View Story | 359 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
and it does so in the best way possible. In a positive and upbeat manner completely consistent with Obama's message.
It directly refutes Hillary's fear factor, revealing it for what it is. The old way of doing things.
by Parallax857 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:35:29 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
That's a wrap--print & send!!!
by serrano on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:52:45 AM PDT
Anyone know anyone who knows anyone who knows somebody who could get this to the right people?
Searching for corrupt, lobbyist loving John McCain?
by Lisa Lockwood on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:21:00 PM PDT
Without weighing in on the merits of that ad, I would like to share another idea. This would be primarily a youtube/internet ad:
Footage of Hillary saying McCain has "clearly" passed the commander and chief "threshold" interspersed with footage of every moronic, contradictory, bogus McCain statement we can find, including "Bomb, bomb, bomb..."
Between every clip of McCain neocon craziness, keep cutting back to Clinton's endorsement of his commander-in-chief-iness.
Chomsky Fever! John McCain sucks.
by miasmo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:49:42 PM PDT
So this ad is not possible. When she signed the contract for the stock footage from Getty Images [Casey's role], I'm sure that she covered herself by getting an exclusive to it. Otherwise, McCain would goof on it, especially since her own ad is a goof on a McCain youTube ad.
See other suggestions below. It will probably take several revisions.
by BloggerJohn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:56:25 PM PDT
Everyone knows the ad now...
by dmsdbo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:09:22 PM PDT
means.
Change that to "old film" or "old video" and you've got a winner!
May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.
by Fonsia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:03:30 PM PDT
Then let the talking heads re-run it endlessly at no cost (just as they did with Hillary's recent shameful slime).
Obama's campaign should be working on this right now. There's what, three weeks until Pennsylvania? The cable news shows won't know what to do with themselves for 3 weeks, gotta fill that time with something. If you don't spoon-feed them with something like this, the rethugs will feed them something else.
Whatever the next meme is, it's going to run and rerun a lot over the next few weeks until they have some real news. Might as well be this.
Do this. Quickly. Run it a few times, and the cable shows will rinse, lather, repeat.
BTW, the young woman in the stock footage is local here in Seattle, and she was interviewd extensively on local TV shows this weekend. She's charming, positive, a perfect person for this role (and she really, really WANTS to do it!).
by leftyboy666 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:15:42 AM PDT
It was from Getty Images. It's highly doubtful that the Clinton campaign forked over the cash to buy the ownership rights to it.
"Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets!" -Bill Hicks
by Tismo70 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:31:27 PM PDT
without buying the material outright, but apparently it didn't occur to Hillary's campaign that Obama would turn right around and use it against her. Just another bad decision in the HRC campaign.
"Proud to be part of DailyKos -- the Best Political Team on . . . well, ANYWHERE"
by Alden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:33:58 PM PDT
...probably wouldn't let them buy exclusive rights to it.
9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.
by varro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:22:04 PM PDT
...since Obama was able to buy the same footage to respond to Hillary's ad the first time.
I immediately though "What a misstep" about not buying an exclusive when I saw Obama's people respond with the same footage. Just one more to add to the long, long list of bad decisions that lost Hillary the nomination.
by Alden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:32:35 PM PDT
The whole point of stock footage is that it can be licensed again and again.
Being able to buy an "exclusive" for all uses is the equivalent of buying it outright and taking it off the market. That's often not an option, and when it is it's prohibitively expensive. Shooting original footage would be far cheaper.
It's highly improbable that the stock footage agency granted limited exclusive rights (for political usage), either. That sort of thing is notoriously hard to enforce, and puts the burden on the agency of being the enforcer.
I'd bet dollars to donuts the footage could be licensed by the Obama campaign.
I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. -- Thomas Carlyle
by Jsn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:33:54 PM PDT
lease it, then let others use if for free during the period of the lease, a la this comment below?
The constitutional crisis was over two years ago. It's been full-scale erosion since then.
by geomoo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:44:59 PM PDT
Obama already used this (or other footage) in his reply ad. I, personally, like the concept until she says that she's full of hope. I think that plays too much to the "rhetoric" meme...while I agree with it, I'd prefer to play up the positions that Obama has put forth and tie it in to judgement.
"We're all working for the Pharaoh" - Richard Thompson
by mayan on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:36:57 PM PDT
You can't be the land of the free, unless you are the home of the brave.
by The Wonder Moron on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:39:53 PM PDT
Do a search for Footage 716-37.
by goodasgold on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:42:41 PM PDT
spoof after spoof after spoof. And the best ideas can enlist the help of our valiant precinct captain for more effect. I wonder what it costs. I'm going looking.
In fact, I wonder if an Obama supporter could buy temporary exclusive rights, then let it be used by others for free. Is that kosher?
by geomoo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:42:52 PM PDT
They'll lease it for the same fee.
by Tony McArthur on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:35:31 PM PDT
It seems right up their respective alleys.
Plus no production costs, no permission problems, and once they do it, it shows up on YouTube for sure.
And it IS a perfectly reasonable "question" for a journalist to be asking about Hillary's promotion of McCain.
by Alden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:17:42 PM PDT
feed to the pictures of Clinton playing drinking games with McCain, hugging him, whispering conspiratorially and affectionately, etc.
by Philoguy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:43:58 PM PDT
I made the video you describe about. I am interested in knowing what you think. Throw some more ideas my way too.
http://www.youtube.com/...
by sugarbox on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:13:17 AM PDT
I'm so glad someone actually turned this idea into a reality. How do we get it seen by more eyeballs?
by miasmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:59:32 AM PDT
the refutation needs to reach the amygdala, as the original did. The original bypasses the thought process, so mere logic is not enough to counter fully as explicated in this diary. Changing the tint as suggested is an example of undoing the effect on the emotional level. I think further dramatization of being free from danger would be important. For example, build the fear, then have the girl save herself by virtue of being an Obama supporter, then everything lightens up and becomes fine. Or she reaches out to Obama, who becomes her savior and rescues her from the people who are threatening to keep her locked in a scary ad forever. I'm no ad man, so I can't write this, but something dramatic that appeals directly to emotions as well as logic.
by geomoo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:00:31 PM PDT
She gets up off the couch and wonders why everything got so dark. The scary voice-over continues, but she is looking for a way out. She says, "Why am I still trapped in this ad I made 8 years ago? And why would someone try to make it so scary?" She is looking around for answers. The view widens and we see an Obama poster on the wall. She sees it and relaxes. "Barack Obama, I bet you can get me out of this." Somehow Obama appears (steps out of poster?), and reassures her with some message of hope as the tint lightens. Something dramatic like this.
by geomoo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:05:58 PM PDT
We open with the original dark colored spooky ad running ... we hear brisk footsteps across a hardwood floor ... cut to a woman's hand in the dark room flipping a light switch.... the volume of the ad running on the tv in room comes down as we pull back to see the tv going with the dark image but also the woman who turned the light on who says ..
Casey : " It's time to come out of the darkness of fear into the light of reality.
That was me, eight years ago. And I'm here to tell you I'm not scared. You could even say I'm full of hope. Before I even saw the ad, I was a proud precinct captain on Barack Obama's campaign."
[Barack Obama walks up next to her]
Barack: "Let's put an end to politics of fear that uses scare tactics to drum up votes, and to justify bad decisions."
Yes we can, for ... we are one.
by abarefootboy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:56:01 PM PDT
It feels visual just reading it, like a good graphic novel.
by Creosote on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:35:24 PM PDT
might be impossible with a regular refutation. But what if you tried to "refute" the Clinton ad by ridiculing it? If it were truly funny, such an ad would do an end-run around the "refute" part, and no one would be the wiser.
What I like about the overall concept of the ad described in the diary is not only how it deconstructs the brainwashing process that's been going on in the media all these years, but how it draws a connection to the values (or lack thereof) among the politics-as-usual crowd.
