home

The Last TV Ads

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:56:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

From Obama

From Clinton:

For those wondering, the Obama ad is not available on YouTube. More . . .

< The Commander In Chief Question | Texas Poll: Clinton By 6 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Last TV Ads | 36 comments (36 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    All three are good (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:16:19 AM EST
    The Ohio/economy one is the least appealing to me, personally, but it's the kind of ad that should be very effective with real people. The Texas/national security ad is also well done, and I think it's especially effective because it relies on Sen. Obama's words and she doesn't even speak in the ad--so it sublty uses the campaign's ocus on the contrast between words and actions.

    Sen. Obama's ad, though long, is very good. If people haven't seen him give a speech, I can imagine them wondering what all the fuss is about. He's very low key (which I like better than the preacher-style he adopts in speeches), and makes his points clearly.  Well done.

    Oh my (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:19:04 AM EST
    Obama seems to be channeling Jimmy Carter's famous "I will never lie to you" promise.  Kind of awkward to have this NAFTA flap coming out at the same time he's telling people they will always know where he stands.

    Ya think? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:32:59 AM EST
    ;)

    Parent
    Obama comes off much better (none / 0) (#1)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:04:41 AM EST
    then Hillary in these comparison adds.

    Substance wise Hillary's are a little better but neither is offering any real way to do the things they're promising.   So considering that we're left to judge on presentation and Obama just seems better.

    What is amazing me about these two is they are pretending as if neither supported NAFTA or didn't acknowledge it's reality in the past and they are saying whatever it takes to get blue collar votes in Ohio.   Both are living in a fantasy world just to get these votes and that reality will hit Ohioans in the future when neither president including McCain does anything to change NAFTA because they can't.

    Oh well.  Don't let facts get in the way and again Obama is better at delivering exactly what Democrats want to hear.  

    He will win the nomination.

    Don't let facts get in the way... (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:07:50 AM EST
    Funny to hear that from a two time Bush supporter.

    Parent
    Touche (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:21:51 AM EST
    but remember I'm also a two time Clinton supporter.

    So you can't box me in. :)

    Parent

    I Know (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:30:19 AM EST
    You even said that were he running against Dole you might even pull the lever for him again, but never for HRC.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#20)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:34:24 AM EST
    And I fully admint my disdain for HRC is unreasonable and purely based on emotion.

    If it came down to obama vs. Hillary I don't know what I'd do.

    I'd probably just close my eyes and guess becasue Hillary isn't as much of a crazy liberal as Obama in my eyes but I can't go back to my youth.  I just can't.


    Parent

    Who else has it come down to? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:43:58 AM EST
    It seems to me that neither of them are truly liberals.

    Parent
    If neither of these poeple (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:01:05 PM EST
    are liberals then what can you be?

    Trust me to a conservative they are plenty liberal enough.

    Parent

    Good One (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:08:31 PM EST
    ....but I can't go back to my youth...

    Life is full of surprises.....

    Contrary to your dad's aphorism, many people mellow in their golden years in their search for true wisdom.

    Parent

    Obama looks down in his ad (none / 0) (#2)
    by TomLincoln on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:04:51 AM EST
    Contrary to his appearances at rallies, Obama looks like he is down in this ad. I also note the Hillary's ads (both excellent) are running selectively in Texas (national security) and Ohio (economy). That was a good call.

    You must be in the tank (none / 0) (#9)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:20:28 AM EST
    for Hillary if you think he looks down in that add.  

    Objectively his add was more personal and I felt as if he was actually talking to me as opposed to seeing Hillary deliver a stump speach and the other add being a simple run of the mill attack add with the usual talk over voice.

    Both adds look like every add you always see with the bold quotes, flash images of Hillary  blah, blah blah.

    Obama's was personal (if however contrived) and I actually listened to what he said (just to see how silly it was) instead of zoning out as the voice in the background told me again how "experienced" Hillary was.  Of course that experience is optional when talking about security as opposed to the other had when her very husband came up with NAFTA in the first place.

