30 Second Version Of Richardson Ad

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 10:30


The thirty-second version of the Bill Richardson no residual troops ad with me, Matt and Christina has gone live in New Hampshire. Here it is:



It is starting to get some media pickup too, in the AP, USA Today, and ABC News.

My full explanation of the ad can be found here. I am really interested in hearing what you think about all this.
Chris Bowers :: 30 Second Version Of Richardson Ad

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
30 Second Version Of Richardson Ad | 44 comments
Don't you mean on residual forces (0.00 / 0)
I think it is a homerun.  As I wrote yesterday, the polling on who can best handle Iraq is very surprising.  In both Iowa and NH , Richardson was ahead of Edwards on the issue, and didn't trail Barak by much.

The fundemental challenge for candidate's not named Clinton is to create clear distinctions between themselves and Hillary.  The biggest surprise in this cycle is how little difference there actually is among the candidates.  The residual force issue is one of those rare issues where there may be an opening.

I saw Richardson (4.00 / 1)
on the News Hour last night. He said that he would leave forces in Kuwait "where they are needed". Kuwait? Needed?

Leaving troops in Kuwait is just a back door way of leaving them in Iraq isn't it? It's pretty certain that those troops would be going right back into Iraq for any of several reasons. In this case Richardson seems to be saying he will pull the troops out, for election purposes, but leave them in Kuwait just to go back in again. That is kind of a dishonest proposition IMO. And his ad says nothing about that.

I would put some troops, American troops, for a contingency in Kuwait where they are needed. - Richardson

http://www.pbs.org/n...

FWIW- I like Richardson but I'm not sure I like him for President.

[ Parent ]
Chris (4.00 / 1)
I posted this in the other thread late yesterday. I was curious as to your thoughts:

I'm curious on how you address the concern of genocide among other things if we were to leave without any residual forces left behind.
Progressives have always been against genocide and it seems that no matter how Bush got us into this mess that we may have an obligation to the people in Iraq that had no part of creating this or the Iraqi insurgency. Not to mention the millions in exile in Syria, Jordon and other countries. Do you think we have an obligation in that area?

Also there is the question of a wider Sunni-Shiia proxy war taking place than is going on right now because of the vacuum created id we were to leave completely. Many worry that if such a event took place it would require us going back in facing a worse mess than there is now. How do you address that concern Chris? Do you think it makes sense to pull out completely with the very real concern that we may have to go back in again with an arguably worse situation?

I don't find the two very real scenarios above discussed at all in the left Blogosphere. What are your thoughts?


http://www.openleft....

Response (4.00 / 1)
1. Genocide is already occurring, and we are not stopping it. Baghdad has gone from majority Sunni to majority Shia. The deed is done, and our presence does not seem to be stopping it.

2. As much as I criticize most Democrats on "no residual forces," none of the Democrats, not even Clinton, are proposing having troops patrol Iraq streets to directly police sectarian violence. The two basic plans to prevent genocide are non-Western peacekeepers plus diplomacy, or an "over the horizon force" plus more diplomacy. Otherwise, it is up to the Iraqi police.

Pulling completely out of Iraqi, save for the embassy, and leaving smaller , "over the horizon," forces in the region (Kuwait / Qatar and Eastern Turkey / Caspian Sea) is, I think, the best solution. You can't end American military involvement in the war, and thus have diplomacy really begin, as long as we have troops in Iraq. This would also have protection measures in place to help improve regional security (and ending the war in Iraq would certainly do that).

Hope that answers your questions.


[ Parent ]
The deed is not done (4.00 / 1)
There are still Sunnis living in Iraq, genocide is not a done deed so long as there are more people left to kill and thus more people left to protect.  I agree that our troops are part of the problem and that we aren't preventing genocide, but to say that the deed is done and move one strikes me as a callous failure of imagination.

BTW does this ad mean that you have endorsed Richardson?

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

[ Parent ]
That's Not What Chris Is Saying (0.00 / 0)
When he says "The deed is done," he doesn't mean there's no one else to be killed.  He just means that the dire consequences being warned about have already taken place, and we've done nothing to stop them, ergo, leaving a residual force in place would do nothing to stop them in the future.

