Sorry for the short diary. Yesterday, there was a recommended diary
about an idea for a good Obama advertisement, the link to which is
here:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
I had another idea for an Obama advertisement that I wish would
run. The add would, Jon Stewart Bush-vs.-Bush style, pair the Hillary
Clinton of 2008 running against the young Bill Clinton of 1992.
2008 Hilary Clinton has resided in Washington for a long time. She is
wife of a former president. She is a second term senator. She is
generally smart, competent, and accomplished, but she is hawkish,
evasive, divisive, opportunistic, and tends to triangulate. She claims
that she is vetted. She has been hurting and dividing the democratic
party by unfairly criticizing her democratic opponent, Bill Clinton
1992, as being inexperienced, of having nothing more than one speech
(that she doesn't even acknowledge is good), of potentially
endangering this country if elected, and has hinted that her
republican opponent (George H.W. Bush in 1992) is more qualified to be
president than 1992 Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton 1992, on the other
hand is an inspirational speaker, has somehow gotten young voters much
more involved in the presidential process, is a transformational
figure, is a first of sorts (the first credible Vietnam era potential
candidate), and is running a generally positive and hopeful campaign
based on change in Washington and change in the presidency. Are 2008
Hillary Clinton's criticisms valid against a 1992 Bill Clinton? Should
we believe Hillary that 1992 George H.W. Bush is more qualified than
1992 Bill Clinton? Are the parallels to present reality here not remarkable?