Letters to the Editor
-
Coming or going?
What I would really like to know is whether this is the last gasp of the now-fired campaign leadership, or the first example of what the new people are capable of. The answer to that would tell everything about the future of Clinton's campaign.
It's not that the ad is particularly weak. (And it's a good sign that she can still do attack ads with the right kind of light touch — a tendency to get stabby is one of Clinton's major political failure modes.) It's just that an ad like this is not what she needs to be putting out in order to get competitive again.
If that's because it was produced by a staff with poor morale and a leadership that was heading out the door, that's one thing.
But if it's the best, hardest-hitting message that the new campaign management can put forward, then it's a sign that the campaign, from the top down, has run out of ideas and is only trying to stay enough in the game to have a credible shot at a delegatory upset at the convention, which isn't a promising endgame for anyone involved.
What she needs is to be getting out a message that startles viewers with a new Hillary Clinton that they haven't seen before, the way she did in her public appearances in the early campaign, or even as far back as her "Sopranos" ad with her husband.
Being able to accomplish something like that while you're bleeding votes and the wolves are circling around and your own people are probably contemplating mutiny is by no means easy. Clinton doesn't seem to command the kind of personal loyalty that
-
Go Hillary
I am glad she is calling Obama out on this. People in Wisconsin do deserve to watch Obama when he tries to look Presidential when answering the tough questions not just when he is delivering a speech written by a talented speech writer (on loan to him from the Kennedy clan). Presidents lead by the work they do, not by their speeches. Other people write their speeches for them. Didn't you Obama supporters all know that?
-
Anger turns to Pity
I was angry at Hill and Bill after South Carolina. I was angry at them when they sued the Democratic party in Nevada, when they tried to get an election counted in Michigan where no one was allowed to campaign and her name was the only one on the ballot (and yet she still only got 55%), when they ridiculed caucuses after they lost all but one, when she tried to use tears-- twice, each time exactly 20 hours before the polls opened in make-or-break contests, and after they tried to paint Obama as the "establishment" candidate.
But now it's just sad and ugly and pathetic.
-
This is a negative ad?
This is what bugs me about Obama and his supporters -- if anyone says the smallest critique about him the over-reaction is epic -- this is a very tame ad that is not even close to being "negative." I understand many Obama supporters were in high school during the Kerry/Bush election, so they might not remember those swiftboat ads -- but those are what a "negative" ad looks like.
-
You sound like Rush.
The comments of the Hillary supporters makes me think of Rush and his ditto heads because they love to say that Democrats are dumb. They point to Florida and say we can't fill out a ballot. The elite and arrogant stance by the Hillary supports says about the thousands of Sen. Obama's supporters are not thinking people.
Yes we are inspired but if you really listen to his speeches he has outlined programs and solutions to many of the issues we are debating.
Slowly resdeploying and bringing home our troops from Iraq will free up money to fund some of the programs he has called for. Talking with our allies like France who had proposed training Iraqi troops outside of the warzone will help save us money.
Stopping the tax cuts for the rich and providing them to the middle class will pay for other programs. Rebuilding our infrastruture will create new jobs. Jobs that will have good wages so people can afford their own health care.
Please, Hillary supporters tell me will there be a penalty if someone wants to opt out of the mandatory health care Hillary preposes?
As for Hillary's experience, remember it was Hillary's experience that made her vote for the war. Her experience said Sadaam had WMD. Her experience informed her not to give the weapons inspectors more time as Hans Blix asked for.
Her experience made her vote to label the Iran Red Guard as terrorist thus giving Bush another tool to go to war.
Her experinece makes her sound like George Bush. The next time you hear her give a speech listen to how many times she use this phrase "it will take hard work." How many times did Bush say that in the 2004 debates with Kerry to answer tough questions.
You see where his hard work and experience got us. Condi, Bush, Rumsfield,Breemer, Cheney,Wolforwizt and even Powell had a lot of experience. That experienc has led us into the most costly war of all time, destroyed our economy, made us less safe, eroded our civil liberties, and divide our nation like never before. I take HOPE over that experience anytime. If we would have listen to the hopeful obama we would not be in this mess. "Being right the first time matters."
-
This dog won't hunt.
Charging debate-ducking is an old ploy with a pretty lousy track record.
Just ask Jonathan Tasini.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/13/hillary-goes-negative.aspx
-
"Negative" ad.
This is being deemed a "negative" ad by definition, not due to it being extraordinarily ruthless or anything.
In this ad, Clinton is trying to drive up Obama's negatives. Hence, a negative ad. It doesn't mean it's the most egregious slur ever heard on the campaign trail, and nobody's arguing it as such.
-KcM
-
Clinton fatigue
This is giving a whole new dimension to "Clinton fatigue". I'm just really tired of listening to her and watching her and trying to understand what it is she has ever done that makes her "ready on day one" except that she knows where all the bathrooms and closets are in the White House. I started out really torn between Edwards, Obama and Clinton -- I was supporting all three. But Clinton has just worn me down. She is exhausting and uninspiring and harder and harder to listen to the more strident she becomes.
Everyone knows it doesn't matter how detailed your pre-election plans are because nothing is going to happen without Congress. By the time anyone's plans get through Congress, they won't look much like the originals anyway.
The real issue here is: Who can work with Congress in a collegial and collaborative manner, and be most persuasive to get new politices enacted?
The answer is becoming increasingly obvious. And it isn't the Clintons, whose very name sends Republicans into frothing rage.