Don't forget, the whole "stopping genocide" argument presumes that (a) we're not already involved in stoking sectarian violence and (b) there really are just 30,000 or so Iraqi civilians like W would have us believe, rather than the million or more that demographic researchers tell us there are.


"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
What I objected to (4.00 / 1)
Is the implication from what Chris said that it is in the past.  I agree that it has already happened, but it is also in the present, but I imagine that it can and will continue until there is a stable, sovereign government in Iraq that is opposed to genocide.

Don't take that as an endorsement of our troops in Iraq, just a recognition that it may get worse, with or without our troops there.  The situation in Iraq requires more of a solution than just bringing our troops home.

We have already demonstrated the current administration's inability to provide one and I don't think that any solution with a significant number of American troops in Iraq will be tenable.

We need to bring our troops home an work for a solution that minimizes the genocide and helps build a stable government for Iraq that does not reek of Yankee Imperialism.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

[ Parent ]
US forces only cause bloodshed (0.00 / 0)
A poll of the Iraqi people said they wanted EVERY LAST US SOLDIER OUT. The Iraqi people know best. Listen to them.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
not disagreeing witht that (0.00 / 0)
I agree that we should get our troops out and the Iraqi people wanting us out is yet another good reason.  I am just disturbed about the possibilities of future bloodshed and think that we need to think about how to minimize it.

Mostly I was disturbed by Chris's dismissal that the genocide has already happened.  It is HAPPENING and may get worse.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

[ Parent ]
As I have said before (0.00 / 0)
As I said yesterday and linked to today, here is what the ad means:

I am thrilled to be working with Bill Richardson on this issue. While this ad is not an official endorsement of Bill Richardson's candidacy, it is an endorsement of his no residual forces plan for Iraq. It is an endorsement of his leadership on the issue. It is an endorsement of the need for a public debate on how many troops Democrats plan to leave in Iraq, what those troops will do, and how long they will stay in Iraq. Every Democrat should be aware of all candidate plans for residual forces in Iraq before they decide who to support in the primaries. Just because a candidate says he or she will end American military involvement in the war in Iraq does not mean that he or she is actually proposing to end American military involvement in the war in Iraq.

As far as the genocide question goes, Paul took the words right out of my mouth.

[ Parent ]
re: said before (0.00 / 0)
I commented before I followed the link.  In the ad as it is cut here it really looks like an endorsement, but it didn't seem all the there.

As for the genocide, I replied to Paul.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

[ Parent ]
I don't think you understand what genocide means (0.00 / 0)
Genocide does not mean that one group exterminates the other. In fact, that is very definitely not what has happened in Baghdad. Both sides have committed atrocities, in the process making neighbourhoods either entirely Sunni or entirely Shia. There's almost no way to stop this now and certainly it'll be hard for the city to ever regain its diversity. But that doesn't mean Iraq's Sunnis are going to disappear (although Baghdad's Christians and the Yezidis of the north are another matter).

This kind of genocide can only be stopped when they decide to stop killing each other in their ones and twos. And I don't see what small contingents of US troops do to accomplish this, except perhaps to occupy insurgents with placing IEDs rather than killing fellow Iraqis.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Thanks For Your Reply (4.00 / 1)
1. Genocide is already occurring, and we are not stopping it. Baghdad has gone from majority Sunni to majority Shia. The deed is done, and our presence does not seem to be stopping it.

We all know there is no military solution. But to give our military some well deserved credit I don't think there is any question that our presence there is limiting the killing to some extent. Do you agree with that? Also at this point our military presence is no doubt stopping the Shiia from turning the Shiia dominated army on the Sunni. Bottomline is the genocide could get a lot worse and probably would.

I asked: "Do you think we have an obligation in that area?", and you didn't answer that directly. Instead you gave the now stock reply that genocide is already taking place. Am I to assume that an increase in genocide would not bother you and should not bother others and we should accept no responsibility for that?

