This is negative advertising at its best:
It's an attack, it's negative, but it's reasonably fair. I'm just not sure I totally grasp why the contrasts on the issues have been been wrapped up in this silly debate argument.
« The Re-Up | Main | Grumpy Old Men »
New Clinton Ad
15 Feb 2008 04:13 pm
Comments (55)
"reasonably fair"?
Perhaps by Clinton standards.
But it's full of lies.
For one, it accuses Obama of running attack ads when all he was run a response to her original attack ad.
Secondly, she says her plan "covers everyone", which is not true.
Lastly, Obama never said he "might raise the retirement age and cut benefits". He simply said all options were on the table. But when later questioned on that, he specifically said that he did not want to raise the retirement age or cut benefits.
Nonsense Matthew. Obama and Clinton already have had 18 debates, and she says he's ducking debates. This is the same woman who won't show us her tax forms. As for her health care plan, even Bill Clinton's own Labor Secretary says Obama covers more people than Hillary and does more to cut costs, saving $2,500 for the typical family. This is the same tired old politics of phoney attacks and bait and switch while Barack Obama supports change we believe in.
Why is Hillary running ads in a state that doesn't count?
Crazy.
Will you repost this ad on Tuesday night after she gets clobbered by the cheeseheads?
I saw Bill last night here in La Crosse, WI, and he mentioned the debate debate in passing. This morning the La X tribune had the headline "Clinton slams Obama over WI debate".
I don't care, really, but there is a sense that people like to be pandered to in their state to make them feel special, and that includes a debate where the local news muckity-mucks can ask a question germaine to the state before moving on to more important issues. It's dumb, but it is what it is.
I moved here from Maryland, these people have no idea what it's like to be ignored by national campaigns.
It's pretty clear by now that the reason she's running this kind of ad is because this is all she has.. She can't beat him on ideas, she sure as hell can't beat him on personality, and she's got no command of the race. So she relies on silly, meaningless arguments like this. I can't imagine how she thinks this could advance her cause.
I am a big Obama supporter but she won't get clobbered by the cheeseheads. It will be close.
And the ad is mendacious as political ads sometimes are - not outright lying but distoring - but I hate to say it is indeed effective to an extent for someone who hasn't been following closely.
Hopefully, Obama can respond soon.
The more this goes on, the more I personally loathe the Clintons. And that's not a feeling I like to have and I don't want to feel that way but boy these people have chutzpah.
If only for that, I hope all of this is over soon.
Yeah, Matt's working the fair to Clinton angle a bit heavy here. I'm sure the add is effective but its hardly an accurate take on any of his positions.
AFL-CIO comparison of 2008 Presidential Candidate Health Care proposals.
Covers everyone?
Hillary Clinton, Yes
Barack Obama, Yes
If I'm the Obama campaign I get away from talking about wonk economists gaming out these plans and talk about the commitment of his union backers to universal healthcare. I'd talk about the working people who think his plan is best.
The reason to bring up the debates is to appeal to Wisconsin tribalism. Barack doesn't think Wisconsin is good enough!!
However, the back and forth nature of these ads look too much like a Saturday Night Live parody, so I guess they won't work all that well.
Oh sweet Jesus. Saint Obama's being criticized. Pass me the smelling salts.
Yeah, calling Obama's rebuttal ad to her own attack ad a "false attack ad" (and which, by the way, didn't contain any attacks, just pointed out that they had 18 debates with 2 more coming) is clearly just bald-faced ridiculousness.
I think any reasonably sentient person would see right through it, but what do I know? The Clinton campaign is throwing everything they've got at the wall and hoping something will stick. Incidentally, this tells me that there is simply no deep dark secret in Obama's closet. If there was, Clinton's oppo department would have found it and they would have revealed it somehow (probably anonymously). This guy is clean.
I'd talk about the working people who think his plan is best.
Or at least their comfortable leaderships.
As far as attack ads go it's fine. But it also really just makes me despise her more. Anyway, I hope this doesn't work, because if it does, and she pulls out Wisconsin, then Ohio and Pennsylvania are going to get really dirty.
Wow. She's clearly trying to go down in flames.
any reasonably sentient person would see right through it
They have those in Wisconsin? Learn something new everyday.
play obama's response ad
Looks to me like the ad makes BO look darker (skin-tone) than he really is.
It's almost laughable how the Clintons are hanging onto the debate issue like a dog with a dry bone stuck in its teeth. Is THIS what they think WI voters care most about? Do they think that no one in WI had the opportunity to see any of the 18 previous debates? By their standard, we'd be having at least 53 debates, lest each state - not to forget American Samoa, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands - feel left out.
