Thursday, April 24, 2008

Really Harsh Attack ad on Obama

Posted by at

3 comments:

Ben the Blogger said...

I assume Obama is against the death penalty in principle? The statistics for the death penalty acting as a deterrent are poor. I can't imagine the law Obama voted against would have done much to challenge gang violence in Chicago.
However, given how much the country favors the Death Penalty, I can't imagine the logical response to this ad will do much to counter its impact.
Is Clinton in favor of the death penalty?

April 24, 2008 at 8:15 AM
Jim Schnoebelen said...

I don't think that Clinton is "in favor" of the death penalty, just like she isn't "pro choice." The Clintons both have had a clear track record of being morally opposed to ideas but in favor of the ability for laws to still be enforced/not enforced to "suit the will of the people." Hillary and Bill's stance on abortion is and has been for a while "safe, legal, and rare (or a variation on rare, never)," for instance, demonstrating that the right should be upheld for women, but also maintaining that society and government actors should do all they can to prevent abortions from having to occur in the first place.

I'm not quite sure how I feel about this ad; I assume this wasn't the one attempting to link Obama to Osama, unless you want to identify the link as "urban terrorism." To be honest, while I see this as an obvious and strong attack ad, I don't think it crosses any lines that similar past ads by both Clinton and Obama have done already.

I do think though, especially having just read even more studies about gendered preceptions of male and female issues for my Carlin paper this afternoon, that it's a smart ad by Clinton to run, given the research indicating that women candidates, especially for national-level office, HAVE to present themselves as strong on crime and do whatever they can to present their male opponents as weak on crime. Knowing this, I'm sure that the Clinton ad machine was simply attempting to demonstrate, as provocative as it is, that Clinton will be harder on crime than Obama has been in the past.

April 26, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Anonymous said...

Let me venture some thoughts on this... first, I do agree with Jim that she is suggesting without explicating that she would be the "tough" alternative. But how interesting that they pick "gang violence" to highlight and juxtapose with the war on terror... particularly because gang violence is stereotypically associated with young black males and the controversy surrounding Obama at the moment is largely a racial controversy. Intriguing selection... two birds with one stone?

Second, the attack is launched by a female -- not a male. Women's voices have been more frequently associated with negative attack ads in recent years... and although it is clear the voice is not Hillary, there is a very different tone that emerges in contrast to what you would feel had this been a male voice.

Finally, if you are ready for "smack down politics" in the fall, she's your gal. They do this well and without apology. It is interesting how history replays itself in several layers... the red phone re-emerges in its 2008 model design, Willie Horton is back again... alas, fear never goes out of style it is just reincarnated!

April 29, 2008 at 5:51 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)