Personally I am torn between getting out all together and accepting some responsibility as a country. The question is do Progressives want to live with the killing and displacement of an untold additional number of people because we get out all together? Now that question is somewhat rhetorical because the reality is we are not going to get out. Richardson won't win and even if he did his troops in Kuwait would soon be back in Iraq anyway. so the points I bring up are more about getting people to understand that be it Clinton, Edwards, or Obama that there are 'Progressive Value' reasons to support their view of not immediately pulling out all together. At least Progressive Values as I see them. Progressive Values that have always been held in high regard by Progressives. I hope we as Progressives are not going to toss those values out the window just because of Bush. He took the lid off Pandora's Box but are we to abandon what we have believed in for such a long time?

2. As much as I criticize most Democrats on "no residual forces," none of the Democrats, not even Clinton, are proposing having troops patrol Iraq streets to directly police sectarian violence. The two basic plans to prevent genocide are non-Western peacekeepers plus diplomacy, or an "over the horizon force" plus more diplomacy. Otherwise, it is up to the Iraqi police.

I agree. And until we can arrange for non-Western peacekeepers plus diplomacy there is a good case to be made for residual troops to remain until that time comes. Certainly if we were to pull out completely and then try to get others to fill the void we would have a much harder time getting them to do so as they would be walking in to a worse situation than we left. As for "over the horizon forces" that is not much different than staying in Iraq. I suppose part of the equation is to hope that those forces serves as a deterrent to ramped up violence. I don't think that would work because under the cover of darkness and in stealth ways the violence would take place then just as it has been up to this point - only more so.

Come 2009 I support the Clinton et al plan to leave residual forces and then move forward to diplomacy and replacing our troops with non-Western peacekeepers. That transition must be given time to take hold and be done correctly and not in haste if for no other reason to make sure that we d not have to go back into Iraq with another substantial force.

[ Parent ]
OK (4.00 / 1)
If you support leaving residual troops behind, but are aware of the different plans, I can live with that. My main goal here is to make sure  that Democrats are making an informed choice on the residual troop issue before selecting their next nominee. If the war doesn't end under a Democratic administration because there is a large residual force there, the last thing we need is for Democrats to be surprised about it.

People need to know what they are voting for. You do. And I can live with that. 
[ Parent ]
You Can Shed More (4.00 / 1)
light on this than me because of your deep knowledge of the polls but I seem to remember polling that reflected an approximately 20-40-40 split on how quick to bring the troops home - i.e.

20-40-40

immediately - within a year - stay as long as it takes.

Certainly the majority of the public given those numbers knows there are various reasons for a phased withdrawal starting with the obvious time it takes to accomplish the withdrawal itself. I also think that given that they know the holdup on an Iraq withdrawal is because of Bush and the Senate Repubs that they will be willing to give a new Dem President some time to accomplish an orderly withdrawal while making sure doing so will not create further chaos.

I even think that the anti-war Left who currently demand an immediate exit will become more flexible as long as they feel we are genuinely moving toward a withdrawal.

I don't disagree though with your point of making people aware of the candidates different positions. But I do think it is very hard at this point in time for any of the candidates to stakeout a realistic plan for Iraq when they won't take office until 16 months from now. It is virtually impossible to accurately project exactly what will be going on in Iraq at that time.

[ Parent ]
sigh (0.00 / 0)
What about the 10,000 residuals in Kurdistan and the 1,000 in Baghdad? (Can we just give up on Eastern Turkey hosting any American troops; their highest grossing film 2? summers ago was about a Turkish intelligence agent who hunted down and killed Americans. They DO NOT LIKE US. They DO NOT want to host American troops. They are PISSED because Kurdistan, an American client, is causing them a lot of problems. End. Of. Message.)

Unfortunately that would require an asterisk on the ad. But at least it would be honest.

[ Parent ]
Darfur (4.00 / 1)
I should also add that I asked Governor Richardson about troops in Darfur to prevent genocide, and he said that was not a good idea. A couple of weeks later, he brokered a diplomatic cease fire in the region. In other words, I think he knows what he is talking about when it comes to what diplomacy can achieve, even to stop genocide, before pulling the trigger on more troops.
[ Parent ]
Richardson is a great (0.00 / 0)
diplomat and negotiator. Given what is going on in Darfur there is not doubt that he used a combination of carrots and sticks to come to an agreement.

