Chuckie Toad laughing out loud at Hillary's claim that Bernie ran a negative ad.

[Motown_Johnny]

I have it on in the background while making dinner and surfing DU.

I don't have a link, but if I find one I will edit this thread.



Paraphrasing... If you think that is a negative ad, you should see Rubio's ad against Christie!


The next person on said straight out that this claim sounded desperate.


As another thread pointed out, when Hillary gets nervous she goes negative and that is when things really fall apart.

[winter is coming]

1. I wonder if Larry Wilmore will do another skit tonight with the "intern" from the Clinton campaign.

[Motown_Johnny]

4. I haven't seen it.

I will try to catch it, thanks for the heads up.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

36. If you are Mrs. Wall Street then it would appear -ve

but LOL someone is really desperate

[lewebley3]

66. Todd is paid by right coporation media: Hillary has turned him down often

[Cali_Democrat]

2. A negative ad is any ad that attacks an opponent

The ad attacks Hillary on Wall Street.

Therefore, it's a negative ad by definition.

[Punkingal]

6. Doesn't even mention her name in the ad.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. The implication in the ad is pretty clear IMO. He mentions "two visions"

Clearly one "vision" is his and the other "vision" is Hillary's.

---------------------------------------

<...>

But as the race for the Democratic nomination gets tighter and nastier, Sanders' campaign is confronting that promise when they consider how to respond to attacks from the Clinton campaign, walking the fine line between drawing contrasts with the former secretary of state and outright attacking her.

This was made clear Thursday when the Sanders campaign released an ad that suggested Clinton's practice of taking money from big banks makes her unlikely to take on those same financial institutions as President.

Titled "Two Visions," Sanders says in the ad that there are "two Democratic visions for regulating Wall Street." One, Sanders says looking straight into the camera, "says it is okay to take million from big banks and then tell him what to do," a not-very-subtle jab at Clinton. The second vision, of course, is Sanders' plan to break up big banks, close tax loopholes and make the wealthy "pay their fair share."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/14/politics/bernie-sanders-negative-ad/

[Motown_Johnny]

9. Simply drawing contrast, not an attack.

If he said she was bought and paid for by Wall Street, it would be a negative ad.

[Lokijohn]

74. I think if he said that

it would still qualify as simply drawing contrast.

Go Bernie!

[Fawke Em]

96. It would also be factual. eom

[INdemo]

29. If Hillary supporters are desperate and as nervous as everyone in Hillary's campaign

then this ad or any ad that doesn't mention "Hillary the anointed one" well to them its negative.

[HerbChestnut]

32. An ad which says

"I support *this* while my opponent supports *that*" is not negative so long as it's factual. That's called contrasting positions, something Hillary has been doing quite a lot of lately (although some might argue she's been less than honest about it). This ad doesn't even go that far. Hardly a negative ad.

[Kall]

77. Some might argue?

[Matariki]

47. Is that untrue? About the millions from banks?

Because unless it's untrue then stating a fact isn't 'an attack'. Unless it's something she's ashamed of or would rather not have people talking about...

[Scootaloo]

82. Oh? Hillary's "vision" is so accurately described that you can easily tell?

[humbled_opinion]

84. Well pointing out the truth about

political representation is some kind of attack now? This is an important point about who Hillary Clinton is, some people see it for the truth that it is, others think it is a negative attack... eyes of beholder an all...

[libdem4life]

88. So how would you characterize her position regarding Wall Street?

Maybe it's because it doesn't sound so peachy when held up in comparison to an alternative?

("Cut it out" has already been taken)

[shawn703]

92. It just describes two visions

Hillary and her supporters prefer a more Wall Street-friendly vision than Bernie and his supporters prefer. It's only "negative" if you think cozying up to Wall Street is a bad thing. Do you think most Democrats would think this is bad?

[Motown_Johnny]

7. No, he says there are two visions.

That is a factually correct statement. I am sorry if that confuses Clinton supporters but I understand why it would.


