http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/20/95622.aspxBob wrote about this and others last week but for some reason it's all over TV and newspapers today.  Of course, if you're finding out about it from the TV you don't get to actually watch it for yourself so here's the link.  And here's a wholeen-USCommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60608.1)http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/20/95622.aspx#95769Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:47:31 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:95769LVI really have to wonder about people who feel the ad is effective. Isn't voting for Hillary "thinking different" in light of never having a female president? I suspect its only real effectiveness lies in how polarizing a figure Hillary has always been in the first place - people who hate her, for any reason or no reason, like the ad simply because it's against her. As someone who isn't emotional in evaluating Hillary's candidacy, I see nothing in this ad that stands as a valid criticism. Put a Kennedy or Bush in there, or someone who's been in Congress for decades, or any older WASP male political stereotype, and the ad has a point. I'm not necessarily advocating voting for Hillary, but using this particular ad to advocate voting against her simply makes no sense.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/20/95622.aspx#96386Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:29:14 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96386Kris, TexasI didn't particularly like the ad, but I'm not a huge Hillary fan either. I thought that the juxtaposition of her relatively non-brainwashing speech about having a dialogue with the authoritarian images of the advertisement didn't make any sense in the context in which it was supposed to presented. http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/20/95622.aspx#96616Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:53:38 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96616ChadI think the idea here is that we are running the risk of becoming a dynastic nation. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. In terms of being a Washington insider and a career politician, Hillary fits the bill. I don't think her being female is anything new or exciting. I realize we haven't had a female president, but I don't think it is because we supress women. Look at who has run and you can clearly see they lost because they should have lost. http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/20/95622.aspx#96787Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:39:20 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96787Alex, Lawrence, KSThat link to the tracking of the creator seems to give potentially a lot more credit to the maker of the video than I would. They hypothesize that someone in Hollywood (or with that level of knowledge) made it? Maybe. But, like most entertaining viral content, I speculate this was made by a some regular geek, who decided to play with some software (he pirated off Limewire) while he impatiently waits for new episodes of Heroes.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/20/95622.aspx#96981Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:04:17 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96981LVOne and a half Senate terms does not make a "career politician." Being the wife of a career politician is not the same thing as being one yourself (see also Libby Dole). And the idea that women (and any non-WASP-male) haven't been suppressed is laughable - they're still being discouraged from even running for any office and questioned when they do. Suppression will only stop when a woman runs and _nobody_ asks "Are we ready for a female president?"