Will the Obama campaign release an ad attacking Sarah Palin before Sep 12?

After her speech last night, I don't think they can afford to continue ignoring her. They will have to fight back -- which obviously means an ad, since that seems to be the only way either campaign says anything anymore. (rolls eyes)

I think September 12th may be a little early. There probably will be one by the end of September but i am not sure how fast they can pump these attack ads out. Not to mention you have to organize a spot to put it on which can be expensive and time consuming

Just wondering...What actually constitutes an "attack" ad for this question? A negative comment? A contradiction of one of her previous statements that may or may not be true in the first place? Is it an attack if she says something stupid or incorrect and Obama responds with an opposite opinion or clarification?
I think people, and especially the media, seem to be so hyper-sensitive this election season that a difference of opinion is labeled as an attack sometimes.

From the background: "Will they release an ad criticizing Sarah Palin's policies, record or statements within two weeks of her announcement?"

This is the type of thing that is difficult to describe ahead of time, but I'm pretty sure we'll "know it when we see it."

http://www.geocities.com/deelilley/hoser.html

Thanks Jenni.... Yeah that is sort of what I was referring to....
So just for the sake of conversation...Why is it that people consider criticism as attacking? My personal thought is that attacking would be something outside the area of just pointing out a different opinion or facts on certain subjects or being overly harsh. I think what becomes attacks are what's commonly referred to as "negative" ads where the tone is unnecessarily nasty and are based on areas that really are not relevant to the election.
Example: Palin says being a Governor is like organizing except that you actually have to do something. Instead of just stating that being a Governor has a number of important responsibilities she has to take a negative dig against Obama's "organizing" for no particular reason other than to be nasty and sound superior. Ultimately I feel that just makes her look petty and in a bad light and overshadows the point that being a Governor is an important position in our country....period. Take the high road and people will follow. :-)

She flip-flopped on a bridge and made a decision that was in my opinion the correct one while others argue it was the wrong one. Leaders are faced with many dichotomous decisions that result in criticism from some and praise from others. Weak leaders avoid the controversy by voting present.

she has to take a negative dig against Obama's "organizing" for no particular reason other than to be nasty and sound superior
came after
he has to take a negative dig against Palin's experience for no particular reason other than to be nasty and sound superior

Palin *lied* about the bridge.

Reuters:
Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans
It garnered big applause in her first speech as Republican John McCain's vice presidential pick, but Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's assertion that she rejected Congressional funds for the so-called "bridge to nowhere" has upset many Alaskans.

During her first speech after being named as McCain's surprise pick as a running mate, Palin said she had told Congress "'thanks but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere."
In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community, because she had supported the bridge and the earmark for it secured by Alaska's Congressional delegation during her run for
governor.
[...]
"She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money," said Elerding about her applause line.

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901

I think the most successful people in history did not come from communities that were "organized". In fact, I am sure of it. Although many people who became successful were raised in poverty, their rise to success has never been attributed to how organized their communtity was.

Also, Barack worked for ACORN when he was doing this. That says a lot just there.

Community service used to be encouraged in America :)

It take organization to get your trash picked up, your roads paved...organization used to keep your financial systems on the level. Whereas.

Ms. Earmarks told a big stinkin' whopper in front of millions.

Nuthin' new there.
http://tinyurl.com/5a88s3

It's dangerous; this posturing, these continual strawman arguments, because Bush/McCain is 4 more years of the same.

Do you really need war with Russia and Iran when you're still bogged down with war in Afghanistan and war in Iraq?

Do you really need to tank the economy when your children already will pay for Iraq?
(Newsflash: Cutting taxes for the rich didn't result in a vibrant economy.)

Vote Bush/McCain. 4 more years of the Same, but lookin' to be much, much worse.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8911.html

That doesnt seem fair. its not four years of the same. They are two totally different people who vary on there political views in many many cases. However i think bush gets a bad rap. Being a president isnt as all powerful as people make it out to be. They actually have a lot of limits on there power. They cant make bills, they cant go to war without congresses approval(a democratic congress i might add) and they all in all dont influence our day to day lives very much. The real people who are pulling the strings and using Bush as a scapegoat to cover up there own failures are the lousy democratic congress. People blame bush but who approved a war to iraq? Congress. Who makes the laws that people dont like? Congress. And who takes the blame for all the Idiotic morons in congress? Bush. It is really idiotic to blame bush for there extreme failures. Its like blaming the pizza delivery guy for a poorly made pizza, or blaming a mail man for bad mail. And people who have zero understanding about how goverment works are the same people who are critisizing bush for the poor market.

They're the same; same people, same script: http://tinyurl.com/5a88s3
Bush/McCain.
"Bush", as I use it, is a generic term for one f*cked up "administration" ...(Bush was chosen for his facile charm and huge family connections. Picking a leader on the basis of whether or not you'd like to have a beer with him isn't a good idea. Serves you right.)
Blaming others for *everything* is somewhat suspect, no?
Too convenient. Not very Leader-like.
And you seem to forget that Congress was Republican in 2002; in lockstep with the Bush administration. Their failure to question authority was truly abysmal.
Bush/McCain said that the economy was is good shape just a few months ago. Either they lied, or they didn't know.
Which is worse?
I'm just asking.

Well i guess you got me there. I got a little ahead of myself with some of those statements. Still who would like to have a beer with obama? No one thats who! Now McCain, theres a talk of the party kind of guy! Forgetting where he is in the middle of a sentence, thinking hes back in the pow camp and attacking the guests, passing out and having to be sent to the hospital. Hes a regular partier that one! Still i do think im right about some of the things i said. And as for the Bush/McCain saying the economy is in good shape a couple months ago, as a rule i try never to argue about things when i have no idea the details however maybe (and i could be wrong i didn't hear the sentence) they were talking about certain aspects of the market. For example the dollar is estimated to be beginning a 7 year rise and the price of oil is slipping making it easier to transport goods and allowing company's to be much more profitable. A lot of people who blame bush don't use that term for the bush administration. They use it for one guy. George Bush. And those are the people with very little understanding about how goverment works. Congress was republican in 2002 but back then congress had a much higher approval rating. Ever since the democrats got in it has slipped down to a record low! Now im sure youve heard this one before however Obama has no experience. Right now we don't want a man who will be learning these kinds of things as he goes. For example, when Obama first heard about the Russia invasion of Georgia one of his responses was that Nato should interfere with the invasion. However because he had no experience with foreign affairs, he didnt know that russia has a veto power on nato. If he made this mistake when he was president, he would have sat there without a reaction to the invasion awaiting a group that russia had some control over to invade russia. What if it had become neccessary to invade russia and obama suggested that Nato take action?

McCain=3 decades of expeirence
Obama=4 years of experience. You want to know what he did for 3 1/2 those years? He ran for president. You want to know what he did for the first 1/2 the year? Sat there, writing no major pieces of legislation, thinking about how he could become president. Ok have at me you overwhelming number of internet democrats

OK...just to try to understand....your statement: For example, when Obama first heard about the Russia invasion of Georgia one of his responses was that Nato should interfere with the invasion. However because he had no experience with foreign affairs, he didnt know that russia has a veto power on nato.

I'm sure you meant the United Nations not NATO, since Russia is not a part of NATO which is a multi-national organization set up to OPPOSE the old Soviet Union. Now, did Obama refer to NATO or the UN?

And should we be getting this deeply into political exchanges on this 'prediction' site. I don't think we really want our comment section here to devolve into a series of political exchanges during a heated election season.

My mistake. Your right the UN security council was what he suggested.

YouTube has an ad released by the Obama campaign today (Sept 8th)
- see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOekhhuN99A

which I believe qualifies as "an ad attacking Sarah Palin"

To quote from the ad:

"...and Sarah Palin's no maverick either, she was for the bridge
to nowhere before she was against it.

Politicians lying about their records - you don't call
that "maverick", you call it more of the same."

Certainly that phrase of "politicians lying about their records"
would qualify as an attack as an "attack ad", wouldn't it?

As long as it goes on TV, and isn't just "web only" -- per the settlement details.

DAMN! Lost a pretty penny on this one.