But arguably Iraq is a much different situation. Unlike Darfur you have three major entities vying for political power and resources - and you also have groups within groups fighting for the same. On top of that all of them are armed which is not the case if Darfur. Additionally you have have deep religious divisions that go back hundreds of years and you have other regional players that back the different factions.

So to compare a brokered deal by Richardson in Darfur to what is possible in Iraq is not comparing apples to apples I think you would agree. As Clark said in your interview with him Iran is really the key. If we can cut a reasonable deal with Iran then the other regional players would feel more secure. But that is not to say that Iraq would not continue to work under the radar and need continuous monitoring and American military presence in the region to curtail them.

[ Parent ]
It is more difficult (0.00 / 0)
And I think he knows that. I just think he also knows that in order for  the diplomacy attempts to begin, our troops can't be there.
[ Parent ]
You are right... (0.00 / 0)
He does say that. I'm not a diplomat and obviously  I do not have the experience Richardson does. But given the time diplomacy would take with all parties: The Iraqi factions themselves; Iran; Saudi Arabia; and all the other neighboring nations that both would or would not provide a peacekeeping force - just how long can Iraq go without any outside military presence while those negotiations in diplomacy go on? It seems to me that if you create a vacuum that the vacuum will be filled by predictable and independent players making diplomacy that much harder.

And probably more importantly let's not forget that all of the neighboring countries except Iran are Sunni. Does Richardson really think that the Shiia majority government is going to welcome a Sunni peacekeeping force? That seems to me that it would be a hard sell. And will the US be willing to include Iranian military in that peacekeeping force? And if so how will Sunni and Shiia peacekeeping forces from countries that are already at odds with each other get along? I think we know the answer to that question. So given the above, diplomacy or no diplomacy,  adding non-western (read: Muslim) peacekeeping forces will be a difficult task in itself it would seem to astute observers.

Next time you talk to Richardson it might be interesting,
On or Off the record, to ask him what he thinks about those things - the vacuum during diplomacy and Sunni peacekeepers being welcomed by a Shiia government, and mixing Sunni and Iranian forces in Iraq.

On top of all that as Richardson said last night on the News Hour:

There is no military solution. I think there's a political solution, but the window is ending.

So 16 months from now where will Iraq be? Will diplomacy among the neighbors be possible? Will diplomacy among the Iraqis themselves be possible? Will the window be closed?

And given that Bush is about to have a November Middle East peace meeting that includes Syria how will that affect things? Because we all know how well Bush does in the diplomacy arena. He tends to embrace people by pushing them further away.

Richardson's heart and mind seem to be in the right place but he has so many hurdles (see above) that he has not addressed and so many more potential unseen hurdles in the future that one wonders how much faith one can put into his current position on the war.

Personally I tend to think it is prudent to accept the Clinton and Obama plan and that is to plan for the temporary need for troops and if they are not needed then bring them home. But if they are there are no surprises, and no further instability in Iraq to upset the needed compromises and outside diplomacy that needs to take place.

[ Parent ]
richardson brokered a cease-fire? (0.00 / 0)
I guess all it took was some smooth talking by the straight-shooting guvner of New Mexico to realize that the war over land was just one giant misunderstanding between the Janjaweed and the refugees.

P.S. Can you link to one non-Bill Richardson, preferably independent source that verifies any cessation of hostilities between the various parties fighting in Darfur? That would be cool.

[ Parent ]
Sure (0.00 / 0)
MSNBC:

Richardson, a Democrat, made a four-day visit to Sudan, including a one-day stop in Darfur and two meetings with President Bashir. Officially, he was there privately at the invitation of the American advocacy group, the Save Darfur Coalition.  But behind the scenes, his visit was organized and facilitated by the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum.

Richardson confirmed that embassy officials had enabled safe conduct for rebel leaders in Darfur, who met with him in El Fasher, headquarters of the African Union peacekeeping force. Of the three major rebel groups in Darfur, only one has signed a peace accord with the Sudanese government, and Richardson said he saw representatives of two of the nonsignatory leaders, Gen. Mohammed Basher of the JEM, and Col. Abdul Abdallah of an SLA faction. "I asked them if Bashir agreed to a 60-day ceasefire, would their groups do the same thing, and they agreed," said Richardson. He flew back to Khartoum and saw Bashir again today and reported that the president also signed on-providing the ceasefire took place "within the context of the CPA [comprehensive peace agreement]," the deal signed last May in the Nigerian capital of Abuja.

