As New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) joined President Obama today to survey the devastated shores of the New Jersey coastline, conservative commentators launched into political attacks, calling him “fat and a fool,” and claiming that the tour of the damage was a shared campaign event.

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who normally reserves his derision for Democrats, went so far as to say of Christie: “He’s fat and a fool. Don’t listen to Governor Christie. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” But Limbaugh clinched the quote with his reasoning for being so vicious: “He makes fun of me all the time.”

A writer for the right-wing Daily Caller, Matt Lewis, hopped onto the anti-Christie bandwagon as well, in a post titled “What’s Chris Christie up to?” Lewis called Christie “a prop for Obama’s re-election” and speculated that there must be some kind of “Christie/Romney schism.”

The right wing fodder site Drudge Report also attacked Christie, though it took its usual, more inflammatory tone to do so:

No one can figure out exactly what is going through Christie’s head, but it’s certainly not impossible that the lifelong Jersey boy truly is concerned about his state first, and his party second. Giving warranted praise to a President who does his job well is not exactly treason to his party — especially since Christie was the Republican National Convention speaker, and many Republicans have expressed hope that he runs for national office in the future.

Few billionaires play a more influential role in bankrolling right-wing and fossil fuel interests than the Koch brothers, whose affiliated groups pledged to spend up to $400 million this election.

A ThinkProgress analysis of Kantar Media CMAG data finds that outside groups with strong Koch ties spent $95 million on more than 100,000 TV ad spots between April and October 27. Most groups ran at least one ad attacking clean energy investments and prioritizing oil above all, although the majority of the ads focused on the economy and federal spending.

Koch group spending in the presidential race rivals another major player in Republican ad wars: Karl Rove’s groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS together funded $95.4 million on ads that aired more than 130,000 times.

These Koch-linked groups, most of which don’t disclose donors, have aired close to $100 million worth in ads:

Americans For Prosperity: $31.7 million

After pouring more than $8.4 million into bogus energy attack ads before the general election season, the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity spent close $32 million in the presidential race. One of these ads, “Wasteful Spending,” directly attacked the loan guarantee program for clean energy projects, claiming that it sent jobs overseas. However, the ad, which aired more than 3,400 times, told four outright lies in a minute:

American Energy Alliance: $461,000

AEA has run two fossil fuel ads in seven states. AEA’s president Thomas Pyle was former director of federal affairs for Koch Industries, and it is affiliated with the Koch- and ExxonMobil-backed Institute for Energy Research. AEA’s recent ad, “Stand With Coal,” runs parallel to the group’s anti-wind campaign to make tax credits “so toxic” Republicans won’t support them. An ad titled “Nine Dollar Gas” aired during peak gas price season was riddled with lies about who to blame for gas prices. Despite the ample evidence that increased oil production doesn’t lower prices, their ad pins blame on the president.

Restore Our Future: $48.88 million

The pro-Romney super PAC has run a number of ads targeting the economy, stimulus, and unemployment. William Koch, the third Koch brother, has funneled millions of dollars to the pro-Romney super PAC group through his company Oxbow Carbon. Oxbow has donated $3.75 million to Restore Our Future, in addition to William Koch’s $250,000 contribution.

American Future Fund: $5.26 million

American Future Fund’s millions in Koch funding comes through the Center to Protect Patients’ Rights, steered by a “Koch operative.” American Future Fund’s eight ads have focused on issues relating to the economy and federal spending. AFF is behind an ad, which aired over 1,000 times, that falsely claims stimulus funding sent green jobs overseas. The ad repeats similar claims as Amerians for Prosperity, citing the same Washington Times source stating that stimulus money sent jobs overseas (although the 2010 story has been factchecked factchecked since):

Americans For Job Security: $8.85 million

Americans For Job Security has an ad on the economy running in eight states. Like American Future Fund, it is Koch connected through the Center to Protect Patients’ Rights.

Outside group spending on TV ads is just one part of the story where Koch money fueled Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. Beyond saturating the airways, the Kochs have sought to influence their employees’ votes, warning of company-wide “consequences” if Mitt Romney loses. This summer, the Koch brothers raised $3 million at a fundraiser they hostedfor the candidate. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity has doubled down on its gas price lies with publicity stunts around the country offering cheap gas to voters, and an expanded ground operation.

Two introductory speakers at a Mitt Romney event in Tampa, Florida portrayed President Obama’s voters as dependent on government hand outs on Wednesday, and claimed that Democrats are rewarding early voters with free “cell phones”:

– Dana Young, Florida State Rep: “If you believe the American people, who are hurting right now, want real work and not just a pat on the back and a government check, the answer is Mitt Romney.”

– Adam Putnam, Florida Commissioner of Agriculture: “We can’t just show up and cheer and slap a bumper sticker on the back of our car and say, we’re done. We got to drag people to the polls, that’s what they’re doing. We don’t have to offer them cell phones like they’re doing, but by golly, take people to the polls.”

Watch it:

Conservative groups and websites have jumped on the racially charged ‘Obama Phone’ myth — the false claim that the administration is rewarding supporters with free telephones — in an effort to portray Democrats as moochers, though this may be the first time the claim was used at an official GOP campaign event.

Romney gave Putnam a shout out during the event, identifying him as a co-chair of the campaign’s Farmers and Ranchers For Romney Coalition.

An evangelical group that claims to stand up for religious liberty is circulating fliers that attack President Obama for doing just that. Focus on the Family, a conservative religious organization that is running evangelical voter turnout for Mitt Romney, is mailing out to Iowans a flier that misquotes Obama as saying, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.”

Obama’s real quote, which has been evaluated by FactCheck.org, actually adds the word ‘just,’ and goes on to add more explanation:

Given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

As Focus on the Family is usually the first to point out, freedom of religion is a founding principle for the United States. But that includes the freedom to practice a religion outside of Christianity, assuring religious minorities like Jews and Muslims that the US is not, in fact, a Christian nation.

The narrative that Obama is somehow anti-Christian is a part of the right’s attempt to frame Obama as a foreigner who is trying to undermine American values. It also goes along with the broader effort by religious conservatives to paint Democrats as having a war on Christianity (the ‘War on Christmas,’ specifically, has been invoked by the religious right). But the truth is that religious minorities are much smaller than people are wont to estimate.

As the East Coast and parts of Ohio struggled to regroup in the devastating wake of “Superstorm” Sandy, the Romney campaign hastily transformed a scheduled victory rally in Dayton, Ohio into a non-political “storm relief event” on Tuesday. According to BuzzFeed, the campaign encouraged supporters to bring hurricane relief supplies and “deliver the bags of canned goods, packages of diapers, and cases of water bottles to the candidate, who would be perched behind a table along with a slew of volunteers and his Ohio right-hand man, Senator Rob Portman.”

Just to be safe, campaign aides reportedly spent $5,000 at a local Wal-Mart on supplies that could be put on display. When supporters arrived at the rally-turned-relief event, they were treated to the 10-minute video about Romney’s life, which was first unveiled at the RNC. The event ended with supporters lined up to hand over supplies and meet Romney. But according to BuzzFeed, this donation process was also staged:

Empty-handed supporters pled for entrance, with one woman asking, “What if we dropped off our donations up front?”

The volunteer gestured toward a pile of groceries conveniently stacked near the candidate. “Just grab something,” he said.

Two teenage boys retrieved a jar of peanut butter each, and got in line. When it was their turn, they handed their “donations” to Romney. He took them, smiled, and offered an earnest “Thank you.”

The Red Cross, meanwhile, said they were grateful for the supplies but encouraged people to donate money or blood as a more efficient way to help the relief effort.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA), the tea party darling with a history of anti-minority rhetoric, responded to a question about disaster relief for the estimated 10 million victims of Hurricane Sandy by suggesting that any federal money be carefully disbursed to ensure none of it is spent on “Gucci bags and massage parlors.”

The comment, first flagged by The Huffington Post, came during a debate with his Democratic opponent Christie Vilsack on Tuesday night, as New York City, New Jersey and other communities along the East Coast struggled to put out devastating fires, remove boats and trees from train tracks and rescue hundreds of critical care patients from hospitals that lost power. Radio Iowa provided some context for the remark:

When Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast in 2005, King voted to immediately send $10.5 billion to the disaster zone, but King balked at a second installment of nearly $52 billion for things like temporary trailer homes and preparing for future disasters.