It isn't an attack.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. He's attacking Hillary's "vision"

So therefore it's a negative ad by definition.

You proved my point.

[Motown_Johnny]

11. Drawing contrast, not attacking.

Telling the truth is not an attack. If he said she was in the pocket of her Big Bank supporters, that would be negative.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. The ad implies she's in the pocket of big banks:

<...>

Titled "Two Visions," Sanders says in the ad that there are "two Democratic visions for regulating Wall Street." One, Sanders says looking straight into the camera, "says it is okay to take million from big banks and then tell him what to do," a not-very-subtle jab at Clinton. The second vision, of course, is Sanders' plan to break up big banks, close tax loopholes and make the wealthy "pay their fair share."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/14/politics/bernie-sanders-negative-ad/

[Motown_Johnny]

18. No way this is a negative ad.

If this is negative, then what are Hillary's comments about Bernie's votes on gun control?

What are her lies about his single payer plan?

They see it all slipping away and are getting desperate.

This is not a negative ad!

[Cali_Democrat]

20. You can keep saying that it's not a negative ad

But that won't change the fact that it is a negative ad.

Sorry.

[Motown_Johnny]

21. Then why is that claim being laughed at? You can keep saying it is, but it isn't.

You can't change that fact.

Sorry.

[Cali_Democrat]

25. Chuckles Toad is laughing....

News at 11.

[murielm99]

44. Bernie supporters are using HIM as a support

for their candidate? Most of the time, he is reviled here. That is why so many DUers call him Toad.

I guess any source will do when your candidate is trailing.

[Cali_Democrat]

46. They use the corporate-controlled MSM when it suits their objectives

They decry the corporate-controlled MSM when the story doesn't fit their narrative.

Too funny.

[artislife]

63. Because even he is bailing on h. nt

[riversedge]

64. Oh, my. None Bernie supporters are citing. chuckles. What a hoot.

[Matariki]

49. Just as you can keep saying the facts are 'negative'

doesn't make it so.

[Cali_Democrat]

53. The ad goes after Hillary

Therefore it's a negative ad.

An ad that isn't negative focuses on the candidate or issues, but doesn't mention opponents.

This one goes after Hillary.

It's negative.

[Matariki]

54. Just keep repeating that. Someone might believe it

maybe even you.

[Cali_Democrat]

55. Now you're making this about me.

That's fine.

I don't mind.

[Matariki]

56. lol

[cali]

73. Hillary's gun ad is closely analogous. Is that negative?

[Motown_Johnny]

94. Because you present your opinion as a fact.

It isn't.

[riversedge]

65. I believe it is negative. Something Sanders said he would not do.

[Plucketeer]

68. Wow! That desperation spreads FAST!

All this "I know what you are, but what am I ?" LOL!

[Matariki]

69. Did Clinton not take campaign money from banks?

Here, I'll google that for you:

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

Top Contributors Senator Hillary Clinton

?1

[cali]

76. Laughable. It's about as mild as you can get.

And it's very similar to her gun control ad.

[Fawke Em]

98. Because you're a supporter.

Someone sticking out their tongue at your candidate would cause you to think they'd done something negative.

Your feelings are simply hurt.

The ad is a comparison, not an attack. Candidates are supposed to show their differences during campaigns. That's the whole point.

On edit: THESE are attack ads: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAAF611D67B3B8E52

Comparing two visions within the Democratic Party without even mentioning her name is NOT an attack ad. It's comparing two visions.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

83. Nope. Took a poll. 0% agree with you. Yes, it was an Internet poll.

[persuadable]

91. As a shaky Hillary supporter

I do not see anything negative or unfair about this ad. It does not accuse her of doing anything she does not do, or anything illegal. She is working within the system as it presently exists, Bernie is working outside the system, something we and Obama thought was impossible.

[Fawke Em]

97. Nearly everyone is saying it's not a negative ad.

The ad itself is, by most accounts, rather mild. It features Sanders, a senator from Vermont, speaking straight to the camera and painting a contrast between “two Democratic visions” for regulating Wall Street.

