by Max Brantley
I'm hearing a lot of positive response to this ad. It's tough. It's an attack ad disguised as defense against an attack ad. It beats up on unions, an Arkansas chestnut.
It's much more effective than her opener of the kids playing and tossing money. The Blue Arkansas Blog disagrees. He thinks the ad is dishonest. Of course it is. Aren't they all, at the least by spin or omission of salient fact? Sen. Lincoln manages to make it appear as if Bill Halter went negative on her when the negative ads to which she refers were bought independently, primarily with union money. She'd also have you believe Washington-based unions have no Arkansas members contributing to the campaign kitty. They do.
Lincoln certainly doesn't represent unions, the half-million she's readily accepted from them over the years notwithstanding. She represents credit card companies (her assertion about standing up to them is a stretch), bankers, polluters, chambers of commerce, billionaires, corporate farmers, etc. When they start pounding Halter independently, he can accuse Lincoln of going negative on him.