“Can you imagine in the middle of a disaster to ask for appropriations for mitigating future disasters?” King says. “That’s why I said no on that second round of appropriations for Katrina…because they spent it on Gucci bags and massage parlors and everything you can think of — in addition to what was necessary.”

King was one of just 11 congresspeople to vote against the second round of funding for the city of New Orleans. Early estimates of the damage caused by the storm are as high as $20 billion, and as much as half of that figure may not be covered by insurance companies, leaving states, local municipalities and the federal government responsible for a significant percentage of the cleanup costs.

Since the tea party swept into Congress in 2010, Republicans have repeatedly attempted to block federal disaster aid unless Democrats agree to spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget. And Rep. King defended his vote against Katrina relief, calling it one of his proudest votes in Congress.

Vilsack responded to King’s comment, calling it “heartless.”

You can listen to the full debate here.

A day after Hurricane Sandy struck the East Coast, a conservative group is distributing a flyer in northern Virginia that compares President Obama’s policies to a storm rolling through the state.

“WE’VE SEEN STORMS IN VIRGINIA, BUT NONE LIKE THIS,” read the Americans for Tax Reform flyer, along a picture of Obama. ATR is an anti-tax group headed up by Grover Norquist, a federal lobbyist whose infamous “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” has hindered any possibility of compromise in Congress on taxes.

A northern Virginia resident found the flyer at her apartment door Tuesday morning and passed it along to the Houston Chronicle.

Sandy wrought devastation across the state on Monday, leaving more than 100,000 Virginians without electricity.

In total, 238 congressmen and 41 senators — nearly all Republicans — have signed Norquist’s pledge.

During the August Republican National Convention in Tampa, a right-wing political group led by two former aides to House Republican Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) courted women with “hair and makeup touch ups” at a “Women Up!” pavilion. Now, a new radio ad by the same tax-exempt group suggests female voters are unable to make up their minds and vote for the candidate who is most handsome.

The YG Network (or Young Guns Network), a secretive 501(c)(4) group that does not disclose its donors, has a new radio ad in Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District, backing freshman Republican Rep. Sean Duffy. It features two women talking over coffee:

EMMA: Hey, Olivia. What’s it gonna be?
OLIVIA: Hi Emma. Hmmm. Latte, cappuccino? I can’t make up my mind.
EMMA: That’s how I felt about this election… until I took a good look at the candidates.
OLIVIA: And?
EMMA: I’m for Sean Duffy. He’s pretty cool, actually. He’s part of this new generation of leaders, the kind we need in Washington. He’s a good husband and father and he fights for small businesses, like mine. So I can keep the doors open and even hire more people.
OLIVIA: He’s the cute one, right?

Listen to the spot:

On the group’s website, a “YG Women” section explains that as polling shows women prioritize “solutions that create jobs, encourage innovation, instill fiscal discipline, establish a patient-centered health care system and pursue energy security in an environmentally focused manner,” it is “committed to researching the best ways those issues should be approached, communicated, and prioritized.” This ad would suggest their research has somehow led them to believe that women like to be portrayed as indecisive and only focused on which candidate is cuter.

Nearly a month after a Pennsylvania court suspended the law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls this November, reports of misinformation on the voter ID law are still rolling in.

The latest misleading claim comes from CBS Pittburgh radio station KDKA, which is running an ad claiming that voters will need photo identification to go to the polls on November 6th, despite the fact that while voters may be asked to show ID, it is not required to vote. The ad aired on October 26, around 7:30 am immediately after a weather report for the Pittsburgh area. “The Voter ID law was just recently signed by the governor,” an unidentified woman in the ad says:

NARRATOR: When you need to vote–

WOMAN: The voter ID law was just recently signed by the governor.

NARRATOR: You need to know –

WOMAN: You’re not going to be allowed to vote unless you present an acceptable photo identification. Get to a PennDOT licensing center and get a photo ID at the drivers’ license center.

NARRATOR: It’s your right, it’s your duty, it’s your choice –

WOMAN: And you will need an acceptable ID in order for you to vote.

NARRATOR: Decision 2012. KDKA.

The ad is particularly confounding because KDKA itself has reported on the recent decisions regarding the voter ID law.

But it also follows a trend of misleading information in the state — like billboards and television ads, as well as reports from local governments — that has become so rampant voting rights’ groups have asked a court to step in to stop the wrong information from spreading.

A request for comment from KDKA was not immediately returned.

Mitt Romney’s past comments about dismantling FEMA and privatizing disaster relief have come back to haunt him as Hurricane Sandy begins to wreak havoc on the East Coast. Still, one Republican strategist, Ron Bonjean, agrees with him. On CNN Monday morning, Bonjean, a private consultant who advises GOP congressional leaders, defended Romney, suggesting that even talking about federal disaster relief is politically toxic:

Most people don’t have a positive impression of FEMA and I think Mitt Romney was right on the button. But I don’t think anybody cares about that right now. I think people care about whether or not their power’s on, whether or not their basement’s going to be flooded. And I think that if the president gets too far in front of this and something goes wrong, people are going to remember, hey, my power’s not out, and the president’s talking about FEMA. I’m not a real big fan of FEMA. That could sway their vote.

Watch it:

Sandy has already caused severe flooding in the Northeast, hours before the worst of the storm is projected to hit. President Obama has declared a state of emergency in 7 states and DC after several governors’ urgent requests for federal aid to combat the storm. Though Bonjean fails to make the connection between FEMA’s services and people worrying about their power going out, the agency has already dispatched emergency power teams to try to reinforce vulnerable power grids before the storm hits and provided hundreds of generators and other back-up power sources. Americans are unfortunately well-acquainted with the agency, despite Bonjean’s insistence that they “don’t care” about it; a recent study of FEMA data found that, since 2006, 4 out of 5 Americans have been affected by weather-related disasters.

The federal government’s ability to respond to natural disasters, like Hurricane Sandy currently bearing down on the East Coast, would be significantly hindered under a Romney-Ryan administration.

At least three times, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have publicly demanded that the federal government only disburse disaster relief funding if Congress agreed to offsetting budget cuts elsewhere. This would hold desperately-needed disaster relief funding hostage unless Congress agreed to cuts elsewhere in the budget, an extraordinarily difficult prospect even in normal circumstances.

Though GOP Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) became the public face of such intransigence in the wake of natural disaster last year, Romney and Ryan have repeatedly made clear they agree with Cantor’s position.

Last year, after a major tornado and flood struck the United States, Romney was asked in a debate about federal disaster relief funding. Romney not only suggested shuttering FEMA and sending responsibility for disaster relief “back to the private sector,” but also said it would be “immoral” for the federal government to fund disaster relief efforts without cutting the budget elsewhere. “It makes no sense at all,” Romney concluded. Watch it:

Ryan’s 2012 budget took a similar approach to disaster funding. As The Hill noted in May 2012, Ryan’s budget called for any disaster relief funding to “be fully offset within the discretionary levels provided in this resolution.” In other words, Congress would have to agree on cuts elsewhere in the budget if it wanted to dole out funds after a disaster. This idea was so far out of the mainstream that even Republican legislators abandoned the idea. Ryan opposed Obama’s efforts to build significant funding for disaster relief into the budget, a move intended to avoid the kinds of delays forced by Cantor and the Tea Party last year.

This is not a new position for Ryan. Long before he entered the political limelight, Ryan was still pushing a similar line on disaster funding. In a March 23, 2004 speech on the House floor, Ryan proposed that any emergency spending legislation, including disaster relief, be automatically offset by an “across-the-board” budget cut. After proposing legally-binding spending limits, Ryan bemoaned the fact that these emergency spending items “do not have to be paid for under our current budget rules.” Automatic cuts, Ryan explained, would help Congress offset funding that went to disaster relief.

Roscoe Bartlett, a Republican who has represented Maryland in Congress for nearly 20 years, blasted working mothers at a campaign stop last week. The Washington Post has the quote:

This isn’t the politically correct thing to say, but when we drove the mother out of the home into the workplace and replaced her with the television set, that was not a good thing.

During the same campaign swing, Bartlett said he believed “the Information Age is just a high-tech bubble,” noting “You can’t eat those electrons. They won’t keep the rain off your head. They won’t take you anywhere.”

Bartlett also recently apologized for comparing student loans to the Holocaust.

He is facing an uphill battle for re-election in a new district that is more favorable to Democrats.

[HT: BuzzFeed]

This Thursday, Romney campaign co-chair John Sununu said that former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed President Obama because both were African-Americans, despited Powell’s stated justifications being based on Obama’s foreign and economic policy record. Sununu’s comments (which are par for his course) brought the simmering racial subtext in this election to the fore: anti-black prejudice has spiked since President Obama’s 2008 victory, when the President likely lost three to five points in the popular vote as a consequence of racist voting.

To discuss the complex questions surrounding race, identity, and voting, ThinkProgress reached out to Kwame Anthony Appiah, Professor of Philosophy and African Studies at Princeton University and one of the world’s most prominent scholars of race, identity, and politics. What follows is a lightly edited transcript of that conversation.

TP: How does this assumption that African American voters think principally in racial terms work to define race in the United States?

KAA: Well [laughs], that’s a complicated question.

Look… I think that it’s …many people who voted for President Obama the first time around had in their minds the fact that they were voting for the first African American president and thought that was a consideration in favor for doing so, and that applies to lots of white people, as well and lots of black people. And in a country with our history, it’s not an unreasonable thought if somebody’s acceptable on other grounds as a president, that that should weigh in his favor. It’s true that President Obama has gotten a larger proportion of the black vote, I believe, than most Democrats. On the other hand, most African Americans vote overwhelmingly for white Democrats, as well as black ones. And the reason for that is that African Americans think Republican Party is less friendly to advancing the causes of black people and doing something about our history of racial inequality than the Democrats are.

And, so, I think that’s the context within which one has to think about the fact the president has done very well with black voters. The situation for minorities in general is such that they’re likely to value the thought that somebody of their own identity is a serious candidate for office. And not just minorities. It applies to women, as well, in country which has a long history of keeping women out of high places. Women have sometimes thought that the fact that someone was a woman was a consideration in favor for voting for her, as indeed have many men who think that the history of exclusion of women from power is a bad thing. And so I think that the identity of a candidate, especially if it’s a minority identity or a historically excluded identity, can be a reasonable basis for voting for them. I’m pretty skeptical that the reason Colin Powell endorsed President Obama was, as it were, simply that he was black. Colin Powell belongs to –- or used to belong, I don’t know what his current party affiliations are –- the moderate wing of the Republican Party and if the moderates in the Republican Party were attending more carefully they would notice that many, well if all of them were attending properly, they would notice that President Obama’s actual policies are pretty close to the polices that have historically been favored by moderate Republicans [laughs].

So I’m sure that Colin Powell would not endorse someone for president whom he didn’t think was not doing a good job for reelection to the presidency, who didn’t think he was doing a good job on domestic and foreign policy, and that I suspect is the main reason why he endorsed him.

TP: Right. And of course, those were his stated reasons, which is sort of why this remark has generated controversy because Sununu is implying that his real reasons are hidden and they really must have to do with race. What’s going on there? How would you analyze this assumption that everything must be about race in context of America’s racial history?

KAA: I think, as I say, it’s inevitable, given our history, that it’s one of the things you think about when you have a chance to elect a man who’s black or a woman. You think about what that means, and a lot of politics is about the meaning of things as much as about any particular matter. But as I say, someone like Colin Powell, who’s been so close to the circle of government most of his adult life, is in a good position to evaluate…whether he thinks the President is doing a good job on the issues he cares about.

And even if it’s the case that Colin Powell’s endorsement and support for the President has an element in it of believing that it’s good a good thing for the country to have a black president, I think that’s a reasonable thought. But it’s rather odd to reduce it to that. And in fact, frankly, I’m more worried about people who vote against President Obama because he’s black than I am people who vote for him because he’s black. [laughs] My guess is that there will be more of those on Mr. Sununu’s side than in the Democratic Party voting against him because he’s black.

I know the President’s people –- I don’t know if the President himself has spoken about this –- the President’s people believe that these two are a wash. That is, the number of people who vote for him, as it were, solely because he’s black is about the same as the number of people who vote against him because he’s black. And what they think is most Americans are smart enough to figure out that can’t be the only question.
Read more

Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who has donated more than $50 million to Republicans, is now pressuring his casino employees to vote for Mitt Romney. According to the Huffington Post, Adelson’s Management at Las Vegas Sands Corp. “has been distributing voter guides friendly to Republican nominee Mitt Romney and critical of President Barack Obama to its casino employees in Las Vegas.”

While the so-called Nevada “issues guides” don’t specifically endorse Romney, the pamphlets strongly imply that Obama’s policies could cause workers to lose their jobs. “Too much of big government doesn’t just affect our company; it affects our employees, our customers, and our shareholders,” the guide says. “Voting is an important way for you no only to do your civic duty, but to protect your job.” It goes on to misrepresent Obama’s health, tax, and energy policies — while painting Romney’s proposal in a favorable light:

HEALTH CARE: “The federal government requiring all U.S. citizens to buy or otherwise obtain health insurance coverage as a condition of their citizenship is not good for America, our company, and our employees….Gov. Romney favors reform that encourages competition and brings down costs.”

TAXES: “The President would increase many types of taxes, including those on businesses that file taxes as individuals…The governor supports a flatter, simpler and fairer tax code for all Americans that will help businesses and families to prosper.”

ENERGY: “[Obama's] administration restricted the expansion of leases for oil and gas exploration on government lands and opposed the Keystone XL pipeline that will produce more jobs and lower energy prices….The governor supports energy independence and immediate expansion of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Adelson’s efforts to elect Romney would greatly bolster his bottom line. A report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund found that Romney’s tax proposals, which call for massive tax cuts for the rich, corporate tax reforms that will encourage the offshoring of profits, and the elimination of certain investment taxes, could save Adelson more than $2 billion in taxes.

Romney’s corporate tax reforms would also provide Adelson’s casino company approximately $1.2 billion in tax breaks on overseas profits and $565 million from Romney’s proposed shift to a territorial tax system. Adelson’s share of that, the report says, would be upward of $900 million.

And while Adelson would benefit from Romney’s reforms, the workers receiving his brochures could see a $2,000 tax increase if Romney were to keep his plan to maintain current levels of revenue.

Since the Supreme Court expanded the rules governing corporations’ and unions’ ability to promote political speech in the Citizens United case,several CEOs have been pressuring employees in swing states (like Nevada) to vote for Romney, a practice the GOP presidential candidate himself has endorsed.

Twenty six year-old director Lena Dunham sparked a conservative backlash Friday with her new Obama campaign ad, “Your First Time,” which plays on the idea of having sex for the first time to talk about voting for Obama in 2008.

Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody. You want to do it with a great guy. It should be with a guy with beautiful…someone who really cares about and understands women. A guy who cares whether you get health insurance, and specifically whether you get birth control…My first time voting was amazing. It was this line in the sand. Before I was a girl, now I was a woman. I went to the polling station, pulled the curtain, I voted for Barack Obama.

Watch it:

The right-wing blogosphere erupted in outrage over Dunham’s coy sexualization of voting. Breitbart.com called Dunham’s video “astoundingly tasteless,” while the Right Scoop condemned it as “disgusting” and “a new low.” Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly questioned on Twitter whether it was “appropriate.” The National Review called it “cringeworthy.” Minnesota Republican Party deputy chair went so far as to say the video was proof that Obama was being advised by Satan.

But Dunham’s president-boyfriend metaphor is hardly out of the ordinary; in fact, conservatives have been harping on essentially the same theme all election season, dodging direct references to sex but sexualizing the office of the presidency and a woman’s political life. Here are the top five examples:

1. “The Breakup”
Here’s one from the Republican National Committee of a woman ‘breaking up’ with a cardboard cutout of President Obama. Among her complaints are that he’s “constantly on the golf course” and even makes a reference to Obama being seen “out with Sarah Jessica Parker and George Clooney.”

2. “Boyfriend”
From women’s group Independent Women’s Voice, this ad portrays Obama as an unreliable boyfriend who makes empty promises to this young woman. “You can’t change him,” a friend advises before the woman complains, “Why do I always fall for guys like this?”

Read more