Clinton, Obama ads reveal the candidates
Compare, contrast, talk among yourselves.
Watching Hillary Clinton's new TV ad back to back with a similar one recently released by Barack Obama reveals some truths about the top two contestants for the Democratic nomination.
The spots are both 60 seconds long and both are broadly thematic instead of focusing on a specific issue. But they are very different.
Clinton's, titled "New Beginning," is a litany of campaign promises on subjects including education, healthcare, and the war in Iraq, intercut with shots of Clinton interacting with voters.
Near the end of ad, she talks about her 35 years in public life and politics. "It takes strength and experience to bring about change," she says, a rather obvious jab at Obama, who has been criticized by Clinton as not seasoned enough, if not naive.
It is a familiar, old-school kind of ad, designed to appeal to established constituencies in the Democratic Party and to reassure them of the logic of her nomination.
Obama's ad, titled "Our Moment is Now," is another animal entirely.
It is an extended excerpt of the rhetorical high points of Obama's well-received speech to Iowa Democrats last month.
Most of the ad shows Obama on stage, with a few shots of the rapt audience. Instead of policy prescriptions, he talks in sweeping terms of the urgency of a country adrift and the need for a new kind of politics.
It is an ad designed to appeal to disaffected, disillusioned Democrats and independents, and to inspire new people to get involved.
For many Democrats in Iowa and elsewhere, the choice might indeed come down to a battle between heart and head. In their heart, they might hope that Obama can win and transform Washington. But in their head, they might decide that Clinton is the safer, if less inspiring, bet.
Let us examine what happened in 2004:
Kerry revamped his message by calling his campaign ‘the real deal’. He had the purple hearts to beat W on national security. He appeared to Democrats in Iowa as the experienced and clear alternative. Kennedy’s summer advocacy for Kerry as well as Kerry’s JJ speech and Firefighters union got an uninspiring candidate to 38%.
Edwards was the sunny populist who would bridge the divide between the two Americas and would not campaign against other democrats.
Dean was the polarizing pull-no-punches anti-war candidate who split the union vote with Gephardt (10%).
Lets fast forward to Dec 2007:
Clinton is the polarizing but experienced sure hand who wants to turn up the heat on republicans. She has no momentum and her campaign tries really hard to undo her “chat by the fireside”- profile carefully crafted for 9 months or even more. She has a small amount of union support, irregardless of McEntee’s backing. In the last month her poll average is stagnant if not slightly down to 26.7%
Obama is the sunny uniter who will bring people together to reach what people know is possible. He is the only one whose numbers are increasing in Iowa, yet it’s possible this is happening a little sooner than his campaign would like. It is likely that half or a third of those who caucus will have seen him in person, but that doesn’t mean he passes the test of time. His poll average for the last 30 days is 27.7%
Edwards is the angry populist who has strong union backing some loyal support and has the most exposure to Iowa. Yet his poll numbers are very slowly inching south. He has claimed much of the angry Dean crowd, but has seen the sunny part of his supporters flock to Obama. His poll average is about 22%.
That leaves us with about 25% of people undecided or candidates who won’t pass the 15% threshold. Obama and Edwards are the favorite as second choices. So what happens to the undecided?
Flock to the candidate who they don’t really like but has been battletested, to the one who is the most inspiring and is mostly associated with change or to the one they voted for last caucus section. Exit polls of 2004 showed that most undecided split between the most reassuring and the most hopeful candidate. Assuming that polls that suggest that most of Hillary’s supporters have not caucused before are accurate, I see Obama with 35% Clinton with 32% and Edwards with 30%.
obama's ad is far superior... end of story.
And, if I were to caucus for HRC, I should be shooting myself in the foot, or cutting off my nose to spite my face.
She's the GOP's favorite candidate because they know they will have an easy time with her. Her Husband was nearly run out of Washington on a rail; in 1994, we had the "Contract with America" that ushered in 12 years of Repub control of Congress.
The real news here is just how well Barack Obama is doing. A three-year nationally known candidate against the best Democratic political machine we've had in the last 30 years.
If you want Reagan/Bush, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and then Clinton -- IOW, an Oligarchy, just vote for HRC. That's not the politics I want and I trust not most sane Dems will vote that way, either.
Although that's an accurate description of the ads, saying that the descriptions are accurate of the candidates in general is a bit of a stretch. Obviously you have a preference for Clinton, which is fine, but to reduce Obama's many thoughtful and innovative stances and policy proposals to the inspirational rhetoric he uses when speaking at rallies, does him a disservice. I believe that Hillary and Barack are somewhat similar, but with Barack, you get someone who could inspire this country to aim for the ideals it once espoused and that is far more valuable that Hillary's extensive, but obviously polarizing experience.
Utter democrat blather
Even a search for "gang stalking" and "Bill Clinton" doesn't turn up any such thing, just the same thing you posted word for word on many blogs. Stop spreading lies and nonsense!
It is totaly obvious to me that HRC is trying to get some of the same good feeling with rhetoric that Obama gets naturaly.
HRC looks to have changed her tactics from only two weeks ago. She is trying to copy Obama.
Obama="Fired Up!, beat, Ready to Go!"
Clinton= "Turn up the Heat"
Obama= "Change we can Believe in"
Clinton= "The Experiance to make change a reality" ?????
Obama is like watching the Beatles,
Clinton is like watching the Ruttles.
She is clearly attempting to pander as an "experiance" candidate in a "change" election. Typical DLC, thirdway, stand for nothing piolitics on Clinton's behalf.
"Question: If, as some suggest, Obama is more electable than Hillary, how come Karl Rove is offering him unsolicited advice how to defeat her? Why would Rove help out the more electable Democrat? That doesn't make sense to me. Despite her negatives and Rove's protestations--I suspect Hillary would be the stronger candidate in the general. But I could be wrong."
Who can respond to that? I saw it posted on another blog!
Oh come on. Obama's ad is almost insulting to anyone who really keeps up with politics. Showing an audience that's enraptured with him? As what? Proof that people really like him?
I want issues and I want something serious done. That's what I like about Clinton. She does take this very seriously and goes right to the basic issues.
I don't care what her husband did in the White House. I'm married and my husband and I are very different in the ways we do things. I think she's capable of being very different from Bill and having learned from his mistakes firsthand, won't make them herself.
"If the president wont end this war while he is still in office, while I am president I will" - a neat way of saying "It is going to take me up to four years to pull out of Iraq."
Hilary is about as inspiring as a teacloth. But perhaps she is the sensible choice.
Its time the media stopped the unbiased reporting for the Clinton campaign! Does Oprah own CNN or MSNBC?
Hillary has been attacked since this started by ALL the candidates running, democrat and republican, and has continued to be a strong, intelligent, completely capable leader with compassion and conviction, she makes me glad to be a woman! I’m ashamed of obama and Edwards for damaging their own party, is why Huckabee is gaining. All this playing with oprah will put a republican in the White House for certain. WOMAN OF AMERICA, THIS IS OUR TIME! STAND UP AND BE COUNTED, THERE IS NO LIMITS. Let the media say what they will about Clinton, it’s solely because she is a strong woman and that scares men like obama and Edwards. My dear grandmother is 86 and my youngest daughter is 10, both are extremely excited that a woman can be President of this great country. My daughter asks why a woman has never been elected before, because men didn’t allow it. I urge all women to really look at the issues and this country and vote for Clinton. Keep in mind all media outlets are selling papers and trying to attrack viewers, they love nothing more than candidates going after each other, when WE THE VOTER do not like it at all, I still believe that any of the democrats running are good candidates, I truly feel Clinton’s connections and clout with foreign countries is what we need ASAP. I do not feel confident that oprahbama biased support of obama will help him. We already see voters joking and billing it as the oprahbama show. She completely overshadowed him. She spoke well this weekend, but he failed to impress or add anything. That’s not good for this country. Oprahs is not the woman running for president, to help this country…its CLINTON. Give her the chance ladies! She has a long long record or public service helping children and minorities. Stick together and let’s make history for our mothers and daughters and ALL THE COURAGOUS WOMAN SENT TO THIS USELESS BUSH/CHANEY WAR!
Sen. Clinton's ad seemed more substantive, Sen. Obama's more inspirational. If one knows that there is little difference between their stands on issues, and that what difference there is puts Clinton closer to a more governable center, Obama's nebulous harping on being a "uniter" seems disingenuous. That said, he's the closest thing to John F. Kennedy that I've heard in a long time. However, based on his resume and proven deal-making ability, I support Gov. Richardson.
How do we initiate change if we vote for Hillary??? Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Clinton again??? Doesn't sound like change to me. Sounds like the same B.S. that we've been getting for ages! I think that we need a new fresh face in Washington. All the games need to stop and we have to get this country back on it's feet again. I don't believe that this is what our founding Fathers had in mind.
How do we initiate change if we vote for Hillary??? Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Clinton again??? Doesn't sound like change to me. Sounds like the same B.S. that we've been getting for ages! I think that we need a new fresh face in Washington. All the games need to stop and we have to get this country back on it's feet again. I don't believe that this is what our founding Fathers had in mind.
Sounds like your basing everything on hype. What we need is someone who is smart and knows what they are talking about. Bush is neither of these and neither is Obama. We don't need another inexperienced individual in the white house. We need a change to someone who can fix our problems.
I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that Hillary has more power or experience to fix things. A President has very limited power; most of his vague extra-Constitutional powers revolve around how well he can get people to work together. Both Obama and Hillary have that ability.
Hilllary is running a campaign to be the next president. Obama is running a campaign to inspire me personally to be the best I can be and the country to be the best it can be. So who do you want leading us? The one with an ambitious personal agenda with a "wide-stance" on issues or the genuine visionary one who is capable of surrounding himself with people of good character and judgement?
D. Kennedy, I would like to respond to your comments. Selecting one's candidate based on gender is a bad idea. Further, why do you assume that Oprah's support of Obama is "biased"? I can only imagine that you mean to imply that she is supporting him because they are both "Black". Well, if Oprah just cared about seeing a Black face in the Oval Office, wouldn't she have campaigned for Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Carol Mosely-Braum when they ran for president? Would you make the same assumption if both involved parties were White? Is Barbara Streisand's support for Hillary "biased" because they are both "White"? Come on.
I'm not even a huge Oprah fan, but is it impossible to believe that she is asking Americans to vote for the candidate that she thinks will do the best job, regardless of race or gender? I know that's how I choose my candidates. Please join us in the twenty-first century where we have real issues facing our country. All of which are more important than selecting a presidential candidate because of her gender. We need a LEADER. Not a Black "first", not a female "first", but a true leader. I see that in Obama.which is why I support him.
Who is swayed by political speeches, clothes and looks - smooth talkers with promises they cannot or will not keep. Election mania is dangerous when we are talking about who will be our next president.
Why does everyone ignore the past performances of these people, their history.
Why would we ignore the evidence that tells us what these candidates are about?
Senators are inexperienced compared to governors.
Let get the best we can in office, primarily based on their record!
The welfare of a nation is at stake. Citizen protect yourself from those who major in glib and minor in caring about something besides themself. Yes!
D. Kennedy, I would like to respond to your comments. Selecting one's candidate based on gender is a bad idea. Further, why do you assume that Oprah's support of Obama is "biased"? I can only imagine that you mean to imply that she is supporting him because they are both "Black". Well, if Oprah just cared about seeing a Black face in the Oval Office, wouldn't she have campaigned for Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Carol Mosely-Braum when they ran for president? Would you make the same assumption if both involved parties were White? Is Barbara Streisand's support for Hillary "biased" because they are both "White"? Come on.
I'm not even a huge Oprah fan, but is it impossible to believe that she is asking Americans to vote for the candidate that she thinks will do the best job, regardless of race or gender? I know that's how I choose my candidates. Please join us in the twenty-first century where we have real issues facing our country. All of which are more important than selecting a presidential candidate because of her gender. We need a LEADER. Not a Black "first", not a female "first", but a true leader. I see that in Obama.which is why I support him.
I'm reminded of Ethel Merman (I can't get that crazy woman's voice out of my head)...
Anything you can do I can do better
I can do anything better than you
When it's Annie Oakley on Broadway, it's endearing. When it's a presidential election, it's just annoying.
