« Thompson's Flurry Of Activity Impresses Rivals | Main | Thompson's Rebuttal On Immigration Overlooks "C" Grade »

Obama, Clinton Air "Change" Ads

05 Sep 2007 11:39 am

Change is in the air. But what does it mean? Or rather -- what needs to be changed?

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will begin airing television ads today called "Change." The Obama campaign considers the "change" rationale to be their turf, and so they might view Clinton's decision to lean into her own "change" credentials as a sign that the Clinton campaign believes that Democrats are more interested in change then they are in experience.

Clinton's campaign would say this: Clinton scores highly on the change quotient, and if she can convince that her change dividend is enough, then she's neutralized a critical threat from Obama. And Clinton's strategists say that Clinton scores the highest among those working class Democrats who want to change their material conditions.

The two ads show how both candidates define change differently.

Obama's ad, which will air in Iowa, "it wasn't to score points with the powers in Washington. It was because Barack Obama wants government to work for people." At the end of the ad, Obama uses a phrase reminiscent of Howard Dean's thundering campaign stump speech circa 2003: "We're going to take our country back."

Here's the script of Clinton's, which airs in New Hampshire:

"We will change things in this country. Because we want it. Because we have one candidate who spent her life fighting for it. Standing up for our families, our children, our veterans." "We will end this war. We will give health coverage to everyone. We will be energy independent." "If we have the will, she has the strength. If we have the conviction, she has the experience. If we’re ready for change, she’s ready to lead."

Clinton's campaign also sent out a memo supporting their decision to go with "change." It's after the jump.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 5, 2007

Contact: NH for Hillary Press Office, 603-782-4647

Kathleen Strand, 603-479-7475

nhpress@hillaryclinton.com

Clinton Campaign to Begin Airing First

Television Ad in New Hampshire

New Hampshire for Hillary Co-chair Speaker Terie Norelli

Announces New Ad will start this week in New Hampshire

MANCHESTER, NH – New Hampshire for Hillary Co-chair, Speaker of the House Terie Norelli, today announced the first television advertisement for Senator Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in New Hampshire. The 30-second ad, titled “Change,” is scheduled to begin airing this week in New Hampshire. The ad will also air in Iowa.

“People in this country are ready to turn the page on the current administration. They are ready for change – ready to see an end to the war in Iraq, ready for universal healthcare and energy independence and ready to see that our veterans receive the care they deserve,” said Speaker Norelli.

“Without the strength and the experience to make it happen, change is just a word. All of the candidates are talking change,” Norelli continued. “Hillary has a 35 year record of fighting for it and making it happen.”

To view the ad, please visit: http://static.hillaryclinton.com/i/video/vids/ad_20070905_changeNH.mov

Below is the text of the new Clinton television ad, “Change:”

"We will change things in this country. Because we want it. Because we have one candidate who spent her life fighting for it. Standing up for our families, our children, our veterans."

"We will end this war. We will give health coverage to everyone. We will be energy independent."

"If we have the will, she has the strength. If we have the conviction, she has the experience. If we’re ready for change, she’s ready to lead."

###

To: Interested Parties

From: The Clinton Campaign

RE: Change & Experience: The Ad

As summer turns to autumn, Change is in the air.

The question that voters are asking is: who can best deliver it?

With its Labor Day kickoff and now the release of a new ad, “Change,” in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Clinton campaign is making clear, as Hillary said on the stump this week, “Change is just a word without the strength and experience to make it happen.” She has outlined how she would be the best able to get results, saying that change takes the right mix of knowing how and when to find common ground and when to stand your ground.

The new ad conveys that Hillary is uniquely able to deliver the change Americans want: ending the war in Iraq, passing universal health coverage, making America energy independent.

By touting Hillary’s experiences as a change agent, the Clinton campaign is making clear that to make change happen, you need the kind of strength and experience Hillary has accrued during her more than 35 years of advocacy (as illustrated in today’s New York Times story about Hillary’s college years).

Multiple polls are validating this point: Last month’s CNN poll revealed that despite the efforts of others to portray themselves as change agents, 40 percent think Clinton is the candidate most likely to actually bring change – a finding that places her well ahead of the other candidates. The June NBC/WSJ poll, 61% of Democrats and Democratic primary voters are very confident that Hillary would bring real change to the direction of the country. Among those for whom change is most important – working middle-class and low-income families, seniors, working women, and people without health care – Hillary is viewed as the most effective champion.

Today’s ad echoes these themes and touches on the four goals for change Hillary has been discussing on the campaign trail: Restoring America’s leadership in the world; rebuilding the middle class economy; reclaiming the future for our children; and bringing back the values of integrity, fairness and tolerance in America.

By offering voters “big goals for change” imbued with a case for why she is the candidate best able to achieve that change, Hillary is making a clear case for why she is the best choice for Democratic voters who want to make change happen in 2008.

Share This

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/16182

Comments (22)

Hillary has not had an original thought in 15 years...so its no surprise she is now trying to use the "change" theme

Hillary R. CLinton (HRC) is changing her position always to follow what Barack Obama is saying all along. This is what is called copying. WEll, she has no new idea and she has not been a leader all along, but just a follower. Look what Obama is doing, he is giving her a run for her money. HRC called Obama naive, but look who is naive here. Whatever Obama says, she follows and copy his stuff. In fact she might as well use his speeches word by word. The bottom line is that Obama has shown time and again that he is an agent of CHANGE. Change to turn the page on George Bush foreign policy, change to Have a secured energy future, change to have universal health care, and change to have a better future for our country- a Unified, United States of America. GO OBAMA! The people are with you.

Your Obama ad link does not seem to link to the ad you describe, but to excerpts from Obama speeches.

http://www.wiredbrain.net/newideas.htm

New Ideas:

What is the reason for the military-industrial complex?

Why does America pay for a military establishment as big as the rest of the world put together?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

The public face says "defense" protecting America, freedom, but no one is threating us with conventional military power since the USSR - the USS-was which was a paper tiger, so why $500 billion/.3 = $1666 for every person or $5,000 per household ? (not counting past cold war, debt, veteran benefits, opportunity cost - lack of education, infrastructure, and political corruption - but may help stabilize the economy by using up the surplus product - creates consumer demand from defense related incomes without a equal civilian market supply )

There is a reason - do you want to guess? Think about Iraq - why are we spending our birthright - our blood and treasure, our prestige, our domestic tranquility, our common welfare in Mesopotamia since they were no danger to us? The WMD were lies and could have been cleared up by the UN.

Think about the "New American Century" and the neocons?

American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). The projections of American power to establish and maintain a "world order" - Collective security and containment with International organizations are derided (thus John Bolton) and only US can keep the world from chaos and maintain the global system. (Thus Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz) The Republican right has shifted from isolation to imperialism. Why?

The Protection of International Business from nationalization (read billions in Bananas, oil wells, material supplies, markets, contracts, arms deals, the Harriman's, Dulles, Rockefellers, Hubert Walker, Bush and Dresdner Industries, Brown and Root see below - interesting very interesting without a conspiracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Brown_Brothers_Harriman_%26_Co see below) - the enforcement role of the CIA from 1950 to 1990 by stealth- (coups in Latin America, Iran, Iraq, and work with secret police) a role taken over by the military with the end of the cold war -

It is the only game in town:

make and responding to threats by socialist and nationalist, communism, terrorist, and projecting American Power as intimidation - The World Police - all to protect Israel, energy, thus Iraq - in the cross hairs of oil, Israel, the alternative of multi-lateral UN being effective, so the Americans had to project force - dread, storm and shock and awe - Blitzkrieg (help·info) (German, literally Lightning war or flash war) anywhere at any time The Sturmmann of the right - Sturmmann became a special forces and paramilitary title of the Sturmabteilung (SA or "Assault Detachment"). Sturmmann would eventually become a basic rank of almost every right wing organization, but is most closely associated as an SA rank and as a rank of the SS.

Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.
Relevance: 100.0% - -
W. Averell Harriman
Relevance: 71.7% - -
Brown Bros. & Co.
Relevance: 66.5% - -
Russell Trust Association
Relevance: 64.2% - -
Prescott Bush
Relevance: 63.1% - -
E. Roland Harriman
Relevance: 62.3% - -
Temporary National Economic Committee
Relevance: 60.5% - -
George Herbert Walker
Relevance: 57.7% - -
Private bank
Relevance: 55.8% - -
Union Banking Corporation
Relevance: 54.6% - -
Michael McConnell
Relevance: 54.2% - -
Investment banker
Relevance: 52.1% - -
List of Skull and Bones members
Relevance: 52.0% - -
Kuhn, Loeb & Co.
Relevance: 50.8% - -
List of investment banks
Relevance: 50.4% - -
Skull and Bones
Relevance: 47.1% - -
List of Armenian businesspeople
Relevance: 47.0% - -
Alex. Brown & Sons
Relevance: 45.3% - -
Merrill Lynch
Relevance: 45.1% - -
George Herbert Walker III
Relevance: 44.7% - -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 2 3 Next »

We as citizens of this country need to spend more time reading and thinking about what is said to us via the media. Read and Think and Obama will come up as the best choice. Hillary and Obama have equal training. The difference is Obama's ability to provide trust and hope. The elements of hope and trust can be and are used against him but hope and trust are the roots for success in achieving goals that are important. Energy, health care, quality education for all in the USA, improving America's standing in the world and so many other challenges facing us all together. And that it is another aspect of Obama ---- He brings us all together to help begin to solve some of the world's pressing problems.

I believe change is necessary, but not a total reversal of our course of action right now as Obama suggested. You can not steer a ship a totaly different way without experienced handling of adjustment and changes, otherwise you will risk capcize the ship.

We need to end war, but hasty withdrawl will land people in danger. who is going to cover our troops as they withdrawl? who is going to cover our allies in Iraq? what will happen to the millions that suffer there, because we decided to make a change, but never finish what we started.

We need to deal with rogue leaders, but to totally reverse policy and to hastly approach them..that lend them legitimacy, give them boldness. they will know that they have leverage when you are ready to talk to them without pre condition.

We need better health coverage and job market, but nothing can be changed in a day, and certainly not by a slogan for change. it is by spending every day balancing factors, chipping at a problem away that something so complicated as american economy and health coverage can improve (not fixed).

nothing has a single solution in this multifaceted world, and certainly we were born into this world with free choices, to have different ideals. no single person can bring a change that satisfy everyone. do not look to single word of promise, of change, to solve all the problems in our world. rather we need to work toward compromise, and a better world through steady course, deliberate action, and diligence, with a seasoned captain who knows not to steer ship without consideration of consequences.

for two hundred years we change when we needed too. FDR spoke to Stalin, Kennedy to Kurshav, Nixon to the Chinese and Reagan to the Russians. Not until Clinton and especially Bush, we decided not to talk to our adversaries. Obama is the future and Clinton is now where. Please tell me one thing has she done to benefit any community in the US besides sending earmarks back to NY?

Obama has never suggested he would approach solving the problems facing our country and the world with dramatic changes that might sink a boat.

I'm kind of new to this, and
I've never posted one of these things before, but I think if you want to know who's going to be able to steer the ship, you should check out this article from the Wall Street Journal today:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118895877299317784.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Obama '08!!

note I did not say do not speak to them, just suggest speaking without pre conditioning may not be the most prudent.

also note I did not say obama will sink the boat, rather that his suggestion of changes seem without deliberated, detailed back up plan.

hilary just has a longer track record than obama. I honestly think there is not a single honest politician, just one that is more or less able, in term of understanding to seperate personal prejudice than the role of an office; and in term of being able to make compromises, but not to the degree of betraying certain fundamental principles.

I am going to have to take issue with the notion that Obama is shooting from the hip on foreign policy. I suspect that many of his positions do not translate well into headlines, but if you read his books and look at his policy papers closely if you look at the people who have signed on to his campaign you see a very sophisticated, genuine, and considered positions on issues that derive, it seems, from his lived experience, as a child of the developing world.

They both talk change but its only John Edwards who will bring "bold changes". He has been leading the pack with his bold stances on pretty much every issue.

Obama attained the position of editor in chief of Harvard Law School Law Review via his ability to listen to others in a respectful manner and then comprimise.
Obama accomplished many goals as a Senator in the Illinois government. He did this by listening, thinking, planning and then developing a plan in order to get done what needed to be done. And he did so.
I have read all his books, listened to his speeches in search of flaws. I have found nothing that is glaring. I have looked hard for problems why he should not be the next president of USA. And have found nothing.

First Hillary tried to convince us, including by prominently featuring Bill, that by electing her we'd go back to the good old days of the Clinton Administration. Now that her pollsters have informed her that, while those days are remembered fondly, people don't really want to go back there, she is suddenly the "change candidate". The problem is she is not able either to restore the country to what it was nor lead it to what it could be. Obama is so clearly the person with that ability, it amazes me that anyone would fall for Hillary's "I'll be anything you want me to be" approach, except of course for Maureen Dowd and so many other females who would like to see a woman elected President at any cost. But that is not the change that will really move this country forward in the face of all the serious challenges that Bush will leave behind.

How can any campaign consider such a consistent theme of poltical contests to be "their turf"? It didn't take a lot of polling to figure out that the electorate wants to "change". It was amusing to watch a C-SPAN clip of Eisenhower's 1952 campaign about change. Even the Republicans are running on change after what dubya has done to our country. It is somewhat audacious that Obama has appropriated Bill Clinton's 1992 theme of "hope" with his line of the press calling him a "hope monger".

It is hard to take Hillary Clinton as a candidate of change seriously. If Hillary is about change, why campaign with Bill Clinton, who represents the past?

The clinton years weren't very good unless your were building new private prisons. Or investing in overseas countries establishing plants and companies.
Those who went from welfare to work never got funding to get educated. Their children ended up with moms who had to work two full time jobs at MCDonalds. The kids got in trouble.
The clinton crime bill 1994 took away pell grants to educate prisoners. They ended up in a revolving door of going to those new jails that are privatized.
The influx of HB1 visas have brought in an influx of students from overseas who are not keeping or lowering the middle class. Many many military bases closed and this hurt so many who needed them for survival.

Yes the clintons saved billions at the expense of the poor and middle class. While the rich got richer and the country went full steam into privitization.

Then GW came in and spent it all on Iraq plus some.

I do not want to see our people in the USA suffer any more loss at the sake of another clinton savings plan. I want a president who has a health care plan that will pass with both republicans and democrats. I am tired of being offered pie in the sky.

I want a candidate who will work across party lines. I want a candidate who passes transparency bills like senator Obama and Coburn cosponsored.

I want reform not more of the same.

I want a UNITED states of america. Not a left and right or blue and red USA!

I want Barack Obama ! ! !

Anyone who has been the least bit conscious knows that Hillary changes her positon with the wind. She'll tell you what ever you want to hear. Fortunately, there is real video of her constant flip-flopping for those with selective memory or political amnesia. Unfortunately, the media has crowned her the front runner and lets her pass on just about everything.

She has indeed copied everything Obama has done, and her latest quip, 'change and experience - with me you get both' was a direct steal from Bill Richardson's line at the debate.

Wake up people. A very slick, conniving politician is selling you an empty package again with the aiding and abetting of mass media. If you fall for it again, expect what you got the last time that happened -- the last 7 years!

The election of Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States will galvanize the planet. To have the most powerful person on earth be a woman will send a message that will reverberate around the world. Half the human population will be inspired, energized and empowered. It's a major revolution in the making. Wake up and enjoy.

It will be impossible for Sen.Hilary to make that change in Washington DC, because she is. The Status quo.

Mydd notes that Clinton's ad was lifted from an Edwards ad.
Amazing how Hillary never has an original thought. Just copies everyone else and then has the gall to call herself a leader.

Isn't it ironic that Bill Clinton's '92 campaign theme song was Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow?" And now Hillary wants us to do the opposite. Sorry, I'm not that stupid.

Post a comment

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Atlantic does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.


Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.