Dumond Ad

I got an email from the Obama campaign noting that "This race took a sharply negative turn yesterday" and trying to do a little jujitsu with some of the attacks from the Clinton campaign. It's still the case, though, that if you want to see a real sharp negative turn, you need to look to Republicans. Check this out:

Utterly devastating. And best of all nobody really knows what HuckabeeFacts.com is or who's behind it.

UPDATE: Okay, via Jason Zengerle, the Arkansas Times says the video is by Keith Emis, 29, who "grew up in Fayetteville and works in his family's Data Forms business in Greenland. He said he incurred no expenses, save gas and video tapes, and used friends as volunteer help, including one with video production experience." I'd put the odds of that not being the whole story as pretty darn high.

Comments

[cough]clubforgrowth[cough]

Sorry, I'm a bit under the weather.

Posted by Chesser | December 13, 2007 12:13 PM

Good for whoever. Must be a Republican, because they didn't mention the deranged anti-Clinton apocalyptic right wing movement behind the "free Dumond" movement.

Posted by El Cid | December 13, 2007 12:14 PM

Plus, I think Democrats would rather wait until Huckleberry gets the nomination before they start spreading this stuff around.

Posted by Jim W | December 13, 2007 12:18 PM

Hanging the Carole Sue ornament in slo-mo is a particularly deft touch.

Posted by Bill | December 13, 2007 12:18 PM

Probability of Romney near 100%.

He gains the most, by far. Many other candidates benefit from a strong Huck.

And he's the one with the money buying up all the Republican Chris Lehanes.

Plus, he's already gone negative in Iowa on Huck with a pretty clever TV spot under his own name.

Only other real possibility is Thompson.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 12:21 PM

Wow. Chilling.

Posted by Steve | December 13, 2007 12:22 PM

"clubforgrowth"

They'd put it out under their own name. They self-promote with their ads.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 12:22 PM

Andrew Sullivan just posted a reader email that makes a striking point I hadn't seen yet about the Clinton drug-dealer remark:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/african-america.html

The reader asserts a lot of black voters are ticked off because with Clinton, Gore, and Bush 2 all having had youthful drug use come up, not once did any of them have 'drug dealer' come up. This story may not have 'legs' at a national media level, but its something that could really hurt Clinton as she's trying to shore up minority voters who are already defecting to Obama.

And Huckabee is a fool.

Posted by matthewc | December 13, 2007 12:24 PM

The smart response from the Huckabee campaign would be to point out that there's no guarantee that, had she not been raped and murdered, Carol Shields would have made it to Christmas this year. She easily could have died in a car crash or something. He could easily pull out a Bible quotation to back up his point - "time and chance happeneth to them all" or something. Remind everyone of his Christian credentials.

Posted by minderbender | December 13, 2007 12:27 PM

"its something that could really hurt Clinton as she's trying to shore up minority voters who are already defecting to Obama."

As with all of this stuff, it hurts Clinton and Obama.

She's Gephardt and he's Dean.

The Clinton and Obama teams are both playing checkers, not chess.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 12:35 PM

Petey:

She's Gephardt and he's Dean.

And that would make Edwards Kerry.

Awesome. Except Edwards is a lot better than Kerry; the right people really hate Edwards.

Posted by lambert strether | December 13, 2007 12:37 PM

Except Edwards is a lot better than Kerry; the right people really hate Edwards.

Well, and that Democrats aren't actually interested in voting for Edwards. Hell, he lost to John Kerry.

Posted by Vasquez | December 13, 2007 12:40 PM

The ad is good, but I don't like the pitch: it gives the impression that parole for serious criminals is always wrong, since the politician authorising the parole is responsible for any crimes the parolee commits thereafter. That's a pretty illiberal narrative, which would go along with a lock-em-up-forever approach.

Of course, the ad doesn't talk about the fact that Huckabee seems to have let Dumond out because his earlier victim was a Clinton relative. That's the scandalous part of the story, but it's more difficult to pitch. And, hell, it might help Huckabee with the GOP primary voters!

Posted by otto | December 13, 2007 12:42 PM

For a brief instant I thought this guy was actually living in Greenland, as in the big island owned by Denmark. That would have been pretty cool, and added a little international intrigue. Alas, google maps disabused me of this tantalizing possibility. Still, keep your eyes on those Greenlanders.

Posted by Ricky B | December 13, 2007 12:44 PM

FWIW, the guy who made the video put out a statement:

I saw Mrs. Davidson on CBS News last week talking about how Wayne Dumond murdered her daughter Carol Sue Shields. Shields was murdered because Mike Huckabee began pushing for Dumond's freedom when he became governor. Dumond was eventually released.

There is no doubt Mrs. Davidson has a powerful story to tell, but I wasn't sure she had an outlet to share it. I agreed with her that Mike Huckabee has no business being president.

I have always been a behind the scenes guy in Arkansas politics, working for Fay Boozman in 1998 and Senator Tim Hutchinson in 2002, so being out front on
anything political is highly unusual for me, but this is different.

I contacted Mrs. Davidson and asked her if she would be willing to speak on camera about her daughter, her daughter's murderer, and the man who helped win his freedom. I got a camera crew to go with me to Missouri to Mrs. Davidson's home. We filmed a very kind lady who shouldn't have lost her daughter.

Mrs. Davidson's story is important. It's one that anyone voting in the Republican primaries should hear.

Sincerely,

Keith W. Emis

Posted by southpaw | December 13, 2007 12:52 PM

So Keith Emis has a friend who just happens to have a movie-trailer-narrator voice? Sure.

Posted by too many steves | December 13, 2007 12:53 PM

Yeah, the chances that the ad was produced by some-dude-with-a-video-camera are about 0. Among other things, that's clearly a pro voiceover guy.

Posted by bh | December 13, 2007 12:54 PM

The ad is good, but I don't like the pitch: it gives the impression that parole for serious criminals is always wrong, since the politician authorising the parole is responsible for any crimes the parolee commits thereafter. That's a pretty illiberal narrative, which would go along with a lock-em-up-forever approach.

Yes, but the format doesn't always permit you to tell the whole story. This ad is effective precisely because it's a straightforward negative pitch that doesn't bring up Clinton-hatred or any of the ancillary stuff. You've already got the whole story laid out in print several different places.

Posted by Steve | December 13, 2007 1:00 PM

Yeah, the chances that the ad was produced by some-dude-with-a-video-camera are about 0. Among other things, that's clearly a pro voiceover guy.

According to that Arkansas Times post Matt linked to, "His uncle Donn Emis, a Fayetteville DJ, did the voiceover." If that's a lie, it would be pretty easy to expose.

But the guy has put his name out and said that he's a state level political operative, so my guess is he's trying to advance his own career to the national level.

Posted by southpaw | December 13, 2007 1:10 PM

"But the guy has put his name out and said that he's a state level political operative, so my guess is he's trying to advance his own career to the national level."

Yup.

Or even trying to curry favor with anti-Huck elements of the Ark GOP.

Or even trying to get adopted by Willard Romney once all the voting is over.

I love primary season.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 1:16 PM

I do believe this strings that lead elsewhere, but I can't help but notice a few amateurish touches--particularly the use of an italicized serif font for screen text. Pros wouldn't put something so hard to read on screen... unless, of course, they're trying to make it look low-budget.

Regarding the Edwards = Kerry nonsense above: the continued delusion of Edwards fans is getting kinda sad. Even if Edwards pulled off a major Iowa upset, it's hard to envision a scenario where Obama drops out fast enough to let him eclipse Clinton. And it's getting easier and easier to imagine a scenario where Edwards drops out pretty early and Obama gets some big 'mo.

Posted by Philly | December 13, 2007 1:22 PM

uhh... there shouldn't be an apostrophe before "mo." That means something else entirely!

Posted by Philly | December 13, 2007 1:25 PM

I would point out that a WHOIS of the huckabeefacts.com domain shows that whoever put up the site wishes to remain anonymous -- they had their registrar, 1and1, do a private registration, so you can't tell who really made the site.

With that said, it is curious that the site has links to both the Huffington Post and DailyKos, along with the National Review and Drudge Report plus the Arkansas Times blog. Very interesting set of links.

Posted by mbraz | December 13, 2007 1:26 PM

Damn, you have to assume that will be damaging to him.

minderbender, I assume you are kidding.

Posted by Chunche | December 13, 2007 1:31 PM

"Even if Edwards pulled off a major Iowa upset, it's hard to envision a scenario where Obama drops out fast enough to let him eclipse Clinton."

Whoever starts actually, y'know, winning elections is the one folks are going to have to worry about eclipsing, not the other way around.

Obama and Clinton are both going to be able to buy fuel for their planes through 2/5, but if they let Edwards win early, I don't think flying around the country is going to do anything for them.

With this year's calendar, this nomination race is like a sumo match - a lot of prancing around for quite a while before the action starts, and then whammo, it's over before you know what's happened.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 1:32 PM

"And it's getting easier and easier to imagine a scenario where Edwards drops out pretty early and Obama gets some big 'mo."

If you think the average Edwards voter goes to Obama, not Clinton, then you need to re-examine the existing polling data, Philly.

You folks need Edwards in the race as long as possible.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 1:42 PM

With this year's calendar, this nomination race is like a sumo match - a lot of prancing around for quite a while before the action starts, and then whammo, it's over before you know what's happened.

Eh, could be. Or we could have three different winners in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada . . . a week or two of back and forth between them . . . and then all of a sudden it's February 5th and a bunch of Democrats in states that are used to voting for the received wisdom in a presidential election won't have any wisdom to rely on. Seems like the chances for everyone to get significant delegate counts are just as good as the traditional IA->NH->SC steamroller.

Posted by southpaw | December 13, 2007 1:44 PM

Petey, Matt just endorsed Edwards. Congrats; I know it was a twilight struggle.

Posted by southpaw | December 13, 2007 1:47 PM

"Seems like the chances for everyone to get significant delegate counts are just as good as the traditional IA->NH->SC steamroller."

No. Possible, but not "just as good as". Odds are that this is a steamroller year for Dems.

Unlike the candidates on the GOP side, all three of the Dem candidates are acceptable to wide swaths of the Party. In a scenario like that, once someone starts winning, there's no reason for them to stop winning.

To stop momentum, you need some chunk of a party to veto the candidate with momentum. In 2000, evangelicals vetoed McCain. In 1996, party regulars vetoed Buchanan. In 1988, free traders vetoed Gephardt. In 1984, unions vetoed Hart.

No one is going to veto any of the top three Dem candidates this year. Start winning, and you'll win more.

Maybe Clinton can use Harry Reid to have Nevada as a firewall, but I'd doubt it will hold.

Maybe Obama can have South Carolina as a firewall, but that'd make him a black candidate instead of a national candidate if that's all he can win.

Win early, and the mantle of Presumptive Nominee will fall on your shoulders. Don't win early, and you'll look like a loser just in time for more voters to take note of that.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 1:56 PM

"Petey, Matt just endorsed Edwards. Congrats; I know it was a twilight struggle."

It works for everyone. We get universal healthcare and a newly progressive Democratic Party. Obama gets the VP slot and an excellent platform to become President in 2016, when he'll be almost precisely as old as Edwards is today.

Clinton gets to be Senate Majority Leader and push through the Edwards healthcare plan she's already signed on to.

It's win-win-win!

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 2:01 PM

why do so many of these adverts have the same crap windhamhills-type acoustic guitar?

Posted by dj superflat | December 13, 2007 2:02 PM

No. Possible, but not "just as good as". Odds are that this is a steamroller year for Dems.

Yeah, your analysis seems right. It was sloppy writing on my part. I'll amend that it's plausible, but not of equal probability. Kinda like those unusual sumo matches where they grapple for position and push back and forth for a long time before the decisive moment . . .

Posted by southpaw | December 13, 2007 2:07 PM

I don't know. I think it's possible this was a completely amateur production as suggested. It has an amateur feel to it.

Posted by Chris Andersen | December 13, 2007 5:37 PM

One phrase missing from the advertisement was "serial rapist." Dumond is the sort of individual who you would expect to rape again if he was released from prison.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | December 14, 2007 3:23 AM

I want to name my town Greenland just so I can say I live in Greenland.

Posted by Adam Villani | December 14, 2007 7:01 AM