A Tale of Two Ads

[cali]

On January 12, Hillary Clinton released this ad, entitled "I'm With Him". She's looking into the camera and she speaks in a pleasant, measured manner. She says:

"he wants to make sure that gun manufacturers are held accountable when their guns are used to kill our children. It's time to pick a side- either we stand with the gun lobby or we join the President and stand up to them."


https://m.

On January 13, Bernie Sanders released this ad, entitled "Two Visions". He's looking into the camera and he speaks in a pleasant, measured manner. He says:

"There are two democratic visions for regulating Wall Street. One says it's okay to take millions from big banks and then tell them what to do. My plan- break up the big banks, close the tax loopholes, and make them pay their fair share."


https://m.

If one of these ads is a negative attack ad that people should be outraged by, isn't the other one also a negative attack ad that we should all be outraged by? Or maybe, both ads draw legitimate contrasts on issues. The first ad is referencing Bernie's record on gun control. The second ad is referencing Hillary's history of taking Wall Street big dollars.

Why is only one a negative ad?

[hobbit709]

1. Outrage is in the eyes of the beholder, especially if the beholder is easily outraged.

[cali]

2. Do you see how similar these ads are?

[hobbit709]

5. Neither one gets me upset but then I'm not a member of the outrage brigade.

[cali]

7. Neither is a negative attack ad.

[daleanime]

3. Can only speak for myself, but I don't have a problem....

with either ad.

[hollysmom]

4. Mr. Burns rubs his hands and hisses out

ex cell lent

[randys1]

6. WE have two pretty darn good candidates, that is what I see. I am pissed that Hillary

and Chelsea made untrue innuendo about Bernie destroying healthcare, it was a desperate and dumb move.

But even with that, we have two good candidates.

These ads are to be expected.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. Both are drawing contrast. No foul here that I can see. n/t

[brooklynite]

9. One of the candidates made a pledge not to run negative ads...

One of the candidates is supposed to be different.

[cali]

10. Seriously? You think one or both of those ads are negative

And Hillary kinda sorta pledged not to go negative on Bernie too. Of course she used weasel words that kinda sorta gave her an out.

In any case, it's either dishonest or delusional to label either ad negative.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1006991

[whatchamacallit]

11. "OMG Sanders is YouBetterBelieveIt!"

"It all makes sense now..."

A. Hilbot

[winter is coming]

12. I wouldn't call the first ad "negative" so much as poorly constructed.

It conflates not being in favor of manufacturer liability with "standing with the gun lobby" and being indifferent to the deaths of children. I don't think broad-based liability for gun manufacturers makes sense or is likely to hold up in court, but that doesn't mean I "stand" with the gun lobby. It means I happen to have a similar stance for different reasons on one particular issue. Also, the ad goes for an emotional hit with "kill our chldren". At least I assume that's for emotional impact, unless Hillary thinks there shouldn't be liability when adults are killed?

I wouldn't call this ad in itself an attack ad, but it's not very effective. Any time I see someone resorting to "for us or against" us logic and resorting to emotionally laden phrases, I tune it out as propaganda.

[LWolf]

13. K & R