New Hillary Ad Focuses On Emotion, Passion

Comments (43)

SC Progressive wrote on January 11, 2008 5:31 PM:

Ms. Lewinsky testified that during this bathroom encounter, she and the President kissed, and he touched her bare breasts with his hands and his mouth. The President "was talking about performing oral sex on me," according to Ms. Lewinsky. But she stopped him because she was menstruating and he did not. Ms. Lewinsky did perform oral sex on him.

Afterward, she and the President moved to the Oval Office and talked. According to Ms. Lewinsky: "[H]e was chewing on a cigar. And then he had the cigar in his hand and he was kind of looking at the cigar in . . . sort of a naughty way. And so . . . I looked at the cigar and I looked at him and I said, we can do that, too, some time."

frankly0 wrote on January 11, 2008 5:35 PM:

It's a little corny, but it's a sweet ad.

frankly0 wrote on January 11, 2008 5:38 PM:

SCProgressive,

Maybe get a room?

MonaL wrote on January 11, 2008 5:39 PM:

It's a great ad.

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 5:39 PM:

Clinton's ad and Obama's ad are both really dumb and vacuous. Post-NH appears to be the extrasupersilly season.

BluePuppy wrote on January 11, 2008 5:45 PM:

Very smart to reinforce one of her best moments and the energy from the win. The racial stuff is very sad. Few people have spoken as honestly about race & racism than the Clintons. I think it's the slow implosion of Obama's campaign. His mostly white, elite supporters know it would very difficult for him to win without smearing Mrs. Clinton and distorting the Clintons' words.

NCSteve wrote on January 11, 2008 5:52 PM:

Look at the other people in the ad. Women, women, women, token black guy, women, women token old guy, women, women, women.

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 5:55 PM:

But Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates have no problem smearing Senator Obama with impunity because any counterattack will be dismissed as playing the race card or attacking her (victim card). You all must be so proud.

whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 11, 2008 5:55 PM:

BluePuppy, give me a break. Back to your old games of distorting reality again I see. Yes, it is definitely Obama constantly smearing Hillary, distorting her words, lol. Obama has run such a negative campaign, his ex-president wife has even been out on the campaign trail telling lies about her "fairy tales" positions.

Oohhh wait, no, this is reality as it turns out! Once again, another great example of zombie Clinton supporter lacking autonomous thought. Way to not only have no idea what you are talking about (as usual with you), but once again, you manage to get it completely backwards.

I can't even believe Hillary supporters could honestly believe at this point that Obama has run a more negative campaign than Hillary. It has been nothing but nonstop attacks against Obama since Iowa, and they keep getting lower and lower. Even before Iowa she had a dirty campaign, but this last week or so tops it all.

Michael A wrote on January 11, 2008 6:01 PM:

Bluepuppy, but, but, but she looked sooooooo hot in that jacket on stage. Wow, she is tooo hot. She's above all this negative politics and distortions. She is just HOT.

LJ wrote on January 11, 2008 6:08 PM:

I wonder who she'll be next week.

wes2 wrote on January 11, 2008 6:11 PM:

Emotion, maybe, if you count schmaltz or kitsch as emotional. Passion ... no way.

Incidentally, what exactly does "it's about people" mean? The other candidates are about what? Cyborgs, perhaps?

This really is the Celine Dion candidacy.

BluePuppy wrote on January 11, 2008 6:23 PM:

"Obama constantly smearing Hillary"....No, he doesn't. That's not what I wrote. I believe some of Hillary's supporters made some stupid smears about Obama, and they were rightly dismissed (well, at least one). I think Jesse Jackson Jr.'s TV interview was one of the worst examples of racial politics in memory. It smacks of desperation. The Clintons have been fighting racism nearly their whole lives. It's Rovian; attack their strength. And it undercuts Obama's appeal as a post-racial candidate. In fact, I think the Clintons are more associated with identity politics than is Obama, to his credit. But that comes from their life experience, particularly President Clinton and his seeing the evil of racism first-hand in Arkansas in the 1950 and '60s. Hillary’s attacks have been on Obama’s lack of experience and changing positions, not exactly revolutionary political tactics, but obviously effective. Do you think Maya Angelou would campaign for Hillary if she thought Hillary was racist or would play racial politics? Give me a break and go read Why the Caged Bird Sings.

Bupalos wrote on January 11, 2008 6:24 PM:

She's whatever you want her to be folks. Just ask, and she'll "find her voice" for that, too.

SC Progressive wrote on January 11, 2008 6:27 PM:

According to Ms. Lewinsky, she questioned the President about his interest in her. "I asked him why he doesn't ask me any questions about myself, and . . . is this just about sex . . . or do you have some interest in trying to get to know me as a person?" The President laughed and said, according to Ms. Lewinsky, that "he cherishes the time that he had with me." She considered it "a little bit odd" for him to speak of cherishing their time together "when I felt like he didn't really even know me yet."

BluePuppy wrote on January 11, 2008 6:35 PM:

Obama supporters don't smear; just ask SC Progressive.....who cares already about Lewinsky? A president cheated on his wife. Not exactly earth-shattering news.

Jan wrote on January 11, 2008 7:29 PM:

Clinton Haters are really weird.
And I'm not even addressing the jerk-off in the corner when I say that.

If Clinton is tough, then it's "How do we beat the bitch?"
hahahah, that's just hysterical in a Presidential election. Funny sort of along the lines of "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

If Clinton lets her guard down, it's "How do we ridicule the crybaby?"

Here in New Hampshire, what the local news showed us was Clinton trudging through the snow, block by block, asking voters for their votes.

Now, I've watched every single Presidential candidate in person since 2000. Hillary Clinton is the first one who trudged through the snow, block by block, asking for votes.

This is the side of Clinton that her supporters see constantly.

If Obama supporters can't acknowledge it, I think they are going to keep getting shocked as people around this nation vote.

I willing to accept Obama as the candidate.

It's the Clinton Haters, especially the Democrats, who seriously make me sick to my stomach.

The GOP spent their time last night lauding their only two-term President in the last 50 years (except, of course, the current Failure-in-Chief) as the greatest thing since Jesus Christ.

The Democrats spend their time last night labelling their only two-term President in the last 50 years a racist.
Wow.

Does that seem really, really stupid to anyone else?

TD wrote on January 11, 2008 7:45 PM:

Copycat, copycat. Liar, liar pants on fire.

hubris wrote on January 11, 2008 8:02 PM:

I can hear it now:

C: Holbrooke, this is about people now.

Holbrooke: Roger, bombs away!

With Rubin counting away in the background.

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 8:13 PM:

Is Clinton auditioning for a soap opera, or for the job of president? It's not entirely clear from the advertisement.

yibbayabba wrote on January 11, 2008 8:18 PM:

That's great, present your soft cuddly sweet human side, while you have your husband and your surrogates go out on the attack and trash Obama with any lies or misinformation they can come up with, with a subtle yet steady stream of race baiting.

Yeah, so sweet. I love that the woman who made Hillary "choke up" turned around and voted for Obama because she saw right through Hillary's soft act.

BluePuppy wrote on January 11, 2008 8:24 PM:

It's the Clinton Haters, especially the Democrats, who seriously make me sick to my stomach.

Jan, well said

donald wrote on January 11, 2008 8:26 PM:

Jan's comments are so, so correct. I've been a liberal Democrat since I first voted for John Kennedy, and did my part in the civil rights struggles, too. And in all the years since, I've never seen the level of bitterness and misinformation and outright slander aimed by one Democrat's followers against another's. We will divide ourselves for a generation if Mr. Obama does not stand up for his stated principles and tell his supporters to stop the divisiveness and slanders against Mrs. Clinton. How can we believe he will "bring us all together" if he tacitly allows or even encourages the worst kinds of viciousness. It's hard to tell in some posts here whether the writer is merely ignorant of the facts, or knows them and is deliberately slanting and distorting them. Especially noxious are all these claims that the Clintons are in any way racists. That is a damnable lie, and in these times, demands people of good will on both sides to denounce it. Even the right-wing attack machine in their past 15 years campaign of hate against the Clintons never ever went that far. You people need to read more, listen to the actual contexts of these things, reflect a little on what your leader's words are all about when he denounces the kind of hatefilled partisanship he sees in our country. And you need to stop this.

I was a strong Obama supporter here in Illinois and worked hard for him. The attacks he's permitted by his supporters have now swayed me completely to either Edwards or Clinton. He's not living up to his own standards.

rssrai wrote on January 11, 2008 8:29 PM:

John Edwards used the phrase politics insn't a game, it is about real people first in the last debate. The Clintons are so unoriginal that they have to steal phrases from other candidaes. Sad, just sad.

