From Andrew Sullivan, Hillary goes all Grant Wood on us for Iowa:
So, this made Andrew gag, but I like it: Simultaneously gentle and tough, strong and motherly. For all that I also feel that there’s not a lot of passion to her campaign thus far, this is pretty close to finding a pulse. What can I say? I believed it — because I think she does.
It’s the job of a campaign to find the theme that a candidate genuinely feels — regardless of how thoroughly calculated the actual positions may be. On some level, a candidate really needs some degree of personal investment — unless the he/she is an exceptionally gifted actor. There’s absolutely nothing specific about Hillary’s ad, but she seems to really believe the generalities (as I do). If a candidate can rely on just a couple of deeply-felt riffs, people may well believe the rest.
I like it: to the point(s) and sincere, without being hokey.
Wasn’t that bad an ad, and it does a decent job of adding some warmth to Hillary’s image. Good, simple message, too. I was just surprised that in the close crowd shots, the one-on-one shots, and background shots, women dominated by about 2/3. I’d have expected a more even balance. A good summer/early fall ad — pleasant, not insistent.
it was clean, warm, and showed Clinton being a bit more dynamic with her voice — not overly tough and not wimpy either. Dare I say, human.
<
p>
And for the record, given an IRV ballot today, I’d put her 4th behind [in no particular order đŸ™‚ ] Edwards, Obama, and Richardson.
Mr. Carbon Tax/Restore-Rule-of-Law?
<
p>
President Dodd … smells like victory.
She’s been running on this theme through out the campaign. I think Bush basically doesn’t see most americans. He really doesn’t have a grasp for people outside of his own circle. There is a scene in one of Micheal Moore’s documentaries where an older woman tells Bush she works 3 jobs. Bush interrupts to comment on how great and “uniquely american” it is to work 3 jobs. It simply doesn’t occur to him that maybe this woman has to work 3 jobs in order to make ends meet. I think the ad is meant to appeal most to women, so perhaps this is why Sullivan was gagging, wrong audience.
…it’s almost as if sHillary were petting her pet dog. Simultaneously gentle and tough, strong and motherly is silly.
<
p>
sHillary is being motherly to someone who appears to be old enough to be her own mother? You are really desperate.
<
p>
The 2008 campaign will not be a “morning in America” style campaign as was the 1984 Reagan re-election presidential campaign. sHillary and the others need to identify four or five hot-button issuses that might resonate with voters (as Reagan did in 1980), take stands on them that might appeal to voters, and beat on them. Petting on someone old enough to be her mother is not that.
<
p>
sHillary’s problem is her consistent support for the war on Iraq. I suspect that she hopes it will go away before the 2008 election, but the likelihood is that it will not.
<
p>
Proof that the ad is great is that you’re reacting to it as a general campaign ad, rather than a primary ad, which it is. You’re giving advice suitable for September 2008, not August 2007.
<
p>
I’m sure the hard-hitting ads against Republicans will come when the time is right, but it’s pretty common knowledge that the key to success in Iowa caucus advertising is to open soft and fuzzy, follow with positive issue ads, and close soft and fuzzy — and never single out a candidate from your own party.
The Iowa caucuses are meaningless, as Howard Dean learned a few years ago. I’m amused that anyone pays them any attention.
<
p>
On the general topic re
<
p>
Proof that the ad is great is that you’re reacting to it as a general campaign ad, rather than a primary ad, which it is. You’re giving advice suitable for September 2008, not August 2007.
<
p>
No, not really. sHillary wants an ad in which she streichelt–sorry–strokes the hair of someone old enough to be her mother, and then claims to be motherly, is absurd. sHillary needs to stake out positions on a few issues and beat on them. That is what got Reagan elected in 1980. (Clinton was elected in 1992 because the country perceived itself to be in a recession.) It isn’t a question of attacking other possible candidates from your own party (Reagan’s 11th commandment), but it is an issue of what she perceives the issues to be and what her positions on her issues are.
<
p>
Therein lies the rub.
<
p>
As I’ve mentioned here several times, she has proved herself to be incompetent twice in 10 years (her 1993-94 health care debacle and her 2002 vote on the Iraq Krieg, the error for which she has never acknowledged), so why should anyone believe that she has suddenly become “motherly” merely by stroking the hair of someone who appears to be old enough to be her mother?
<
p>
I will point out that ads like this do go to pay advertising agencies. It has been noted that they are the primary sump for monies that are donated to political candidates. And, voila! I refuse to donate.
Uh, what? Howard Dean LOST the Iowa caucuses to John Kerry. That loss after his earlier leads in the polls, coupled with his famous yell, pretty much ended his campaign. The Iowa caucuses may be meaningless, but Howard Dean surely is not the reason.
“surely is not the reason” should be “surely is not evidence of that.” Or something.
“sHillary” is just disrespectful and immature. I don’t care for some of the other candidates, but as they may turn out to be the nominee, I refrain from childish name calling.
…and I will refer to sHillary as I please. If you don’t like it you have a scroll bar on the right that you can make judicious use of.
started the Kerry “flip flopper” thing. I don’t think it is appropriate, but fine, I will just ignore you from here on out.
I used to believe the key to winning elections was finding those important issues and having plans to deal with them, etc. No more. I watched Bush beat both Gore and Kerry, not because he took positions that the majority of the public agreed with, but because his campaign simply presented him in a certain light. Gore and Kerry held many positions that had majority support, but in the end they did not have memorable themes and their campaigns were not able to present the candidate in a way that matched the publics mood. So for example it did not matter in 2000 that the majorities favored Gore’s approach to Social Security or abortion. What mattered was that Bush had a theme of “restoring dignity” (I know its funny now) to the White House.
<
p>
The reason why I like this ad is that is introduces a good theme, a good over arching reason for people to vote for Hillary: With her as President, the government will not ignore you.
<
p>
You can of course argue that Hillary is full of it, but that is not the point. The point is that this idea – that the people have become invisible to the government is something that is felt deeply by many people for many reasons. Just as voting for Bush was supposed to be an antidote to the so called sleazyness of Bill Clintons personal behavior, Hillary is presenting herself as the antidote to 8 years of people being treated like they are worthless. It is a good simple theme that will resonate with many different kinds of people.
<
p>
She can put out all the policy positions she wants, but in the end that is not what will win her the Oval Office.
raj, if you’ve been paying any attention, I am not a big Hillary fan; currently she’s pretty far down my list. I just think it’s a good ad.
<
p>
Why do we assume that “Candidate X did something right” means “I’m supporting Candidate X!!!” That’s silly.
That’s reason enough for any sensible person to suspect there is something worthwhile here. Personally, aside from that advance recommendation, I thought it was a fine ad. As Kanye West accurately observed, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people;” the sad fact is, measured by his actions, he doesn’t care about most Americans, period, and this ad reminds everyone of that pitiful fact.
The best part of that remark (at the end of this clip) is the look on Mike Myers’ and Chris Tucker’s faces….absolutely priceless…
<
p>
Isn’t it interesting that our opinions of the candidates affect our perceptions of the political ads. What I don’t understand is the anti-Hillary wave. You can’t seriously believe that Edwards or Obama would win a general election. Do you people talk to others besides yourselves -in the real world?
No possible way Edwards would win the general!
<
p>
*Tied with Giuliani, beats Thompson.. And do you think Rudy beats Edwards when all the #@$% hits the fan about his adultery, his fecklessness before and after 9/11, his ties to organized crime, his massive hubris and egotism, his enemies among cops and firefighters, etc? Not gonna happen.
<
p>
*Obama:
<
p>
I read polls, and I read the news. I don’t get my info from cocktail parties on Nantucket.
<
p>
Edgar, why do you insist on being so dismissive of everyone else? Are you the smartest guy in the room? If so, start providing some links to reliable sources that confirm your genius. Otherwise you’re just spouting.
If you google “validity of rasmussen polls” you will find that there is a great deal of volatility and inconsistency in their results. (Do you really believe that Fred is way ahead of Rudi among republicans?).
Now, you are a bit unfair and biased about Rudi. His disagreements with the police and fire leaders (some of them) revolve around labor contract agreements. (Unlike Menino, he did not cave to outrageous salary demands.) The rap about the Mafia is news to me; is this another whispering campaign (much as the one that did in Belotti in this state 20 years ago?); as far as hubris, ego, adultery, etc. these and other weaknesses in the human condition are more than adequately represented in the other candidates and will not be the deciding factors in the election.
I should be clear: The mob stuff belongs to Giuliani’s business partner Bernie Kerik — but Rudy knew:
<
p>
Do you really believe that Fred is way ahead of Rudi among republicans?
<
p>
Uh, yeah, sure I do. Why wouldn’t I?
<
p>
Fred is a good ol’ boy, a southern gentleman. For the last 5 years he’s been portraying a tough-on-crime-but-still-charismatic-and-understanding D.A. on a very popular television show. And, because he hasn’t yet officially declared or actually been held to the fire and been made to actually stand for things or give specifics, he represents the hopes and aspirations of many people who are unsatisfied with the declared contenders (McCain, Giuliani, Brownback, etc).
<
p>
On the other hand, Rudi is a pro-choice Northerner who’s had N divorces and can come across as being coarse and gruff at times, and hasn’t had any elective experience at the federal or even state level, although being mayor of the largest city in the country surely does count for something.
<
p>
Summarized like that, yeah, I can believe Fred is way ahead. For now. Once Fred declares and gets nailed down for what he actually believes and stands for, I’m sure he’ll drop. It’s just that right now people don’t know enough about him to know what to dislike.
<
p>
P.S. Can you please learn to use the “Reply” button? If you’re replying to a comment, that comment has a “Reply” link at the end — just to the left of the rating drop-down — that will make your reply be properly threaded. (Some of us do use the site’s ability to show us recent replies to our comments. For example, here are the recent replies for your comments.) Thanks.
Damn work — but it sounded good.