There's a new ad out in the Presidential race that may have some familiarity to Sound Politics readers:
It should remind you in a way of this devastating ad from the Reichert-Burner race last year:
Richardson's two-part ad is pretty good, in a hokey sort of way. Setting aside his politics, he has a great resume for President (or VP) that should be shared with Democratic primary voters. And if you forced Republicans to pick the one Democrat they could live with in that party's current field, Richardson might well take that honor (or curse, depending on one's view).
Coming early in the campaign season, Richardson's ad also avoids the skewering nature of Reichert's commercial, which appropriately hammered home the message of Burner's inexperience at the close of the that contest. Liberals called the ad "sexist" (see in particular the comments at this Slog post). However, I have it from a Democratic source that Burner's campaign had problems with an unexpectedly high number of women taking a negative view of Burner based on her lack of credentials and youth. That's just part of the reason the ad worked.
Oh, and get used to seeing ads via YouTube. Joel Connelly was correct in saying recently Washington state isn't likely to get much love this Presidential primary cycle. The only ads we're likely to see are national cable buys, like those Mitt Romney has started to do in modest numbers.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 09, 2007 07:01 PM | Email ThisOh, really? That's convenient.
Posted by: Daniel K on May 9, 2007 07:50 PMWhat would you consider the reason for her Defeat?
I am a woman, found her to be a young yuppie mother, whom never finished what she started. It takes alot to be a mom, and a senator too? Give me a break..... She would suck at one or the other, and I voted for her "son".
Posted by: Chris on May 9, 2007 08:23 PMNow Bill Richardson is running on the concept that some experience does matter. Contrast that with our current incumbent who dodged the draft of the Viet Nam war by using his fathers influence to get him into the Texas Air National Guard to fly obsolete planes. Then skipped out on that obligation to do who knows what.
He appears a few years later to run for Congress and gets his ass kicked and oversees a series of business failures that confirm his penchant for squandering the wealth of others. He is set up in a sweet deal that allows him to profit handsomely at public expense with a professional baseball team, then parleys that into becoming the Governor of Texas, an honor slightly higher than being the Governor of Arkansas, but not as well regarded as being named orthodontist of the year. He goes on to become president of the United States through a combination of voter disenfranchisement in Florida and the appalling lack of sophistication of the national polity.
Now he sticks our nation in the midst of a civil war after invading a country in a war of aggression that will Italy's venture into Ethiopia. He's painted himself and our nations finest military institutions into a corner so tight we couldn't get out without divine intervention. And now he is playing chicken with a co-equal branch of government over the need to preserve his reputation by prolonging the matter until it can be said that it was someone else's fault because they let Iraq fall on their watch.
Have to agree with your premise, both Darcy and GWB were uniquely unqualified to fill the job. Let's find someone like Richardson who can.
Please explain to me what exactly Darcy Burner started and never finished.
Also, Burner never would have been a mom and "senator", as you suggested. She was running for the U.S. House.
As for voting for her "son", I guess that means you think McMorris Rodgers should give up her seat in Congress now she has given birth to a baby boy. Right?
Posted by: Daniel K on May 9, 2007 10:54 PMPlease explain to me what exactly Darcy Burner started.
Law School
Posted by: Mike H on May 9, 2007 11:38 PMThe dems won't admit it, but they won't be able to run against Bush in 2008. He'll be off the slate. All the bitter sophomoric hate they've drummed up against the guy will be spent capital.
If the war is still going on, it will be their war too. (They can blame it on the republicans all they want in 2008, and that may keep the base united but won't bring in new votes. Given the problems they are having with their lunatic fringe that seems to run the party these days, it might even cost them a lot of votes.)
Darcy won't have any more desirable qualities as a congressperson in 2008 than she had in the last election cycle. She is version 2.0 of Heidi Benedict-whatshername that ran for congress in the 8th district a number of times and lost.
Heck, I'd be more worried if Dave Ross tried again. At least he is a strong communicator.
Posted by: Johnny on May 10, 2007 07:25 AMSo, while Clinton was deadweight in 2000, the Iraq war may be the issue in '08. I wish not, but...
Posted by: swatter on May 10, 2007 07:40 AMI can answer that. Kucinich really believes it. Richardson is just pandering.
Clinton sounds like Edward Teller compared the rest of the field.
B
Posted by: besquared on May 10, 2007 08:16 AMI wonder...
If a Republican was caught trying to help buy off a person engaged in a Republican president's scandal, would that Republican still have a career in politics, or would the Democrats and the media have torn that person to shreds?
Chalk this one up to that double-standard again.
I'd respect Richardson, based on his record, had he not been there to help Clinton bury the truth that was being concealed from the American people. Since when, after all, do we pay taxes to find jobs for presidential mistresses?
Posted by: MJC on May 10, 2007 10:43 AMUnkl Witz good for you! You keep on campaigning against evil George W Bush and maybe in the 2008 election you'll beat him! And if that fails, there is alway 2012.
Posted by: pbj on May 10, 2007 10:57 AMSo can you please tell us all, just how many F-102 & F-106 fighters were used in Viet Nam?
Really, we would like to know. Unlike Bill (got another joint) Clinton.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 10, 2007 11:20 AMBut I don't think this ad was the best way for Richardson to highlight his strengths. I think that portraying a candidate as a job-seeker inherently diminishes their status and so the interview skit works better for belittling a weak candidate than promoting a strong but little-known candidate.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on May 10, 2007 02:57 PMIt's just not "presidential".
Posted by: G Jiggy on May 10, 2007 04:14 PMNotwithstanding, I'd vote Richardson over McCain, because I prefer his stand on the border over 1/2 of the McCain-Kennedy bill. The ad could use some polish, so he'd better place another one before the primaries. He would be a fairly strong VP if he falls short.
Posted by: KS on May 10, 2007 08:58 PM