07.14.2016 08:06 AM

One of the best political spots you will ever see

Wow.

,

26 Comments

  1. MississaugaPeter says:

    IMO, a lame, Daisy attempt.

    1. The reality is no one buys that children are actually watching news.

    2. You know who it is for and poof, yup, your suspicion is satisfied when you see the most mistrusted, leading, presidential candidate ever, endorsing the commercial.

    If it was endorsed and paid for by some non-profit or independent individuals, it may be a K ad.

    When it is endorsed and paid for by Clinton, it is going to get mocked, and an imitation ad, doing the same of Clinton with children watching, will occur and probably have even greater effect.

    I can see the use of children now being a great part of the campaign. U.S. politics sinks even deeper.

    As I have stated before, Clinton wins if there are no terrorist attacks in October. If there is, Trump wins.

    Just like we would have no Trudeau prime ministership if Paris had happened a month earlier.

    Unfortunately, IMO, the choice of Clinton over Trump is a choice of two almost equally disgusting, self-serving individuals.

    • Francis says:

      Its a good your opinion is completely worthless.

      • bluegreenblogger says:

        Correction, MOSTLY worthless. It is a great piece for right now. It is in two parts. Part one is devastating. Part two though… It would be more effective in flogging Trump if it were all part one. Remember, she ain’t working on turnout yet, and there aren’t any other Candidates to worry about, or even nod to at this juncture. Name recognition is not a thing here, nobody in the World has better, so why dwell on Hillary more than legally required? Kill Trumps fundraising, right at the outset. This Presidential Campaign is going to be a rout. I seriously think that Trump had no intention of being President. He is building a loyal following of nutters, from whom he will milk money for the rest of their lives. He could have had the racists, and the mainstream too, but he balked at that. Anyway, thanks for posting this Warren. It gives us a taste of just how big a pile driver is heading Trumps way.

  2. Anish says:

    But does it matter? She’s spent $46 million on ads compared to his $1M and the polls in many swing states are quite close. http://on.msnbc.com/29F3BhT

    The big question is does Trump get his act together and actually start a ground game? I thought he would by now but clearly isn’t interested in it and more interested in himself. Both are flawed candidates – he’s just far more flawed than she is.

    • Eric Weiss says:

      Yep, both of them are lucky they’re going against the only candidate either of them could possibly beat. I don’t know if both parties could set the bar any lower.

  3. The Doctor says:

    If Trump is able to reproduce the dynamic of Nixon’s 1968 campaign, that’s a possible winning scenario — where blue-collar, middle America gets sick and tired of all of the rioting etc. and goes for the “silent majority” law-and-order Old America candidate. Trump’s speech the other day where he branded himself the law-and-order candidate? That was pure Nixon 1968.

    • Derek Pearce says:

      It’s not 1968. People will blame Trump himself if there’s rioting in Cleveland.

      • The Doctor says:

        I was around in 1968, and the similarities are not something you should just blithely dismiss. I hope Trump doesn’t win, but the raw ingredients for a Trump victory are there. Including an utterly uninspiring, compromised candidate on the Democratic Party side (see Hubert Humphrey circa 1968).

  4. Sean says:

    That is a an excellent spot because it communicates a lot with very little. Ive been anticipating that a political campaign would copy those bank ads with the kids and the truck a few years back. An innocent child’s reaction to wildly unacceptable behavior is universal and unassailable. This is a strong gut reaction which the ad captures well. It also reminds voters of the positive emotions they may have towards Hillary, IE that she is a responsible mother figure. She wouldn’t let her kids watch this crap and neither would any other reasonable parent. It also drives home the idea that Trump has gone way to far and is out of control. So out of control that if he won, we would never be able to explain it to our children.

  5. nosurprises says:

    Trump should come up with an ad showing the results of the Libyan attack against the American ambassador and the US soldiers who died there.

    Picture it…..Ambassador steven’s body being dragged around the streets, violated, bruised, and battered. American flag drapping the coffins of the brave bastards who tried to save the embassy……

    And then a tape of Hillary Clinton saying, “At what point now does it really matter?”

    She let those men die, and then she lied to the faces of the families of these men. She closed her eyes to those men she is asking to grant her the right to be the Commander in Chief.

    sorry…but if you let your troops die for political reasons, you don’t deserve to lead them.

    Anyone with a relative in uniform would be insane or in denial to vote for any Clinton.

    • The Doctor says:

      Excuse me, but no “troops” died in the Benghazi attacks. Four Americans died: Ambassador Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and two CIA operatives, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs.

      • The Doctor says:

        . . . And according to the doctor who attended to Ambassador Stevens and administered CPR on him at the Bnghazi Medical Center, he died from asphyxiation caused by smoke inhalation, and he had no other injuries.

      • nosurprises says:

        Four AMERICANS died……trying to save other Americans. You purposely try to avoid the main topic of the discussion; albeit poorly.

        Hillary CLINTON sat by while these men were murdered, and she did so KNOWING they would be murdered. She did it for political reasons…and then she LIED about it.

        Some have indicated that she wanted the ambassador dead because he know about certain arms deals with some pretty nasty folks. I guess the CIA guys and the other dude were just collateral damage.

        Oh well…she WILL be the first female president. Think of it…first black president, followed by first Woman president….and both will go down as the two worst in Ameirican history. Not sure how blacks will feel about that, or women.

        At least Obama can still claim to be half-white.

  6. bluegreenblogger says:

    I am surprised, sort of, that so many people seem to think that Hillary is a flawed candidate, or, and I quote, a ‘Criminal’ candidate. She has been a powerful public figure for a very long time. If ‘flawed’ is the best critique you can come up with after 30 years exposure.., or if you think that using a google account is more important than what she actually did for all those years, well… I have to wonder if flawed means she is not a man, but you just cannot say that aloud? I mention it because I have seen very very very few specific criticisms of Hillary Clinton, just loose and generic phrasing like flawed, unlikeable, wooden, but little substantive critique at all.

    • Luke says:

      The criticisms that resonate with me are that she flip-flops a lot in an apparently opportunistic way (e.g., TPP, gay marriage) and generally is interventionist in her foreign policy strategy at times when it has resulted in disaster (e.g., Iraq, which was based on inadequate and inaccurate intel). But that is all moot for me now, because Donald Trump is a sociopath who shows nary a hint of discomfort in uttering blatant lies and self-contradictions. Hence, Hillary’s dishonesty pales in comparison. That stuff only mattered to me when it was about her versus Bernie, who has way less baggage in terms of trustworthiness and dishonesty than Hillary does.

      I see her being a woman as a selling point, if anything. There are way too few women in positions of political power in Canada, the USA, and Britain, so it would be nice to see a change on that front.

      • bluegreenblogger says:

        like everything in politics, the selling point is two edged. The question for the Campaign is whether it is a net plus or minus, and how to improve on that. For you and I, we can only guess, but yes, her Campaign will milk every single vote they can from her sex, and it is pretty surely an advantage for her. Trump will also hoover up every misogynist he can find. I guess I was speaking specifically of Canadians commenting on US Politics. We generally know one Presidential Candidate, and the other is a complete stranger when first selected. We form outrageously ill-informed opinions, which generally go: The Republican is just to the right of Genghis Khan, the world is ending! God bless the Democrats! In this case, Hillary has been there very much in the public eye since her husbands first term. Things like ‘flip flop’ is pure talking point. It means she has changed her mind. Over a 24 year period, facing thousands of public issues, I should certainly hope she has! It is not her foreign policy either, it is President Obama’s policy, implemented by Hillary. But I am not trying to quibble about her qualifications. There is a whole election campaign going on that will explore them no doubt. I am interested about the fact that Canadians take on board very partisan views of US politicians. I see Canadian partisanship and it licenses people to say the most ridiculous things. I get it, we all have something at stake, and we kind of know when we are over the top. But to take on board the ridiculous when we do not even vote there? What’s with that? Something driving opinion besides partisanship? Just an observation.

  7. BillBC says:

    I’m replying because I agree with you…I’d also vote for Clinton (yuk) because Trump is considerably more repulsive, as this commercial makes clear.

    But I can imagine commercials that would make Clinton look pretty bad too

  8. Fraternite says:

    It was a good ad until Hillary showed up.

  9. jim says:

    That’s all they’re asking of you, Les. Don’t overthink it.

  10. Kelly says:

    Spot was good until HC came on. She has high negatives.Taking money from people linked to governments that chop of the heads of fornicators and sorcerers doesn’t set a good example either.

    • bluegreenblogger says:

      nope. Jimmy Carter holds that prize, imho. Second worst President of my lifetime, but the best man of the lot. (Bush Jr., Carter, Nixon in that order)

  11. Maps Onburt says:

    It’s working really well… She’s falling ever further behind Trump. Latest poll has her falling at 37% and Trump rising at 44%… Bernie’s supporters are doing a Fart-In on her… and she is doing politics on dead cops when their bodies were still warm. She’s done. The truth is more American’s despise her than they do even that idiot Trump. Daisy or not.

  12. Luke says:

    I like it, but I wonder if it reaches anyone who isn’t already onside. Do Trump’s supporters think about things in the way this ad requires of them? I don’t know. I guess he has enough support that he must be extracting support from SOME conscionable people… but will those people believe that the fear of a bad example outweighs their desire to put a check mark beside the option that had might as well say “FUCK YOU”? I don’t know. My concern is that if Trump’s horrendous commentary hasn’t ruined him already it isn’t going to do much else now.

    I think Hillary should try to capture the angry vote by admitting that she is the establishment candidate, and that gives her more knowledge about what is wrong with “the system” than anybody else. She has been in the thick of it for decades, and is fed up with all the bullshit and knows just what to do to fix it, blah blah blah. Maybe something like that would work. Would have helped had she chosen Bernie as VP nominee, as he would then be in a position that most of his backers, who are pissed, would believe gives him some ability to hold the administration to account. Seems she is not going to do that though.

  13. Peter says:

    Time to juxtapose:

    Donald Trump (on who will be speaking at the GOP convention given that not even Palin will attend):

    –“You know, when you have [Ultimate Fighting Championship President] Dana White and you have some of the people we have on … [Famed evangelist] Franklin Graham is going to be speaking and so many different people,” he said in the Washington Examiner interview. “We have [retired Indiana college basketball coach] Bobby Knight, Coach Knight, who helped me so much in Indiana and elsewhere. I don’t know, I think it’s a really great group of speakers.”

    Charles Cooke (National Review)

    –“As it always does, the Democratic party will characterize the American right as a dangerous collection of freaks and grifters; and, once again, the American right will present onlookers with evidence this is true.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*