It would require very clever writing and execution to pull this off, and you don't want to put something like this out unless it was both timely and screamingly funny. You would want somebody like Steve Eichenbaum out of Milwaukee on this (he did Russ Feingold's commercials for his Senate runs in Wisconsin).
by Big River Bandido on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:20:24 PM PDT
by geomoo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:27:09 PM PDT
to set people against each other HATE to be ridiculed. It's a sign that you don't take them the least bit seriously, that you in fact find them amusing.
Because people like that find it impossible to laugh at themselves.
I think it would work, provided a substantive message is also woven into the text.
John McCain--Anti-choice and anti-woman!
by Sharoney on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:04:44 PM PDT
What I love best about it is that it appeals to people to THINK--to use their reason INSTEAD of the amygdala.
That's what Obama's whole campaign is about. And this ad response addresses the problem. We've been controlled by our respective amygdalas for too long now and we're suffering the consequences.
I love it! Roll it!
Never give up! Never surrender!
by oscarsmom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:14:21 PM PDT
unfortunately we are unable simply to choose not to be affected by the amygdala, even those of us who know the score are challenged, and the general public even more so. I like the idea of both encouraging people to rise above fear tactics, to use their heads, but I would like to see it also work on an emotional level. The suggestion by Big River Bandido above to use ridicule seems like a great antidote to me. Cheers.
by geomoo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:30:03 PM PDT
Obama down to their level--to force him to fight them in the gutter so that they can say, look! he's just another politician like the rest of us!
What I LOVE about this ad idea is it clearly SHOWS that he is NOT just another politician willing to appeal to emotions, etc.. He is refusing to take the bait.
And BTW, he does plenty of appealing to emotions--hope, positive thinking, etc. in his speeches. So it's not as if that's not at work.
by oscarsmom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:20:04 PM PDT
I'm not saying stoop, I'm not saying use fear back. I'm saying incorporate the very emotions you aptly list--hope, positive thinking--into the ad in addition to the rational message. And do this by making the ad dramatic. Take the viewer through an emotional ride of remembering the fear that has become so familiar, then replacing it with the hope that Obama represents.
I don't care what you say, I'm gonna say that we are in agreement. :)
by geomoo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:35:32 PM PDT
by oscarsmom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:03:44 PM PDT
I know that one of the guys doing Obama's advertising is Jim Margolis, and I'm pretty sure that his firm can be found online. I'll check.
I've heard Jim mentioned a handful of times as Obama's ad man, and remembered it only because I went to school with Jim.
Hillcrest Elementary in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He talked about politics way back then, as I recall.
by juca on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:54:38 PM PDT
http://www.gmmb.com/...
by juca on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:04:17 PM PDT
Go ahead and try to get hold of him.
by Parallax857 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:10:20 PM PDT
McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:09:56 PM PDT
Can someone please remind me who said that? Was he a Democrat?
I'm beyond tired of trying to beat the Goopers at their own game. "You should be scared, but we'll protect you better" is a losing proposition from the start. It concedes acres of political territory to the opposition.
If we're supposed to support HRC b/c she'll fight the GOP harder, then WTF is she doing buying their key meme hook, line, and sinker?
Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?
by RFK Lives on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:01:12 PM PDT
John McCain "Beware the terrible simplifiers" Jacob Burckhardt, Historian
by notquitedelilah on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:03:03 PM PDT
"Nothing is so much to be feared as fear." (Thoreau, 1852)
"The thing of which I have most fear is fear" (Michel de Montaigne, 1580)
"Nothing is terrible except fear itself" (Francis Bacon, 1623)
"The only thing I am afraid of is fear" (Duke of Wellington, circa 1832).
http://grammar.about.com/...
by trivium on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:19:35 PM PDT
"Fear is the mind-killer"
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear... And when it is gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear is gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
Frank Herbert, "Dune"
"red hair and black leather, my favorite colour scheme" - Richard Thompson
by blindcynic on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:30:56 PM PDT
several books later in the Dune trilogy.
"Face your fears or they will climb over your back.
Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.
by alizard on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:37:53 PM PDT
Get Together
Love is but the song we sing, And fear's the way we die You can make the mountains ring Or make the angels cry Know the dove is on the wing And you need not know why.