RIDICULOUS!!!
HRC claims to have solutions. Well, I strongly suggest that she immediately run a campaign spelling out these solutions and cease silly negative ads. As it's being run right now, Obama may have mere speeches, but HRC only has screeches.
I hope this doesn't work, because if it does, and she pulls out Wisconsin, then Ohio and Pennsylvania are going to get really dirty.
They probably will anyway with Obama picking up super delegates at a faster rate, leading in national polls, and doing better than Clinton in head-to-head polls with McCain.
Hillarys' plan covers 15 million americans .... who dont want to be covered.
If Universal Coverage means forcing some people to be covered against their will then it is not worth aspiring to.
The reason to bring up the debates is to appeal to Wisconsin tribalism. Barack doesn't think Wisconsin is good enough!!
What's funny about this is that it's coming from a candidate who hasn't even been to Wisconsin yet.
i like the ad. i voted for obama (california) but i think the criticisms about as fair as you could ask for in a 30 second TV spot.
as for matt's question, the reason they wrap it up in the debate issue is they get to make their substantive criticisms while at the same time implying that barack is motivated by fear. why won't he stand up for himself the wisconsin voter is supposed to ask.
also -- that music is hilarious and awesome.
I don't care, really, but there is a sense that people like to be pandered to in their state to make them feel special, and that includes a debate where the local news muckity-mucks can ask a question germaine to the state before moving on to more important issues. It's dumb, but it is what it is.
Am I the only one having a Mick (not Mark!) Foley moment, having read this?
"It's great to be here in...
...
Green Bay!"
P'haps Obama will secure the crucial Mr. Socko endorsement.
The ad is mendacious, but I don't have a problem with it because it's within the bounds of general political mendacity. For people who look at Clinton negatively for this, would you have the same opinion if she won the Democratic nomination and ran an idea like this against McCain? I wouldn't. I'd want her to hit him hard.
It's silly to ask politicians to run with integrity and honor. In the short term, all we can hope is that the politician that we favor is clever enough to come up with an effective counter-strategy or rebuttal. In the long term, we need to teach people how to become critical thinkers, starting with high school. The reason many politicians practice the politics of fear is that the politics of fear work, and that says more about human psychology and our lack of tools to combat manipulation than the politicians using these tools to win.
Isn't the most ridiculous part of all this the fact Hillary has not even SET FOOT in Wisconsin herself yet ?
I mean ... HELLO ?
It's silly to ask politicians to run with integrity and honor.
I think this is part of the Clinton family crest -- in Latin. Sic transit fuckem.
Hillary for you and me. Help her save Democracy!
It's silly to ask politicians to run with integrity and honor.
Spoken like a true douchebag. Congrats.
Mrs Clinton campaign lacks fund and she can only rely on so called debate to make herself heard at low coast by repeating badly rehearsed & memorized slogans such us"Universal Health care is a democratical basic principle!"...We are tired of slogans;change is coming baby to America!
I was going to ask the Obamabots why they haven't found a "race card" angle in this ad. After all, everything HRC does at this point is either insane or racist. Luckily Beer Here has my back:
Looks to me like the ad makes BO look darker (skin-tone) than he really is.
Nice.
The Obama campaign could run an ad that refers to Penn's ridiculous comment about "significant" states. For example:
"Clinton's chief strategist recently implied that smaller states are not significant, but Barack wants to get every state and every American involved in working for change in Washington!"
This would easily counter the idea that Obama doesn't care enough about Wisconsin (and make people wonder whether Clinton really does).
After all, everything HRC does at this point is either insane or racist
Let's see - having her chief strategist belittle all of Obama's state victories as insignificant, and having her husband belittle Obama's win in South Carolina as merely the state that Jesse Jackson won...
Yeah, her campaign's cornered the market on both the insane and the racist political strategies.
Keep doing the Democratic party and the American people proud!
Nice work.
Clinton seems to get a bounce after debates, I've seen a post-debate bounce credited for both the California and New Hampshire wins for Hillary.
She's hoping, given that she won't get a debate in Wisconsin to compensate using these ads.
Obama's response ad was poor in that it did not change the terms but followed Clinton's.
He didn't say Hillary wants to garnish wages - even less did he say Clinton 1) failed to get health care before, damaging the party in the process 2) is more likely to lose against McCain with other democrats losing in her wake or 3) voted for the war in Iraq
Meaning he responded to her but on her terms instead of steering the discussion to territory that favors him.
A second attack ad means team-Hillary thinks back and forth ads is good for them. Team-Obama generally is creative enough that I expect them to transcend this discussion.
Everything else is fair game, but the Social Security attack is simply bullshit. Here's Hillary Clinton's position on Social Security:
1. Don't change it.
2. Balance the budget so we don't raid the surplus anymore.
3. If there are still problems, bring in a bipartisan commission to take it on (that worked swell in 2001 btw).
Obama's approach:
1. Acknowledge that, even if it isn't the worst problem in the world, running up the debt is probably something we ought to avoid come 2017 or whenever.
2. Propose, as one possibility, raising the cap on taxable wages, to increase revenue and avoid increasing debt.
3. Don't decrease benefits; maybe consider raising the retirement age but probably not.
4. Eliminate tax on income from Social Security
It's pretty simple. Clinton totally punts on an issue that was the centerpiece of Gore's campaign and that her husband called a "crisis" back when it was still cool to do so in the 90s. Obama shouldn't have used the word, but he was right to say there's an "actuarial gap" and it's nice to have someone proposing that we raise revenue with an increasing debt rather than simultaneously promising ponies and soda in the drinking fountain and a renewed fiscal responsibility.
The thing that stood out to me was the oil company give away line; last week in the LA run up Clinton was running ads criticizing Obama voting against expanding oil drilling rights for the gulf coast (and offshore WA state too). What gives? Talk about mendacious. Sadly enough, too many people take this stuff as gospel.
Regarding the debate question, the implication is:
"What kind of pussy is afraid to debate a WOMAN? A pussy we can't trust to protect us from terrorists, that's what kind!"
They're not yet desperate enough to attack Obama's manhood explicitly, lest they be criticized as getting all GOP on his ass. But that day will come.
So do you think Wisconsin voters will notice that Hillary has been effectively ignoring them for the past week or so? If I'm not mistaken, she has yet to campaign there, focusing most of her attention on the more "significant" states of Ohio and Texas.
I don't know how it will play with WI dems, but it should help Obama for the general election. I know all those points being made by Hillary, make him look better to me, a CA R.
Obama is interesting in that he talks about compromise and coming together, but a look at his position pamphlet from Iowa (previous MY BLOG entry) shows that he does not represent the middle as well as many supporters believe.
If he wins does he compromise and piss off his base for real change, or does he piss off the country and stick to his detailed postions for more of the same (but of the opposite flavor)?
I'm actually OK with either situation. [As a moderate libertarian, I want liberal social policy with conservative financial policy. I am for eliminating the regressive SS tax cap, for example. But I would also cut off wealthy recipients, and reduce benefits to those who don't need them, so I could reduce the tax overall.] If he gets real change it will probably be bipartisan and sensible (e.g. consider consider marginalizing HMOs by mandating employer/government funded HSAs for everyone). If he opts for gridlock, then government growth is stalled and we get couterbalance in the following elections.
McCain is by no means my fantasy pick, but I do think he has the best shot of really reducing the ineffective/corrupt pieces of Gov't. Too bad he's not black with the rhetorical skills to unite the country with enthusiasm.
Fantasy Candidate = Condeleeza Rice with McCain's anti-corporate welfare fervor, Obama's uniting rhetoric and local compassion, and Teddy Roosevelt's energy & judgement.
Lemarechal is spot-on raising the money issue (no pun intended, really!). Not only does HRC feel that she's superior in debate but, at the end of the LA debate, she also used it as a reminder to go to hillaryclinton.com. Please correct me, people, if I'm wrong, but I've NEVER heard Obama give his website address in a debate.
As to Social Security, my mom and stepfather (73 and 84) LOVE Obama's plan...especially not having to pay taxes on Social Security, which is the bulk of their income.
Too small, too late. You can't make up the kind of ground HRC needs to by ripping at a guy who appeals to the part of people that crave change and justice; particularly when you were never that popular yourself, and especially when this is all you've got.
Reading through these comments it's evident that Obama supporters are about as thin-skinned as they come. "How dare anyone criticism our dear leader?" They seem to be saying.
This Clinton spot is substantive and fair. If the Obama campaign can't handle these sorts of attacks then he should just step aside and leave it to the professionals. This is politics, not beanbag.
It's silly to ask politicians to run with integrity and honor.
Spoken like a true douchebag. Congrats.
Spoken like someone who hasn't been following politics for very long. Remember when Roger Griswald attacked Matthew Lyon with a hickory cane on the floor of the House? I think that was during the monarchy of our 2nd president, he of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Good times.
Tom is exactly right. Political ads are never about substantive arguments - if people wanted those, they'd read books. Criticizing the argument of a political ad is like deconstructing a Paris Hilton quote based on the inherent post-colonial tensions between the gender-normative cultural constructs of "hot" and "cool".
The ad is about creating associations with basic values that voters understand. In today's political realm, the only value that matters is Extreme Toughness. Al Gore, John Kerry and John Edwards are reasonably masculine men in any sane value set - but in BushWorld they are a pack of faggots with their earth-tones, windsurfing and professional haircuts.
The only message of the ad: If Obama won't debate, he is Weak. If you elect him, terrorists will blow up your house. This is why John McCain will beat either of our candidates - a skinny black guy and a former First Lady cannot win the toughness sweepstakes against a guy who spat in the face of torturers (blah blah blah hero worship blah blah blah). Our general election commercials should all be videos of Jim Webb beating the shit out of commies.
This is politics, not beanbag.
Beanbag? I don't get it.
Let's see - HRC is concerned so much about the issues that she has time and money to waste on two ad campaigns about the missed debate opportunity?
For anyone here in Wisconsin, you hardly notice the ads - they've more than likely played more on YouTube than on any local stations. I see many Obama ads to a single Hillary one. The local rock radio stations aren't playing anything for Hillary.
We're having a long, snowy winter - being ignored by candidates is not appreciated. Obama has been apearing frequently since the Potomac Primaries and being seen.
Karl,
It's just an expression. It's not "beanbag" meaning its not child's play (it's not hitting each other with soft projectiles).
Doyle calls Clinton's Obama attacks baseless
By Patrick Marley
Friday, Feb 15 2008, 04:26 PM
Madison -- Gov. Jim Doyle today accused Hillary Clinton of leveling baseless attacks and engaging in the kind of politics Barack Obama is trying to end in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Doyle said Clinton's charges that Obama's plans lack specifics are clearly wrong. He also dismissed Clinton's complaints that Obama is ducking a Wisconsin debate, saying Obama has made several stops in the state while she has made none so far.
"She very, very disingenously attacks Sen. Obama for not reaching out to the people of Wisocnsin when he has been here day after day," Doyle said in a conference call with reporters.
"The only campaign she has going on in Wisconsin is negative TV ads," he added.
Obama's Wisconsin campaign started Tuesday.
Clinton is scheduled to be here Saturday through Tuesday's primary.
Effective ad? Maybe! Hillary should have attacked Bush before he launched his ill-fated Iraq war. Hillary voted in favor of the Iraq war and is now part & parcel of the failed Bush regime.
Effective ad? Maybe! Hillary should have attacked Bush before he launched his ill-fated Iraq war. Hillary voted in favor of the Iraq war and is now part & parcel of the failed Bush regime.
Effective ad? Maybe! Hillary should have attacked Bush before he launched his ill-fated Iraq war. Hillary voted in favor of the Iraq war and is now part & parcel of the failed Bush regime.
I think the silly debate issue is being raised by Clinton because (1) it relates to the (unspoken) argument that Obama is an empty suit who is only compelling in uncontested-to-adoring settings, and (2) it appeals to the chauvinism of primary voters, many of whom seem inclined to vote for the candidate who shows them the most love, not so much on state-specific issues but just through their presence.
When you read all the comments then you come to the conclusion that if the Clintons fight their way into the White House again, the voter/people deserve to get what is coming in their direction. Bill and Hillary have a lot of sins in their bags and the voters will pay for the damage.
Amazing how Obamanistas get so upset because of a negative campaign ad.
News flash: This is a campaign, and there is negativity on both sides. Aaah, the Obamanistas scream in denial, not our guy, because he's a GOOD person, to which I laugh. The "politics of hope" definitely went negative beginning with Nevada, and perhaps before.
A lot negativity in Internet comments, too. Mostly when they are quoting the man himself, I might add.
Besides, do you really think McCain is going to play nice? Or that the Hillary Hatred crowd would vote for Obama in November once she's out?
I checked out the voting records on H.R. 6 (2005), which is the bill mentioned in the "giveaways to oil companies" part of the ad. Unless I'm missing something, it turns out both Hillary and Obama voted for this bill. So what the hell is she talking about?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2005-158&sort=party
Comments closed February 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Matt,
The add says that the reason Obama won't debate is *because* he doesn't want to be exposed as holding those positions. That seems pretty clear to me. Or is it that you don't grasp why this is more rhetorically effective than just a regular negative add?
Posted by wj | February 15, 2008 4:19 PM