Aug 15, 2007

On Hillary Clinton's "Invisible" Campaign Ad

As an independent voter with a crappy HSA medical insurance plan, I suppose that I am just the sort of person that the Democrats will love to court in 2008. Hillary Clinton just released an ad in Iowa this week that pushes the idea that many Americans feel "invisible" to their government. Here is the campaign ad, courtesy of YouTube:

I am, to say the least, underwhelmed at this first major advertising volley by a Democratic candidate. Senator Clinton mouths some uninspiring words bereft of content as a schlocky, contrived, amber-waves-of-grain musical accompaniment lulls the viewer into a stupor.

Hillary walks with a farmer, shakes hands with a machinist, hugs a pizza worker, reads with a small child, smiles with a single mom, hugs a veteran, talks with some more farmers, hugs an old lady, and brings a smile to a college girl's face. All the while the same background music - which sounds like a rejected score from TV's "Little House on the Prairie" - makes a lame attempt to tug at the heartstrings.

The closest this advertisement gets to passion is when when Hillary, reaching from deep within her well-rehearsed soul, and with as much authenticity as a set of faux wood blinds, declares that "if you're a family that is struggling, and you don't have healthcare, well, you are invisible - to this President."


The spot ends with Senator Clinton declaring that workers, single moms, and soldiers are "not invisible" to her, and that they will not be invisible to the next President.

Now, admittedly, I will grant that many people feel a sense of detachment from their government representatives, and that quite a few Americans have stopped believing that this is a land of opportunity. However, the entity that is clearly invisible (pun intended) is this campaign ad, or at least what should pass for a message in this era of political soundbites and impression-driven campaign marketing.

Senator Clinton: tell us what you are going to do for us, and do not annoy us with sappy, Hallmark-sounding campaign ads that have less substance than a half-eaten Twinkie with its filling sucked out.


Anonymous said...

Hilary Clinton is deliberately trying to hide her socialist sympathies.

MP said...

"Senator Clinton: tell us what you are going to do for us, and do not annoy us with sappy, Hallmark-sounding campaign ads that have less substance than a half-eaten Twinkie with its filling sucked out."

No, Mike. Way too much to ask of any candidate. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

No question the ad is sappy. But I don't think any viable candidate could avoid formulaic relative substance-free ads. The hard fact is that the candidates who try to deal mainly in hard-core substance (Kucinich, Ron Paul) or hard-core attitude with bite (Gravel), or try to be unscripted (Biden) go nowhere. The best bet is a serious person who masters the art of influencing mass opinion while retaining a real core. I believe Clinton has a real core, but that is not subject to proof. My reaction is that Romney does not--it's been said the question on Romney is whether the cup is half empty or completely empty. Giuliani has a real core, and it's nutty as a fruitcake. On so on...

Anonymous said...

What is she supposed to "do" for us? Or, is leadership now measured by how much "free" stuff we're going to get?

Maggie Thurber said...

actually, I'm a bit frustrated by candidates (both parties) trying to run against Bush...

He's term-limited and isn't a candidate...

I want to know why a candidate is going to be better than my OTHER options - and that doesn't include the incumbent.

I wish they'd run FOR something - rather than AGAINST the man who currently occupies the seat.

Draw your contrasts with the others on the ballot - then we'll see...

historymike said...

Anonymous #1:

I highly doubt that Hillary Clinton has "socialist sympathies." At this point, I cannot even be sure what sympathies Hillary has.

historymike said...


Heh. Perhaps I do expect too much from a presidential candidate. Maybe I should just whack myself in the head with a hammer a dozen times and then the ad would match my intellect.


historymike said...

Anonymous #2:

You raise an interesting - and depressing - point about American politics. Perhaps the average voter's attention span and intellectual ability are so low that this is what passes for political discourse.

historymike said...

Anoynmous #3:

No, it's not about "free stuff." Don't go there.

It's about demanding that politicians announce a political agenda, instead of just attacking opponents or putting out fluffy nonsense like the "Invisible" ad.

historymike said...

Agreed, Maggie.

Aside from Karl Rove and Laura Bush, there are few people who are trumpeting the "success" of GWB. Had the Iraq War not turned into a bloody debacle, GWB might have had an opportunity to push a domestic agenda.

Blasting GWB in the ads only tells people what they already know.

historymike said...

And, while we are talking about "Invisible":

You know who is truly "invisible" in this ad? People of color.

Watch the spot closely and tell me if you see any African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, or Asian Americans in this ad. There is a small child in the reading group who might be Hispanic or a light-skinned African American, but that's it.

Pretty sorry for a candidate who bills herself as someone who respects inclusiveness and diversity.

-Sepp said...

Maggie, their not really running "against Bush" their trying to make it clear that they're NOT Bush or, anything simular!

HM, "struggling families without insurance", "mothers without childcare" she is pointing out that under her "leadership" the government will be getting it for them...something for free?
If I had my way, I'd be more invisable to the government!!! Starting with giving back that social security number and having my name erased from anything related to it...may as well be a bar code tattooed on my arm.