New Pro-Hillary 527 Ad Running In Ohio
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, Ohio, VideoAnother day, another goofy message pushed by Clinton surrogates.
Check out the main idea of this commercial. Basically what they’re asking the viewer to believe is that Obama’s platform literally consists of speeches. As if his one and only policy proposal is, “I will go to where there’s a problem, give a speech and this will fix the problem.”
Take a look…
“If Hillary’s supporters could create effective ads…”
And don’t get me wrong, the execution is very professional, but the messaging is just plain hollow. Wisconsin rejected it and my guess is Ohio will too. We’ll see in two weeks time.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 20th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, Ohio, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
If she were smart she’d make a commercial with Tony Robbins. He’d say, “Look, I motivate and inspire people everyday too, but I’d suck as a president. Obama has taken my ‘Unleash the Power Within’ a little too far.” That would be a GREAT commercial.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I live in Wisconsin, watch a lot of television, and I didn’t see a single Hillary ad. (I dont live in a very populated part of the state, so she could have spent money elsewhere… but Obama still was on the airwaves here.) I certainly never saw this type of message. So whatever Wisconsin voters around here were rejecting, it wasn’t this per se.
The fact that there are no Obama accomplishments to point to IS a pretty effective message….to any who are open to hearing it. Therein lies Clinton’s real problem. How do you combat mania?
February 20th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Rich – Great post over at your site. I hope the sober half of this country can resist the charms of Obama Svengali or its going to be a first-rate inspirational clusterfuck until the Republicans can take back Congress. Until he starts telling the Hard Truth, like we have to do something about Social Security, I have no respect for him. He couldn’t hack private practice and so he did what a lot of lazy, albeit talented lawyers do, they go into politics. He is giving hope to every urban ne’er do well huckster in a suit just a’ struggling to get on the city council or school board. I know a bunch of Obamas, he’s just more refined with a bigger wallet. Welcome to Chi Town people – Rule #1: Keep one hand out to recieve and the other on your wallet. What giveth, taketh away. Your right JG, America can be very Ignorant.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Dos – you’re right America is very ignorant. Rich – I believe your comments were a mischaracterization. Obama hasn’t been in the US Senate very long, that is true – but it shouldn’t be held against him. While he has been there he has worked in a bi-partisan manor to enact legislation regarding loose nukes, camapaign finance reform, the “wounded veteran” act after the Walter Reed debacle last year – to name a few areas – and he always worked with the Rep counterparts. It isn’t a pre-requisite for the US presidency to have chaired the Senate Foreign Relations committee, or the Energy and Natural resources committee. In fact it’s probably a detriment. Look at a persons life to determine if they can or can’t make the proper decisions to help the majority of Americans. Lawyer, yes. Community organizer, yes. Local politician, yes. Conservative, sometimes. Understands the constitution (what a concept), yes. Honest, so far anyway. There’s good and negative with every candidate. Imagine the difficulty in putting together a list of 900,000 contributors, building a community volunteer organization in every community in the USA, having millions of people from every facet of life in the USA all coming together, getting millions of people who never cared about politics before (myself included) engaged in the political process and political discourse. That’s not mania – that’s organization, pure and simple.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
TerenceC, they don’t care. Seriously. I’ve made all of these arguments before and pointed out the policies Obama has co-sponsored, helped pass, etc. These guys would much rather just call Obama’s supporters crazies and buy into media created memes that he doesn’t have policy stances about anything. Trust me, it does no good to debate with Rich or Dos on this subject, because neither will give an inch. Their minds are made up. Kind of odd for so-called “free thinkers”, eh?
February 20th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
“Obama hasn’t been in the US Senate very long, that is true – but it shouldn’t be held against him.”
Maybe, maybe not. There is the sense that pols with long track records have been “vetted” by being continually evaluated by voters, having a track record to compare with others, etc. In this case, we are told such vetting is ok for the average pol but Obama is a special case…and for the life of me I cannot see why that should be so. I can see how folks with little or no track record get to be a Senator…but the Presidency seems to be a different ball of wax. Fundamentally no one, not those backing Obama, not those (like myself) criticising him, can have any rational conception of what he would be like as President. Maybe, in a sense, that is true with most every President…but it has to be a matter of degree, and the degree to which Obama is unknowable is greater than Clinton or McCain. (Doesn’t it?)
“Understands the constitution (what a concept), yes.”
As witnessed by what exactly? (This is not snark…I really want to know.)
“Honest, so far anyway.”
Does that still count after his reneging on using public financing in the election? His response, to this point, to the McCain challenge was pretty damn dishonest.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I’m sorry Justin…you’ve given an inch somewhere when it comes to Obama?????????
Sorry, but I missed that ever happening.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
And, btw, your comment came up while I was writing my own response to Terence, and I think my take on Obama and experience puts the lie to your contention.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
There is a real problem when we start talking about what should or should not be in the comparison TV ads between Clinton and Obama. The simple fact – as the candidates themselves said in the last debate – is there is very little discernible difference between them in terms of actual policy.
In the context of what would happen to either of their policy initiatives by the time they get through Congress – which will mangle either far beyond any differences between them, – there is NO REAL DIFFERENCE IN POLICY. The reality is that there is also very little difference in experience if you exclude being married to a president.
So voters are clearly making a decision based on something besides policy differences and experience, because there aren’t any. They have to. So it’s gender identity or race identity or age identity or sexism or racism or authenticity or trust or some quasi-religious emotional impulse. All these things ar magnified because there is nothing substantive in policy to distinguish between them.
Now if they are both bound and determined to spend millions of dollars on comparison ads – they will wind up being ads like this – there is just not enough difference between them to create substantive ads. Commercial Production values are as good a reason for choosing between these two candidates as the reasons people are actually using.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Rich-
That’s disingenuous – first of all he needs to get the nomination. Second – he never said he would forgo financing for public financing – he said he would explore that with McCain when the time came – and as far as I know he stands by that currently, if he backs out on that then you may be right but don’t blame things that haven’t happened yet that isn’t fair. “Understands the constitution” because while working on the U of Chicago Law School faculty (I don’t believe he was full time though) he taught constitutional law – so he must understand the constitution to teach that subject at such a prestigious law school. If being mauled by the press counts for anything regarding politicians then you may have a point – but I haven’t seen the press go after a politician on anything substantive since Watergate – so don’t use that line of thought.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Rich,
I’m still holding my breath in hopes to read something from you that has some actual research behind it. I’m still reeling from your post about Obama supporters threatening violence.
Consider me continually unimpressed.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:57 am
Justin, relax — I think there is a better chance than not that your little Obama is going to be the next president. So we’ll all get to see the spendor of his brilliant smile (from the confines of an organic farm compound in Guyana. Oh, I just fainted….)
MW hits it on the head….
I would like to know what historical intellectuals have influenced and shaped Obama’s economic and foreign affairs perspective. In other words, what books has the man read. I think I know, and it would indicate that he is an intellectual light-weight. Have you read the “Audicity of Hope”? The title is usurped from the sermon of yet ANOTHER seperatist black nationalist Jeremiah A. Wright – who taught black unity through antipathy for whites. Ben Wallace-Wells notes in Rolling Stone: “This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr.â€
There is a reason why Obama has not revealed too much about his intellectual influences. They are not politically savory.
This is from the New York Review of Books.
Well, there you have it folks. You are about to elect a president based on the warmth/sincerity of his face. Have you fainted yet Justin….get the man some water…he’s flush…..
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
“I’m still reeling from your post about Obama supporters threatening violence.”
I posted a quote from Douglas Wilder who said if Clinton attempted to “use superdelegates” to get the nomination then Obama supporters would make the convention “worse than 1968.”
I’m sorry…what aspect of the 1968 convention was he talking about if not the violent confrontations? The music? The fashion sense?
And *I’M* disinengenous.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
“That’s disingenuous – first of all he needs to get the nomination. Second – he never said he would forgo financing for public financing – he said he would explore that with McCain when the time came – and as far as I know he stands by that currently, if he backs out on that then you may be right but don’t blame things that haven’t happened yet that isn’t fair.”
I’m sorry, but how difficult is it to say “Yes I will hold to my pledge IF and ONLY if John McCain does as well”?
The rest looks like justification to use what looks like a BIG monetary advantage. (Who can blame him?)
March 29th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Hillary detractors say that she has a sense of entitlement in regards to becoming the President of the United States. However, if you listen to Obama, Wright and their other spokespeople, they project the attitude that due to past mistreatment of Afro-Americans, America owes Obama the Presidency, not matter what. Furthermore, Hillary detractors claim that if she swings the super delegates to her side, she would be ’stealing’ the election. However, Obama associates actively blocked a reelection in Michigan … and, everyone knows that if the American people knew about Obama’s close relationship with anti-American, racist, Pastor Wright a year ago, Obama surely would not be ahead in the popular vote, or the delegates … in fact, he probably wouldn’t even still be in the race. In addition, Obama supporters labeled numerous inquiries and challenges as acts of racism, accusing the white voters of not understanding the black church, or the black community. However, if you look at the polls and the statistics, nearly every black person in American is voting for Obama because he is black. So, as it turns out, race is a dominant factor in this election … even though Obama claims to be the candidate who is above race, and who will unify the nation.
March 29th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Howard
How about some proof to back up the “black entitlement” crack – or are you just trying to rationalize the fact that you can’t or won’t investigate the facts? No body has ever asked to change the rules for the Democratic nomination process except for the Clinton’s…..and they only did this when their quest for the nomination had irreparably broken down in failure. It’s a fairness issue – nothing else.
It’s easy to make cracks regarding sex and race – but are either of those a prerequisite for the presidency? If all the black people voting select Obama then by your logic all the white people, or the female population can and should select Hillary. These comments detract from political discourse and have no bearing on the nomination process – it’s all purely emotional. Why is it so difficult to actually look at the facts – investigate the candidates – look at the issues? If you look at the facts you will see – as I did – that our political process is very damaged and very corrupt – and no matter what, selecting people who have been in the vanguard of that process for 20-30 years is the biggest mistake any of us could make.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO REPRESENTS ALL AMERICANS
Here is Pastor Wright’s ‘Black Value System’
posted at his website. This is what Barak Obama
pledged an oath to for the past 20 years:
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html
Pastor Wright gave Louis Farakan a life time
achievement award. Here is what Louis Farakan believes:
Posted at his own website.
http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm
AMERICANS JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES …