Apparently this ad actually aired in Greenwich, or so Lee Whitnum says on YouTube. Did anyone see it? Or did it take to the airwaves in the dead of night on public access, where no one would see its shame?
My favorite part is the little moving mouths. That’s creepy!
Whitnum released a second version of the ad, with a few slight changes in the voice recording, earlier today.
Whitnum also appears to think that the primary “could go either way.” I think she may be in for a surprise.
15 responses so far ↓
Ok, I giggled.
I’m remembering Sean Sullivan’s video earlier this year with the terrible technical production (windnoise, cars zipping past in the background, etc).
But at least he didn’t appear to be speaking from a police station booking room. Ok, maybe there’s no ruler on the wall…but man, between the background color and how unhappy she looks…
I am afraid of her. I really don’t have much else to say, but that if she had a vote in Washington, I would reserve a spot next to Walt Disney in the freezer for a couple of years until it is safe to come out.
By “aired in Greenwich” she probably means she played it on the computer in the library right after she uploaded it to YouTube.
She actually “aired” an advertisement that has a star of David with a dollar sign in the middle (about 9 seconds in). Was that the way it appeared in the original Christian Science Monitor? Even if it did, why the heck would you choose that for a campaign advertisement? Then she’s got the dollar signs raining down from the AIPAC text. So I guess she really wanted to drive hom the message that those evil jews have all this money. (But then she calls Himes a Nazi over at MLN).
Man, this woman is nuts. What the heck was John Kerry thinking? Was Lee Whitnum always like this or is this something new? I really think she’s almost nativist in the way she talks (I watched a few minutes of that channel 12 debate).
It probably could — she could be crushed or she could be routed…
gmr said:
Almost?
She’s up by about 50 points in the race for bigot of the year.
I didn’t see it. I have to say that she’s too repugnant to be funny. She’s too bizarre for me to giggle. She showed up at the Greenwich DTC a year ago and accused male legislators of pushing America into war in Iraq. She said that it was men who got us into it, while congresswomen and women senators opposed invasion. Not true, but in the recesses of her fetid mind, how important is the truth anyway?
And her anti-Semitic rants are just sick.
OK, I’m going to go off the reservation here. Everyone knows I am a strong supporter of Jim Himes. But to attack AIPAC and the Israel lobby, and to protest against a war in IRAN is not anti-Semitic or nuts. I have a lot more problems with her anti-immigrant rants than I do with her anti-Israel position.
I have a lot of respect for Lee and what she has accomplished againast long odds. What she is doing is part of the democratic process, and I applaud her for it.
John,
Whitnum bought her way onto the ballot, she has raised but $200 cycle-to-date, she is again late with her FEC filings, she literally stalked Himes during his district tour, while at the same time having no events of her own, her resume is puffed up to hide the simple fact she’s been essentially unemployed for the past two years, she calls Himes a Nazi then in the pocket of AIPAC, and you may be her only supporter!
On a side note, I hope you are one of those putting in a 14hr day at the polls next Tuesday. What an obscene waste of money and time, all to indulge Ms. Whitnum’s fantasies and ego.
AndersonScooper said:
Gee, same could have been said about good ‘ol Ned.
Um, Lamont ran a respectable campaign on the issues. (And yes, it was great I could give my $$$ to other candidates like Murphy, Farrell and Courtney.)
Showing up at Jim’s events was NOT literally stalking Jim - she had a right to be there and was quiet and polite - I had a nice conversation with her at one. I’m sorry about the public expenditure but that’s the price of democracy. She DIDN’T call Jim a Nazi - she said that about the bloggers supporting Jim. A weird and inappropriate comment, but not directed at Jim.
I’m not her supporter but I guess I am her defender.
The expenditure is the price of Ms. Whitnum’s ego, as only in a fantastical world would she ever be elected to Congress.
In terms of the stalking, I don’t know what you call it when you follow your opponent around to all his events. Freaky and weird, and I can’t think of another race where I’ve witnessed a candidate’s opponent lurking in the background at multiple events.
If you think she’s run a responsible campaign, as a Democrat, go ahead and defend her. Personally I think it’s been an exercise in irresponsibility. Childish irresponsibility at that.
Actually, if you want to blame someone for Lee Whitnum, blame Jim Campbell.
“Who the heck is he?” is probably what most of you are asking.
Campbell tried to run against Shays in the Republican primary in 2000, but none of the Republican town committees would support him. At the time, Connecticut had incredibly difficult rules for getting on the ballot: you had to have the approval of 15% of the delegates at the party convention to even make the ballot. These conventions were controlled by the town commitees, which sent delegates to the convention. The committees were all totally in the camp of the incumbents. The only way you could challenge a town’s delegates was to wage a delegate fight in a primary in that town. Campbell waged a limited primary fight in a few towns to elect alternative delegate slates to the convention, but was unsuccessful. (So if Campbell had been successful in getting 15% of the delegates, then the convention would be split and that would force a primary district wide, which he’d have to win to go to the general election, which he’d have to win to go to congress).
In 2003, Judge Dorsey ruled that the 15% rule was unconstitionally burdensome. Common Cause was a co-plaintiff, as were various residents of Fairfield County including Mark Nielsen, who had run for congress in the Danbury district in the 1990s (before it got consolidated into Nancy Johnson’s district). Defendants were Susan Bysiewicz and the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.
Now it is much easier to get on the ballot in Connecticut, and it looks like Lee Whitnum is one of the first to take advantage of this easier access. Although the most notable, of course, was Ned Lamont. Had Jim Campbell not brought a suit back in 2001 or so, I bet Ned Lamont would have never made the ballot. Whitnum certainly would not have made the ballot if it weren’t for him.
One if by land said:
And it would be quite accurate too. How dare you mention something like this in such a ‘blue’ thread?!
At least this time you get to respond to anderson, rather than the ctman…name.
You must log in to post a comment.