Hillary, find something original or just sit down already...
Someone mentioned Obama's visionary persona as leading to a presidency which will include talented, gifted, committed advisors! With JFK we knew who these folks were and agreed they had what it would take to fulfill the Camelot Dream. Who does Obama know? associate with? Oprah? daytime guru of mod speak? Let's flesh out this new dream(er) in order to make a more informed decision. Maybe I'm more comfortable with what I knew then with what I would like to see! It enables a perspective based on substantive, objective data. Not perfect, not without flaws! But grounded! I am pleased that neither the race or sex of these 2 candidates affects my decision. Remarkable and timely!
Someone mentioned Obama's visionary persona as leading to a presidency which will include talented, gifted, committed advisors! With JFK we knew who these folks were and agreed they had what it would take to fulfill the Camelot Dream. Who does Obama know? associate with? Oprah? daytime guru of mod speak? Let's flesh out this new dream(er) in order to make a more informed decision. Maybe I'm more comfortable with what I knew then with what I would like to see! It enables a perspective based on substantive, objective data. Not perfect, not without flaws! But grounded! I am pleased that neither the race nor sex of these 2 candidates affects my decision. Remarkable and timely!
Someone mentioned Obama's visionary persona as leading to a presidency which will include talented, gifted, committed advisors! With JFK we knew who these folks were and agreed they had what it would take to fulfill the Camelot Dream. Who does Obama know? associate with? Oprah? daytime guru of mod speak? Let's flesh out this new dream(er) in order to make a more informed decision. Maybe I'm more comfortable with what I knew then with what I would like to see! It enables a perspective based on substantive, objective data. Not perfect, not without flaws! But grounded! I am pleased that neither the race nor sex of these 2 candidates affects my decision. Remarkable and timely!
Hey D. Kennedy, learn how to spell. Also, you should know that feminism is quite unbecoming for a woman. And if you are going to focus on women being sent to "this useless bush/cheney war", then realize it is utterly disgusting and insulting because 1) those of us women who do have the guts to join the military and get sent to Iraq are NOT feminists ranting uselessly and crying about inequality, we are getting things done, and people like you make us sick to our stomachs, also, we are intelligent enough to know in this VOLUNTEER ARMY that is what is going to happen, and we still are PATRIOTIC enough to do it; and 2) realize that by focusing on women in your statement your are insulting the service of every man that I serve with who has sacrificed or is in my position of willing to sacrifice themselves for this country, which is more than anything you do. Why don't you teach your daughter something worthwhile and teach her about service to her country.
I think the biggest difference between Obama and Clinton are their vastly differing attitudes towards people... Obama is able to listen before speaking his mind, Clinton pretends she already knows everything. She is a bit out of tune with a citizenry which is now much more capable to see the true colors of politicians. Obama on the other hand has made a very credible case why electing him may change the rules of the political game in America - where sound arguments count, voters are taken seriously and where there is genuine hope that the better ideas and persons will prevail.
I like Barack Obama and hope he'll continue to be my senator; I'll vote for him when he runs for re-election and I might even work for him then. I also expect he'll be my favorite presidential candidate in 2016 (or 2012 if something goes wrong for the 2004 candidate). The BIG PROBLEM WITH OBAMA IS HE HAS NEVER RUN AGAINST VIABLE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS. Illinois has almost no conservative Republicans at all, and actually few Republicans of any kind. Even in the face of such tight numbers in the Senate where you'd think that one seat would matter, the Illinois Republicans couldn't find anyone to run against Obama. They had to bring in Alan Keyes, and he was a joke. Obama's only tough race (he lost) was to a black Democrat who was MORE LIBERAL than Barack (Bobby Rush). Remembering
I don't think there is any question Obama is a superb public speaker and his ad certainly illustrates that point. Hillary sounds like she is reading from a script. The images in her ad seem straight out of a 4th of July Getty Images gallery. The worst thing about her ad is when she is talking about the war, and showing a picture of someone (face unseen) holding up a hand written sign saying "End the War," as if she was some pioneer in the anti-war movement. Hillary's mouth might be saying "change," but everything she does is standard politics. Her ad makes me like her even less.
Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com
browse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com