    Your right her one idea of not running them in the same state at the same time is a good idea since together they don't make sense.

    Parent

    That begs the question for Hillary supporters? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:23:56 AM EST
    How can she not be saddled with NAFTA if she is claiming her time in the Whitehouse as experience?

    Does her campaign get to pick and choose what things she is experienced on depending on how popular they are now?

    Not to sound like an Obamamanic here (I'm a McCainiac) but this seems convienent doesnt it?

    Parent

    are you going to next claim (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:33:10 AM EST
    that she screwed Lewinsky, too?

    She was vocally against NAFTA.  In front of people.  And then she didn't make phone calls behind Bill's back to Canada to tell them that she secretly reported it.

    I think both Clinton ads are good.  They use a lot of older, sturdy looking men to make the point.

    Parent

    I have no problem with her changing (none / 0) (#32)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:04:21 PM EST
    her view on NAFTA.  I think its reasonable to change one's views over time based on experience.  I think she would be better off making that argument than saying she was always against it when she called it a victory in her book.

    Parent
    I think she's made it ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:30:44 AM EST
    pretty clear in the debate.  Many parts of NAFTA are flawed.  Those parts need to be fixed.  Parts of it work.  Those parts can stay.

    Just a reasonable approach to a trade agreement that we all know will still exist in some form no matter who is elected.

    Parent

    Because according to insiders (none / 0) (#16)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:31:39 AM EST
    in the white-house at the time.  She was against NAFTA but had to keep quiet about it in public because her husband was the President then not her.

    Parent
    NOt Necessarily (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:36:01 AM EST
    My reading of the Gergen story was that she did not want NAFTA to take away any attention from her Health Care Initiative.

    Parent
    Doesn't follow (none / 0) (#17)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:32:31 AM EST
    I don't know where she stood on NAFTA then, though Gergen's statements seemed pretty unequivocal. (But I generally support NAFTA, so it wouldn't bother me if she supports it, then or now.)

    However, the bigger point is that she doesn't claim to have had a hand in everything that Bill did, nor should she. To the extent that she was involved in policy work: yes, those years count. To the extent she learned how the White House and the Federal government work: yes, those years count. To the extent she developed relationships with leaders and influential people around the world: yes, those years count. What do people think she was doing for those eight years, reading Fabio novels and eating bonbons? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

    She should take credit or blame for the work she did, popular or not. Of course she has to pick and choose and you can accuse her of picking and choosing on the basis of popularity, but I don't see the evidence for assuming that is what her basis is.

    Parent

    Really, going back through both (none / 0) (#24)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:48:16 AM EST
    of their backgrounds, their experience, is not necessarily helpful to the other candidate, is it? BO says he has changed his mind on some issues, too. Both promise to fix NAFTA, and that ought to be the focus -- what they say they will do. Then, voters decide, from the evidence today, which one means it.

    Parent
    Who do you (none / 0) (#36)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:23:52 PM EST
    support in the promary?

    Objectively his add was more personal ....

    I would like to know so I can determine just how "Objectively" you ARE looking at these ads.

    I would guess from you posts that you lean toward Sen Obama. Which is ok... if you do... then this may just be your opinion rather that actual objective fact.

    Parent

    New ads (none / 0) (#3)
    by pavaoh on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:06:52 AM EST
    Obama's new ad won't be too effective at the news hour if the report about the Nafta dust up is one they cover.

    Good Ads... (none / 0) (#5)
    by KevinMc on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:08:46 AM EST
    Good ads but I think a two minute commercial is a bit lengthy for Americans (myself included) attention span.  We like our commercials quick, on point, with changing graphics.  Saying that, I repeat I think the ads are well made, to the point, and interesting.  I just wonder about the length of Obama's ad.  How many are going to sit on the couch for the entire ad?

    I guess I would ask who watched adds anyway? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:31:05 AM EST
    I have TIVO so I try to watch TV with a 10 minute back log so I never watch an add for politics, asprin or McDonalds unless I have to.