It was well documented. It didn't end the war forever, but a temporary cease fire is something. 

[ Parent ]
round one to you (4.00 / 1)
however, don't you think it's pretty insane to believe that two very large groups of people just kill each other and kill each others' kids, and then somebody who lives 10,000 miles away teaches them something they didn't know which makes them more favorably inclined towards peace? Diplomacy is great as a first resort, but telling ourselves that many intractable disputes (many of which Bush aggravated) can be solved that way.

Take Israel/Palestine for example, it has been a never ending farce. There is always a "peace process" that lasts just long enough for some mutual PR masturbation, before somebody gets incinerated and it's over.

I'm not saying that we should be as pessimistic about every Richardson initiative as we should be about Israel/Palestine, but a lot of promises of diplomatic wizardry solving every geopolitical crisis the world over simply have no basis in reality.

That text you posted is a case in point. Richardson came in and asked everybody for a 60-day cease fire for the two factions that didn't agree to the AU one signed a year-plus ago. And "within the context of the" earlier agreement, what does that mean?  One scratch below the surface, the groups are usually still blowing each other up 2 days after the supposed cease fire was signed, and especially for a region as combustible as Iraq, it's simply delusional to think that we are going to sweet talk our way out. Just because it sounds nice doesn't mean it's going to happen or that it will be a good idea at all.

I am being a cantankerous ass by treating these articles with so much skepticism, but somebody has to.

[ Parent ]
I don't have cites or anything... (0.00 / 0)
...But, I do have a friend who worked and works extensively in Darfur.

He said the Richardson Darfur Peace Agreement meant absolutely nothing.  I think in his words, "it was a joke."

I think someone should ask Richardson to really evaluate his stances on Darfur, and demonstrate that it was actually effective.  Also, troops wouldn't be a good idea there?  From what I know about how the genocide is occurring, well armed American troops would be pretty effective.

Anyway, that is not to say I disagree with no residual troops or anything.  But, I do think you guys are making a strategic mistake here, unless you are really, really ready to go all in for in, because I think you have misjudged how much Richardson has turned off the blogosphere.

[ Parent ]
typos rule (0.00 / 0)
I meant, unless you are ready to go all in for *him.*
[ Parent ]
I like both ads (4.00 / 1)
I made a fairly long post (with a glorious typo) over at Blue Mass Group about this.

I do have 2 questions. First, about the history of the blogosphere. Has any other prominent bloggers appeared in a TV ad for a major Democratic candidate before? What about for Congressional or other seats? I feel like somebody may have been in an ad for Lamont, but not nearly as prominent -- but I don't recall, exactly.

Second, I know that you say that this is an endorsement of his policy, not his candidacy -- and I get that distinction. As I said in my post over at BMG, this ad tries to do a lot on both the policy and politics side of things. Do you think that there's a perception that the line has been blurred? That is, what is the practical difference between endorsing a candidate's major foreign policy point by appearing in an ad paid for by his campaign and endorsing him?

Markos did an ad for Lamont (0.00 / 0)


John McCain <3 lobbyists
[ Parent ]
I should add... (0.00 / 0)
but I don't think there was any indication that he was from DailyKos.com or an activist or blogger or anything.  He was just a character/supporter in the ad.

John McCain <3 lobbyists
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the info! (0.00 / 0)
I had thought it was Markos for Lamont, but I didn't want to say if I wasn't sure. You don't happen to have a link to the ad, do you?
[ Parent ]
Some people will see it that way (0.00 / 0)
And it is not entirely wrong. This is the biggest issue for me in the primary campaign, and Richardson is the best on this issue. That, of course, means that not only do I endorse his plan, and not only that I am willing to work with him, but that he obviously has a head start in terms of an official endorsement, if it ever comes. I don't think I will actually formally endorse in the primary, even though I have given money to both Edwards and Richardson. They have been my favorites in the campaign, even though at different times I have been impressed with the other candidates, too.
[ Parent ]
domestic issues are big for me (4.00 / 1)
Richardson is terrible on trade and repeats GOP talking abouts about Democrats on taxes.

He is talking about universal health care while offering no specifics, promising not to raise taxes, and to support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

I understand that some people are single-issue voters, but don't imagine that a Richardson presidency would be good for labor or for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
Domestic Issues are big for me as well. So I support Richardson (0.00 / 0)
  The truth is we can not address the domestic issues unless we stop the bleed of funds that are going into this war.

  My biggest fear is that the major Democratic Candidates will run on a pseudo end the war ticket much as Nixon ran in 1968.

  Lessons learned in 1968, a vote for Nixon for many was a vote to end the war.  Nixon ran on this vague platform of "Peace with Honor".  Humphrey would not distance himself from LBJ or did not do it soon enough and strong enough to win.

  Today we see the Republicans loathe to distance themselves too far from Bush and the Democrats for the most part talking about securing America's future from terrorism or  only enough residual troops for humanitarian purposes, etc. 

  Richardson is the only one that has clearly stated that we need to remove our troops, bring in an all Muslim peace keeping force, and work the diplomatic circle with Iraq's neighbors.  He alone seems to understand that we can not secure a peaceful Iraq as an occupying force and we can not remove all combat troops and leave other American troops there unprotected.  He alone is willing to look for alternative ways to bring this bloody adventure to an end.

  Personally I am for a singe payer universal health care system.  Richardson supports making health insurance available and affordable for all citizens.  It is not ideal but even that plan will fail if we continue to spend the amount of money we are spending daily in Iraq.

  I am for getting rid of NAFTA and CAFTA.  Richardson is for renegotiating those treaties to make environmental and labor regulations part of the agreement.  He has family in Mexico and can not be immune to the problems that NAFTA has created for the average Mexican farmer and worker there any more than he can be immune to the effects these agreements have had on the US Labor force. I do believe he will do the right thing when it comes to negotiations of these treaties and other trade agreements in the future.

  Without a clear exit strategy in Iraq no domestic policy initiatives can happen.  Let us not repeat the mistakes of 1968 and vote for the President that wishes to end the war but has no clear plan or political will do so.

[ Parent ]
Reads more like an endorsement (4.00 / 2)
This reads a lot more like an endorsement, and lacks the contextual argument of the longer one. Gotta cut for time, but it's really not as good. The essential argument is now essentially "if you want to end the war, listen to these authority figures tell you why Bill Richardson's the one."

I think there's still a critical argument to be made about what explicitly "ending the war" means, why truly ending the occupation is the only chance for meaningful reconciliation within Iraq, and why it's important to move away from the unilateral/imperial frame of thought and action that Bush has cemented us in.

It will be interesting to see if this ad moves anyone in NH. My gut sense is that someone needs to make the coherent case, which will attract strong supporters much more than the "I will/they won't" line that this piece takes. My sense is that there's still very little hard support for any candidate, even in the early primary states. Sure increasing numbers have to come at the expense of someone, but the question is whether you're just sliding around the current field, or actually changing the game by developing serious support. Maybe it's too late for that though...

Me | My Work | Future Majority

We Are NOT Sally Fields (0.00 / 0)
They like need us.  They really, really, like need us.

And they can't just bleep us out, either.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

i love this campaign (0.00 / 0)
when i think of the biggest campaigns you guys have put together ("use it or lose it", google ads words, bush dogs) i think this might be number two in terms of effectiveness. hell, it could even surpass "use it or lose it".

i am not a richardson supporter, but i have been keeping tabs on his campaign largely due to the residual troops issue. i found the longer ad really provocative, it made me think about donating a little, the shorter one is not bad for 30 seconds,  i wish it had a clip from richardson's most powerful statement at the debate, rather than just the blogging heads.

Candidate / Policy endorsements (0.00 / 0)
With the 2008 field as crowded as it is -- and the top tier floating proposals as similar as they are -- I am very much interested in netroots leaders endorsing specific policies over candidates, as I have a strong suspicion that could be the only way to move Hillary, Obama and Edwards on the issues of residual forces and carbon taxes.

