About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

Two New Economic Ads From Clinton

Hlilary Clinton is airing two new economic-themed messages in Super Tuesday states.

"Freefall" makes dramatic use of a skydiver to show that only Hillary will help release the (economic) parachute.

"Can Do" delivers similar themes directly from the senator.

"We know you can't solve economic problems with political promises," Clinton says. "The stakes are too high, the future too important. We can turn our economy around and build a new age of prosperity. I'll bring more than my 35 years of experience to the White House. I will bring your voice, and your spirit."

-- Ed O'Keefe

By Ed O'Keefe |  January 31, 2008; 10:03 AM ET Ad Watch , Hillary Rodham Clinton
Previous: 'Caroline' Ad Links JFK Legacy to Obama | Next: Kennedy Promotes Obama on L.A. Hispanic Radio

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Every canidate claims they have the answers to the economy.What is so hard for the american people to understand about if you make $1000 a week you can't spend $2000 a day?When one of them does talk about cutting spending they talk about spending on pork barrel projects.Are the spending cuts there going to change anything?Not really they're small expenditures in the big picture.Wakeup people america is going broke.Where will we turn when china refuses to lend us more?Where do we go when they call in the loans we already have with them?That's the point that the united states folds like the roman empire and the ussr did.Quit voting for someone because thier a woman or because thier black.Vote for someone who will keep america from going broke and becomming a fond memory.

Posted by: pooty | January 31, 2008 11:17 AM

Hillary's Smear Campaign
By MICHAEL ZELDIN
January 31, 2008
Beginning with the South Carolina debate, and continuing as an applause line in many stump speeches thereafter, Hillary Clinton has accused Barack Obama of representing an inner-city slum lord while practicing law in Chicago. Of all people, Sen. Clinton should know better.
During the Whitewater investigation, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr investigated the legal work performed by Mrs. Clinton, then a partner in the Rose law firm, on behalf of Jim McDougal and his bank, Madison Guaranty. Mr. Starr believed that Mrs. Clinton helped orchestrate the fraudulent land deal known as Castle Grande. He subpoenaed her billing records, hauled her before a grand jury, and relentlessly pursued her.
In her defense, Mrs. Clinton and her attorneys asserted that her involvement in the matter was de minimus. As one of independent counsels who preceded Mr. Starr, I was interviewed repeatedly on the subject. I wholeheartedly defended Mrs. Clinton.
I believed that the evidence revealed that Mrs. Clinton, who spent a total of only 60 hours of work on the case over a 15-month period, was not substantially involved in the matter and did nothing improper in her work on behalf of Madison Guaranty. In the end, no charges were brought against Mrs. Clinton because there was insufficient evidence to prove that she knowingly assisted anyone in the perpetration of a fraud.
Yet, when an opportunity presented itself in the debate, Mrs. Clinton, without so much as a blink of an eye or the slightest blush, denounced Sen. Obama for representing "Tony Rezko in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago." Her accusation invites scrutiny. Not so much for the truth of the accusation (the facts are quite straightforward and completely benign) but as a window into Mrs. Clinton's character and as a lens with which to see whether a Clinton presidency will be a vehicle for change.
The facts are well documented: Upon graduation from Harvard Law School in 1991, Mr. Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law review, could have named his job at any law firm or corporate legal department in America. Instead, he selected a boutique civil rights law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland, where he represented community organizers, discrimination victims and black voters trying to force a redrawing of city ward boundaries.
During his tenure at Miner Barnhill, the firm accepted the representation of the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., a nonprofit group that redeveloped a run-down property on Chicago's South Side. Mr. Rezko, not the client of the firm, was assisting Woodland with City housing redevelopment projects. As a junior associate, Mr. Obama was asked by his supervising attorney, William Miceli, to do about five hours of basic due diligence and document review. That began and ended his involvement in the case.
No one who has ever practiced law, let alone Mrs. Clinton, could argue, with a clear conscience, that these five hours on behalf of a church group that partnered with a man who at a later point in time would be alleged to be a scoundrel equated to knowingly representing a Chicago slumlord. Yet she could not resist leveling the accusation.
I suggest that this provides a window into Mrs. Clinton's character because notwithstanding the enormous suffering she had to endure when accused of wrongful conduct in her representation of Madison Guaranty -- a representation that appears to have been no more than a routine business transaction -- she is willing to behave no differently than did her Whitewater accusers if she can gain politically. She appears to have learned no lessons from the Starr investigation.
Mrs. Clinton's willingness to ignore the truth for short-term political advantage is exactly what breeds the partisanship that's paralyzed Washington for too many years, and the cynicism felt by so many Americans, especially the young. Getting ahead by any means possible is the strategy. Once elected, the candidate falsely believes that he or she will be able to set things right and govern differently. All that was said in the campaign is rationalized -- it will be forgiven and forgotten as part of the hyperbole of the election process.
Sadly, it just isn't so. No one forgets and no one forgives in Washington. (Ask John Kerry if he has gotten over the Swift boat smear campaign.) How you get elected defines who you will be once in power. Mrs. Clinton has shown us with this one simple, baseless accusation why it will be hard for her candidacy to represent a change. She appears too comfortable with the politics of personal destruction if she can gain a political advantage.
Mr. Zeldin is a former independent counsel and federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. He has volunteered for Barack Obama in the Democratic primary campaign.

Posted by: DeborahT | January 31, 2008 2:29 PM

The New Economic Ads from Clinton as the caption reads reminds me of the Bill Clinton's election bout against Senior Bush in early 1990s. I wish to quote here from one of my articles (of 1993) - " All political decisions in the international politics are taken on economic considerations these days. What blocked Bush brave successfully despite his dream-come-true politrical accomplishments and what clinched Clinton the Presidency of the United States of America - his firm commitment to implement his better economy-building policy and plans. "

If Hillary Clinton fastens on - engrossed - considers closely and heaps up her attention, energies and her wealth of experience of the White House on the Economic Front, she surely stands solid chance of making it to the Presidency of the United States of America.

Posted by: Abdul Qayyum Khan | January 31, 2008 3:13 PM

"Two New Economic Ads from Clinton" as the title of this article reads, reminds me of the Bill Clinton's Election fight with Senior Bush in the early 1990s. I long to quote few lines from one of my articles (of 1993):

"All political decisions in the international politics are taken on economic considerations these days. What blocked Bush brave successfully despite his dream-come-true political accomplishments and what clinched Clinton the Presidency of the United States of America - his firm commitment to implement his better economy-building policy and plans."

If Hillary Clinton fastens on - engrossed - considers closely and heaps up her attention, energies and the wealth of her White House experience on the "Economic Front", I strongly feel she stands a solid chance to make it to the Presidency of the United States of America.

Posted by: abdulqayyumkhan1950 | January 31, 2008 4:36 PM

The first ad reminds me of Bush's fear tactics except instead of fear of terrorism, it's fear of a recession. I do like the second ad. I wonder how others will respond. Personally, I find the first ad cancels out the positive tone of the second ad. I imagine the 2 ads will target different audiences and are not meant to be seen together by the same people.

Neither ad answers my main concern though - how will we get out of this cycle of bubbles and bust - internet bubble in the 90's, now housing bubble. Also, what about corporate greed - Enron before and all the financial institutions now. Each time these bubbles burst, it's the regular folk who feel the pain most.

Posted by: Lisa | January 31, 2008 6:29 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company