinton touting his wife's ability to battle the country's economic problems.

– CNN's Peter Hamby and Alex Mooney

soundoff (271 Responses)
  1. joe

    The question to democratic voters is do you want a sugarless cry baby against the GOP bad-mean machine in the fall or you want the person who is tough, smart, on issues who have weathered the GOP attacks in the past and who learnt from her wounds?

    I prefer the tough lady over the sugarless cry obaby. Obama, please don't be a cry baby. The GOP machine has cry baby like Obama for breakfast. Politics are never about fair. It is about toughness, about ready to fight for what you believe. Not wishy-washy candidate who tries to evoke every popular candidate of present and past as his trait but offer no concrete ideas or issues. Obama contrasts his life experience from other candidates, he was growing poor, refusing to cash in, work for the poor. But Chicago newspaper reported, Obama had a long friendship with Chicago developer [remind me of the movie "The Departed"]who gave hundreds of thousands to political career, in return he recommended contracts to the firms owned his friend and benefactor worth millions while many of those housing became a slum. Obama said he did not, the condition of those housing in his own senate district. What a surprise, this guy tells people that he fought for the poor all his life but funny thing he did not know the condition of these housing own by his long time friend of 15 years in his own districk that represented?
    He tells that he is the new candidate of highest ethical standard but in 2005, he bought land from his friend, the chicago developer while he was under investigation, and Obam bought his mansion for 1.6 mil, reportedly 300 thousands below the market price. Wow, I did not know that working for the poor was that lucrative, and on state senator salary, you can afford a mansion 1.6 mil? Just the heating bill alone probably costs one thousand a month for the house that big. If he failed to get the nomination which I hope. Obama can cash in by writing a book on how to pick rick generous friend who willing to give millions.
    Maybe it is just me, most of my friends are a bunch of cheap skate unlike Obama friends.
    joe

    January 24, 2008 09:58 pm at 9:58 pm |
  2. Time for the Clinton Dynasty to end

    I don't think America is ready for the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty to continue. I think it is pathetic that Hilary is using her husband to score points for her.

    If she can't run an honest and fair campaign then there is no way she would make it as a honest and fair president.

    Haven't we learned from the Bushes? Agression + Lies = Disaster

    January 24, 2008 10:07 pm at 10:07 pm |
  3. Pokerface

    Listening to the Republican debate....they haven't mentioned Obama's name...just Hillary...boy they are pouncing on her and distorting her views like your wouldn't believe!!!....Sort of like what Obama has been doing to her.....

    January 24, 2008 10:27 pm at 10:27 pm |
  4. not a hillary fan

    I am voting for Mccain but, you lovers of Hillary please goggle Clintons Scandals...you will be shocked...Obama is nothing like them but, i think he needs more experience.

    January 24, 2008 10:41 pm at 10:41 pm |
  5. dg

    Obama does not like it much when he seems to be on the losing side. I think Hillary is a much stronger candidate than Obama, but the press seems to be protecting Obama. They don't seem to care at all what they say about Hillary. A little gender discriminating I believe. It seems that if anything is said by either Clinton that may perceive Obama's record as tainted then the press or Obama turns it out as if the Clintons are racist or they will say anything to get elected. It is getting kind of old. This is the land of free speech. There has to be some way for the Americans to know the positives and negatives of each candidate. There has to be a way of letting the people know what facts are about these candidates records and not just the rhetoric. If the Democrats wants the best person to go up against the Republicans than they need to know all the facts before making that decision. It is nice to see that Hillary started trying to set the record straight. Trust me if the Democrats do not expose this information the Republicans most certainly will when they face their challenger. It seems interesting that the attack ads only became an issue when they affected Obama's questionable rhetoric .

    January 24, 2008 10:51 pm at 10:51 pm |
  6. Sasha

    It isn't strange to me that the republicans want nice with Obama, they want JOBS if he is elected and they believe Obama will give them a position. Because strangely enough, Obama is making nice with the republicans as well. They KNOW Hillary wouldn't. lol

    January 24, 2008 10:56 pm at 10:56 pm |
  7. Beverly Jackson

    I agree with you Matt. It is so sad. We Americans say we are ready for change and we want to get away from the same old politics and by golly, we are embracing the same old politics. George Bush would be so proud of how the Clintons are running their campaign. Bush divided America between Republicans and Democrats but the Clintons have divided the Democrats between race (black vs. white vs latino) and gender . How hypocrital of us to want Iraq to embrace democracy and we still (after all these years cannot exercise a democratic process) without injecting cheap racial and gender crap and selfish underhandedness to halt our democratic process. I know the Republicans are rejoicing. Obama tried to pull all the parties together. I applaud him for even mentioning during his campaign a positive remark toward a Republican. This shows he is ready to stop the Washington bickering and get the good ideas and input from all parties and move forward with solutions. Apparently, the Clintons want to continue with the party divide and bickering. And apparently, America is still wanting the same so it appears we will get what we asked for – again. I have always been a strong Democrat supporter and a strong supporter of Bill Clinton but right now, the Republicans are looking like the wise party. What a pity. Howard Dean really did not do his job and allowed the Clintons to tear the Democratic party to pieces. Bill Clinton even had the nerve to say he like to see Hillary and Obama fighting. This is serious business and he has made it into a bloody cock fight. How primitive could anyone get. I agree with the man on the news today, it seems what us Democrats need to do in November is not vote at all

    January 24, 2008 11:02 pm at 11:02 pm |
  8. ABC '08

    Putting the same people in power and expecting a different results is ridicules!

    January 24, 2008 11:04 pm at 11:04 pm |
  9. dee

    Hope gives us a vision of a Life

    Fear makes us believe life was not bad, although my wages increased less that the cost of living for the past 20 years.

    January 24, 2008 11:05 pm at 11:05 pm |
  10. Kay

    Bill "Machiavelli" Clinton has one heck of a nerve claiming credit for jobs and wealth created in the nineties. Methinks that a different Bill, the Gates variety, and his intellectual hi-tech buddies might have had more to do with it. If I wasn’t so worried about the Republicans getting re-elected I would have kept quiet, but Hillary is a gift to those guys!

    PS. I am a Barack-supporting, middle-aged, caucasian woman of Scottish descent!

    January 24, 2008 11:30 pm at 11:30 pm |
  11. Bev

    Slanderous, Slanderous Slanderous.

    The Clinton campaign misrepresents the truth and slanders Obama and then accuses him of doing it. Haven't you had enough misrepresentation of facts, and twisting of the facts from the Administration in Washington. Do we have to listen to it from the Clintons also?

    Who's record is Hillary Runnning on, her own or President Bill Clintons.? Or is it President Bill Clinton who is running for the nomination? Today is a different world than it was when Bill Clinton was the President in Office and he was no HONEST ABE.

    January 24, 2008 11:37 pm at 11:37 pm |
  12. Santa Cruz

    I guess people are not realizing that Obama had ads that were aimed to ask Republicans to switch to Democrat for the Nevada Caucuses and then switch back to Republican for the Primaries. That is not ethical.

    January 25, 2008 02:04 am at 2:04 am |
  13. Matt

    To the person who thinks all the Obama supporters are myspace addicts, that is not the case. I'm 55 white male, married, two kids, engineer, and am an avid Obama supporter, and an avid anti-clintonite. Here's one reason why:

    On one occasion, Senator Clinton was asked would she prefer baseball team A win the series (I don't follow baseball and don't remember the team names), or baseball team B win. There were 3 possible honest answers. She could have said she was for team A, or team B, or that she didn't give a hang about baseball.

    She wouldn't give an answer. Perhaps she felt answering A or B would have risked losing supporters from the opposing team (why would her supporters drop her if she didn't cheer a particular baseball team). The most likely thin is she doesn't much follow baseball. But if she said that, perhaps she felt all baseball fans would view her with disdain and vote. Is that the kind of support she thinks she has, that her views on baseball could lose supporters? Or perhaps she thought it would be unmanly to admit not caring about baseball.

    But, if she can't give a straight answer about something as trivial as baseball, why do people think she gives straight answers about anything else? I've never seen her give a straight answer about anything deep. My feeling is that she and her husband are take no prisoners, kill your own mother to win an election and power.

    On NPR (not considered a right wing news organization), a woman from South America who was thrown into a hole full of bodies, with the knowledge of U.S. diplomates, once had someone mention the situation down there to Hillary Clinton. Her response was, "How many voters are down there."

    But just watch her, talk over the other candidates. I suppose some people think that's leadership, getting your point across. It's been my experience that people that argue and start talking louder and over and at the same time other people are trying to get there points in or have their say leads to irrational arguments where the loud obnoxious one thinks he/she is the winner and the others think, "what's the point of this conversatio? With Clinton, it's always that way. She's got her lines and her accent appropriate to the state she's campaigning in, and that's that.

    Now, her crying game. Were those sincere tears when she was in the New Hampshire coffee house. Yes they were. But they weren't because she cared about "the wrong direction this country is heading," although that's what she was saying. The answer was automatic. At the time, she had lost Iowa, and that she was going to lose N.H. Those tears were her coming to grips with the idea that she might not be President after all. Why don't people see that? How do we let people like Clinton and Bush for the conniving liars they are? Bush did the same thing to McCain in 2000. And we Americans vote these lying people in. Why are we so stupid?

    One more thing. Senator Clinton spent almost a year in Iowa telling us our folksy caucus system was the greatest thing since penut butter. Then she loses and heads for N.H., where she promptly says, "The system here in N.H. is much more democratic and fair" (that was a paraphrase. In other words, she'll pander to whoever she's talking at at any particular time.

    Would it be good to have a woman president? Yes, provided the woman is good. I have a smart daughter who I want the best for, who might someday be president herself, and if I thought voting for Senator Clinton would do my daughter good, I'd vote for Clinton. But the only person that has anything to gain by Senator Clinton being the first woman president is Hillary Clinton. If she becomes president, then we the people become suckers.

    Fin'

    January 25, 2008 03:23 am at 3:23 am |
  14. Katherine

    Do the majority of the people who post bother to read more than one article? I have, in the last hour or so, seen this on three different sites, and those other sites had analysis on what this might or might not mean in terms of political strategy.

    And if you did read the entire article, although as I said, I have the advantage of more than one source of material, they also did mention that the Obamba campaign was launching an 'attack ad' of their own. This, I doubt, will be pulled soon.

    January 25, 2008 04:21 am at 4:21 am |
  15. Steve

    That ad already said things you cannot take back Hillary. What good is pulling it going to do, except save you money? Very dirty campaigning on Hillary's part. If she gets the nomination, I am voting for the other guy with integrity: McCain.

    January 25, 2008 11:43 am at 11:43 am |
  16. c martin

    Too bad about the Billary Machine....it look like it has needs to be replace.

    January 25, 2008 11:46 am at 11:46 am |
  17. Lynn

    Matt – Spoken like someone who knows what he is talking about! I used to be a Clinton supporter, both Bill and Hillary. Then I went to see her speak here in Iowa. I was not impressed. My first thought when she was done was "Wow...she sounds like a typical politician". I went to several political gatherings. Obama was the only one who spoke with intelligence, clarity, and, yes, hope. People need to stop letting the ads make their decisions. They need to truly do the work to find out what candidate represents them.

    January 25, 2008 04:06 pm at 4:06 pm |
  18. GaryO Virginia Beach

    Nothing said in the ad was untrue. Obama's purpose from the outset of the Reno newspaper interview was to disparage Bill Clinton's term in office. In the process, he praised Reagan. Yes, the Reagan Republicans were a party of ideas, bad ideas. And the ad merely pointed out how ironic and WRONG it was for Obama to have praised the Republican party for its bad ideas.

    I liked the ad. It made a valid point. I hope the Clintons follow it up with something really effective in convincing Democrats to do the right thing.

    VOTE FOR HILLARY ! !

    January 25, 2008 05:03 pm at 5:03 pm |
  19. Denise, Phoenix, AZ

    Every time Bill moves up (Gov of Arkansas), Hillary moves up with him (Attorney General of Arkansas). Bill moves up again (President of the US); Hillary moves up with him (US Senate). See the pattern, women?

    I want to hear Hillary discuss her plans - in detail - for fixing the many ills we face. I don't want to hear her slinging mud (abortion just to get the female vote, when it's not an issue here). It's a waste of time, money, and effort! Re: healthcare, she still does not understand insureds vs. uninsureds, nor why the numbers are at 47 million. She still needs something of truth and relevance to criticize Obama on!

    Consider what America got with the first Clinton co-Presidency:

    • Abuse of the powers of the office of the President
    • Granting Presidential pardons to buy Hillary's election to the Senate. As a woman who made it on my own, Hillary's need to ride Bill's coattails and her sense of entitlement (as in "it's my turn and Obama should wait his turn") makes me doubt her capabilities.
    • Hillary's long-suffering marriage to Bill, enabling a lifetime of sexual trysts and trying to contain the Bimbo eruptions, gives me a President without the backbone to stand up to a man. Hillary claims to be tough enough to play with the boys when, in fact, she is unable to leave a cheating husband. How will she stand up to other male leaders who see this in "Mrs." Clinton and walk all over her?
    • Being married to a former President does not make one qualified to be President.
    Hillary has less experience in elected office than Barack. She's held elected office for one Senate term plus one year and has introduced no major legislation during that time. She showed us in the interview about Pakistani elections the extent of her foreign policy experience–she did not know what office the election was for or who was on the ballot! Is this the kind of experience we want in the Oval Office?

    I am not a "Hillary hater;" I am an America lover. Please consider very carefully which candidate the Democratic Party puts on the ballot. The future of this country absolutely depends on it.

    January 25, 2008 07:55 pm at 7:55 pm |
  20. anniesmiles

    just a few words....Rezko...slumlord. I knew that individual and did five hours of work for him....sure...(cough)

    January 26, 2008 02:26 am at 2:26 am |
  21. tom unsworth

    I think your cverage of the democratic primary was lousy. On a night that should
    belong to the winner you spent a lot of time on bill clinton in Missour, He is NOT
    running for President. It seems to me you want a Clinton President.

    1-26-08
    Tom Unsworth

    January 26, 2008 08:35 pm at 8:35 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11