Anonymous wrote on January 11, 2008 9:07 PM:

Hillary's agenda is to divide the nation. Ok, Hillary so sisters unite and elect you president because they feel sorry for you. Do you really think you can govern by declaring war on men?

This nation needs a uniter not a divider, a leader not a token candidate elected because she is a woman, Bill Clinton's wife and co-dependent enabler, and corporate-financed.

As a nation we need to move FORWARD, and leave the status quo, warmongering, corporate serving Clintons and Bushes BEHIND US.

Lavocat wrote on January 11, 2008 9:08 PM:

I see the new software download has made the Hillarybot 2008 kinder and gentler.

And since Hillarybot 2008 doesn't actually cry (read the specs), my guess is that it was just glycerin.

I really have to wonder how many retards are lapping this crap up!

Apparently quite a few!

Random wrote on January 11, 2008 9:10 PM:

Hillary Clinton and her horriblty inept and misguided team are definig the campaign as Women against Men and Black against White. Do we really want to damage America simply to give Hillary her turn at being president?

This nation does not need this.

Concerned in Iowa wrote on January 11, 2008 9:13 PM:

So Mrs. Bill Clinton finally found a NEW Hillary that works, particularly with women who vote based on emotion instead of intellect. Nancy Pelosi x 1,000 and the capcity to declare (and continue) WAR. Heaven help us.

puzzled wrote on January 11, 2008 9:15 PM:

Hillary has found her "voice" but it is every bit as contrived, focus-group-tested and insincere as all of her other voices and hairdos. This is one dishonest person. If Hillary wins, America loses.

Franklin wrote on January 11, 2008 9:39 PM:

Jan, the issue for me isn't how hard Clinton works -- she clearly works very hard.

The issue for me is: Wow honest is her reasoning?

Do her arguments wash with reality? Even on an issue like Experience -- if this was indeed the most important thing -- why is it that she did not push for Biden, Dodd, and Richardson's candidacies (candidates who had much more extensive resumes than hers)?

Exactly what 35 years worth of experience is she referring too? What track record is she pointing too?

The issue of authenticity matters too. How can a person be an "agent of change" when he or she has shown absolutely no interest in good governance issues, like campaign finance reform?

The sad reality is that the Washington bubble is going to become even more disconnected with a candidate like Clinton who left the world as experienced by the great majority of us when she entered the White House in 1992 and became first lady.

There may be certain things that a person can pick up on a "listening tour" (even one in which questions are planted), but the experience of what has happened outside Washington bubble since 2000, Clinton just does not get.

As far as "Clinton-hating" goes, it really is amazing how in the span of just 5 months, I am beginning to see exactly where the GOP was coming from during the 1990s.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 11, 2008 9:50 PM:

First, I am going to go on record and suggest that the emotion Clinton displayed was genuine. Second, I am going to suggest that it was completely within Clinton's character.

I believe that Clinton was not hurt by the potential that flesh and blood humans might have less than warm and fuzzy feelings about who they preceive Clinton to be. Clinton continues to display a lack of a capacity to give a shit about what folk like you and I care about.

Clinton appears to have been startled into sadness by the possibility her loosing. Clinton personifies a sense of vanity and self possession. Clinton was not hurt by folk not liking her but by potentially spoiled ambition.

Not so pretty. Doesn't inspire sympathy . . . But if someone a little less center focused saw the display, they might misinterpret it as being personally effected by the textual meaning of the inquiry.

semaja wrote on January 11, 2008 10:19 PM:

Jan,
That was an EXCELLENT POST!

timbnyc wrote on January 11, 2008 10:41 PM:

A calculated ad promoting genuineness. The most that could be expected, I guess.

That's all they wrote on January 12, 2008 12:44 AM:

Like many so-called "liberals" of their generation, the Clintons like black folk -- so long as they are subordinate. Victims, needy poor -- all very good. The Clintons like to be perceived as 'helping' blacks (for example by limiting welfare benefits), especially if it involves photo-ops. Entertainers, sports figures -- that's fine, too, so long as they don't challenge the Clintons.

But a half-African lawyer who is more articulate, smarter (neither Bill nor Hillary taught law school and got top reviews from students), more authentically progressive, who actually spend time working day-to-day with poor people, and who might become the next President of the United States? Weeeelll, that's a little much, for them.

Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 7:33 AM:

Jan,

I started out in the campaign just opposing Hillary. I thought other candidates were better qualfied. But the Clintons have offended my core values just like Bush does, and I am reminded of how badly they offended those values in the 1990s, too.

Hillary's dishonest, mean, divisive Rove-inspired campaign and her mean, attack-dog supporters who post here, like you Jan and dcshungu, CalD, pacc have made me into a HILLARY HATER.

My only objective as a voter, volunteer and contributor is to do everything legal and responsible to assure that Hillary is not nominated or elected.

Thanks for the inspiration Jan. Now I got to bundle all these contributions for the anti-Hillary websites.

random wrote on January 12, 2008 7:43 AM:

Mrs. Bill Clinton's supporters insist on presenting her as a victim. That is the purpose of labeling anyone who disagrees with her as a "Hillary Hater." In this difficult world, we can't give the presidency to a candidate just because she is a woman and has a talent for getting vicitimized.

Hillary's strategy seems to be to amass a following of abused, angry women sufficient to give her the nomination and the presidency. Maybe she will succeed as a candidate, she will never succeed as a president, and the nation and the world will be the losers.

puzzled wrote on January 12, 2008 7:47 AM:

I read the post by a disaffected Clinton insider who was left the campaign. He/she was upset by the time, energy and expense being devoted by staff to planning Hillary's innaugural gown (first in the Smithsonian for a president, must be just right, hid those hips), her presidential portrait, and high paying positions for her cronies.

These are the things that matter to Hillary, Bill can do the other stuff.

Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2008 7:59 AM:

donald, "We will divide ourselves for a generation if Mr. Obama does not stand up for his stated principles and tell his supporters to stop the divisiveness and slanders against Mrs. Clinton. "

Mrs. Bill Clinton was dispised by much of the nation long before Obama dared to challenge her "inevitable presidency." Her dishonest, Rovian campaign tactics and Bill's big lies are dividing the Democrats like never before in hisotry. But the Clintons and the Bushes invented this era of deep, bitter, partisan divisions.

Hillary and her supporters need to take a long look in the mirror and decide if winning is worth destroying the party and the nation. For the Clintons, the answer is clearly Yes, Yes, a thousand times Yes.

claisen wrote on January 12, 2008 11:02 AM:

How's it that everytime Obama attacks Hillary (FACT: OBAMA attacks Hillary first by calling her Cheney-lite) it is ok and when Hillary merely defends her self by repeating words that Obama said himself, Obama cries negative campaign!?

That is the most ridiculous line ever. The amount of Hillary hatred generated by Obama's side is unfathomable. It just shows you how ambitious and how dirty Obama is willing to go in order to win the nomination. Obama knows that the only way he can take down Hillary is to make people hate Hillary. That's Obama's WHOLE platform. If you take away the hatred of Hillary, Obama is left with absolutely nothing - an empty suit, an American Idol wannabe president.

jim wrote on January 12, 2008 2:51 PM:

"Hillary. Actually a human."

Could the bar get any lower?

>> is to make people hate Hillary.

Hillary has been pretty good at that on her own for the past two decades. In fact, she had and has the highest negatives of any candidate before Obama said one word about Hillary. Here is a newsflash for you: 70% of the country despises Hillary, fairly or unfairly. Yeah, nomniate someone that most people can't stand: sounds like a great way to win the White House for the Democratic party.

Desider wrote on January 12, 2008 5:14 PM:

Franklin,

You can easily check Wikipedia for Hillary's 35 years experience. Give it a try.

Dave Adams wrote on January 12, 2008 9:46 PM:

OMG! Senator Clinton shows emotion!

Well that does it; I'm switching right now. The fact that if she's elected we'll have the same two families in the Executive Office for at least 24 consecutive years and that corporate power has run roughshod over the country during the last 20 or so makes no difference to me.

Nope; gotta keep things in perspective here. Dammit, she's capable of getting teary-eyed in public! Thats all that matters...

wglad wrote on January 12, 2008 10:54 PM:

Does anybody know what the relationship between the Kerrys and Mr. Obama really is? Is it just a politically expedient alliance, or is there more to it? I'm still trying to figure out how Mr. Obama came to the idea that he could be president so quickly. He says 7 years ago he was broke, then he got in the Illinois legislature, made Kerry's keynote, ran for the Senate, bought a house for $1.5 million, plus part of a lot next door, and decided to run for president. That seems like a pretty fast track for someone with no money or connections in high places.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)