Clinton’s one-star ad targeting Obama
In the wake of multiple loses, Hillary Clinton launched an ad in Wisconsin yesterday taking aim at Barack Obama. There is no doubt the ad targets Obama, but is it a negative attack ad? Attack ad or not, the ad’s focus is not clear. Although the focus seems to be debating, Clinton muddies the water by infusing health care issues.
The ad is weak at best. If the issue is Barrack won’t debate, that’s a very weak argument. There have been 20 Democratic debates (iirc)! And if the ad is about health care, well, they simply wasted their time because the ad has no substance on the matter. Want an example of weakness? After being viewed on YouTube 101,808 in just one day, it has a one-star rating. I know that’s not scientific or qualified random-sampling, but it makes a statement.
I don’t think the ad is a negative attack ad in the classic sense but rather attack-lite. Consider this part of the ad: “Maybe he’d prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions.” Now, that’s hitting hard isn’t it? If Obama is the Democratic nominee, the Republicans will not have any attack ads with “maybe” in it. They’ll be direct, hard-hitting, and a clear, but blunt message (legitimate or not).
On the other hand, Ariel Alexovich at The Caucus clearly views it as a negative attack Ariel says “the gloves are off” and Clinton is “attacking Barack Obama.”
But let’s assume for a moment this is the Clinton camp going negative. That’s probably a significant indication the Clinton camp is indeed worried. According to Ron Fournier, Clinton has only three options available to try and stop Obama and going negative is one of the three. And in my opinion going negative probably carries the greatest risk.
Two senior Clinton advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the race candidly, said the campaign feels the New York senator needs to quickly change the dynamic by forcing Obama into a poor debate performance, going negative or encouraging the media to attack Obama. They’re grasping at straws, but the advisers said they can’t see any other way that her campaign will be sustainable after losing 10 in a row.
She has ever right to attack what is she running for? you would probably like her better if she was in the kitchen grow up!!!!!! And she is right all we have heard from Obama is pretty speaches reminds me of a teacher I had one time. all blow and no go. from the same ole 75 year old woman
Teata,
No, I’m not really interested in Hillary’s culinary skills. And, she does have the right to run her campaign as she pleases.
Although I do prefer Obama over Hillary, the intent of the post is not to get or chase away votes from any candidate. Instead, it is a critique of Hillary’s ad, and perspective on what may be the logic or motivation associated with it.
If I was trying to put put an anti-Hillary spin on the post, I would have done like many others (media and blogs) did and declare it a negative attack ad, then shot all the same holes and more through it. I said, “I don’t think the ad is a negative attack ad in the classic sense but rather attack-lite,” where others have distinctly taken a stronger approach.
You have fallen into a trap set by the Clinton camp and Washington chatter-heads when you say, “all we have heard from Obama is pretty speaches.” It’s a direct quote from their BS rhetoric. Just because they say it, it doesn’t make it so.
Have you listened to many of his speeches or had you already made up your mind and tuned him out? Have you checked his web site to see if he has his positions on the issues documented, and read the one’s that are important to you?
So many of the anti-Obama people whine and complain that he just gives great speeches and there’s no substance to them, but nobody that makes those assertions (and that’s all they are, assertions) ever say what issue(s) they wanted addressed but weren’t. So, where’s the substance in the complaint about pretty speeches?