That's pretty good. IMO, the Social Security and immigration ones are much stronger.

no fair Hillary has to defend herself against 3 other sexist Hillarys

she's piling on - herself

The fact that she's wearing the same thing (because it was all taken from one debate) makes this ad very powerful.

It does sort of encapsulate the main issue a lot of us have with Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation: a seemingly congenital unwillingness--or inability--to lead rather than follow... or wander around in clever circles.

Wow! Great ad... incredibly effective.

Long rambling nuanced responses to it aren't going to be able to spin away the "double talk" label. I think she's stuck with it.

Wait until the Republicans sink their teeth into her

Probably the best ad I've seen this cycle, and anon above is spot on .... no cheap shots, no ad hominem, no fuzzed facts, no lies....just Hillary

All Hillary all the time..for a whole year?

Not a prospect that excites much is it

Go, Johnny Go!!!

Edwards says he still doesn't know how Hillary stands regarding Spitzer's policy. Here, I'll help.

She thinks for him (Spitzer)and his state (NY) it is a good idea. But it doesn't necessarily mean it's good for all governors of all states. Pretty simple. Not "double talk."

Social Security..

Her plan is to get some fiscal responsibility back in the Federal Government before tampering with Social Security in earnest. Why? Because it does not need specific tampering at the moment...and probably won't for years. But it will need a great deal of tinkering much sooner if we don't fix the budget. That's her plan...it's not "double talk."

Great ad!

Amazing that's all from the same person and from the same debate.

Maybe it's because I know her positions, but I'll give them to you, then you can re-run the clips, and then see if you can understand what, to me, is VERY plain (albeit well-spoken) English.

Iraq:
Her goal is TO END THE WAR.
You know how the Bosnia WAR is over but we still have TROOPS there? Why is that so hard to understand?
My family is a military family. Just because the combat or even hazardous duty pay ends, that almost never means that all troop duty ends.
(psst! We STILL have troops in Germany.)

REPEAT: HER GOAL IS TO END THE WAR.
What situation she will find a year from now, with an insane person running our country, is not something she knows, nor will hypothesize on.
If that answer doesn't suit you, your candidates are either Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson.

Social Security:
FIRST, she DOES NOT believe SS is in crisis. It is NOT one of her top priorities. She considers that a GOP talking point.

That said, she will RE-LOCK the lock box FIRST. That means we are not paying interest to borrow money, and in contrast, it EARNS interest as it sits there waiting for us baby-boomers to retire.
It was the way SS was ALWAYS supposed to work, it WAS working again under Bill Clinton, and Bush has broken into the lock box again.
So, FIRST, re-lock the lock box. Period. That gains us 10-15 years.

Next, she will immediately call together a bi-partisan commission to help work out the details of something a bi-partisan commission can agree on.
The ideas are ALL already out there. It's a matter of putting the entire puzzle together.
SHE IS OPEN to any set of steps that the Commission believes the two parties will rally around.

[I don't mean to be yelling. I'm just emphasizing the actual words she has used.]

The driver's licenses:
These are TWO separate issues, and that's why it sounds to some like two separate answers.
(1) What does a STATE leader do about safety in his community of responsibilty when the FEDS let him down?
She supports the governors who are having to make hard decisions about stuff like road safety, when the means of solving the states' problems also become a problem for the feds due to illegal immigrants who are undocumented WORKERS. But...
(2) What would SHE do, on the FEDERAL level, because her community of responsibilty is on the FEDERAL level?
She would pass comprehensive immigration reform, which the FEDS just recently failed to do under the failed leadership of George W. Bush.

I'm sorry, but seriously, to me it could not be clearer. We are parsing words, but the hint that she is parsing ideas is plain wrong.
I know her ten priorites, I know how she wants to attain them, and I know how she will pay for them. She hasn't changed her mind on any of them, and I don't think she's going to.
---
I think the ad, from a creative point of view, is fine. But I do not believe "the boys" moved the goal posts one bit, with the possible exception of Joe Biden.

At Wellesley yesterday, she got a little gushy I agree. But it is an all-girls school and some of the "us girls" against "them boys" rah-rah comes with the territory, to be fair.

In contrast, I do NOT think the "piling on" video was about "the boys."
I think it was about my same beef with "the boys" --
Why don't they talk about their policies in contrast to George W. Bush's policies???!!!???
They contrasted themselves with HER 30-some times between them.
She contrasted herself with the ONE guy who actually has the job she wants.

If attacking Hillary Clinton gets John Edwards into first place, or even second place, I'll eat my words. He's not in the same league as Clinton and Obama, as he brings zero to the table.

If what he's saying about the "establsihment" via clinton doesn't work, I just wonder what his next act will be? Will he call the entire House and Senate Democrats a bunch of liars and phoneys?

To me, John Edwards thinks he's pure.
NO, Dennis Kucinich is pure.
Where IS John Edwards' place in the Democratic Party?

I cannot figure out why anyone supports him. I froze my butt off for him in 2004 and as far as I'm concerned, he had his chance and he was a loser. Now when I watch him, I just entertain myself by counting how many times he blinks his eyes during any one answer.

I could make an attack ad on John Edwards in about fifteen minutes contrasting his multiple flip flops. I don't believe negative ads are especially productive, so I won't.

It is interesting to constantly hear talk of "coronation" from people in here.

How exactly does working hard, campaigning hard, doing what you think is right to get out your message, raising money, participating in endless debates, suffering the fools that is our national press corps, getting into a presidential race knowing full well the insane attacks that will come from the Republican and the Rupert Murdoch press, etc, etc, etc...how does all that become a "coronation?"

DTM,

I understand you're confused. In all honesty, I think Jan and I did a pretty decent job of explaining what she said. Maybe it's all how one interprets things. Fine.

If deep down you think Clinton is going to continue on the exact same track that Bush has set us on you really shouldn't vote for her.

I believe that all of her statements and what she has on her website and what she said in all the debates, including that last one, make it abundantly clear she intends to end this war. I believe Obama and Edwards also intend to end this war if elected, despite the fact that they both would not commit to having all troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term!

I will happily vote for either of them when and if the time comes. With no regrets or reservations!

In the mean time, I'm just not of a mind to watch these silly arguments about flip-flopping or double talk go unchallenged. Especially--and this is the big thing for me--when this superficial shoe would so easily fit all the other feet in this campaign.

HAHA!
Funniest thing is you lamebrains trying to explain her away.
That in itself if proof of her lack of any real solid position and her imminent lack of ability to be elected.

But you do make me laugh with all your efforts.

The ad is brilliant and your blind loyalty to such a fraud is flat out hilarious. Thanks!!!