She's asked a question and she doesn't give a polite answer. That's important to me. Her husband is running for President. She's got to have strong feelings about the other candidates. So rather than sugar coat it to appear politically correct she goes on the attack in defense of her husband. Who wouldn't?
The question regarding the 'attack dog' comment is the difference between not parsing words and spinning. I don't fell she's spinning. Sure it can appear that she is. But I agree with much of what she says, especially about Edward's message comming out of both Obama and Hillary's mouth. Coopting your opponent's message is an effective strategy, and we saw that in Iowa in 2004 where everyone started to sound somewhat like Dean by January.
Edwards has a strong message. It's only natural for the others to try to coopt parts of it. But I feel he also has the policy position and plans that back up his message far better than the others. This is where I agree with what she is saying and don't see it as being an attack dog.
As this is the area that I usual spend the most time:
Soft, approachable, personal. I'd agree she's going on her first name to both personalize herself and separate herself from her husband. The flag/banner is a nicely done twist on a tried and true theme. The blue is softer and less strong than the others, again leading to less formality. Probably the most consistently used across all mediums.
I completely disagree with Beirut on this one. The red/blue combination is poor. The type is very dated, 1990s. From a distance this will all blend together thanks to the flush leading and overly tight kerning. It's very brash and in your face. Not sure it will play in Peoria. It's like he can't tell if we'll remember who Rudy might be, so his last name is there just in case.
Nothing like visually separating yourself from your intended goal with both color and a line! Weak typographically as well.
Very approachable, conversational, and strong branding. I like the new take on the sunrise/flag interchange although it does go a bit "Oprah" for me. Strong typographically. Easily read from a distance and memorable. Second only to Clinton in brand consistency across mediums. Much more approachable than the logo I did for his site used prior to declaring for president.
Similar problems to Giuliani, only done better. The green swoosh is dated, the star is static, and both are not all that original, nor does it add anything to the overall brand. It seems an afterthought or something insisted upon by a client to me. From my perspective, this is probably the most disappointing as it does not seem to echo his campaign theme which provides many opportunities to develop visually. It stands out for the wrong reasons in this respect. And I like Edwards the best at the moment.
The type is average, but I wouldn't call it wish washy. More of an inconsistent match for the stern medal-like star symbol used. As Beirut notes, there is nothing too subtle about this brand. Unfortunately for McCain, the one trick his pony has is not the one people like at the moment. But the branding is memorable, and if you are looking for a warrior president, he's got that market cornered from a branding perspective.
Getting beat up is part of blogging I think. I didn't mean to make it personal. Appologies if I crossed that line.
If you've got good ideas you find yourself repeating, it is worth it to put them in a post rather than the comments of another diary. Comments often get lost and not every reads them, let alone all of them. Nothing will refine your thinking or your talking points quicker than getting the immediate feedback you will get on a diary.
I appreciate your willingness to address this openly.
I want to know how do we (or more accurately Clinton supporters) address four things relating to Hillary as nominee:
1. The dynasty feel of 16 years of two family rule in the White House.
2. Hillary's very high and solid negatives. As a second part of this, the well established narratives by the right that have been time tested and well honed and are well established in the social lexicon.
3. Hillary's Iraq war vote and her lack of willingness to address her support of it directly.
4. Hillary's negative coat tails affecting down ticket Democrats, especially in purple or red states where a Hillary nominee would energize Conservative opposition.
No. He wasn't interested in those things, this diary was meant to enforce those conceptions.
I disagree. That, again, is your opinionn. I think the point, which I was making related to your comment above, is that these things need to be addressed now, in a proactive way, rather than just crying "it's a right wing smear" next year when things heat up or trying to shout down every post your disagree with. How to do this, I don't know, because a: I'm not the one arguing in support of Hillary; b: I have yet to read much in the comments other than people shouting "that's a right wing smear" or "Is not!" as a response to any line of questioning relating to Hillary's liabilities.
If you want to comment that he's wrong based on you disagreeing with him or the premise of his post and nothing more, than I'm going to question the comment.
Here's my take: being provocative challenges people. It pushes their buttons. It pushed yours. How did you respond? By looking defensive. By attacking the diarist. You didn't address the post. That's the GOPs game. If we want to win then we have to stop shouting down people who challenge us. What's the message you want out there? "Is not!"? I feel like complaining? Stop picking on my candidate?
Respond to the liabilities. That's not asking for tricks. There has to be responses out there and they need to be tested, debated, and pushed or they won't stand up next year when it matters.
What exactly did you say in this comment? You don't like what bored said. No evidence to refute what he's saying. No analysis beyond you having trouble with how he's framing the issues. Just attack the author and claim there is no basis for what he's saying. Where have any of these been rebutted except by comments like this which basically say you don't agree because... you don't like what he's saying.
This is why Dems lose. Who do you think is going to frame the debate if our eventual nominee is Hillary? It will be the Republican noise machine. What frames do you think they will use? Ours? Hillary's? Get real. It will be all right-wing talking points.
Just try and convince voters they don't understand Hillary and have it all backwards. Just try and explain, politiely, that everything they know about Hillary is a right-wing smear, and oh so very wrong. Go ahead. Canvassed much?
What I want to know is how are we going to combat these statements? How are we going to overcome HIllary's high negatives. How does she overcome her own image. How do we sell her Iraq vote as change? How do we sell her Hillarycare failure as a sucess?
These are the points raised in this post. Agree with them or not, they are reality. How does she overcome it? Saying "that's right-wing framing" is a cop out. It's a preview, and a mild one at that, of what is comming.
So I don't care if you don't like it or can't "derive" the liabilities of a candidate. If you can't see the reality in Hillary's liabilities then you are the one not dealing with reality or fairness.
This question is a softball to use to tie all GOP to the corruption that is the Bush administration, and to pin them into answering questions about whether they believe in the rule of law or not. This is easy differentiation between Democrats and Republicans.
Use Libby to ask do you believe anyone is above the law? Should a person, convicted of obstruction of justice and lying under oath go unpunished? It's a simple question, and shows core differences between Republicans and Democrats.
But our candidates refuse to get on this horse and ride. This is why we appear weak. I'm fed up with the "my good friend" speak. Start calling these people out, especially when they have been convicted in a court of law!
I like the idea of putting "everyday" bloggers on the front page. Partisans are great, as long as they are respectful. I really appreciated the promotion to the front page during the 2006 IL-06 primary. It was a big help, and made this site something I felt at home on.
My suggestion for topics would be to chose hard ones for partisans to answer - specific liabilities of a candidate. For example, in the '06 primary I was a Cegelis partisan. One of the hardest questions to answer for me was how to respond to her fundraising issues. When forced to do this, it required that I really dig into the subject and work hard to address the issue, doing research and relevant comparisons. I'd like to see similarly difficult topics for partisans to answer, such as the discussions raised by bored now regarding Clinton. Basically, rather than just provide the free megaphone, require the partisan to provide the batteries.
Edwards didn't give anyone cover. He was the new guy from SC trying to score political points. He basically had little reputation at the time. As much as I agree with you that his sponsorship of the authorization gives me pause, his coming out and saying that his vote was a mistake - long before it was popular to do so - makes great strides to undermine your assertion that he gave fellow democrats cover. "Gee, I can vote for the authorization now that the new guy for SC sponsored it!" His continual speaking out first and strongest of the candidate, especially his calling out the "WOT" catch phrase has shown he is not afraid (or at least has nothing to lose) by leading.
A new senator vs. the former first lady and high profile Senator. Ya, that's similar.
And as for Obama, many of his supporters tout him as a transformational candidate. "Treading lightly" and transformational seem to me to be at odds to me because if he treads lightly in the primary, he'll tread even lighter as the nominee, which means if he governs any differently he will viewed poorly. Leaders lead. They don't tred lightly watching the direction of the political winds.