C'mon people now, Smile on your brother Ev'rybody get together Try and love one another right now
Some will come and some will go We shall surely pass When the one that left us here Returns for us at last We are but a moments sunlight Fading in the grass
If you hear the song I sing, You must understand You hold the key to love and fear All in your trembling hand Just one key unlocks them both It's there at your command
Youngbloods / Words and music by Chet Powers
by Miles on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:22:29 PM PDT
I love that song.
I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds
by tle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:34:51 PM PDT
From the outset, Obama has said he'll fight those scary republican frames: we can create a new mindset.
IMO, Hillary is reinforcing a toxic meme that is to her detriment as well.
In essence, we Americans will not cower in fear to the detriment of our constitution: we can fight al Queada without demonizing 1.1 billion persons.
by pamelabrown on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:50:28 PM PDT
I would love to hear Obama say that.
by Fonsia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:09:14 PM PDT
home of the brave!
Thank you, Howard Dean
by dharmafarmer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:50:59 PM PDT
provided that it was stated with quiet confidence and no hint of Reaganesque, chest-beating triumphalism.
by Sharoney on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:07:03 PM PDT
Typo in your original comment, and a mangled misquote downthread from someone trying to "correct" you.
by Big River Bandido on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:21:53 PM PDT
How things have changed. We now have a regime that follows the same fear tactics employed by the Nazis. I believe that most Americans are fed-up with all of this fear mongering being used by the neocons as a control device. Hillary and Co. are going down a very dark path.
by calibpatriot on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:07:34 PM PDT
It was part of his first inaugural address, and he was referring to the great depression.
The actual quote. now given incorrectly three(?) times, is:
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
by J McDonald on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:49:55 PM PDT
does this
It's 3 a.m. in the 1990s and your children were safely asleep. [Video of chilren asleep and comfy] A phone rang at the Clinton White House [Close up of red phone ringing a couple of times] Signaling a crisis in some part of the world. [Rings again, shot of Hillary lookalike in bed, the ring wakes her, she opens her eyes, a little startled] Voiceover: A Bill Clinton soundalike/imitator off camera answering "This is the president" Camera still on Hillary as she smiles and sighs in a reassured manner and goes back to sleep.
It's 3 a.m. in the 1990s and your children were safely asleep.
[Video of chilren asleep and comfy]
A phone rang at the Clinton White House
[Close up of red phone ringing a couple of times]
Signaling a crisis in some part of the world.
[Rings again, shot of Hillary lookalike in bed, the ring wakes her, she opens her eyes, a little startled]
Voiceover: A Bill Clinton soundalike/imitator off camera answering "This is the president"
Camera still on Hillary as she smiles and sighs in a reassured manner and goes back to sleep.
Cuz that's what fucking happened.
NetrootNews coming soon!
by ksh01 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:19:12 PM PDT
the room. When Clinton says she has years of foreign policy experience what she's really saying is "I sleep next to a guy who has loads of foreign experience and who can advise me." Keeping in mind all those who support Clinton based on feminist grounds, is this really the sort of feminist victory that they want? I'd much prefer to see a savvy, successful, decent, intelligent and shrewed woman in the position of POTUS who's made it on her own rather than one who slept next to a president and apparently gained her experience by osmosis (insofar as she didn't have security clearance, didn't attend foreign affairs meetings, didn't get the daily intelligence briefings, and as has become increasingly apparent, didn't even participate in the hyped diplomatic exercises she claims to have participated in). Gee, what a testament to women who have struggled everywhere.
by Philoguy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:49:31 PM PDT
Gimme an "O", gimme a "B"...
by left my heart on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:13:49 PM PDT
meme from the start.
If it were somebody like Barbara Boxer or Katherine Sebelius or Geraldine Ferraro, I'd say, great! They made it on their own.
But Hillary didn't make it on her own. Her entire career is because of her marriage. She made it on the coattails of her husband. She wouldn't even be a Senator if not for that.
The feminist argument just doesn't apply to her.
The real tragedy is that no one will ever know if she could have made it on her own. Including her.
by Fonsia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:14:51 PM PDT
all her accomplishments are due to her husband, but I do think it's very difficult to argue that she would be where she is without her husband.
by Philoguy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:18:16 PM PDT
She was the real hotshot lawyer of the two...she was counsel for the Watergate committee while still in her twenties. He was in Little Rock. Clearly, she's brilliant and talented — on policy she's probably at least her husband's equal if not his superior. Could she have parlayed that into a Senate seat on her own? Quite possibly, I'd say; those are just the kind of people who often end up in the Senate. Had she gone that route instead of marrying an up-and-coming politician, she probably would have had to work much harder at the retail aspects of politics, and none of her successes would have come so easily. But then again, if she'd had to do that, she might not have ended up so tone deaf.
by Big River Bandido on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:33:07 PM PDT
Is Nancy Pelosi's husband qualified to be House Speaker ?
For me that's what it boils down to. Nancy Pelosi's husband may be an intelligent man with outstanding leadership skills, interpersonal abilities, and other talents.
However, I have no freakin' idea who he is because Nancy Pelosi became House Speaker on her own, not by riding her husband's coattails and name, or claiming his experience as her own.
Get your Democracy Bond and help build a 50-state Democratic Party!
by RobertInWisconsin on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:54:53 PM PDT
she has compiled a track record of her own. And it ain't pretty.
by Big River Bandido on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:54:34 AM PDT
Not her husband's that she claims as her own.
by RobertInWisconsin on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:31:17 AM PDT
However, I wouldn't want her to deliver my baby.
We can have the Constitution or we can have Bush but, we can't have both.
by Friend of the court on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:32:38 PM PDT
residency, and professional degrees it takes to become a doctor. Can you do the same for POTUS? Other than what's required by the Constitution?
Also, there are many instances througout history where a spouse has stepped in to a leadership role based entirely on their relationship to their predecessor. Wives successfully taking over the reigns of their husbands is nothing new in American politics or business. Access and familiarity are qualifications that should not be discounted or diminished.
IMO, Clinton is far more qualified to be POTUS than GWB ever was or even is.
Through all your faults and all my complaints, I still love you.
by jayden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:32:36 PM PDT
POTUS than GWB.
by Friend of the court on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:04:19 PM PDT
"Why are you laughing at the bright box again" look.
by jayden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:16:26 PM PDT
...a potted one, actually. The Shrub is certainly less qualified than my African violet, which has somehow lived for years despite my black thumb.
Thanks for the laugh.
Impeachment is not a constitutional crisis. We are in a constitutional crisis already. Impeachment is the cure.
by ZAPatty on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:38:26 PM PDT
figure. It's been reported that Clinton was not involved in National Security Council meetings, didn't get intelligence briefings, and didn't have security clearance. Moreover, as the vetting continues we're increasingly discovering that she did not participate in the diplomatic efforts she claimed that she participated in. Even her so-called crowning achievement, FMLA, is now looking like it was a sham and that she played little or no role in that legislation. So where's the beef. When you look at the facts they just don't support your thesis, and presumably, as a member of a "reality based community", you're interested in the facts.
by Philoguy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:52:13 PM PDT
or be in the room to learn and understand what is going on around you. Acting as a "sounding board" clues you in and often gives you the opportunity to put forth your own ideas and suggestions. It's what I do every day for my business partners. Unfortunately they get most of the credit!
An interview with Mrs. Clinton, conversations with 35 Clinton administration officials and a review of books about her White House years suggest that she was more of a sounding board than a policy maker, who learned through osmosis rather than decision-making, and who grew gradually more comfortable with the use of military power.
I made no claim that she was a decision maker or that her time in the WH is the ultimate qualification required to be POTUS. I also made no comparison of her qualifications vs. those of Obama or McShame. I merely suggest that this aspect shouldn't be dismissed or discounted outright.
I wonder how many board meetings Joan Crawford sat in on before she took over Pepsi Co.
Don't Fuck With Me, Fellas!
Okay, I'm being snarky there.
Does being First Lady give Clinton automatic qualification to be POTUS? No, it does not. But, IMO, it does give her a unique advantage, however slight.
