Edwards Campaign Goes After Hillary In New YouTube

Comments (28)

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 11:14 AM:

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

seanh wrote on November 2, 2007 11:22 AM:

Definitely a cheap shot; you could likely make anyone's positions look hazy with careful edits.

Still, that is one extremely effective ad. It's so well produced and powerful, I could see it going viral. Almost completely lacking substance, but it's extremely effective, with as much viral potential as the last anti-hillary sensation. This time around, the ad is especially interesting, because it's actually coming out as an official campaign ad. Also of interest, along with the Hillary ad "politics of pile on", this is the first onslaught of negative ads. Looks like things are about to get very dirty.

Obama can benefit from it all if he avoids all the mudslinging. Keep releasing the positive ad pieces, stay critical in campaign memos, but avoid the sniping. If Edwards and Clinton want to produce offensive ads, directly criticizing the politics of the opposition, let them do so.

Outside the beltway wrote on November 2, 2007 11:24 AM:

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

she's piling on - herself

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 2, 2007 11:24 AM:

Democratic candidate points out that the Democratic front-runner should be an actual Democrat and act like a Democrat . . . A pre-Reagan Democrat that is . . .

Look for O'Reily to devote 15 minutes on beating up girlies tonight.

Look for colonpowpow to type the words "Fortress Investments" a dozen times . . .

dajafi wrote on November 2, 2007 11:37 AM:

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.

jsamuel wrote on November 2, 2007 11:39 AM:

Not a cheap shot. They didn't compile her different views from months or years ago. They compiled her views within 2 minutes of each other.

LJ wrote on November 2, 2007 11:44 AM:

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.

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 12:22 PM:

Niiiiice!

Not cheap shots at all. They're all areas where Clinton is either trying to elide distinctions between her position and her rivals' (Iraq) or claiming extensive familiarity with an issue while refusing to associate herself with any particular solution (SS, drivers' licenses). The latter (experience without judgment, as it were) seems to be her primary MO. This ad is a brilliant way of calling her on it.

john mccutchen wrote on November 2, 2007 12:37 PM:

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

Jeff Winchell wrote on November 2, 2007 12:39 PM:

This is arguably the best ad about the competition, produced by any presidential candidate this year.

The other two very effective ads I've seen are the 1984 ad, and Edwards Hair ad. I look forward to the campaigns (or unofficial ones w.r.t the 1984 ad) producing more excellent advertising.

Johnny2Bad wrote on November 2, 2007 12:59 PM:

Go, Johnny Go!!!

Helter wrote on November 2, 2007 1:22 PM:

What makes this ad effective is that confirms what many people hear themselves when they hear Clinton speak. It's not going to sway her supporters, but for people who are forgetting why they always disliked the Clintons, it's a big fat reminder card.

loki wrote on November 2, 2007 1:46 PM:

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."

loki wrote on November 2, 2007 1:50 PM:

There are plenty scenarios ofor ending the war in Iraq. One is taking every single soldier and diplomat out of Iraq completely and for good...immediately. Another is to leave soe soldiers behind as a sort of peace keeping force adn to take on the task of fighting al qaeda when necessary.

Personally, I'm all for the former. But the latter is not "double talk."

loki wrote on November 2, 2007 1:54 PM:

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."

loki wrote on November 2, 2007 1:55 PM:

Lame ad.

Josh Medeiros wrote on November 2, 2007 2:03 PM:

Great ad!

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

DTM wrote on November 2, 2007 2:11 PM:

loki,

In your first two posts attempting to speak on Clinton's behalf, I am not entirely sure you are right about her positions (eg, did she really say that we should leave a "peace keeping force" in Iraq?). In the third post, it seems like you are saying that her plan for Social Security is to not do anything about Social Security for now, and also not tell us anything about what she would do in the future. That is an odd idea of a "plan".

Jan wrote on November 2, 2007 2:16 PM:

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.

loki wrote on November 2, 2007 2:30 PM:

"Peacekeeping force" was/were? my words. In addition, I prefaced it with "a sort of"...

I know you're not really getting tripped up over that.

Regardless, I think Jan did a better job overall of explaining it above.

Anna wrote on November 2, 2007 2:31 PM:

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.

TNT wrote on November 2, 2007 2:56 PM:

Jan and loki demonstrate exactly why they are Hillary supporters.

Sorry about your impeded coronation.

loki wrote on November 2, 2007 3:14 PM:

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 wrote on November 2, 2007 3:16 PM:

loki,

That is really the whole point. You told me what you think Clinton's position is, as did Jan. But I can't tell from what Clinton herself said if you are accurately representing her views.

And these are very serious issues. A peacekeeping mission implies a certain kind of presence and certain kinds of activity. Our Cold War bases in Germany (apparently Jan's alternative to the Bosnia/peacekeeping model) imply a different mission (forward basing for strategic reasons), a different presence, and different kinds of activity. By the way, Bush himself has used both models for our Iraq efforts--we just aren't doing a very good job keeping the peace and aren't really in a position to project power from the bases we have been building in Iraq.

Anyway, maybe Clinton supports such missions in Iraq. Or maybe she doesn't. But I'd sure like to know, and I would rather hear it from her directly than from her supporters on the Internet.

loki wrote on November 2, 2007 3:31 PM:

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.

Jan wrote on November 2, 2007 4:38 PM:

DTM, do you get all your information about a candidate from a 30-second sound bite in the debates?

If you didn't understand what she said, maybe that's Clinton fault. Maybe she does need to get it down to better soundbites for some of you. (NOT ME.)

But to say that you can't figure out where she stands on this stuff is just intellectually dishonest.

She has a website. I've actually asked her questions and someone on the staff has written me back.

She has 10 priorities.
If they are not your priorities, I get it.

But to say that she has to be all squared away on, for example, SS, when she keeps saying it's not in crisis, iho...
That's trying to make her her answer to YOUR agenda.

It doesn't work that way.
You accept the candidate's agenda that you most want to see get accomplished. If SS is a crisis to you, Clinton is not your candidate. You need to support whichever candidate thinks it's in crisis. Fair?

Also, I hear more about "coronations" from non-Clinton supporters than I ever hear from Clinton supporters.

I just "heard" loki say that she would support any Democrat who won the primary. I have said I would support any Democrat who wins the primary.
That's not a coronation.

Will YOU support any Democrat who wins the primary?

Our confidence is not because we think her election is a done deal. It's more like placing your bet using Las Vegas oddsmakers:
Am I guaranteeing that the Patriots will win the Superbowl?
NO.
But I'm *BETTING* that the Patriots will win the Superbowl.

Am I guaranteeing that Clinton will win the WH?
NO!!!
But I am *BETTING* that Clinton will win the WH.

I hope ALL of you are betting that the candidate you support will win the WH.
Right?

So, please allow me (and loki and all clinton supporters) that exact same indulgence.

www.hillaryclinton.com

Craig wrote on November 2, 2007 10:03 PM:

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!!!

Garson Ranck wrote on November 4, 2007 6:01 PM:

People like Jan and her ilk are why I have such a hard time keeping my head from EXPLODING. Jan, you are a leading example. You sniveling democrats, is there anything you value enough to fight for? Everything is a conspiracy, and Bush is the devil. Could it be intellectual snobbery is the only real weapon left to those whose ideas are morally indefensible and intellectually bankrupt?! When academicians, journalists and politicians find their views met with skepticism or rejected outright, they tend to respond by wrapping their mantle of "greater understanding" around themselves while hastening to point out that their opponents simply don't have the entire picture, OR a full understanding of the issues involved. At which time they get a little carried away and go straight into the vicious invective category.

Mostly I think you see yourselves as being the voice of reason in a land of mouth-breathing inbreeds who selected a retarded monkey as president and who can't distinguish between reality and fantasy. I would like to say just "shut up". But it's much easier for you "intellectuals" to cling to the idea that no one else gets it and everybody who isn't a right thinker is just stupid, heavily armed, irrational and icky. Run for your lives people, Rush Limbaugh and his barbarians are at the gate and they want to eat your children!!!

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)