    If you bother to watch the add at all you may fast forward at some point granted but IMNO Hillary's adds look like any other so I'd fast forward once the deep voice started the usual bashing of the other guy.

    Also can Hillary not sound like an angry screeching wife when she raises her voice?  Her delivery in a canned commercial is terrible.  It must be much worse when it's not rehearsed.

    Parent

    All those people without Tivo (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:41:31 AM EST
    probably watch the ads.

    Pointing out that Sen. Obama has failed to hold any hearings and his stated reason is that he was busy campaigning is not "bashing." That seems like a legitimate point for her to make, and not unfair in any way.

    Can you write a comment without sounding  condescending? The tone, my goodness it reminds me of my last boyfriend -- and that sentence structure -- it's downright jumbled. I can hardly read what you wrote, it hurts my brain.

    Seriously, you should get over the problem you have with her voice. She has a lovely voice, and even if she didn't, I hardly see how that would be a disqualifying factor.

    Parent

    She does not (none / 0) (#27)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:04:34 PM EST
    have a lovely voice when she raises it.   When she talks normaly she sounds quite pleasant.   When she gets going though watch out.

    I am an engineer and I have terrible sentece structure.  Too many math classes and not enough English.  

    Parent

    No excuse! (none / 0) (#30)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:27:48 PM EST
    I'm an economist. My sentence structure is usually fine. :-)

    Enough with the voice thing; I have criticisms of Sen. Obama's and John McCain's voices too. But such things are meaningless. The best voice in the campaign is probably Mike Huckabee's--thereby proving that it's what you say and not how you say it that should matter.

    Parent

    Does anyone know (none / 0) (#33)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    How many hearings Hillary has chaired since 2007?

    Parent
    One of Clinton's best ads ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:19:12 AM EST
    note all the "blue collar looking" white men in that ad.  Unlike many previous Clinton ads, this one feels right on point, and of the moment.

    Obama's ad feels about four weeks out of date.  He's never good in these long talking ads.  I think he should have gone for a momentum ad.

    Super Bowl Ad! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by liminal on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:28:17 AM EST
    Obama should've expanded the Super Bowl ad for his two minute ad buy.  My brother is in college in Ohio, and emailed the family a link to the Obama Super Bowl ad.  He thought it was the "most inspiring political ad I've ever seen!"  

    I like the Ohio ad.  I know it's the usual sort of political ad that folks run, but I appreciate that the speakers in the ad, well, look like my neighbors.  We've had an SEIU pro-Obama ad running on local television lately, and most of the "ordinary people" supporting Obama are model-pretty.  (Not all, just most.)  Moreover, while the backgrounds are out of focus, it's clear that the remarks were filmed in real places in Ohio, probably, and not on a soundstage.  The setting is very familiar, the late winter trees, bare bark, scrabbled against a gray sky, the early 20th century rust-belt architecture brick and metal, the cars on the highway visible through the scrim of vegetation.

    Parent

    I think Hillary's ads are better (none / 0) (#25)
    by vj on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:54:30 AM EST
    But it's kind of an apples vs. oranges thing.  The security ad is a good follow up to the "red phone" ad (which I didn't like so much).

    Obama's ad is a "talking head" ad.  The audience has to be at least somewhat receptive to his message to watch all two minutes.  

    And finally ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:07:51 PM EST
    the Clinton campaign is doing a comparison ad.

    It's about time.

    Parent

    Not that (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:03:35 PM EST
    I'm the most objective source on this, but Obama's ad seemed to long and rambling. I kind of lost the point of the ad because it tried to cram so much information into that one ad.

    The strongest one is the Commander in Cheif by Hillary. It plays to her strengths will pointing out Obama's weaknesses. The ad on the ecomony is somewhat in between the other two ads.

    The parodys are always better than the real ads (none / 0) (#34)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    3:02 a.m.

    Hillary Ads (none / 0) (#35)
    by tek on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:37:48 PM EST
    Beautiful.

    The Last TV Ads | 36 comments (36 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment