<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Poll Update: Clinton leads by eighteen over Obama</title>
	<link>http://www.bloggernews.net/19550</link>
	<description>High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:13:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jason Easley</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernews.net/19550#comment-77386</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Easley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:17:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bloggernews.net/19550#comment-77386</guid>
		<description>Hillary is so polarizing. People have known her for 15 years, and I don't think she is going to change many minds. On one level what's going on here is that after the ineptitude of the Bush administration, people are drawn to Clinton because she is the only candidate in either party who will run a competent adminstration. I do think she is the best candidate the Democrats have to offer, but I think she is going to struggle in the general election no matter who the Republicans run against her. It won't be easy for her. Oh and the Clinton team has some of the best minds in the Democratic Party. These people know how to run a campaign.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hillary is so polarizing. People have known her for 15 years, and I don&#8217;t think she is going to change many minds. On one level what&#8217;s going on here is that after the ineptitude of the Bush administration, people are drawn to Clinton because she is the only candidate in either party who will run a competent adminstration. I do think she is the best candidate the Democrats have to offer, but I think she is going to struggle in the general election no matter who the Republicans run against her. It won&#8217;t be easy for her. Oh and the Clinton team has some of the best minds in the Democratic Party. These people know how to run a campaign.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mp</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernews.net/19550#comment-77324</link>
		<dc:creator>mp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:07:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bloggernews.net/19550#comment-77324</guid>
		<description>Critique: Clinton's 'Invisible' Touch
August 20, 2007
By Barbara Lippert

Clinton's ad push is all about 'visibility.'
NEW YORK It's a four-month sprint to the Iowa Caucuses and Hillary Clinton has launched her "first" ad of the campaign, now running on her Web site and on TV in Iowa. Called "Invisible," the not-so-invisible attack on President Bush is a new-fangled negative ad that somehow comes off as positive—half "Morning in America"/half "Man from Hope," with a little FDR thrown in for good measure. It's also the most presidential ad to come down the pike so far.

Open on Clinton walking in a field with an elderly gentleman in a cowboy hat, aviator sunglasses, plaid shirt and jeans (the ghost of Ronald Reagan?). The music soars and so does her voiceover, which is from an actual political speech she gave, images of which are interspersed with her speaking to a group of farmers, playing with a baby, reading to pre-schoolers, hugging a returning soldier: "As I travel around America, I hear from so many people who feel like they're just invisible to their government." There seems to be a little reverberation in her voice, like the famous FDR "nothing to fear but fear itself." "If you're a family who's struggling without healthcare," she continues, "if you're a single mom trying to find childcare and I never thought I'd say this, but if you're a returning soldier from Iraq or Afghanistan, you may be invisible to this president, but you're not invisible to me."

The spot is amazingly artful in hammering away at Bush without mentioning him by name. Instead, she keeps saying, "this president" and ends with, "They won't be invisible to the next president of the United States." This suggests you get her as the next president, but there's always room for Bill, whose name remains unspoken.

This great ad is part and parcel of the way Clinton has run her campaign, which is consistently disciplined and on message. From the debates to her quips, she seems self-confident and in charge, not brittle or shrill.

There's been a slow evolution in Clinton's world, where people who were haters are slowly coming to see her in a different light. Her ad uses all the standard, old-fashioned political ad tactics (walking and talking in Iowa, giving stump speeches), but because she's a woman running for president, it comes off as new.

There's an almost subliminal suggestion that just as she runs a campaign, she'll run the country. It's calm, clear and, to repeat the not-so-subtle theme, very presidential.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Critique: Clinton&#8217;s &#8216;Invisible&#8217; Touch<br />
August 20, 2007<br />
By Barbara Lippert</p>
<p>Clinton&#8217;s ad push is all about &#8216;visibility.&#8217;<br />
NEW YORK It&#8217;s a four-month sprint to the Iowa Caucuses and Hillary Clinton has launched her &#8220;first&#8221; ad of the campaign, now running on her Web site and on TV in Iowa. Called &#8220;Invisible,&#8221; the not-so-invisible attack on President Bush is a new-fangled negative ad that somehow comes off as positive—half &#8220;Morning in America&#8221;/half &#8220;Man from Hope,&#8221; with a little FDR thrown in for good measure. It&#8217;s also the most presidential ad to come down the pike so far.</p>
<p>Open on Clinton walking in a field with an elderly gentleman in a cowboy hat, aviator sunglasses, plaid shirt and jeans (the ghost of Ronald Reagan?). The music soars and so does her voiceover, which is from an actual political speech she gave, images of which are interspersed with her speaking to a group of farmers, playing with a baby, reading to pre-schoolers, hugging a returning soldier: &#8220;As I travel around America, I hear from so many people who feel like they&#8217;re just invisible to their government.&#8221; There seems to be a little reverberation in her voice, like the famous FDR &#8220;nothing to fear but fear itself.&#8221; &#8220;If you&#8217;re a family who&#8217;s struggling without healthcare,&#8221; she continues, &#8220;if you&#8217;re a single mom trying to find childcare and I never thought I&#8217;d say this, but if you&#8217;re a returning soldier from Iraq or Afghanistan, you may be invisible to this president, but you&#8217;re not invisible to me.&#8221;</p>
<p>The spot is amazingly artful in hammering away at Bush without mentioning him by name. Instead, she keeps saying, &#8220;this president&#8221; and ends with, &#8220;They won&#8217;t be invisible to the next president of the United States.&#8221; This suggests you get her as the next president, but there&#8217;s always room for Bill, whose name remains unspoken.</p>
<p>This great ad is part and parcel of the way Clinton has run her campaign, which is consistently disciplined and on message. From the debates to her quips, she seems self-confident and in charge, not brittle or shrill.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s been a slow evolution in Clinton&#8217;s world, where people who were haters are slowly coming to see her in a different light. Her ad uses all the standard, old-fashioned political ad tactics (walking and talking in Iowa, giving stump speeches), but because she&#8217;s a woman running for president, it comes off as new.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s an almost subliminal suggestion that just as she runs a campaign, she&#8217;ll run the country. It&#8217;s calm, clear and, to repeat the not-so-subtle theme, very presidential.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cwille</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernews.net/19550#comment-77278</link>
		<dc:creator>cwille</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:40:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bloggernews.net/19550#comment-77278</guid>
		<description>Your analysis that the dems may "pay a heavy price .. for nominating someone as devisive and polarizing as Clinton," of course may be true, but I think not.  

I would rather see Hillary in the White House then her dem opponents for a variety of reasons including reperience. Beyond that though,  I think her track record of moving voters to the positive column over the course of an election,  and frankly the potential reality of the existence of a "hidden bias" against a blackman when in the privacy of the voting booth make me feeel that she is indeed the best dem choice. Yes, I know that there are otyher potential candidates beyond Hillary and Barack, but I'm afraid they all have too step a mountain to climb this time around.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your analysis that the dems may &#8220;pay a heavy price .. for nominating someone as devisive and polarizing as Clinton,&#8221; of course may be true, but I think not.  </p>
<p>I would rather see Hillary in the White House then her dem opponents for a variety of reasons including reperience. Beyond that though,  I think her track record of moving voters to the positive column over the course of an election,  and frankly the potential reality of the existence of a &#8220;hidden bias&#8221; against a blackman when in the privacy of the voting booth make me feeel that she is indeed the best dem choice. Yes, I know that there are otyher potential candidates beyond Hillary and Barack, but I&#8217;m afraid they all have too step a mountain to climb this time around.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
