More than a cupcake. The ad repeats "Your children are safe," specifically to avoid being accused of doing another "wolf at the door" ad.

There are two ways to fill in the negative space: "Your children are safe... but for how long??" Or "Your children are safe... so it doesn't really matter who's president."

Yes, Obama handled it beautifully, and it's heartening to see the rapid response mentality Obama's team has.

I also hope Obama NAILS John McCain on this Hagee endorsement matter. Hagee is a right-wing psychotic who advocates preemptive war with Iran, hates Catholics, and blames Jews for the Holocaust. Obama needs to tie Hagee around McCain's throat, and keep him tied there.

... it shows that her team still has some campaign flair left.

Strange. The ad struck me as one of the dumbest things she could be doing right now -- giving Obama yet another opportunity to remind everybody how bad her judgment was in a moment of crisis. Seriously, it's like her campaign staffers are aiming for the potholes.

Good grief. Fear mongering?

It could be a call from the national hurricane center about a storm that's changed course. It could be a call about an earthquake in California that has caused bridges to collapse in San Francisco. It could be a call that Raul Castro has died and Cubans have stormed the government offices and declared a democracy.

What people read into the phone call says a lot about what they fear.

McCain has to love this!

I'm sure McCain is loving it, if he'd rather run against Obama than Hillary. But since polls show him losing to Obama and winning against Hillary, maybe he's not loving it so much.

I agree with Joseph Miller. Obama's rapid - and on-point - response bodes well for the general election, where we all know that the Republicans will go flat-out racist.

What people read into the phone call says a lot about what they fear.

Or what they've been mainlining. Hurricanes? Earthquakes? The ad explicitly mentions familiarity with world leaders & the military. What exactly were you thinking the ad was about -- convening a world summit to redistribute geological fault lines? Throwing a few brigades at the next funnel cloud to hit tornado alley?

Obama's response was more on the mark for me.

I don't think HRC got the PR bonanza you think she did. All last night I never once saw that ad on cable news without the response ad from Obama. I expect that to punch-counter-punch motif to continue in all the coverage of it this weekend. (And the Obama ad is better.)

Sure, she got a lot of coverage, but she got a lot of coverage by going nuclear with a re-hash of an old Walter friggin' Mondale ad.

That is some sad flair.

With regards to the Carpetbagger smear, the hesitancy in the Clinton response wasn't because of the lack of a good answer. The most obvious answer - she was Senator of New York on 9/11 and was in Washington when it too was under attack - would probably have sent the left into another hissy fit, and they didn't want to further antagonize.

Hasn't she dropped out YET?

I have never seen any campaign respond so as quickly and effectively as Obama's. I have put them up back to back at WTWC.

Obama wins this exchange handily, and it's Bill Clinton who delivers the knockout punch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZW0m2nWB_M

I see this ad night and day and I'm getting tired of it.

First off, what's Hillary doing so awake and all dressed up at 3 AM? What's up what that?

In reality some door holder would get the call, tap her on the shoulder and tell her "the Israeli's are bombing the shit out of the Palestinians." And knowing her, she'd give the same answer that George Bush would give: "Tell Condi to call Olmert in the morning to stop for a day or two..." For this you need someone who is ready from day 1?

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Best bet: don't vote for Hill/Bill or John/Lobbyist. Obama may be able to pull something different off.

Junebug,

Hey, you smarmy liberal, instead of going for the cheap, smart aleck put-down, did you bother to consider:

1. Earthquakes in Pakistan two years ago had immediate international repercussions and involved military relief missions to keep an important ally stable during a crisis.

2. Katrina's devastation of the Gulf Coast led to the activation of the National Guard in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida -- the biggest deployment of National Guard troops in decades. As a result in October, 2006, Congress empowered the president to call up the National Guard in the event of domestic emergencies. Did you know that? Do you think US commanders and Middle East leaders were concerned as they watched their Commander in Chief assign their recruits to domestic duty?

3. Not all international news worth being woken up for at 3am is abou terrorism. President Clinton or President Obama would propably want to know right away if Raul Castro died suddenly and the Cuban government was undergoing a sudden change in leadership.

So why such a tempest in a chai tea cup? I thought the ad was not only tasteful but made me view Hillary Clinton more favorably.

Rather than run from her centrist votes Hillary should embrace them as her strength and emphasize how many centrist Republicans she could convince to vote Democratic in the fall as a result of her demonstrated, strong support of the military.

I would be very comfortable with either HRC or Barack as Commander in Chief.

Kaevin says: That said, on a fearmongering scale of 1 to 10, it maybe rated a 2. It was a cupcake. The images were relatively soft, there was no scary background music, no scary brown people lurking around

Not true, as already pointed out above. The image of children sleeping and the notion that they are in danger of foreign attack rates a 10 on the fear-mongering scale.

Hillary adopts the neocon theme that the US has an existential threat. This is false. It may have been true when Mondale first used this type of ad (thousands of nuclear missiles were targeted at us and could be fired any minute) but it is not true today.

Once again, Hillary and her people show the worst possible judgment, and Obama shows the best -- and quickly.

I should have added that the Hillary ad was an obvious gift to McCain -- and Obama's response, appropriately and correctly, negates the value of the ad both to Hillary and to McCain -- and hits Bush as well.

"if you run ads like this you really need to be prepared for the obvious followup questions."

I disagree. How often do our media suck-ups ask follow-up questions?

Say, after Bush has claimed that "many" insurgents in Iraq are foreign fighters, international terrorists.... How often does the press ask, "how many, what percentage? Name one we've caught. How come if a significant percentage of the enemy in Iraq are foreign, less then 1% of arrested suspects in Iraq are foreign-born?"

Or how about, "can you name, Mr. President, one instance of chemical weapons being used in a militarily significant way? Or chemical weapons being used by terrorists in a way that makes them more dangerous than, say, the hundreds of thousands of automatic weapons scattered around the globe?"

Or how about, "can you name, Mr. President, what "outstanding issues" there are which constitute your assertion that Saddam Hussein is not complying with the UN weapons inspectors?" "Is there anything other than 20 year old mustard-gas artillery shells?"

No, our media doesn't ask follow-up questions, won't even challenge easy, fact-based assertions, when the evidence exists that they are lies. Of course, these questions might hurt market share, offend sponsors and violate ideological predispositions of our neo-con press, so it's not the same as a gotcha question of a candidate, but still.

I initially thought the added media exposure was a positive but at the end of an NPR piece discussing the ad Mark Shields noted voters still thought the economy was the number 1 issue. So wouldn't it have been more effective if everyone was talking about the economic brilliance of the Clinton years.

Plus, I'm not sure what demo this will move. Maybe it's just to get 'security moms' to make a run on the polls.

*

the hesitancy in the Clinton response wasn't because of the lack of a good answer. The most obvious answer - she was Senator of New York on 9/11 and was in Washington when it too was under attack

Her campaign didn't just hesitate, they straight up could not come up with an answer, and still haven't. And I'm not sure how being a Senator from NY on that day qualifies as being tested. What exactly did she do that demonstrated her crisis-handling skills?

I say this not because I think Hillary would be bad in a crisis, but because she claims that she's been "tested". But the fact of the matter is, how can you be tested, or claim to be tested, when you've never been the person in charge at any level?

And that's what makes the ad absurd, there's nothing in her record or background that suggests how she would handle herself in a crisis, but she's claiming otherwise.

The ad only makes sense if it is implicitly attempting to portray her time as First Lady as actually being Co-President who was responsible for tough decisions.

Questions I have:

Why can't anyone pronounce the name of the Russian guy running for President? And is it true that Al Gore is the only person who can do this?

Why is Hillary getting these weird calls in the middle of the night?

Is John McCain an end of times guy?

If Obasaism is cult, what do they believe in? If I need to get deprogrammed, is there some free 12-step faith-based program being offered along with an abstinence refresher course?

Slow news day my ass.

History will record that yesterday's AG's reply to Pelosi essentially transformed USA into a form of Government wherein the power of the executive trumps the authority of every other branch. Beginning of a fascist state if you will.

So where's Krugman pointing out that HC is using republican frames?

Cheer up, gregor. I'm sure we can trust John McCain with the imperial presidency.

Kevin linked to the Obama response ad in his post, but Obama's in-person response was very good too.

A campaign that can respond to cheap shots quickly and effectively, and turn them to their candidate's advantage, is exactly what is needed when running against the Republican smear machine -- something Dukakis and Kerry never understood.

I might call the ad a 3 or 4, but I'd still say it's well within the bounds of acceptability. To be honest I was a little worried that nothing like this had happened; I wanted Obama to get a practice round or two on this front, to see how his campaign would respond...and respond they did--I for one am very impressed with the turnaround time on their response ad (his answers were also good, although I expected that).

As for overall effects--maybe a small net plus for Clinton, but I'm not even sure about that. Obama's response was very smooth. I'm willing to bet that she still loses 7-day and 3-day deciders, while winning again among 1-day deciders--but that almost certainly won't be enough of a boost to overcome Obama's momentum and spectacular ground game in TX.

pj in jesusland,

You might have the makings of a point if earthquakes, hurricanes, or democracy on the march in Cuba registered anywhere in the top 20 voter concerns during a Presidential election. But they don't. So you don't. Now if you see that ad and those are the first things that come to your mind, that's great. But if you're telling me that this spot was designed to play up the Clinton team's readiness for natural disasters, then you're either lying or you're too stupid to be trusted with a vote. Sorry to get all all smarmy & liberal on you.

McCain has to love this!

Oh he does! Especially since he did that ad first:

http://tinyurl.com/2mr2pp

"she decides to air a negative attack ad on Barack."

Even by my broad definition of "negative attack ad," this "3am" thing isn't close. Unless one chooses to read every candidate's "I'm ready for the job" ad as containing an implicit "...and my opponent isn't."

Let's face it, the Obamazooids are going to criticize Clinton no matter what she does. Unless she quits like they are demanding. Then they will praise her life's work as if she were the second coming of mother Teresa...

mhr: "If and when Obama becomes the Democrat candidate, his ability to lead the US against the islamoterrorists will be an issue."

Hypothetically speaking, of course, but the first thing a President Obama should do is require all oh-so-manly Iraq cheerleaders like you to serve a tour of duty in Anbar province and Fallujah.

I'm sure I'd sleep a lot better at night myself, knowing that it was your warmongering chickenhawk ass that's now on the line, rather than my nephew's.

The ad was a cupcake? Yeah, pretty much. I agree with Kevin.

Was there an implied comparison? Sure. What else has Clinton got? She has to try something.

But seems liberals are loaded for bear in 2008, as well they should be after the past, oh, 30 years.

But right now, it's early in the season, a poor ol' opossum comes lumbering into our sights and ka-bloo-eee, a poor marsupial is vaporized by our well-greased 30 ought 8s--or however it's spelled. I'm not a hunter.

I said this in the other thread on the ad. I worry that we're all scaredy cats about big bad campaign tactics.

Yes, it's going to be competitive, but Dems have a superior candidate and message. History is on our side. Let's reserve the big guns for a real fight.

Here's a good takeoff on HRC's ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99oat5t-w9w

Oh he does!

Hilarious! Only the last frame with McCain is a letdown. Hillary is far better turned out for the dreaded moment in her finale.

"Few liberals care to remember that the first Dukakis opponent to make Horton an issue was Al Gore when he ran against Dukakis in the primaries."

Geez, this Sean Hannity crap again? Gore brought up the furlough program, but never mentioned an individual. It was the Bush campaign that introduced the "scary black" Willie Horton.

Are you really this ignorant or just hoping others are?

Oh, did elmo say something funny?

mhr--First, idiot, it's DEMOCRATIC party, not "Democrat" Party. That usage just shows you're a pinhead. Second, Gore DID NOT spring the Willie Horton thing first, and Bob Somerby has shown that conclusively. Third, how could Obama possibly do any worse than Bush has in the war against the terrorists? ANYONE could have done better. A brilliant, widely read, and tougher-than-you-wingnuts-think Obama will be just fine.

Oh, is Lucy speechless?

As I recall on 911 Bush and Cheney both went into hiding...err safety. Politicians dont have superman abilities nor will they swoop down from on high and save the day.

I find this fear/savior political hackery inane.

Can't wait for SNL's take. Children sleeping, phone rings -- and rings, and rings, and rings.

Cut to two silhouettes on the shade: Bill and Monica.

The sooner this all ends, the better.

PJesus

Please, at 3am Hillarity wakes up and takes the call - then she rolls over to ask Bill what to do - but he's not there and Hillary doesn't know where he is......they are the Wallenda's of american politics.

Can we please stop suggesting - even for a moment - that Clinton is right for the job - she's the John McCain of the Democratic party, and John McCain is the Hillary Clinton of the Republican party - they are the same candidae wrapped up to look like they are different. Put it away, give it a rest, and go back to Arkansas.

junebug: "You might have the makings of a point if earthquakes, hurricanes, or democracy on the march in Cuba registered anywhere in the top 20 voter concerns during a Presidential election. But they don't. So you don't."

Speak for yourself, please. pj in jesusland's observations are no less valid then your own.

I admire your passion for your chosen candidate, Barack Obama. It is certainly reflective of his campaign's success to this point in the process.

That being said, you clearly have an overinflated sense of worth regarding your personal opinions that, when coupled with your summarily dismissive and insulting demeanor toward those who might happen to disagree with you, really does that candidate little if any good over the long term.

All you're doing is further and unnecessarily inflaming intra-partisan feelings and nerves at a time when needed political dialogue and reconciliation between Democrats must now commence, especially if we are to ultimately succeed as a party in November.

The primaries and caucuses are nearly done, and at this stage of the game, grace and dignity are the true hallmarks of good character and breeding. While nobody really cares for a sore loser, by the same token very few if any people truly respect poor winners.

Aloha.

I thought it was shameful and classless to run that ad. It is precisely the type of fearmongering that republicans have used against democrats. Hillary is now doing McCain's dirty work for him, testing out all possible lines of attack against Obama and thus saving McCain's team much time and money.

It was strictly a positive and classy ad- it's abnormal that so many have so much that's bad to say about it.

This was strictly the kind of message Dems should have been selling ever since 9/11, and it was totally in an understated, modest way: "Hey, I'm Superman. I'm a smart, together, person- someone you can count on to handle Al Qaeda or any other crisis."

'Nuff said. It's great.

She could have been doing this sooner instead of some of the cheap shots.

This is fear mongering... give me a break... She is asking a legitimate questions.. B Obama's response.. "ME" the same old empty, arrogant claims.
Mr Change agent who has not changed a thing in his life..
Well try this for size if you want to see fear mongering:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mOa3sXjqE4&eurl=http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/

When did Hillary turn into Clint Eastwood anyway? I don't get it. Why the hell would I prefer her to get a 3am phone call?

