ADVERTISEMENT

American Crossroads, a well know Republican Super PAC co-founded by Karl Rove, has put out an ad attacking Hillary Clinton for ties to foreign leaders. The kicker is that the ad is entirely narrated using the voice of Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. The line of attack stems from a story we posted yesterday about the Clinton Foundation accepting donations from foreign governments.

ADVERTISEMENT

Report from the IBTimes:

A new attack ad leveled at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that uses sound clips of Elizabeth Warren doesn’t actually come from the Democratic U.S. Senator from Massachusetts but instead was paid for by American Crossroads, a Republican group not tied to Warren. The ad, titled “Rigged,” went live on Sunday and alleged that Clinton would have a conflict of interest if she were elected president because the Clinton Foundation, the group founded by former President Bill Clinton and which Hillary became involved with after stepping down as secretary of state, accepts donations from foreign governments.

“Powerful interests have tried to capture Washington and rig the system in their favor. The power of well-funded special interests tilts our democracy away from the people and toward the powerful,” Warren says as images of Hillary Clinton are shown with Middle Eastern leaders. The ad from American Crossroads, which backs Republican candidates, claims the Clinton Foundation “took millions from foreign governments,” including up to $5 million from the United Arab Emirates, up to $25 million from Saudi Arabia and “potentially millions from Qatar,” which American Crossroads describes as “a prominent backer of Hamas,” the Palestinian militant group. Warren’s voice continues: “Action is required to defend our great democracy against those that would see it perverted into one more rigged game where the rich and the powerful always win.”

Progressive Democrats are urging Warren to run for president, but the Massachusetts senator has consistently denied that she’ll mount a 2016 campaign. American Crossroads acknowledges that it uses Warren’s voice in its ad, but unless the watcher is aware that American Crossroads backs Republican candidates, it may be unclear if it actually came from Warren. American Crossroads’ leadership includes Mike Duncan, a former Republican National Committee chairman, and Steven Law, deputy labor secretary under former President George W. Bush and an ex-staffer to Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. [Emphasis added]

I’ve seen the ad (watch it here) and it absolutely does appear to be an attack originating from Elizabeth Warren if you don’t pay much attention to who is sponsoring it. I can’t figure out if they’re trying to hurt Clinton and perhaps create more interest in Warren as a primary challenge or just launching the attack in general to get it into the public square. Would it benefit Republicans to let Hillary be coronated or try to force her into a primary against the left?

To be starting this early tells me they’re trying to goad Democrats into challenging Hillary by highlighting her perceived weaknesses.

18 COMMENTS

  1. As a long-time advertising professional, I think the ad sucks. It’s
    confusing. Who is talking? Will the average American recognize the
    voice of Elizabeth Warren? And the chyron doesn’t seem to say much, and it’s over before it seems to say anything.

    Why didn’t they show a little footage of Warren? Or a caption?

    The irony is that when Warren says, “Powerful interests have tried to capture Washington and rig the system in their favor,” she’s actually talking about AMERICAN CROSSROADS!

    Why not run a pro-immigration ad, show the Texas-Mexico boarder wall, and then use the voice of Reagan saying, “tear down this wall.” Makes the same amount of sense (and honesty).

    I’m not a Hillary fan, but this ad just looks desperate. Wasted money. Fire that agency.

    • Can’t be aimed at the average American voter. 95% of them aren’t paying attention right now. Gotta be aimed at the Democratic activists in early states who WILL recognize Warren.

      Otherwise, I generally concur.

      • Hmmm. . .good point. If that’s the case, maybe it’s really intended as a way to slam Hillary and at-the-same-time, elevate Elizabeth. Clearly, the GOP is afraid of NeoCon Hillary, and thinks Elizabeth’s image is too liberal. Therefore, as you say, this may be intended as trying to grow enmity between the camps, while hoping the Warren people take the bait.

  2. Lets connect the dots. Gov. Jeb Bush is one of the leading money rising candidates this early in the 2016 race. He is the son and brother of George H.W. and George W. Bush who has been raked over the coals for the past 35 years for being friends to the Saudi royal family. Who was Karl Rove an advisor to………………George W. Bush ! Hmmm interesting ! I’d keep my mouth shut if I was you Karl unless you want to answer more questions than this is worth.

    • Hmmm. . .maybe. But Rove’s approach has always been contrarian–attack the opposition on their strengths, not their weaknesses. Also, attack the opposition on YOUR weaknesses, so if in either case, the other side responds, it will sound like “oh, yeah?”

      Their “issue” (stupid as it is) is that a contribution to a charitable organization somehow impacts American politics. So I don’t think people would see the Bush/Saud connection as relevant. In fact, my guess is that most people think kissing Saudi butt has kept us floating in gasoline since the gaslines of the 70s.

      • I don’t find the issue of politicians taking foreign contributions stupid I find it an outrageous threat to our security. The Bush/Saud connection has been profitable to the left in the same sense as the Halliburton connection has been. To bring to attention and put in the publics mind a hint of using an elected office in back room deal making for a personal gains. We don’t want corporate influence but foreign influence is o.k.? Which is why I find it hard for you not to see the similarities. The left is simply better at bringing out and using these hints of corruption than the inept GOP/RNC is. As far as kissing Saudi butt after a bunch of Saudi’s attacked the W.T.C. on 9/11 and our own production of oil rising I doubt you will find many Americans that would advocate it.

        • This is not about “politicians” taking “foreign contributions.”

          It’s about a non-political foundation getting money where it can for non-political activity.

          • Here’s another way to look at this. Hillary wants “equal pay and rights for women in America,” saying so as recently as yesterday, yet her foundation takes money from governments which rampantly and openly oppress women. Is that a double-standard? A Republican would get asked that question in a heartbeat.

            • For the benefit of the kids………
              This reminds me of 1973 when Vice President Spiro Agnew was forced to resign because of bribery charges while he was Governor of Maryland.

              Lets try to avoid any repeats of this

            • It’s not HER foundation, it’s Bill’s. And I’ve never been a proponent of turning down money for a charitable cause, unless the giver is truly heinous.

              Should we stop allowing the Chinese to buy our debt?

          • Obviously you didn’t take the time to read my lengthy post. Why doesn’t that surprise me?

            You are entitled to your opinion but hopefully you will give a better explanation so we don’t think ideology is clouding your opinion.

            • No, I’m just objecting to biased party ideology.

              For instance, you say that Hillary got her office as a quid pro quo for Bill handing over 200,000 names. Couldn’t it also be that Obama wanted to vet the list for the same reason you do?

              I’m not a fan of Hillary, and I think she will find a way to lose the nomination, but not because of the recent pablum and BS that’s been charged here lately. Nope. She’ll do herself in, as she did in 2008–and some Democratic “Walker” will walk away with it.

            • What BIASED PARTY IDEOLOGY are you objecting to in my post ? I’ve been more than open minded if you read the long post of mine at the end of this thread especially in the first paragraph. I didn’t say Mrs. Clinton got her position quid pro quo THE ARTICLE IN THE LINK SAID IT.
              As I said you are entitled to your opinion but you want to talk B.S.? Taking hundreds of millions of dollars in your foundation while holding public office isn’t B.S. or double standard IT’S NO STANDARDS. And it is Mrs.Clintons as much as President Clintons because both their names are on it.

            • If you point to an article as “proof” of your point, you can’t then disavow the article as “someone else’s idea.” You’ve already committed to it.

            • If you read my post instead of worrying about NOT AGREEING WITH ME (“I hate to agree with Bob on anything” ……..from the “Carly Fiorina will likely….” thread) WE MAY MAKE SOME PROGRESS HERE.

              What I said was I was summarizing the article and using the link as proof from where I received the summary from. Quit being a nitpicking putz !

      • I think Bob’s right in that many Americans, rightly or wrongly, do see this as a big issue. They see the elite in our country (be it Bush or Clinton) rubbing elbows with foreign (sometimes hostile) governments and they feel screwed in some way.

        I don’t think American Crossroads would have wasted time on this if they didn’t poll-test or focus group it first to determine if it caught people’s attention. Rove is just as much data-driven as he is contrarian.

        • Rove’s polling is never about “what’s important to you?” It’s about, “could you be sold on this?”

  3. Seeing that we aren’t given much information on this by any media sources except the fact Mrs. Clinton is being criticized I decided to do some research on my own. It seems “Judicial Watch’ subpoenaed papers through the “Freedom of Information Act’ that are as expected being released very slowly by the Clintons or being held back by sources till the appropriate time for major damage but here’s the picture as they paint it as of August 2014.

    President Clinton made a deal with Barack Obama to release the names of all 200,000 of the donors to his library and foundation for Sen. Hillary Clinton being appointed Secretary of State. There were 9 conditions to this deal one of them being he had to get the State Departments o.k. on all his speeches. 215 of 215 of his speeches were given the ok. which earned him $48 million dollars many paid for by foreign business or policy interest entities. These speeches were given in the Saudi Arabia, Egypt , United Arab Emirates, turkey, China, and Russia.

    Below is the Judicial Watch paper entitled: “Clinton Corruption Bombshell”

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/clinton-corruption-bombshells/

Comments are closed.