Hillary's Christmas TV ad

Hillary has released her Christmas TV ad.

I won't comment on it other than to say that I think it's great she's still campaigning, even though the TV pundits have said that she's finished.

Enjoy. It's a brilliant TV spot.

Tags: Democrats, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, president (all tags)



Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad


She still scares me.  Even on Christmas.

by Namtrix 2007-12-19 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

Yeah Right.

Like there was a time you would take a break from your irrational fear of Hillary Clinton.

by lori 2007-12-19 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

Run and hide you wimp.

by RJEvans 2007-12-19 11:33AM | 0 recs
I hear that smart powerful women

have that effect on men with small feet.

Jk of course.... = )

by MollieBradford 2007-12-19 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I hear that smart powerful women

ha ha ha thats hysterical!

by sepulvedaj3 2007-12-19 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

Who said this?

The American people don't need a Santa Claus. They don't want a Santa Claus.

Answer here.

by Steve M 2007-12-19 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

and ?

I don't see your point.

Maybe sarcasm.

by lori 2007-12-19 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

I am just trying to be funny.

I hope you'll let me know if I ever succeed. :)

by Steve M 2007-12-19 11:24AM | 0 recs
Interesting catch

Maybe the difference between 1992 and 2008 is that after the beating the economy, our international standing, our military and the Constitution have taken from George II, we now truly need a Santa Claus.

by Coral 2007-12-19 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

Well, my guess was Paul Tsongas.

That's amazing how Bill Clinton took Tsongas's own line and wielded it as a club against him - not by claiming hypocrisy, or anything - but simply by repeating the line. Clinton's "argument" seems to have been nothing more than: "Tsongas is saying this, but I'm SAYING it."  


by Rob in Vermont 2007-12-19 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

Bill Clinton was the master.  He was so effective in framing Dole's 1996 campaign as a "bridge to the past" that many people actually think Dole used that line himself.

by Steve M 2007-12-19 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

Love it. Love it. Love it. She has got to be our next President. That's all I have to say!

by lonnette33 2007-12-19 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

I thought it was a really cute ad too. She didn't go for the fireplace/Christmas tree shot like most of the other candidates. The spot shows her working (gift wrapping) and there was some policy in the ad as well. Very Hillary!!

There was even a little drama with where was the last present....

Kudos to the campaign for an excellent spot.

by ademption 2007-12-19 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

Is there a woman in America who isn't playing out that exact scene at some point this week?

"Where did I put that...."

by hwc 2007-12-19 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

Good Tv spot but will have no effect on voters just like Giuliani ridiculous xmas ad will have no effect either way. He was so goofy[not in a good way]

by Jr1886 2007-12-19 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

Of course it will have no effect. We already know that Clinton's campaign is finished and that Saint Obama, the Chosen One, is the inevitable nominee.

I heard it on TV.

by hwc 2007-12-19 11:25AM | 0 recs
do you really have a college daughter?

because you're not acting mature enough to be college-age yourself.

Some pundits have predicted Obama would win Iowa, while others say it is still too close to call. No one has said Obama is inevitable.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-19 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: do you really have a college daughter?

He's the Chosen One (tm). Oprah said so.

by hwc 2007-12-19 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

We need a frontpage diary comparing the Christmas ads

by SixthElement 2007-12-19 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

My only critique, which isn't very big, is that the last one is "Universal Pre-K".  When you have a list of arguments or something, you are most likely to remember the first and last ones.  Why would you want people to remember Universal Pre-K when it isn't very high on the list of issues?  I would start and end with Universal Health Care and Ending the Iraq war (No particular order).  

But again, that's just nit-picky.  Not a big deal.  

by SixthElement 2007-12-19 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

I guess many view Christmas as a holiday during which children receive gifts.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-19 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

I guess that makes sense then.  Good point.  More personality, less policy.  Fits the season.  

by SixthElement 2007-12-19 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

It reveals how Hillary's policies have always focused on children and on those who are the most vulnerable.  If she focused on personality, she would place her family on display.  But because she is indeed running a campaign driven by policy, she chose to discuss issues.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-19 11:56AM | 0 recs
Merry Mandatory Inappropriate Schooling?

What the heck is this pre-K issue anyhow?  I am totally opposed to this notion.  There is a growing opposition to the idea that formal education is appropriate for younger children:

Young children develop primarily in their doing, learning through imitation and physical activity. The role of the teacher is to provide a model for the children and a secure space in which to discover the world. They are not yet ready for more formal classes. Thus, the teacher reserves the formal teaching of numbers and letters for the child's next developmental stage, signalled physically by the change of teeth, at about the age of seven.

Bob Hale and Karen MacLean - Overview of Steiner Education

To introduce this kind of mental activity at an early age is counter-productive and potentially damaging.  We should consider that we are merely projecting our adult aspirations and competitive behaviours inappropriately into the lives of our innocent children and interrupting their natural development.  Merry Christmas, Hillary, and thanks for meddling in my life.  You want to force me to buy over-priced health insurance and now it seems you want to carelessly drag my kids away from the security of their family and shove them into an adult world without the least consideration for their true needs.  Take your mandatory pre-K and shove it, lady.  Is this just day care for families struggling to keep both parents working because Hillary's constituency of corporations are hogging our prosperity?  Or is it just plain thoughtless and interfering?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 02:12PM | 0 recs
Better burn all those infant play toys.

Could develop a child's brain too quickly. Don't want that. Is this poster all there? It doesn't sound like it to me nor does he sound like a single parent for whom universal pr k would be a godsend.    

by ottovbvs 2007-12-19 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Better burn all those infant play toys.

The whole point is to be in harmony with the development of the child.  I find it frustrating trying to communicate these ideas to those who have, often, been damaged by our traditional misunderstanding of this process:

The reverence and respect felt by Steiner teachers for the special qualities of each stage of childhood shapes the school environment, the way children are spoken to, the materials used, the activities undertaken and the approach to learning at each developmental stage.

Teachers are dedicated to creating a genuine love of learning within each child. By freely using art, craft, music and language in conjunction with the teaching of academics, learning becomes a living, creative process. The academic subjects are enriched and enlivened in a way that meets the developmental stages of the children, offering both sensory and intellectual nourishment.

Steiner educators believe that children should not be rushed into adult consciousness but allowed to savour their childhood. To assist the young people to learn to know and love the world in childhood, to begin to develop good judgement in adolescence, to freely take responsibility for life's journey in adulthood; these are our tasks as teachers and parents.

Bob Hale and Karen MacLean - Overview of Steiner Education

Think about it for a minute before you make the typical response of belittling that which you have not considered and which may threaten your existing, and possibly narrow, beliefs.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Better burn all those infant play toys.

I have been a single parent since my child was five.  From your last comment I am assuming that this is just day-care by another name?  Is that the deal?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Merry Mandatory Inappropriate Schooling?

Shaun, I'm going to consult with my resident expert before I attempt a response to this.

by Steve M 2007-12-19 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Merry Mandatory Inappropriate Schooling?

Are you across this issue?  I have never heard of it before.  What is proposed?  The things we do!

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Merry Mandatory Inappropriate Schooling?

Well, for one thing, it's universal Pre-K, not MANDATORY Pre-K, at least as far as I know.  The truant officer will not be rounding up anyone's 4-year old.

Since we're talking about Hillary, this page has the outline of her Pre-K program.

I was under the impression that all the candidates favor something along these lines, so you might have to vote Republican if it's a problem. :)

by Steve M 2007-12-19 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Merry Mandatory Inappropriate Schooling?

Bad craziness.  I'll give you a précis of my firm beliefs around this, just for the record, as I feel very strongly about it.  There is nothing a child most requires before the age of five than the care and attention of parents and extended family.  Beyond then supervised socialisation with peers, art, music and language, hopefully in a context where play is not programmed or interrupted.  Preferably with a ratio of adults to children of not less than 1 in 12.  Formal mental training should not begin until the child's second teeth are developing and there are a whole bunch of good ideas about that too.

