Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign will launch their first television ad (called “Invisibles”) in Iowa starting tomorrow, but those of us who like to use the amazing series of tubes known as the internets can see it today…and below:
It isn’t the typical biographical ad that a lot of candidates start off with, but that’s probably a good thing for Clinton considering she’s already pretty well-known and has decent name recognition.
In part, the ad is seeking not to introduce her to Iowans but to re-introduce her as the candidate who will focus on the ordinary Iowans and Americans as president. It is supposed to be the “more caring” side of Hillary, not the supposedly “politically calculating and manipulative” version that we’ve heard about in the press since about 1991. And in that endeavor, it succeeds.
To me, the one place that it does fail is with the background music. I’m sorry, but it just seems cheesy and distracting. The content of the ad, what Clinton says, is the real substance and I think it is quite good for a re-introduction. However, she’s getting on TV late in the game. Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, and Obama have already been on the air with introductions, bios, and ads talking about policy. Clinton’s next step has got to be a policy ad.
All in all, it is a good ad that serves its purpose. As the big money candidate, one might’ve expected something over-the-top and really professional looking…almost to a level that screams “I’m the typical politician and run those kind of TV ads.” But it was simple and concise and should resonate with Iowans.
And if she expects to build any more traction with committed activists and Democrats who will turn out in force on caucus day, she’ll have to start airing an ad about Iraq. I predict the campaign isn’t looking forward to that day but with a clear, concise ad advocating ending the war and bringing the troops home will do wonders with those who don’t take the time to get out there and really see her on the stump.
4 Comments
I think the ad is pretty good
But the risk is that other candidates can say her plans for dealing with these problems are also invisible.
One or more of the other candidates will need to point out that Hillary offers little more than “trust me to handle this stuff.”
What is her plan to achieve universal health care? She hasn’t offered one, and she just happens to be the leading Democratic recipient of money from the industries that have defeated other attempts to reform the system.
In many other areas, Clinton has offered less detail than several of her rivals. It might not concern me as much if I didn’t know that she was getting so much money from people who are clearly not interested in progressive change.
Someone needs to educate caucus-goers about where Hillary’s money is coming from. If voters are not aware, they may buy her “trust me to help you out” line.
desmoinesdem Tue 14 Aug 6:53 AM
She can do fluff...
Because no one doubts her ability to navigate policy. It’s not her weakness. Her weakness is being genuine. If she continues these ads, that should shore up that number.
It also reaches out to women. Did you see that ridiculous part where the woman begins to smile because of what Hillary said? That is classic. And blatant. And effective.
It’s all about polling. If her “ready to do the job” numbers go down, or if her numbers on a certain issue go down, they’ll switch to an issue-based ad on either that issue, or their strongest issue. But for now, there’s no need to. Her numbers are strong there.
Expect to see more fluffy ads like this in the future, especially relating to women’s issues. She needs, needs, NEEDS women votes to win.
snipehunter Tue 14 Aug 5:06 PM
My problem with Hillary isn't really with Hillary...
I love Hillary personally. I always have.
That being said, I realize that for reasons that I have NEVER understood (I still don’t), a lot of people really dislike her (even hate her). Hillary comes with baggage. A LOT of baggage. Her name recognition is her greatest asset as well as her greatest weakness; the same can be said of her husband (who, of course, I also love). A poll found that 52% of Americans asked said they disliked her.
So here IS the problem: money can’t buy you love. Money cannot buy HIllary love. It can’t undo the past. It can’t unpack or unload that baggage that has been thrust upon her by the public. There are not enough advertisements in the world to make that 52% change their mind about her.
I think we can all list the reasons why she would be a great President. That is because we are Democrats and we like the Clintons. But we are not the only people voting in November. We may not even be a majority of people voting in November.
She isn’t viable. It hurts me to think that. It isn’t fair necessarily but it is the truth that Dems don’t seem to want to admit about the general public and the general election.
armywife Tue 14 Aug 7:00 PM
I agree, and for this reason
I think she should have recognized reality and not run for president.
She would have an uphill climb to be elected, and even if she won the election, our down-ticket candidates would be savaged in many red and purple states.
It really bothers me that the Clintons are not able to grasp the harm she would do at the top of the ticket.
Rural voters, who decisively swung to the GOP in the 1990s, are just starting to swing back in our direction. That puts many more states into play for Democrats. But no, Hillary needs to move back in the White House, even if it drives rural voters right back to the Republicans.
The GOP is in such disarray now–a campaign against Hillary is just the shot in the arm that they need.
desmoinesdem Wed 15 Aug 12:37 AM