That said, I am severely disappointed in this ad. While yesterday's post and the five-minute internet ad embedded therein made a good case against residual forces and called out the rest of the field on their nonsense policies and talking points, this 30-second version plays like every other talking head political ad on television, the three of you filling in for any three generic Richardson shills. Both the Richardson campaign, and your campaign to highlight specific policies, would have been better-served with a longer ad and a smarter, better-targeted ad buy. As it is, Richardson looks like he is pandering to activists for the anti-war vote and the three of you look like single-issue voters.

Still, though, I am excited for future policy endorsements and, hopefully, more ad appearances. Aside from the aforementioned carbon tax, I would like to see some of the candidates' unique, and often-ignored, policies highlighted, like Edwards's plan for rural revitalization or Dodd's national service program.

I don't agree fully (0.00 / 0)
on you're no residual troops stance but it's nice to see the netroots getting some play. Try to get Dodd to film a carbon tax ad with you guys. Just take good parts from all the candidates platforms and do this.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
Dodd carbon tax (4.00 / 1)
I've thought about that, actually. I'd be happy to do it, if they were willing.
[ Parent ]
Fascinating.... (0.00 / 0)
it's rather unique to use bloggers and activists as testimonials in an ad. I liked the big ad better but obviously it was too long for TV. Questions...

To whom is the ad targeted? Testimonials from "authorities" are only effective to those who know/respect the "authority.

Where is it running? What media outlets? Obviously, it should target areas where dem voters just want out completely to inform them of Richardson's plan.

Is this being run on mainstream media or targeted Internet sites? If TV, then an ad which had one testimonial but some of the other stuff about the problems with Clinton's and Obama's plans would be more effective.

On the issue of endorsement, I wrote yesterday: you may not want this to be seen as an endorsement but it is. Since we can't pick the best policies of all candidates and roll them into one package, your support for Richardson on Iraq (arguably the most important issue for the primaries) is a de facto endorsement. Arguing otherwise may be a lost cause and quibbling.

Just my 2 cents.

Context and Fame (0.00 / 0)
I agree with Josh that this lacks the context of the longer ad and reads like a full throated endorsement of Richardson for you and Matt, which doesn't sound quite like what you wanted.

That said, the most interesting thing will be seeing whether or not it moves any voters.  Do anyone even know who you and Matt are outside of the folks who read progressive blogs?  Probably not, so does your endorsement mean anything to those voters?  Who knows. 

I'm really interested to see if you and Matt and track any movement for Richardson (up or down) from this, and what that says about how the blogosphere plays outside of our own little bubble.

Youth To Power: How Today's Young Voters Are Building Tomorrow's Progressive Majority

This is an Endorsement of Richardson (4.00 / 1)
What a trite explanation.  "I endorse the policy and not the candidate."  If that's true then you (gasp) actually endorse a policy in your ad with an "issue ad" and that type of ad never mentions a candidate.

So now the anti-war primary voters can vote on Richardson; much like folks vote for Nader.  The beneficiary of your ad is Hillary, BTW.  Instead of anti-war folks making the legitimate move to Edwards or Obama, they park themselves with Richardson, a completely meaningless move.

It's hard to say if the group of you are this politically naive or you simply expect anyone reading your lame opinions to be this politically naive. 

It's a primary and we have choices.... (0.00 / 0)
rejoice! BTW, by your logic any more than two candidates helps Clinton 2.0 (don't call her Hillary, that also helps her by making her  a "familiar friend")

I think that most Democratic voters are against the war and want out of Iraq. Knowing which candidate is most likely to do that if elected is what we have to weigh.

Let's not get into a "get in line" mentality, whether that's to support Clinton 2.0 or to support someone besides her.

[ Parent ]
LOL (0.00 / 0)
Then tell these three clowns that their names and faces in lights on a TV ad for Richardson is--gasp--an endorsement of a primary candidate.  It really is that simple.

So openleft has now gone to the "get in line" mentality which you simply don't see.  They are supporting Richardson while saying to all who read their blogs that they are not.  What on earth does one call that silliness?  Lying?


[ Parent ]
Naive? (0.00 / 0)
Whatever substantiative disagreements you want to raise, it's laughable to call Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers and Christina O'Connell "politically naive."
[ Parent ]
30 Second Version Of Richardson Ad | 44 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox