It was Dish Network with the actor Frank Caliendo. I found similar ones where he impersonated GWBush :o) The one with Clinton (two for the price of one) is hilarious.

The one I'm referring to isn't on here yet:

http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/whats_on_dish/dishstudio/frank_tv/index.shtml



>I have'nt seen it. You think it would be on YouTube?
>
>on tv last night. Have you seen the Direct TV or Dish TV (can't remember which one it was) commercial with the Clinton impersonator? It is hilarious, but really wrong, wrong, wrong... :)
>>
>>
>>>I find it very interesting when one of those politicians get caught in a scandal. The other ones say "It's so sad because it gives us all a bad name". But in the end they don't make laws to make those scandals close to impossible to realize. There should at least be a law forcing them to do what they promised to do during their campaign.
>>>
>>>>Considering even Mike admitted here the UT when I asked him which of Obama's policies he supported, that he goes with his gut instinct, not policies, I'm sure it's even lower than I ever imagined before.
>>>>
>>>>Now to be fair, if you look at the most recent presidential elections alone, few (if any) when in office followed the policies they outlined during the campaign. They get caught up in the bills submitted through congress and their own party and start wheeling and dealing. It's probably not worth even considering anymore!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'd be curious to know the percentage of voters who really take the time to analyze and take a rational decision. I'm sure that it's not that high.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, people are buying all three. I even read that 25% of those surveyed believe Obama is Muslim. I hate to say this but there are a lot of ignorant voters out there, and they are the ones Hillary is hoping will toss her a life line. Astute voters like you who line up all the position papers and try to make a rational decision are, alas, not a majority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Interesting, the only one I recall is the first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That Hillary is leading in the (ficticious) popular vote. That Obama is unelectable. That Rev. Wright's views are identical to Obama's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>See my reply to Tamar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What (assuming bad?) untrue things (about Obama?) are being passed around as though they are true?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Nothing was "up." I was angry about the election and about untrue things being passed around as though they are true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Got a link for that article showing Hillary has more votes than Obama by far?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>No, I believe you are incorrect. I read an article that showed the popular vote and Hillary has more votes than Obama by far. That was my point. Obama has more delegates because Hillary did not campaign in the smaller caucuses as he did (and it paid off). What's up with you today? Why so angry?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Now you're repeating that factoid? If Hillary's claim that she is "leading in the popular vote" is being taken this seriously, Obama better respond before he gets Swift boated. The only way Hillary is "leading" is if you include votes in states that don't count, didn't count when they were cast, and in one case (Michigan) were cast in a state where Obama's name was not even on the ballot. Jeez. This proves how easy the American people are to lie to and get away with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I agree with you that in many voters' eyes Obama is winning because he won more delegates, but Obama has more delegates because he won those smaller caucus states. Hillary actually received more votes overall. Of course, that is why we have the electoral college and not the popular vote... :o)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I agree that McCain is the lesser of three evils, however, he's no more likely to really screw things up than Hilary. Let me explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If Hilary is elected it will mean that she has 'stolen' the nomination from Obama in many eyes. She will have won a close battle with McCain, both popular and electoral, as many Obama supporters either hold their nose and vote Hilary, or more likely stay home. This result means that the Dems are not likely to get to 60 senators and thus the Reps can limit the damage in terms of big social issues. Hilary will still mess with our rights through environmental legislation, federal consolidation and the largest tax increase in history, but she won't get the big destructive items through.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I do not think Obama can win against McCain, in fact I think we're looking at an electoral landslide. Thus, if he does win, I believe that means something big has happened to shift a great deal of states to him. This likely means the Dems will get their 60 senators and then we see the greatest shift in power from the individual and the states to the federal government since FDR. Everything is on the table, property rights, gun rights, massive land grabs through environmental regulation, world-court, universal health care, ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The damage done by FDR has only recently been realized and it is nearly impossible to correct. Obama's policies will undoubtedly put the final nail in the coffin of the founders original intent for this country and the unintended consequences could put us on an irreversible path towards our own collapse. If that happens I just hope we get lucky, like we did following Carter, and the right person appears on the scene to right the ship.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Truer words were never spoken. Although McCain seems less likely to screw it all up than the two other knee-jerk socialists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Don't feel bad though, after all we all have a crappy choice to make this election. I'm just hoping none of these three stooges destroys the country before 2012.