Finally, my original comment was meant to refute the lame "My friend's husband is an architect but I wouldn't want his wife designing my house" or the "My friend's husband is a doctor but I wouldn't want his wife delivering my baby" or the undoubtably forthcoming "My friend's husband is an astronaut but I wouldn't want his wife piloting my space shuttle" argument that's been bandied around these parts lately.
I read the article. Thanks for the link.
by jayden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:07:48 PM PDT
talking during the period when he was making his most challenging foreign policy decisions due to the Lewinsky scandal. So again, it's dishonest to suggest she was a sounding board.
by Philoguy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:15:06 PM PDT
out of eight years as an example.
by jayden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:27:44 PM PDT
I guess there's just no real way to know what her level of involvement is unless she releases her archive from the presidential library. Otherwise it's simply speculation and her word.
by Philoguy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:31:08 PM PDT
by jayden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:36:01 PM PDT
saying, "I have no idea. I'll have to ask Bill about that. He's the one with foreign policy experience." "Let me ask Bill and get back to you on that." "Bill's not here. Is it urgent?" You've come up with a rich image there. I'll have to stop myself.
by geomoo on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:54:12 PM PDT
Once America sees how it can be manipulated by well made media it will be over Hillary's kind of politics.
by Timmethy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:31:29 PM PDT
((suspect this might be best as youtube type viral))
Start with Obama giving oratory suddenly from off stage, various items are thrown and start to pile up at his feet. larger items follow suddenly, the kitchen sink appears He turns and looks off screen, and says Sorry Hillary, I'm not going away. and returns and closes with his message of hope
When we say worst president in history, we're including the next 200 years as well
by askyron on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:58:46 PM PDT
the (lack of) substance in Hillary's ad. Let's make the ad ourselves if Obama doesn't want to do it. I have a videocam :-)
Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com
by MarkInSanFran on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:34:46 PM PDT
I always knew I could be a star!
Wait, you're from SF! We've heard all about those San Francisco values. Sorry, I don't do bondage. Well, not on film anyway.
Makeup!!
by jayden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:36:45 PM PDT
understanding.
It's no accident that voters who choose Clinton lack full knowledge of the issues.
The ad should include differences between the 2 candidates that would give the viewer a reason to vote for Obama, not just "hope," but why he gives us hope.
by CIndyCasella on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:46:11 PM PDT
I think it would be good to have Casey's Mom in the add to so it enforces the idea parents trust Obama to protect America.
by allie123 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:51:26 PM PDT
The best way to combat HRC's add is to have the girl and her parents both say who they'd hope would be answering the phone. Since HRC's add is directed at parents' fears, having the parents of the actual girl in the add answering that fear by saying they'd want Obama by the phone goes straight to the heart of HRC's original intent.
by Joe Archaeologist on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:16:19 PM PDT
make it a little more substantive.
Maybe instead of just:
That was me, eight years ago. And I'm here to tell you I'm not scared. You could even say I'm full of hope. Before I even saw the ad, I was a proud precinct captain on Barack Obama's campaign.
This:
That was me, eight years ago. And I'm here to tell you I'm not scared. You could even say I'm full of hope. And if that 3 a.m. call comes, I know I want it to be answered by someone with the judgment and character to make the right decision the first time, by someone who will tell us the truth about the opportunities and dangers our country faces, someone who will never use fear or anger to divide us. That's why before I ever saw the ad, I was a proud precinct captain on Barack Obama's campaign.
by Mother of Zeus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:55:45 PM PDT
likely retort that "Obambi" is using a little kid to tout his foreign policy/CiC message--further insinuating that he himself is naive.
I don't buy that at all, but it seems like it could come back to bite him.
Maybe she should stick to her role as the little girl in the footage and say she's an Obama supporter and was his precinct captain, but the HE should articulate the "I have the judgement and strength to keep America safe." part.
my $0.02
Peace, out S
HOPE: It's the new black. And it's WINNING!!
by Samwoman on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:59:02 PM PDT
and I agree they need to do it soon - for upcoming PA before 3am ad is a distant memory.
an anonymous person once said, "A man who lies about little things, will lie about big things."
