I don't think it was a game-changing ad, but it certainly seems smart for Clinton to go back to focusing on issues for a bit after her negative strategy backfired last week. In that sense the "strength and experience" line seemed more like a placeholder to me than anything else.

Stop using polls to generate news. After we've had our first primary, we'll have frontrunners. Until then, this end run around the voters is a blend of media muscle [which is invariably used to support the candidates with the most money and most opposed to change], and laziness [which the media likes to call 'allocation of assets'] . This allows them to cover only a few candidates which they have chosen through their polls.
I think these polls are crooked, but even if they are only self-fulfilling proffessies, they are antidemocratic.

There are eight candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination, but one would never know by watching the news division produced entertainment shows or reading a supposedly liberal blog. The wannabe gatekeepers have manipulated this race to the point where we are only left with two corporate options. TPM and the corporate media have ignored Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and Mike Gravel on purpose. Their attempt to marginalize qualified candidates and trivialize serious issues will be remembered long after this election is over.

I think this ad shows an excellent example of the value of Hillary's experience.

In this ad, Hillary did not imply that you could call her and have some big, expensive, personal situation taken care of by her phoning a hospital. This ad will not inspire anyone to take any hostages. Hillary is gaining a lot of experience just by running for office. Perhaps when she is John McCain's age, she will be ready.

Interesting - did anyone actually watch the ad? I'm not sure the "strength and experience" line jumped out so much. Universal and affordable health care, end cowboy diplomacy, get out of Iraq... 35 years standing up for children or however she put it - which is true.

Is this tired and old? Perhaps to you all, but perhaps Hillary's also trying to reach new audiences and of course get back to issues. Perhaps with independents and those on the fence, perhaps grandmas and mothers, or prepping Republicans in key states. Saying "get out of Iraq" without stressing "strength" would be a dumb thing to do.

But anyway, Eric is obviously biased towards Hillary because all of TPM is biased towards Hillary because.... [DemAC, give me a hand here, I need some boilerplate....]

thanks Hillary. Several comments:

"mean" isn't "strong"

simply because you are his wife, you cannot claim Bill Clinton's experience. Have the experience of the wife of a powerful man. Congratulations, but you are in no way qualified to lead this nation and the world. Sorry.

What about "judgment"? All of your claimed experience and your "strong" aggressive, mean-spiritied, divisive style means nothing, if you do not have good judgment. Your vote to give George W. Bush authority to invade Iraq, when intelligence available to you told you he was lying, demonsrated horrible judgment. According to Bill, you ignored his advice on Iraq, and took the advice of others = horrible judgment. And knowing that your Iraq vote enabled the worst foreign policy disaster in history, you again gave Bush permission to attack Iran. Horrible judgment.

Nothing in your character, your rhetoric, or your record qualifies you for president, Hillary. Move over, please and let the nation choose a true leader with vision, integrity, and GOOD JUDGMENT.

DemAC said about Hillary's ad: "Oh, same old, same old, God how boring, she’s toast thank you, corporate corruption will be our lot if she wins, which anyhow will never happen because this generic ad is sooo tired, over and out."

Excellent analysis. Great post. I agree with every word. THANKS!!!!!

DemAC,

You are quick to label people liars, usually the sign of a dishonest intent.

Hillary voted in favor of the Senate resolution that called the Republican Guard in Iran and "terroist orgnanization". Bush and Company immedidately seized upon it to claim the Senate had acknowledged that Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism, a raitionale to attack it. Hillary joined in the Bush administration's drumbeat for an attack on Iran. Her qualifier was " I am not for a rush to war." How about preventing war, Hillary?

Hillary is obsessed with looking tough on defense and military issues because she is SCARED of what Republicans will say about her. So, she plays into the Bush Administrations war-mongering.

No Lie in this DemAC. Go back to Hillary's talking points and find another line. Can't Hillary afford to assign someone more effective to represent her in this forum?

Anonymous above said: "Hillary is obsessed with looking tough on defense and military issues because she is SCARED of what Republicans will say about her. So, she plays into the Bush Administrations war-mongering."

Exactly. Hillary is now defeating Hillary. She and her attack dogs make claims that any voter knows are lies. The polls show the voters are rejecting Hillary. No amount of propoganda will change that.

Her great promise:

"If Bush doesn't get out of Iraq by the time he leaves office, I will."

So does that mean before the end of 2012 or 2016?

squenz, Hillary owes too much already to the defense conractors and oil companies who are financing her campaign to ever permit the U.S. to leave Iraq. She has received more defense contractor contributions than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican. Scary. And her political guru, Marc Penn (her Karl Rove) is a consultant to Blackwater payroll. Double scary

DemAC, with the Republican guard labeled a terrorist organization by the Senate, Bush has the authority to attack. It gave him cover, and you know it. So, argue all day that it depends on what the definition of "is" is. Parcing, spinning propoganda.

You cannot change Hillary's record by denying it. She's a warmonger, not based on conviction, but political calculation. You cannot protect Hillary from the consequences for her ill-informed, irresponsible votes by attacking the people who point them out.

An anonymous liar wrote: with the Republican guard labeled a terrorist organization by the Senate, Bush has the authority to attack.

You obviously have Internet access and you obviously live in La-La-Land. So why don’t you go get the text that the US Senate has voted on, and that Senator Clinton presumably voted “aye” on, and that authorizes Bush to attack Iran; and present the relevant part(s) of the text here. An Internet link to the relevant parts of this mystical document would suffice as well.

So can we all see for ourselves the text where the US Senate and Senator Clinton have authorized war with Iran.

I’m waiting…

tik-tak-tik-tak

Desider,

For what it is worth, I agree. The "strength and experience" line was not the focus of the ad, and in general the ad was mostly about Clinton trying to appeal to people on the issues.

DemAC continues his rants by saying: "So Joe Biden talking about impeachment in case of war with Iran is just bullshit by Biden then, is it???"

And Nancy Armani-photo-op, waterboarding-is-ok Pelosi has proclaimed that Impeachment is off the table. PERIOD. Even if serious, Biden can't Impeach, only the House can do that.

DemAC, copies of the Constitution are avialable on line, even at Hillary Headquarters.

Grant, there is no attack on Iran because courageous whistle-blowers at the CIA leaked the intelligence report that says Bush was lying about Iran. But of course, Hillary believed Bush on Iran like she believed him on Iraq.

Opposing Hillary doesn't mean people hate her. They just don't want her for president. Why do you and other Hillary Lovers want to make other Democrats the ENEMY. Self-defeating.

DemAC, too funny. Split hairs all day. It doesn't change history. Hillary's bad judgment and irresponsibility with votes on Iraq and Iran are on the books, in black and white. Parse, parse, parse. Spin, spin, spin spin. Try to intemidate people into accepting your views. It's self defeating. Read the polls.

By the way, in its final form Kyl-Lieberman was not an authorization to use military force in the same sense as the 2002 Iraq War resolution (although it came pretty close in its original form, which tells you something about what the Administration really wanted). But even in its final form, it did two things:

1) Provided a rationale for continuing the occupation of Iraq; and

2) Provided a rationale for taking direct military action against Iranian forces.

Again, providing a rationale is not quite the same thing as authorizing. But it is bad enough.

Anonymous 7:55 AM, No, idiot, no. I'm not DemAC. Is counting to two that hard for you?

Why do the Hillary Lovers always attack anyone who disagrees as "idiot" "moron" "stupid" "liar"?

Do they realize they are often referring to other Democrats?

Why does Hillary's campaign look at the world as full of enemies? It sounds so much like Bush, it scares me.

Incidentally, to tie all this back to the original ad:

Clinton's vote for K-L really does make me wonder exactly what she means when she says she will end the war in Iraq. Again, in addition to all the findings, here is the relevant part of Kyl-Lieberman:

"It is the sense of the Senate . . .

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq."

Again, Clinton apparently believes all that. And that raises the perfectly legitimate question of whether one would want such a person determining "the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq."

Polish your resumes, Hillary attack dogs, the GOP can use your skills.

But Obama did not vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, how come? Now he and his supporters want to criticize Hillary's unfortunate vote. Let's face it, that was an Obama political calculation that he wouldn't bear the blame for what he didn't support explicitly. Looks like he was right.

Barack Obama (NYT, front page, Nov. 2) believes that he would be an agent of “change” in U.S. foreign policy, but it is obvious that he and other Democratic front-runners have bought into the Republican propaganda that Iran poses a threat to this country; it does not. The U.S. actually needs Iran to help stabilize Iraq so that U.S. troops can be brought home. In what way does Obama’s consideration of destabilizing Iran (“we are not hell-bent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change”) make him less hawkish that Hillary Clinton? His assertion that for Iran “there are both carrots and there are sticks available” sounds like a hair-splitting disagreement with Senator Clinton about her choice of sticks.

DemAC wrote: You do realize that KL is no authorization for war with Iran, don’t you?

Now you are inventing things to attack. I never said the resolution "authorized war," I said it authorized Bush to attack Iran. (Fyi, Bill Clinton attacked Iraq with bombs, but it was not war.) I stand by my statement.

Dan,

Obama was on the campaign trail and could not make it back in time for the vote. He has described that as a mistake. But at the time he released this statement opposing the Amendment:

"Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the President that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran -- not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today."

So his opposition is in the public record. And again, as Obama's statement rightly reflects, this is just as much about different visions with respect to our future military presence in Iraq as it is about war with Iran.

DemAC,

I agree, frankly. So rather than trying to figure out what the K-L Amendment says indirectly (e.g., by looking at what Biden said about impeachment), I think we should just read it. I believe this is where it appears in its final form:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110hBAhLL:e0:

Hopefully that link works. And again, the Amendment is plenty bad enough in its final form, particularly with respect to the way in which it addresses our future presence in iraq.

DTM,
Thanx for the link. I’ll give you that the language of KL is somewhat oblique. Any “permission” or “authorization” to attack Iran on Iranian soil or in Iranian airspace though, KL is unequivocally not. The anonymous liar is a liar.

The presence in Iraq however: well, if the US is to leave Iraq the KL will not stop the US leaving, and if the US wants to stay in Iraq the KL will not stop the US staying either. KL alone will not hinder, nor will it aid, ending the war quickly. The whole KL seems somewhat blown out of proportion. I suppose that’s because everyone is so jumpy about ending the war.

DTM,
Sorry, but "Obama was on the campaign trail and could not make it back in time for the vote" is just the kind of game that a shrewd politician plays. (Obama has a history of voting "present" while in the Illinois legislature, to dodge political bullets.) He is a U.S. Senator first, and I'm unwilling to accept this excuse especially when he now wants to criticize Hillary's vote.

And "Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran" is just the problem that I have with his candidacy (and other front-runners). I repeat: Iran poses no threat to this country because it would be state suicide for Iran to attack us (see Afghanistan). Our country needs to stop the saber-rattling, and talk to Iran (none of Obama's talk about "regime change," or "carrots ... and sticks"). After all, it worked for North Korea but only after they called our military bluff.

DemAC,

Sure, K-L does not actually constrain this President or the next President when it comes to Iraq. Again, though, it seems to me the issue is whether you want the next President to be someone who believes what K-L says.

In other words, if you agree that we need American forces in Iraq fulfilling the counter-Iranian mission outlined in K-L, then I can see why you would find Clinton's vote unobjectionable. But if you do not agree with that mission, then I think her vote should be a problem for you. But which way you go on that issue is up to you.

Dan,

Just to be clear, I am not trying to convince you that Obama did not make a mistake by missing the K-L vote, or in general that Obama has the right position on Iran. I was just pointing out that he went on the record with his opposition to K-L at the time of the vote. Accordingly, I am not sure what scenario you are imagining in which he actually benefits politically from missing the vote.

The most experienced candidate in 2008 is not Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Giuliani or Mr. Romney in any case. It's Mr. McCain, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson who have the longest résumés. Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Obama, meanwhile, are both betting that this is another crossroads, like 1960, when Americans are hungry for a leader who will refocus the nation on the path ahead. Frank Rich

Sorry Mrs. Billious..try again