Letters to the Editor
-
Clinton's ads are solid -- both positive and negative -- and then Obama's ad is like 10 steps above hers
That's the way it's been throughout the campaign. Here is how I feel when watching them --
Clinton: She's competent, intelligent, a good candidate...
Obama: WHOA! THIS GUY IS REALLY GOOD!
I hope he wins.
As for the ads themselves, I look at Clinton's Ohio ad and I think, "that's professional." I admire the ad agency that shot the footage and got those interviews with those carefully framed heartlanders and the evocative landscapes behind them.
Clinton's Texas attack ad is a good attack, using Obama's words against him, though also taking him out of context and attempting to score points based solely on a "gotcha," rather than saying anything at all about why Clinton is any better.
Then Obama's ad comes along.... It's personal, it's direct, and it is devoid of fancy editing or production -- it's just him talking and telling you what he's about. There is nothing negative directed toward Clinton at all. It's not about Obama being "better." It's about him being different: ambitious, transformative, with an eye to changing the political game altogether.
I don't know about you, but to me, Obama's message is the one that makes me want to go out and vote.
-
This is doubly unfair!
Again Hillary Clinton is forced to go first! Not just with one of her ads but with BOTH! Could you be any more blatant in your hatred of Hillary??!!
(Yes, that was supposed to be sarcastic.)
-
He'll have to double down on the speechifying
Clinton (or McCain) have Obama on video admitting to going AWOL on his only national security job. Ouch. But at least he made a good speech in 2002. Rest on your laurels much?
-
My prediction
And I'll own up to it if I'm wrong.
I'm hoping Obama sweeps all four, but I believe it will be Clinton's day with her taking Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island. She'll probably win by slim margins, but she will still end up winning and the entire story will change to Hillary the Triumphant. This will drag on and on with Clinton getting dirtier and nastier. whoever ends up the nominee will be badly damaged by the time its over.
Leading into February 5th everyone wondered if Obama's momentum began to late. He held Clinton to a draw then surged ahead. He really should be polling much higher in both Texas and Ohio. She's holding on and now going very negative and low. As much as people complain about those tactics, the truth is they usually work. They gave us eight years of George Bush.
So I predict a big day for Clinton. She may not make up delegate ground, but it will allow her scratch and claw her way through the primary season.
-
@saintzak
wow,
I wish I would've saved an IM conversation I was having with a friend earlier today, because I said pretty much the exact same thing!
Hillary is going to win tomorrow, and then it's anybody's game. And this primary season is gonna get loooong and nassssty.
if Obama can win Texas and the two New England states, I think the pressure for her to drop out will get very loud...but if he only wins 2 or 1, then we're essentially back at square one.
-
Hillary's Ad? Same-Old Same-Old Right Down To The "Inspiring" Music Cues
I especially liked the gravelly voiced announcer who grimly intones, "And Obama admitted that he hasn't even held a single oversight hearing!"
All that was missing was for him to add, "Do you really want a commie liberal like Obama with his finger on the button? Vote for Ronald Regan!"
It was just so tired and filled with the same cliches we've seen a million times before. Damn Hillary, why not go for broke and actually hold the flag in one hand and a bible in the other? Let's see just how many political ad cliches we can squeeze into a 90 sec spot.
Obama, however, wow! That was brilliant and different.
-
In that Clinton ad...
Was that the old Quaker oats guy? What's his name? Oh yeah, Wilford Brimley!
-
Clinton's campaign has been saying all along...
that Republicans are voting for Obama in droves, presumably because she is so hated by the Right Wing. I never believed this baloney. I always thought that the Right would love to run against Hillary, because they think she would lose (which I still maintain she would do if she wins the nomination). Even though Hillary would be vastly superior to McCanine, one should never "mis"-underestimate the stupidity and ignorance of the American people.
Then comes along Limbaugh today, urging his minions to vote for Clinton, because he relishes a lengthy fight on the Democratic side and because it's "fun" to watch. He says outright that he feels a fight between Clinton and Obama hurts the party in general and therefore make it easier for the Republicans in November. I feel partially smug in this respect, because it just makes sense to me, that Hillary-haters should vote FOR her not against her in order to set her up for failure. I've read that privately the Republicans would rather run against Hillary than Obama.
Didn't DailyKos urge the same strategy for Romney in order to weaken the Republicans?? That Democrats should cross over and vote for Romney??
-
Clinton bad for Democrats
Obama a usual is positive, on the other hand Clinton loves giving the republicans something to use against another Democrat.
I still find it hard to believe that Hillary supporters think she has so much experience. Hillary has LESS legislative experience than Obama and has no more foreign policy experience than Obama.
The Senate legislation she claims to be her own in the U.S. Senate was not sponsored by Hillary, she just voted yes on it. She claims experience in foreign countries during her husbands presidency but it was NOT policy making experince. She had no power. She, like most first ladies, just did "goodwill" trips abroad nothing more.
Obama knows better than present this, so republican can use it, but she does not care. She do any thing to win. Problem is if Hillary does get the nomination, Democrats will loose to McCain.
-
Another tidbit ignored by Salon. Move along...nothing to see here....
From the Dallas Morning News:
http://trailblazers.beloblog.com/archives/2008/03/caucus-strategy.html
Hillary Clinton and her campaign is pushing for precinct captains for Texas' 8,000 Democratic polling places. They need to train folks to lead the caucus sessions that will determine more than 60 delegates after the primary voting is over.
In training materials being handed out by the Clinton campaign, it is clear that they want to control those caucus sessions.
The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."
It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serves as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness.
"The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions."
Good strategy, Hillary. Really hope that works out for you? I'm sorry? what? You said something about "Rovian tactics?"