Taking the ad at face value, I ask myself the question, "who would I want in the WH in a crisis?" My answer would be NOT Clinton. She has shown some pretty poor judgment when it comes to the use of the military. If I want a POTUS who rattles sabers (which I don't), I'd vote for McCain over HRC. But what I really want in the WH is someone with judgment, not someone is determined to prove what a hawk she is.

So I don't think the ad works. It makes me question why she is pitching fear, it reminds me of reasons that I don't want her to be our next POTUS, and it makes me question her campaign judgment as well--a triple negative whammy.

PJ: It could be a call from the national hurricane center about a storm that's changed course. It could be a call about an earthquake in California that has caused bridges to collapse in San Francisco. It could be a call that Raul Castro has died and Cubans have stormed the government offices and declared a democracy.

I wouldn't characterize events like these as "red phone" moments. In the case of national disasters, state an local governments will be the first responders. FEMA's ability to help has a lot more to do with how it is organized and staffed. I have every confidence that Hillary would be able to recreate the kind of top-notch FEMA that we enjoyed under Bill Clinton. However, I have no doubt Obama would do the same.

To many, a "red phone" moment is as much about judgment and presence (calm under pressure).

Judgment
Bill Clinton is among the most gifted politicians ever to sit in the White House - for all the good and bad that implies. Both Bill and Hillary give the impression that their principles and judgment are at subject to triangulation by public opinion polls. Voting for war in Iraq was a bad decision that many made willingly because it was popular and politically safe at the time (the consequences be damned because they wouldn't be realized until after the next election cycle). It's not just that Obama made the right call, he did it at a time when it took tremendous courage to do so. As a state senator he had little if anything to gain from it (he didn't need to take a stand because it wasn't his responsibility) and everything to lose for it (public recriminations for cowardice, the possibility of the war succeeding, etc.).

Similarly, when Obama comes out and says he is in favor of gay marriage as a matter of equal rights (rather than hedging it in fake 'civil unions' terminology), it shows he is putting what is morally and constitutionally correct over what is popular (since it is a losing issue among almost every demographic, doubly-so among African-Americans). It's simply a stand that loses more votes than it gains.

Presence (demeanor, charisma, calm under pressure, etc.)
Bill Clinton had excellent presence. He is an exceptionally charismatic and gifted speaker, which goes a very long way when the president needs to address the nation in times of crisis. Most politicians simply do not have those gifts. George Bush does not. Hillary does not have it. Worse, Hillary appears to have become more flustered and more negative since she lost her front-runner status. McCain has a decent presence due to his age, experience, and military background, but his judgment is questionable.

Obama may not be Bill Clinton's equal in terms of charisma and speaking ability, but he is by far and away the next closest among the current slate of contenders. Then again, he may be Bill Clinton's equal, judging by their respective performances this election. Obama has also weathered the negative personal attacks admirably - with good humor and calm, thoughtful replies, as with his response the the 3AM commercial.

Hillary has an arguable edge when it comes to experience, but I think the question about who you want answering the phone at 3am also includes factors such as judgment and presence, both of which seem to be squarely in Obama's favor.

I see the "Clinton is just another McCain" meme is the Obamazooids' next strategy. They have had to run from the "Obama is just like Clinton" meme to get this far. I mean, if they were the same then most would chose the one with the most experience, right? So now they think their knock-out blow is to compare her to McFill-in.

It's 3:00 pm. Your illiterate children are watching TV.

Congress is sticking it to the Constitution in broad daylight.

The Bat Phone rings.

Who do you want to answer the phone?

1. Hillary Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. John McCain

I'd love to see some alternate endings:

No, I don't want to change phone companies!

No, Monica. Bill can't come to the phone right now.

I'm sorry, you must have the wrong number. This isn't the White House.

and my personal favorite alternate ending:

President Obama! Call on Line 1.

Bill Clinton in 2004, campaigning for Kerry and against Bush's fearmongering:

Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this. If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is trying to get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.

Fear vs. hope. Was that clairvoyant or what. Here is the video.

When did Hillary turn into Clint Eastwood anyway? I don't get it. Why the hell would I prefer her to get a 3am phone call?

Despite the fantasies of boyish people who like fictional movies too much, a gunslinger is not likely to be the best guy to handle diplomacy and command a military, various security agencies, and decide when to fight and when/how to talk and make deals. Being quick on the draw with a pistol or being able to take out a machine-gun post in an infantry battle takes one toolbox. Being a commander of a nation during crisis takes another.

And if you think a guy like McCain must be better fitted- same thing. One set of tools to be a pilot, another to know how to handle foreign leaders and allies / decide when or how to launch a war / etc. There's a lot more to deciding when and how military engagements are in our best interest than just knowing about some narrow area of fighting. You have to know a lot about the nation your leading, its interests, and its relations.

pj in jesusland's observations are no less valid then your own.

I'm not here to validate his observations. What's next -- trust falls? He can see whatever he wants in the ad, but it's implausible -- no, it's ridiculous -- to say that it's about anything other than national security.

I admire your passion for your chosen candidate, Barack Obama.

Glad you admire that, but my comments to pj in jesusland have absolutely nothing to do with my voting preference. They have to do with pj's patently silly contention that the Clinton spot is about earthquakes, hurricanes, or the flowering of democracy in Latin America.

That being said, you clearly have an overinflated sense of worth regarding your personal opinions that, when coupled with your summarily dismissive and insulting demeanor toward those who might happen to disagree with you, really does that candidate little if any good over the long term.

This is rich, coming from a guy who's stormed out of this very comments section with a dramatic flair to rival 12-year-olds all over America. It's nothing short of hilarious that you can pull that stunt repeatedly & then magically reappear as Emily Post. Keep it coming, though. That's good entertainment.

Bill Clinton in 2004, campaigning for Kerry and against Bush's fearmongering:

Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this. If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is trying to get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.

Fear vs. hope. Was that clairvoyant or what. Here is the video.

[Sorry -- not sure how that got re-posted - I think I clicked "back" then hit "enter"]

Let's be clear, the ad IS NOT fear-mongering. It's a legitimate consideration people will have to make. Bad things are going to happen in the next 8 years, and we need to decide who we want to be at the helm when they occur. Nothing wrong with Hillary pointing that out and attempting to present herself as the best choice.

I don't think this ad makes the case that she is the best choice but there's nothing wrong with it.

"'ME' the same old empty, arrogant claims."

LOL... Has it, perchance, escaped your notice that that was precisely what Hillary's claim was? And that she started this by posting the ad in the first place? And yet you have the chutzpah to lash out at Obama because he goes her one better? The mind boggles.

Miss Smarty-Pants Junebug:

Take a look at the USA Today/Gallup Poll from Feb. 8-10, 2008. Which issue ranks 4th, two spots above Terrorism as a key concern of the voters? Yep, corruption in government -- epitomized by the Bush Administration's handling of the Katrina response.

So your assertion that disaster response is not one of the Top 20 issues of concern to voters could not be more mis-informed. By your very own Obama-supporting terms I must have "the makings of a point."

FYI, you won't convince many centrist Republican voters with your liberal elitism. Do the Democrats a favor this fall and either develop some maturity or stay home.

Here's the polling question:

"Now I am going to read a list of some of the issues that will probably be discussed in this year’s presidential election campaign. As I read each one, please tell me how important the candidates' positions on that issue will be in influencing your vote for president: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important."

Extremely/Very Important

The economy 89%
The situation in Iraq 87%
Education 81%
Corruption in government 79% Health care 79%
Energy, including gas prices 79%
Terrorism 77%
Social Security 73%
The federal budget deficit 73%
Moral values 69%
Medicare 69%
Taxes 69%
The environment, including global warming 62%
Illegal immigration 60%

If it's not fearmongering, then why is the imagery showing sleeping children? What is a plausible scenario according to which sleeping children have to do with earthquakes or hurricanes or riots in Cuba? How can a president help sleeping American children in such events?

"I see the 'Clinton is just another McCain' meme is the Obamazooids' next strategy."

There are two problems with that statement. The first is, of course, that nobody is saying that. The second is that the ad is tailor-made for McCain and that he has used a similar ad. Is a comparison between the two not justified?

"They have had to run from the 'Obama is just like Clinton' meme to get this far."

While the candidates agree more than they disagree, they clearly are not "just like" each other, so I'm not sure what your point is.

"I mean, if they were the same then most would chose the one with the most experience, right?"

Since they both have roughly the same amount of experience, I fear that's a wash. Sorry, but being the first lady does not prepare you to be president.

"So now they think their knock-out blow is to compare her to McFill-in."

Really? So someone has said that this is a knock-out blow? Do tell?

It was a silly ad, one that plays directly into the meme that the Republican Party has been trying to drive home for seven years. She deserves the mockery that has resulted.

"Yep, corruption in government -- epitomized by the Bush Administration's handling of the Katrina response."

Funny, I don't see a single reference in that poll to Katrina. The issue with Katrina wasn't corruption, it was incompetence.

And further, why does the voice say that Hillary is the right one to answer the phone because she knows foreign leaders and the military?

The ad was clearly meant to scare people into thinking that the US is vulnerable to foreign attack on a major scale. I see no other reasonable way to read it.

I think this ad totally bombed for Mrs. Clinton.

Even before Obama responded, my reaction was "Who do I want on the phone at 3 am? Someone who won't bomb the WRONG country, that's who."

Hillary's foreign policy judgment since she's been in the Senate is TERRIBLE.

Uh, to make your latest version work, pj, you have to believe that the prez is getting phone calls at 3 a.m. to deal with corruption.

Look, if Clinton wants to make fear-based ads, that's her prerogative. It isn't smearing anyone. It's directly against what her husband was calling the Clinton Way back in 2004, and it quite obviously isn't going to work, but she used what she thought she had and did with it what she thought she could. But let's not tie ourselves into Twister-winning contortions trying to pretend it's something it's not.

And I think junebug's a Mr., not a Miss. Possibly (off the top of my head) a fan of Lucinda Williams, the B52s or folksy Southern expressions.

if it's not fearmongering, then why is the imagery showing sleeping children? What is a plausible scenario according to which sleeping children have to do with earthquakes or hurricanes or riots in Cuba? How can a president help sleeping American children in such events?

When I think of fear-mongering, the message is usually some play on "Don't vote for him or we're all doomed". This ad is more "Vote for me because when something happens I'll know what to do". It doesn't say anything about Obama, or imply anything about him in any way.

In reality, it's not saying anything people don't already know or haven't already considered. How we think each candidate would handle a crisis is already part of the equation we use when choosing a candidate to support.

Can't we get a picture of a cat or something, man?

And I think junebug's a Mr., not a Miss. Possibly (off the top of my head) a fan of Lucinda Williams, the B52s or folksy Southern expressions.

And don't forget the movie!

I did forget the movie, and I loved it, too! Thanks!

Anything Hillary tries is desperate, clumsy, calculated, establishmentarian, false and just plain mean and stupid and periodically whining.
(Believe it or not, the above statement is sarcastic.)
You weren't expecting analysis here, were you?

Not only is President Hillary Clinton up fully dressed at 3 AM (wearing a string of pearls), but the mom checking in on her kid looks like she just got home from work. Actually she looks too fresh for that, I think she's heading out to work. Who are these Hillary supporters? What do they do for a living? Is Hillary going to expect that I start work at 3 AM? Yikes, they're making me tired. ;^)

but the mom checking in on her kid looks like she just got home from work

That was Mom? I thought it was Daddy!

"The lefty blogs": those silly-billy, misbegotten lefty blogs. Thank goodness this is a Michael Kinsley-, David Broder-, TNR-style centrist blog. Kudos to you for understanding your audience.

That was Mom? I thought it was Daddy!

Nice Lucy, why don't you just put tongue through your fingers an go blalalalalal. Hate much?

elmo, huh? I thought that parent coming through the door was a man.

Get a grip.

Is Hillary going to expect that I start work at 3 AM?

You don't know anyone who works in a hospital lab, do you? :)

That is the only job I (personally) know of that has people coming in to work at 0300.

Yeah, sure you did...

Another psycho-analytic point I recently noticed in the ad. It says, "you're children are safe now." But who is the president now? It ain't Clinton. It's GWB. There is a tacit ackowledgement that the policies of the current administration are working. This ad seems better suited to an incumbent. But that's what Clinton thinks she is. That's her whole problem.

Truth is, she just isn't all that.

Take one for the team, babe. Take one for the team.

elmo:

I've watched this ad many times. The first three appearances are of the kids. The next frame is of the parents in bed, where it looks like the mother in the foreground has long hair; another kid shot follows.

Then the parent, inexplicably fully dressed, comes through the door to check on the kids. At first I accepted that it was a woman, since Mary earnestly explained that mothers are always the ones who get up at night to check on the kids (total BS), but then I had a closer look. It looks to me like it's the father who checks on the kids; at any rate, the gender seems ambiguous, perhaps intentionally so.

at any rate, the gender seems ambiguous, perhaps intentionally so.

Good God! Now Hillary is tricking you into looking like you hate homosexuals? Damn girl, you're the one who needs to get a grip...

Oh now I hate homosexuals? Fuck you.

Uh, to make your latest version work, pj, you have to believe that the prez is getting phone calls at 3 a.m. to deal with corruption.

Wait a minute, I actually *like* that idea, shortstop. We could go to DEFCON 2 until all the office space on K. Street is converted to low income housing.

By your very own Obama-supporting terms I must have "the makings of a point."

Indeed. Fortunately, you can cover it with one of these attractive hats.

That's a great point, magurakurin.

Dude, flair maybe, but HRC is going down Tuesday--bigtime!

A June 2007 NY Times story about how Obama's run started -- sounds a lot like how it has unfolded and how it may end too:

Last Christmas, Senator Barack Obama flew to Hawaii to contemplate a presidential bid in the peace of his childhood home. But there, on a humid playground near Waikiki Beach, he found himself being roughed up by some of his best friends. It was the third and final game of the group’s annual three-on-three basketball showdown, and with the score nearly tied, things were getting dirty.

"Every time he tried to score, I fouled him," Martin Nesbitt recalled. "I grabbed him, I’d hit his arm, I’d hold him." Michael Ramos, another participant, explained, "No blood, no foul."

Mr. Obama, like everyone else on the court, was laughing. And with a head fake, a bit of contact and a jumper that seemed out of his range, Mr. Obama sank the shot that won the game.

In my personal experience, people who have played a lot of competitive contact sports in their youth are a lot better at dealing with adversity without losing their head and keeping things in perspective under stress. Add to this the fact that Obama is a good poker player, and I think he's a fellow who is not likely to be flumoxed very easily. (And no, I'm not saying that basketball and poker are enough to prepare someone for the presidency -- but they're good extras).

Not only is President Hillary Clinton up fully dressed at 3 AM (wearing a string of pearls)

Am I to infer from that statement that Barbara Billingsley lent Hillary the June Cleaver pearls she wore on TV for years?

Obama will be a pleasant surprise to moderates and kinda-sorta-maybe-a-little-right-of-centre moderates, but, well, he's really going to disappoint the far-left types who have idealized him. No mere mortal who actually holds power could possibly live up to their expectations.

"No mere mortal who actually holds power could possibly live up to their expectations."

What, specifically, would those expectations be, do you think? Personally, I think he's a politician, with everything that goes with that. I think he's a hell of a lot better than McCain and that's good enough for me.

In any case, how is this different from any election, any candidate? There are few elections, few candidates, that don't have at least someone thinking that they have found a savior. Hell, even George Bush still has people who think that God put him in power.

"Good God! Now Hillary is tricking you into looking like you hate homosexuals?"

Um, elmo, dear, could you stop trolling so blatantly? A good troll requires subtlety.

I think he's a hell of a lot better than McCain and that's good enough for me.

I agree. If I were American (I'm Canadian), I'd vote Barack or Hillary over McCain. I just think that the stereotypes that Hillary has to overcome are steeper than the ones facing Obama.

OT, but of enormous significance -- the so-called US "war on terror", it emerges, is not only remarkably dubious but also astoundingly selective in its designated "targets":

Iran Nuke Laptop Data Came from Terror Group
By Gareth Porter [IPS]

The George W. Bush administration has long pushed the "laptop documents" -- 1,000 pages of technical documents supposedly from a stolen Iranian laptop -- as hard evidence of Iranian intentions to build a nuclear weapon. Now charges based on those documents pose the only remaining obstacles to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declaring that Iran has resolved all unanswered questions about its nuclear programme.

But those documents have long been regarded with great suspicion by U.S. and foreign analysts. German officials have identified the source of the laptop documents in November 2004 as the Mujahideen e Khalq (MEK), which along with its political arm, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI), is listed by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organisation.

There are some indications, moreover, that the MEK obtained the documents not from an Iranian source but from Israel's Mossad. ...
.

Hey pj, chai means tea. So "chai tea cup" is redundant-dunant. Capische?

xofis,

Chazo Chai Tea is a trademarked Starbucks beverage.

Get the joke?

pj

Junebug,

Look, the point of the ad is that our families can sleep safe knowing HRC is the Commander in Chief. Perfectly within the bounds of normal political advocacy. People such as yourself who make more out of it than that either have other agendas or are easily traumatized.

BTW, aren't Junebugs are those clumsy, noisy, green beetles that crash into the sides of houses on hot summer days? Such a fitting image you have chosen for yourself -- a common pest.

NBC's Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin report that Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show. The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults," "degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions." Sen. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court." It is so hypocritical that she will not Reject and Denounce. This is the usual Camp Clinton Hypocrisy Spin.

Hillary Clinton has no Credibility on national security since she cast her Yes vote to authorize war in Iraq. There where other Senators who voted NO! They knew to vote yes was to automatically Invade a Country that had nothing to do with 911, but all about OIL. That is not Judgment and it is the wrong kind of Experience. And what National Security Experience Does She Really Have? Will she run the country like she has run her Campaign?

Some say, who know the Clintons, that she and Bill have the agenda to get Bill a THIRD Presidency, that should not be allowed. It was Bill, after all, who spoke first after their loss in South Carolina!

Obama's record is not that thin, unknown, perhaps. He has had over 20 years if one would investigate. And the Clintons have had years of Scandal, that one should investigate. How many presidental families Plunder the Whitehouse after they leave taking pictures and furniture? Not to mention the scandal of Impeachment. And then there is "file gate" and so much much oore. There is a lawsuit pending because there are records of the Clintons not to be released until 2012 and some want them released. Has she released her Tax Returns, No? America we need to turn the page from this kind of Politicking.

NBC's Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin report that Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show. The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults," "degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions." Sen. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court." It is so hypocritical that she will not Reject and Denounce. This is the usual Camp Clinton Hypocrisy Spin.

Maybe she's getting money from all the victims.

"Libs flustered"?

I think you drank some GOP coffee or something Kev.

The "libs" aren't getting "flustered" by this ad, they're getting MOTIVATED. Perhaps you can't see the difference but the internets has empowered political action unlike any previous medium. Every post written, every comment made has the potential to influence the average middle of the road reader who stumbles across the topic. And that's not counting the real world mobilization of Obama's campaign.

It's not a question of "flustered" its a question of outrage and then doing something about it which the Obama campaign has shown it can do - i.e. superior organization, superior usage of Blog-o-Stan, and the internets in general as an organizational and fundraising tool.

If you don't get that the GOP should be quaking in their boots over this then I seriously question your qualifications.

I'm a former advertising copywriter. This ad didn't aim to create fear it aimed to create identification. It was aimed at women and to reach women it used images -- children -- that research shows will more effectively catch the attention of women than anything else.

I'm not saying it was a good ad. I don't think it was. Certainly it wasn't in terms of creativity (often though, in advertising, there's no real correlation between creativity and effectiveness). My point is simply that it wasn't a fear-mongering one. No one uses lots of images of sweet, sleeping children to create fear.

This ad-story/post is like troll crack.

Why would Clinton release an ad targeted to her most loyal demographic, women.

Shouldn't she be trying to pick off some of those effete latte sippers voting for Obama?

Shouldn't she be trying to pick off some of those effete latte sippers voting for Obama?

She's doing that by raising her voice a half octave and practicing her "angry monkey face" smile. Penn has been secretly replaced by noted behaviorist Jane Goodall and her focus group of Pan troglodytes. We'll see if it pays off in Houston.

OT, I'm watching Carville and Matalin with Punkinhead, and those two lovebirds are seriously starting to resemble each other. Give Carville a wig and some eye makeup applied with a trowel, and I'm not sure we could tell the diff.

some eye makeup applied with a trowel

Funny! Matalin's facelift was stressing me out.

Didn't Shrum say Penn put together the 3 am ad? Another stroke of genius from the master.

I just watched the ad for the first time and I can't agree that it’s fear mongering. I associate fear mongering with greatly exaggerating specific threats such as terrorists, or turning a non-threat into a threat, such as gay marriage.

We know that every President will have to respond to crises and Clinton thinks that she will be perceived as more ready to do so. I don’t think Clinton or Obama have proven themselves with regard to responding to crises, so it will be a matter of opinion and guessing.

As far as Obama’s response to the ad, I’m guessing that it’s a good one due to the fact that he has been able to capitalize thus far by claiming Clinton voted for a stupid war. For me, this has been one of the big factors of their respective campaigns. (The Iraq AUMF wasn’t a red phone decision, but few care to quibble about that.) Obama supporters seem to buy into the equation that the Iraq AUMF = Vote in Favor of Invading Iraq. Clinton supporters don’t buy into that equation. But, for whatever reason, Obama has been able to sell that equation. Perhaps it’s an easy sell, or perhaps Obama is a good salesman. I suspect that it’s both.

". But the fact of the matter is, how can you be tested, or claim to be tested, when you've never been the person in charge at any level?

people's knowledge, experience and aptitudes are "tested" all the time to see if they are right for a particular job, even if they've never held the job.

So, if you are looking for someone who is ready to deal with a 'red phone' crisis, you consider the factors that are relevant. And while Hillary's score may not be 100, Obama's score is close to 0 -- he has had NO experience in crisis situations or even high pressure ones, and close to no working knowledge of foreign affairs or military matters.

And a job interviewer would laugh at Obama's claim to superior judgement based on his giving a speech at an anti-war rally against compared to the decision that Clinton had to make on the AUMF --- a vote on a complex issue in which the wording of the resolution did not reflect her true position.

stop knockin the effete latte sippers... or else!

little ole jim,

We've been through this before so I hesitate to repeat that Obama didn't have to sell anything about Hillary's AUMF vote. The anger expressed at the time of the vote towards those who voted for the AUMF was intense. Look at who voted 'for' and who voted 'against.' Hillary voted with all the Repubs (minus one) and a bunch of blue dog Dems. No way can I spin that into being a reasoned vote, on the merits or on her co-voters track record of wisdom.

Um, elmo, dear, could you stop trolling so blatantly? A good troll requires subtlety.

Um, Paul, dear heart, damn near everyone participating in this debate is a troll by your standards. Lucy pointed out something no one else did, that the mom looked like the dad when it is clearly a woman in the door. Then tried to say Clinton was trying to trick us into thinking that was so because the woman had short hair. Ridicules.

nepeta: Yes, I know we have been through that subject before. All you've done now is categorize those who voted for the AUMF. I guess John Kerry will be surprised to learn he is a Blue Dog Democrat.

When Barack supported John Kerry, he had no doubt that the Iraq AUMF did not equal a vote to invade Iraq. Barack even said he did not know how he himself would have voted. As I canvassed my neighborhood in support of John Kerry, I took the same fact for granted, i.e., Kerry had not supported the war.

In March 2004, when Bush realized Kerry was his opponent, Bush pointed out that Kerry did not support the forced removal of Saddam. If you want quotes, I'll give them to you. At that time, everybody, including Bush, knew it was Bush's war. Later, Rove and Co. decided to sell the proposition that Democrats had "voted for war". Over time, they convinced the media and many Democrats.

Barack even said he did not know how he himself would have voted.

That's the politics of old...

We've all been around the spin a million times. If I were a Hillary supporter, I'd be livid at Mark Penn. All his other unsavory qualities aside, his campaign strategy has been a gross injustice to Hillary. It angers me on the basis of fair play.

I think Hillary is graceless (and humorless), but she is an accomplished and committed individual. If she had simply articulated her achievements, tactically and dispassionately, and resisted Penn's loser hubris & negativity strategy, she could well have been the frontrunner today. Because she is not a gifted politician like Obama, it was all the more imperative for her to comfortably project herself as a dignified and seasoned alternative, but in the long run she proved easy to rattle, susceptible to bad advice, and increasingly petty and resentful.

This election was Hillary's to lose. It's shocking that she actually seems poised to do just that, and although she is to blame in part, her handlers have been a total disgrace.

"Why would Clinton release an ad targeted to her most loyal demographic, women."

Perhaps a sign she's losing that demo.

little ole Jim,

So, Clinton and Kerry just happened to be exceptionally rational when it came to the AUMF, joining their Repub colleagues to force a return to the UN for a resolution? It couldn't have been that Kerry, Clinton (and Edwards maybe) were considering presidential runs and decided to play it safe? Even Clinton says that if she had to do it over again she would vote against the AUMF. Why? Because first time round she had 'trusted' Bush. Does this show good judgment?

"Um, Paul, dear heart, damn near everyone participating in this debate is a troll by your standards."

Nope, not even close.

"Lucy pointed out something no one else did, that the mom looked like the dad when it is clearly a woman in the door."

What the hell does this have to do with homosexuality? That's what I meant about "blatant trolling."

"Then tried to say Clinton was trying to trick us into thinking that was so because the woman had short hair."

Um, actually, that isn't what Lucy said.

Oh, lord ... you were actually serious? I had assumed that yours was nothing more than a blatant troll post, pulling Lucy's leg. You actually meant it? Omigod....

So you were being a moron instead of a troll? Um, okay, whatever you say.

Kevin,

could you please add another update to make this post more anti-Hillary. The original post was very offensive to us. Please lube up your cornhole, son.

I think Hillary is graceless (and humorless)

Besides the fact I believe that is a bogus opinion, I respect your right to have it, many of us are of the opinion that experience and toughness matter more.

Although I will vote for Obama in the general, if he wins, McCain could very well beat him with those two words. I'm afraid without a major McCain gaff, which I agree has a high probability of happening, Obama will lose badly.

nepata: that's my point. It's seems totally reasonable to question Clinton's judgement with regard to the AUMF. But to characterize the vote as a vote in favor of war is going to far for me. That was never what I thought and that was never what I heard until Bush started characterizing that way in his campaign against Kerry.

Now, people like Matt Yglesias buy into that equation and, for many people, it's not even a question.

This election was Hillary's to lose.

Lucy, you may be right about all of this, but I don’t think the election was Hillary’s to lose to the degree many people do. Witness her immediate loss in Iowa. The so-called democratic establishment was never with her any more so than Obama.

However, Obama has been able to picture her as the frontrunner and the establishment candidate, which feeds into his change theme, so once again, he may have sold himself and his world view better that she. When people are dissatisfied, they tend to vote against incumbents, and Hillary is perceived as a de facto incumbent by many voters.

Oh, lord ... you were actually serious? I had assumed that yours was nothing more than a blatant troll post, pulling Lucy's leg. You actually meant it? Omigod....

Really? You can't see how one could see that? I can concede she didn't mean that, but should you concede she should have made that clear in her first statement? Instead of "That was Mom? I thought it was Daddy!" She could have said "Oh my God, please don't think I'm anti-gay or anything, but I thought that was the daddy." "I clearly see it is a woman now." What she said sounded like it was right of the wingnut play book to me.

But, yes, I keep it going well past me knowing she did not mean it that way. And for that, Lucy, I apologize. I should not have done that to you.

elmo wrote: "... many of us are of the opinion that experience and toughness matter more ... McCain could very well beat him with those two words ...

McCain will probably be sworn in as president in January 2009, based on these two words: lying and cheating.

little ole jim,

Great!!! We're agreed then!

However, Obama has been able to picture her as the frontrunner and the establishment candidate, which feeds into his change theme, so once again, he may have sold himself and his world view better that she.

Obama did sell her as the frontrunner--and so did Hillary. When you're telling reporters in November, a full year before the general, "It will be me," you're intentionally sending a message, Jim.

Look, the point of the ad is that our families can sleep safe knowing HRC is the Commander in Chief. Perfectly within the bounds of normal political advocacy. People such as yourself who make more out of it than that either have other agendas or are easily traumatized.

Thank you for making my point for me. Commander-In-Chief-ing is exactly what that ad is about, in spite of your previous claims. The point of the ad isn't that she's on guard against natural disasters & banana republics. The point is that she's ready to open up a can of whoop-ass on whatever it is that goes bump in the night. Took you almost 24 hours to get to this realization, but better late than never.

As to your point that this has anything to do with some kind of anti-Clinton agenda, you might train your newfound laser vision on my comments here and point out to me where I said -- or even suggested -- that the ad was even remotely out of bounds. Now you can say that the ad is totally kosher & quite effective. Fine. I don't know that I'm persuaded as to its effectiveness, but we'll know about that soon enough. What you can't do, though, is pretend that the ad is something it's not. Well, you can, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

BTW, aren't Junebugs are those clumsy, noisy, green beetles...

Where I come from Junebugs are the ones that light up at night.

I guess I never saw the real ad, only the clips being played in the news. I never saw the bit about the parents in bed. But, I still say the mom (or dad) entering the child's room fully dressed, subtle as it may be, was enough to cause cognitive dissonance and make me stop hearing the message. Sure there are people who work night shifts, but even they expect an ad appealing to regular Americans to be regular. Mostly I meant to be funny with my comment above. It's a nit. To their credit both candidates got mileage out of these ads. Look how much they got discussed. Regardless of which campaign is right (experience vs. judgement) I think Obama wins for reacting so quickly and putting out an ad that avoided pitfalls like 3 AM fully dressed people. Ok, I admit I also respond well to the judgement argument, though I think they're both loaded with that and experience.

avoided pitfalls like 3 AM fully dressed people.

Everyone, step off Hillary's full makeup, wrinkle-free suit and tasteful accessorizing. She did have glasses on, which is fully verisimilitudinous with contact lens wearers at 3 a.m.

A junebug.

A junebug.

Does this exoskeleton make my ass look fat?

Junebug:

I have been consistent from my initial comment in maintaining that the HRC 3am ad was intelligent, tasteful and well within the bounds of normal political advocacy. My initial point in defusing the fearmongering charge was simply that Commanders in Chief deal with lots of important issues at 3am besides scary terrorists. Without more information the fully dressed adult depicted in the ad might simply show someone who has not yet gone to bed, an indication of both concern and vigilence -- characteristics we want to see in a President.

If anything I think it's your opinion that has changed -- thanks for being so open minded!

By the way, you may want to consider changing your screen name. From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figeater_beetle

The figeater beetle (Cotinis mutabilis, or incorrectly Cotinis texana), also known as the June bug or June beetle, green fruit beetle, and several other local variants, is a beetle of the family of the dung beetles, the Scarabaeidae. It occurs in the southern half of North America.

-- Junebugs a relative of the dung beetle? Who would have guessed.

My initial point in defusing the fearmongering charge was simply that Commanders in Chief deal with lots of important issues at 3am besides scary terrorists.

This seems to suggest that if the ad had been about scary terrorists (and not about earthquakes, hurricanes, riots in foreign capitals, etc.) then it would indeed be fearmongering. Right?

My initial point in defusing the fearmongering charge was simply that Commanders in Chief deal with lots of important issues at 3am besides scary terrorists.

For Christ's sake, the ad speaks *directly* to people's fears, because it invokes phone calls in the dead of night, world leaders, military matters, and -- since you obviously missed it -- the fact that we live in a dangerous world.

Without more information the fully dressed adult depicted in the ad might simply show someone who has not yet gone to bed, an indication of both concern and vigilence -- characteristics we want to see in a President.

Or it might be the pizza delivery guy calling in to make sure that he got the address right. You can string out idiotic hypotheticals all day long (which seems to be a particular talent of yours), but it doesn't change the fact that -- right or wrong, for better or worse -- Clinton is making the case that she's better at protecting us from the dangerous things in the night than her opponent is. But, please, tell us how we continue to misunderstand the message, because it's so obviously about the fact that a responsible President doesn't waste valuable time changing in & out of pajamas, and anyway, why bother sleeping when you can micromanage stuff like bridge collapses, levee construction, & Cuban elections?

Is everyone else this stupid in jesusland?

Lucy: "If I were a Hillary supporter, I'd be livid at Mark Penn."

I'd have to agree with you. The overly-high profile Mark Penn has proved himself to be less than the sum total of his parts.

I was a Howard Dean supporter in '03-'04, and I'm still fuming at Joe Trippi, who like Penn used the "Dean for America" campaign to both enrich himself personally and market his consulting business, at his candidate's ultimate expense. To this day, when I see Trippi on television, I either hit the "Mute" button or change the channel. I was terribly disappointed to see him play a prominent role in John Edward's latest campaign. That opportunist is toxic.

Democrats who run for national office would do well in general to cease being so D.C.-centric. Consultants like Trippi, Mark Penn, and Bob Shrum all specialize in self-aggrandizement, and with that comes the inevitable political pratfall. Working behind the scenes is obviously not their forte. All are extraordinarily smart and astute analysts, but their own hubris is their respective Achilles' Heels.

The late Bob Oshiro, a gifted Democratic political strategist who was a legend in the party in the 1970s and '80s for his media savvy and message discipline, once told me that a good campaign manager should never compete with your own candidate for media coverage. Should your judgment for whatever prove flawed at any point in the process, there's precious little opportunity to quietly correct a mistake behind the scenes, because you've now become a public liability to your campaign.

The best campaign managers and political tacticians in the business, he said, are of their own volition seen and heard personally only by the campaigns themselves, and most certainly never by the general public.

If this is the test I suggest MSNBC giving each of the candidates impromptu 3AM phone interviews. Have Russert dig up some gotcha questions.

For pete's sake, junebug. It's a riveting political ad because of the sleeping children, not because of any sinister subtext. Sleeping children are elemental images designed to get the immediate attention of women and in fact signals, IMHO, some worry in the Clinton camp that Hillary is losing the women now.

Yes, I agree with you. The ad suggested that the very thought of Hillary, vigilant at 3 a.m., should comfort us. Fine. On that level "It's 3 a.m." succeeded with this viewer--at least to the extent that I can report that the thought didn't give me insomnia last night.

In the end, I confess that the primary emotion I felt after seeing "It's 3 a.m." was envy: "Where can I find that caramel-colored suit jacket?"

So I think this is strictly a pov issue. I clearly need a new power jacket--and those cool glasses. And that nice desk lamp too.

Having said all this, I would like to chime in on some of the internal inconsistencies in the ad.

First, why doesn't anyone pick up the damn phone! The children are sleeping. Second, the fully dressed mom (yes, this was a woman with a dopey haircut, to be sure, and that dumb crewneck t-shirt under her other shirt) checking on the children. What's up with that?

I reasoned that this was not to be taken literally as occurring at 3 a.m. This was a mom, a Good Mom, in fact, who sensibly sets bedtime at 8. Lights out, everyone! We see her hours later, during her final check, before she herself heads to bed.

She does this because she is a Good Mom. And it's suggested that Good Moms out there voting on March 4 will identify with the Good Mom in the ad and vote for Uber Good Mom, Hillary, manning (ahem) the 3 am phones so all the other good moms (and dads) can get some shut-eye.

Finally, as for any sinister subtext, note the evenhanded Obama campaign response. It essentially said: excellent point! We're glad you've raised this good issue. The phone is ringing at 3 am and who do you want there at the White House answering? Obama, of course. The Good Dad. Point, Democrats. Good for us!

Judgment wins. And I'm afraid the McCain campaign will be SOL on this issue (and others) during the general.

paxr55: "Second, the fully dressed mom (yes, this was a woman with a dopey haircut, to be sure, and that dumb crewneck t-shirt under her other shirt) checking on the children. What's up with that. I reasoned that this was not to be taken literally as occurring at 3 a.m."

In this day and age of outsourcing and foreign ownership of American business, perhaps her bosses in Dubai probably scheduled a teleconference call for all associates to begin promptly at 12:00 noon, local time.

I reasoned that this was not to be taken literally as occurring at 3 a.m.

I am much too frequently on the horn with Hyderabad and Beijing at 3 a.m. Okay, more often 1-2 a.m. So I guess you're right. :)

Cotinis mutabilis (aka "Junebug"):

You sound like Main Stream Media -- because you have found a slender intellectual thread suggesting people like you might be traumatized by HRC's 3am ad you therefore think everyone must think like you. You further personalize this illogic by suggesting that anyone who doesn't think like you is an idiot.

Being called stupid by a relative of the dung beetle -- well, that speaks for itself. I lived for a time in the country and had to get used to the smell of manure.

Maybe one day you will come to the realization that the world doesn't revolve around dung beetles, nor around you, but I'm not holding my breath.

In the end, I confess that the primary emotion I felt after seeing "It's 3 a.m." was envy: "Where can I find that caramel-colored suit jacket?"

I share your fashion pain, paxr55. That was my initial reaction, as well. Fortunately, pj was on hand to provide us all with the skeleton key to this ad:

Take a look at the USA Today/Gallup Poll from Feb. 8-10, 2008. Which issue ranks 4th, two spots above Terrorism as a key concern of the voters? Yep, corruption in government -- epitomized by the Bush Administration's handling of the Katrina response.

That midnight phone call to the President (is it an Oval bedroom?) was actually a whistleblower. Who needs Cliff's Notes when you've got a friend in jesusland?

You further personalize this illogic by suggesting that anyone who doesn't think like you is an idiot.

Suggesting? I'm sorry. Let me clear my throat for this one. You ARE an idiot if you think that that ad was about anything other than a response to a threat against our national security.

And while my throat is cleared, earthquakes, hurricanes, and Democratic insurrections in Cuba are NOT threats against our national security.

And for that, Lucy, I apologize. I should not have done that to you.

Thank you, elmo, I appreciate that. And I apologize for saying "f--- you".

Time out, and pj in jesusland!

You two Heathers have both played out the roles of bickering adolescents for well over 24 hours now. Enough already! Who the fuck do you two think you are -- David Axelrod and Howard Woolfson? At least those two Bozos are paid to do that!

You're both rank-and-file Democrats, and when everything during thie primary season is finally said and done, you will both still have to live under the same big tent. Deal with it, start to focus on the common GOP adversary, and stop taking everything so personally.

Point taken, junebug.

Regarding real fashion pain, get a load of your cousins, the ox beetle, at the larval stage.

And pj, take note, these lovelies, like the junebug, are beneficial in the landscape. Some even make good pets! By all accounts they

are terrific beetles to play with. . . . Don't forget to feed them the occasional apple slice.

That should have been, "Time out, junebug and pj in jesusland!" Somehow, the first got deleted.

Well, not to bum you ladies out, but I think that jacket's a little dated and fusty, although I do like the color very much.

Wait, I watched it again. It's not the jacket I was thinking of. She has another one of the same color but with inexcusable lapels.

I am much too frequently on the horn with Hyderabad and Beijing at 3 a.m. Okay, more often 1-2 a.m.

Shut Up! I've had a half night's sleep by then. You workaholics are making me crazy. ;^)

PS. Remember when Bill Clinton said lack of sleep was causing problems in DC? Hmmmm, square that circle!

Reality is always more complex than you think. Here we're fighting about whether it had to do with fearmongering, terrorist attacks, earthquakes, hurricanes, or riots in Cuba.

And all the while it was Hillary using code to tell the girls that she's updated the lapels.

There is no hope. Guys, we might as well give up.

Well, not to bum you ladies out, but I think that jacket's a little dated and fusty...

Funny, that. I've got a couple of cats named Dated & Fusty. My imagination crapped out after that, so the others are named Three through Fifteen. But enough about them. Anybody know where I can get my hands on a smart pantsuit? A little more Rhoda, a lot less Mr. Furley (though I'd *kill* to get my hands on one of those foulards).

Thank you, elmo, I appreciate that. And I apologize for saying "f--- you".

No worries, I deserved it. Better I get this all out of my system now, before the caucus here in TX. So I don't end up on the national news, or in jail...or both...

Shut Up! I've had a half night's sleep by then. You workaholics are making me crazy. ;^)

I'm not a workaholic. I know how to enjoy life. mmmmmhmmmm. I just have to do what I have to do, and sometimes it's at weird times. Usually I schedule it so I can go to bed early and get up and make those calls at 4 a.m., makeupless, unaccessorized and in jammies.

And all the while it was Hillary using code to tell the girls that she's updated the lapels.

There is no hope. Guys, we might as well give up.

Baby, now, don't you think so small. Why you not realize she can do both at the same time?

A little more Rhoda, a lot less Mr. Furley (though I'd *kill* to get my hands on one of those foulards).

Who wouldn't? My neighbor across the landing dresses like Mr. Furley, though, and he looks fabulous. Of course he's gay, 23 and has a fantastic haircut.

...makeupless, unaccessorized and in jammies.

That's a relief. Too much attention to accessories in the middle of the night is a sign of an unhealthy mind (unless you're the president.)

Yikes! Past my bedtime. You kids have fun.

Ooh, lookee here:

New York Times | San Francisco Chronicle (March 2, 2008)
Obama Could Feel Heat from Developer's Trial -- "Tony Rezko was obviously in trouble. He was a defendant in at least a dozen lawsuits, federal investigators in Chicago were poking around, and his name was in newspaper stories about corruption and fraud.

"None of that stopped Rezko, a politically connected developer, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., from completing real estate deals a few years ago that resulted in the Obamas obtaining their dream house and the Rezkos buying an empty lot next door.

"Nearly three years later, fallout from Obama's relationship with Rezko, who raised more than $150,000 for Obama's campaigns, continue to dog Obama on the presidential campaign trail. That distraction promises to linger as Rezko goes on trial on corruption charges starting Monday.

"Obama, a Democrat, is not part of the case against Rezko, who is accused of shaking down companies seeking business with the state of Illinois. Obama has conceded it was a mistake to bring Rezko into his personal real estate dealings, although he has insisted there was nothing unusual about the developer deciding to buy a sought-after lot in an upscale neighborhood. But a review of court records, including new details of Rezko's finances that have emerged recently, show that the lot purchase occurred as he was being pursued by creditors seeking more than $10 million, deepening the mystery of why he would plunge into a real estate investment whose biggest beneficiary appears to have been Obama." (Emphasis added.)

Drip. Drip. Drip.

And you Obama supporters keep insisting that this is somehow all going to go away -- save for Lucy, who's previously articulated her very real concerns about the potential pitfalls for the good senator arising from this case.

Well, jury selection in Rezko's trial begins tomorrow morning in Chicago federal court. Therefore, I suggest that you all better tell your candidate via e-mail, phone calls, etc., that he not only needs to further expound on his relationship with the defendant, but he also needs to explain what exactly did occur in this particular real estate deal -- and that he better do it quickly, before the still-GOP-friendly media decides to explain it to everyone for him, in their own inimicable style.

"First, why doesn't anyone pick up the damn phone!" - pax55

My thought exactly. So here's my ad scenario. Hillary and Bill were out partying with the parents in the ad. They got back to their respective residences at 2:50 AM. Mom chatted with the babysitter for a few minutes and paid her. Hillary took out her contacts and started drawing a bath. At exactly 3:00 AM, mom went to check on the kids and the phone in the West Wing started ringing. Hillary didn't hear the phone because of the running water but she did hear Bill holler "You gettin' it?" Hillary yells "Gettin' what?" Bill: "The damn phone!" Hillary: "No, you get it, OK?" Bill: "No, you're the president, remember?" Hillary: "Oh, all right! Damn it, I'll get it." And thus ends yet another night at the White House, our nation secure and our children sleeping soundly.