So long as it isn't mandatory.  But isn't this just day-care with a gloss on it?  Damaging stuff, neglect.  One of my theories on why 'things' seem to be devolving in our quality-of-life, values and generosity revolves around the traumatic experiences of most of us in separation from our parents in early childhood and the mismanagement of our academic and personal development in a reductionist, post-industrial society.  It could be easily remedied and we would all be a lot better off.

You should hear my rap on breastfeeding.  My ex and I were as shocked as we were apparently shocking when breastfeeding our child in public in NYC.  You guys have got some things all wrong.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 02:59PM | 0 recs
I've rarely gotten hostile looks

or comments when breastfeeding in public, even though Iowa is not as liberal as NYC.

I know some women who have had bad experiences, but I think the public acceptance of breastfeeding in the US is much greater than it used to be.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-19 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I've rarely gotten hostile looks

My experience was ten years ago but memorable.  On the first occasion, unaccustomed to modern American habits as we were, we were asked (read forced) to leave a modest Mid-town restaurant where the meals we had ordered had just been served.  On other occasions we were accosted in public.  My spouse ended up breastfeeding in public toilets,  which was most unsavoury, and ended up staying at my mother's home throughout the remainder of our stay with our young child.

I am glad to know things have changed, I was beyond shocked and most ashamed of the treatment of my increasingly frustrated and ultimately angry Australian spouse.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I've rarely gotten hostile looks

That is a very odd experience.  I can definitely attest to the fact that things have changed mightily, but, honestly, we have never encountered a problem in our neck of the woods, even with our other daughter, who is now 10.   Must be the town you went to, some narrow-minded fool putting his stamp on, although I can tell you that you would have easily won that argument in any type of legal and community standards aspect, had you pushed it and insisted.

by georgep 2007-12-19 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: I've rarely gotten hostile looks

Well, the 'town I went to' was mid-town Manhattan, it that's any help.  I am delighted to know things have changed, it was totally different here in Australia for some reason and we never even thought about it until that initial incident.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I've rarely gotten hostile looks

Here some more info on the subject for clarification of the legal aspects of this issue:

http://www.007b.com/breastfeeding_public .php

BTW, to the crux of the argument, are you sure it is not an "issue" to you because it is a Clinton staple, and you just have a problem with her, thus with her signature issues?

by georgep 2007-12-19 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I've rarely gotten hostile looks

Huh?  I didn't realise that pre-K was just day-care and that 'universal' didn't mean mandatory as it does with her health care plan.  Didn't mean to cause a scene but I feel pretty strongly about this stuff.  My kid starts high school next year at a Steiner high school and I am very grateful to have that opportunity for him.

Thanks for the breastfeeding link.  My spouse was so angry I am sure she would have marched straight back and staged a demonstration if she had known she was within her legal rights.  I'm kind of glad we didn't at the time though it was still a minor blow to international relations in our household.

Some of those testimonials on the page you linked to seemed to echo exactly our experience, I am gratified to know that things have moved on.  Cheers.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: I've rarely gotten hostile looks

Every once in a while there will be an incident here in NYC where someone gets told not to breast-feed in public at a restaurant or whatever, and dozens of angry mothers will organize for a "breast-in" or whatever they call it outside the establishment.  It happens, but in a city this big, everything happens at some point.  For the most part people are pretty cool about it, but yeah, the root of the problem is that there's just not that much breast-feeding in American culture.

The real cause is that we are a free-market country and breast-feeding is sort of a market failure.  All sorts of corporations have an incentive to try and get you to feed formula to your baby, but if you breast-feed, absolutely no one profits except the baby.  So where's the incentive for anyone to encourage you to do it?

by Steve M 2007-12-19 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: I've rarely gotten hostile looks

That's a good point.  The merits of breastfeeding are largely intangible, too, although from the perspective of social development, obesity and eating disorders and acquired immunisation from the mother there is starting to be some compelling positive evidence.  

It was one of the few cultural shocks I had returning to good ol' New York and as you say, anything is probable there.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Merry Mandatory Inappropriate Schooling?

The only thing I could find on your link, thanks, which came anywhere close to describing what is actually proposed, not who or how, is the following:

...specialized training in early childhood development; using an age-appropriate curriculum; ensuring that each child receives individualized attention.

Curriculum?  Four year olds?  Are you people doing this stuff already?  Is this like prep-school for primary school?  When do the kids just get to be kids without sharing their parents anxieties about careers?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Merry Mandatory Inappropriate Schooling?

Let's see:

...to ensure that parents a range of options when deciding where to enroll their children.

That's when not if.  Please tell me this isn't mandatory.  And here's the rationale:

According to a recent analysis by economist Robert Lynch, high quality universal pre-kindergarten programs pay for themselves after nine years and produce a growing annual return in the years beyond.

Robbing our kids of their childhoods for the sake of a fiscal return on investment.  You guys have lost the plot.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Merry Mandatory Inappropriate Schooling?

There are some people who believe that leaving young children unattended or poorly supervised because their parent(s) have to work is not desireable.

This, of course, is not a problem for all the Ward and June Cleaver Republican households in the country. But, finding daycare is a serious problem for many "invisible" Americans.

Don't worry about it. It's probably just a "woman's issue" that doesn't belong in the all-boys club of Presidential politics. It won't resonante.

by hwc 2007-12-19 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Merry Mandatory Inappropriate Schooling?

So this is just day-care?  An invidious necessity, I suppose.  What's the 'universal' part?  Just free to those who need it?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 03:11PM | 0 recs
Merry Mandatory Inappropriate Schooling?

Bingo. Daycare with age appropriate activities conducted by staff with training in toddler development.

by hwc 2007-12-19 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Merry Mandatory Inappropriate Schooling?

Free universal day-care I totally support, sorry.  I thought it was a mandatory, kid-swiping intervention of the Nanny state.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Merry Mandatory Inappropriate Schooling?

Here ya go:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/pr ek/

Hillary Clinton is proposing a national Pre-K initiative that would provide funding to states to establish high-quality pre-K programs.

States would have to devise a plan for making voluntary pre-K services universally available for all four year olds in the state in order to participate. In addition, they would provide pre-K at no cost to children from low-income children and/or limited English homes. As states increase participation and growth their programs, the federal government will be their partner, scaling up its investment in concert with states.


Because states use different methods for administering their early childhood systems, funds from this program will be allocated to Governors. Governors will use this funding to build upon their early childhood systems.


The proposal requires states to work with existing community-based preschools to ensure that parents a range of options when deciding where to enroll their children.

by hwc 2007-12-19 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Merry Mandatory Inappropriate Schooling?

Thanks, I read that from Steve's link above.  It just wasn't clear to me that it was just day-care and that it wasn't mandatory.  If it were mandatory I would fight this strenuously.  I am sympathetic to parents who must use day-care but it is a most unfortunate necessity.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 03:45PM | 0 recs
I agree with most of what you say

I did put my son in pre-school for three hours a day when he was three and a half, but I have friends who feel strongly about no pre-school.

I spend a little time on parenting blogs (mostly non-political), and I have read comments by mothers who are concerned that Democrats would make pre-school mandatory.

I think we need a better tag line than "universal pre-K." I have tried to explain to people that it's universal access for those who otherwise couldn't afford pre-school for their kids. But we don't want Republicans telling Americans that Democrats will force them to enroll kids in pre-school.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-19 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with most of what you say

I agree, and my initial reaction, however ill-informed, was perhaps forgiveable given that 'universal' is code for mandatory in health care but not pre-school.  I certainly support the notion of free day-care for those who require it due to constraints of income and demands of work.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with most of what you say

So are we cool?  The expert in my household said she agreed with a lot of the points you made, but that she was strongly in favor of universal pre-K regardless.

One thing to realize is that day care is poorly regulated in a lot of states, and it will definitely be a much better experience for the kids if we can make sure the caretakers have appropriate education and training.

The major issue is the number of families who have no parent to stay at home, or simply don't give their kids the attention and stimulation they need.  Pre-K probably isn't necessary if you have the right situation at home, and I certainly wouldn't want to make it mandatory, but an awful lot of families are far from the ideal situation.

A lot of kids, particularly from underprivileged areas, are simply never going to catch up if you don't give them a hand early on.

by Steve M 2007-12-19 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with most of what you say

Yes, and thanks for your patience.  Always good to do business with you.  As I said 'universal' when applied to schooling has a distinctly obligatory ring to it and I am delighted to realise that it is not mandatory.

I can certainly understand the need for free day-care.  The notion that kids need any kind of academic programming before year five or six seems counter-intuitive and strikes me as born out of fear rather than wisdom.  Thanks for the link, too.

I think she better let it be known that this is not a mandatory program.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with most of what you say

Shaun, "day care" is not necessarily "unfortunate," thought there's a SAHM (Stay At Home Mom) faction that would like you to believe so.  What is unfortunate is that so many day care options are virtual warehousing and not developmentally appropriate in their environments and those that are good cost an arm, a leg, and your second-born, hence so many single-child families.   Two decades ago, there were a number of places where I wouldn't leave  a child for ten minutes while I made a phone call.   Of course, now we have cell phones instead of pay phones but I'm pretty sure the problem remains.

by InigoMontoya 2007-12-19 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with most of what you say

I certainly understand the need.  I would have to include myself in the SAHMD (Stay At Home Mom or Dad) faction when all things are considered.  I am grateful though, and acknowledge it is a luxury I have both provided for and enjoyed which may not be available to others less fortunate.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with most of what you say

Nor is SAHM/D a good fit for all parents.   I take exception to those--some explicitly, some more subtly--who imply that parents who leave their kids in daycare are doing emotional damage and/or missing out on most of the joys of parenthood.  We wrapped our lives around our daughter until she left for college and even so "empty nesting" comes us slowly;   however, we never missed a school meeting, orchestra performances, ballet performances, yada yada yada.  Books were provided out the gazoo and TV was actively discouraged.  More to the point, we were emotionally present and involved every step of the way and proof is in the so-called pudding.  Sorry...you may have not meant to, but you hit one of my hot buttons.

by InigoMontoya 2007-12-19 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with most of what you say

No problem, I enjoy these discussions.  I do believe that some of our current social tendencies are damaging but kids are resilient too.  I wouldn't want to beat anyone over the head with it but alternative parents are often faced with obstacles due to misplaced 'conventional wisdom' and bureaucratic obstinacy.

Raising kids is a challenge and a joy and there is no such thing as 'bad parenting.'  This whole topic is one of my hot buttons too, especially where the institutionalised programs are interfering with well-intentioned parenting and schooling options which are outside the mainstream.  The necessity of two-income families seems to me to be at the heart of the problem.  How did we let them pull that one on us?

I love kids and am aghast at what I see as the recent fashion to fast-track their education at the expense of the innocence and security of childhood.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 10:17PM | 0 recs
what "mental activity" are`

you talking about?  What makes you think that pre-K means formal classroom education? in addition, no one said anything about it being mandatory.

You are way off base here.  

by MollieBradford 2007-12-19 04:26PM | 0 recs
I read some parenting blogs

I have seen comments by mothers who are concerned that Democrats would make pre-school mandatory.

I understand that Hillary is not proposing that, but I think some people don't get what Democrats mean by "universal pre-K." They think they will be forced to put their kids in pre-school.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-19 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: what "mental activity" are`

If it's not formal education how do you explain this:

According to a recent analysis by economist Robert Lynch, high quality universal pre-kindergarten programs pay for themselves after nine years and produce a growing annual return in the years beyond.

What does this mean if pre-K is not formal classroom training?  I firmly believe this is inappropriate for four-year olds.  I would be happy to see the provision of free day-care but would hope no scholastic demands would be made of the children.  They are our future and we must look after them.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: what "mental activity" are`

Is reading stories to 4 years olds a "scholastic demand"?

Is developing fine motor skills by drawing with crayons or using scissors to cut shapes a "scholastic demand"?

Is putting on a puppet show a "scholastic demand"?

How about playing with blocks? Counting to ten as part of a play activity?

How about Sesame Street, brought to you by the letter "B"? Scholastic demand?

by hwc 2007-12-19 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: what "mental activity" are`

No, that's all cool stuff, as the quotes I cited would concede.  Still don't get the ROI if that is the case, though.  My concern is merely that we might abbreviate the creative and playful years of childhood in our anxious concern to position our kids in a competitive academic and vocational marketplace.  There's plenty of time for the academic stuff when the kids are hungry for it, later.

The Steiner school philosophy was a real eye-opener to me when I first encountered it and I have become a firm believer.  In a Steiner pre-school there are very few man-made objects, just shells, pieces of wood and that kind of stuff.  No colouring books or pre-printed exercises, for example, just blank paper and pastels.  Lots of musical instruments but preferably ocarinas, drums and percussion made of natural or simple materials.

In some Steiner schools the architecture of the school itself reflects the philosophy, eschewing rectangular structures and inorganic materials and always seeking light and spacious surroundings.  The 'teaching' at that age is called guidance and interruptions or programming of the children's play is avoided.  Lots of singing and play-acting.  I find the whole process elegant and delightful and perfectly harmonious with my best wishes for my child's development.  Just thought you might be interested.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: what "mental activity" are`

Pastels, huh? How harmonious!

I think Clinton's thinking is a little more practical. She's concerned about children who have never had a story read to them. Or never been around people who speak English. Or have to make do with non-pastel colors. Hell, maybe even wear polyester...I know, how humiliating.

by hwc 2007-12-19 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: what "mental activity" are`

Pastels, I meant crayons.  Sure, I can understand that I am way off the charts here compared to the neglect which these programs are targeting.  Ironically, in my son's school some of the parents were among the lowest income families in the area and earned their tuitions by helping build the school.  But I take your point.  I totally support free day-care for low income families.  How 'bout the children of illegal immigrants?  Not that would be controversial.

I just read the New Yorker article on Spritzer and totally agree with him on licences for illegal immigrants, incidentally.  We gotta' fix that somehow.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-19 10:23PM | 0 recs
Re: what "mental activity" are`

I totally support free day-care for low income families.

the clintons pushed through welfare reform knowing that the safety net of subsidized day care would go underfunded. poor women were pushed into low paying jobs unable to afford day care.

by jello 2007-12-20 02:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

Matthews is having his usual panel of nattering nabobs of negativity on tonight to discuss how disgusting Hillary Clinton is for playing the gender card with her Christmas ad.

A second panel of experts will discuss the symbolism of the scissors and what Hillary really wants to do with them.

The Washington Post runs their follow up expose tomorrow.

by hwc 2007-12-19 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

Are you serious?

by lonnette33 2007-12-19 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

I don't know, I haven't watched Hardball yet!

by hwc 2007-12-19 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

that's an excellent ad

by CalDem 2007-12-19 11:51AM | 0 recs
What will Tweety say?

surely there is some deep hidden meaning behind this add that will have him clutching his "pearls" in fear.

by MollieBradford 2007-12-19 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

Loved it. Just right, not religious, not wonky, just  the right amount of humor. Perfect.

by redwine 2007-12-19 01:00PM | 0 recs
I 100% absolutely love this ad.

How many times have I said that?  "Where's that gift?"  I love that she doesn't go all religious, has the charming christmas song in the back, and especially, puts her agenda on present tags!  Love, love, love it!

by masslib1 2007-12-19 01:32PM | 0 recs
I am always hiding gifts

that I buy in advance for my kids, and a few times I haven't been able to find them when the birthday rolled around. Fortunately, I was able to grab something else from my "inventory" of kid presents.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-19 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I 100% absolutely love this ad.

I really like "Carol of the Bells," but have you ever noticed, literally EVERY ad on TV this time of year uses it?

by Steve M 2007-12-19 01:47PM | 0 recs
Great mix of political and Christmas

These glutinous, happy family, bs ads don't fool anyone. Giuliani looked like a Walmart greeter someone said tonight. Obama's was very chocolate boxy. Perfect dad, perfect mom, perfect kids. It was about 20 years out of date. People are much more cynical. Clinton used the Christmas theme but left a real clear message. Universal healthcare. Bring the guys home. Universal Pr K.

by ottovbvs 2007-12-19 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

I loved the ad- thought it was super- she looks relaxed and funny- great spot.  It also was very CLASSY.

by reasonwarrior 2007-12-19 01:59PM | 0 recs
She's going to do it guys

Just look at the issues and attributes questions in these polls. Obama teens, her fifties thru seventies. Forget Tweety, in fact he's getting so bad it's got to the stage where he's helping her because his sthtick is essentially another version of the aging hag we get from fat boy. Women hate it.  

by ottovbvs 2007-12-19 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: She's going to do it guys

Shhhhhh! Keep it on the down low.

Let the media continue to set expectations of inevitability for Saint Obama, The Chosen One (tm).

Fine with me if the pundits believe the scenario, as reported on MSNBC tonight, that Clinton will finish third in Iowa, lose NH, and be done with her campaign.

by hwc 2007-12-19 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Holiday Ads by Dems
I haven't seen Dodd's or Biden's, but the ones by the 3 front runners are all good. Here's a sloppy one by the Rudy-Judy campaign: http://www.blip.tv/file/549560
by benny06 2007-12-19 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

That was great.  It made me smile.  As others have said, it's unexpected in that it's not her with Chelsea and Bill doing Norman Rockwell.  It fits within the spirit of Christmas, but the reality of the campaign.

by Kingstongirl 2007-12-19 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

ah another Xmas thing....

"Were do I put"...(sounds like Bush looking for WMD's in his office)
If Hillery.Obama/Biden want to lead they should have been on the Senate floor speaking against funding Iraq.
Dodd demonstrated what a leader does with FISA

Clinton, Obama and Biden could have demonstrated more on the Senate floor than any appearance in Iowa or NH.

These folks are still Senators. Their first obligation is that.

by nogo war 2007-12-19 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

"Were do I put"...(sounds like Bush looking for WMD's in his office)


by jello 2007-12-20 02:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

The ad reminds me of her answer in the last debate to the New Year's resolution question.  Stupid question, but her answer was more of the same politics, politics, campaign, campaign.  Is there ever a moment when she can just drop everything and say to people Happy Holidays?

by Piuma 2007-12-19 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

Like those other ad aren't about campaigning?  Whatever.

by Kingstongirl 2007-12-19 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

What struck me about this was how effectively she weaved the issues into it, in a way that didn't detract from the overall "cuteness," in contrast to Rudy's clumsy ad where he prattles on and on with a list of issues including "strict constructionist judges."  Yep, that's what everyone was waiting to hear at Christmastime, Rudy!

by Steve M 2007-12-19 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

Yes. The Republican mantra always makes me want to bring on the nog. Ho! Ho! Ho!

by arkansasdemocrat 2007-12-19 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

This is the worst Christmas ad of them all.

by OreoBlue 2007-12-19 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Christmas TV ad

hillary forget to hand out the $5 thousand dollar bribe...er...baby bond for every child.

oh, and the silver box under the tree is the hillary-bombing-iran present. what's a few thousand lost souls if that'll deliver her the keys to more power?

merry christmas!

by jello 2007-12-20 02:25AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads