I took a good bit of flack discussing Hillary’s irritating commercials, so I thought I would give you two commercials I really like (via Steve Benen):
Funny, smart, shows what he wants to do and has done. I know this may come as a shock to many of you all out there, but the 2008 Democratic candidate is not running against Bush.
No, they’re going to be running against Bush^2.
Time to triple Gitmo!
No but he or she will most likely be running against people who have and continue to enable Bush and most likely would lead in the same disastrous fashion.
Jimmy Carter wasn’t running against Nixon, but I seem to recall Dick’s name brought up from time to time on the campaign trail.
I really do like those commercials. I especially appreciate that one of them was actually humorous in an appropriate way. Go Bill! I am actually going to go look up his positions and stuff now. Craziness.
i doubt your commitment to the future of America! no less than an octuple-Gitmo will suffice to hold the next generation of miscreants we’re creating in Iraq right now.
Well, they are running against a generic Republican and it’s best to equate all Republican candidates with the Worst President Ever. This is a Change election and they need to show that there are real choices in this election.
You didn’t like Hillary’s ad from a few days ago. But what you didn’t recognize is that you were not the target audience of that ad. That was done for Iowans and was designed to make them more comfortable with Hillary.
Bill Richardson’s ads are good and they also explain exactly why he won’t make the cut – in a humorous way. Great strategy, Bill.
Pffft. We’ll just summarily execute the ones that don’t fit.
Look at it as a two part strategy:
1. Go after the current Republican in charge. At this stage in the game this is a lot cheaper and easier than going after the various GOP candidates (all 50 bazillion of them) and as a bonus, the CRiC is very unpopular.
2. If you get the nod, start drawing parallels between the CRiC and the putative RiC. Since you’ve already been pointing out all of the bad things about the CRiC when you bring them up about the PRiC people will say “Oh yeah,” and “Yuck.”
In the primaries? They sure as hell are. This is motivate the base time and nothing motivates the Dem base like Bush. The Dems could score a nice double if they’d actually stand up to him.
Bill Richardson’s commercial= teh greatness
Bill Richardson, the candidate= teh suck, unfortunately.
He chose to be like that, he wasn’t born that way.
Yeah when he got taken apart on MTP, I sort of wrote him off.
While you are right, it also highlights the fact that with You Tube, ads now have a much bigger audience than they used to. Obviously ads for one demo play differently to another demo.
No, but, the Democratic candidate will still be saddled with Bush’s war and needs to know how to get us out. That does not mean I would consider a vote for Biden, btw.
Seriously, though. The Democratic Candidate for ’08 has one hurdle he/she must pass to win my vote. The Candidate must unBush the government. Anything that Bush did, the Candidate must undo. Any policies that Bush changed, the Candidate must un-change. Anything that Bush has said, the Candidate must apologize for, on behalf of the American people.
If the candidate wants to go the extra mile, he/she can anti-Bush. Raise taxes, create a surplus, leave children behind, somehow un-invade a third-world country – perhaps by sucking 150,000 existing troops out of it, owning a cat instead of a dog, do anything that goes in the exact opposite of Bush Administration policy.
That would be dandy.
I have thought this many times myself.
Has Jeb and Neil officially declined the nomination?
Randy and Rome Again, among others, have this right. Why shouldn’t the Democrats campaign against Bush? It makes tactical sense. Plus it emphasizes the need for change, and all the GOP candidates are little Bushes anyway.
Well, not all, but the front-runners are. I think the GOP would be very smart to run Huckabee.
The presidential election is always about the incumbent. It’s his or her policies which need to be extended, defended, or rejected first in the next administration; other issues will only come up later on.
So, yes, the Presidential election will be about GWB. Expect morphing head ads and the whole nine yards.
LBJ wasn’t on the ticket in 1968, and Nixon wasn’t on the ticket in 1976. So yeah, the Democrats won’t be running against Bush in 2008, sure.
I got alot of the same initial feelings as John and Andrew Sullivan did about Hillary’s “Invisible People” ad. And that’s okay because she’s not targetting me yet. Meanwhile I am not particularly offended by the ad.
Right now she’s targeting Iowa with that ad. A pasty white, older demographic (because kids tend to move away.) These are corn-fed, big-boned people who go to church every week and are not used to seeing women in positions of authority. Picturing Hillary as president is a shock to them and Hillary is trying to break through that resistance.
The carefully placed shot of the young woman in the ad, her face breaking into a smile as Hillary speaks at a Hillary rally, is designed to inspire and show that Hillary can create a sense of hope for the (rural) younger generation who, lately, has little to look forward to and are really struggling to get by.
She also exploits the emotions of many mid-westerners about their young men being sent off to war and not cared for by the present administration. This is especially painful for them because they’ve seen what these young guys are like when they come back all mentally messed-up, waiting to be sent back to the meat grinder (that is, if they come back alive.) There’s some guilt there because they initially believed their president and sent their next generation of volunteer firefighters and farmers to Iraq on his say so and he really betrayed them. But Hillary is a woman and women care more about how people feel. She looks like a leader who actually listens.
Say all the shit you want about Hillary’s “Invisible People” ad, but it is a brilliantly produced ad for its target audience because they really are treated like “invisible people” by Bush and the Republicans. No wonder the White House is so pissed about it. And at the same time it shouldn’t offend the rest of us. We may not understand it fully, but the people of rural Iowa do.
Full Disclosure: I am not a Hillary supporter and I feel some resistance to her as president. But if she becomes the Dem nominee, I’ll support her.
Two things: First, Georgie’s pledge to restore honor to the Presidency was a shot against a popular incumbent President.
Secondly, I have always like Richardson and his resume, but his stated Iraq position is immediate withdrawal and that is just ludicrous. i couldn’t vote for a man or woman who advocated that.
Even better, they should keep Bush on as an advisor so that they can have the following conversation and make good policy decisions:
CANDIDATE [on phone]: Hey, George, it’s me…uh-huh…uh-huh…yeah, I told you, when a new president takes office, they change the locks at the White House…anyway, look, we’re having this policy debate here, and we were just wondering what decision you would make. Wow, really? OK…uh-huh…well, taxes really don’t have anything to do with this discussion, but you’re saying cut them anyway…right, right, 9/11…OK, gotcha. Yeah. Hope you’re winning the war against brush on your property. OK, bye. [to Cabinet and assembled staffers] OK, here’s what George said. Write me up a proposal that is the polar opposite of it.
It’s like the Costanza Rule. It’ll do great things for this country.
The Other Steve
I seem to recall Bill Clinton’s name coming up an awful lot back in 2000.
I support a policy of de-Bushification.
And yes, that includes renaming anything named after papa.
The Other Steve
Richardson has come off as a bad candidate though. I don’t quite understand why, but I suspect it’s cause he lives in a bubble.
Totally OT, but still somehow sorta a commercial maybe?
I’m pretty sure this guy is a liberal.
q1. do we want another groper in the WH? rumor has it….
q2. did anyone else have half a dozen stoppages during the replay? i’m wondering why. i’m on a T1 and the videos at TPM don’t act this way.
q3. what is to “really like” about these commercials?
Richardson’s ads are all really good. The job interview series is brilliant. There are two more of those besides the one here, and they are just as good.
Right after that “New Mexico Comeback” video is a link an ad from, what I presume, is his 2006 reelection campaign. Another really good ad.
Entertaining and personable. A real breath of fresh air after stentorian stiffs like Kerry and Gore.
De-Bushify the government.
You do that, you’ve got my support :)
so…someone you’d like to have a beer with?
All that and root out the many incompetent cronies, lobbyists and corporate hacks Bush has infested the federal government with.
Sounds about right to me, but be warned: All of that is enough to keep a president as busy as a one-armed paperhanger in a windstorm for at least the first three years of his/her term.
New Mexico: Like old Mexico, only shinier.
You know the way John feels about Edwards? That he despises him so much but never seems to be able to clearly articulate why?
That’s how I feel about Richardson. I can’t get past my intense dislike for the man but I can’t really explain why!
I don’t troll wingnut sites so much anymore — just my pet one, and she has the same idea in her sparse comment about the Hillary video.
My question is: where did this meme start? Was it with you John, or are you just another one echoing the idea?
Out with it.
I watched it at work on a T1. I suggest calling IT or clean out your cache. Or chalking it up to BJ or YouTube.
They are clean and normal. Oh, and the feature is a guy. Not that John doesn’t like Hilliary because she’s a she or that that sort of thinking has influenced him wrt Edwards.
Sorry John, I think I’m venting. Or ranting. A little early for that, I know.
You all read more right wing sites than I do anymore- I am persona non grata, so I doubt I picked it up somewhere.
That was just when I thought when I saw the video- “Why the hell is she talking about Bush in a video before the primaries- I am betting everyone she is facing in the primary feels the same way about Bush.”
Remember, 9/11 changed everything. After that date, patriotic Republicans marched to the pod collection points to become the Party of Bush. Party of Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt/Eisenhower is a memory; Bush Doctrine is ascendant. Hence current R-prez debate statements like “Golly, gee whiz I’d double Gitmo if I could just contain my boyish enthusiasm long enough and remember that’s my position for more than three minutes!”
Anybody who disagrees with the new Gay Old Perverts party and their leader is a homophobic homo-marriage loving hate-America filled Nazi appeaser. Wasn’t that the message before the 06 mid-terms? Not even a year ago from across the Party of Bush field?
In case you’ve already forgotten, 9/11 changed everything. Anybody who thinks differently is just beclowning themselves.
Reading the above to gain frightening insight into the mindset of the Frequent Pants Changers of the Right:
Doctor! My brain huuuurts!
For several months now, ever since the founder of modern conservatism, Bill Buckley, came out and said he thought this war was lost, I’ve been wondering how exactly we are going to stay in Iraq (at a purely monetary cost of 2+ billion per week), and somehow justify doing so.
I realize the truthful answer is, you can’t possibly do it. No matter what the size of the bloodbath, no matter how bad the replacement for what’s going on now, we are well and truly done. We simply don’t have the horses (well-trained and brave and steadfast as they are) to get the job done.
I’ve been a liberal my whole life, but I’ve never been one to root for American failure. However, that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize it when I see it, and I see it now.
Perhaps, with a more competent government, one not so imbued with a sense of holy war and an abiding devotion to short-term political gain and abject greed, we might have been able to give the people of Iraq a chance at real self-government. Alas, that’s not the kind of government we have.
The only thing ludicrous about Governor Richardson’s position on the Iraq war is that he’s in the minority among the governing elite. I like his commercials. They display a sensibility that is sorely missed in government now, one that is capable of self-deprecation and based on sound policies.
We could do worse.
And Bush wasn’t running against Clinton in 2000, right?
Define “immediate.” If it means that on January 21, 2009, planes and ground convoys will begin ferrying Americans from Iraq to bases in Saudi Arabia (or Turkey or wherever) and will not turn off the ignitions until the only government employees left are the embassy staff… then yes, immediate withdrawal would be kinda dumb.
However, suppose “immediate” means that in President Richardson’s inaugural address he announces the intention to end the occupation ASAP. On January 30 or so he sits down with his cabinet to make (make, finalize, make an outline with details to be fleshed out later…) concrete plans for it and by the end of February the Iraqi government knows which American forces are leaving when and which ones aren’t leaving any time soon at all (a small, but let’s be realistic, non-negligible number; we still have troops in South Korea after all…). By the end of April a significant number could be withdrawn, and by, say, October, all but the permanent part could be back home. This is ex recto, but as I understand the situation, it’s doable.
I would say it’s fair to call that “immediate” — the “leave the heavy equipment behind” definition of “immediate” was always a strawman — and I would not call that ludicrous. If anyone who gets elected promises to do that, or does, I think I would be pleased. And surprised.
I say that because immediate withdrawal would result in the sort of calamity for us and the Iraqis that would make 1975 Saigon look orderly. We use some of these people everyday and, unlike ’91, I think it is wrong, morally and for our standing in the world, to abandon them.
I also believe withdrawing all forces on January 21, 2009, causes what’s left of the Iraqi government to end up in the hands of Al-Sadr (thus Iran) and an ethnic cleansing, which would make the Serbs seem like relocation agents from Century 21. It leaves the remnants of the Sunni population looking for protection and there is one organization that can help with tactics, money, and recruits and their CEO Mr. bin Laden will take your calls at 1-888-expansion of actual terrorist enemies.
Simply put, enough troops must be left behind to destroy Al Queda when it pops up, train Iraqi troops and protect the Kurds from the Turks.
So, when I’m king of the world, I will implement my grand strategy. In the meantime, although I like Governor Gonzalez’s resume and abilities, I will not vote for him.
I think John (and Sully’s) extreme aversion to Hillary (and we’re not talking mild hesitation here) is perhaps the last vestage of the Republican hold on their brains.
It stems from the same voice in their head that told them (along with many of my friends) that Al Gore was teh liar and that Kerry was teh traitor and that Saddam was teh threat. How is it that Hillary gets billed as the epitome of inauthentic when as far as pols go (especially on the R side for ’08) she’s boringly consistent?
Explain to me please, timb, what is orderly about what is going on in Iraq right now, ok? How many people were killed yesterday, 500 wasn’t it? Is this how the Party of Torture defines progress?
I know what you mean, we are so well regarding in the world since Abu Ghraib. We have abandoned the Geneva Conventions, which wasn’t necessary to do during World War II (fighting the actual Axis of Evil, for fuck’s sake). So the question of our standing in the world is pretty much moot, AFAIC. As to our moral obligations, how about protecting our own people? This government couldn’t organize an evacuation from a hurricane zone with almost a weeks’ notice! Their answer to collapsing bridges is… tax cuts!
There is nothing simple about what you propose here. When did it become the job of the USA to protect the Kurds from the Turks? This isn’t foreign policy, it’s “whack-a-mole” played with live soldiers, and it helps Al Queda with their recruiting.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we could use some of those hundreds of billions of dollars we’re spending in Iraq to help keep bridges standing, ensure that mine safety isn’t just left up to mine owners, protect people from hurricanes, etc.
There have been more than a few suggestions from responsible Dems (Murtha, Obama, Clinton, etc.) that “immediate withdrawal” is not feasible, and I concur. We’re not going to leave Iraq the way we left VietNam. (I should point out that the Bush administration could do a really horrible job of it, if they were interested at all in pulling out). Since their goal is to pass this quagmire on to the Democrats, though, we don’t have to worry about that.
What needs serious questioning here is the underlying policy. Since the terrorists have no infrastructure to speak of, it seems to me that it does us little good to send in the marines for an endless, bloody game of hide and seek on their home ground. I supported the Afghan invasion, but you don’t need to look any further than that sorry place to see how badly we have bungled a real opportunity to help a region that was under the thumb of terrorists. We chose to be distracted by a war that didn’t need fighting, and now Afghanistan could be lost, too.
My Senator (Obama) said it best, “In Iraq, there are no good choices.”
Hey, remember we’re on the same side! I opposed the war before it began; I was for withdrawing forthwith, I was against the “surge”. Hell, Jeff Goldstein recently called me a pussy. I don’t what else one must do to brush up on his liberal bona fides, but let me know what it is and I will abide. As far as Iraq, Senator Obama is right. And Governor Richardson stated plan is “an easy choice” not a “good choice.”
“. A pasty white, older demographic (because kids tend to move away.) These are corn-fed, big-boned people who go to church every week and are not used to seeing women in positions of authority. Picturing Hillary as president is a shock to them.”
Hang on a mo. That doesn’t *quite* describe Iowa primary voters. I live in Iowa, I’m 27, I’ll be voting in the caucuses: I don’t go to church and I’m perfectly used to seeing women in positions of power, and I know a lot of people here who are. It may still be a good ad to target Iowa with, but don’t throw us all in one basket.
And I’m not big-boned, either!
Allow to present one possible Iraq withdrawal idea: Let them vote us out. Give the Iraqis a ballot, ask them if they want us to stay or go, and if they want us to go, give them a set of options: Tomorrow, 6 months from now, a year from now, etc. Tomorrow will win in a landslide. We can then make an orderly exit from the country, and hopefully things won’t get any more farked than they already are.
BubblegumTate, you win the thread. You win an internets. Enjoy your tubes.