I originally saw a post about this video on Donklephant but did not care to watch it since they claimed that it was negative. Ezra Klein argued other wise and after watching it, I would have to agree with him. This ad is not negative at all, in fact it is comparative.
The Liberal Values Blog claims, "The content is pretty lame also. It’s also dishonest," about the recent ad by the Clinton campaign. I have provided the following transcript:
"Both Democratic candidates were invited to a televised debate here in Wisconsin. Hillary Clinton has said yes, Barack Obama hasn't. Maybe he'd prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions. Like why Hillary Clinton has the only health care plan that covers every American and the only economic plan that freezes foreclosures.Wisconsin deserves to hear both candidates debate the issues that matter and that's not debatable."
Dishonest . . . no. Let's see why. The first statement claims, "Both Democratic candidates were invited to a televised debate here in Wisconsin. Hillary Clinton has said yes, Barack Obama hasn't." This is a true statement and there is nothing dishonest about it.
The second statement claims, "Maybe he'd prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions." This is speculation and can neither be true nor false. It is possible that Obama prefers to give speeches or perhaps it is not. Nonetheless, the statement is not dishonest. If it were to state, "He'd prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions," then it would be dishonest but the key word is "maybe" thus it exonerates the campaign of making a false claim.
The third statement claims, "Like why Hillary Clinton has the only health care plan that covers every American and the only economic plan that freezes foreclosures." This is the trickiest of the four. Again this is speculation as to why Obama does not want to have debates. Again because of the previous statement and due to the context it is permissible. The clever thing is that the campaign has been able to insert two key positions that they feel make them better than Obama. The folks over at LVB state, "She claims to have the only health care plan that covers every American. Her plan will attempt to force every American to join, but Obama has the superior plan to actually provide health care coverage to everybody who desires it." Herein lies the fallacy of his argument, LVB argues that Obama's plan is superior when Clinton's ad claimed that it would cover every American never stating that it was better. Thus, it is not dishonest. LVB assumed that because it covers "every American" that it means that it is "superior" which is the wrong assumption. The second part of the sentence reads, "only economic plan that freezes foreclosures." The LVB counters that statement by using other institutions that offer their opinion on the economic plan. The LVB foolishly argues over which plan is better much like the health care argument when the Clinton camp only claimed that their plan was the only one that freezes foreclosures, which is true.
The final statement claims, "Wisconsin deserves to hear both candidates debate the issues that matter and that's not debatable." This is an opinion of the Clinton campaign that can not be affirmed nor negated. It is not dishonest to claim an opinion. What I found intresting about this copy though is that it did not directly state Obama or Clinton as inclusive of being both candidates. The LVB states, "The gist of the commercial is to attack Obama for not agreeing to a debate in Wisconsin." Again, the LVB has assumed wrong. The last statement just claims that, "Wisconsin deserves to hear both candidates debate the issues that matter," never once stating that they should debate in Wisconsin. It just claims that both candidates should debate the issues that matter. Now do not get me wrong, in the context of the video and the way it is presented I can see how the LVB misinterpreted the ad.
When it comes to semantics and campaign ads one must be anal about the statements. One should refrain from assuming as did the LVB because one gets caught up on the wrong arguments. I am glad that the LVB is politically conscious about false claims but they should take steps in order to refrain from assuming the incorrect prepositions. This ad did not portray incompetence nor lack of integrity, in fact it was the latter. It was articulate and well thought out for a campaign advert.