“One says it’s OK 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,” Sanders says in the ad.

At no point does he mention Clinton by name, nor does the ad feature an image of the former secretary of state.

Reporters pressed the Clinton campaign several times during the call on whether they truly felt the ad was “negative”, to which both Mook and Benenson reiterated that it violated, in their view, Sanders’s vow not to run attack ads.

Asked if the Clinton campaign would respond in kind, they said they would “wait and see what Senator Sanders does”.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/14/hillary-clinton-campaign-bernie-sanders-negative-tv-ad

Most people are aware that the Clinton campaign is just saying it is because they're about to go full-blown negative on him in an ad, trust me.

[artislife]

24. Seems more like an awareness than a judgment. nt

[Matariki]

59. Isn't she?

They won't expect something in return for all the money they gave her?

[Cali_Democrat]

60. So then the implication....

that being in the pocket of big banks is a negative thing.

The ad implies she's in the pocket of big banks (which is a negative thing).

So you just proved my point that it's a negative ad.

[Matariki]

62. You are nitpicking

smells desperate.

And yes, *I* think it's a very bad thing. Not something I'd like to see in a President. She did take money from them, no? A point you're consistently avoiding

[questionseverything]

86. well if hc wasn't taking all that big bank money she wouldn't have to worry

now would she?

seems like you are the one saying hc is in the pockets of those contributors

[Lokijohn]

95. No,

the facts imply she is in the pocket of big banks. Just look how much they have given her personally (speeches ha!), her campaign and her superpacs. Bernie is merely pointing out the obvious.

[Punkingal]

12. She doesn't have a vision...she is a pragmatist. Ask Howard Dean.

[Bjornsdotter]

33. +1 n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

14. Here is the ad.

No way this is a negative ad.

They are just desperate.

[mindwalker_i]

50. It points out facts related to Hillary

Therefore it's a negative ad.

[Mnpaul]

61. Facts related to Hillary and others

You have the Third Way vision and you have the democratic vision

One represents Wall St. and the other represents the 99%

[Matariki]

51. OMG - they're calling *that* negative?

yeah, that's really desperate. It's a great ad, btw.

[tk2kewl]

15. it's the "lively debate" she asked for

[ljm2002]

27. By your definition, then...

...any ad that mentions and contrasts an opponent's position is negative.

Wrong.

[Kalidurga]

57. It's good to know you think Hillary's vision for the United States is wrong.

[cali]

71. Than Hillary's gun ad is negative.

[dsc]

17. negative doesn't mean false

it means negative. The ad is negative.

[Motown_Johnny]

19. Anytime you draw contrast you are saying one is right and the other is wrong.

That is not the same as going negative.

[artislife]

26. Nuance is hard for them...lol

But she seemed so tough against the republicans during the Benghazi hearings and this is hurtful? Maybe she was wounded and roughed up by the hearings and she lost her toughness?

[bjobotts]

85. Not the same as an attack anyway

[DisgustipatedinCA]

42. No, it's not. But think what you need to; it doesn't matter.

[pangaia]

28. NO. it compares their two positions.

[cali]

48. Lol and bullshit. He compares two approaches.

Not even close to being negative. And you know it. So does every pundit and commentator

[mindwalker_i]

58. A negative ad is anything that talks about Hillary factually

In this case, you're using a specific definition of the word "attack" in "attack ad." Your definition changes depending on who is making the ad: if Hillary does it, it's just pointing out facts. If Bernie does it, he "launching an attack ad which he promised not to do."

The core problem is that you, like Hillary, will use anything as an argument for your side, changing definitions at will in order to suit your side. In effect, nothing you say is trustworthy.

[bjobotts]

80. Stating a person's position is not an attack.

[Punkingal]

3. Saw it....they WERE laughing at her campaign. Amazing!

[arcane1]

5. Telling the truth about her is a "negative" "attack" now, apparently.

Funny how that works.

[stillwaiting]

16. How will Hillary handle an ad from a Republican if she melts down over Bernie's ads

which are simply issue focused?

Not impressed Hillary that your people are crying over Bernie's very reasonable ads.

[catnhatnh]

22. You want an attack ad?

If I were Bernie Sanders I would bring a uniformed Bosnian sniper to every campaign event...

[ybbor]

72. Asking you to fasten your seatbelt for landing

At 3 am

[Metric System]

23. Now they love the corporate media!

[pangaia]

30. No--- THEY ( WE/ME) still hate the corporate media.

[CorkySt.Clair]

31. Toad is far right wing

I don't buy his non-partisan, objective journo-analyst shtick. Only a fool would.

Hillary is a useful target for him right now, and let's be honest, she's making it pretty easy for him. Bernie will face the same treatment from Toad, and that ilk, should he start to rack up wins in primaries and become the true front runner which appears to be happening, but we shall see.

[madokie]

34. So far it seems

He's like john wayne toilette paper, Bernie takes no shit from anyone.

[Motown_Johnny]

40. I love when they call Bull Shit on Hillary's Campaign's Bull Shit.

That doesn't happen much, but yes. I love it.

[Bjornsdotter]

35. I thought the ad

...was very well done.

Compare and contrast.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

37. So what was negative about it?

Breaking her beloved Wall street/bank would be a positive move surely.

[Motown_Johnny]

38. Her spokesperson was claiming that drawing contrast = attack.

Apparently saying that there are 2 visions equals directly attacking Hillary.

It made no sense at all.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

41. They are awfully sensitive all of a sudden!

[Motown_Johnny]

43. The next person on the show said that spokesperson was "desperate".

Assuming I am remembering that correctly, I wasn't really paying attention. I mean, it is Chuckie.

[winter is coming]

67. There was nothing negative about it. The Clinton campaign must be planning on going

negative in a yooge way and want to "justify" it by saying Bernie's gone negative.

[hueymahl]

90. +1 I think you nailed it

She is looking for any reason to start wallowing in the mud.

[JonLeibowitz]

93. Exactly my thinking. n/t

[ejbr]

39. So

it seems that some Hillary supporters would argue that stating how Hillary would approach Wall Street-- take their money and then tell them what to do-- is a negative ad. The only thing that makes it negative is its veracity. Is it a fabrication? No. Is his tone combative or scornful? No. Does he say explicitly that her approach is wrong? No.

A broken clock is right two times a day; Toad has reached that time on this one.

[Motown_Johnny]

45. I wish I could rec that. Thanks..

And it is a stopped clock. In theory, a broken clock could just run slow/fast and only be right on very rare occasion.

[ejbr]

52. Yeah

He's stopped on that money train. Ha!

[winter is coming]

70. For Toad, it's more like two times a year.

Does that mean I can ignore him for the next six months? He's a loathsome person in his own right and reminds me strongly of someone I detest.

[ejbr]

75. You can even ignore him on this one...

his opinion really is of little importance.

[SoapBox]

78. She is indeed predictable.

[SamKnause]

79. Does anyone have a link or show title.

I know he hosts Meet the Press, but that doesn't help.

[Matariki]

81. Here's a list of her top donors

Unsurprisingly, some people in this thread would rather argue that merely pointing out the facts is somehow worse than the implications this has for our political system.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

?1

[Feeling the Bern]

87. To Hillary and her minions, anything that highlights her "say and do anything to get elected"

attitude as well as doing a "Hillary then v. Hillary now" comparison is a negative ad.

[gordyfl]

89. Hillary Anxious to Go Negative on Bernie

I believe Team Hillary is searching for an excuse to unleash a barrage of negative ads against Bernie Sanders. Politics the old fashioned way.

[winter is coming]

99. I wonder if that's why Chelsea lied about Sanders and single payer the other day.

Maybe they were hoping he'd say something in response that could be spun as an "attack" on her.