"You know, that’s for somebody else to decide. . . . I don’t have an opinion one way or another. I think anything that drives interest in these campaigns and gets people who otherwise are not at all interested in politics, I think that’s pretty good. . . ."
Well said. Happily, Sen. Clinton was not alone in defending the ad (and, by extension, the First Amendment). From the L.A. Times:
"The beauty of the Internet is that speech is free. It costs virtually nothing to create an ad for or against a candidate and post it on YouTube for the world to see, so the exchange of ideas (and insults) is refreshingly brisk. Not long after the Clinton slam caught fire, someone did an anti-Obama version of the same piece. Meanwhile, other clips praising or slamming the candidates proliferate on the website.
"The potential for anonymous potshots and dirty tricks online is real and always will be. But the answer isn’t more regulation."
We hope this skepticism of "regulatory" solutions to the "problem" of free speech continues to be a growing trend among politicians and editorial boards.