Has anyone seen Hillary Clinton’s new ad, “Children”?
here is the link:
http://hillaryclinton.com/vide…
Does anyone not find it eerily reminiscent of Kerry Healey’s last ditch effort to scare the citizens of Massachusetts into voting for her?
Please share widely!
theopensociety says
The ad addresses an important issue in this campaign: who is better prepared to lead the country? The ad concludes that Hillary Clinton is, and millions of us agree. There are no similarities whatsoever to Kerry Healey’s disgusting attack ads; oh, except for the fact that Kerry Healey was a woman, but I am sure that is not what you meant. The Obama campaign needs to stop whining about ads that speak the truth; it is unbecoming.
cr_aig says
I certainly did not mean that the similarity was that Kerry Healey and Hillary Clinton are both women. I’m sorry if that’s how you read it. I only compared it to Kerry Healey because I feel like, here in Massachusetts, we just saw the worst kind of fear mongering and felt we were witnessing it again.I was actually referring to the purple colored filter (Healey’s was green) and the scary vocal track. The overall sinister tone of the ad. Are there really “no similarities whatsoever”. My main complaint is the use of fear tactics in commercials. I actually have the same complaint about water filter commercials that use images children drinking water from taps that, gasp, aren’t protected with a filter. but I digress. I don’t think you can deny that she is playing on the people’s fears (you could, but you’d be purposefully missing the point of the ad).
<
p>Alas, I am reminded of this quote from another presidential campaign:
“If one candidate’s trying to scare you, and the other one’s trying to get you to think; if one candidate’s appealing to your fears, and the other one’s appealing to your hopes; you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope,”
-Bill Clinton on the stump for John Kerry, October 2004
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL…
<
p>
theopensociety says
to consider that the voters may select someone as President who does not have sufficient experience. People are worried about that even without seeing the ad. After all, the President is the Commander in Chief. Look what happened when George Bush was elected. (Do you really claim that this is not a legitimate concern for the voters to have?) The ad only illustrates this concern. Quite frankly, the Obama campaign’s over the top reaction to the ad makes it seem as if even they are concerned about the fact that Obama is inexperienced. They are acting a little bit defensive.
<
p>There is no comparison with the Healey ad, which if it is the one you are talking about, implied that there was something wrong about Gov. Patrick providing legal counsel to people accused of rape. It’s content was outrageously misinformed and offensive.
christopher says
At least from the descriptions it sounds like HRC is drawing comparisons regarding issues. Kerry Healey was trying to paint Deval Patrick as an evil man that you should be scared of because he defended some nasty people earlier in his career.
<
p>The way this does seem like the 2006 election is comparing Democratic primaries. Obama obviously has the Deval role while HRC is the Tom Reilly, whose turn it supposedly is. I confess that I am going for whose turn it is as part of why I support Hillary. The fact is I want both Clinton and Obama to be President and if I could be assured that Clinton would follow Obama I would not care about the sequence. I feel given the age difference and her ties to the past, if Clinton does not get it this time she will not have another chance whereas Obama might. I supported Deval during the 2006 primary because I did not really care if Reilly ever got a chance to be Governor.
hrs-kevin says
He has far more experience than Clinton and is clearly much better prepared to be commander in chief.
<
p>In any case, I think the ad is a mistake. I think it will turn off more people than it attracts.
bluetoo says
The Democratic Primary is looking more and more like Massachusetts’ Gubenatorial Election. But not because I think Hillary Clinton’s ads are in any way reminiscent of Kerry Healey’s. That’s nonsense.
<
p>I was a big supporter of Deval Patrick’s in 2006. He talked the same talk as Obama (in some cases, the exact same speeches!)…hope, change, feel good. But when push came to shove, Patrick couldn’t deliver…or at least not yet, because he didn’t have the experience to deal with the legislature or the public sector. He has been a huge disappointment to me, although I still hold out hope that he will be able to turn things around.
<
p>That’s what is disturbing about Obama. Four years ago, he was a state legislator. We can’t afford, on the national level, a year or two’s learning process for a new President. There is too much at stake in this country.
<
p>We have a smart, capable, tested candidate in Hillary Clinton. We won’t have to deal with the learning curve. She’ll be ready to go right off the bat.
sabutai says
If Obama locks up the nomination on Tuesday, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will be getting some cash from me on Wednesday.
trickle-up says
when the primary is over and the normally smart people who post here go back to being that way and stop playing WWMCS (What Would My Candidate Spin).
<
p>Honestly, comparing this ad to Kerry Healey’s racist piece of crap a year and a half ago is an insult not just my intelligence but to everyone who is or who has ever struggled with bigotry and hate.
hrs-kevin says
Clinton’s ad does try to play generally on people fears but that is about where the correspondence ends.