Suburban Guerrilla

« Flu-ish

Wolves »

Daisy

Feb 29th, 2008 at 10:38 am by Chris

A daisy ad? This seems like a good idea? Seriously?

Update: Via Brendan, here’s the actual thing.

Posted in General

15 Responses to “Daisy”

on 29 Feb 2008 at 10:49 am1joe

and now HRC is floating the idea of suing to get the TX primary/caucus rules deemed illegal (actually suing to get them changed because she will lose). Or trying to lay the groundwork for the push to PA saying Texas wasn’t fair so she still has a chance. Truly Bush-league.
on 29 Feb 2008 at 10:55 am2brendancalling

that is just fucking lame. Aravosis has the ad itself.

Just lame.
on 29 Feb 2008 at 11:02 am3Susie

Oh, come on. You mean like how Obama supporters started threatening superdelegates with primary challenges if they didn’t vote for Obama? They’re both playing hardball.
on 29 Feb 2008 at 11:04 am4brendancalling

yeah, I understand they’re both playing hardball.
And I think both tactics are pretty fucking lame.
on 29 Feb 2008 at 11:46 am5Chris

Susie, no I didn’t mean that at all. I think I’m usually pretty clear about what I mean and if I’d meant that, I would have typed it. I sort of have a long history of being bothered by the use of fear mongering of the “yer gonna die” variety as a political strategy, though I certainly won’t deny that it’s effective. Threatening to primary elected officials to get them to do what you want is absolutely peachy in my book. It should happen more often. If anything bothers me about that particular subject, it’s that Obama’s people haven’t used the same tactic to swing congressional votes on critical legislation. They should have spent the last two years threatening the Bush Dogs in an effort to get them to stop being so effing stupid, but they didn’t. Too bad.
on 29 Feb 2008 at 11:55 am6ebw

i may be too old to play, but daisy existed in a specific context, duck and cover in the schools and all that fun.

so how can a campaign make foreign policy a differentiating factor? usually it isn’t (insert many campaign history cites here) — the banana problem with the e.u.? softwood in pulp, ply, and dimension with canada?

and how in the hell is any vote-for-what-you-know (experience) message inherently better or worse than any vote-for-what-you-don’t-know (change) message?
on 29 Feb 2008 at 12:23 pm7Stuart

OK, I have one fairly stupid question to ask about the relevance of foreign policy experience, or Federal experience as well and while this may not be the best place to ask it, I’m going to anyway.

How much foreign policy experience did the 1st Clinton to run for President have? If memory serves, not much would be the answer. And I am surprised the Obama group hasn’t figured out how to use that to their advantage. Not that there is all that much difference between HRC and BHO in my mind.

Also since I am taking the time to write, I have to mention that this blog was my introduction to blogs in general and I read it every day, even though I live in suburban Chicago. Do what you feel you need to Susie, but I hope that you continue to post whatever you want to whenever you can. I love your voice on here and for a time could say that I had a bit of a crush on you based solely on this blog.
on 29 Feb 2008 at 1:57 pm8mbw

You’ve got to be kidding. There is absolutely no comparison between the “Daisy” ad and the Clinton ad. Frankly, I found it laughable watching it after hearing the hype, and I would imagine other people my age and older, who actually remember living under the threat of nuclear annihilation (and crazy leaders like Reagan,) will sigh and shake their heads at the Obama camp’s behavior. I’m beginning to wonder if he can’t take a mild roughing up, how is he going to handle the real beating the GOP is preparing.

And, yes, Clinton sucks too. God, Nader/Gonzales looks better and better every day.
on 29 Feb 2008 at 2:40 pm9Chris

Point taken MBW, but I don’t entirely get how they’ll shake their heads at Obama’s behavior. I’ve only seen one response from them and it was pretty standard stuff. Not really head shaking material. The comparison you don’t like was made by me. And while I know you think I’ve been assimilated into the O-Borg, my mind is not actually being remotely controlled by some nefarious hive like structure. Wouldn’t they just shake their heads at me?
on 29 Feb 2008 at 2:40 pm10joe

OB commented on the ad earlier today and hit it out of the park. HRC is beyond desperate. She now has lowered expectations by claiming if OB doesn’t win big on Tuesday he is in trouble. So HRC can win Rhode Island and claim to capture the mo heading towards PA. What a joke! Hell, bill himself is now being quoted from the ’90’s by the OB camp about siding with hope over fear!

So today HRC strategies have become:

FEAR
Sue
Lower expectations
Forecast big momentum shift by “not losing big”…”hey, at least we didn’t lose by 20!”

It is now a campaign in the final death gasps…
on 29 Feb 2008 at 3:22 pm11brendancalling

“God, Nader/Gonzales looks better and better every day.”

Frankly, so does moving to an uncharted desert isle, with or without seven stranded castaways.
on 29 Feb 2008 at 6:57 pm12CabinGirl

Brendan: can I be one of the seven, and will you brew us beer while we’re there?
on 01 Mar 2008 at 2:59 pm13memyself

Actually my biggest problem with the Clinton ad is how badly it is done. It is this kind of amateur hour production and all of the grossly wrong decisions about campaign strategy that led me to the conclusion that she would be much more likely to lose the general election.

The phone rings 6 times before d being picked up by Clinton who looks like she just stepped out of a beauty parlor (wearing pearls for gawds sake!). The jokes about why she was waiting up and all dolled up at 3 am wrote themselves and they began circulating almost immediately.

Then the ad DOESN’T even tell you that Clinton would be the best person to lead when that phone call comes. It just asks “who would you want”.

The Obama campaign’s response was actually quite obvious to anyone versed in these things. They were further awarded by the inept Clinton team using stock photos instead of something only they had the rights to, so the beginning of Obama’s ad was essentially an exact copy using the same stock photos. His ad works better regardless of which one you see first.

Hillary really should have fired most of her campaign staff and started over long ago.
on 02 Mar 2008 at 12:32 am14John Petty

I think it’s a damn good ad, and raises perfectly legitimate questions. Who DO you want answering that phone? I think especially of a comment I read recently where someone was interviewing a politically-independent Pentagon military strategist. This was early in the campaign. He was asked which Democratic candidates “got it” regarding use of the military. He said, “Other than Hillary, you mean?”

Her husband managed to make peace in northern Ireland, damn near made peace in the middle east, and fought a war without losing one single American soldier–and she’s smarter than he is.

It must be touching a nerve because the blogosphere, 90% Obama, is all freaked out about it.
on 05 Mar 2008 at 4:44 pm15Eric Nowak

So much for those “death throes”, dum dums. Looks as if her red phone ad has served her well. Practical Democrats know that Islamic leaders like Ahminejad (?) will eat Obama alive. That his multi-ethnic background will appease Islamic fascism is laughable.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Daisy

15 Responses to “Daisy”

Leave a Reply

My Liberal Identity:

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Tags

Pages