"effective" =/= "OK"

Be afraid, be very afraid, be scared, be afraid, be worried, be afraid, be scared, be concerned, be afraid, I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this ad.

Really, that's all there is there.

This would be an effective ad for Obama to run. Because, as he responded to Hillary's ad by pointing out, both McCain and Clinton already had their "red phone" moment... and both failed the test. Obama passed. He should definitely run on national security. A smart national security policy vs 100 years in Iraq.

Well, that's what I thought as well. This would work great for McCain.

I suspect that's because John McCain has extensive Military experience and Hilary Clinton doesn't.

Yeah, man, I don't think you should ever run clever little ads like this unless you think the answer to the ad is very clear.

Also, I think it continues to suggest that the Clinton campaign (and possibly the McCain campaign) is profoundly misunderstanding the nation's mood.

If this kind of crap actually worked on people, Hillary would have already won the nomination ...

Obama could run the same thing against McCain, but at the end show Obama sitting alertly at his desk, and McCain in an oxygen tent.

By now you've seen this - "Now one of Clinton's laws of politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."
-Bill Clinton, 2004

He should definitely run on national security.
- Z

He can't. He's weak in this area, compared to both McCain and Clinton. He'll get creamed.

And if he gets to the Whitehouse, he's going to be rather chagrined to find himself going back on his promises, once he sees the real data.

John McCain already has a version of this ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPadP7eAO9Y

Hillary's has better production values and appeals to women while McCain's seems to be appealing more for men his ad kind of hits the action movie chord.

It's similar to the way they market SUVs: fear and adventure. SUV drivers have a much higher level of fear about everything than us non-SUV drivers but also like to pretend they might have to go off-road on their way to the grocery store.

I don't have a problem with the ad. It isn't accusing Obama of being dangerous or anything. It simply claims that Hillary is the person you would rather have in an emergency.

Politics isn't beanbags.

Zengerle might argue that this type of ad effectively targets "possible John McCain voters" better than "possible Hillary Clinton voters." But I think Kevin's point stands. There's no reason to concede national security as an issue. It's a solid ad for Clinton that touts her own abilities rather than attacking anyone else's.

If this kind of crap actually worked on people, President Kerry wouldn't have won in 2004.

I like this ad. Much better than most political ads these days. No reason why Clinton can't run on the issues of national security and experience. Why give all that to the Republicans?

McCain might buy it if he hadn't all ready run it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPadP7eAO9Y

Actually thats not fair to Hillary, she actually ripped of some anonymous utuber who supports John McCain and made this crappy video in response to a Romney ad.

E

*

Zengy is right. This ad demonstrates HRC's campaign weakness in a nutshell: on all her central themes (experience, national security, etc.) she is intuitively less plausible than McCain. So what helps her against Obama hurts her after August. She's a good liberal on policy, but her tactics are GOP-lite at a time when Dems would rather beat Bushism than imitate it.

Bill Kristol must be so proud of Hillary.

Kevin is right! Dems need to get used to competing in this space. We need to be prepared to run ads with wolves running through the forest, morphing opponents's faces into Osama Bin Laden, accusing people of wanting to have hot gay sex with terrorists, and so on.

What better way to get started than running ads like these on fellow Dems. Karl Rove got his start attacking fellow college Republicans. We should do no less.

Christ, I can't wait for this primary to be over.

The best thing for Obama to do is run an ad about Iraq and link her to Bush-Cheney expereince, and throw McCain in there too to up the ante.

About McCain's "extensive military experience": okay, he got shot down and captured; he survived 5 years of captivity. By contrast, Randy "Duke" Cunningham was an ace fighter pilot in the same war. If experience as a "warrior" counts for something, shouldn't SUCCESS as a warrior count for more?

-- TP

"red phone" moment?

Doesn't only the president have the "red phone"? There have only been 43 presidents and much of them did not have a phone at all, much less a red one...

This could just be a case of gender bias, instead of perceived differences in a parties ability to lead.

Why is it somehow OK for John McCain to run on the basis of being the guy who can protect America while Hillary shouldn't?

Probably because war mongering is pretty much the only arrow in McCain's quiver. He doesn't have anything else going for him. Clinton, on the other hand, is such a strong candidate in so many other regards -- she's got a blisteringly hot intellect, and she's right on most policy issues. Why she continues to hitch her little pig of a wagon to this issue is simply baffling. Every time she broaches this subject, she paints a huge bull's-eye on her chest for that AUMF vote. As a rule, folks who wet the bed on the first midnight phone call really shouldn't bring this stuff up. All of which is to say that I agree with Z.

Hillary Clinton to the red courtesy phone!

A person's gut reaction to a physical violation is to respond in kind. You (or a friend) are attacked you return fire. That's why people default to thinking and trusting Republicans when the 3AM phone call comes in. Republicans can be depended upon to start blowing things up and killing people. If you're punched in the nose you don't say "Hmmmm, how can I defuse this and reach a diplomatic settlement of the situation?" You tend to go ballistic. You may innately expect the same of your government in an analogous dilemma. Hence peace seeking, negotiating Democrats are viewed suspiciously. They're not reacting like they're "supposed" to.

John, the phone... er, John, the phone... PHONE!!!! ring, ring, ring....

It shows children safe in their beds and it keeps repeating that they are safe. No fear there. It says, who do you want taking care of things while you and your kids sleep? Someone who knows what they're doing. No fear there. It doesn't emphasize military crises but mentions several types of crises. Phones ring in the middle of the night because of Katrina, not just 9/11; because events in Asia or Europe are in different time zones, not just because of wars.

What does it mean that you guys jump immediately to fear and military experience when the ad isn't about that? There are many important kinds of experience. Maybe we should be focusing more on our domestic crises instead of the military ones -- a scene with kids in bed is a domestic scene (perhaps a reason why someone above says this ad appeals to women).

Mark Penn still thinks that Obama being AGAINST the war will hurt him in the general. From today's NYT:

"“He regularly goes out there and says he’s the person who can beat John McCain,� said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist. “But the truth is, if he is ever in a general election, a lot of positions he took in 2003 and 2004 will come back to haunt him in a big way and a lot of the vetting that didn’t happen will happen. The independent and Republican support that he has had will evaporate really quickly.�"

Are anti-war Republicans going to break for McCain or for Obama/Hillary?

We know that when John McCain answers the phone, his response is biased towards "Bomb Iran!" (or wherever), regardless of what the issue is. I'm worried that Clinton, to prove that she can be as tough as the next guy, will be biased the same way. I think that Obama's response to this ad was exactly right.

But perhaps Obama will also feel the need to prove his toughness. That's one of the problems with our political discourse.

Jerome, are you sure he is talking about positions on the war? I don't see that mentioned. There may be other positions that Independents and Republicans wouldn't like.

Saw this on tv this morning and the subtext for me was "Hillary's going to wake the children! #$%#$#! I just got them to bed!!" Look for a percentage drop in Hill's approval among parents of children ages newborn to five years old.

Due to constraints, I was only able to view this advertisement without sound, but what I've seen is a good and effective ad for Hillary Clinton. Not really the fear-mongering in the beginning, but the image of Hillary "workin the phones" is a great takeaway for the casual viewer, conveying much in its final seconds than many of her speeches took in their minutes. Gotta give respect to that.

Heck, the president we've got now was asleep at the switch and all we lost was three skyscrapers in NYC and a wing of the Pentagon... and four airliners. And a war. Or two.

So how bad could Obama be?

Also, I think it continues to suggest that the Clinton campaign (and possibly the McCain campaign) is profoundly misunderstanding the nation's mood.

Bingo. Neither McCain nor Clinton seem capable of changing course, no matter how much evidence they have that what they're doing isn't working. That reminds me of someone...

I thought Zengerle was saying it was more fitting for McCain because it was a fearmongering, boogeyman, be very afraid ad.

I don't see this as Clinton playing on fear. I see it as her portraying the care of children as a natural female activity and generalizing from the home to the nation. As women take care of children in the home, they can take care of a nation full of children, because women are the ones who do get up at 3 am, while dads sleep through. Women will get that.

Boorring: Try it with the sound on. Enjoy the descriptions of "something happening in the world" and "a dangerous world." Feel the shiver of fear. You're supposed to--that's what the ad is for.

Something happening in the world and dangerous world both apply to the Nikkei crashing.

Coming from the generation that worried about Russian atomic bombs blowing us up without warning, I understand the underlying anxiety. I just don't find the idea of HRC answering the phone all that reassuring.

There is something that is disingenuous about this whole argument. Here's another version: When voters were asked about Clinton vs Obama, one man said that he preferred Hillary because the president is going to need some help (implying Bill's presence, one would presume). The president can ask for help from anybody in the country and expect to receive it; he has military experts on call (in the White House even) 24 hours a day. He has his pick of people as cabinet officers, the Joint Chiefs, his chief of staff, ad infinitum. The only reason that phone rings at 3 AM is because some situation has percolated up through those channels -- the president doesn't have to reinvent Clauswitz or emergency response procedures.

Kevin wrote: "... Seems to me that Democrats ought to get used to the idea of competing on this dimension ..."

Seems to me that Democrats should compete by offering something other than fear, and aggressive militarism as the answer to fear.

Interesting that the comments here seem to split, based on two different projections onto the "security" Clinton offers:

- security = personal military experience
(in which case Clinton is indeed making McCain's argument for him)

- security = superior intellect and judgement in dealing with a crisis.
(in which case, thinking Democrats will dismiss McCain out of hand, and potentially accept Clinton's White House tenure as an asset)

While many readers here may accept the latter, alot of voters may reflexively embrace the former interpretation. And the ad really does nothing to shift that interpretation or disarm the dangrous assumptions underlying it (like for instance calling out judgement errors of both her opponents).

Interesting that they're pitching this message now, instead of two months ago. The difference between "Ready on Day One" vs. "Able to keep the terrified among you safe" is substantial, especially to viewers outside of our choir.

What does it mean that you guys jump immediately to fear and military experience when the ad isn't about that? There are many important kinds of experience. Maybe we should be focusing more on our domestic crises instead of the military ones -- a scene with kids in bed is a domestic scene (perhaps a reason why someone above says this ad appeals to women).

You've got to be joking. This isn't about national security?

"... your vote will decide who answers that call, whether it's somebody who knows the world's leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world..."

Exactly what domestic crisis were you envisioning when you made that comment? A tornado touching down in Omaha?

Optical Weenie on February 29, 2008 at 1:38 PM:

He's weak in this area, compared to both McCain and Clinton. He'll get creamed.

Mmm...I dunno. There's stuff like this, for example, an expansion of the prior Nunn-Lugar bill.

Unless you mean 'weak' meaning that McCain and Clinton have been in politics longer, i.e. have more experience...But one could argue that McCain and Clinton's experience with national security issues hasn't necessarily led them to making good decisions regarding national security issues.

Exactly what domestic crisis were you envisioning when you made that comment? A tornado touching down in Omaha?

I think Mary's too hung up on the "domestic crisis" of Clinton not being the nominee to be able to see how laughable her analytical contortions in this and the other thread are. Psychologist, take a look at thyself.

I'd have had a more cogent response sooner, but I had to go home and change my underwear.

We live in a country with a strange ring to it.

The Hillary Clinton Red Phone Moment ad brings back to mind the Goldwater Nuclear Bomb ad from the Johnson campaign. Clinton was a Goldwater girl then and she must have been plenty hurt by the ad.

Let's hope that fear is not the road to the White House this time around.

The problem is not Clinton, but Zengerle.

It's the age old D.C. memo that 8 years of disgrace, ruin, death, and debt cannot erase: Republicans are tough and Dems are weak, and thus Republicans can protect you better. The first part is often true as far as political tactics go, but the punchline is an epic travesty.

Yet Jason does not function as a rational being. He writes for TNR.

Why is it somehow OK for John McCain to run on the basis of being the guy who can protect America while Hillary shouldn't?

Well, its "OK" (in the sense of "consistent with the interests of the party who the candidate represents") for a candidate of a party whose entire purpose is using fear (whether of an angry God, scary brown people, people with different sexual preferences, or whatever else happens to be handy) to get the public to surrender freedom to an increasingly authoritarian government which serves the interest of a narrow wealthy elite to use such blatant fearmongering in a campaign.

OTOH, it is less "OK" (in the same sense) for a candidate seeking to represent a party whose interest is empowering the average citizen to reach their potential to do that.

Optical Weenie skrev :
[Obama will] be rather chagrined to find himself going back on his promises, once he sees the real data

You know, I used to believe stuff like this.
I used to say it publicly.

"Once we invade Iraq", I said, "our military will conduct the inspectors to the actual WMD sites that our intelligence services know are there."

"The government of the US would never allow Bush to do this pre-emptive war, " I said, "unless there was absolutely clear intelligence showing that we'll be able to find evidence that justifies the war after we invade."

I was wrong.

I don't see what the Obama camp is afraid of, unless it's that they think the ad is effective. The cute rejoinder from them about the "red phone moment" is a little absurd. For a guy who voted "present" a number of times our real fear would be that he wouldn't bother to answer.

You're all missing the point.
The hook for McCain: Is the phone on Hillary's side of the bed, or Bill's?

(Yes, I know that an aide would answer the phone and knock on their bedroom door, or something. It's still another way of reminding voters that Bill would be back in the house.)

I think Clinton's "Children" ad is really despicable. It's the same sleazy fear tactics that Bush uses. You don't want the war in Iraq, so Bush comes at you saying "You don't want the war in Iraq, but what if TERRORISTS INVADED YOUR HOUSE and THEN THEY RAPED YOUR WIFE and RAPED YOUR CHILDREN??!! Then what would you do?? Huh, huh, huh?? You'd want to KILL them!! Right?? Yeah?? I THOUGHT so!!"

It's not seeking to evoke any intelligence or thought on the parts of the viewers. It's just fear-mongering propaganda.

Clinton truly deserves to lose the nomination to Obama.

Obama's response was a pretty effective rebuttal IMHO. Let McCain run these ads against Obama. Something tells me that Obama will be able to play hardball right back - and surprise folks as to how tough he is (and this is someone who voted for Mrs. Clinton).

It's so true that many of Obama's supporters live in "Fantasy Land". If their delicate sensitives get in a twist over this,then if and when Obama finds himself in a General Election they surely will be "twisting the night away". If the message has not been part of your decision making then don't vote-PLEAZE!

Hillary Clinton on the phone at 3am..."Have you checked the children?"

"Boorring: Try it with the sound on. Enjoy the descriptions of "something happening in the world" and "a dangerous world." Feel the shiver of fear. You're supposed to--that's what the ad is for."

I listed to the ad now, with sound, shortstop, and I think it is even more effective. Despite the initial discomfort with that "trailer-movie voice", you would think this advertisement is effectively a John McCain ad, until the pleasant surprise at the end of seeing Hillary herself "manning the phones".

I think this advertisement will be very effective, through the use of fear-mongering, as well the last five-second takeaway of Clinton leaving her perception of experience. Barack Obama responded, however, saying that the real question was:

"‘What kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone?’� Mr. Obama said, speaking over applause from about three dozen veterans and their families. “In fact, we have had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer, George Bush gave the wrong answer, John McCain gave the wrong answer.�"

An effective verbal response, but he needs to convey this better than that, I feel, because it isn't going to blunt the visual influence of her ad. Again, the advantage goes to Hillary Clinton on this aspect, and her effective use of this medium.

Furthermore, this is a net benefit towards Democrats as a whole, because of the preconceived perception that I am going to suppose people will have that this could have been a John McCain advertisement. The counter-image at the end is also effective at addressing this stereotype of Democrats being weak on national security. Again, I have to give the advantage to Hillary Clinton, and my tip of the hat as well. Barack Obama can respond to this more effectively, but until he does this advertisement could resonate.

It's an effective add but I totally understand Zengerle's comment. The ad establishes "knowing the military" as a key variable for answering the phone. Hillary doesn't "know" the military like McCain. She hasn't been "tested" in that type of situation (probably none of the candidates have). But on the basis of the concocted calculus that the ad establishes, McCain comes a lot closer to meeting those qualifications than she does.

Of course, I agree with a previous commenter. Hillary and McCain had their "red phone" moment and both failed miserably. So even if the faux qualifications in this ad are to be used, I still think Obama is the one you want answering that phone because he's not, you know, a total hawk or someone who thinks they have to be hawkish to win elections.

Clinton truly deserves to lose the nomination to Obama.

I tend to agree, but certainly not because of this ad. Look, she's not smearing anyone here. She's going with the strength she thinks she has. It's just not a) a strength that people largely attribute to her (witness how many people thought this was a McCain ad) and b) the kind of message that is moving people this year.

Obviously this ad is meant to appeal to our reptilian brain - the unthinking part of our brain where fear immediately produces a fight or flight response.

In that respect is is very much like most Republican ads, and that is the exact problem with this ad.

It is dangerous for Hillary to whip up the feelings of fear because (for better or worse) that will drive voters to the Republicans.

Republicans have spent years and years getting the message across that they are better at protecting us. That message persists even when they are obviously not better at protecting us.

It will take years of concerted effort and money to counteract the idea that only a Republican can keep us safe from danger.

God what a crock of shit. Do we have to go through anymore time of being threatened with the boogieman. I find it impossible to imagine anyone being as frozen to inaction as GWB was when he was told that the nation was under attack. For fuck sakes my 6year old daughter would have jumped right up and went to work immediately on whoever was attacking us. Hillary has decided to treat us like a bunch of pants peeing 4 year olds who have just been told yellow Mike the evil madman has busted in their house and is about to eat them alive. Ooo scary.

The craziness of what McCain gets away with was summarized well by columnist George Will yesterday:

"...Although his campaign is run by lobbyists; and although his dealings with lobbyists have generated what he, when judging the behavior of others, calls corrupt appearances; and although he has profited from his manipulation of the taxpayer-funding system that is celebrated by reformers -- still, he probably is innocent of insincerity. Such is his towering moral vanity, he seems sincerely to consider it theoretically impossible for him to commit the offenses of appearances that he incessantly ascribes to others.

Such certitude is, however, not merely an unattractive trait. It is disturbing righteousness in someone grasping for presidential powers."

The ad doesn't say "red phone" it says "phone." I see this as Clinton positioning the job as one that women have already been doing -- getting up in the night to take care of things while children and men sleep. She is normalizing the job for her gender. This is not about nuclear attack, unless you project that onto it.

What domestic crises can occur? Major earthquake on the West Coast requiring declaration of a disaster and authority to mobilize national relief efforts -- everything that was missing during Katrina.

If you want this to be about fear, by all means go there. Personally, I think your biggest fear is having a woman in charge -- which is why you make this about military training.

The Clinton campaign has been so ugly over the last two months. When it was down to Clinton, Edwards and Obama, I was still completely open to any of them.

At this point, I cannot even conceive of casting a vote for Hillary when my state has its primary. Not because of anything Obama has said about her. It's entirely because of her revolting campaign tactics.

Vote for me, or your children will die... Obama is a plagiarist who votes present... He wore a Somali outfit... He's an empty vessel with nothing but talk...

It's an F'ing ugly campaign, appealing to the worst in people and truly scraping the bottom. Again, I don't say this as someone invested in Obama at all (in any sense of the word). I'm the undecided primary voter she's supposed to be getting on her side.

Ain't gonna happen now.

He can't. He's weak in this area, compared to both McCain and Clinton. He'll get creamed.

By the Laws of Rove, isn't that exactly what he should run on?

Anyway, Obama won't run on "national security", if "national security" means running as the guy with the biggest dick who will be the first to wag it in front of all our perceived enemies. Good thing that sort of thing is total bullshit, means nothing, and as the last 7 years have proved, doesn't actually make us any "safer". The last thing we need is another set of warmongering creeps in office.

Obama will actually let McCain run on this, and then hammer him for the fact that it is total bullshit.

Which is what he should do.

I'm a pretty enthusiastic Obama supporter and not a particular enthusiast for Hillary (which, on certain days, is putting things mildly). However, I thought this ad was fairly subtle and not really illegitimate. All it's really saying is that she's had more experience in the upper echelons of power, which is the one and only basis of her entire campaign.

Still, personally, I'd feel much, much better with Barack picking up that phone. At the very minimum, he doesn't have a proven and lengthy history of tailoring his decisions based largely on what he thinks his next political campaign is going to be. And I'm not just talking about her Iraq vote, I'm talking about the entire pattern of both Clintons in office.

Hillary's entire campaign is based on presenting politics and world affairs as if it were a gigantic mystery that only certain high priests are qualified to handle. And just to make sure we understand how hard it is, she makes sure to use just enough jargon so that it's somewhat hard to understand but she sounds as smart as possible. This is an ancient technique for a professional class to hold onto its job and is present in all fields -- it's effective for keeping people in their jobs but it's a severe handicap on innovation and, as in this case, on actually doing a good job.

Where are the cats? I came here for the cats.

Norman Rockwell created this hook, inspired by a Roosevelt speech, back in 1941. Or maybe he stole it from someone else.

American parents stand over their sleeping children. The father holds a paper with headlines about the horrors of bombings far away. I'd say it's another attempt to equate the "War on Terror" with World War II, and therefore unworthy of a Democratic candidate. Which might be Zengerle's point.

Freedom from Fear

Some odd years ago, in our traditional conservative household, when one of us kids puked at 3 AM, guess whose mind leapt from sleep to decision-making gear almost instantly and whose level-headed voice calmed the situation and got order restored without awakening and frightening the rest of the kids?

MOM!

What was Dad doing? Sleeping 'cause he had to work tomorrow. So did Mom, a seldom mentioined conservative tradition.

It's a pure fear ad, simple as that. The strong theme of keeping your children safe while sleeping from 'terrorists' or Iranian nukes is a just a play on emotions. I don't particularly like either Clinton's or Obama's stand on national security and I see either responding militarily and incoherently to another attack. What is obvious to me at least is that we bring hatred upon ourselves for our national security positions, always what we see as being in our best interest (and often duplicious, i.e., fighting terrorism as a cover for controlling natural resources) with disregard for other nations' mostly logical priorities. At least Obama understands that principle and his plan to talk with our 'enemies' (I hate that word) and arrange a conference of Muslim countries and the US to make progress towards understanding the problems they have between each other and with the US. National security is way more than answering a phone call in the middle of the night. Sounds to me very much like Condi/Bush's 'mushroom cloud' fear-mongering, and unfortunately probably quite effective.

Damn straight, Kevin. I would run an ad with a voice over saying, "Republicans claim to be tough on terrorism" and then two big words flash on the screen "WHERE'S OSAMA?".

Then show Bush sitting in the classroom in Florida for seven minutes reading My Pet Goat (upside-down, by the way) on Sept. 11th, 2001 and then have the voice over remind the people how many times Bush was warned about an impending al-Qaeda attack and did absolutely nothing about it. Zilch. Nada. Zippo - followed by a picture of John McCain. Guilt by association.

Learn from Karl Rove - Attack your opponent where they are perceived to be strong!!!

I'm sick of the fear-mongering genre of political ads, and I hope Obama doesn't resort to it. Although Obama is somwhat hawkish, he's pretty unflappable and doesn't appear to have the need to prove what a tough guy he is.

Hillary is hawkish, as are her foreign policy advisors. In addition, she has the burden of demonstrating that a woman can be credible on national security and as Commander in Chief. As with so many issues confronting the candidates, it's not fair, but on the other hand, it makes me nervous that Hillary will err on the side of aggression. Not that you can ever know how a president will react in a crisis, although Hillary did cave on that vote...

Wow. It's 3am and Hillary is at her desk in full makeup, ready to answer the phone. Her staff, her receptionist.. they've all gone to bed, but HRC never sleeps. Who knew?

"Why are we often so eager to practically concede to Republicans exactly the stereotypes they want voters to believe about us?"

The problem is the "we" in that sentence. The writer works for TNR. Those guys aren't part of any "we" that I wanna be a part of. Why Kevin keeps linking to those @#$%'s is beyond me. For the TNR crowd, anyone who would hesitate to slaughter a few hundred thousand Muslims over imagined threats isn't ready, or serious.

And yeah, that Hillary ad sucks hard.

"Mark Penn still thinks that Obama being AGAINST the war will hurt him in the general"

Mark Penn also worked on Menachem Begin's campaign in Israel. He's a hawk against Arabs. He doesn't understand there are people out there who don't think that wars against Arabs are automatically a good thing.

The problem with Obama for liberals is that no one can mention his middle name without being accused of a thought crime. This is so anti-american and anti-liberal that every time it happens I become more convinced that he should never be allowed anywhere close to the white house. He is worse than George Bush who only accused us of being traitors for our opposition to his policies, not to him personally. But with Obama we cannot even dislike him without being accused of racism and uncleanliness. As a liberal I cannot abide to have him in power. We've seen people like this throughout history and it never comes to any good.

A further problem with Obama for liberals is that, by taking on stupid positions, he willingly makes true all the conservative criticism of liberal positions on national defense. Obama is the worst thing that has ever happened to the democratic party.

What domestic crises can occur? Major earthquake on the West Coast requiring declaration of a disaster and authority to mobilize national relief efforts -- everything that was missing during Katrina.

Um, exactly what good does familiarity with world leaders & military affairs do the president in the face of your earthquake? But let's pursue your little thought experiment. Seeing as the declaration of a particular site as a disaster area isn't something that Presidents (or Governors, for that matter) do at the moment said disaster strikes, why is a midnight call relevant? Exactly what kind of direction or advice is a President on the other side of the country going to give to first responders at the scene of a natural disaster?

If you want this to be about fear, by all means go there. Personally, I think your biggest fear is having a woman in charge -- which is why you make this about military training.

My fear is that someone with a blind spot as big as the Amazon basin can be trusted with a driver's license. How do you get through your day?

I'd sooner have Obama answering that phone than Clinton or McCain, so I don't think the ad really works. If someone "tougher" than Kennedy had answered the phone during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we would have had a civilization-ending nuclear holocaust.

kth wins the prize.

"Z" already said it once, but it bears repeating:

McCain was in the military.

I'm sure we're seen all those montages of basic training (Private Benjamin, Brighton Beach Memoirs, Full Metal Jacket) where the Sargent wakes up the troops at, say, 3AM, to go for a run in the rain or some such. Or when killer instincts are instilled in the troops with some team-building drill.
This probably would likely have avoided that little "My Pet Goat" moment, but as we know, that wasn't what caused us to be the mess we're in.

The more the Presidency is made out to be some sort of Rambo-like job where s/he is leaping out of bed and scrambling the jets to go bomb some 5h|t, the more likely we'll get the candidate that was also in a SE Asian prison.

Fear isn't the right emotion to play to, especially not against fellow Democrats.

BombIran's comment bears repeating:

Yeah, man, I don't think you should ever run clever little ads like this unless you think the answer to the ad is very clear.

It is a clever ad! And Hill looks terrific at the conclusion in that caramel-colored suit, and the reading glasses are a nice touch. So, yes, effective on one level IF you buy the experience argument. Which brings me to bombiran's next point:

Also, I think it continues to suggest that the Clinton campaign (and possibly the McCain campaign) is profoundly misunderstanding the nation's mood.

This is astute. The nation has become exhausted with (and wary of) phobocrats and warriors. First, they make things worse because their vaunted experience ruins their judgment. Worse, after they make a hash of things with mesbegotten wars in very bad places, they scare the bejesus out of us. That's why that poor mom is up in the middle of the night checking on her sleeping children. God protect us from warrior presidents, she's prolly thinking.

If this kind of crap actually worked on people, Hillary would have already won the nomination ...

Right again. This is all she has (and all McCain has). Maybe in the General it works with some of fearful base on the right--but in what minuscule percentages?

I worry that we've all become scaredy-cats. Afraid of big bad Rovian campaign tactics. Scared of this or that. I'm warming to Michael Chabon's take on all this in his Potomac Primaries op-ed:

The whole WaPo op-ed is worth a read, and it's hard to choose an excerpt, but here goes:

But the most pitiable fear of all is the fear of disappointment, of having our hearts broken and our hopes dashed by this radiant, humane politician who seems not just with his words but with every step he takes, simply by the fact of his running at all, to promise so much for our country, for our future and for the eventual state of our national soul. I say "pitiable" because this fear of disappointment, which I hear underlying so many of the doubts that people express to me, is ultimately a fear of finding out the truth about ourselves and the extent of the mess that we have gotten ourselves into. If we do fight for Obama, work for him, believe in him, vote for him, and the man goes down to defeat by the big-money machines and the merchants of fear, then what hope will we have left to hold on to?

Thus in the name of preserving hope do we disdain it. That is how a phobocracy maintains its grip on power.

Steve, you wanted cats? Will these guys tide you over as an opening act until the headliners are ready to go on?

It's 3 am.

I can either act in the interests of my special interests, or I can act especially interested in
the lives of others.

Empathy is hard to teach.

The electorate have got 3 choices:

A) Same old stuff.

B) Centrist.

C) The rest of Us.

We think only certain players are qualified to
control our world, that only those wealthy enough to have too much time to play, are the actors we place in positions of power.

The Repugnacans are fielding a rather "established" persona, sort of a big daddy 'il take care of ya.

HRC is similar.

OHB is harder to peg, other than a kaleidoscope of
posibilities.

If you want this to be about fear, by all means go there. Personally, I think your biggest fear is having a woman in charge -- which is why you make this about military training.

My biggest fear is having people this stubbornly stupid voting. The ad REFERS to the military, dumbass. It says THE PREZ IS CONSULTING WORLD LEADERS. Get rid of your cozy fantasy about domestic issues and ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THE AD.

That's shameless, Blue Girl. ;)

Impeachment for President!

I thought the ad was great and the only thing wrong with it was that it came out now instead of 10 or 20 days before February 5th. It was classy and is the type of thing she should have been doing instead of releasing photos of Obama in Somali tribal clothing and a few other corny attacks. It absolutely does not hype up fear, it is not "the politics of fear," and makes a legitimate, staid point about one of the basic issues of the primary, that Hillary Clinton has more pertinent experience than Obama.

Cats, please.

(BTW, Atrios has an excellent cat blogging picture up right now.)

My fear is that someone with a blind spot as big as the Amazon basin can be trusted with a driver's license. How do you get through your day?

Damn. Had I seen this before posting, I'd not have bothered saying the same thing with a lot less style.

I guess this is a sequel to the ad showing Hillary working the "night shift". As long as she's working all night anyway, she might as well answer the phone.

Seriously, though, the ad does get at a real difference between the implicit messages of the two campaigns that embraces their approaches to domestic policy, too. The Clinton campaign is telling voters that if they elect Hillary, they can safely go back to sleep -- she and her team of experts can be trusted to take care of everything. For the Obama campaign, electing him is just the first step for citizens, who then have to work with him as part of a coalition to bring about the changes they want to see.

Make with the cats!

Hillary has decided to treat us like a bunch of pants peeing 4 year olds who have just been told yellow Mike the evil madman has busted in their house and is about to eat them alive. Ooo scary.
Posted by: Gandalf on February 29, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Maybe that is what Zengerle was getting at: If McCain had done this ad, there is a section of our population who would have reacted exactly thus and voted for him from just that purposeful kind of scare-selling, the newly quantified fear base demographic.

The problem I have with the ad is that it buys into the Republican meme that we live in particularly dangerous times, where our security, even our very existence, are at stake. That meme has no connection with reality and instead of buying into it, we should be fighting it.

The Democratic Party is the party of "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." The Republican Party is the party of "we have nothing to offer but fear itself." Clinton's campaign has been tilted far more toward the latter than it has to the former.

There's a practical reason to dislike the ad, too, and that is that Clinton almost certainly cannot "out-fear" McCain, so such an approach is likely to play into Republican hands for the general election. The bottom line is that I want an effective response to that meme, not an ad that buys into it.

"Hillary Clinton has more pertinent experience than Obama."

What "pertinent" experience is that? Hillary can certainly make an argument that she's got more experience with domestic policy than Obama...but what foreign policy experience does she really have? I've never heard of her playing some sort of significant foreign policy role during Bill's administration.

Mike

(BTW, Atrios has an excellent cat blogging picture up right now.)

Posted by: lampwick on February 29, 2008 at 3:21 PM

Sacrilige! Plagerism! Copy cat!

Well I'm confused by this ad for Hillary.

You only run an ad like that when it's obvious the people should want you handling the crisis.....and I have no idea why Hillary assumes that she is the obvious choice.

Leaving aside the arguments about why she isn't the proper choice for handling the crisis (wrong on Iraq etc.), Zengerle is right, up until the very end, one can easily assume this is a McCain ad.

It's not that Hillary wouldn't be effective at protecting America, it's just that, rightly or wrongly, McCain is publicly perceived as the "most serious" about protecting the country, which makes the appearance of Hillary at the end surprising, or even, dare I say, absurd and unintentionally humorous.

ken "I kan haz liberal soxpuppet" says: But with Obama we cannot even dislike him without being accused of racism and uncleanliness. As a liberal I cannot abide to have him in power. We've seen people like this throughout history and it never comes to any good.

I can see that, as a liberal, you couldn't abide to have Senator Clinton in power either, because you can't dislike her without being accused of misogyny. Thank goodness Richardson dropped out before the Hispanic thing could get ugly. I understand that, as a liberal, you're too sensitive to tolerate four to eight years of feeling accused of illiberal "bad" thoughts toward someone whom you dislike for really valid, non-bigoted reasons. As is ever the way, no one sufficiently appreciates the characteristic low pain threshhold of the liberal. Better never to put such sources of potential pain into office.

Why don't the Democrats take this liberal vulnerability into consideration? Instead they insist on supporting candidates on whom a "card" can be played. They should take advice from the Republicans, who stick to older white men. As a liberal, you can reject all the Republican candidates except McCain with a conscience free from reproach.

Ahhhhhhh. What a relief.

I learned from experience that once you blog cats, you can never go back. I posted kitties once when this site was down for the crossover readers, and when I failed to post kitties the following Friday, I had approximately ten emails by 6:00 p.m. wanting to know where the cats were? And so, blogtopia (y, sctp!) had another catblogger.

cowalker, I am crying with mirth over here. And man, I needed that laugh!

Have you all forgotten that 9/11 occurred at 9:15 am (in the morning, idiots) and that no one had to be woken up? Fear doesn't have a time of day. This is about taking care of business so that people can be secure and confident in their leadership. It isn't about sending missiles anywhere. Do presidents only talk to world leaders when bombs are going to fall? They should be talking to them all the time about many things, and 3 am is when other countries are awake (even if we are sleeping).

I see that the Obama attack is focused on fear-mongering and Clinton's unfitness to lead. That is clearly echoed in these comments, regardless of what the ad says. The word "military" only appears once in this ad, linked with "leaders". There are references to other things along with that, making this an ad about taking care of business not fighting wars.

I am disappointed by Obama's willful misinterpretation, but even more dismayed by the chorus of attack raised in these comments. Can't you all process information independently of your favorite candidate's campaign?

Oh, good points, Mary. 9/11 happened in the morning, so this can't be about world events, and world leaders are in the habit of waking the U.S. president up at 3:00 a.m. just to shoot the breeze. Will you get a grip?

Can't you all process information independently of your favorite candidate's campaign?

Thanks a lot for shattering the old irony meter.

Mary, thanks for explaining Hillary's "phone" ad to me. I understand it now. Whew! What a relief. Before I was just relying on my own miserable judgment.

I really am beginning to suspect that "Mary" is a mean-spirited Obama supporter trying to make Clinton fans look like complete fools. No one could seriously be this blind to herself...well, she could be a lifelong Republican, I suppose.

Give me a break, Mary. You don't have to be in the tank for Obama (I haven't been) to see this ad for what it is.

We're supposed to look at little children, snug in their beds in the middle of the night, and think about the banks being open in Switzerland?

This is just like showing Obama in that Somali garb and then acting like he's the one who should be ashamed for insinuating that the image is divisive.

Really pathetic. I never would have imagined that Clinton supporters would be so absurdly in her corner that they would try to make us think something like this ad was intended to make people think about her work ethic and not her "Commander in Chief" qualifications.

How many swing votes can Hillary get by insulting people's intelligence like this?

If it's 3:00 a.m., why are the lights on all over the freakin' house? And why does Mommy look fresh as a daisy in her snappy little tailored shirt? If Mommy is up at 3:00 a.m. workin' the night shift with Hillary and doing all the stuff moms do after hubby and the kids are in bed, she needs to look considerably more bleary-eyed and tousled, not to mention a little pissed off.

And Hillary's help needs to be considerably more careful of their subtext. Only bats and vampires look that good at 3:00 a.m. Bwahhh haa haa haa haa. Mark Penn really is working for the Republicans. He has just indelibly engraved the message that Hillary Clinton is a vampire bat on all of our hearts. Nice going.

thanks, shortstop! I think we can all use a laugh at this point in the campaign, and you have certainly provided me with laughs and pithy observations.

"Have you all forgotten that 9/11 occurred at 9:15 am (in the morning, idiots) and that no one had to be woken up?"

ROFL.... No, dear, we didn't. Now do tell us just what this has to do with Hillary's ad, won't you?

"Fear doesn't have a time of day."

No shit, Sherlock.

"This is about taking care of business so that people can be secure and confident in their leadership."

No, dear, it's not, which is why the actual text of the ad doesn't even remotely mesh with your "interpretation." Not to mention that at 3:00 (in the morning, idiot), nobody is "taking care of business". You do know that's the time that we're asleep, right?

"It isn't about sending missiles anywhere."

Here's the actual text of the ad:

"Something's happening in the world."

"...someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world."

"Do presidents only talk to world leaders when bombs are going to fall?"

Dear heart, you do remember that this was 3:00 (in the morning, idiot), right?

"They should be talking to them all the time about many things, and 3 am is when other countries are awake (even if we are sleeping)."

ROFL.... Yes, dear, and those other leaders just love to talk to our president at a time when they know he or she is asleep.

"I see that the Obama attack is focused on fear-mongering and Clinton's unfitness to lead."

ROFLMAO.... Oh, the irony. Dear heart, you did actually listen to the ad, didn't you?

"I am disappointed by Obama's willful misinterpretation"

ROFLMAO.... And, again, the irony....

I just love Mary's total lack of self-awareness.

Just throwing this out there - my husband, who has actually called the White House at 3:00 a.m. a couple of times, says that in his experience missiles hardly ever go off-line in multiples during daylight hours.

Fear doesn't have a time of day.

That's the backend of the double feature over at the Bijou. It begins immediately after Death Never Oversleeps.

Doors open at 7:00 PM (in the evening, retards).

But with Obama we cannot even dislike him without being accused of racism and uncleanliness. As a liberal I cannot abide to have him in power. We've seen people like this throughout history and it never comes to any good.

Nonsense. For example, see Paul Krugman.

HA junebug. Pass the Atomic Fireballs, please.

Jujubes...

Boo!

"IT'S THREE AM"...

More like, "It's two a.m."

Mary on February 29, 2008 at 3:55 PM:

Can't you all process information independently of your favorite candidate's campaign?

Have you never heard of Ockham's Razor, Nancy?...the application of which would indicate that, instead containing the broad array of hypotheticals that you've posed, this ad simply is an attempt to scare Dem primary voters into voting for Hillary Clinton.

shortstop on February 29, 2008 at 4:05 PM:

I really am beginning to suspect that "Mary" is a mean-spirited Obama supporter.

I'm thinking more along the lines that Nancy's conducting a psych experiment. Hard to think that a Clinton supporter would willfully misinterpret something so badly.

At 3 a.m., the youngest candiate will be most on the ball.

I want to see the ad of trying to roust 75 year old McCain at 3 a.m., which takes awhile, and whatever he hears he responds, "Bomb Iran." A lobbyist next to him whispering might be a nice touch.

Actually, I think Jason was on to something, since this ad appears to have been ripped off from a McCain fanvid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPadP7eAO9Y

BTW, I assume the working title of this ad was "Nocturnal Emissions"

Please tip your waiters & waitresses.

This is called effective advertising.. I know because the "Obama for God's" are knocking themselves out over this.

Yeh women can answer the phone in the middle of the night and TAKE CHARGE. (Guess what, they usually do).

So much for the "we can do it candidate" who can't figure our how to do universal coverage when most of the industrialized nations can.

Even in light of the fact that this is a great political advertisement, I should reiterate that Hillary Clinton has had her chance: when "Bush came to shove", she folded. All of her years of experience and connections, and she took Bush at his word. Either she was handicapped by bad judgment when it counted, or she paved its way in terms of political expediency. The result of that has been years spent in quagmire, kicking ourselves in a quicksand while flag-draped coffins arrive en masse, and enemies pop up in consequences ill-prepared for.

Hillary Clinton, and John McCain, for all intents and purposes, are remnants of the "old politicorp", unequipped to deal with modern problems while still leveraging outdated influence: while Hillary wants to establish numerous committees to further her deadlocked administration, McCain offers a compromised and impotent authority in an abstract world.

In my assessment, Barack Obama is, at his core, a modern, pragmatic candidate that better understands the nuances of modern problems, and offers a modern approach in a complex world. While Clinton offers broad and simplistic mandates, I feel more inclined for a candidate that offers a more measured and targeted approach. While McCain hangs, perched on strings held by a base that hates him, I feel better with a candidate that can temper big-government inclinations through the filter of respected modern economists. Of course, this is a generalization against some realities of modern-politics, but I would breathe a bigger sigh of relief that an Obama administration can effectively grapple with the chess moves of Hu Jintao or Medvedev & Putin, the threat of global-warming, and the awaiting terrorist groups looking for weakness.

So while both Clinton and McCain throw red meat to their base and campaign on fear, Obama is better suited perching the watchtower.

Zengerle is obviously not very Zenger-ly.

Correction: "perching" to "perched on".

All this talk about Zengerle is making me think of Zingerman's... mmmmm. Is it dinnertime yet?

"This is called effective advertising.."

Really? How many votes has it swayed?

"I know because the 'Obama for God's' are knocking themselves out over this."

ROFL... Dear heart, we're mocking its silliness and its deference to a Republican meme, not it's "effective[ness]". A pity you can't actually read and respond to the criticisms that have been offered.

"Yeh women can answer the phone in the middle of the night and TAKE CHARGE. (Guess what, they usually do)."

Yes, dear, and if anyone had argued otherwise, you might have a point. Sadly for you, nobody did, which means that you just knocked down a strawman of your own creation. Bravo! I'm sure that felt really good.

"So much for the 'we can do it candidate' who can't figure our how to do universal coverage when most of the industrialized nations can."

Um ... You do know that Hillary's plan isn't much better than Obama's when compared to "most of the industrialized nations," right?

All this talk about Zengerle is making me think of Zingerman's... mmmmm. Is it dinnertime yet?

It's making me think of Zinfandel. Is it 5:00 yet?

MsComment on February 29, 2008 at 4:44 PM:

Yeh women can answer the phone in the middle of the night and TAKE CHARGE.

I don't recall that the ad mentioned anything about which gender is more likely to wake up to answer the phone...Funny how Clinton supporters, like right-whingers, keep bringing gender and race issues up.

Actually, if any