By Rick Pearson and John McCormick
Barack Obama's presidential campaign hits the airwaves in Iowa today to try to boost his support in the important early voting state. Here is the story from Tuesday's Tribune about the start of his advertising and the fallout for his Republican friend featured in one of the ads:
Sen. Barack Obama's Democratic presidential campaign said Monday that it is launching its first television ads, including one that features a prominent DuPage County Republican who has been questioned by members of his own party for his strong touting of Obama's skills.
Illinois Sen. Kirk Dillard, a friend of Obama's from his days in Springfield, tells viewers that Obama was respected on both sides of the political aisle during his time in the General Assembly.
"His negotiation skills and an ability to understand both sides would serve the country very well," Dillard says in one of two ads Obama's campaign will start airing statewide Tuesday in the early voting state of Iowa.
The advertising is arriving even earlier than normal, since candidates typically hold off on such spending during the summer months, when many voters are taking vacations and not paying close attention to politics.
Obama is the third Democratic presidential candidate to broadcast ads in Iowa, following New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, saw a significant rise in his polling numbers after he started spending heavily on ads in Iowa and New Hampshire earlier this year.
In Illinois, Andy McKenna, the state's Republican chairman, expressed surprise at Dillard's help to a Democratic presidential candidate.
"It's disappointing to see him work for Sen. Obama given that all his work should be for a Republican candidate who is more experienced and more qualified," McKenna said at a Republican unity gathering in Peoria. "I think it undercuts his ability to help any Republican candidate."
Dillard, meanwhile, said in an interview that he is officially backing the presidential bid of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and told the McCain campaign that he still intends to run as a convention delegate candidate pledged to the Arizona senator in the state's Feb. 5 primary. But Dillard agreed to appear in Obama's ad more than a month ago as a favor to his former state senate colleague.
Still his praise, which he said stops short of an endorsement, runs counter to some things Dillard said when Obama was campaigning for the U.S. Senate in 2004.
"He's shown a tendency to work on non-philosophical issues, but has been nowhere near the middle of the road, despite how he is trying to portray himself now," Dillard said then. "Even though I have sponsored major legislation with Barack and I like him personally, clearly he is soft on crime and borderline socialist on health care."
These days, Dillard said he doesn't believe the "soft-on-crime" tag is appropriate. Obama, he said, now represents the entire state and has to be "more moderate," rather than only reflecting the liberal Hyde Park area he represented in the state Senate. Still, Dillard said Obama leans "too far to the left" on the issue of health care.
Both of the new ads start out with images of Obama from his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, the appearance that kicked his political career into high gear. They both seek to highlight the candidate's complex biography, while also trying to make the case that he is experienced enough to run the country.
Obama's campaign declined to say how much would be spent on the ads.
"Strategy-wise, whatever he does is going to get covered and noticed," said Evan Tracey, chief operating officer of Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising. "He doesn't have to spend a lot to get a lot in this case."
Dillard, said that if he was still a member of the Illinois Republican State Central Committee or chairman of the DuPage County GOP organization, he would have refused the request. He said he taped the interview after he stepped down from the county Republican post.
He acknowledged he might face fallout for the ad, particularly since some local as well as state Republicans had been critical of his glowing testaments to Obama's tenure in the Illinois Senate in the months leading up to the Democrat's candidacy and after.
"Certainly I care what Republicans think, but Senator Obama is a personal friend, someone I worked closely with on issues we're both proud of," Dillard said. "He's my United States senator and I think his candidacy, whether he wins or loses, is good for Illinois and it's good for the Untied States."
Dillard worked with Obama on state legislation that included ethics reforms, changing the state's troubled death penalty law and efforts to combat racial profiling.
Danny Diaz, a McCain campaign spokesman, had no comment except to note that "Senator Dillard supports John McCain."
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Truth be told, there are only two reasons why Hillary Clinton is slightly ahead of Barrack Obama in opinion polls.
1)Name recognition (thanks to her husband former two terms USA President Bill Clinton)
2)The fact that she is the only credible female candidate in the Presidential race todate going for the Democratic ticket.
In the comming few months Hillary's fortune could dip dramatically if these two key advantages are neutralised.
Obama's campaign adds will go along way in informing the majority of the American people on who Obama is and what he stands for. This initial awereness is critical in taking away significant points from Hillary which accrues to her, by virtual of her name.
Secondly, Hillary campaign will need to cross their fingers tight and hope that no other popular and credible woman decide to stake her claim for Presidency on the Democratic Ticket. (and I hope Madeline Albright will read this) Such a scenerio could significantly weaken Hillary's bid.
The truth of the matter is that Hillary has no significant social, political or Economic platform on which her bid for nomination is embeded. She is simply ridding high on name recognition and gender appeal.
On the other hand, even though Obama's bid is largely seen as a bid of an African American candidate, the realty of the matter on the ground is however different. Obama appears to appeal to both whites and Black almost on even basis. More important he appears to have a concrete platform on issues affecting the American people be they social, Economic or political.
Most important however, is his bipartisan approach. He is extremly appealing to both side of the political divide and he is largely seen as the only candidate who can unite the now badly divided American people once again.
He also has the ability of turning around Americans fortunes around the world as he does not evoke any strong anti - American sentiments any where around the world.
Posted by: Anthony Mwangi | June 26, 2007 8:08 AM
Another Republican who commends Obama on his leadership skills.
Ya gotta like that.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 26, 2007 8:17 AM
Obama's leadership? What exactly did he accomplish? I mean, I know he is an IL Pol and you have to cover him, but is this really news? A backbench Sen. in the IL State house cuts a commercial for the junior senator from IL. STOP THE PRESSES!
Posted by: Chris | June 26, 2007 9:22 AM
I know Kirk. Nice guy. His dad and my dad go way back. In another era, he would be a Rockefeller Repub. He may voice the wingnut talking points, but his heart's not in it.
McCain is finished. He's almost out of money. Kirk is a smart guy and he'll position himself to jetison St. John soon.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | June 26, 2007 9:29 AM
Anthony Mwangi are you related to Ed and Alex???
Yes it's proof of life as far as republicans go. A welcome admission that the two parties have at least on a statewide level, the ability to work together and respect one another.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | June 26, 2007 9:59 AM
I wonder what Obama promised to give Dillard if he wins. I wonder what Dillard gets out of the deal. Sadly that is how IL politics works.
Posted by: Vinny | June 26, 2007 10:11 AM
Andy McKenna should explain why Republicans like himself and Pat Ryan go out of their way to help Democrats like Mayor Daley before being critical of elected officials.
McKenna has never been elected to anything other than being a rich kid born to a rich family.
Posted by: Jack | June 26, 2007 10:35 AM
Maybe Andy McKenna should be looking at why Dillard would feel compelled to do something like this and why there's a headline today about an elected Republican switching parties in his state. This is really a national issue, the party is adrift and needs to address at its core how to deliver what Americans want in the end --reasonable, moderate government that serves the people and enables them to live a respectable life.
Posted by: kb | June 26, 2007 10:58 AM
Chris,
One measure of leadership is if you can work with people that you don't necessarily agree with.
This is one of Obama's many qualities that Republicans from Dillard to Lugar have publiclt said they admire.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 26, 2007 10:59 AM
Obama may be a nice guy, but as Chris points out, exactly what are his accomplishments? Obama is nothing but a media creation at this point. If Obama had been in the Senate for at least six years, ran for the White House in 2012, then I would say he at least has some experience to support his run (this is not saying I would support him, I disagree with him on practically every issue). But he is a 2-year U.S. Senator, who for the past eight months hasn't even been doing that because he has been running for the presidency. He has little to show for his two years in the Senate and little to show for his time in the Illinois legislature, which more often than not is an embarrassment as it is.
A speech at the DNC convention, swimming in the ocean and the support of the LIBune does not a president make.
Posted by: John D | June 26, 2007 11:05 AM
One thing Madeline Albright can't run as she wasn't born a US Citizen. She came here after Czechoslovakia became communist.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2007 11:07 AM
Chris, this is real politics and that's news. It is news when middle America positions itself to muscle up to the big money interests in the Northeast. For a campaign like BO's to be successful it needs to appeal to everybody. Yes, everybody who doe not swoon at the sight of Billy Clinton and does not want to see another 4 or 8 years of him and his spouse running this country.
Posted by: GW | June 26, 2007 11:16 AM
Barack Obama's accomplishments in the US Senate:
1. Sponsored the "Higher Education through Pell Grant Expansion Act".
2. Co-sponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" proposed by John McCain.
3. Amended the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act" proposed by Arlen Specter.
4. Supported the "Secure Fence Act" to build fences and other security along the Mexican border.
5. Introduced the "Lugar-Obama" initiative expanding a previous initiative to reduce the threat of conventional weapons.
6. Was the primary sponsor of the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," which was signed into law December 22, 2006.
7. The "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" would create a web site listing all organizations receiving federal funding from 2007 onward. It would provide a breakdown of which agencies gave out funds, what organizations received funds, and what the funds were used for.
8. He joined Russ Feingold in passing a bill to strengthen legislation regulating legigslators' travel on corporate jets.
9. Along with Charles Schumer he passed a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections including fraudulent flyers and automatic phone calls.
10. Co-sponsored a bill on climate change with John McCain to reduce greenhouse gases by 2/3 by 2050.
His accomplishments in the private sector:
1. Headed a non-profit organization assisting churches to organize job training programs.
2. After receiving his law degree magna *** laude from Harvard, he directed a Chicago area voter registration drive.
2a. He was elected Harvard Law Review's first "black" president.
3. As an attorney with with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.
4. He was a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004.
5. He has authored 2 books: The first was Dreams from My Father a memoir of his childhood and early career. The audio book earned a Grammy for Best Spoken Word Album. His second book, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream has been on the New York Times Best Seller List for 30 weeks.
(source http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070620115745AA6f5aC)
Also try:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_roots_of_barack_obama
http://www.barackobama.com/about/
http://www.obama08-wa.com/?q=overview-barack-obamas-10-years-illinois-and-u-s-senator
http://www.obama08-wa.com/files/experience.pdf
Google is an amazing thing. The "What has he done?" meme deserves to die. Seriously.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2007 11:37 AM
Of course Republicans are hedging their bets, they know 2008 will be a bloodbath even with Supreme Court Injustices hand-picked by the Bu$h regime to influence elections in the GOP's favor (just like it did in 2000). GOP ideas and policies are morally bankrupt, and now that the American people have tasted the bitter fruits of GOP policies, I am certain it will be a very long time before we trust the Guardians of Privilege with control of our government again.
Posted by: Patrick | June 26, 2007 11:47 AM
Pstrick, Republicans are Guardians of Privilige? Really? Have you ever heard of the Kennedys? Rockefellers? Feinsteins? Edwards? Kerrys? Corzines? Cantwells? Soros's? Daleys? Strogers? Blagoyavich's? Spielbergs? Geffens? Douglas's? Katzenbergers? Streisands? Fondas?
Posted by: John D | June 26, 2007 12:19 PM
Obama for president? Haven't we had enough arrogant presidents?
Posted by: Steve | June 26, 2007 12:24 PM
More of the usual drivel from John D. It's not being wealthy that makes one a Guardian of Privilege. I am all for being successful and reaping the rewards. Guardians of Privilege are the ones who pull the ladder up behind them after they climb it. Like Clarence Thomas, who would never have made it without affirmative action, now opposes affirmative action for those who come after him. And if you were really as knowledgeable as you pretend to be, you would at least know how to spell our governor's last name.
Steve-
Why is Obama "arrogant"? It wouldn't have anything to do with his complexion, would it?
Posted by: Patrick | June 26, 2007 2:01 PM
Patrick, I could care less how to spell the worst governor ever in Illinois, Roddy Blablooeyavich. And that is saying a lot, when you consider Illinois has had Otto Kerner, Dan Walker and George Ryan.
Posted by: John D | June 26, 2007 2:17 PM
Pat, whats wrong with his complexion? Does he have acne or something?
Posted by: Steve | June 26, 2007 7:50 PM
JuanD-
If Obama had been in the Senate for at least six years, ran for the White House in 2012, then I would say he at least has some experience to support his run (this is not saying I would support him, I disagree with hi...blah blah yada yada
So one needs six years as a US Senator to be a good president? What does that say for chimpy? I guess you think he sucks since he wasn't qualified.
Posted by: snitramc | June 26, 2007 8:37 PM
Snitrampic, Bush was a governor for six years. Governors are always more experienced than Senators because they actually run something. Bush also worked in his dad's administration. And he has real world experience. But none of that matters to a clueless thing such as yourself and your ilk.
Posted by: John E's father | June 26, 2007 10:04 PM
juanEpapi
So by your own definition, Jimmy Carter was more experienced than Richard Nixon, the man he literally replaced, and thus, the better administrator. Nice to see you supporting Mr. Carter.
PS - ear boy worked for daddy? Oh yeah, we ALL know how well that works out! rotflmao
Posted by: snitramc | June 27, 2007 12:03 AM
Bush worked in his dad's administration!? I wonder what jobs his dad got him out of back then?
Posted by: Steve | June 27, 2007 12:29 AM
I'm strongly a Democrat and would advocate a black president if the right person came along but Obama does strike me as arrogant in demeanor and it's a big turn off. Complexion? I don't think so. I was attracted to the leadership of Colin Powell & Jesse Jackson.
Obama really turns me off on a subconscious level and it's not about race. The tone I get from Obama is more like "I'm a stuck up priss." Did too much of fitting into or trying to impress at Harvard rub off on him? Just my stupid opinion. Hope I don't lower the bar much.
Posted by: Nathan | August 15, 2007 3:54 AM